HAving in the last Tractate of the former part, shewed the vnlawful dominion of certein of our church officers, ouer the w­hole church, and especially over their fel­low Ministers: yt seemeth good, to ioyn this next therevnto. For thereby shal bo­eth better appear how vnsufferable this disorder is, which ouerspreadeth boeth church and common wealth: and the gouernment by the Eldership (the tractate whereof shal follow immediatly) in yt self iust, shal by comparison with this church lordship, be more iustified.

That the moste of the places quoted by the Admonit. Diuis [...]. pag. 749. are vsed of vuriters of that excellency, vuith vuhome the D. is not vuorthy to be named the same day: hath, and further wil appear. His exception, that by this, they are lifted vp aboue god himself: is vain. For, beside that it is a kinde of spe­ach vsed of the best autors, to note a great inequalitie: he is les worth, then I prised him at, if he think that he is wor­thy to be named the same day that god him self is. For if he wil so seruilely cleau vnto wordes: yet the question is, whe­ther he be vuorthy, to be named, not (as he writeth) whe­ther he may be named.

The place of S. LuK. 9. 60. 61. Luke, is vnderstanded properly of theDiuis. 2. pag. 750. Ministers of the word: and not of al Christians, which is mani­fest, for that our Sauiour Christ biddeth him, that would haue goen bak for burial of his father, to preach the Kingdo­me of heauen, which he neuer commanded to al Christians: so that his meaning is of the calling vnto the ministery, and not of the calling to eternal life. That such ciuil offices as he alloweth in Ecelesiastical persons, are helpes for them to doe their duties, repeted [Page 2] 752. D. 4. 757. 761. D. 5. 762. D. 7. 765. D. 3. 773. D. 15. 783. seuen times: is a demaunding of that in question. For, where 757. Diuis. 3. pa. 751. after he saith, he hath declared yt: he saith vntruly, he hath onely nakedly affirmed yt: which how vntrw it is, shal after also appear.

My reply is that our Sauiour Christes vocation, vuas to be a Minister of the gospel, but he LuK. 12. 24. refused ciuil iudgment because of his vocation: therfore he refused it, because he vuas a Minister of the gospel. whervpon also followeth, that Bishops being Ministers of the gospel: owght not to recei­ue, any such power. See now how iustly he complaineth, that I answer not to that he said, that Christs refusal in the partition of the in­heritans, perteyneth no more to Bishops then to Kinges: no mervail al­so, if it require further answer, it was so wel garded: seing his reason ys, because the doeinges of Christ be a patern for al Christians: then which, there can be nothing more absurd. For alt­howgh al his doeinges, be instruction to al Christians: yet that they are a patern to them al, draweth with it, that al may preach, that none may giue iudgment in civil causes, and a number more horrible confusions: yt being also a fals ground of popery, wherby they would establish the lenton fast, and other such corruptions.

Vvhere also he would giue to vnderstand, that our Sa. Christ did refuse this, not as a Minister of the gospel, but as Redemer: he renteth a sunder thinges, which can not be separated. For one part of his redemership, standeth in that he was gi­uen of god vnto vs, for a teacher: so that, if he would haue answered any thing in this kinde, he must haue said, that he refused to iudg of ciuil causes, not as a Minister of the word, but as a Priest, or King, whereof also the last, he in part setteth down: saying he refused yt, to declare that his Kingdome was not earthly, but heauenly: as if it were not as necessary, for hym to refuse it in respect of his Doctorship, that he might declare likewise, that his doctrine was not of earthly thinges, but of heauenly: and consequently, as convenient in the same respect, for the Ministers to abstein from it. But the further confutation of this, the reader shal take from thence, Tra. 6. p. 404. whe­re [Page 3] is shewed, that our Sa. Christ, by his own example, cal­leth the Apostels and, in them, al the Ministers of the word, from al pomp and dominion: and therfore from these ciuil offices, whervnto pomp and dominion are annexed.

Then he answereth, that no man giueth the Bishops autority to iudg in matters of inheritans: whereas our Sa. Christ, refused it not, because he was no Iudg of that cause, but simply becau­se he was no ciuil Iudg: Ioh. 8. 1 [...] refusing vpon the same ground, to giue sentence of the harlot. The Ministers (for sooth) may not medle with ciuil occupations, but with ciuil offices: and in ci­uil offices, not with them of no countenance, as the Iailers office &c, but with those of estate: and amongest those of estate, not with matters of inheritance but with criminal causes. Thus, yow take your self licence, to say al thinges, and to shew no­ne. But to leau the rest vnto an other place, let the D. shew some reason, why the Minister should rather sit in iudgmēt of criminal causes, then in pleas of inheritans: they boeth belong to the Magistrate alike, yf he owght to accept one, being committed vnto hym by the Magistrate, why not al­so the other: especially, when as by criminal causes, (requi­ring more search and greater diligence then the other) the­re must needes be greater hinderance from his ministery. As for that he saith, those are to be decided by law, and haue other Iudges appointed for them: the criminal causes are likewise. And if there were no other Iudges appointed for them: yet, whe­ther there owght to be, is the question: so that the D. answer, is here an open demaund of the question. Vvhere also owt of M. Caluin, he alledgeth Barnard, that the Ministers power is in cri­mes: it is a shameful abusing, of boeth Calvin and Barnard. for they speak there of rebuking and punishing syn, by ec­clesiastical censures: which is manifest, in that they convey the title of this power, to the Minister, 4. li. Inst. 11. cap. 12. sect. by the Keies deliue­red vnto S. Peter. now the very word of Keies, especially with this addition, giuen vnto S. Peter: telleth al men, that the power there spokē of, is spiritual, and not ciuil. And he­re the D. is directly against him self. For before, in this very diuision, saying that this iudgment in ciuil causes is not in­cident, [Page 4] but added to the ministery: here he pretendeth owt of Bar­nard, that ciuil iudgment in criminal causes, is of the power and iurisdiction of the Ministers.

And if it be trw that he saith after, the pastor must vse such di­scipline, as semeth good to the Magistrate: when the Magistrate or­deineth ciuil discipline onely, ether that discipline must be incident to the pastorship, or els in such a time, there shal be a Pastor of god, which hath no discipline incident into his office: seing the ecclesiastical discipline, which is taken (by his iudgment) from him laufully, is not incident: so that this idle distinction goeth flat to the ground. I cal it idle, be cause it maketh nothing to the question: which is not, whe­ther a Minister may bear ciuil office, in that respect that he is a Minister, but whether he may bear it at al. And of this sort also is, that our Bishops break not violently into these offices, but receiue them of the Princes gift: whereas our question is, whether he may receiu these offices when they be giuen: yet hath he vsed this distinction, at the least, fiue tymes.

After is added, that it is committed to them by the Magistrate, for fuller satisfying of their dutie: yf so, why should not al the Mini­sters alike haue this power, to the end, that al might doe their duties the better. Again, in saying that it is necessary for this tyme: yow openly wrest this power, owt of the Magistrats hād. For the­reby it followeth, that the Magistrate of dutie, owght to cō ­mit this vnto them: and if he doe not, he is giltie of gods wrath, in leauing vndoen, that which is necessary to be doen. yow doe also open iniury to the holy gost, which is thus supposed to haue left that in the liberty of the Magistrate, w­hich is necessary for the accomplishing of the ministery: w­hereas, if it had bene necessary, there had bene also nothing more easy, then to haue giuen this general rule, that alwaies vnder a Christian Magistrate, the Minister should be armed with civil autority. But this succour which yow seek in the tyme, is Pigghius shift: as is also this whole cause, and the flo­wer of your arguments. For he saith, As long as the church Pigg lib. 5. hierarh ca. 16. vuas in persecutiō, al vuere obediēt vnto their Pastors, hovu simple or base so euer the Ministers vuere: but after that the [Page 5] church came to haue prosperity, then it vuas needful, that Bishops should be magnifical also, to the end they might be more apt, to gouern the magnifical Princes: and that otherwise his power and autority should not be sufficiently reuerenced. To whome, as vnto the D. it is easy to answer, that if Kinges and Princes, being yet in deadly hatred aga­inst the gospel, were browght by the ministery of the word, vnaccompanied with any such pomp or iurisdiction, to ye­eld them selues vnto the gospel, and to giue due reuerence vnto the ministery: how much more now, being friendes, wil they be kept in dutie and convenient estimation there­of, withowt this disguising of the ministery.

That alledged out of Caluin, that euery man must respect his own vocation &c. beside that it is drawen cleā from the minde of the autor, it is absurdly applied. For the application, affir­meth it meet for the vocatio of the Minister, that he should bear ciuil office: which is that in question. And where he sa­ith, Caluin speaketh nothing against these civil offices in ecclesiastical persons, and after, that nether he nor any godly man, can disalow of yt: he giueth suspition that he hath sould him self to speak vn­truth, withowt al chek of conscience. For Calvin sheweth, that albeit the godly Princes, giuing these offices to church men, had a good intent: yet, that they did euil provide the­reby for the church, considering that by it was corrupted, or 4. lib. Inst. 11. cap. 10. sect. rather vtterly brovught to no vught, al true and auncient sincerity, and that, the Bishops if they had had a spark of grace, vuould vuhen they vuere offered such offices, haue ansuuered, that the armour of their vuarfare, is not car­nal but spiritual. Here again also, he is owt with him self. For in the end of his book, albeit the shiftes he vseth are to rowgh hewed: yet, when he commeth to Caluin, in this matter void of al shift, he is constreined to reiect his autority. Yf he haue nothing against him, why doeth he make so smale ac­count of him, as for nothing to cast him of: if he be against [Page 6] him, why doeth he here deny it. And as I haue alledged M. Caluin, and some others: so the learned know that a num­ber moe might be browght, to the making vp of a book: but for him, beside the papistes (as I am verely perswaded) scar­ce one so bould an enemy of the truth, as to commit this to writing.

Against the plain meaning of the Apostle, opened in flatDiuis. 4. p. 752. wordes, verses 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. of Rom. 12. here is nothing but your suerly, and certein: which I wil suffer to haue that credit, it can get, against so manifest light. Your argument, is the sa­me which I haue said. The Bishop must gouern with discipline, there­fore with ciuil discipline: your answer that he must vse discipline pre­scribed by the Magistrate, whether ciuil or ecclesiastical, is an asking of that in question.

The answer to the place of 2. Tim. c. 2. 4. Timothy, that it is spoken of al Diuis. 6. p. [...]54. Christians indifferently merely faced out with the name of Cal­uin: is Lib. 5. hie rarch. ca. 6. Pigghius answer, to the protestants. And it is confu­ted, in that S. Paul instructeth Timothy there, not as a sim­ple Christian, but as a Minister of the gospel: in that also he borowed this speach of the law, which Num. 4. 3. & 8. 24. 25. calleth the ministery a souldiarfare: thirdly in that the same Apostle in other 1. Co. 9. 7 Phili. 2. 25. pla­ces giueth this title of souldiarship, and felow souldiarship, to those of the ministery. Beside that it flatly condemneth Cyprian, as an abuser of the place: who by vertw hereof, for­biddeth a Minister an Executorship, which, by the D. ether is not forbidden him, or els is forbiddē to al Christians ali­ke. And not onely Cyprian is condemned, but li. 1. officio cap. 38. Ambrose and vpon So­phon. 1. ca. Ierome which vse it, as the admonition: Beside Bucer vpō Eph. ca. 4. Bu­cer and other godly writers of our tyme, as appeareth by Pigghius answer. The reason whereby Pigghius and he, would shew it vnderstanded of al Christians alike, is this. Al Christians be spiritual souldiars: S. Paul speaketh of spiritu­al souldiars: therfore he speaketh of al Christians: conclu­ding affirmatiuely in the second figure, which is to open a faut. where yow should vnderstand, that althowgh Christia­nity be a kinde of spiritual warfare: yet, it foloweth not, that every spiritual warfare, is Christianitie. Your answer to Cy­priā, whereby yow would restrein his iudgmēt to the Execu­torship, [Page 7] and not suffer it to haue place in civil offices: is fri­uolous, and flatly against his wordes, which Cyp. lib. 1. epist. 9. saith that it vuas decreed in a Councel, that the Minister should one­ly serue the altar, and the sacrifices, and giue them selues to praier. Your reason is as fond, that the executorship is more tro­blesome then to bear ciuil office, because sometime temporal men (as yow cal them) do refuse it: as if therewere not, which refused other ci­uil offices, for the same cause. The reply to the next diuisi­on, the reader may take, owt of the pag. 409. l. 31. former part of my book.

The exception out of the Coloss. that wiues must obey their hus­bandes Diuis. 8. p. 755. in the lord: doeth not hinder, but that the place to the 1. Thess. 5. 12. Thessa. may put a difference betvuene the ciuil and eccle­siastical gouernment. For S. Paul (as the Hebrews doe the preposition [...]) vseth the preposition (In) diuersly. where the­refore he willeth the Thessalonians to acknovulegd those, vuhich vuere set ouer them in the lord, he meaneth, in thin­ges perteining vnto the lord: but when he willeth the vuiues, to obey their husbandes in the lord, he meaneth, that they should doe it, no further then is agreable vnto the wil of god: not that he would restrein their obedience, one­ly to such thinges as pertein to the kingdome of heauen, as the wordes be taken in the other place.

In saying, that althovvgh the godly Magistrate ruleth in the lord ouer vs, yet that this title is giuen by excellency [...] vnto the ecclesiastical officers: I doe not daly; it is the distincti­on of the doly Gost him self. For, albeit they that handle cō ­mon wealth matters, serue the lord, and doe thinges ten­ding to his glory: yet the scripture comparing boeth these gouernments togither, giueth this title, as a note to discern the ecclesiastical officers from the ciuil, as appeareth in the 2. Chron. 19. 11. Chronicles from whēce (it is like) the Apostle toke this maner of speach. The reason whereof is: for that ciuil gouern­ments are not so nighly, nor so immediately referred vnto [Page 8] the glory of god, as are the ecclesiastical. Beside that this re­proch is against M. Caluin, and Beza: who vpon that placeupon the 5. chap. of the Thessal. ground the same distinction. I graunt, there be some thinges common to boeth the gouernmentes, as be also to thinges diuers, yea contrary: but in cōfessing the ciuil gouernment distinguished from the ecclesiastical, and yet affirming certein ciuil offices common to boeth, yow speak w­thout al sens. For, where that which should agree, owght to be a third thing from the ecclesiastical and ciuil power: yow make one of these two, to agree to them selues.

And althowgh he stil rubbeth vpon this, that ciuil offices, such as he meaneth, are not onely no hinderans, but a help for the Bishop to doe his office: yet he can neuer be browght to expres, what those offices be. For he feareth partly, that the confutation wil be a great deal easier: partly least, if he should prik high, he should draw his cause into the hatered of al, if he should fallow, he should not serue their appetite, to whom he wo­uld, peraduenture, offer vnto in this cause.

It is in deed a good reason, as the cours of this disputationDiuis. 9. pag. 755. doeth declare: they must exercise ecclesiastical discipline, therfore not ciuil: they must haue the spiritual sword of cor­rections alwaies in their hand, therfore not the ciuil: oneles they can hould, and beweld two swordes at once: and one­les the two hāded sword of the word of god, occupiyng bo­eth their handes, they haue a third hand, for the ciuil.

To the next I answer, as vnto the seuenth diuis. As forDiuis. 10. pag. 756. the answer which he asketh to his vntrw surmise, of the Ad­monit. abbridging the Magistrates autority, seing it is so often, and of no not onely cause, but not so much as occasiō, as a thing vnworthy once to loke bak for, I quietly pas by: albeit this vntruth hath, and shal (god willing) after generally ap­pear.

To that I alledged, of the difficulty and multitude of du­ties, Cap. 2. Di­uis. 1. p. 757 vuhich the ministery of the vuord doeth lay vpon the Bishop, of one side, and of the vueaknes of mans nature, of the other, therby to binde the Bishop from reaching owt [Page 9] his hand to other functions: he saith, that this had had likeliho­od, if he should exercise a function, contrary to the ecclesiastical. Of this sort, are also these profes alledged pag. 761. pag. 766. Diuis. 5. pag. 766. other where: that they may exercise boeth iurisdictions, because they tend boeth to one end, that is to the maintenance of religion, reformation of manners, and punishment of syn. where the reader may see, that the distinction which he churmeth after so painfully, wil not come. As if there were any lawful function, be it neuer so base, contrary to an other lawful function: seing that good can not be contrary to good: nether are there any, which pertein not to the main­tenance of religion. And the iudgment of landes (which not­withstanding he confesseth vnmeet for a Minister) pertay­neth to reformation of maners, and punishment of syn: whilest that which is his, being giuen to euery one, the wrong doers are punished. Likewise is also the Princis office: so that, if he may receiu al these callinges, he may ether exercise al the offices and occupations in the land, or at the least moe then him self dare avouch. But the prouerb shal thē be (as it is al­ready) trw in thē: that he vuhich embraceth much, streyneth but a litle. After he excepteth, that by this reason a Christiā man should be cōtinually in spiritual meditation, and neuer medle with worldly affaires: which procedeth of a great want. for aswel (althowgh not so principally) perteyneth it to the dutie of euery Chri­stian, to haue to doe with worldly affaires: as at times con­uenient, to be occupied in spiritual meditation. And as the reason which I browght, hath not so much as the least seed of Anabaptism: so the D. answer, leadeth to plain monckery, whilest he placeth the whole duty of a Christian man in spiritual me­ditation. But, seing yow imagin the Bishops, to be men of so great burden, that beside their church ministery, they be a­ble to cary the ciuil office: answer me, how cometh it to pas, that they commit part of their own and proper office, vnto Chauncelors, Archdeacons &c, except they haue more to doe then they can doe them selues? what a confusion is it, to turn ouer to others, thinges which (they say) belong pro­perly to their office: and to take offices, which they confes, are not incident to their calling.

I alledged, that the Apostles of greater giftes, then can Diuis. 6. p. 758. be hoped for of any, for accomplishment of the ministery of the vuord, gaue ouer euen that vuhich they had receiued vpon them, that is to say, the disposition of the church mo­ney, a thing merely ecclesiastical, and therfore that vuhich might haue bene easelier ioyned vuith the ministery of the vuord, then a ciuil office. To this he answereth, the Apostles did boeth those charges before, and therfore that these offices may some­time meet: where, if he mean, they may meet now, it foloweth not. For althowgh they might meet, before the holy gost, by the mouth of the Apost. made a seueral office of yt: yet they might not so afterward, when it was otherwise determined of, by the mouth of god. There were diuers kinde of maria­ges, with consanguinitie, as brother with sister, aunt with nevew &c lawful in the beginning▪ which, after that the lord had otherwise disposed of in the law were vnlawful.

As for that owt of Caluin, and 2 Corinth 8, it is friuolous. For it neuer perteined to the Deacons office, to exhort for the contribution of the poor: but was, and is the Ministers of the word: the Deacons office being, to receiu, and to distri­bute yt, in that church where he is Deacon. The causes also which he alledgeth, of the casting of of that office, and the busines which the Deaconship did draw in that church of Ierusalem, are to trifle out the tyme: considering, that the decree of the Apostles, towching the nue office, was general for al places, and not where there should be many poor, or so ma­ny thowsand professors. what a bouldnes is it also, when the Scripture doeth plainly shew, the cause of deliuering them selues from this office, to haue bene, that they should not leau their ministery and that they might be cōtinually vpon it: to reiect this cause, and to set vp another, which the scri­pture [...] Act. 6 2. giueth no ynkling of.

That they ordeined others, for because they should goe into the world, is also nothing worth: seing that in some of them, it came not to pas diuers yeates after, and in other some, ne­uer: as those which were determined there to remain, when [Page 11] as notwithstanding, al desired this releas. Beside that, he answereth nothing to the inequality of giftes, betwene our Bishops and the Apostles: nor considereth not, that the Spiritual charge of our Bishop, is ouer moe now then there were then in Ie­rusalem: and that they were at that tyme twelu, where he is but one: had theyr church togither, which he hath scar­tered.

I shewed, that the Papists are not onely condemned, Diuis. 3. pa [...] 759. for vuringing the ciuil autority ouut of Princes handes, but simply, for exercising it: and there fore this first section, is idle.

To that I alledged, that it is as monstrous for the Bishop to goe from the pulpit, vnto the place of ciuil iudgment, as for my lord Maior to goe to the pulpit: he answereth, that it is not vncomely to goe from the pulpit to ciuil administration of iustice &c, which is a mere mockery of his reader. For not daring to deny, but it is vncomely for the lord Maior: he answereth, by affirming that in question. For if he say, it is not vnco­mely for the lord Maior to goe to the pulpit, he runneth in to that, which he saith I surmise of him: where of notwitstan­ding I haue not a letter. Albeit the truth is, that he may as­wel say, the Magistrate may minister the Sacrament and preach, which is the proper dwety of the Minister: as to say, the Minister of the word, may sit in iudgment of ciuil causes, which is the proper dwety of the Magistrat. For, look what differen­ce the lord hath set, betwene the office of the ciuil Magistra­te, and of the Minister: the same must of necessity be betwe­ne the office of the Minister, and of the Magistrate: as, there is the self same distance betwene Athenes and Thebes, vuhich is betuuene Thebes and Athenes: and if there be a mile, from the top of the hil to the foot, it is as far from the foot, to the top.

And althowgh, yt abhorring the eyes and eares of al, he is afraid here to affirm it comely, that the lord Maior should preach and minister the sacramentes: yet as a man whose [Page 12] iudgment wasteth not by litle and litle, but is sodenly and at a clap taken away, he shameth not a litle after to affirm, that the Prince may preach and the Bishop exercise ciuilpag. 768. office, if they be lawfully called therunto. where, if by lawful calling, he vnderstand a wonderful and extraordinary from hea­uen, he speaketh altogither from the cause, our question be­ing whether a Minister by calling of the Magistrat, or a Ma­gistrate by calling of the church, may enter vpon eche o­thers office. And if he mean by lawful calling, the ordinary cal­ling then his answer is absurd. For he falleth into that ab­surdity, which the Papistes doe falsly surmise: that we giue vnto our Princes power to minister the Sacramentes. yea by his diuinitye, which giueth the chois of the Bishops to the pag. 135. Prince alone, and which maketh it lawful for one to offer him self to the ministery: the king of the land may make him selfpag. 48. Bishop, withowt waiting for the church is consent.

Vpon that he alledgeth owt of M. Beza, which wisheth some of the nobilitie to be of the Eldership, compared with that which I affirm, that the Eldership is an ecclesiastical office: he con­cludeth, that ether I must dissent from M. Beza, or graunt that one person may at once bear ciuil and ecclesiastical office. I answer, that ne­ther is necessary. For, whereas Lordships, Baronryes and Erldomes are often ether by birth, or giuen of the Prince, as bare degrees of honour: such being of the church Elders­hip, doe not therfore bear, boeth ciuil and ecclesiastical of­fice: considering that they haue no magistracy necessarily ioyned with them, further then the same is particularly cō ­mitted. Albeit, hauing the Heluetian confession, I finde no epistle of M. Bezas: so that, ether he mistaketh the place, or els hath some other edition, then I could get.

Yf the gentry and nobility of the realm, be (as yow con­fes) fitter to bear these offices, then ecclesiastical persons: there needed some great causes, to haue bene shewed by yow, why the fit­test should not be taken: otherwise the white of expedience, that churchmen should bear them, which yow threap of them, that they see, wil be so dim, that boeth the Prince, and they pas­sing by it, wil (I hope (put down (as there calling serueth) [Page 13] this vsurped power. In the mean season, it being so expedient a thing for the churche, at yow pretend: the church is litle be­houlding to yow, that doe not make this expedience to ap­pear.

I said that if there fal a question to be decided by the Diuis. 4. p. 760. vuord of god, and vuherein the aduise of the Minister is needful: that then his help, ouught to be required. The D. herevpon fathereth of me, that the magistrate may determin no weighty matter, withowt him: as if there were no weighty matter, wherein the Magistrat could know what is the wil of god, withowt sending for the Minister: so that, it appeareth that there is no vntruth so open, which finedeth not (as in a cō ­mon Inne) lodging in the D. tong. But els (saith he) wherfo­re are these wordes? therfore, forsooth, that where yow and o­thers might, vnder colour of the knowledg which he hath in the word of god, hould him the stirrup, to clime into the ciuil gouernmentes: it might appear, that the common we­alth might reap that commodity, withowt such iumbling of offices togither, which cause I expressed. The place ofDeut. 19. 17. 18. Deuteronomie, is faithfully alledged. That, before the lord, in diuers places, signifieth before the Ark, it is wel knowen: that it doeth so here, first there is nothing against yt, thē the translation of vau by (and) rather then by (that is to say) is more vsed, albeit, whether it be or no, it maketh nothing to this matter. For, the weight of my allegation, lyeth in this, that the handling of the matter, is appointed vnto the Iud­ges, not vnto the Priests: whervnto, beside his bare affirma­tion, he answereth nothing Esra. 9. 1. Likewise is Esra faithfully alle­ged: and that owt of Esr. 10. 4. 5. is nothing against it. For, alt­howgh that matter of diuorce pertained vnto him, first, in respect that he should conuince the people of their faut, secondly, in shewing what was to be doen in such a difficult case, where the Israelites had bene so long maried with stra­unge we men forbidden, and begotten diuers children of them, and thirdly in the ecclesiastical censure of separation from the congregation, there mentioned: yet to sit in iudg­ment [Page 14] of them, or by ciuil punishment to driue those, which would not willingly, is not shewed to pertein vnto him.

To the next diuision, wherein is shewed that thoseDiuis. 5. pag. 761. vuhich had onely the light of nature, yea and vuere great extollers of mans ability, did yet see in part the incommo­dity, of this clapping of many offices vpon one mans bak: is answered nothing, but that which is confuted 1. Diu. pa. 757. before. Of the vniformitie of church gouernment, partly hath bene, and more shal, god willing, be said afterward.

Here the D. hath not a word of answer, his reason why heDiuis. 6. p. 761. wil not answer, for that it is a matter of pollicy, and not of diuinity, doeth as it were, with one stroke of a pen, cros owt almost his who­le book: where he hangeth al these church matters of the circumstance of tyme, place, person, and of the form of the common wealth. Nether doeth my reason, accuse the prince and the councel which is, that if it vuere at liberty for Ministers, to execute that vuhich perteineth to the Magistrate, or the Magistrate to doe that vuhich belongeth to the Mini­ster: yet, that the later, vuith vs, ovught rather to be doen, then the first: for that there is a greater vuant of sufficient church men, then of able common vuealth men. But as I altogither excuse none, from the highest to the lowest of vs, which haue continued this popish corruption so long: so I accuse especially yow, and such as yow are, which in steed of refusing them, and shewing the vnlawfulnes of mingling them, gape after them, and are readie to proclaim war (as the 3. Mich. 5. Prophet saith) if yow durst vnles by hurling in some morsel one or other, your mouthes were stopped. And yt may be said of Princes, how godly soeuer other wise, which lift the Bishops into this honour, that is Hilarius aduersus Constant. said of a wicked Emperour, which promoted them likewise: he honored the Priestes, that they should be no Bishops, that is, that they should be vnable, to doe the office of a Bishop.

This worldly principalitie, entred not, as yow pretend,Diuis. 7. 8. pag. 761. into the ministery, with the Christian Magistrate, immedi­atly [Page 15] after the tyme of persecution: but long after. For, it began first Socrat. 7. l. c. 7. &c. [...] at Alexādria in Cyrils tyme, and after entred into Rome. your answer also, to the canō attributed vnto the Apostles, is vain, for the canō opposeth the attendance in his ecclesiasti­cal ministery, vnto worldly offices: beside, that your answer is otherwise to homely. For it is as much, as if yow should answer, that the canon is vnderstāded of al worldly offices: sauing those which yow defend.

My reason owt of the Calcedō Councel is, for that it for­biddeth to take the charge of an Orphan, which requireth not so much attendance, as the ciuil offices, and which commō charitie, would otherwise lay vpō him. Again, for that itCan. 7. forbiddeth the Minister, to receiue vpon pain of excom­munication, any secular honour: and therefore the office of a Iustice of peace, of a Iustice of Quorum, of hauing iud­gment of life and death which the D, I wil not say craftely (for it is to manifest) but fearfully, passeth by, whereunto ad4. Cō Car­thag. [...]. 20. that decreed in another Councel, that the Bishop should onely attend vnto praier, reading, and preaching. where, so far it is, that it wil suffer him to deal with ciuil of­fices: that it forbiddeth to medle, with matters of his own houshould: which notwithstanding belong vnto him. and therfore I doe not allegd it, as that which I altogither allow: but to shew how seuere the auncient councels haue bene in this point, wherof he would bear vs down, that there is not a word. For otherwise, withowt some fauorable interpreta­tion, this canon in this point is owt of rule.

To the D. which wil not haue the Ministers work: inChap. 3. [...] Diuis. pag. 763. any handy craft occupation &c, but bear ciuil office: I replied, that it vuas as much as if he should say, that he vuo­uld not be bound vuith yron, but vuith goulden fet­ters &c. wherto he answereth, that I doe but deride. Here, I lea­ue it to the reader to consider, whether by this which he calleth derision, I haue broken the head of his cause: so that, if it could, it would weep. As for that owt of M. Bucer, [Page 16] there is no man dowteth of: but that one, and the same may doe the office of a Minister, and of a Magistrate at once he affirmeth not: he doeth the clean contrary, as I In the end of my former book and in the former part of this. pag. 660. haue shewed, and In ratione canonic. examinat. 2. Diuis. pa. 764. further may be seen.

M. Caluin doeth not onely invey against the papistes, which enter forcibly vpon the Magistrates office: but against those also, that receiue it being giuē. For his reasons 4. li. inst. [...]. c. 9. sect. that no man is able to sustein boeth those charges &c. are general. I graunt, the D. alledgeth not al the Papistes reasons: yet this of the papistes, is the same with his: yea in this point, with grief, I am compelled to see him further caried from the boundes of modesty, then they are. For they (as ys alledged by M. Caluin) content them selues with this defence, that their ministery is not greatly hindred by it: but he dare say, that these offices are a furtherance to their ministery. which trwly, withowt miracle wil hardly be doen, that a man hauing al­readie a burden, as much as he is able to bear: should hand­le the matter so konningly, that he should not onely be ab­le to bear another as heauy almost as yt, but to bear it also ea­selier.

Hether perteineth, that he hath afterward, where he affir­methDiuis. 3. ca. 4. p. 764. that the necessitie of studying the lawes of the realm, maketh him fitter for the ministery: that is to say in effect, maketh him haue more leasure to studie the lawes of the kingdom of heauen, therby to giue the riper iudgment in thinges perteining thereto.

And as this is straunge, in the study of the lawes of the realm: so it is yet more straunge in the practise by executing the office of a ciuil Iudg. For tel me, I pray yow, how the ca­re yow owght to haue of the ciuil causes before yow come to iudgment, the tyme to be informed of them on boeth si­des, the examining of witnesses, the consultation to what law, or to what braunch of the law, the crime should be re­duced: tel me (I say) how doeth it make yow fitter to execu­te your ministery, then if yow had bestowed that tyme, in studie of the word of god? if yow say, that by the knowlegd of these thinges, yow may doe your ministery the better: so [Page 17] may yow by knowledg of the Potters, the Vueuers, the Car­penters occupation, from which similitudes being taken, the doctrine is deeplier imprinted: as we see to haue bene doen by the Prophetes and Apostles. But as it is not meet, that because the knowledg of these thinges profiteth, that therfore Ministers may exercise these craftes: no more folo­weth it, that because the knowledg of ciuil iudgmentes pro­fiteth for the better doeing of the ministery, therfore a Mi­nisterlib. 4. Inst. c 11. sect. 9. should exercise them. Now, if M. Caluin answering the Papistes, which onely say that the exercise of this ciuil povuer, did not much hynder their spiritual ministery, called their answer babling: I leaue it to yow to consider, how sharply he would haue censured this bouldnes of yo­urs, if he had met with al.

As towching that which I said, of bodily occupations fit­ter vnto the estate of a Minister, then these ciuil offices: it may appear, for that they are doen withowt pomp or shew, which accompaniyng the ciuil offices, haue bene she­wed to be vnlawful for the estate of a Minister. and that glit­tering shewes and pomp in the Ministers, are hinderances to their ministery, may further appear: by that S. Paul did1. Co. 2. 4. 5. forbear from al stately wisdom and brauery of wordes, to this end that the vertue of the spirite of god in the simplici­ty of the ministery, might shew it self more cleerly. when therfore the ey seing this pomp, is as wel affected with it, as where the ear heareth it, and carieth it to the minde as sone, and in the common people especially, sooner: by the same reason that the one, the other also must hinder the cours of the gospel. Herevpon no dowt, Ambrose saith, thatAmbr. lib. Epist. 5. Epist [...]l. 33. vuorldly gouernment is the vueaknning of the Priest: alluding vnto the Apostles saying, that he vuas then strong vuhen he vuas vueak.

Further, when the minde is weried, and that he vnben­ding it, wil giue it rest for a tyme: it is more apt for him to exercise him self, ether in planting or setting somewhat in [Page 18] garden or orchyard by way of recreation, then in shooting as it were cōtinually in yt, in the end to break yt, and to ma­ke it vnprofitable ether for the ciuil or ecclesiastical estate. And I meruail what steel the edges of their wittes be of, w­hich wil not be turned, when they cut boeth so deep, and in so hard matters: whereas it is knowen, that men of counsail haue found in the office of a Iustice of peace or Quorum, so much to doe, that they haue had scarce tyme enowgh, to doe the office of a father of a houshould, in their priuate families. And it must take vp so much more tyme in the Bishops, then in them: as they, for want of being nourished in the knowledg of the lawes and customes of the re­alm, are more vnready in such cases, then the nobili­tye commonly is: onles they wil sit vpon the bench li­ke idols, nodding rather to the pleasures of others, then vpon any grounded knowledg, giuing iudgment them selues.

His reason of the difference, that the Minister can not com­mit his power to whome he list, but that the Prince may: is (I fear me) an endeuour of to open flattery, at the least it is to lose­ly spoken. For, althowgh there be greater libertie, in the one, then in the other: yet, the Prince can not commit his power to whome he listeth, but is bound first to chuse tho­se which fear the lord, then those which are best able to exe­cute yt, to the glorie of god and commodity of the subie­ctes: and therefore not the Ministers, which haue already as much as they can turn them to, when they doe their most. Beside that he can not thus escape. For, if the Prince wil ac­cept the ministery, of the Bishops hand: then his difference falleth to the ground, and thē, by his saying, the Prince may wel preach, as the Bishop bear ciuil office.

As for his example of Samuel, which did Saules office in slay­ing Agag, when as Saul might not doe Samueles in sacrifising: it ma­keth nothing for him. For, Samuel did it not by Sauls auto­rity, but by an extraordinary calling from god: so that if this example proue, that ecclesiastical persons may bear ciuil offices, it proueth that they may doe it withowt any commaundement of the Prince. I pas by, that it was not Sa­muels [Page 19] office to sacrifice, as the D. imagineth: he being not of the race of Aharō to whome onely that apperteyned, but a sim­ple1. Cron. 6. 20. 23. Leuite: so that where it is said that he sacrificed, ether it must be vnderstood that he procured the sacrifice to be ma­de, or els that it was doen by an extraordinary calling, con­trary to the rule that the lord had giuē, of offering sacrifices

To that I ask, vuhy if the Minister be helped by exerci­sing a ciuil office in his ovun person, the Magistrate should not be helped by exercising likevuise an ecclesiastical: he answereth, the Magistrate may doe by corporal punishment, which the Minister cā not doe by ecclesiastical: so may the Minister doe by ec­clesiastic. which the Magistrate cā not doe by corporal. And this in deed is the ordinance of god, that euery one should doe that which properly belongeth vnto him: and not that one, should doe al. where he addeth, that the Magistrate may bri­dle the most vnruliest, where the greatest censures of the church, few now a dayes doe regard: verely it is no mervail, thowgh they be con­temned, being exercised as they are, by those to whom it ap­perteyneth not, and for euery trifling and three halfpenny matter: where if, being duly executed, they be contemned, the Magistrate beareth the sword, to punish that contempt. But the D. would haue the Minister, haue that sword in his hand: that beside the sentence of excōmunicatiō, he might haue also the ciuil sword, wherby he might strike a furtherRom. 13. fear of him self into the peoples hartes. In deed, thus is fear, which the Apostle most properly giueth vnto the ciuil Ma­gistrate because of the sword which he beareth, transla­ted vnto the Ministers: And thus it commeth to pas, that they hauing boeth ciuil, and ecclesiastical vengeance in their handes, make them selues more terrible vnto the peo­ple, then the Magistrate him self, which hath but the ci­uil sword onely. Vuhereby hath growen (and if it be not in tyme preuented) wil grow contempt of Magistrates, and o­ther inconueniences: wherwith Princes them selues hauing bene before beaten, owght so much the streighter to look vnto. As for that he bringeth, of other ecclesiastical punishmentes which may be vsed, beside those prescribed in the scripture: it appertei­neth [Page 20] to another questiō. And so doeth Gualters testimony, w­hich is not onely idly, but shamefully alledged, in this cause especially: considering that he doeth precisely cōdemn thevpon the 6 chap. 1. Co. Diuis. 2. p. 764. exercise of any ciuil gouernment in ecclesiastical persons. The two next diuisions, are answered.

I know that corporal punishmentes be meanes to bring men to hear. and (if yow wil also) to beleue the word: but that it doeth so, or at least so much when it is executed by the Minister, as when it is executed by the Magistrate, I denie: euen as it is in excommunications and ecclesiastical censures, when they are executed by those to whom they doe not apper­tain.

It foloweth not, that because fear of ciuil punishment is pro­fitable, therefore yt is profitable in the Ministers hand: nether for that it hindereth faith vuhen the Minister, preaching in the pulpit, hath the ciuil svuord in his hand, there fore it hindreth, when the Magistrate houldeth it in his hand. For the profit of the fear of the sword, dependeth vpon the blessing of god, that giueth it efficacy: which blessing is then giuen, w­hen the sword is drawen by him, vnto whom it properly be­longeth. There are of iudgment, that it is not conuenient,M. Ascham in his Scho­l [...]master. that the same should teach scholers, and chasten them with the rod, but that some other rather should haue that char­ge, wherwith I wil not medle: but if the Scholemaster should haue beside the rod, the sword also to take away the liues of their scholers, or to send them to the iayl, who seeth not the inconuenience that would rise thereof. And yet the Schole­master, as he whose office is les ecclesiastical: is much more capable of this power, then is the Bishop.

That he supposeth me to affirm, that the causes which Diuis. 6. pa. 766. they medle with as the Queenes maiesties Commissioners, are ecclesiastical, and that they may giue a iudicial sentence of them: is a flat vntruth. This onely I gaue to vnderstand, which I yet affirm, that the same causes may be boeth ciuil, and ecclesiastical. For in re­spect that inquisition is made, to punish yt with corporal punishment, it is ciuil: the same is also ecclesiastical, when it is examined, to the end that the conscience may be tow­ched [Page 21] with sens of the syn, by the church censures.

The D. similitude is (as I sayd) manifestly iniurious to Diuis. 7. p. 766. the Magistrate. For if the execution of the lawes belong vnto the Bishop, as the making of them doeth to the Magistrate: it foloweth, that as the one is the proper office of the Magistrate, so the other is the proper of the Bishop. And further, that in that common wealth, where the Magistrate may make the lawes him self alone: there, by his reason, the Bishops may execu­te them alone. As for his answer, it is nothing but a de­maunding of that in question.

That moses did the office of the Sacrificer is certain: Diuis. 8 pa. 767. & 9. 768. in that he Exo. 24. 6. 8. sprinkled the blood vpon the altar, and people, which perteyned properly vnto the Priest. likewise the sa­me is confirmed by his Ex. 29. 13. ordeyning of Aharon, and his son­nes, to the priesthood: which belongeth vnto the Priest in like maner.

That Moses (after Aharon was made Priest) prescribed Aharon what he should doe: he did it from the mouth of the lord, and that also as the Prophet of god, and in a Act. 7. figure of the doctorship of our sauior Christ, and not simply as the ciuil gouernour of the people. For althowgh the ptieshood, were taken from him: yet he remained a Prophet vnto his dying day, and therefore that exception is insufficient. So is that also, of them, in whome he saith that boeth offices ciuil, and ecclesiasti­cal met. For not to enquire how truly those examples are al­ledged, especially of Nehemias, of whome there is not a step of likelihood, that he exercised boeth the offices: it helpeth him no whit althowgh it were so, as he alledgeth: considering that such were extraordinarily raised vp of god, and not by any established order or election of men. Vvhich also is a peece of answer to that alledged after to this purpose of our Sauiour Christes whipping, which was in ruinous, and not in10. Diuis. p. 768. standing estates of the church.

Nether is this once to moue, much les to ouerthow that which was before disputed. For the question is, what order the church is bound vnto, not what lawes the lord is bound vnto: likewise the question is, not what ether may be doen, [Page 22] or tolerated in the desolation and wast of the church, but what owght to be doen, in a church established and refor­med: and what that order is, for establishment wherof, eue­ry man must employ him self, according to his calling. In Elies and Samuels tymes, it appeareth that the church was in mi­serable estate: boeth by the whole discours of the story, and namely 1. Sam. 3. 1. that there was a great dearth of the vuord of god. But mark (I pray yow) this diuinity, he would haue their examples which haue bene (as he saith) boeth Priestes and Prin­ces, yea and pag. 262. Captaynes also of the host, serue to proue that Mini­sters may be Iustices of peace, but not that, they may be Princes or Captaines where as if those examples proue, that a Minister may be chosen to bear ciuil office, they proue especially, that he may be chosen to bear that office, which they bare, from w­hom he fetcheth his profe. For if that wherefore they may be chosen to other ciuil offices, doe not agree vnto them: the other which haue their ground from thence can much les agree. Therefore, if the D. be afraid to confes, that thes examples proue, that a Bishop may be a king or a Captain if he be chosen to yt: he owght also to be afraid, to confes that a bishop may be a Iustice of peace, when he is chosen vnto it.

To that I say, that these examples doe as vuel proue, that the ciuil Magistrate may be a Bishop, as that the Bishop may be a ciuil Magistrate: he answereth, that the ciuil offi­ce is accidental to the ministery, and such as may be remoued from it, but the ministery is not so vnto Princes, onles they be ordinarily called: then which, what can be more confusedly spoken. For, if I should graunt, that the Prince might be a Minister of the gospel, and the Minister of the gospel a Prince: why should not (I besech yow) the ministery be as accidental to the princehood, as the princehood vnto the ministery. Su­rely, if it be not accidental to the princehood, and yet such a thing as agreeth vnto it: it must needes be essential, that is, that which can not be seuered from it, withowt hurt of that estate. Beside that, in placing the difference of the [Page 23] respect of the Ministery, to the princehood, and of the princehood to the Ministery, in that the Prince may not be a Minister withowt an ordinary calling: yow giue to vnderstand, that the Minister may bear ciuil office, withowt an ordi­nary calling. For if the Minister may not bear ciuil office, vntil he be ordinarily called: then here is yet no distincti­on made, betwene the respect of a Minister to a ciuil offi­ce, and the ciuil officer, to the Ministery. In the end yow are compelled, to destroy your own distinction: affirming, that as a minister may ioyn to his Ministery, a ciuil office, if he be called therevnto by the Prince, so the Prince may ioyn to his office the function of the Minister, if he be called vnto it by the Bishop. For so yow must needes mean, seing yow make him the Stward of ecclesiastical officis: which absurdity before this birth of yours, I suppose was neuer heard of: and it is thorowgh owt the whole discours confuted. For, as for that yow ad, if they be lawfully called, it is to open folly: se­ing the question is, whether there be any such election lawful.

Here the D. is taken again, in his wordes. For if theDiuis. 10. p. 768. example of our Sauiour Christes whipping, doe proue that, a Minister may medle with ciuil affaires: then it proueth, that he may not onely sit in iudgment of crimes, but also be the Tortor himself, which he denieth. For our Sauiour Christ, exe­cuted the punishment with his own hand.

To that also I alledged, that the Ministers, by the ex­amples of Paul and Peter, may be Fishers, and Tentma­kers, if of the D. examples it may be concluded, that it is lavuful for a Minister to bear ciuil office: he answe­reth, they may doe so vpon like occasion. The occasion of S. Paules laboring with his handes was, partly that he2. Cor. 11. 12 1. Thessa. 5. might not in that point be inferior to the fals. Apostels, which toke no stipend: partly to support the need, and po­uerty of the churches. There being now therfore Anabapti­stes, which teach withowt wages and diuers churches which are very poor: by the D. answer, it is conuenient the Bishops [Page 24] should exercise some handycraft. which beside other in­conueniences, is against that which him self hath truly said, that they are hinderances vnto the ministery: considering that there be no such giftes now a daies as the Apostles had, which we­re able to doe more with one hand, then we with boeth. And if his answer were trw, yet it is nothing to purpose. For, if by these examples he wil conclude, that Ministers may ordina­rily be called to the ciuil gouernment: then it must also fo­low, that by these examples of S. Paul and Peter, the Mini­sters may ordinarily haue occupations ioyned with their ministeries. But if the Ministers may not exercise any han­dicraft, but in like cases as the Apostles did, and vpon like callinges: then it foloweth also, that they may not exercise ciuil offices, but in like time, and vpon like callinges as those did, from whome he draweth his proofes. The rest is answered.

Before the D. said, that the Ministers could not exercise any ci­uil Diuis. 11. p. 769. iurisdiction in tyme of persecution: here he saith, that Timothy, w­hichDiuis. 7. p. 762. liued in time of persecution, exercised ciuil iurisdiction. Thus, like a windshaken reed, he neuer standeth in one sen­tence. But (I pray yow) note his reason, which is because menti­on is made of accusers and witnesses: as if they were not common to al kinde of iudgmentes. For where the thing is not ma­nifest, there the trial must needes be ether by confession, or witnesses: so that if there be an ecclesiastical iudgment, the­re must needes be witnesses and accusers: otherwise the Mi­nister in tyme of persecution, should take vpon him ciuil iurisdiction, withowt the consent of the Magistrate, which is absurd, and being vrged by me, is vnanswered. yea the Housemother, which, vpon accusation and witnes of some of hir children, chasteneth other some: should by the D. saying, break vpon the office of the ciuil Magistrate.

Vpon diuerse reasons browght to shew, that S. Peters killing Ananias and Saphyra with the word (which reasonDiuis. 12. p. 770. Pigg. 5. lib. hierarch. cap. 2. was ministred him owt of Pigghius) proueth not that the Ministers may haue their prisons: he answereth nothing, but taking vp the carcase of his argument, in steed of bury­ing of it, assayeth to blow life into it, after this sort. Peter pu­nishing [Page 25] with death, did nothing repugnant to his vocation: therfore it is not repugnant, to the vocation of a Minister, to punish with temporal pu­nishment: which foloweth not. For as muche as the vocation of a Minister now, is not the same which Peters was at that tyme: not onely for that he was an Apostle, but also, for that withowt a particular motion of the spirit of god, it was vn­lawful for any, or for Peter him self to haue doen so.

That browght to vphould this with, that that which Peter did by extraordinary power, the Ministery now may doe by an ordinary: is a very cartrope, to pul in al confusion into the church and common wealth. For thus, of that Phinees a priuate man killed, and the Israelites borowed, which they neuer meant to restore: if the Magistrate wil licence men to doe so, it shal be lawful by the D. rule. If he say, that those are thinges for­bidden, but not this, that a Minister should bear ciuil offi­ce: it is nothing but an asking of that in controuersie, whe­rupon he continually faleth. And where he saith, he spea­keth of the fact of Peter, and not of the maner: euen the fact of Pe­ter, was to kil a man, withowt any vnder Minister. And ther­fore of this answer also, it foloweth that the Magistrate may appoint the Bishops, to be the Tortors and hangmen: w­hich the D. hath before denied. How commeth it also to pas, that he which pag. 149. before compared the politik lawes of god, putting Idolaters and adulterers to death, in cruelty with the Turkes lawes: now maketh it a death matter, if a man, to conceal some part of his wealth, being iudicially demaun­ded thereof, do make a ly. For thus much he saith in effect: when he affirmeth, that it may now be doen ordinarily, which Pe­ter did then extraordinarily.

Vuhere I added, that the povuer vuhich S. Peter vsed vuas ecclesiastical, and vuithal, my reason ovut of the 1. Cor. 1 [...]. Apostle, vuho reckeneth that amongest the church giftes: leauing the reason, he opposeth the autority of M. Beza. whe­reas, if that had bene any lawful kinde of disputing: I could haue alledged learned writers, that such punishmentes we­re doen by vertue of that church office. But how could S. Peter, doe that by right of the ciuil Magistracy: when as the ciuil [Page 26] Magistrate had no right, to punish that dissimulation, w­hich was hid. Hetherto also refer, that the D. him self in his pag. 769. former book, affirmeth that their offence was against no ordina­ry law of the church, or common wealth. wherevpon foloweth, that there being no transgression against his lawes, there could be no punishment due. M. Bezas meaning is onely, that as the lord, when there was no Christian Magistrate, did vse corporal punishmentes, and those of death, against them which resisted the doctrine of the gospel: so the Christian Magistrate, should doe the same: so that althowgh his ma­ner of speach be diuers with that I propounded, yet his iud­gment is al one.

Here Pantaleon and M. Bale, are reiected as insuffici­entDiuis. 13 p. 771. to make report of Eugenius doeinges, which was so long before their tyme: and yet Erasmus is stoutly vpholden, for reporting Titus to haue bene an Archbishop, albeyt Titus was 600 yeares be­fore Eugenius. But, if the D. can not shew any that comma­unded, that the Bishops should haue prisons before Euge­nius: these writers shal be able easely, to maintayn their credit against his bouldnes, of affirming and denying, what so euer he listeth.

To that owt of Possidonius, that those matters alledgedDiuis. 14 p. [...]71. of the Bishop to be doen of Augustin, could not be ciuil affaires, considering that he immediately opposeth them vnto secular or worldly matters: beside wordes he answereth nothing. he opposeth other places owt of Augustin, wherof the first owt of his bo­ok of the workes of monkes, can not be vnderstanded, as he would haue it, of any iudgment giuen by reason of ciuil au­tority. For that which he did, he affirmeth, that the Apost­le 1. Cor. 6. commaunded it should be doen, by the most contempti­ble in the church: So that oneles he dare say, that the Apost­le commaunded, that the simplest in the church might be­ar ciuil office, when the Magistrat being an enemy wo­uld commit no autority vnto him, this place is vtterly from the purpose. Again, when Augustin saith, that the Apost­le hath tyed him so to doe, and laid yt vpon him: if the D. [Page 27] wil haue, that a ciuil office is there vnderstanded, it must fo­low, that the ciuil office is incidēt vnto the office of the mi­nistery, and can not be seuered from it.

The place owt of his epistle 110, is to as smale purpose. For, in that it appeareth there, that the Councels decreed, that Augustin should ceas from those busines: it is manifest, that he dealt with them, not by any right of ciuil office. For what had the Councel to doe, to decre that he should not doe that which the Magistrate had lawfully laid vpon him: he owght to ha­ue sowght the releas of that, at the Magistrates hād, and not at the Councels. likewise, in that he obteineth of the peop­le, that these matters should be turned from him, vpon Era­dius, and that in an ecclesiastical assembly, where they met for chusing of one to succede Augustin in the Bishoprik: it is manifest, that it was no ciuil office. Last of al, it is to be ob­serued, that in boeth these places, Augustin complaineth of these matters as of hinderances vnto his Ministery, as thin­ges which did more let the cours of yt, then if he had vuro­vught euery day vuith his handes in some occupation: that he seeketh to be deliuered from them at the Councels and at the peoples handes: whereas our D. saith, that they are not o­nely no hinderances, but necessary helpes to doe the Ministery with, and not onely seeketh not, that the Bishops may be discharged, but maketh cordes, to binde these offices streighter to thē. I haue reported the truth, the Bishops wordes are owt of Cle­ment,Diuis. 15. p. 772. that it is not lavuful for a Bishop to deal vuith boeth a In the defence of the Apolog. 5. part chap. 4. Diuis. 2. cap. 3. diuis. 7. Diuis. 16 p. 773. svuordes: likewise that he ovught to be remoued that vuil supply the place boeth of a ciuil Magistrate, and of an eccle­siastical person. These wordes doe not onely cōdemn the pulling the sword owt of Princes hādes, but al vse of it in eccles. ꝑsons.

I pray god, that the custome of shameful denials, doe not so harden your forhead: that no point of truth how sharp soeuer, can perce it. Howbeit I trust, whatsoeuer yt please yow to say, it is manifest to al that doe not wil­linglie close their eyes against the truth: that the scrip­ture [Page 28] teacheth that Ministers, owght not to medle with ciuil offices. That which yow ad owt of Deut. 17, maketh nothing for yow: for, they are there biddē to resort vnto the Priest, as to the Interpreter of the law, when the question was difficult, and they knew not what to doe. which is ma­nifest, in that he distinguisheth there the Priest, from the Iudges: so that in such appeales, he placeth the Priests and Leuites office, in teaching what is the wil of god, and the Iudgis office in giuing sentence accordingly: as appeareth yet more plainly in the same vers. 11. chapter.

The same is to be answered, to that alledged owt of Nom­bers 27. In which matter that the Priest was present, and cal­led to consultation for the difficulty thereof, to know what was the wil of god in that behalf, it is manifest, in that he being not able to resolue of the matter, Moses vers. 5. was fayn to bring it to the lord: To let pas, that it was not Aharon which was taken into that consultation, but Eleazar: onles yow wil haue Aharon decide controuersies, after his death.

The example of Melchisedec boeth king and Priest, is more ab­surdly alledged, then the other: not onely because he was before the law, when this order of separating the priesthoodPsal. 110. Heb. 5. from the ciuil gouernment, was not yet established, but because he had them boeth, that he might be a figure of our Sauiour Christ: as the Apostle and Prophet doe declare. Yow might much better haue alledged Abraham, which was boeth a Priest, a Prophet, and a noble warrior: which notwithstanding, yourself doe not permit vnto the Bishop.

As for the appeal, which Constantine graunted, from the ciuil Ma­gistrate vnto the Bishops, likewise Theodostus and Carolus graunt that men might chuse the Bishops Iudges of their controuersies, if either party would: they were the wrestes, wherwith the Princes scepters were wrung owt of their handes, and (as I haue before she­wed owt of M. Caluin) al syncerity ovut of the churches. yea vpon that very graunt of Constantin, it is noted in theIacobus Grinzus. margent, that it is repugnant boeth to the doctrine, and example of S. Paul. And in deed by the first of these decre­es, the Bishops ciuil autoritie, is made equal with the Em­perours. [Page 29] And by the other, it is at the pleasure of the peop­le, whether al the ciuil Magistrates shal be Idoles or no, ha­uing the bare name of the Magistrate, withowt doeing any duty. For, if ether of the parties, be affected towardes the Bishops iudgment: the Magistrates may goe lay them do­wn to sleep. Nether doeth it folow, that because the Empe­rours gaue such liberty, or licentiousnes rather, vnto the church, or because some Bishops vsed it: that therfore, the practise of the church was such. For I haue shewed, that the godly Counceles forbad it: and that the godly fathers vtterly misliked of it. And as I haue alledged some, so it is not hard to alledg Tertul de leiunio. Ier. in Soph 1. cap. Chrysost. 3. honul. in Act. others, to the same effect.

In his example of Dorotheus, his translation is fauty. For in steed of [...] which signifieth a ciuil honour, he hath turned it priesthood: as if it had bene [...]. the office also which Eusebius noteth he had, was to ouersee the purple dyes in Tyre: an office to aduance the Ministery (I think) in the D. own iudgment, very vnfit. His examples of Philaeas and Epiphanius, serue not his turn. For nether is it said, whether they medled with ciuil affaires before their bishoprik, or in yt: and if it were, considering there is no approbation of their doeing, but onely a bare telling that such a thing they did, it can not help him. For it is one thing to say, they were commended for dexterity in such matters: and another to say, that they did it in dutie, and wel. euen as if the ciuil offi­cer, taking the pulpit, and speaking fitly of a text, a man might giue him the commendation of dexteritie in hand­ling the text, and withal, condemn him for doeing it with­owtpag. 341. calling. Hether perteineth that which he alledgeth in a­nother place, of Letoius a Bishop which burned Monasteries: but by what autority, appeareth not, beside that his act seemeth o­therwise to haue no ground. For if it had any good issw, it was more by hap then by good konning. The like and vponTheod. lib. 5. cap. 39. like zeal was doen by one Audas a Persian Bishop, that burnt an Idoles Temple, which act gaue occasion of greuo­us persecution: whereby may appear, that Bishops went so­me tyme beyond their limites, and did thinges permitted vnto them, nether of god, nor man.

Of our age he citeth witnesses M. Cranmer, Ridly, Hoper, and in another place Brentius. for Brentius, seing he hath no reason,pag. 64. let him haue that credit, which so smale a friend of sincerity deserueth, especially against the consent, of so many better then he: for the other, he maketh it not to appear, that they were of that iudgment. And of M. Hooper, it is manifest thatvpon the eight com­mandemēt he did flatly condemn it: which sheweth that the Bishops for the space of 400 yeares after the Apostles, althovugh they vuere more able thē ours, did meddle vuith no ciuil af­faires. where he sharply taūteth our Bishop which meddleth with boeth offices, when one is more then he is able, vuith al his diligence, to discharge, and impossible that he should doe boeth: and that if the Magistrate vuil employ a Bis­hop in ciuil affaires, he ovught to discharge him of his Mi­nistery. Yf M. Cranmer and Ridley did exercise boeth, that is to be ascribed to the tyme: wherein the Sun of the gospel, be­ing but lately risen in our climate, al the cloudes which po­pery had ouercast our land with, could not be so quikly put to flight.

Seing therefore the Ministers office, is onely in thinges that pertayn to god, which for a degree of excellency that they haue in promoting our saluation, more then other, the holy gost opposeth vnto the Princes, and common wealth affaires: seing also it is of greater weight, then the strongest bak can bear, of wider compas, then the largest handes can faddam: a soldiarfare that wil be onely attended vpon: se­ing also it tendeth to the destruction of the body, when one membre encrocheth vpon the office of another: and that the ciuil Magistrate may by the same right invade the offi­ce of the Minister, as he the office of the ciuil Magistrate: se­ing further our Sauiour Christ, hauing the spirit withowt measure, refused as a thing vnmete for his ministery, the of­fice of a Iudg: seing also the Apostles indued with such glo­rious giftes, as are not now to be looked for, gaue ouer the office of the Deaconship, as that which they were not, with [Page 31] the Ministery of the word, able to exercise: and seing for the burden thereof, it was easier then the ciuil charge, which the Bishops take vpō them, and for the kinde of Ministery mo­re agreable: seing also the examples in the Scripture, of thē which haue born boeth the charges, are ether before this order was established of god, or being sithens, were extra­ordinary: last of al, seing this mingling of the estates is con­trary to the practise of the elder church vttered boeth in Councels, and fathers, contrary also to the practise and iud­gment of the godly learnedest of our tyme: I conclude, that it is vnlawful in an established estate of the church, that a Minister of the church should bear ciuil office. And thus much against the Ministers, which haue one foot in the church, and an other in the common wealth. Now to the treatise of the Eldership, for the cau­se In the be­ginning of this tract [...] te. before assigned.

THat which ^a Tully saith of an Oratour fulChap. 1. Diuis. 1. a In philip. of Antony. of wordes, that he would make owtcries, to get an appetite to drink: may be feared somewhat otherwise in the D. who giueth suspition, that he hath forced his pen to write, not to get, but to quench (if it might be) the thirst of honour. And verely if this order of Eldership, had not strenght to stand by our defen­ce: yet the vertw of it might easely appear, in that yt so ama­zeth, and astonieth the aduersary, as if he had bene stricken with a thunderbolt from heauen: so that beside a multitude of wordes, wherwith by oppressing the reader, he might make some shew of answer, there wil be litle found, that can of right chalendg a reply. Howbeit, to honor him with so­me answer, leauing his disordered handling which I noted: aswel for that his defence is fond, as for that this is not the place to diduct that matter, let vs see, what he bringeth in this cause.

Against that I alledged owt of the Apostle, The Elders 1. Tim. 5. 17 vuhich rule vuel, are vuorthy dubble honor, especially vu­hich labor in the vuord and doctrine, to proue that there were Elders, which assisted the teaching Ministers, onely in the gouernment of the church: he answereth first, that the word, Elder, is the same commonly with Bishop or Pastor: wherein partly he confuteth him self. For, if it be but commonly so ta­ken, and not alwaies: then it may be taken otherwise in this place. His first example likewise out of Peter 1. 5. is plain a­gainst him: for thereby appeareth, that Peter an Apostel, and no Bishop, is called Elder. nether is there any word in [Page 33] that place, wherby the exhortation to the Elders should not be applied, as wel to the Elders which gouerned onely, as to those which labored in the word also: considering that the word of feeding, respecteth not onely preaching, but that gouernment also which is with owt preaching: in which respect boeth in scripture, and otherwise, the ciuil Magistra­te is said to feed: And it is to great an ouersight, to think that because al Bishops be Elders, therefore al Elders are Bishops: w­hen as the name of Elder is common vnto al, which haue gouernment of the church, and most properly agreeth to those, which haue the gouernment onely, withowt further charge of teaching. And the name is taken, of the vsage vn­der the law: where they which had onely gouernment ether in church or common wealth, were so called.

Secondly he saith, that by those that gouerned, and la­bored not in the word: are vnderstanded, those, which ministred the sacramentes. where to let pas that which hath, and shal be af­ter (god willing) shewed, that the same owght to be Mini­sters of the word and Sacramentes: I would know of him, w­hich hangeth so of the interpretation of men, why he hath here departed from the iudgment of the learned and godly writers of our age, and forged an interpretation, which hath no approbation of any auncienty. For, as for that he saith of Chrysostome, beside that yt is vntrw: if he had neuer so smale a sound that way, he would haue rong it so deep, that withal he would haue turned Chrysostomes clapper. But obserue, how vnproperly he maketh the Apostle to speak, in giuing the name of gouernment vnto that, wherein there is no go­uernment at al. For is yt not (think yow) a strong kinde of gouernment, and needeth it not a great gift of discretion and iudgment, to powr a litle water vpon the childes head, distribute a lofe of bread, cary the cup, and say, or read a sen­tence, al, as he is praescribed? when the Apostle, no where gi­ueth this title of gouernment vnto the Deacons, in whom notwithstanding is required no common discretion, to know to whome, and how much is to be giuen: how much les would he giue it to such, as haue the onely, and bare ad­ministration of the Sacramentes.

How should also S. Paul be made to agree with him self, which went the neerest way to work, to ease the churches of charges: if he should haue brought into yt, such vnprofita­ble burdens as is this order of Ministers of Sacramentes, w­hich the D. imagineth, especially seing a Pastor was need­ful in euery church, who being praesent at the Sacramentes, might as commodiously Minister them, as be a receiuer o­nely. His reason, that the Apostle would otherwise haue said, w­hich labored in the word and Sacramentes, is weak: not onely be­cause it is vsual vnto the scripture, by the cheif part to no­te the whole, but also, for that the Sacramentes are contey­ned vnder the word, and are a visible word, in which re­spect they are also said to haue a voice. Nether doeth he he­rea Exod 4. vers. 8. make mention of praying, another of the Bishops Act. 6. 4. duti­es: so that by your answer, we should haue an other order in the church, of Sayers of prayers. Alike vayn it is, that S. Paul was not sent to baptiz, but to preach, when he was called to bo­eth, althowgh rather to the one, thē to the other, as your self some where haue confessed. As for that yow would con­clude, that Pastors haue no more bond to baptiz in their churches, then S. Paud had, yow might aswel haue concluded, that al Pastors are Apostels: considering, that he speaketh that in respect of his Apostleship, whereby he was bound to goe from place to place, and not to tary (as the pastor) in o­ne place.

The titles of Christes Vicares, and of gods Prelates, doe boeth a­gree vnto the Elders, which onely gouern. And althowgh nether Ambrose nor Caluin make any mention of this Eldership vpon [...]. Timoth. 5. 19. yet how foloweth it, that they ment no such Eldership in the place which I Tim. 5. 17 alledged, this is but a stra­unge conclusion. M Caluins place also Institut. chap. 8. sect. 72, is shamefully abused: for he saith, that those vuhich teached vuere Elders. And where as the rule of the action, when the Eldership met, apperteyned vnto the Ministers of the word: that they chose amongest them, one which gouer­ned the action. Now in steed that M. Caluin saith, that al the Ministers of the vuord, vuere called Elders: [Page 35] [...]he An. maketh him to say, that al the Elders of the church, we­re Ministers of the word. where Caluin in the self same chapter doeth expresly make two kinde of Elders: one of those vu­hich Ministred the vuord, another of those vuhich vuere onely Censores of the maners of the church. This Ierome is (if I haue not taken my note amis) a bastard: and yet he hath nothing for him. For in that he saith that there was and order, which had the word, but labored not: he is as fauorable vnto this Eldership, as vnto his order of sacramēt Ministers. The next diuision hath nothing, but that which cometh after­ward to be handled.

Against the place, that Act. 14. 23 Paul and Barnabas ordei­ned Diuis 3 p [...]. 628. Elders by voices in euery church, first he excepteth, that the plentith of preachers then was such, that euery congregation where Paul and Barnabas had to doe, might haue moe then one: w­hich is said withowt ether profe, or likelihood. the vntru­th wherof may easely appear, in that to the great cities, w­here there was greatest store: S. Paul was fain to send Ti­mothy and Titus for supplies, which otherwise he co­uld so hardly spare. Then he saith, to ordeyn Elders throw­gh euery church, is to ordein one Pastor in euery one, which is no pla­in, but a figuratiue speach, and that doubly: boeth in that the general name of Elder, is put for the particular, and in that the plural number is put for the singular. Therfore vn­les he can work it owt with good reasons, to proue that the gouerning Elders, can not here be vnderstanded: the simple and plain sens, is to be praeferred. As for the pla­ce of Titus, it helpeth him not. For the Apostel referring Ti­tus to that order, which he had prescribed him: con­tenteth hym self, to pursu the office of the teaching El­der, vpon occasion of fals teachers, which trobled the church.

For that owt of Caluin and Brentius, it may be said, that alt­howgh S. Luke cal them Elders, which were Bishops: yet he calleth them not so onely. And of M. Caluin, it must needes [Page 36] be so vnderstanded: seing he auoucheth the place of Titus,Instit. 4. book 3. chap. sect. 8. which the An. confesseth al one with the 14 actes, for the e­stablishment of these gouerning Elders. But if the D. had read M. Nowels catechism, so diligently as he would seem:a pag. 155. this would not haue bene so straunge to him. For where he sheweth, that the Pastor owght not to excommunicate wi­thowt the iudgment of the church, and declareth that for that purpose there were in the wel ordered churches cer­teyn Seniors chosen, and ioyned with the Pastor: he quo­teth this very place, which the admonition doeth. And I see not why, it may not be as wel referred to the Elders, as to the Bishops: Seing S. Luke there setteth forth, how they set a ful order in the church. And of that iudgment, is the greekOecumeni­us in 14. ctcto. Scholiast, which affirmeth that those vuhich folovued S. Paul and Barnabas, vuere vuorthy to be Bishops: and that they created of them Elders and Deacons also. In the next diuision, if the D. first answer be onely considered, he might iustly complain of me: but when he by and by, reasoneth a­gainst the admonition, for that yt would proue Seniors owt of that place of 14 Actes, al see that I haue doen him no wrong.

To proue further, that boeth Pastors, and Elders whichDiuis. 5. p. 630. onely gouern, can not be vnderstanded in that place of the Actes: he assigneth this reason, for that the holy gost should vse equiuocati­ons, or speak dowtfully: then which, there can be nothing more vnsauery. For it is a great ouersight, that he can not put a difference, betwene a word that is general, and hath diuers formes vnder yt (of which sort this word Elder is) and bet­wene that which hath diuers significations. Rather I may say, that for so much as S. Luke did not vse, the particular word of Bishop, but the word Elder, which conteineth bo­eth Bishop, and other Elders: that his meaning was, not that the Bishops onely should be meant. And suerly, when as the word Elder, doeth so agree to Bishops, that it doeth much more properly (as hath bene shewed) agree to the Se­niors: it were hard to vnderstand Bishops, and shut owt Se­niors, to whom that name doeth most properly pertayn: e­specially there being no circumstance in that place, where­by [Page 37] that should be of necessity tyed to the Pastor onely. Be­side that those which haue knowledg in the hebrue tong, know that the scripture vseth some tymes Iudg. 10. 4 Iudg. 15. 16. equiuocations, and yet nothing therby derogated from the simplicity thereof: but (as it is Aben Esra vpon Gen. obserued) maketh sometyme to the elegancy, and orna­ment of the speach.

That the place to the 1. Cor. 12. 28. Corinth. can not be vnderstan­dedDiuis. 6. & 7. pag. 631. of ciuil Magistrates, as the An. and Dorman. 2. Tom. fol. 45. Papistes would haue it, and therfore that yt owght to be vnderstood of eccle­siastical officers, I haue In the former part of this booK pag. 418. shewed: whereof also there is the same reason, in the place to the Rom. 12. 8. Romanes. Nether can that owt of M. Gualter, maintein any such opinion: seing it was not lawful for the church, to appoint any ordinary Magi­strate, to hear ciuil causes: nether needed any ether goe to them for iudgment, or stand vnto the iudgment giuen, fur­ther then the parties listed, therfore that could not be any gouernment, which was withowt autority. How true it is, that learned men expound the word gouernmentes, of ciuil and ecclesia­stical, at the least to the D. knowledg: the reader may therby know, that Gualter which he chose to speak for them al, do­eth not affirm it. For in that he saith, there is now no need of them seing there is a Christian Magistrate: he manifestly opposeth them to a Christian Magistrate. Althowgh M. Gualters autority, may not be receiued in this question of discipline. For besi­de that his hand, is herein against the learned boeth ould, and nue which I haue ether red or heard of, also against the practise approued in the churches of al ages, and amongest them against the practise also, vsed in ours: it shal appear, that the reasons drawen from him, are altogither insuf­ficient.

Then he saith, that by that word Gouernours, the Pastors may be vnderstanded, because hauing spoken of the Doctor before, he mentio­ned not the Pastor: which is absurd, boeth because it should be a meruailous confusion, to haue caried the Pastor so far from his fellowes, which are the Ministers of the word, and reckened vp in the beginning: and for that, the Pastor is not seuered from the Doctor in gouerning, but onely in the [Page 38] kinde of teaching. whereas he, by his answer, shutteth owt the Doctor from the gouernment of the church. Beside that howsoeuer I doe make a Pastor, and a Doctor, diuers: yet for as much as him self, maketh them al one, S. Paul placing the Doctor before, he owght to haue bene ashamed to say that S. Paul may mean this of the Pastor. That he addeth, that the pla­ce being doutful, it can not serue to establish the Seniors, is daungerous­ly spoken, and smelleth of popery: as if the scripture should lose her autority, because men agree not of the vnderstan­ding of it. Althowgh (I suppose) there are few places of scri­pture, wherein thinges are spoken of, so shortly: that haue so ful consent of learned interpreters of our tyme, as this place hath, for that signification of Seniors, which we vse it for. And in deed, when the Apostle maketh it a distinct offi­ce, from the Ministers of the word, which notwithstanding haue the gouernment of the church: it must needes be an office occupied in gouernment alone, otherwise it should not be seuered, from their office.

The same reason, is of the place to the Romanes: aga­instRom. 12. which, that which the D. bringeth owt of Caluin, is no­thing worth. For althowgh the precept of bearing rule in diligence, may by proportion, be caried to al Magistrates, yea and to al craftes men, ouer their Apprentises: yet the wordes of the Apostle, are neuertheles vnderstood pro­perly of the Elders in question, as M. Caluin declareth bo­eth there, and Instit. 4. booK 1 [...]. ch­ap. 1. sect. other where. Likewise are M. Martyr &c. Bucer, idly cited of him. For seing they boeth agree, that these Elders are comprehended in that word: what ether hurteth it vs, or helpeth yt him, that other beside them are vnder­standed.

Yf they preached some tyme, that was not by vertw of this office: and the place of Timothy alledged of M Beza, doeth not proue it. Nether owght the An. to haue alledged that inter­pretation, against this cause: seing him self doeth therin differ from M. Beza, as wel as I, which by presidentes in the vuord, hath before expounded the Bishop, as it is in deed and [Page 39] not as M. Beza, for a kinde of Elder, differing boeth from the Pastor, and Doctor. But the An. is like that fellow that would haue boeth his eies put owt, that his neigbour might le­se one. For to the end he may doe some scare to the truth, he bringeth euē that which is the ouerthrow of his cause: name­ly M. Bezas iudgmēt of an Eldership gouerning, beside the Ministers of the word, that is beside boeth Pastor and Doct­or. And of this trweth which we maintein out of this place vnto Timothe, emongest others, we haue M. in lib. de rat. can. ex­amin. Bucers mo­ste plain and moste ful testimony: which vpon this senten­ce of S. Paul, flatly confirmeth that there were tvuo kinde of Elders: one, vuhich together vuith the discipline, had the charge of the vuord and Sacraments, and another, vuhich had charge of the discipline onely. I confes there was some faut here, in ascribing wordes vnto him, which he hath not: but it was an ouersight onely, not as he maketh yt, with min­de to forge.

Here the An. repenteth him of his good deedes. For whe­reDiuis. 8. p. 633. he had accorded before, that there were such Elders, as a­re in questiō: now he saith, he ment them of Seniors, which be Mini­sters. wherevpō it foloweth, that it is not meet that there sh­ould be any Ministers at this tyme. For of the same Elders, which he graunted to haue bene in tymes past: he affirmeth, it incōuenient that they should be now. And if he say (as he hath sa­id) that they were onely Ministers of Sacramētes, first he gi­ueth his reading Ministers the wipe, which by this iudgmēt of his, are clean cut of, as vtterly inconuenient for this tyme. Aga­in, he affirmeth that the Seniors in tymes past, were such as exercised the iurisdiction, which the Magistrate doeth now: in that he saith, that they can not now be withowt iniurie of the Ma­gistrate. whereas if this office were, ether a Ministery of the word, or Sacramentes, it could not towch the office of the Magistrate: so that throwgh the nawghtines of this cause, in his whole cours of answer, he doeth nothing, but as it we­re paue his way, with snares to entrap him self. And for ans­wer to him, this may be more then sufficient.

Howbeit for the readers sake, althowgh this Eldership is manifest in it self, of the wordes of the holy scripture: yet the same shal receiue some confirmation of the practise of the churches after, which kept this order boeth in persecu­tion and peace. This I wil doe, if I first in a word, note how this order of Eldership, was taken from the gouernment of the people of god, before and vnder the law. yt is therfore to be obserued, that so sone as there is made mention, of a­ny fixed form of church, which standing of diuers housho­uldes, were deuided into particular assemblies: so soon is made mention, of this office of Elders. For Moses to let theExo. 4. 29. churches, and assemblies of the Israelites to vnderstand hys Embassage from god: assembled the Elders. which, that they were ecclesiastical officers, thereby may appear: for that vnder such a Tyrant, and such oppression as the Israe­lites were in, it is altogither vnlike, that they had the bene­fite of Magistrates of their own. And if a man would say, that those Elders were the Taskmasters, which Pharao had set ouer the Israelites: beside diuers vnlikelihoodes there­of, it is flatly confuted, in that after the Israelites departure owt of Aegypt, before any nue creation of officers, this or­der of Elders is spoken of, and as church officers, Exo. 17. 5. taken to the administration of church matters.

Another example hereof is, 2. Reg. ch­ap. 6. 32. where Elizeus is said to ha­ue had the Elders in his hows, to consult with: what tyme the king of Israel, sent a messenger to take of his head. The like is said, of other Ierem. 19. cap. 1. Ezech. 8. 1. Prophetes: which in that state they we­re in, were vtterly vnlike to haue the ciuil gouernours to consult with. Likewise in Nehemia, there are mētioned cer­teyn,Nehem. 8. 5. which as they are distinguished from the people, in that they are reckened as assistantes vnto Esra, boeth on the right, and left hand: so be they also distinguished, from the teaching Leuites, in that the Prophet, after he had spo­ken of these, speaketh of that sort of Leuites, which had thevers. 8. 10. teaching of the people. This is also strenghtned, by that the nue testament speaking of the ecclesiastical officers amon­gest the Iues, ioyneth with the Scribes (which I haue In the former part of this booK pag. 443. she­wed to note those, that had the handling of the word) [Page 41] the elders: which should haue bene withowt reason, if therea Actes 4. 5 & 6. 12. etc. Act 5. 21. b pag. 304. had not bene a kinde of Elders, which had not the handling of the word. wherby it may appear, that it is wntrue, which the An. gathereth owt of Caluins wordes: that these Elders should haue their beginning, after the Iues return owt of the captiuity: whereas he onely affirmeth, that there was a bench or (as some term it) a Consistorye of ecclesiastical offices appointed, after their rerurn: but saith not (as he pretendeth) that they were then first of al appointed. Nether can M. Caluins wordes, be dra­wen to that sens. For, if by these wordes of his (the Sane­drim vuere appointed after the Iues return) should be vn­derstood, that they were then first created, and not rather, that they were then restored: yt must folow, that the Priestes and other leuitical teachers, which were a portiō of that bench, had then their first institution. which sentence so absurd, and so ful of ignorance of the state of the church: no man which hath a spark of equity, can ascribe vnto M. Caluin. Althowgh if it were so, as he pretendeth, that these Elders did then begin: yet, that helpeth him nothing at al. For it should not haue therefore, the les autority: considering that it we­re to be estemed, that they toke it not vp of their own head, but by the autority of the Prophetes of god, which liued then, and directed the stern of that gouernment. And he­rein (howsoeuer the An. misconstrueth him) M. Caluin isvpō the 18. of S. mathe­uu. flat: that this estate was lavuful, and approued of god.

Hauing thus spoken, of this order of Elders, in the Apo­stles tymes, and before: I wil now return to that I promised, of the practise of the churches after the Apostles tymes, to see if this order of Elders can finde any more fauour of thē, then of the Answerer. Amongest which, that of Tertullian, Tertu. Apo­log. chap. 39. before alledged of me, is most clear. Nether can the D. esca­pe with this, that the colledg was likely to be of Ministers of the word &c. considering that it is vncredible, that al the chur­ches, whose defence Tertullian taketh vpon him, and who­se vsage he describeth, had such a colledg. Then, that of Cy­prian commeth to be considered, which noteth a peece of [Page 42] the office of these Elders, Cyp. 4. booK. Epist. 5. by deuiding the communion bread into equal portions and carying it (for the assistance of the Bishop) in litle baskets or trayes: where by placing th­eir office in this assisting the Minister, he doeth manifestly shut them owt from the ministring of the Sacrament: espe­cially seing Cyprian in that place, noteth the honor of that office, to consist in that they had by reason of it, acces to th­is assistance of the Pastor, in so great mysteries. which sho­uld haue bene fondly put, if they might also by vertue of that office, them selues haue ministred the Sacramentes, as wel as the Bishop: whereof also it cometh, that in another 1. booK ep [...]. 9. Spor­tulātes fra­tres. Possid [...] [...]s in the li­fe of Augu­stin. place, he calleth them brethren, vuhich had care of the basket.

But towching the vse of the Affricane churches, vntil Au­gustins tyme, that one testimony is more then sufficient: w­herby is affirmed, that Valerius Bishop of Hippo, did con­trary to the custome of the Africane church, in that he com­mitted the office of teaching vnto Augustin, which was an Elder of that church, and that he was checked therfore of the Bishops: checked (I say) nothwithstanding that Valerius is there declared, to haue doen it for support of his infirmi­ty, because him self was not so apt to preach. And howsoeuer Possidonius, alow of Valerius fact: yet boeth the cōtinuan­ce of that order by the space of 400 yeares, and the iudgmēt of other Bishops round abowt, is withowt comparison of more weight: especially, when it appeareth by Possidonius writinges, that (being a good simple man) he was nether of great learning, nor deep iudgment. where also, it is to be ob­serued, that as the discipline was best kept in those churches of Afrik: so the doctrine remayned purest in them: As may appear not onely by the Councels of Carthage, compared with other councels of that tyme, but also by Augustins wri­tinges, compared with Ieromes, and other Doctors boeth greek and latin, in the same age.

In other churches, where this discipline was not so di­ligently looked vnto: there are notwithstanding mar­kes, [Page 43] wherby we may know, that they went owt of the way. As at Alexandria, where, althowgh the Elders did teach: yet after Arrius was convicted of heresie, it was decre­ed, that the Elders should no more teach. by whichSocrat. 5. booK chap. 22. decree, they did, as it were, couertly confes: that they had receiued the reward of breaking the order of god, in permitting that the Elder, should teache in the church. For if it had bene of the institution of an Elder, to pre­ach: Nether Arrius, nor ten thowsand moe suche heretik Elders, owght to haue giuen cause of such a decree: seing the institution of the lord owght not to be broken, for a­ny abuse of men. Ierome (I graunt) somewhere doeth re­prehendAd Nepoti­an. this, and some learned of our tyme after him, ha­ue estemed the decree of Alexandria fauty herein. But that being considered, which I haue alledged, there is no cau­se to condemn that decree, whether it were of the Nicen councel, or of Athanasius and the Eldership of Alexan­dria. And what if Ierome him self, althowgh an Elder of Rome, giue testimony vnto this cause: that is to say, that yt belongeth not vnto an Elder of the church, to minister the word, or Sacramentes? Let his wordes be weighed, w­herby he confesseth playnly, that nether Elder nor Dea­con Ierom cōtr [...] Lucifer. had right, but vpon the Bishops commandement, so much as to baptiz: vuhich notvuithstanding (saith he) is licenced euen to laymen in tyme of necessity. Vnhe­reunto also, refer that, which Tertullian writeth, that it be­longed vnto the Bishop onely to baptiz: and that the El­derTertul. lib. de Baptis. and Deacon could not baptiz, but vpon the Bishops li­cence.

Now, if the Elders had no right to preach &c. by reason of their office, or as incident into yt, if the Bishop onely had right, and the other but by indulgence, or commande­ment: thus far we haue boeth Tertul. and Ierome agreeing with vs, that by the word of god and his institution, the El­der hath not to doe with the word and Sacramentes. And the same autors we haue also, flatly contrary to the D. [Page 44] which houldeth (as appeareth by the discours of his book) that al Elders and Deacons of the church, althowgh not in gouernment, yet towching the ministery of the word and sacramentes, are equal, and ha­ue as much autority, as the Bishop him self. This difference onely remaineth, betwene Ierome and vs, whether this being not of gods institution, that an Elder may preach, or Minister the sacramentes: it be lawful for any man, to giue licence therof. which bouldnes of remouing and changing the bo­undes, which the lord, in the tarriers of his word hath limi­ted: boeth is before, and shal afterward (god willing) be fur­ther handled.

Last of al, for proof of these church Elders, which being occupied in the gouernment, had nothing to doe with the word: the testimonie of Ambrose alledged in my former book, is so clear and open, that he which doeth not giue place vnto yt, must needes be thowght as a bat, or an owl, or some other night bird, to delight in darknes. His saying is, that the Elders fel avuay by the ambition of the Doctors: Ambros. in 2. Timot. 5. where by opposing the Elders to Doctors, which tawght, he plainely declareth that they had not to doe with the word. whervpon it is manifest, that boeth yt was the vse in the best reformed churches, certein hundreth yeares after the ty­mes of the Apostles, to haue an Eldership which medled not with the word, nor administration of Sacramentes: and that they which wanted it, partly complayned of the want, partly declining from this institution of god, corrected their error, at the least, they kept this difference, that whe­reas the Bishop preached and ministred the Sacramentes, in right of his office: the Elder did it not as a thing inci­dent to his office, but onely vpon indulgence of the Bis­hop.

Another point wherin the D. turneth his tong is, that where he confessed before, that there was in euery church Seni­ors: now he saith, in some onely. And to salue this contradicti­on, with him self: he saith by euery church, he ment, euery cheif city. Thus yow speak, but by what rule, and according to whose language, when yow expound euery church, euery cheif citie? as if [Page 45] their were no churches, but in cheif cityes. But thus must al their tonges be deuided, which put them forth against the truth. Howbeit to come to that point, by what reason can yow shew, that the Apostles instituted a seueral Ministery for cheif cities, which they did not for vplandish townes? what were this, but to bring in an inequality, amongest the churches: which your self otherwhere, confes owght not to be. Yt is (I graunt) meet for the furtherance of the gospel, that the cheifest cityes, when al can not be serued, should haue the first, the sufficientest, and (according to their need) the greater numbre: but, that they should haue a seueral Ministery ordeyned for them, into the felowship whereof, the smaler churches may not be admitted, is withowt reason.

Secondly, the gospel which conteyneth the doctrine and discipline, went not owt of Ierusalē, into the cheif cityes onely: but into al the world. Thirdly, it hath bene shewed, that the epistle of S. Paul to Timothy, wherein mention is made of the interteinment of these Elders: was not a rule prescribed to churches in great cities onely, but vnto al churches whe­rosoeuer. Further, seing the Elders are continually ioyned, with the Bishop: it being In the for­mer part. p. 514. shewed, that the lord ordeyned for euery congregation a Bishop, it must folow, that he or­deyned for euery congregation Elders. finally, for as much as the Apostles labored, to bring the churches one with an­other to an vniformity, euē in the smalest ceremonies: how can they be thowght, to haue made so vneuen work, in the Ministery of the church.

I let pas here the place in the Actes, before handled: w­hereAct. 14. it is said, that Elders vuere ordeyned in euery church. Likewise, the necessity of them, aswel in other churches, as in churches in the citie: which is after to be handled. Onely I wil note, what hath bene the practise of the churches, in this point: wherby may appear, how the auncient fathers haue vnderstood this order. That Ignatius, which the An.Ad Tralli. wil haue S. Iohns scholer affirmeth, that there is no church, [...]. vuhich can stand vuithovut her Eldership, or Counsail. [Page 46] This is manifest also by the Apologie of Tertullian, wherin he defending the gouernmēt of al the churches, not of tho­se onely in cityes, and shewing for that cause the order ob­serued in them: maketh precise mention of this Senate of Elders, as hath bene before alledged. The testimony of M. Bucer, is also manifest in this point: as it is alledged of me In the former part. p. [...]56. before. Likewise of M. vpon the [...]. to the Corinth. 12. chap. Martyr, who affirming that cer­teyn of the people, vuere ioyned vuith the Pastor in the go­uernment of the church: assigneth the cause, for that the Pastor could not doe al him self, thereby giuing to vnder­stand, that the Eldership was as general, as the Pastor. For he doeth not say, where the Pastor could not doe al, there he had assistance of an Eldership: but because the Pastor could not doe al &c.

The onely reason, which the An. hath against this, is: that there was not an Eldership amongest the Iues, in euery of their synaguoges. But (as his wont is) he doeth onely say so, proof he bringeth none. And as I for my part confes, that there cometh not to my minde, wherby I could precisely conclude yt owt of the ould Testament: So I am assured, that he is not able to proue, that which he saith. But that which the D. affirmeth p. 663. otherwhere, that it was onely at Ierusalem: is vtter­ly vntrue. For Iosaphat at one tyme, set in Iudges in euery v­ualled citye throvughovut the kingdome of Iuda: which of2. Chro. [...]9. 5. 8. 11. what sort they were, namely, in part ciuil, in part ecclesiasti­cal, appeareth by the Iudges placed in Ierusalē. And to thē men had recours to, in matters of greater difficulty, accor­ding to the causes: if ciuil, to the ciuil, if ecclesiastical, to the ecclesiastical, iudgment. where owght not to be forgotten, the nūbre of cities in one onely tribe (as it might be in york sheer) to the numbre of a hūdreth and twelue: least that theIosue ch. 15. reader, should measure the numbre of their cityes, with ou­rs. So that where the Answ. saith, that therewas but one Sena­te in al the twelue tribes: it is found that there were in one onely tribe, at the least, a hundreth ant twelue ecclesiastical Elderships. [Page 47] Vuhether it may be cōcluded owt of the nue Testament, that euery synagog of the Iues had this Eldership, considering that the pollicy of the church now, was in this point taken from the Iues ch­urch, I leau it to the reader to iudg, of that which I haue alle­dged. wherevnto aideth the custome of the Iues, vnto this day: which in euery of their synaguogues, haue their Elders: Likewise Ieromes testimony, of which it may be certeinly collected: that he estemed that the Iues had their Elders, in euery Synagog. For, he Ad Alg [...] ­siam quest. decim. sheweth that they chose of the vui­sest in their cōpany, for gouernours: vuhich should asvuel admonish those that had any corporal polution, to absteyn from the assemblies, as to reproue the breakers of the cere­monies of the Sabbat. now, seing ther was the same vse of these admonitions and reproofes as wel in vplandish syna­guoges, as in those which were plāted in the cities: it folow­eth necessarily, that there were Elders aswel for them, as for the other. At the least, the nue Testamēt in marking these Elde­rs,MarK. 5. 2 [...] Act. 13. 15. Act. 18. 8, 17. which it calleth cheif of the Synagog, in diuers quarters: doeth manifestly ouerthrow the D. which saith, that they were onely at Ierusalē. vpō al which matter, appeareth how extreme­ly bould yow are in your affirmatiōs: which beside these two before mētioned, say also, that the Eldership was not alwaies, no not in persecution. wherein, not to enter a nue field, for euery light word yow cast forth: what reason (I pray yow) cā yow assign, why sometimes there should be an Eldership vnder pecsecutiō, and other some tymes none: cōsidering that yow imagin this El­dership, to be in place of a Christian Magistrate. whereby, it must needes folow, that his seat being void in tyme of per­secution: it owght to be occupied by the Eldership, which yow fancy, to be his Lieftenāt. whether the D. pincheth theChap. 2. di­uis. 1. p. 633. churches, where, with a Christian Magistrate, the Eldership stil remayneth, which he here denieth: let the reader iudg of his former book, pag. 633. 639. 642. 656. 660. where he affirmeth yt iniurious to the Magistr­at, and ful of confusion, also that it can not, nor owght not to be as in the Apostles tymes &c.▪ yea let hym iudg of this diuision. For after that he graunteth to Princes, to commit their autority to the [Page 48] church if they list (then which there is nothing more vntrw) he addeth whether it be wel doen, I wil not determin. wherein I besech yow mark first, what contraries he speaketh. For he doeth determin precisely, that ciuil Magistrates may commit their ri­ght and autority to these Elders, if they wil: and yet, he wil not determin whether it be wel doen or no. wheras if he would not haue deter­mined, of the one, he should haue suspended his iudgment, of the other: for thus he assureth them, they may doe that, whereof he wil make them no assurance, that it is wel doen. Secondly, it is to be obserued, that where the question was of the Bishops receiuing of ciuil autority from the Prince, he maketh it not onely lawful, but conuenient, yea necessary that it should be deriued from the Prince to the Bishop: but he­re towardes the Eldership, he saith, yt can not be practised, witho­wt intollerable contentions and extreme confusion. So that the Bis­hop, Archdeacons, and Deanes, which with vs are the deep­est churchministers, may exercise (yf the Prince wil commit yt vnto them) euen the highest ciuil iurisdiction, and that to the singular advancement of the church: but these Elders, whose office in the church is not such, but that boeth they haue, and may folow some ciuil trade of lyfe, may not receiue that power of the Magistrate which he vntrwly affirmeth that they had in tyme of persecution, on les al, by and by, fal vpon heapes. In one and the same church, the Bishop, the Dean, the Archdeacon, and for a need, some of the Preben­daryes, may haue beside their ecclesiastical iurisdiction, ci­uil autority: but these Elders, althowgh they were but two in numbre, may in no wise vse any. This difference verely, riseth not in the breadth of shoulders, wherby they are able to cary al this, and the Elders none: but vpon the widenes of the throat, which as the graue, is neuer filled.

Thirdly, it is to be obserued, that the D. which for his o­wn profit, stretcheth the power of the Prince beyond al bo­undes: here, as yf he had to doe with a cheuerel scepter, dra­weth it in. For he giueth more liberty herein, vnto the Ma­gistrates of smal common wealthes: then vnto monarch­es. For to them, he seemeth sometime to leau yt at liberty, whether they wil communicate their autority vnto these [Page 49] Elders, or retayn it with them selues: but vnto kinges and Princes, he wil in no wise permit yt. Vuherein also, he is con­trary to him self: which in another place saith, pag. 764. that the offi­ce of the ciuil Magistrate, may be committed vnto whome soeuer it pleaseth hym best to like of. If that be true, and this iurisdiction of the Elders were (as he vntruly saith) belonging to the ciuil Ma­gistrate: why might not the Prince, commit yt vnto these Elders? as for his reason, that so euery parish should be a kingdo­me: Diuis. 12. p. 643. Diuis. 2. & 3. pag 634. yt cometh to be answered, in another place.

To that I alledged of the necessity of the Eldership, because the Pastor can not haue his ey, in euery corner of his parish &c. he answereth, an able Pastor, is able to doe al required of a Pastor, which is no answer at al. For that is not the questi­on, but this, whether he be able to doe, whatsoeuer church gouernment belongeth to the wealth of his church: which because he durst not affirm, or affirming it, had nothing to proue yt, he slipped away after this sort. And now that he vnderstandeth, that this reason is confirmed by M. Peter Martyr: I trust hereafter, he wil giue it some honester name, then my fancy.

To that I alledged, that if the Auncientes should not be vnder a Christian Magistrate, yt vuould folovu that the lord should haue les care of his church vnder a Christi­an, then vnder an vnchristian Magistrate: he answereth, that the Christian Magistrate is in place of the Eldership, but nether addeth reason him self, nor once towcheth the reason which I browght, namely that yt vuas neuer lavuful for the chur­ch in persecution, to appoint any that should enter vpon any part of the ciuil Magistrates office. This also could not be a sufficient recompence, in matters pertayning to the soul health, that for an Eldership in euery church, they should receiue one Prince in a whole countrey. For one Prince, can not in the spiritual gouernment of the realm bring that to pas, which the Eldership in euery church did before: althowgh he should doe nothing, but attend vpon [Page 50] that. So that to make the Magistrates to succede into the of­fice of the Elders, and therein to doe al the duties appoin­ted vnto the Eldership in tymes past: is to charge the Magi­strates with a thing vnpossible, and such as must needes kyl their consciences.

Thus, where the Christian magistrate is giuen of god, to kepe the order which god hath set in his church: yow bring him in as a breaker and changer of the order, which god ha­th appointed by his holy Apostles. But the godly Christian Magistrates may vnderstand, that as nether our Sauior Ch­rist, nor any wise and wel instructed mynistery vnder him, wil meddle with any order or form of common wealth law­fully instituted of them, for the better gouernment of their people, but leau them as they finde them: So they owght to leau whole and vntowched, that order which Christ hath placed in his church. And as the An. saith truly otherwhe­re, that Christ came not to ouerthrow ciuil gouernmentes: euen so it isp. 647. as true, that god sendeth not kinges to ouerthrow church gouernment, planted by Christ and his Apostles. Yea so much more absurd is this later, then the first: by how much they owght to haue more firmity, which were set by the lord him self, then which were by men. For what son of A­dam shal presume to alter that order, which the lord hym self from heauen hath set, And euen so doeth the Apost­le precisely speak of this office with others, that 1. Cor. 12. 28. god ha­th set it in the church. Yf it be said, that he set also Pro­phetes and workers of miracles, which are now no mo­re: it is true, they are now no more, but why are they not? Ys it, because any man hath remoued them? no verely, but because the lord him self, hath withdrawen them. For if the lord had giuen euen vnto these dayes, these gif­tes of healing and working of miracles &c. I think the­re is no man so extremely impudent, that would say, th­at the ciuile Magistrate might abolish or put them down. Beside that, it is vntrue which he saith p. 659. otherwhere, that this office is placed amongest those, which be temporal: for euen th­at [Page 51] next before yt, noteth the office of the Deacon, which is perpetual.

As for that he crieth owt and so oft repeateth, that, by this meanes, no more is giuen to the Christian Magistrate, then to the Turk, proceedeth onely of a famyn of reasons to answer, which driueth him to this vnrulynes: otherwise, he can not tel how the establishment of this office, should spoil the2. Cor. 1. 13. Prince of her autority. S. Paul professeth of him self, that he vurote the same, that men red, that is to say syncere­ly, not pretending one thing and meaning another: but al this ialousy, pretended for the Prince against the Elders­hip, is in deed for the Bishop. So that, albeit the name of the Magistrate be houlden owt, to draw this cause into ha­tered: yet the truth is, that yt is to establish their own tyran­ny. For as towching autority or preheminence, there is nothing giuen, to be doen by the Eldership ioyntly with the Pastor, in one onely congregation: al which, and mo­re to, the Bishop him self alone, doeth not vndertake to e­xecute in a whole diocese or prouince. Therfore, if the exercise of this spiritual iurisdiction in the Eldership, spoil the Magistrate of his autority: then the Bishops, are the ch­ief in this robbery.

Vuhere he asketh, how I shew owt of the scripture, that those are the duties of the Elders, which I haue assigned. I answer, that foras­much as S. Paul appointeth them gouernours of the chur­ch, togither with the teaching gouernours, placing the dif­ference1. Tim. 5. 17 onely in teaching, and consequently in publik prayer and administration of sacramentes, which are ioy­ned with yt, or comprehended vnder yt: that therfore, the rest, remain commō betwene them, to be doen as wel of th­ese, as of them.

That the place of S. Mathew, is not to be vnderstandedDiuis. 4. p. 636. Math. 18. onely of priuate offences: I haue In the former part. p 66. before declared. your inter­pretation of tel the church, that is publikly reproue those w­hich, admonished priuately, repent not: is euil nurtured, brea­king in withowt leau. where mark (good reader) how ea­sy it is for the D. to write answers, which being pressed [Page 52] giueth him self this liberty: that hauing no key to open the dore, breaketh it open after this sort. To interpret tel by re­proue, might haue some colour, by that the general is some tyme put for the special: but that tel the church, should be, reproue the offender, hath a disease, that al the tropes and figu­res which I haue red of, are not able to cure. And me thinck­eth, that yow which accuse others for making the scripture a nose of wax: if yow wil not put of your shoes, at the least yow sho­uld wipe them a litle cleaner, when yow enter into the lor­ds Sanctuary. That which foloweth, is not a whit better.

For, after he saith that, by the church may be ment one onely, so that he be in autority: which is not vnlike vnto that, which the papistes say, that a man may appeal from the Councel, vntoConcil. Tō. 4. Basilien­f. concil. the Pope. wherof, some of the papistes them selues (if he do­e not repent) shal sit in iudgment: which leauing vnto the Pope the highest place in the church, haue notwithstanding vpon this place, preferred the iudgment of the Councel, to the Popes. But where I require some example of this mon­struous speach, vuherby one is said to be many, one mem­bre a body, one alone a company: the D. is domb. where I shew further, that if one onely should be vnderstood by the church, that then the going from thre to one, should not ri­se but fal, not goe forvuard but bakvuard: he answereth, that to tel one which hath autority to correct the faut, is more then to tel twenty: as thowgh the complaint is made, to the end he should be corrected, and not that he should be admonish­ed. For as for correction, other then by wordes, it owght not to be awarded, onles he refuse to hear the church: so that he­re stil the proces is, from the admonition which is by many, to that which is by one. And if the Pastor be he, that doeth first priuately admonish him, and afterward take two moe: by his answer, the Pastor must from his own admonition in the presence of one or two moe, take the matter to him self, and admonish him self alone.

He hauing thus dalied with the holy scripture, after con­fesseth [Page 53] that by the word church, are vnderstood many: but those o­wt of Chrysostome are (saith he) Prelates and Presidētes: as thowgh S. Paul, did not also cal these Elders Presidentes, which is al o­ne1. Tim. 5. 17 with Prelates. Then he addeth, that the place is vnderstan­ded of the gouernment vnder the law, not of any rule which our Sauior Christ gaue, to gouern his church vnder the gospel: euen as where our S. Christ biddeth, to leau the gift before the Altar: which ouerthroweth his other interpretation. And again owt of Musculus, that it was but vnto the tyme of the Christian Magistrate: which ouerthrow­eth also this next before. But if this be ether the law gouer­nment, or the gospel gouernment onely, vntil the tyme of the Christian Magistrate: then to admonish priuately him that offendeth, to take one or two, if he rest not in the admonition, be also of the same sort. For our Sauior Christ put­teth them alike general, alike necessary, of like limitation of tyme: for he chayneth them one with another, by the lin­k of his commandement, that if this way profit not, then the second must folow, and the third after that.

Then also it foloweth, that the meanes to bring synners to repentance, serued onely for the tyme of the law, and vn­christian Magistrates. For after that our Sau. Christ, had ta­wght how the lord deliteth in the return of the synner, and in the fyneding of the lost shepe: he propoundeth this, as a principal mean, wherby he wil haue that browght to pas. But, let the D. shew, any light owt of the word of god, whe­reby it may appear, that certeyn of these commande­mentes are temporal, and certeyn perpetual, certeyn to serue for the tyme of the law, and an vnchristian Magistrate: if not, then the commandement of Christ remaineth, whe­rof nether he, nor none other can shew any countermande­ment. Beside that it is absurd, that it should be here decla­red, what order was vsed vnder the law, and not vnder the gospel: when our Sav. Christ instructeth his Apostles, how to behaue them selues in the church, and speaketh of themath. 18. 18▪ order, that should be in hys church, in tyme to come.

That also which he citeth owt of mathews, is flat against hym. For, althowgh our Sau. Christ vseth maner of speach­es, [Page 54] drawen from the seruice of god, which, then in vse, be not so now: yet the commandement he there giueth, vn­der that kinde of speach, is perpetual. And as, what soe­uer is abrogated of that precept Mathew 5, is abrogated by the prescript word of god, which teacheth vs, that of­fring of calues vpon the altar, and other ceremonial lawes are doen away: So, if he wil haue this ordinance of go­d abrogated, he must shew vs some place of Scripture, whe­re our Sau. Christ repealed yt. what we ascribe vnto the Christian Magistrate, shal appear afterward.

To the place of 1. Tim 6. [...]3. Timothe, requiring a necessary obser­uation Diuis. 5 p. 637 of thinges comprised in that Epistle: he answereth first, that these Elders are not there comprised, nor their office. I haue shewed, that boeth they and their office be there: which is the same with the Bishops, that onely excepted, which I haue In diuis. 3 of this cha­pter. before noted. Further in the word 1. Tim. 3. 8 Deacons (as yt is wel In the bo­oK of the discipline of England. obserued) the Apostle comprehendeth boeth the Elders, a­nd those which had the almes to dispose: which may appe­ar, in that, describing the qualities of the Deacons, he not­eth there no special qualitie, of him that hath the order of the church is treasure, but those qualities onely which are common as wel to the Elder, as to him that disposed the ch­urch money.

After, he saith that those wordes can not be extended, vnto al the preceptes, first because the office of widowes should be then necessary: But he doeth not consider, that S. Paul ordeyneth them not simply, but vpon condition. yf he had instituted the Elders­hip with condition, if he had ordeyned that office, rather for the mayntenance of the persons them selues, then for the seruice of the church, if he had left so smal choise of th­ose to this office, as to that, namely that none might be ch­osen but poor, none but destitute of al friendes, none vnder the age of lx yeares: then he had said somewhat. And euen now, the perpetuity of that commandement towching wi­dowes, remayneth in that sort it was giuen: that is vpon cō ­dition. Then he saith, that so, Ministers which haue such infirmities as Timothe, should of necessite drink wyne. By wine, the Apostle mea­neth, [Page 55] not onely the blood of the grape, but strong drink al­so, and what soeuer might be apt against Timothies infir­mityes: And so it is a playn commandement, not onely to Timothe, but to al ministers in his case, that they should v­se such remedies against their diseases, wherby they might be more able, to doe their Ministery. Nether is it les, a per­petual commandement, to al Ministers, because al coun­tryes haue not wyne: then the commandement of excom­munication, because al countreys haue not such Publica­nes, Math. 18. as were in Iury, to make their patern of excommunica­tion by.

Last of al, he bringeth Chrysostome and Caluin, which refer those wordes vnto Timothes office: which is to no purpo­se. For Timothe for his part (and in his place the Minister of the word) had to doe in al those offices, as wel to ordeyn, as to reprehend and punish them, if they did not their du­ty: so that, in commaunding Timothe to execute his du­tie, according to the tenure of that Epistle, he doeth playn­ly command the mayntenance of this office. whether the word, vuithovut spot, be referred vnto Timothe, or vnto the commandement, I leaue to the readers iudgment: So I doe the next diuision. In the next also, beside Musculus and Gualters iu­dgment, there is nothing sauing an extreme, ether forget­fulnes, or that which is wors: in saying that he remembreth not to haue red any autor, that maketh mention of this Eldership. For if he had neuer red the autors them selues: yet he co­uld hardly forget that owt of them: which In the en­de of the booK. I alledged to th­at purpose.

To the first reason, prouing that an Eldership is mo­re Diuis. 8. p. 640. needful novu, then in the Apostles tymes, for that the Pastors novu are not of that sufficiency to gouern al alo­ne, as they vuere then: he answereth, that there be not al­so so sufficient men to make an Eldership now, as there were then: w­hich serueth, aswel to proue that we should haue no Pa­stors at al, as that there should be no Eldership, to sup­port the Pastor. But how absurd is it, that because [Page 56] they can not giue so ful and plentiful assistance now, as the Elders in tymes past, therfore they must giue no asistance at al. So that oneles he wil say, that none of the parish can doe any thing in the gouernment of the church, but the Pastor alone: he must needes confes, that, that wchich may be, ow­ght to be for support of the Pastor. his other answer, is In this chap. diuis. 2. & 3. Diuis. 9. p. 641. be­fore confuted.

Secondly yt was alledged, that S. Paul, so loeth to lay any vnnecessary charge, vpon the church: yet enioyned this ministery vnto the poor and persecuted churches. The strēght of which reason lyeth in this, that some contributiō vuas necessary to their mayntenance then: vuhere as no­vu in tyme of peace, this ministery, may be vuithovut al charges vnto the church. To thys, in sted of answer, he frameth other argumentes of his own, wherewith he dalie­th, skowreth vp his ould stuf of widowes, and the ciuil Magistrate, before answered, alledgeth the pouerty of some parishes, the vn­willingnes of other some to contribute: which is a meer trif­ling. For seing, the pouerty of the churches could not exe­mpt them from this charge, when they were much poorer [...]. Tim. 5., as appeareth by S. Paul, seing also yt may be now withowt the charge of the church, as appeareth by the practise of the churches, which are so gouerned in these dayes, where there is not a penny alowed to any Elder: ether he owght to con­fute this, or blush to set down that for answer: yet he is not afraid pag 657. after to put yt, for a reason against the Eldership. whervn­to may be added, that the churches in persecution, nether those now, nor other in tymes past, could haue such helpes of howses or landes, appropriated to the fineding of their ministery, as the churches with vs: but were driuen to pay for al of their own purs. And not that onely, but cōstreyned to pay their tythes, or other exactions, to the Idolatrous pr­iesthood, of that place where they abode: which we are fre­edDiuis. 10. p. 641. from, vnder a Christian Magistrate.

To the third reason, that the declyning of a popular ru­le, [Page 57] or that of the best, hath not so easy redres vnder a Ty­rant, as vnder a Christian magistrate: he saith, men in perse­cution are not desirous of honor &c. which (in a maner) is as much to say, as men in persecution, ceas to be men, and is vntrue, as appeareth boeth in the Gal. 1. 17. Phili. 2. 21. Ioh. 3. 9. Apostles tymes, and after, as I haue In the former part of this booK p. 500. shewed. Secondly, he answereth, that the gouernours thē, were but during the pleasure of such as ppointed them, wherof he bri­ngeth no profe at al, and is likewise vntrue, considering, th­at they were chosen to remayn so long in their office as they behaued them selues vnblamably: or at the least, vntil a cer­teyn term, before which they could not by any equity, but vpon their faut, or their own desire, be put owt. In the first of which two cases, they are somewhere now, as they were then and in the later, they may if it seme expedient, euen now, as wel as then: so that here is no difference at al, betwene tho­se, and these tymes. Nether doeth he consider, that the go­uernours, being corrupt, the greatest part of the church, is commonly led away with them: In which case, the church is withowt remedy vnder persecution, when notwithstan­ding she hath an easy remedy, vnder a Christian Magi­strate.

Thirdly he saith, that, this graunted, the argument foloweth not: reason he sheweth none, but open askinges of that in question. And whether it folow wel, that for so much as the­re ys les inconuenience, in the gouernment of the Elders­hip vnder a Christian magistrate, then vnder a Tyrant: therfore it may be better vnder hym, then vnder a Tyrāt, let al the world iudg. his owtcourses, as also his open vntru­th, that I confes the church gouernment to be a monarchy, I pas by: I onely said, that it is a monarchy, in respect of our Sau. Ch­rist, which is nothing to that purpose, he alledgeth yt for.

In the fourth, that the Elders could not then meet vui­thovut Diuis. 11. p. 642. danger, vuhich they may doe novu, and therfore, that the gouernment by one onely, as of the Bishop, had be­ne [Page 58] (if euer, then most conuenient: he answereth, that it was not so dangerous, which is contrary to al reason, and experience. Then he saith, the church must be subiect to the ciuil magistrate: w­hereby (as appeareth boeth in this diuision and in the next) he meaneth nothing els, but that yt owght to allow of that church gouernment, which the Magistrate wil appoint, alt­howgh yt be diuers from the Apostles, which is a fat beggi­ng of that in question. his first and third answers also, towch not the cause at al.

Vuhere against his distinction, that this gouernment of El­ders Diuis 12 p. 643. may be in a Cytie, but not in a Realm, I alledged, that it hath had place, by his ovun confession, in a vuhole Realm: he saith, that that is true, where euery church is, as yt were, within yt self a common wealth, as in Fraunce and other persecuted churches. wh­erein he doeth shameful iniury, to al those churches of god, and to the Apostles them selues which vsed that order: in ascribing vnto them, as thowgh they made new common wealthes, or liued not vnder the same form of ciuil go­uernment, were not obedient vnto the same ciuil lawes, and to the same Magistrates, which the Idolatres them sel­ues were. what one, ether action, or property can yow assi­gn in an Eldership, vnder a kingdome, which should cau­se this rent: that there should be so many common wealthes, and so many kingdomes, as there are Elderships? why also doeth this El­dership make a greater rent, in a monarchy where one go­uerneth: then in a common wealth, where many gouern. If yow think therfore, because a monarchy is greater, then a common wealth, wherby there must be moe Elders­hips in the one, then in the other: beside that the argument is nawght, that also wherevpon it is grounded, is vntrue. For, there are common wealthes, where many rule, grea­ter then the monarchies, where one onely gouerneth: as Rome in tymes past, Venys within our remembrāce, and such like.

Vuhere I alledged also, that, by his reason, a monarchy should not be good in the common vuealth, because the [Page 59] gouernment of one is good in a hovushould, &c. He ans­wereth, that the autority of the Master of the howshould, deroga­teth not from the Princes, but the Eldership doeth: which is his accu­stomed beggery. where, in deed, the autority of a Master of a howshould, approcheth nerer vnto the kinde of gouern­ment of the Magistrate, as that which hath, corporal pu­nishment annexed vnto yt: then the autority of the Elders­hip, which meddleth not that way.

And because I am entred into that example, I would know of hym, which wil haue other gouernmentes, fashioned to the form of gouernment of the common wealth: whether in a common wealth, where many haue equal autority, the magistrate may ordeyn, that the father of the houshould, shal not ru­le his own hows alone, or be cheif in yt, but shal haue his wife of like autority, or some of his seruantes quarter Ma­ster. If he be ashamed of this, then he seeth that the wal of al his defence, against the discipline of the church, aswel in this cause, as in diuers other, pauncheth: so that it is not a­ble to abide, the vueight of a fox. For thus, there is not o­nely (as he obiecteth) a seueral gouernment in euery Town: but in euery priuat hows. And if the Master of the houshould may, and owght to retein his autority withowt preiudice of the Magistrate: why may it not be so, in the gouernment of the church.

Vuhat wil he further say, to the Scholemaster, which he otherwhere affirmeth to be an Ecclesiastical officer: may there not be, ether two in one Schole, vnder a Prince, or o­ne in one Schole vnder a common wealth where many ha­ue like autority, oneles the common wealth be therby man­gled, and the magistrates autority empaired? But of th­is matter, I haue also spoken In the former part of this booK. pag. 604. otherwhere. Howbeit, w­hereas the D. alowing of this Eldership in a common we­alth, can not abide it in a monarchy: I wil say this further, that if there were any daunger to a common wealth, by this Eldership, it should be greater to the smale common wealthes, then to great monarchies: considering that they, [Page 60] should not be able, so wel to repres the Eldership ouerrea­ching and goeing beyond their bowndes. And if the Elders hips autority, belong vnto the magistrate (as he saith): then by how much, these magistrates haue les power, and fewer prerogatiues ouer their peoples, then the monarches ouer their subiectes, by so much haue they more need, then the other, to kepe al in their own hand.

Vpon his own confession, that there be more disordered per­sons Diuis. 13. p. 643. now, then in tyme of persecutiō: I concluded that there need­eth so much more asistance, for the Pastor to finde them ovut, to iudg of the quality of the faut, and to correct them with censures of the church. Herevnto he answereth, that it is better doen by the Magistrate, and by corporal punishment: which is diuis. 2. an 3. of th­is chapter. before answered, althowgh yt be vnworthy answer, consi­dering that albeit the bodily punishment, were more apt to reform thinges amis: yet thereof foloweth not, but that boeth the ciuil punishment, and ecclesiastical togither, wil doe more then the ciuil punishment alone.

I would also know, why the Pastor owght not, to cary, e­uen priuate offences great or smale, vnto the Magistrate: if it be so, that this ecclesiastical autority, be escheted to him. As for that he alledgeth owt of Gualter, that men wil not set a straw by the autority of the Eldership: it serueth aswel against the ecclesiastical censures of al Pastors, and of our Bishops, as against the Elders: and more against them, then against th­ese. For somuch as, if they set not a straw by the Elders and Pa­stor togither iointly, they wil much les esteme the Pastors or Bishops alone. And if they set nothing by it, whē it is coun­tenāced by the ciuil magistrate: they wil much more set th­em at nawght in persecution, when for the contempt of yt, there is not onely no corporal punishment, but a reward at the handes of the Tyrants. The bare names of suspensio­ns and excommunications, strike a fear into the heartes of the people: whych notwithstanding (throwgh an horrible abuse of them, for euery trifling money matter) are not to be feared: according to the prou. 26. 2. wise mans saying, acauseles cu­rs, [Page 61] shal not come, but flyeth avuay as the sparovu or svua­lovu.

Seing then thes fray bugges, no more to be estemed, as towching the conscience, or further then they empty the purs, then the braying of an Asse, strike suche a fear: with w­hat power, would the lord accompany them, when they be executed according to his institutiō. for further answer, thelibr. de cur­anim. reader may haue recours vnto M. Bucer: who confuteth this very obiection, of contempt of the churchis censures. And this voice tendeth, aswel to the subuersion of al ecclesiasti­cal censures, for euer hereafter: as to the vtter condemning of that, which was vsed by the Apostles heretofore.

Althowgh, if it be the ordinance of god, this is no reason against yt: considering that the owtrage of men, can not put the lord to silence, or make his ordinance to giue place. In the next, where, vpon his answer, I conclude, that ether vue must haue no Pastor at al (vuhich is absurd,) or els an El­dership in as many places, as sufficient men may be gotten: he answereth nothing, beside repetitions, and demaundes of that in question.

In the next, where is proued that the hardnes or appa­rant impossibility may not be considered, vuhen there is a commandement to doe any thing: he letteth al that defen­ce goe to the ground, wherein notwithstanding he placed great force. Let him therfore strike owt that obiection, or if he moue further debate herein, let him not be ashamed, to return bak, and take his work before hym. And for furth­er answer thereunto, let hym loke li. de cur­anim. M. Bucer: who confute­th also this obiection. where he excepteth, that it is not comma­unded, thereof let the reader iudg, of that which hath bene w­ritten. Althowgh it In the for­mer part. p. 156. hath bene shewed, that the example of the Apostles, and general practise of the churches vnder their gouernment: euen withowt a commandement, drawe­th a necessity.

Then he saith, that if it were▪ yet it were but a temporal comman­dement, [Page 62] as the widowes, the eating of blud, and washing of feet. Of the widowes, hath bene answered, the decree of the blud, was ne­uer a simple prohibition, after our Sau. Christ (whose blud that did [...]eu. 17. 11 shadow) had finished his oblation: but onely to the support of the Iues. So that euen then, when that de­cree was made, the faithful, boeth of the Iues or Gentiles, might haue eat yt: so they did yt withowt offence of those which were weak. And if there were now any Iue weak in faith, whom we should by eating of blud, driue from the gospel: I dowt not, but that vntil he be fully instructed of the liberty I haue in Christ, I owght to vse the same charita­ble support towardes him. And this appeareth manifestly, boeth in Act. 15. 21. the same, and other places: where 1. Cor. 6. 12. et 10. 25 Rom. 14. 14 S. Paul which gaue owt that decree to be kept, teacheth generally the free vse of al meates, so yt be withowt offence.

As for the washing of feet, commanded vnto the Apost­les, it is nothing but a trope or borowed speach: wherby o­ur Sau. Christ willeth them, and, in them, vs al, not for a ty­me, but to the end of the world, that, for help one of an oth­er, eche should submit him self to other, euen vnto the doe­ing of the basest offices. which may appear, in that he place­th Ioh. 13. 17. perfect blessednes in the obediens to that commande­ment: which he would neuer haue doen, in the washing of the feet: So that this commandement, might wel be of them (as of vs) fulfilled, withowt that particular actiō, of washing eche anothers feet.

But here obserue, I pray yow, how dangerously yow beha­ue your self, in respect of the common Aduersary. 1. Tract. 3. chap. 2. diuis. Before yow haue made vs thinges necessary to obserue, and that as of the Apostles autority, which were neuer written, but as yow would make vs beleue, left by tradition: here, yow bear vs in hand of commandementes (I know not how many) w­ritten, not necessary to be obserued, but onely to last, for a tyme. yf vnwritten traditions be perpetual, and written cō ­mandementes be not: what wanteth to the vtter banishm­ent of al truth, and setling of al falshood in the church of god. For as yow may except against this, so may other aga­inst any commandement of the Apostles: whereas the au­tority [Page 63] of god in them, once being shewed, ether men owght to shew some place, wherby that is called bak, or els let yt stand, in that autority it was first set in, of the lord.

To that I alledged, that god is present in his church, Diuis. 16. p. 645. 1. Sam. 10. vuith the riches of his spirit, in knovuledg, vuisdome, &c. and especially vuith those lavufully called vnto office, cōfirming it by the exāple of Saul: he answereth, the church is sometime withowt good Pastor, or good gouernour, as in Elias tyme: w­hich is vntrue: for there were a 1. King. 18. 13. hundreth prophetes, kept of one man alone. Then he saith, that it is Anabaptistical, vpon a miraculous change, and that of one, to make a general rule: But yt is his great faut, not to know, that the miracles wrought vp­on certein, haue a general doctrine, and serue to the confir­mation of our faith, in al our necessities. As the feeding of the people of god in the desert with man, &c. serueth to th­is: that althowgh, the ordinary meanes of norishment fail,Deut. 8. 3. Math. 4. 4. yet that the lord wil otherwise prouide for vs: the feeding of the people in the desert, by our Sau. Christ to this, that tho­se which seek the kingdome of heauen, shal haue al other thinges cast vnto them.

Yf I had giuen hope, of the assistance of god, in thinges taken in hand withowt a calling, or in a calling, withowt v­sing the lawful meanes, which god putteth in our handes, then yt had bene Anabaptistical: but to assure the church of the assistance of god, in goeing abowt that, which I hou­ld for commanded of hym, when yt assaieth al lawful mea­nes it can, ys more skilful diuinity, then yow can stayn wi­th al the skil yow haue. I could haue browght other ex­amples of Dauid, Salomon &c. but that one of Saul, was more pressing, the force whereof noted by me, yow clean pas by.

Nether hath the lord doen this, in certain particular per­sons: but generally, in his whole church. For when he would make his tabernacle, which was a figure of the church, he commanded an exquisite workmanship in yt. where, albeit there was nothing more gros and rude then the Israelites, [Page 64] as those which had bene many yeares houlden in vile slau­ery, occupied in clay and dirt, and al other kinde of drudge­ry: yet the lord gaue numbers of such dexterity, in workingEx. 31. 1. 6. and. 36. 1. al kinde of broidery, and riche workes, as if they had bene browght vp in al liberal exercise, and norished as Princes children.

Moreouer, when as the lord furnished vnto the church vnder the law, able men for this function, notwithstanding he vsed not that larges toward yt, which he doeth now tow­ards vs: they are to iniurious vnto the grace of god, towar­des the church now, which, vnder pretence of want of able men, would driue this order owt of yt. In the city of Athe­nes (as Tertullian reporteth) children spake, vuhen they lib. de ani­ma. vuere but a moneth ould: and shal we think, that in Ierusa­lem, which the lord wil haue to be the beauty of the world, and which he hath set vpon a stage, that in yt he might, as it were, make a shew of al his riches, shal we think (I say) that men of 30 and 40 yeares, shal be al such babes, that they shal not be able to giue any iudgment of the lawes of that city, whereof they haue bene so long Burgesses. Ad also, that yo­w, to giue the Pastor a pasport, to be away from his charge, say that there may be diuers found in his absence, able to answer al the pag. 240. dowtes, that a dowtful and turmoiled conscience can minister: which verely althowgh it be not the same, yet is a rarer gift, then is necessarily required, of an Elder of the church, such as we re­quire.

To that I alledged, that the common vuealth gouern­ment, Diuis. 17. p. 646. must be framed vnto the church, and not the chur­ch gouernment vnto the common vuealth, as the hangin­ges to the hovus, and not the hous to the hanginges: he ans­wereth, as thowgh I had ment, that the form, of the gouernment must be changed, and made the same with the form of the church gouern­ment: which is an open wresting of my wordes, seing al know, that to be framed according to another thing, is not al one as to be made the same with yt: oneles he that commandeth [Page 65] his hanginges to be framed to his hows, commandeth that his hows and hanginges should be made the same, or that the Master which biddeth his seruant frame him self to him, biddeth hym to giue commandement for commandemēt, chek for chek, blow for blow.

Therfore, my meaning could not be such, but it was as it is, which I also expounded in the example of the Prince, the principal part of the common wealth: that if there vuere any custome, prerogatiue, or pomp in the common vueal­th, before the Prince ioyned him self to the church, contra­ry to the order of a church vuel established, that that shou­ld be corrected.

And if I had had any such meaning, as he surmiseth, yet our common wealth could haue receiued no such change by this: considering that I had boeth declared my liking of yt, and shewed how the form thereof, resembleth the form of the church gouernment. wherby also appeareth, what ap. 180. of his booK. shameful slaunder it is, which he surmiseth of me, that I wo­uld haue Princes throw down their crownes, before the Seniors of the ch­urch &c. which I precisely preuented with plain wordes, be­cause I knw with whom I had to doe. Albeit, that Princes sho­uld be excepted frō ecclesiastical discipline, and namely from excommu­nication, as he here and pag. 657. otherwhere signifieth: I vtterly mis­like.

Now he hath left the point of his slaunderous speach in me, in his answer to my argumentes, as a bee which hath lost her sting: he is altogither vnprofitable. For vnto the simili­tude of the hows and hanginges, he saith, that it proueth yt not: but reason he sheweth none. vnto that also, that the church vuas before the common vuealth, and therfore that yt sh­ould serue the church, and not the church yt: he saith, the ar­gument foloweth not, but he saith yt onely. whereas, if the chur­ch and commō wealth were otherwise equal, which can not be, one onely respecting the lyfe to come, the other the cō ­modityes of this lyfe: yet hauing this preeminence aboue [Page 66] yt, that it was before yt, it must needes be better then yt, and consequently owght rather to be serued of yt, then to serue yt. the 1. Tim. 2. [...]. Apostle also vseth the same reason, to proue that the woman is subiect to the man.

To that I alledged, that the church is the foundatiō of the vuorld, and therfore the common wealth, builded vpon yt, must be framed vnto yt: he saith that yt is obscure &c. But it is for wāt of light in hym self, for otherwise, the thing is clear. And to leau Salomons prouerb, which Rabbi Leui Ben Ger­sonProu. 10. 25 doeth so interpret, and whereof in deed the sens may wel be, that where the wicked are caried away with the tem­pest, the iust not onely stand fast, but be the cause why the world standeth: I say to leau that, S. Peter playnly confirme­th, that the cause why this world endureth, is for that the ful2. Pet. 3. 9. number of the elect is not yet gathered: so that, as sone as they are assembled by the ministery of the church, there sh­al be forthwith an end of the world. As for that he bringeth against this, yt is vnworthy the rehersal: for of the thre first, he can conclude nothing, and his last answer, is no better. For yt talketh of a change of that, which is laid vpon the foundatiō, wherunto the common wealth is likened, and is that which I affirm: but of changing the foundation, wherunto the chu­rchIn the first diuision of this chap and diui. 4 Diui. 20. p. 650. is compared, not a word. the two next diuisions be ans­wered.

Here, he presseth that, which he inferreth of the Admo▪ that if the rule of moe in the church, be better then of one, beca­use it is easier to turn one then a company from truth and equity: it should therfore folow, that the moe that gouern, the better it should be, which he hath now mended, by putting for moe, moe good men, nothwithstāding that this also is but sophistry. For by the same form of reasoning, it should folow, that becau­se two bittes of meat norish more thē one? therfore the mo­re a mā eateth, the more he shal be norished. he should therefore vnderstand, that as there is in this gouernment a de­fect, so there is an exces, and betwene boeth a mean, vuhi­ch [...]. is to be houlden. and that as the comodity of hauing the [Page 67] church iudgmentes, handled by a company, is to be sowght after: so the inconuenience and confusion, of assembling a great multitude for euery ecclesiastical case that may befal, is to be avoided. Beside, that it is not enowgh, that they w­hich should gouern be good mē: oneles they be of greater co­unsail and iudgment then the rest of the body: of which so­rt, when he wil not affourd vs any iust numbre, he might wel haue spared this obiection.

Yf it were greatly to the matter, it were easy to shew,Arist. Eth. 8. lib ca. 10 Arist. Rhet. ad Theod. 1. lib. moe lavuful formes of common vuealths thē three. Likewi­se, that althowgh commō wealthes haue their names, of th­at which beareth the cheif sway: yet that they are, to their profit, tēpered and mixed one with another, singularly the monarchy. This is to be seen namely in our land, where to the passing of diuers thinges: the consent of the Parliamēt is so required, as that withowt yt, those matters can not pas. The next is In the former part. pag 411. Diuis 22. and 23. pag 651. already partly, and partly commeth after to be answered.

Here, he denieth most shamefully, that he alledged Ambro­se, to proue, that Seniors owght not to be vnder a Christian Prince. For, boeth the sentence immediatly going before and folowing after, driue thereunto: yea and that he affirmeth vpon confi­dēce of Ambrose saying onely, for other proof he hath not. It is therfore to great bouldnes, that he asketh me, why I ga­thered the tyme betwene Phillip and Ambrose,

Then he denieth, that the Eldership florished in Constantines tyme: but he is much to blame. For the Centuries, wherin he hath bene raking so often, must needes haue tould hym: th­at the same orders and functions of the church, were in that tyme which were before. And it is manifest, that the church­es were gouerned vnder hym, as before, by Bishops Elders and Deacons: by that which is recited of an infinite numb­er Euseb. 2. li. de vita Cō stan. of Elders and Deacons, vuhich came to the Councel of Nice, vuith the 250 Bishops. moreouer, yt being before de­clared, and in part confessed by him, that this gouernment was before Constantines tyme: if he be not able to shew th­at Constantin changed yt, the same must be presumed.

After, not denying but that it might be vnder some Christian Prin­ce, he saith, that it is not the question, whether it may be, but whether it owght to be: which, how vntrue it is, let the reader iudg of that I haue diuis. 1. p. 633. Diui. 24. p. 652. Ier. 2. lib. in Is. before noted.

To Ierom that saith, that the Christian church hath her Eldership, he answereth they were Ministers of the wo­rd and Sacramentes: his reason, because they were such as S. Paul speaketh of vnto Timothe, maketh for vs, which haue shewed that S. Paul speaketh there of Elders, that gouern onely. w­hich may be better vnderstanded, in that Ierom compareth them with the Eldership of the Iues: which was, as hath ^b ap­peared,Diuis. 8. p. 633. a seueral order from the Priestes and Scribes, that interpreted the law, and offered the sacrifices. Duarenus also helpeth him not, rather he maketh against him. For, in that he saith, that the Canons succeded into the place of the Elders: he de­clareth, that the Canons are of another order then they we­re. As when Ierome saith that the Bishops, succeded vnto the Apostles: he meaneth not, that the Bishops are of the same degre and order of ministery, with the Apostles. the next I leau to the readers iudgment.

Vnto Ambrose he answereth: yf he misliked the abrogating Diuis. 26. p. 653. of this Seignory, why did he not labour to restore yt. That he misliked yt, is manifest, when he condemneth the Ministers of the vuord of negligence, for suffering it to vuear ovut of the ch­urch: or rather of pride, vuhilest they onely vuould seme to be some vuhat. he labored also in part to restore yt, in that he reprehended the abolishing of yt. whether he did further labour or no, is not expressed, the best is to be supposed: w­hich is that, to his power, he endeuored to set in that, theM. Bucerin lib. de rat. can. exam▪ alledgeth this place of Ambrose to the same purpose vue doe. want whereof he condemneth: But Ambrose was no lord Bishop, that he could doe in the church, whatsoeuer he de­sired. his extreme bouldnes in denying, that ether he was abu­sed, or would haue abused other, let the reader iudg of: also in that he saith, Ambrose maketh nothing for our cause, to whose iudgmēt I also leau the next diuision.

Yf he denie, that church officers which hādle church mat­ters,Diuis. 28. p. 654. Heb. 13. 17. and vuatch ouer the sovules of mē, be ecclesiastical officers: then let hym deny also, that two and two make fower. But so gentilmen and handycraftes mē, should be ecclesiastical persons: why not? if they be chosen thereto. were S. Paul and Isay the Prophet no ecclesiastical persons: because one was a Tentmaker, the other of the kinges stok. Nether occupations nor dignities haue any such mark of vncleannes, or profanation, that th­ey may not be coupled with the church ministery: when the ministery is such, as togither with their professions, they may also execute yt: in which kinde is the Eldership of the church. I omit, that the D. hath here patched togither a sen­tence of M. Caluin before answered, and another of M. Be­za:1. Chap. 1. diuis. which, in that sens he pretendeth them, are quite contra­ry one to another. yt is therfore meruail, if he can make of them one vniform, and euen answer.

Now he hath ranged and roued, almost in this whole di­sputation:Chap. 3. p. 656. he must haue leau to run bak the way he came, to see whether he hath let any of his peeces fal. And first, good reader, he dasheth the in the face, with two open vntruthes, in the forehead of this chapter. For the order of the church propounded by vs, is vniform, and standing, as it is left vs in the word of god: and not as he surmiseth, varying according to the numbre of the churches. Also for ceremonies variable by circunstance, it is frankly confessed: that they owght to be determyned of, by aduise of the church Synod, assembled especially of the flower and most sufficient of the ecclestic­al gouernours, sent by consent of the rest, if al (as yt happe­neth) can not be coueniently there.

Secondly, it is nether affirmed, nor euer practised in a­ny church where this order is, or hath bene vsed: that he that is chosen may not refuse yt. So that, if there be any that thinketh his honour stayned, in being ioyned in counsail of church matters with poor men, when there ether are not, or are not enow of others: he hath not to complain, seing he is at his choise. Albeit, if any man should be so myneded, to think skorn to hear the sentence of a poor man, in that he is a po­or [Page 70] mā: let the same know, that he Pro. 17. 5. reprocheth god that ma­de hym poor. And if he be lawfully appointed, to this office: thē he doeth not disdain the man, but Mat. 18. 18 Christ hym self. Th­erfore, if he haue any fear of god before his eyes: he wil from hence forth be ashamed to vse this for a reason. Beside that, he thus ouerthroweth the high court of Parliament: where, with the nobility, are ioyned in consultation the commons of the Realm: where also the estates, being vnequal, the voi­ces notwithstanding are equal. I omit, how that if there we­re any inconuenience in this, that the sentence of the Pastor and other not so rich or so noble, should weigh down the sentence of that no­ble man he speaketh of: yet him self hath deliuered vs of yt, w­hich telleth vs, that the lord of the town, or some other of countenan­ce pag. 136. wil lead away the rest of the church: how much more then, shal he be able to lead away two or thre? Thus he plaieth on bo­eth handes: for there he pincheth at the nobility, and he­re he pretendeth, as if he were tender ouer their ho­nour.

His third reason is answered Cha. 2. diuis. 9. before: likewise his Cha 2. di­uis. 3. & 17. fourth: his Cha. 1. di­uis. 6 & 7. fift: his Cha. 2. di­ui. 2. and 3. sixt, and ^a seuēth. As for the eight, of partial affectiō and contentions which would ensue: it is plentifully answered, In the for­mer part of this booK. pag. 2 9. 134. 147. 288. 227. in the question of the church election. For if these be friuolous reasons against those ecclehastical actions, where the whole church hath interest: much more are they, against the assemblies of thre or fower onely, and those of the choisest. thee Cha. 2. deuis. 1. ninth is also Chap. 2. diuis 13. answered.

The tenth, that it would be to great extremity to punish for one faut twise: is a fals principle, taken from the Pelagian herefy. For the Magistrate may appoint fower kinde of punishmē ­tes, for one faut, if he think good, to be executed at diuers tymes: so that they altogither and ioyntly, exceed not the quantity of the faut. And, by his reason, the Magistrate shal be shut owt, from his right of punishyng syn: if it fal owt, that the lord by some punishment laid vpon the offender, preuent the Magistrates punishment, especially when the punishment is in such sort, that it may appear that yt was sent for that special faut: for examples sake, if of dronken­nes, [Page] he fal into some siknes: na, thus the lordes sword, is w­rung owt of his hand. For nether may he punish those fau­tes, which the Magistrate punished before: and if he pu­nish a man in this life, he hath bound his handes, for pu­nishing him in the world to come. For in deed the chur­ch discipline, is the punishment, or rather the correction of the lord: in a far other kinde, and to an other end, then the ciuil punishment. But I haue shewed, that boeth theseIn the for­mer part of this booK. pag. 3. were practised amongest the people of god, for one and the same faut. And is not this, in the Apostles, to condemn the holy gost him self? For if it be true, which he saith, when o­ne had stollen, or committed adultery, it had not bene lawful for them to haue vsed the ecclesiastical censure, least the offender being after apprehended, and punished ac­cording to the lawes of the common wealth where he liu­ed, should thereby haue bene wronged. Beside that, the D. accuseth al our Bishops, which for diuers causes punis­hable by the lawes of the Realm, send forth their excom­munications: yea al the elder churches, which did not leau to proceed in ecclesiastical censures against those, whom the heathen Princes had iustly punished. But hereof the re­ader may know further in M. Caluins 4. booK. chap. 11. 5. 1. 2 [...]. 4. institutions: also in M. lib. de cu­ra animar. Bucer, who praecisely cōfuteth them which say, that the punishment by the ciuil Magistrate is sufficient.

His eleuenth, that alterations are dangerous: is vnwort­hy answer. For when yt hath bene shewed, that ceremonies otherwise in different, owght when they breed offence to be changed: how much more, owght those to be chāged, which are shewed to be cōtrary to the institutiō of god. And neth­er this, nor the next clause in thys eleuēth article, nor diuers other allegatiōs in this chapter, haue so much as a counte­nāce of reason: vnles it be first graunted vnto the D. which is the principal questiō, that is to fay, that the Eldership of the church is not cōmaunded of the lord. his two other reasons in this article, are boeth often repeated, and vtterly vntrue: there hauing bene neuer any Christiā Prince that vsed the spi­ritual sword, which onely is giuē to the Eldership, nether any noble mā or gentilmā which in our lād vseth this kinde of corre­ction, [Page 72] but onely the Bishop, which vsurpeth yt, and abuseth yt. I omit his often iesting, at the Pastor, by calling him diu­ers tymes in contempt, Master Pastor: which the Angels them selues dare not doe: when as him self can not deny, but to haue a Pastor in euery cōgregation, is the ordinance of god. If men wil not look to such disorders: I dowt not, but the lo­rd wil lay to his hand.

The first reason, to proue no certeyn kinde of church gouern­mēt Chap. 4. p. 658. apointed, is answered 1. Chap. before: likewise the 2. Cha. di­uis. 2. and 3 second and thi­rd: the fourth is a gros asking of that in question. In the fift M. Caluins and M. Bezas first and last sentences, are violently drawen from their meaning: as hath bene In the former part. of this booK p. 80. and. 134. &c. shewed. The middle sentence, beareth no such argument, as he would gather: for there is no word, that shutteth owt the necessity of the Eldership vnder a Christian Magistrate: no, or that maketh it, so much as les necessary vnder a Christian Magi­strate, then vnder persecution. For the word, especially, is re­strayned, vnto the gouernment which the Bishop had ouer the Elders: so that if there be any thing to be gathered of th­at, it is this, that the Bishop should not haue so much pre­heminence ouer the Eldership, when ther is a Christian Magistrate, as when there was not. And how doeth not he blush, to alledg mens sentences directly contrary to their iudgmentes, playnly declared in this matter of the Elders­hip: which counteth yt such a faut, to set one writer against another. I omit other places, owt of M. Epist. 11. 14. 20, 83. Beza, where this cause is confirmed boeth generally in the vnuariable go­uernment of the church, and particularly in this case of the Eldership. The reasons alledged of M. Musculus and Gualter haue bene answered. His sixt reason of giuing no more here, to the Christian Magistrate, then to Nero: is but onely said, the vntru­th wherof shal appear in place.

Seing therefore, the lord hym self hath once set this go­uernment by Elders in the church, and that no man may di­splace, which he hath placed: seing yt is a supply of that in the church, which the most sufficient and most diligent mi­nistery of the word, is not able to perform by yt self alone: [Page 73] seing the churches vnder the law, and in the Apostles ty­mes could not want this help: and seing the antiquity w­hich folowed for diuers hundred yeares, partly held the sa­me, partly lamented the want of yt, and partly left markes and footinges whereby, being lost, yt might be recouered again: seing further, the liberality of god towardes the ch­urch is commended, in that for the greater safety of yt, he would haue many watchmen of one church. Lastly, seing the Apostel in the person of Timothe, chargeth most strait­ly al the Ministers of the word, with the keping of this or­der, vntil the appearing of our Sa. Christ: let vs conclude that the Eldership ordeined for the gouernment of the ch­urch onely, is the perpetual and vnchangable decree of god, and therefore not onely in comon wealthes where many, but also in Monarchies where one gouerneth, not onely in time of perseqution, but also in time of peace, to be retey­ned.

Again, forsomuch as the Apostel ordeined thes Elde­rs, church by church: forasmuch as giuing a rule of the go­uernment of al, aswel of churches in the countrey, as in the City, he inioyned the praeseruation of this order: forasmu­ch also as the gospel, whereof this is a part, brake forth owt of Ierusalem into al places, not into cities onely: and for that, the Pastor of an vplandish town, is no more able to doe al that is to be doen in his church, then the Pastors in the city: considering also that the churches, as dawghters and coheirs of one father and mother, owght to enioy like priuileges: seing further the Bishop to whome this Elders­hip is assistant, hath bene shewed to belong aswel to chur­ches in the country, as in the city: finally, forasmuch as the vse boeth of he churches vnder the law, and of those after the Apostels tymes, lead vs hereūto: yt is likewise browght, to pas, that this Eldership owght to be in al churches, not in those onely which are planted in great cities.

Thus is also ended, the question of Cathedral churches:pag. 742. whereof the D. hath made, a whole tractate. wherein there appeareth, scarce a step of this institution of god: of which, [Page 74] when he would brag of, and set the highest price, he hath va­lued twelue of the best of them at no more, then one poor halin Cambridg or Oxford, is able to yeeld. yea then they were at, Queen Maries tyme: when there vuere common­ly in euery one some, vuhich dissembling for fear, vuere not vuithstanding able to confute al Papistes & Anabaptistes, where­unto he can answer nothing. That the offices came, from the bottomles pit of hel: may partly appear by that which I haue In the former part p. 616. alledged, partly in that the names of Prebendaries &c. are not to be found in any godly or pure writer, but in the dre­gges of the canon law. For further vnderstanding of which disorders, I refer the reader to that which M. Caluin Inst. 4. bo­oK chap. 5. sect. 10. p. 746. write­th of them: who peinteth them owt in their colours. And where I shewed, that to look for any good vnto the church in the Popes inuention, is to look to be fed vuith the Cocka­trice egges, and to be clad vuith the spiders vueb: he answe­reth, that the Pope, as the Ethnickes, may make good lawes: which is vntrue, in matters belonging to the church, especially in so great a matter, as the appointing of an office. I wil not de­nie, but they may deuise good lawes for the commodity of this life: but yt can not be shewed, that euer the lordes peo­ple fetched their lawes to gouern the church by, from the heathen, much les from the Pope, which is the head of the heathen.

Therefore al may see, what a singuler profit boeth the ch­urch and common wealth should haue: if they were conuer­ted into Colledges, for the bringing vp of scholers, which they would yeeld (as I think) in greater numbre, then boe­th the vniuersities doe now, with furniture of professions in al good knowledg: where now, they serue but for the fatting vp of a few, and those ether vnworthy to be norished of the Almes of the church, or els whose presence is necessary in o­ther places, and dutiful by reason of pastoral residence. wh­erein, as wel against theirs, as against our vniuersitie mens [Page 75] non residence: I refer the reader to the special tractate the­reof. 748 That they should serue for rewardes, to those which haue spent much tyme in getting learning: is but to fome at the mouth, that which is a shame once to conceiue in the minde. consideri­ng that by reward, he vnderstandeth not the honest and suffi­cient prouision for his competent how should, and conue­nient hospitality for the poor, which is confessed most due: but meaneth some surplice beside this, which is In the former part. Traclat 6. chap. 5. before cō ­futed. Nether is any good to be hoped from them, whome the excellency of this office before Angels and men, doeth not content: to whom the fruit which they shal receiue day­ly, in that by their ministery god is glorified, and men are saued, doeth not satisfy: finally to whom the special crown of glory, which remayneth thē in the lyfe to come, with suf­ficient prouision for this present lyfe, doeth not make the ministery sauory, vnles it be also sauced, with these intice­mentes of wordly wealth and dignity. So that this is rather a lure, to draw hyrelinges into the church: then an honest prouocation, to cal in faithful Pastors.

Hereunto commeth the example of other churches, which haue pulled them down, and conuerted them to o­ther vses: which the D. partly denieth, partly maketh no great account of. That they were pulled down, the expe­rience teacheth: at the least, of as many as I haue ether se­en, or could vnderstand of. And yt is namely recorded, of the Bullin. v­pon 1. Cor. 14. church of Zurik: yea of al of them, M. li. Epist. p. 14. Caluin teacheth that the prebendes &c. ovught to be called to a more lavu­ful vse, namely to the fineding of Scholers, Ministers, and Poor. And this is our meaning: not that these goodes sho­uld be turned from the possession of the church, to the fil­ling of the bottomles sackes of their gredy appetites, whi­ch yane after this pray, and would therby, to their perpe­tual shame, purchase them selues a field of blud. which thing, althowgh we haue giuen playnly to vnderstand: yet because we haue to doe, with so importunat an aduer­sary, that feareth not to charge vs with intent to grati­fye [Page 76] such Cormorantes, I thowght good in a word to pro­test yt.

As for the light account, he maketh of those examples of the reformed churches, which notwithstanding preten­deth to esteme so greatly, of one or two of the auncient w­riters: I leau to vtter what yt argueth, oneles he were able to shew by the word of god, that they did not wel. The rest of this tractate, which is a cartlode of vntruthes: vttered partly in accusing me, partly in maynteyning him self, I wil not touch.

YT hauing bene shewed, that in elections and depositions, the Bishop can doe no­thing withowt the aduise of the whole ch­urch, nor in the common gouernmēt wi­thowt assistance of the Eldership: yt must folow, that in excommunication, which is one of the weightiest iudgmentes in the church, this sole autoritie of the Bishop is vnlawful. For as, when in ciuil matters, the iudgment is of life and death, and as in the art of curing, when consultation is taken of cutti­ng or burning, the bench is fuller, and the assistance great­er, then when matters of les importance be debated: euen so, if it might be accorded to the Bishop, to pas some other matters by him self, yet it were not safe to cōmit vnto him the iudgment of excommunication. wherevpon I mervail, why euen here also yow goe abowt, to pek owt our eys. For the light of this truth is such, that some of the Papistes them selues, are ashamed to look against yt: as appeareth by Pig­ghius, which seeking al maner of peintynges to hyde the fil­thines of Rome, could finde no colour to disguise this with: but is fayn, partly to confes her nakednes in this behalf: sai­yng that it is not lavuful (the Bishop of Rome onely excep­ted) Piggh. hier­arch 3. lib. 9. cap. for any Bishop to excommunicate by him self alone. So that, althowgh the weightines of the cause, might requi­re a long treatis: yet the plaines of it, wil be content with a short.

First, whether the word discipline, may note the vuhole gouernment, or onely the punishmentes, as in a disputation of w­wordes, [Page 78] I wil not striue: althowgh it be knowen, that the wo­rd discipline, is vsed in good autors, for the whole maner of gouernment, ether at home or in war. Secondly chargeda 2. diuis. 661 vuith cōtrarietie, he answereth, that to ascribe excommunicatiō to the Minister of the word, and to the Bishop onely, agree, because the Bis­hop is a Minister of the word: which might haue bene admitted, if it had bene al one, to be a Bishop and a Minister of the word. But seing by the word Minister, with vs, is noted a diue­rs degree, and meinteined by him: it is but an escape. How­beit, I am content he amend his speach: if he had yet amen­ded it, and not rather vtterly marred al. For pretending that 661. 662. et 673. the Bishop onely, hath by the word of god, the excōmunication commit­ted vnto him, he saith notwithstanding that the church, if she wil, may commit that autoritie vnto other: giuig the church autority, to make that common, which the word of god hath made se­ueral. Thus he enterfeereth at euery step almost, cutting him self to pitifully. The rest is In the former part p. 575. answered: so are the In the for­mer Tract. two next diuisions, sauing that it appeareth that yow were som­ewhat hongry, of a testimony of great reading, which pres myne so sore: that may be giuen to the veriest trewand, th­at euer went on two legges, which may in half an hower know the minde of twenty commentaries, and requireth rather a man wel booked, then ether wel red, or wel lear­ned.

To proue, that the lord did not borow this form of go­uernmentDiuis. 5. p. 663. of the Iues, he assigneth one reason, because he ne­uer appointed it vnto them: which beside the vntruth, that hath and shal further appear, is contrary to that him self hath af­firmed: where he saith, that al, euen the least thinges, vnder the law pag. 116. were commaunded. So that oneles he wil denie, that they had euer any Eldership, or hauing it, had it against the commā ­dement of god: it must folow, that they had it, by the presc­ript of god. Another reason is, for that the Iues abused their Elder­ship: then which, there can be nothing more disagreing from the D. whole cours of defence, which wil not haue so much as a peeld ceremony remoued, for the abuse.

Vnto the reason I alledged why the word Councel, [...]hap. 5. 22. [Page 79] in S. Mathew, is taken for the Eldership of the church: he answereth nothing. wherunto ad, that in other places of the new Testament, where it is oft Act. 5. 2 [...]. & 6. 12. & 23. 30. mentioned: it is alwaies so taken. The testimonies he citeth, are partly to no purpose, partly before confessed of me.

This is a wonderful bouldnes, that yow dare say, yeaDiuis. 6. p 664. and glory in yt, that S. Paul kept an other order of excommunicati­on, then our Sau. Christ commanded: considering that he autori­seth1. Cor. 11. 28 1. Cor. 15. 1. his doeinges in the church of Corinth, with this, that he gaue that vuhich he receiued, who also in this very par­ticular case of the incestuous man, alledgeth the autoritie2. Cor. 5. 4. of our Sauiour Christ. That owt of M. Caluin, maketh aga­inst him manifestly. For vpon the places boeth of S. Mathe­w and Paul, he sheweth that the church hath interest in the excommunication: onely he noteth, that our Sa. Christ ap­plied his form of speach, to the estate of the church then, w­hich is nothing to our purpose.

After, vpon confidence of M. Caluins autority onely, he triumpheth vpon the interpretation I browght, of the pur­ging of leuain, noting the thrusting ovut of the incestuous person: which notwithstāding is proued, for as much as that vers, is the conclusion of that before, where, by leuain cā not be denied, but the incestuous person is noted: vnles we wil say, that the Apostle concluded another thing, then that w­hich he had before mentioned. vpon the same place. M Beza also, comming after M. Caluin, and not easely dissenting from him: folow­eth the same sens, which I haue doen: So that althowgh yow take your pleasure of me, yet yow should not ride so hard v­pon him.

But mark a litle, how vnable your answers be, to vphould such a confident insultation. For, where this here spoken by a borowed speach, is playnly vttered: yow are compelled to expoūd these wordes of the Apostle, take avuay the vui­cked man amongest yovu, that is, shun his cōpany: which is not onely a wresting of words, but also vnsitting to the cōparisō with the leuained bread, which S. Paule vseth to set forth ex­communication [Page 80] by. For it was not enough for the Israelites not to touch or vse any leauened bread, in the celebration of the Pasouer: but they were bound to put it ovut of their Exod. 12. 15. 29. & 23. 18 & 34. 25. hovuses, to prouide that no leauened bread vuere found in their hovuses, and not to kil the Pasouer, before they had rid their hovus of it.

Like violence he vseth, towching the receiuing of the ex­communicate. For where S. Paul vseth the same word of forgiuing, or as it is called, absoluing, as wel to note his ow­n2. Cor. 2. 10 releas, as the churchis, he wil haue, that the same word in the same vers, in one and the same cause, to be taken diuers­ly: and that referred to S. Paul, it shal haue the proper signi­fication, to remit, but referred to the church, to signifie the effe­ctes and signes of the remission, or absolution.

Vuhere I shew, that S. Paules declaration of his good vuil Diuis. 7. p. 665. to excommunicate, could be no ful excommunication, be­cause that that notvuithstanding, the Minister and ch­urch (althovugh vniustly) might haue receiued him to the communion of the Sacrament: he answereth, that he is yet excommunicate in heauen, which is a mere abusing of the rea­der, for I expresly preuēted that. And it is most vntrue, that it is enowgh to make the ecclesiastical censure of excom­munication, that a man be bound in heauen: when as our Math. 18. 17. Sa. Ch­rist noteth it, in that he is taken of the church, for a Publi­can and a Synner, and in that, there is an actual secluding from the sacrament. For otherwise, as sone as such wicked­nes is committed, and withal so long as it is vnrepented: the synner is bound in heauen, and in right shut owt from the communion of the Sacrament, althowgh no man excō ­municate him: which being alledged of me, is vnanswe­red.

To that I alledged, that S. Paul ioyneth the Corinthes Diuis. 8. p. 666. 1. Cor. 5. 4. vuith him, in the excommunication: he answereth, that [Page 81] they are ioyned as lookers on or as witnesses, not as doers in that action. But who hath taught him, thus to play, with the word of go­d: when as S. Paul ascribeth the same cause, of the corporal assembly of the church for that action, which he doeth vnto that presence, wherewith he saith his spirit should be (after a sort) there. If therfore S. Paules spirit were (after a sort and as it might) there, to look on, and to be witnes onely: then the chur­ch was also. els let him shew vs, with what wordes S. Paul de­clareth: that his spirit should be there for one thing, and the Corinthians for an other.

But what a shameful defence this is, that one voice de­clareth:1. Cor. 5. 22. whereby the Apostle giueth vnto the church, the iudgment of this matter. now, to iudg, or to giue sentence of malefactors: is more (I think) then to look on, or to be witnes. And what that iudgment is, is yet more clearly declared, by that which foloweth, where the Apostle saith, that the lordvers. 23. iudgeth those that are none of the church: giuing to vnder­stand, that they had onely to vse their censures vpon those of the church, and that they should leaue the infidels to the iudgment of god. so that, if he say that the iudgment of the church is nothing but a looking on &c. he must also expound these wordes, the lord iudgeth the infidels, that is, the lord standeth by, and looketh on whilest some other punish thē: whereto ad, that the Apostle ascribeth to the church the sa­me word of iudging, which he taketh to hym self. Likewise that the writer to the Hebrewes, giueth to the church, thatHeb. 12. 25. they should prouide, that no poisoned root remayn amon­gest them: which althowgh it be caried of some, from the person to the crime, yet it ys certein, boeth by the place of Deut. 29. 18. Moses, from whom it was taken, and by the scope of the A­postle, that yt is to be vnderstood of the persons. For he ex­horteth the church, first to giue diligence, that there be no such amongest them: then, if there be, not to suffer them to remain, to the infection of other. which is yet also more ma­nifest, because according to the custome of the scripture, that which he spake before, by a metaphore or borowed sp­ [...]ch: [Page 82] he expoundeth in the next vers when he saith; let th­ere be no vuhoremonger or prophane person &c. Ad fu­rther, that S. Iude, alluding vnto the prophet Zachary, wille­th the church in taking pitie of some, to saue others, as it vu­ere, out of the fire, by fearing them: which church, had no o­ther meanes to strike any fear into persons, that were (thro­wgh obstinacy in syn) as firebrandes almost half burnt, but by ecclesiastical censure.

To that I asked, vuhy S. Paul chideth vuith the church, before he had signified, that he vuould haue hym excom­municate, if it belonged not vnto the church: he answereth, because they did not cōplain of him, whereof there is not a letter to be gathered, in the holy Scripture. And what a mischeif had it bene, for the church to haue had no remedy, for such a contagious disease at home: but must goe seek for yt, in an­other country, and languish al that tyme whilest the messe­ngers went and came.

I leau to those which haue the bookes, to look with w­hat faith he hath cited these autorities, seing contrary to hys wont, he maketh them not to speak: Beside that, they a­re alledged for defence of excommunication by the Bis­hop alone, owt of them which are open enemies to that kinde of excommunication, especially the later writers. I say, leauing that, I answer, that none of them (one excepted) is to purpose. For, albeit the 18 of math. be explaned, by the oth­er of Math. 16. and Iohn 20: yet it foloweth not therefore, that they be al one. And althowgh in the 16 of mathew and Io­hn 20, togither with the preaching, the excommunication were vnderstood: yet the place of the 18 of S. Mathew, being of the autority of excommunication and not of the prea­ching, the difference doeth stil remain. Nether hurteth it, that euery seueral Minister of the word, hath by these pla­ces autoritie to excommunicate: being vnderstode of e­uery one for his portion. whych must needes, seing in S. Math. 18 the church hath autority likewise: so that it can not [...]e, that one seueral minister, can by those places chalendg [Page 83] the sole autority of excommunicating. That alledged of Musculus, wherin it is said, that he confoundeth these three places, is vntrue: for he extēdeth math. 18 to al Christians, restrayning math. 16 to the Ministers.

As for his reason to proue them al one, because they were al spoken to the Apostles, yt is friuolous: seing our Sa. Christ did not onely instruct them of thinges belonging to their Mi­nistery, but also of those that touched their priuate lyfe, a­nd of the duties of the whole church. Of the same sort is, that the same wordes are vsed in al three places. which is al one, as when the Prince ordeining, that one chest may be opened and shut by one onely, one other not so, but by others wi­th him: he should conclude, that al haue power alike, be­cause Keis with power to lok and vnlok, be giuen to al. For this manifest difference, is in the maner of speach, con­sidering that Math. 16, he speaketh of one in the singuler nombre, in Iohn 20, althowgh he speak in the plural, yet he vnderstandeth yt distributiuely, that ys, that euery one of the Ministers binedeth and loseth by preaching. But in S. Math. 18, those wordes being added to autorise the churchis excommunication, which word church, is a noun collectiue: they can not be drawen, to the particular person of the Minister.

Here also, it is to be obserued: that the D. hath quite ou­erthrowen his difference, of the Bishop, and of another Mi­nister, in the matter of excommunication. For if in S. Math. 16 and Iohn 20, togither with the preaching of the word, is vnderstanded power to excommunicate: al Ministers of the word hauing by those places autority to preach, it must fo­low necessarily, that they al haue power committed vnto them to excommunicate. And so falleth, his whole cause: which is, that by the word of god, the Bishop onely hath the right of excommunication.

Vuhere to that of S. Paules excommunicating Alexander &c, IDiui. 10. p. 667. answered, that one is said to doe alone, that vuhich he vuas moderator of, and vuherein he had assistāce: he answereth, [Page 84] that it is an imagined shift. But now he knoweth at least, if he wil not acknowledg it: that it standeth of vnfallible In the former part of this booK. pag. 196. reason, a­nd is confirmed with moste graue autority of learned men. To that I answer, towching the place of Titus, that to auoid an heritik, is not to excommunicate him, but to troble him self no more vuith him: he opposeth M. Caluins autoritie, wi­thowt any aid of reason. wherein, when I haue shewed the reason, which led me so to expound the place: let the reader doe, as him thinketh good: remembring, that if he vnder­stand it of excommunication, yet it helpeth him not, the same answer seruing, which was giuen to the place of Ti­mothe.

For so much then, as the Apostle willeth that the Mini­ster should avoid him, as one vtterly peruerted: and notwi­thstanding willeth 2. Thess. 3. 15. otherwhere, that the excommunicate should be houlden for a brother, vntil such time as it appea­reth, how that medicine of excommunication wil work wi­th him: and for that also, yt apperteineth vnto the Minister especially, euen then priuately to cal vpon him, when he is excommunicate: it seemeth, that this can not be vnderstan­ded of one to be excommunicated, but of a desperate ene­my whom excommunication hath not cured, but rather is (throwgh the poison in him) hardened. And hereof, I haue the iudgment of Ireneus: which saith, that the fact of S. Io­hn the Apostle, which would not goe into the bathes where Cerinthus the heritik was, nor once so much as speak vnto him, vuas doen according to this rule of S. Paul to Titus. [...]useb. li. 4. cap 14. And if an heretik be taken in that sens, which the D. hath o­ften taken him, in saying he mayer, but that he wil be no heretik, that is to say for one that standeth stif in his fals opinion: then we must needes vnderstād, that this order which S. Pa­ul prescribeth, is vnderstāded of that which is to be doen a­fter excommunication. For in such, we must not tarry, vntil two or three admonitiōs be giuen: but assone as one shew­eth him self an heretik in that sens, the sentence of excom­munication lieth against him.

But if the D. wil needes haue it vnderstanded, of excom­munication: it shal be the bane of his own cause, and a con­firmation of that answer, which he so scornefully reiecteth. For S. Paul noting excommunication, by the auoiding of the person excommunicate: in commanding Titus to auo­id him, doeth not therefore command him alone. where as the D. wil haue these, and such like commandementes: ad­dressed vnto Titus and Timothe alone. But ether, the church is not here excluded, which yow denie: or els it foloweth, that the church may kepe company with an heretik, and the Mi­nister onely forbidden so to doe, which is absurd.

In the next diuision, in steed of Basiles offices cited in the latin and English book, he hath set owt a long sentence of Ambrose, but which maketh nether whot nor kould: it being graunted, that it apperteyneth to the Bishop, but denied, that it doeth onely. whether to take one man for an other, be so gros a faut, as to cite a book which neuer was: let al iudg. yow sho­uld rather haue compared my faut, with yours in the next diuision sauing one: which yow pas by, as yow doe other wi­thowt any confession. The next diuision, I leau vnanswe­red.

In the next, I confes I was deceiued in the order of the story, which came thereupon, that Sozomene telleth that first, which was doen after, and contrariwise: but my answer, that the Bishops sole excommunicating, vuas but the pu­blishing of the sentence, giuen by him and the church, standeth. Nether is it of any weight, that George would not be entreated, or that sute was made to him for absolution. For it is easely answered, that George had numbers of his faction, for the gaining of which, it behoued to win him first.

The D. would with wordes bear vs down, that Theodoret Diuis. 14. p. 670. and Sozom. affirm Ambrose to haue excōmunicated the Emperour alone: which is but a facing, there being nether the word, alone, ne­ther any wordes which countervail yt. his reason, that Am­brose caried away al the commendation, is nothing worth: seing it is knowen, that the chief beareth the name, as the general of the field or Captayn, is often said to haue won the field, whē [Page 86] notwithstanding he vsed thereto, the valiancie of the soul­diers. And to set aside the institution of god, it had bene no commendation of Ambrosis courage, but a note of rashnes and fo­lish hardines: to haue enterprised that of him self, against such a mightie Emperour, wherein he might haue had the support of others. seing therby, not onely the danger shou­ld haue bene les towardes him: but also the fruit greater, to­wardes the Emperour, whilest yt should haue had more au­tority, that was doen by him with others, then by him self a­lone.Ambrose E­pist. 38. And when Ambrose saith precisely, that he should be more charged vuith displeasure, then the rest: he giueth to vnderstād, that some of the displeasure would lye vpon the neckes of the other Bishops, which with hym determined of that excommunication, althowgh not so much as vpon his, that should haue the execution of yt. whereby yt is yet more apparant, that the place owt of Ambrosis epistel tow­ching the Synod, and of his answer to the Emperour, was ci­ted faithfully, withowt falsifying. As for his answer, that the Bis­hopes lamented it onely, it hath no likelyhood, as it is In te exa­minatiō of the D. cen­sures. obserued. Vuhere he saith, that the Synod was assembled, before the slaughter, there appeareth no such thing: althowgh the cause lieth not in that point. For yt is al one to vs, whether the Coūcel met for that matter: or being assembled for other, vpon the rep­ort of yt, decreed of that censure.

The confession of his faut before the congregation, and as­king forgiuenes of the church: was alledged to purpose. For what is yt, to ask forgiuenes, but to ask absolutiō of the chu­rch: and why should he ask to be absolued of the church, if the church had not bound hym? That he saith, the penitentes doe so with vs: touching any demaund of absolution of the ch­urch, I think it be vntrue, wherein nothwithstanding, I refer me vnto the practise. but if it be, it is a very mockery, to cra­ue absolution of it, whē as, howsoeuer it is satisfied, the Bis­hops absolution, right or wrong, must stand. In the first sect­ion of his next diuision, let the reader iudg, how shameful his denialis, and in the fourth section, how miserable his defence is: the rest are answered.

Here, as thowgh Tertullian, had cōmitted some high tre­ason,Diuis. 16. p. 673. the D. draweth him, and quartereth him, vpon Rhenanus coment: whereas, althowgh Rhenanus disioyn the sentēces by putting his comment betwene that which I conioyned: yet he ioy­neth thē in expositiō, as those which hang togither. for Ter­tull. hauing before spokē, of the casting forth of the wicked owt of the cōmunion of the church: Rhenanus addeth, least yt should be thovught a confused cōpany it is said, that the­re vuere certein Elders etc. yt is to much bouldnes therfore for yow to say, that it can not be gathered of this place, that these elde­rs medled with excommunication. If they medled with other thinges (as yow confes) much more with this: if the putting betwene of Rh­enanus commentary, doeth not hinder, that this sentence shou­ld be referred, vnto thinges which are further from yt: why should it hinder the referring of yt, to excommunication, which goeth immediatly before. And beside this open light of Tertulliās wordes, yow haue M. Peter Martyr, that was no mangler nor corrupter of Tertullian: which vpon this place, preci­sely affirmeth, that these Seniors had their gouernment in vpon the [...]. epist. to the Cor. cap. 5. excommunication. your shift, that the Elders Tertullian speaketh of, were likely to be Ministers of the word and sacramētes: is In the 8. tract. diuis. 8. answered.

In that yow say, this autority being admitted, the people is quite sh­ut owt, first yow cōclude negatiuely of autority, namely that they haue nothing to doe, because Tertullian doeth not say they had. Then yow faut again in not marking, that when Tertullian saith, that these were Presidentes or cheif in the matter: he leaueth a significatiō, that other had to doe in yt, which folowed with their sentence those, that with the ripe­nes of their iudgment, went before the rest is In this chap. 2. diuis. answered.

If the excōmunicate might not be receiued, withowt theDiuis. 17. p. 674. peoples request, much les withowt their consent: for men vse not to make request, for that they consent not vnto. As for that alledged, because Cyprian would haue that absolution stand, Cyp. lib E­pist. 3 epist. 8. which was doen by one, that therefore it is lawful for the Bishop a­lone to absolue: is to trifle. For so Cyprian, wil haue it stand, [Page 88] that in the mean season, he condemneth the doer of yt. And the D. owght to vnderstand, that it is one thing to prescribe what should be doen: and another to support a thing which being commanded, is otherwise doen then it owght: as hath bene shewed, in the baptim by heretikes. Victor also being repentant, and hauing shewed fruites thereof: it had bene against right, to haue thrust him owt again. Yf he had not repented: it is certain, that Cyprian would haue dealt with him afresh.

Cyprian professeth, that he vuould neuer doe any thing Epist. 10. in his bishoprik, vuithovut the counsail of the Elders, and consent of the people: and yet the D. can not see, how this should make against his sole excommunication. what stronger wordes, co­uld there haue bene? If he vuould doe nothing vuithovut them, how much les excommunicate, which is so weighty a iudgment. As for that he expoundeth no matter, that is no doutful matter: it is a shameful corruptiō. which appeareth, in that beside the counsail of the Elders, to resolue him of the dowt, if any were: he addeth also, the consent of the people. Also, for that the same case, wherein he protesteth he would haue doen nothing withowt the church: was a plain case, a­nd whereof he was able to resolue, withowt the aduise of o­ther. Likewise that he sayth, it was in Cyprians power to haue doen al him self alone, because he saith, he determined not to doe so) is yet mo­re ridiculous: as thowgh Dauid in saying he determined to Psalm. 119. vers. 57. kepe the vuord of god, or any other, that he determineth to kepe his promis, doe therby giue to vnderstand, that ether the one needed not to kepe the word of god, or the other his promis.

The next Cyp. Epi. 14. place maketh the Elders and other chur­ch men, as vuel to haue povuer in absoluing, as the Bishop: yet the D. seeth not how that maketh against him, which would ha­ue the Bishop alone. but (saith he) the people is not there mentio­ned: as thowgh that was not sufficiently shewed in other pla­ces, [Page 89] and here left owt, because they did not lay on their han­des as the church officers. althowgh in the later end of that epistle, he also threatneth the disordered persōs: that if th­ey goe forvuard, they shal be made to ansvuer the matter before the people. But yt appeareth (saith he) that it could not be doen withowt the Bishop: euen as it could not be doen withowt those, whome Cypriā calleth clerkes: beside that it is to gre­at daliance, seing none denieth the Bishops an interest.

The next place is wherein Cyprian saith, that for so mu­ch Cyp. Epist. 19. as absolution belonged vnto al, meaing of those in his ch­urch, that he alone durst not doe yt. yet (sayth he) in that they desire it at Cyprians hand: it argueth, that the maner was then for one to absolue. was yt in deed, the maner to doe that which was not lawful, euen by your own confession: that is for one to lose that which many had bound? For they which desired absolution, kn­w that they were excommunicate by many: if therfore vpon that they desired absolution of one, it be wel concluded th­at one was wont to absolue: it foloweth, that they were wont to doe that, which was vnlawful, which is a slaunder of that tyme, and yet helpeth yow not. But the reader may vnder­stand, that they came therfore to desire absolution of Cypr­ian: because it belonged vnto him, to assemble the Seniors by whom the receiuing was first handled, before yt came to the church.

And who knoweth not, that the grief of the penitent sy­nner, languishing and feinting with desire of being ioyned with the church again, doeth euen wring owt petitions to be helped of them, which are not able alone to help: especi­ally when as they (likely) thowght, that the rest would be counsailed by Cyprian. who seeth not also, that the sens of Cypriās answer to those afflicted persons, which would ha­ue bene deliuered before the tyme prescribed of their re­pentance: is to shew him self moued with compassion of their sorow, which he for his part was ready to help, if the o­ther would thereto agree. which may better appear by that2. lib. Epist. 3. epistle, where the D. saith, he can finde nothing of this matter: whi­ch [Page 90] notwithstanding is most pregnant. For Cyprian sheweth there, how he trauailed greatly vuith his church, to receiue those vuhich, hauing fallen avuay, repented them: declar­ing thereby, that it was not in him alone. In the end, althow­gh he hath vsed such bouldnes, as I am ashamed to giue the proper name of: yet he feareth not to say, that I haue abused the reader. which, let him vnderstand (as touching three of the middle places) to be spoken as wel against M. Caluin, as me:Inst. 4. lib. cap 11 s. 6. who vseth them, to condemn the sole excommunication of the Bishop.

To the places owt of Augustin, noting that he vuould Diuis. 18. p. 675. haue this discipline ceas, if the more part be infected, vuhe­reby I gathered that he vuas of iudgment, that the consent of the church vuas to be required: he answereth, that those sayinges are to be vnderstanded, not of any right they had of excommuni­cation, but of the mislikyng of the fact, for which the Bishop doeth ex­communicate. But where hath he in Augustin that interpreta­tion, more then I haue that which I set down? I am wel assu­red, that Augustins wordes, are as fauorable to mine, as to his, and so much the more fauorable, as the schism which he would haue by this meanes auoided: riseth soner, when one is excommunicate, of whome they haue giuen the Bishop to vnderstand, that they would not haue hym thrown owt, then when no such iudgment hath passed from them. For then the vngodly oppose thē selues, not onely because they would haue the faut, wherwith they them selues be infected, vnpunished: but also, because they wil auow their own sen­tence. Nether did I propound that sentence, for Augustins wo­rdes, as he surmiseth, but as that, which I gathered of them.

As for the medicin which he pretendeth to giue, that the pe­ople retain sinnes, when they separate them selues from the company of the excommunicate: it is giuen to him, that is not sik. For, altho­wgh that may, by a borowed speach, be so called, wherby the effect is put for the cause: yet that Augustin meant not that onely, it is manifest in that he attributeth vnto the ch­urch, helping of the Bishop, yea and the very word of accur­sing, [Page 91] which he vseth for excommunicating: so that the D. hath corrupted the minde of Augustin. For Augustin putte­th first of al, the churches helping of the Bishop in excom­municating, as one seueral thing, and then the auoiding of his company for another: which he expoundeth as al one. but if he wil depart from the vsual speach, he must shew vs some good autority: wherby it may appear, that we must ne­edes wring Augustins wordes to that sens. which I am assur­ed he can not doe: especially when Ad Deme triaden [...] 1. Epist. Ierome who liued in the same age with Augustin, affirmeth that togither with the Bishop, the Elders in other censures of the church, and the church yt self, haue, interest in the excommunication. wh­ereupon may appear, that my interpretation of the places browght ether before or now, towching the Bishop excommu­nicating, vuhich is that he vuas the cheif in the action, and had the publishing of the sentence, and not the vuhole right of excommunication: is soūd, and cōformable boeth to the holy scripture, and practis of the elder and purer churches.

That the Canon of the coūcel of Sardis, whereof the Answerer glorieth, is to be vnderstanded not of the Bishop alone: o­ne profe is, in the Elders ioynt gouernment with the Bish­op generally in al matters, which I haue In the former part p. 594. Arles 2. ca. 30. before set down. Another shal be, that another Councel autoriseth, the su­spension, which the Elders and Clerkes decree against the Bishop: and that (as yt saith) by autority of aunciēt decrees. The Councels therfore, giuing the Elders remedy at home, and with in them selues: the rash excommunication, which the Coūcel ascribeth vnto the Bishop, must needes be vnderstood to haue bene doen by aduise of the Elders. For otherwise, if the Elders consented not vnto yt: they had by the auncient decrees, autority to deal with the Bishop thē selues, witho­wt running ether to Metrapolitane, or other Bishop. yf this answer like him not, let him (if he had rather) take that whi­ch M. Inst. 4. li. 11. chap. s [...] Caluin giueth: that the Bishops, vuhen they excom­municated of them selues alone, did it ambitiously, cōtrary to the decrees of the godly Councels.

As for that yow be of iudgment, that the Bishop may not ex­communicate whom he listeth, withowt profe &c. and therto cite a long sentence owt of Augustin: it is wel said, but wherfore ser­ueth this wel saying? doe yow think the church much beho­ulding to yow, for that which neuer any yet (the Popes Cā ­onistes excepted which giue him absolute power to throw owt and take in whom he list) durst deny? here therfore, yo­w run fairely, but owt of the way altogither.

If I of the other side, should herein set down the iudgm­ent of Bucer cō ­tra Groppe rum, & in 4. chap. to the Ephes. Item in lib. de rat. exa. can. & lib. de ani. cur. Bucer Martyr v­pon 1. Co. 5. Martyr, Zuing. in Ecclesiaste su [...]. Chap. 2. di­uis. 2. page 679. Zuinglius, and other godly writers of our age, against the sole excommunication by the Bish­op: it would require a book, by it self. But as in a thing clear and plain, I wil not weary the reader. The two next diuisio­ns, as meer and oft repeted reproches, I omit.

In the next, he confesseth that Chauncelors &c. owght not to medle with excommunication. The ciuil separation from trafique, &c. cited owt of Gualter: is nothing but a rouing. For we meddle not here, with ciuil punishment, except he peraduenture be of his iudgment, that the ecclesiastical discipline of ex­communication, may be taken owt of the church, and this ciuil separation put in place: if he be, let him speak owt, that we may hear him.

But because these kinde of allegations be daungerous, and tend to the shaking of this institution of god: and for that alowing sometyme of excommunication as of the in­stitution of god, at other some tymes he insinuateth, that yt should not be exercised, especially against the Prince, and nobility: leauing M. Gualter, I wil take me to hym. And to speak in a word of yt, yt is nothing but a meer mockery of the lord, and to offer hym self, as a Baud to al maner of syn­nes in Princes. Yf al were deliuered from this correction (as M. Gualter pretendeth) then yt were good reason that the Prince should also: but to insinuat, that others being sub­iect, onely Princes should be exempted (I fear) commeth from a wors cause, then from simple error.

For who could be ignorant, that our S. Christ speakethMath. 18. 15 generally, when he saith, yf thy brother &c. whereby he cō ­prehendeth [Page 93] al those that are members of one church, and childrē of one heauenly father. In which nōber the scriptu­re reckeneth the kyng: whilest in yt he is boeth called a Deut. 17. 15. 20. br­other, and calleth his subiectes 1. Cronic. 28. 2. 1. Cor. 5. 12. 12, 13. brethren. or who could be ignorant, that S. Paul subiecteth al vnto this order: sauing those onely, which are straūgers from the church. So that to say, that Princes are not subiect vnto this order: is al one, as yf he should say, that Princes pertain no to the kingdome of heauen, are none of the church, haue no part with Christ &c. Thus ys boeth Christ robbed of his honor, which in cō ­tempt of his order (as thowgh yt were to base for Princes to goe vnder) is hym self contemned: and Princes defrauded of a singuler 1. Cor. 5. 5 2 Tim. 1. 20. 2. Cor. 7. 11. ayd of saluation, and way to draw them to re­pentance, when they (throwgh the common corruption) fal into such diseases, against which this medicin was pre­pared.

Hether belongeth the practise of the church in this,Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 34. Theod. 5. 18 Platina. ca. Gelasius. and such kinde of censures, toward the Emperoures Philip, Theodosius, and Anastasius on the one side, and the godly Emperoures submission thereunto on the other, which yf he (vpon confidence of M. Gualters autority) dare cōdemn of pride in them which exercised those censures, or of foly in the Emperours that submitted them selues: not to char­ge hym with Master Nowels autority, which saith that the Prince ovught paciently to abide excommunication at Tom. 2. fol. 53. Numb. 12. 14. 15. 2. Cronicl. 26. 21. the Bishops handes, what wil he answer to the example of Mary Moses syster and kyng Vzzias, which were subiect to the same law of vncleānes by reason of the leprosy, aswel as any of the common people. For that the separation com­manded in respect thereof, was not onely a ciuil policy, to kepe the whole from the sik, but that there was therein vsed, a part of Ecclesiastical discipline, yt may appear, for that the Priest had the knowledg of the cause, the shutting them o­wt, and receiuing them in: and for that Azarias the Priest of the lord, with other his Assistantes, remoued the kyng owt of the temple, for the which he is commended in the scri­pture.

And if yt had bene onely a ciuil separation, yet when the Princes could not be exempted from yt, for fear of a corpo­ral infecting of their subiectes: how much les owght they to be exempted from that separation, which is 1. Co. 5. 6. instituted ag­ainst the spiritual contagion. that which he obiecteth, of the drawing this spiritual sword, at euery light or no occasion at al, thereby to deliuer the Prince from subiection thereto: ys vayn. for yf they abuse this power, the Price needeth not onely to cōtēn yt, but also may punish the abusers of yt: So that in this re­spect, there is les cause, why the Prince should shake of this yoke of Christ, then others: considering, that he hath better remedy against the abuse of yt, then others.

That cōtractes of mariadg, appertain not vnto the iudg­mentDiuis. 3. pa. 680. of church officers, it is manifest, considering that it is partly oeconomical, and belonging to the right of the 1. Co. 7. 38. pa­rentes, partly ciuil, in respect that it was in tymes past con­cluded before the Ruth 4. cha. 1. 2. Magistrate. For as for the blessing in the church, it is no part of the contract, but a thing annexed v­nto yt. which appeareth, in that vpon the bare contract, be­fore the blessing: the parties (althowgh not to haue compa­ny one with another) be Math. 1. 20. man and wife: and for that the bre­aker of that contract, is taken for an Deut. 22. 23. 24. adulterer. wherevpon it foloweth, that the iudgment of diuors, being meerly pu­blik, must be the ciuil magistrates alone. For matters of willes, it appeareth that they belong vnto the Magistra­te: considering that they are occupied in the commodities of this life, and towch the distribution of goodes or lan­des.

As for the An. reason, that the Bishop hauing best knowledg in those thinges, may best iudg in them: it is a hook, to get al into their own handes. But I deny first, that they haue, or can (by their calling) haue best knowledg in such thinges: con­sidering that there be diuerse thinges in them, which re­quire other knowledg, then of the law of god. And the case is rare, when the question is, whether a legacy, a con­tract, or a diuors be according to the law of god, or no: at least which requireth any deep knowledg to dissolue it. [Page 95] And if al that which may fal into these matters, were to be decided by the law of god: yet to sit as iudg in them, requi­reth not onely knowledg, but also a calling, which Bishops can not haue, for the causes aboue alledged. Therefore it is manifest: that herein the Bishops are vsurpers, whereof also the D. may read, M. Nowels iudgment, that vuhoredo­mes, 2. Tom. fol. 25. adulteries, slaunders, subtraction of tithes, cases testa­mentary &c. vuhich Bishops sometyme meddle vuith: are no more spiritual, then are murthers, theftes, oppressions, and other iniuries.

Nether wil it help him: that they exercise al maner of iuris­diction, in the Princes right. For, first it hath bene shewed, that they owght to exercise no ciuil iurisdiction, althowgh it were committed vnto them. Then, how cometh it to pas, that in right of their bishoprik, withowt further commis­sion from the Prince: they take vpon them these iudgmen­tes of whoredome, diuorces &c, euen as they found them in tyme of popery. And as for excommunication, and o­ther censures ecclesiastical, if they exercise them in the Magistra­tes right: it foloweth that boeth the magistrate may much more exercise them him self, and appoint other then mini­sters to doe thē, boeth which, as they be absurd, so are they ouerthrowen by the D. him self: which thinketh it vnlawful for Chauncelors to excommunicate, for that (as I suppose) they be no ministers.

In the next, where the Chauncelors are charged to ex­communicate, and absolue for money, also one man for a­nother &c. he saith, it is the faut of the man and not of the law. which if it were true, yet it argueth the Bishops vnsufferable carelesnes of godes glorie, whose institution is thus shame­fully profaned: and neglect of duty towardes the Prince, w­hose subiectes are thus pilled. And here it is not to be omit­ted, that where the ecclesiastical cēsures in reformed churc­hes, are exercised withowt a penny charge vnto any person: our churches, partly by reason of the Archbis. and Bishops, [Page 96] and partly the Archdeacons officers and their hangons, w­hich by this meanes liue in al brauery and iolytie of life, are sore wrung: So that they are therby much les able, to contri­bute to the necessary charges, ether of releeuing their poor minister, or susteyning the subsidies laid vpon them, for de­fence of the realm. Therfore if the Archbishops and Arch­deacons wil needes take more vpon them, then them selues be able to beweld: at the least, let them pay their seruantes wages, and not thus burden the church. But thus the reader may see, how vnworthely the Archbishops, Bishops and Ar­chdeacons deal with the church, which not content them selues to vse tyranny ouer yt, and to take vpon them of the­ir priuate autority, which belongeth vnto other with them, haue also brought it into bondage vnder their seruantes, a­nd seruātes seruātes, I mean Chauncelors, Comissaries &c. The next I pas by.

In the next, where I shew that the office of Chorepiscopus Diuis. 6. p. 682. alledged for defence of the Chauncelers office, vuas far another thing: he saith, that he onely alledged yt to proue that Bishops had their deputies▪ which, how vnhonest a shift it is, may appear: in that he maketh no difference, betwene the Chauncelor and Chorepiscopus, but onely in the name: saying, to contend for the name when the thing is certeyn, is a token of a contentious person.

Althowgh he had not so gained, that the Bishops had depu­ties: seing I In the first booK and in the for­mer part of th [...] booK. p. 523. shewed, that boeth the nature of the word, and the autority of certein interpreters, lead to the signification aswel of a Bishop in the countrey townes, as of a deputie. yt is vntrue, that I haue any where alowed an ordinary deputy, whe­rof the question is here: but contrary wise, haue shewed that there owght to be none, not onely in the treatise of the Pa­stors residence, but also in Diui 2. p. 679. this, wherunto the D. answereth nothing. But if it were graunted, that they might haue, such as I haue shewed to haue bene Chorepisc. yet what a stran­ge conclusion is this, that they may aswel haue Chauncelors: consi­dering that he is now constreyned to confes, the office of the one greatly different from the other. The rest is in the former part of this booK p. 146. 229. and in this part diuis. 16. p. 645. answe­red: so are the two In the ex­amination of the D. cē ­sures. next.

In the next, where he is charged for alowing as necessary the Archbishops court of faculties &c, which he confesseth he knoweth not, what it meaneth. He saith, he browght better reason for it, then is browght against yt. which is no defence of his rash­nes, wherby he affirmed, that which he confessed he knew not. His reason which he hath learned sithens is, that the Quenes p. 561. prerogatiues are defended there: As thowgh the Archbishop were the fittest man to defend her prerogatiues. Also, that it was set vp, when the Pope was put down: in deed so yt was, which is a go­od sign, that the Archbishop (sauing profession of obedien­ce to the king) was made Pope in his place. For herevpon it cometh, that he exerciseth vntolerable and filthy marchan­dise: of which diuers obiected by the Adm. he partly confes­sed,561. 685. and part throwgh lothnes to confes and vnability to answer, were passed by.

That also, of not changing lawes but vpon strong reasons, which he other where repeateth: hath no place, where the question is, whether they be against the word of god or no. For here that worthy sentence hath place: yf god command any thi­ng August. in his 3. booK of confess. 8 chap. against the maner or decree of vuhatsoeuer they be, if it vuere neuer doen before, it ovught to be doen, if it haue be­ne omitted, it ovught to be restored, if it vuere neuer before, it ovught to be instituted. Yf the D. allegation haue place, it hath place in variable ceremonies: which notwithstāding (as hath bene shewed) the church hath changed, according as the circumstances haue required, to the most of her co­modity.

Seing therfore, our Sau. Christ commandeth, that the ex­communication should be made by the church: Seing the Apostles his faithful interpreters, cōmunicate the same po­wer with yt, in commanding yt to thrust owt impenitēt syn­ners, to procure that boeth they may be saued, and others also kept from infectiō: seing also the holy gost, chideth the church, for that it had not vsed this power against the vnre­pentant: Seing he communicateth with it, the power of ab­soluing those which were thrust owt, whē they declare their [Page 88] repentance: Last of al, seing boeth the iudgment, and gene­ral practise of the elder churches, and in a maner of those w­hich are now, lead vs hereunto: Of the other side, seing the Bishop can not pas smaller matters, withowt the aduise of the church: seing by his sole excommunication, he hath br­owght the church to a miserable seruitude, and that not to him self alone, but to his seruantes, Chauncelors, Officials, &c. seing vnder colour hereof, he hath thrust his sickle into the Magistrates office, suffred the glory of god to be troden vnder foot, the Quenes subiectes to be pilled: And finally, seing that for his sole excommunicatiō, there is not so mu­ch as one ether approued example, or writer to be browght (some of the papistes them selues being ashamed of it:) let vs conclude, that the excommunication doeth not belong vnto the Bishop alone, but that by the ordinance of god, the church also here owght to ha­ue her interest.

HIs question, where the office of widowes is restre­ined 1. Diuis. pa▪ 686. to the poor which are sik, and strangers, I pas as impertinent: especially when he doeth not assign any other, to whom their atten­dance belongeth. that the contrary doeth ap­pear, almost in expres wordes: is but his accusto­med bouldnes, of vntrue speaking.

Let vs therfore come, to the Deacons: whose office is as­signed, to be abowt the church money. The Rom. 12. [...]. first proof here­of, receiued for answer, that it was but daliance with the scriptu­re: [...]ith which tyme, althowgh M. Caluin, Bucer, Martyr, and Beza, haue bene shewed to haue so expounded the place, yet his accusation is vnrepealed: whereby al these le­arned men, with many others stand charged stil by him, as daliers with the scripture. But what, think yow, doeth he answer, to this whole colledg of godly learned men? he opposeth the exposition of certain fathers. who would haue looked for this answer at his hand, in setting one writer against another, wi­thowt a tittle of reason, wordes onely excepted, which hath so bytingly, page 65. condemned yt in other.

These learned men, were not ignorant of those expositi­ons: nether did they lightly depart, from the interpretation of the auncient writers. For whome also it may be answered, that in interpreting this place of priuate giuing: they mēt not, to shut owt this office. And of M. Bullinger it is manifest, that vpon the 12. Rom. he doeth so alow of that, that he wil haue it vnderstood pro­perly of the Deaconship: so that yow openly abuse his testi­mony herein. The cause why the auncient fathers folo­wed this exposition, is known wel enowgh to those which haue bene conuersant in them, with any iudgment: name­ly a desire they had, to draw al to the correction of maners streyning often tymes their textes in hand, to draw them [Page 90] to the present vse of their churches. by reason wherof, whe­ther in steed of milk, they sometimes drw bloud, I leau it to the iudgment of the learned reader.

But let vs see, if this wrangling of his: can be conuinced, of the place yt self. where first it is manifest, that it is an ex­planation of that similitude which was drawen from the bo­dy: in which the Apostle shewed, that as al the members ha­ue not one office, So in the church, euery one hath not the same function. wherevpon foloweth, that if this distributiō of money, which is a part of that explanation, should agree to al the church alike, and should not be a seueral office: he should quite ouerthrow his purpose. For he should, shew, thinges agreeing vnto al alike: in steed that he should haue shewed, that some thinges be peculiar. Yf he reply, that he had shewed those before, and that here he beginneth to sh­ew the thinges, which are common to al Christians alike: he is manifestly beaten down, by the order of the Apostle. For seing boeth that which immediatly goeth before this, and which foloweth immediately after, be publik offices: what extreme bouldnes would it be, to say that this in the midd­est, is but priuate. If he doe giue him self this licence, let him shew example, of such an order.

Further, the Apostle here maketh a partition: as it is ma­nifest by the wordes and articles, which are instrumentes to part with. Now if he wil haue one membre in this partition, bigger then al the rest, and to conteyn them al: he maketh the holy gost (which is to be detested) an euil and an vneu­en parter. Herevpon it cometh, that when he speaketh of the dutyes, which belong to al alike: he beginneth with an­other vers. 9. form of speach.

Last of al, yt is not to be omitted, that he vseth the word of Distributor, rather then the word giuer. For althowgh it be taken sometyme, for the giuer, yet that is but by a trope: for somuch as the same is often the distributor, which is the giuer: so that the proper signification being, to dispose that which was giuen of others, agreeth vnto the Deacon, and not vnto one which giueth of his own. His exceptions of [Page 91] Prophesy, and widowes office In the former part of this booK. p. 326. and in this later part diuis. 5. p. 637. Diuis. 4. p. 688. Rom. 12. 8. be answered. In the next being cōuicted of his vntruth, he falleth to iesting: albeyt it be ma­nifest, that the Adm. towcheth not onely thinges in controuer­sy, but sometyme also, the breach of that which is establis­hed.

To proue, that the Deacon owght not to meddle with the administration of the word and Sacramentes, I alledged first, that the Apostle vuilling euery one to kepe him self in his boundes, boundeth the Deacons office in distributing of the church treasur, and by that separateth him, from those vuhich haue the dispensation of the vuord: vuhereas, if he should preach the vuord as the other, the Apostle sh­ould haue made an euil partition, and pretended a sepa­ration vuhere none is. His answer hereunto is, that it is no re­ason: but why it is not, he kepeth to him self.

The second reason was, that for so much as the Apost­les hauing such passing giftes, did finde them selues vnable to susteyn boeth the ministeries, of the vuord, and for the poor: that therfore there can be much les novu, any able to doe them boeth togither. His first exception whereunto, is friuolous, and Tract. 7. diuis. 2 pa. 758. before confuted: his other that they spent no great tyme in prouision for their sermons, is vntrue and openeth a gap to Anabaptism. For althowgh their giftes were greater in those tymes, then now: yet they omitted not therefore, to study diligently which may appear, in that S. Paul is so 2. Ti. 4. 13. ca­reful to haue his parchmentes browght: in that S. Peter had 2. Pet. 3. 16 red S. Paules epistles so diligently: Likewise that the Pro­phetes in tymes past which had extraordinary giftes, vsed great diligence in reading, as it may appear in Daniel. whi­ch, notwithstanding he was so wise, so expert in the tonges, and had so oft and so wonderful reuelations: yet Dan. 9. studied the prophesy of Ieremy. And in a word, of them al, S. Peter pronoūceth, that 1. Pet. 1 10. they took great paines in their prophesi­es: [Page 92] vsing wordes most strong, to set forth their great labor, in prouiding fo [...] that they tawght.

Nether was this of pleasure, and a thing which they might ether doe or leau vndoen, but a commandement: as it is to be seen in the exāple of Timothy, which had giftes so much the more excellent then the Deacons, as his office of Euan­gelistship, was higher then the Deaconship. For he is 2. Tim. 4. 13. 25. bid­dē, to read, to meditate and to preach, ioyning one with a­nother, and that not sleightly but with attention, yea that [...]. he should dvuel in them, or be as it were shut vp and enclo­sed in them: thereby noting the great diligence that was to be bestowed, as wel in reading and studying, as in preachīg, And thus went the building of god singulerly forward, whē vnto the giftes which came withowt their labor miraculous­ly: they labored also after ether encreas of them, or getting of nue, by the ordinary meanes prouided of god in that be­half.

Again, S. Paul reckoning vp, al the ministers of the word:Eph. 4. the Deacon not being there, it foloweth that he is no mini­nister of the word. And here the D. is plainly found, at strife with him self. For he confessing, that there is in that place, 308. a complet and perfect diuision of the ministeries of the word, and withal that 309. the Deacon is not there conteyned: doeth notwithstāding he­re, sing a clean contrary song.

Moreouer, it is diligently to be obserued, that S. Paul in describing this office, requireth not that they should be ab­le,1. Tim. 3. 8. or apt to teach: which notwithstanding being (by the An. iudgment) the cheif point belonging vnto him, should ha­ue bene most absurdly left owt. Lastly, if the Deacons office had bene, togither with the Stewardship of the church trea­sure, to haue preached and administred the sacramenres: yt must folow, that his office must haue bene a greater office, then the Pastors, as that which requireth greater giftes for executing boeth that which the pastor doeth, and more to: which being absurd, that is also, whereof this foloweth. That monster, which remaineth in this diuision: I wil set vpon, w­hē I shal haue run throwgh that which pertayneth vnto this [Page 93] matter, as it lieth in the 14 Tract.pag. 5 [...]2.

As I did not before deny, so now I cōfes him to haue bene Phillip the Euangelist, and not Phillip the Apostle, which is mentioned Actes the 8: and hould as before, that he preach­ed by vertue of his Euangelistship, and not by vertue of his Deaconship, vuhich vuas then ceased, for that the church vuhereunto he serued vuas scattered. Against which answer, his autority owt of the Actes 21, to proue that he was stil Deacon: is quite contrary, to him self. For it affirmeth of the tyme past, that he was, before Paules arriual vnto Caesarea, Deacō: not that he was so, when he arriued. For then the interpreters, would haue turned the participle, which serueth boeth for the tyme past and present, according to the circumstance of the place, which is one of the seuen, and not vuhich vuas: So th­at, here we haue the common consent of al interpreters, fla­tly against the D. namely, that Phillip was not then Deacon when S. Paul came to Cesarea, but had bene before.

That of M. Gualter, maketh also against hym: which placeth the Deacons office, in the disposing of the church treasure, and that they preached not, but in tymes of necessity. So that where M. Gualter permitteth preaching no more vnto Deacons, then yow doe baptim vnto wemen: yow wil haue it, their standing office.

The difference betwene a Priest and a Deacon, browght owt of Augustin and Epiphanius, can by no meanes stand: consideri­ng that, that imposition of handes whereby giftes were ex­traordinarily giuen, which Phillip absteyned from, he did not absteyn from, onely as Deacon, but also as he was Euā ­gelist: seing that was a thing peculier vnto the Apostles, and a proper note, whereby the lord magnified their ministeri­e, aboue al other ministeries whatsoeuer. So that, it is no good reason to say, that Phillip could not by laying on of his handes giue the holy gost, therfore he was a Deacon: considering that, ne­ther Euangelistes, nor Prophetes them selues meddled wi­th that kinde of laying on of handes, which is there men­tioned.

And if Phillip were then Deacon, he was Deacon of the church of Ierusalem, whereunto he was chosen. But it ys manifest, he was not Deacon there: considering that S. Luke after his departure from thence, and preaching in Samaria, and certein other places, bringeth hym to Caesarea, whereActo. 8. 40. Act. 21. 8. he leaueth hym as a houshoulder and towndweller. so that vnles he dare say of Phillip that he was a continual non re­sident: yt can not be, that he was Deacon after his departure from Ierusalem.

But let vs graunt, that Phillip was boeth a Deacon and Euangelist, which is notwithstanding absurd: seing that the Apostles confessed them selues insufficient, to susteyn that burden, togither with their preaching ministery. I say let vs graunt that, yet forasmuch as he can not deny, but that yt belongeth vnto the office of an Euangelist to preach: how is he able to proue, that Phillip preached rather by vertue of his Deaconship, thē of his Euangelistship. So that onles he be so bould, as to deny that Phillip was there no Euangelist: he gaineth nothing, by al this travail. For otherwise, it folo­weth that Phillipes example, wil not warrant the Deacons preaching: except he haue, some other ministery of the wo­rd, ioyned with yt.

Therefore, let not him any more pretend, the autority of the godly writers: but confes, as the truth is, that this ar­gument was ministred hym owt of Pigghius: who vpon thisPiggh. Con­trouers. 11. example of Phillip, affirmeth (as he doeth) that the Deaco­ns may preach, euen as the Priestes doe. As for Augustin, he goeth abowt (althowgh not so aptly, as I haue declared) rather to shew, that the Deacons might not lay on their hā ­des: then that yt belonged, vnto them to preach. which may appear, in that he doeth not permit them to conceiue the prayers, wherunto the people should answer: which notwi­thstanding is les, then to preach.

I shewed, that by the same reason, they are houlden Diuis. 2. p. 583. from the administration of the supper, they ovught also to be barred from that of baptim: considering that, it is not o­nely [Page 105] a miserable rending in sonder of thinges vuhich god hath ioyned, but also giueth occasion, or rather, being crept in, maynteyneth a daungerous error: vuhich is, that men esteme some holier thing to be in the sacrament of the holy supper, then in baptim. To this he answereth, that the reason of this difference is: because yt is mentioned that Phillip baptized, and not that he administred the supper. where, by the way, let the reader obserue, that vpon two particuler examples, which he also vntruly pretendeth, he would ground a doctrine, that the De­acons owght to preach, althowgh he be able to shew no rule, nor commandement for yt: which notwithstanding he vtterly cōdemneth in vs, althowgh yt be shewed, to haue bene do­en generally. Secondly, how he reasoneth negatiuely of au­tority, that it was not doen, because yt ys not so written: yea which is more, that yt owght not to be doen, another thing also, which he reprocheth vs with.

Now, as for his answer, yt is to friuolous. For, althowgh yt be a good reason in the direction of the church, to say, th­ere is nothing wtitten towching yt, therfore it is not to be admitted: yet in the practise of that which is prescribed to be doen, it is an euil argument to say, it is not written, therfore yt was not doen: much more, that yt may not be doen. For, when our Sau. Christes actes, Ioh. 20. were not al written: is yt any marueil, althowgh al that Phillip did, be not written? And by his rea­son, the Bishops owght not to administer the supper: consi­dering that, in al the scripture it is not mentioned, that a Bi­shop ministred yt.

Nether, if Phillip did not minister the supper: foloweth yt ther­fore, that he had not autority to administer yt, aswel as bap­tim: except he think, that our Sa. Christ had not autority, as­wel to administer baptim, which he did Ioh. 4. 2. not, as to admini­ster the supper, which Luk. 22. 19. he did.

To that wherein I noted the disorder in our church, permitting to one that can not preach, the administration of the supper, and not to the Deacon (as they cal hym) whi­ch [Page] can preach: he answereth, that the one is called thereto, the other is not. where he must needes mean, that the one is lawfully cal­led thereto, and the other lawfully shut therefro: which is an asking, of that in question.

My reply to his obiection of Steuens oration, that yt vuas no Diuis. 3. p. 584. sermon, but a defence of hym self against his accusations: is clear. For yt appeareth, that the high Priest and ScribesAct. 6. 11. 15 & 7 1. 2. &c. were there set in iudgment, the fals witnesses were set vp against hym, he was demaunded whether the accusation were true, and vpon that demaund began his oration. now, let hym shew such a form of preaching, to haue bene vsed in any church.

Yt is also vnlike, that the high Priest and Scribes would permit hym to preach: when as they had forbiddē the Apost­les before. but to giue hym leau to answer to his accusatiōs, was needful for thē: therby to mayntein that visard of holi­nes, whereby they pretended an exact obseruation of the law, which was, that no man should be cōdemned vnheard. And so, if he wil haue this a sermō, he shal yet gain nothing: considering that he had not this power by his ministery of Deaconship, but by commaundement of the Councel, that had power to require an account of that, which he had pro­pounded in disputation, with those of the Colledg of Liber tynes &c.

His proof, that it was in the Synagog, is first withowt al warrāt: there being not a word thereof, in the scripture. And yet be­ing made in Ierusalem, if it had bene a sermon: it is liker, to haue bene in the temple. Nether, if yt were in the Synagog, hath yt any force to proue a sermon: onles he think, that e­uery one which pleaded his cause in Paules Consistory, in Queen Maries tyme, made a sermon.

That he also reprehended them sharply, is no other thing, thē di­uers of the Martyrs of god haue doen with vs, which, I think he wil not say to haue preached, by vertue of any ecclesiasti­cal function. althowgh I confes, that that is not to be lightly doen, and withowt some especial directiō, whereof the lord, in such tymes, doeth furnish his: otherwise those that are priuate men, owght to content them selues, with a simple a­nd playn defence of the truth.

Nether is Paules answer vnto Tertullus accusation Act. 24, any sermō but a simple defence, addressed onely to Felix as to his Iudg, vttered at the bar, as they speak, in a ciuil Court, and in a ci­uil or common wealth cause, namely of sedition: and hath les of the nature of a sermon, then Steuens oration: yet, it is singulerly profitable for instruction of our behauiour, in li­ke cases. The least part also of S. Peters oration Act. 2, is spent in answer to the accusation of dronckennes: and that nether compel­led, nor iudicial, as was S. Steuens.

I graunt, a man may defend hym self against fals accusations in a sermon: but that is not, whē he standeth iudicially accused li­ke a malefactor, as S. Steuen did. whose vuhole oration, how apt a purgation yt is (which he denieth): the reader may fe­tch from M. Caluin, vpon that place: that I be not cōpelled, to lenghthen my book by so long translations. Against M. Beza (in quoting of whome, I failed) are opposed Gualter and the Centuries: of whose sentēces, which is truer, let it be iudged of the reasons on boeth sides. whether in the two next diui­siōs, the Ans. shifteth his gros ouersight, let the reader iudg: especially, whē as his pretence, that the Adm. assigned the deacon­ship, to be onely in handling the church treasure, is vntrue. For nether haue they the word, onely, nor any thing of that value: and it is manifest, that their drift was, onely to shut owt the Deacō from the administratiō of the word and sacramētes. so that, in taking his wordes, in that sens which he now would haue them: in effect he cōfesseth, hym self to haue but trifled with the Admonition: chaunging the prickes, which they had set hym to shoot at and roving after a mark of his own finedīg. In the next, I alledged, that if the Deacōship vuere graūted, a step to the ministery, yet thereof folovueth not that yt is the mynistery: but contrarivuise, that it is not, and therefore ovught not to doe thinges pertayning to the ministers. To this he answereth, he concluded not so: which I confes, can not be forcibly won owt of his wordes. But he saith, he might haue so concluded: which is absurd, and al one as if he should say, that the foot of the stayer is the same with the top, whe­ther it, in ascending, leadeth. And how dare he say that [Page 108] he might haue so reasoned: when as to the argument, which I drw from these wordes of hys, he can answer nothing, how could he haue hurt vs, with this, which he suffereth to be dr­iuen so flat, vpon the head of his own cause.

Vuhere afterward, to proue it no step to the ministery, I alled­ged,Diuis. 7. p. 587. that the giftes are diuers, and that one may vuel dis­pence the church treasure vuhich, for vuant of vtterance, should neuer be fit Minister: he answereth, that the Bishops and Deacons giftes, required 1. Timot. 3, doe not much differ, which is a great vntruth. For it is required of the one, that he should be boeth able to teach, and of long tyme in profession of the gospel, nether wherof, is required of the Deacon: when notwithstanding, the first onely of them, maketh a greater difference, as towching the duty of preaching which is in question, then if he had made them to differ, in an hundreth other thinges. he addeth that they may be put by the mynistery, for their leud lyfe: which is a meer mispending of the tyme, for so may the Clokkeper or the Sexten. Again, that Ambrose with o­ther, expound yt so: which is likewise, that being before confes­sed by me: especially, when other learned men, by his own confession, leauing their exposition, take this which I pro­pounded.

Further, that vtterance sufficient for the distribution of the church money, is sufficient also for the ministery of the word: which must of necessity be his answer, if he speak to the purpose. And be­ing so, it is to absurd: the confutation whereof (if it deserue any) may be fetched from that In the former part of this booK. Tract. 5. before handled. Althowgh, if that were true, the argument is not avoided: oneles he wil also say, that there is as great knowledg and as deep iudgm­ent in the scriptures, required for the disposing of the chur­ch treasure, as for the preaching of the word. vnto the other reason, which I browght against this, that the deaconship should be a step to the ministery, raised owt of the same place: he answe­reth nothing.

Here he abuseth the readers patience again. For whereDiuis. 8. p. [...]88. before, not able to shew one testimony owt of any auncient writing, that the Deacons had to doe with the word and sa­cramentes, [Page 109] I confessed notwithstanding frankly, that there were some: he hath here, set them down. wherevnto, beside the answer before made, I ad: that those cited owt of Tertulli­an and Ierom, be so far from helping hym, that they make aga­inst hym. For in that the Deacons could not meddle with the word or Sacramentes, but vpon the Bishops licence: it argueth, that yt belōged not vnto their office: seing it is ab­surd, that that which they were bound to doe by reason of gods institution, should be hanged vpon the Bishops plea­sure.

Likewise, that owt of M. Beza, is against hym. For in saying, they supplied the Pastors office: he giueth to vnderstand, th­at it belonged properly vnto Pastors, and was doen by De­acons but in tyme of necessity. And so was, the Administra­tion of the supper: which (583. saith he) he can not read in any au­tor, to haue bene permitted to the Deacon. wherein, to let pas the Councel of 2. Con [...]. can. 15. Arles and others, which licence this vnto thē, in absence of other: at the least, did he not read M. Bezas sentence, which he hath thrust into his own book, that they ministred the sacramentes, not onely the Sacrament of Baptim: althowgh the places quoted 1. Corin. 1. 14. 15. and Iohn 4. 2. pro­ue no such thing, no not in the Ans. own iudgment, as I thi­nk. For, wil he say, that the twelue Apostles which baptized, were al Deacons? or that because S. Paul did not commonly baptize, those whome he conuerted, that therfore Deacons baptized them: as if there were nether Euangelistes nor Pa­stors, to doe yt. Nether is yt enowgh for hym thus to trifle, except he vse most vile reproches against me: as thowgh I striued, against a manifest truth. But that (euen by M. Bezas iudgment) the administring of baptim, doeth lawfully be­long to the Minister alone, and not to the Deacon: the D. may see Libell. de Quaest. in Sacr. quaest. 137. Tom. 2. 6. Concil. Constantinop. san. 16. otherwhere.

Now, vnto the most certeyn groundes, of the word of god: let hym hear, the testimonyes of the auncient tymes. And first of the general Councel, which maketh the Deacōs Ministers of the poor, whom it calleth Ministers of tab­les [Page 110] and not of the holy thinges. Another Councel decreed,Tom. 1. Cō. Vasense 2. Can. 4. that in the Ministers siknes: the Deacon should read, the homilies of the fathers. wherby appeareth, that that Coūcel, not so much as in the tyme of the Pastors siknes, suffred th­em to preach the word, but to read homilies: thereby assig­ning also, the greatest honor in doeing any thing which the Minister vsed to doe in the church, in that he might read et­her the scriptures or homilyes. Chrysostom saith, that the Deacons had need of great vuisdome: althovugh the prea­ching In act. ca. 6 of the vuord be not committed vnto thē. And further sheweth, that yt is absurd, that they should doe boeth the office of preaching, ād caring for the poor: cōsidering that they be not able, to doe boeth thorovughly. yea, euen immediatly after that corrupt sentence, which the Ans. wil needes father vpon Ambrose: it is said, In 4. cap. ad Ephes. that in his tyme, the Deacons did not preach. Of this practis of the elder churches, we haue M. 5. Decade Serm. 3. Bullinger that giueth a playn testimony with vs, that althovugh, the goodes of the church encreasing, there vuere beside the Deacons, Subdeacons and Archdeacons: yet th­at the Deacons remayned stil in their charge for the poor, and vuere not as yet mingled, vuith the Bishops or priestes, and vuith the order of those vuhich tavught.

This being thus set, that which, for the straūgenes, I called a monster: falleth flatly. for whē yt hath appeared, boeth by the word of god, and practis of the elder churches, that it be lōgeth not vnto the office of the Deacō, to meddle with the mynistery of the word and sacramentes, yf yt be true, which the Ans. 689. saith, that prouision for the poor by a Deacō, is not necessa­ry vnder a Christian Prince: yt must folow, that the office of Dea­conship vnder a Christian Prince is vnnecessary. which as yt ys absurd, so hym self (I think) wil not affirm yt: yf he doe, yt hath the same refutation, which the denial of the necessity of the office of Elders, hath had before.

Na althowgh yt were graūted, which he would haue, that the Deacons office were to minister the word and sacramēt: yet this point of prouisiō for the poor taken away, the Deacon is quite ex­tinguished: cōsidering that there should remayn, no part of office, whereby the minister of the word, should be seuered. yf he say, that there should be differēce, in that the one mig­ht minister the supper, and the other not: beside that I haue shewed how absurd that is, he cā not so escape. for stil the gi­ftes are al one: cōsidering that whosoeuer hath giftes of god to minister the word and Baptī, the same hath also giftes to inable hym, to minister the supper. whereas seing S. Paul se­parateth the offices by their giftes: yt were against reason toRom. 12. 8. make thē diuers offices, which haue the same giftes for their executiō. Beside that, in taking away that which he is cōstre­yned to cōfes, to haue bene by gods institutiō, at the least a part of this office: he is manifestly cōuicted, of chāging and corrupting, yf not of vtter ouerthrowing the lordes ordinā ­ce. Els, let hym shew vs, what tittle of the scripture he ha­th: whereby yt may appear, that the ministery of the word and Baptim (which he surmiseth to belong vnto yt) should be perpetual, and the prouision for the poor temporal. p. 69 [...].

So also appeareth, that the cōtradictiō is vnanswered which was laid vnto hym: in that in the lati book saying yt owght not to be takē away, in this and the other, he saith that this part is not ne­cessary. for thus should yt not be the office of a Deacō, instituted by the holy Apost. but another functiō, forged by D. wh­itgift. This assertiō of his, being straūg: his reason wherupon yt is groūded, is yet further owt of fashiō. for he contenteth not hym self, to say that mē may deuise as good away for the prouision of the poor, as did the lord hym self: oneles in this behalf, he set vp the wisdome of men aboue the lordes. For this doeth he playnly in effect affirm, when he saith, that the poor may by other lawful and politik meanes, be better prouided for: cō ­sidering that yt was the lordes own order, established by the Apost. where, beside that his reason, is a demaund of that in question, and that the vntruth therof, hath bene In the former part of this booK. and in the preface. Es. 7. 15. etc. before no­ted: I wil answer further owt of Esra, where there is a notable story, towchīg a matter not much vnlike. for after he had re­ceiued of kīg Darius, boeth precious vessels and other giftes for gods seruice: being now in iorney frō Babylō vnto Ieru­salem, [Page 112] and vnderstanding, vpon view of his company, that there were not of Priestes and Leuites a sufficient number, to whome he might commit this treasure: stayed there withEsra 8. 15. his whole suit, vntil such tyme as he had recouered, a com­petent nomber of the church men. For that this was the ca­useEsra 8. 25. of their sending for, appeareth by the yssu, of committi­ng the treasure vnto their custody.

And albeit there might be some other vse of them at Ie­rusalem, beside this cariadg: yet that their presence was ne­cessary in this respect, it is manifest, not onely because oth­erwise he might haue giuē order, that they should haue co­men after, withowt staying so great a company, for their sa­kes: but especially vpon the wordes of Esra, which assignethvers. 28. the cause of theyr election vnto that charge, to haue bene, for that the money and plate being consecrate to a holy v­se, yt behoued them which were likewise consecrated, to ha­ue the custody of yt.

Now, if the Ans. should sit in iudgment of this act of Esra, and iudg by his Canon law, which he hath here set down: th­is godly learned Priest, hath already receiued the blak stone or sentence of condemnation. For were there not as faith­ful, and as wise for that purpose in the company, as ether the Priestes or Leuites were? were there not of the Princes, which for their skil in fight, and for the trayn which folow­ed them, were more able to make head with the enemy, that should giue the attempt to take them away: then were eth­er the Priestes or Leuites? finally, is it not a meer superstiti­on, to stand thus vpon the difference of a tribe or family, with los of tyme, and expens of money, in so great a com­pany?

But the Priest, appealeth to that court, where the canon of the holy scripture, sitteth Iudg. which because yt teache­th, that the safty and prosperous succes of thinges, depend vpon the blessing of god, and that that blessing is especial­ly giuen, where thinges are doen according to his instituti­on: the same restoreth his righteousnes agayn, and giueth hym the white stone of absolution: for that the weaker, and more vnlikely, hauing the calling of god thereunto, is mo­re [Page 113] apt, then withowt that calling, the strongest Sampson th­at can be got. So that, if in common reason, the Collectors were fitter then the Deacons, which is vntrue (considering th­at the same may be ecclesiastically ordeyned Deacons, whi­ch are Collectors) yet, forasmuch as it is the vnrepealed and vnrevoked order of god, that the Deacon should doe this: yt owght to be preferred, to al the inuentions of men, how faier and colourable soeuer they appear.

But of the confutation of this, enowgh is said: especi­ally, considering that beside the continual practis of the ch­urch, with the common consent of the learned boeth ould and nue, M. Bucer hath labored this point particularly, in the behalf of our church: which sheweth, that this office Bucer de regno Christ [...] & in 4. ca. ad Ephes. must of necessity be restored, as yt is described Act. the vi, if England vuil receiue, the true discipline of Christ.

Hereupon also, considering there be poor in euery ch­urch:diuis. 5 pa­ge 690. In the for­mer part of this booK Tract. 6. chap. 3. In this part Tract. 8. the vse of this office in euery church, is manifest. For further confirmation of which point, the reader may haue recours to that I haue proued before: that in euery church, according to gods institution, there owght to be a Bishop: especially, when the Ans. hym self wil not deny, but the Bis­hop and Deacon should goe togither. Likewise, vnto that which hath bene sayd of the Eldership, in this behalf: consi­dering that some of the reasons, are common to boeth. As for the first of his exceptions, that the Deacons of one city, may serue al the whole Dioces, yt is to far owt of square: considering that for one onely church, and that within one citie Ierusa­lem, there were seuen.

His second, that in scripture yt can not be shewed, that Deacons were placed any where then in cyties: is first to reason negatiuely of autority, not in the question whether yt owght to be do­en or no, but whether yt was doen: which not we alone, but hym self also condemneth. Secondly, if this be a reason to bar the churches, which are not in cities, because there are none specified but in great cities: thē he shal by the same reason, bereue them of their Pastors: considering that there is neuer a smal town, of which yt is any more said, that yt had a Pastor, then [Page 114] that yt had a Deacon.

Thirdly, he saith that the same can not be shewed (oneles he be great­ly deceiued) in any auncient writer. wherein he giueth suspitiō, that he toke not his wares by tale, but in gros: otherwise, he mig­ht better haue knowen what he hath suffered his pag. 339. book, to be stuffed with. For yt hath examples of countrey churches, belonging to the church of Alexandria: which had boeth Elders and Deacōs. And his own Ignatius, whom he wil ha­ue Iohn the Apostles scholer: affirmeth, that euery church ovug­ht Ad Philad­elph. to haue this office of Deaconship.

His comparison of this reason, there vuere Deacons at Ierusalē, therefore in al churches, with this there be preach­ers in Cambridg, therfore in al England: is vnaequal. For yt was not nakedly so propounded, but warranted with reasons: in th­at the Apostles labored after the cōformity of the churches. so that the proof, that there was such an office in one, is pro­of, that there was in al: or at least that there owght to haue bene, which is al one, to the matter in hand, his answer whe­runto is before confuted. Therfore, the comparison had be­neIn the for­mer part 6. Tract. and 3. ca [...]. Tract. S. chap 2. Diuis. 9. p. 641. iuster with this: that the men in the city haue two handes a peece, therfore they in the countrey haue so to: and if any haue not, that there is a faut. The next is answered, so is the next to yt.

To the reason I alledged, that the church may be at as smale charges vuith a Deacon, as vuith a Collector, seing that yt may make of the Collector a Deacon: he maketh no answer, onely he couereth hym self, vnder colour of the ad­monit: which (ironically as I iudg) saith that euery parish, can not be at cost, to haue boeth a Curat and a Deacon: considering, that yt requireth, boeth a Pastor and a Deacon, in euery congregation. althowgh, to cut of occasion, abowt their meaning herein, I wil not striue. The second chapterIn the 8. Tract. diuis. 5. p. 637. of this tractat, is answered before.

Seing then, the Apostle separateth the office of the Dea­con, from the ministery of the word, making them diuers mem­bers [Page 115] of one whole: and seing that in the perfect diuision of the ministery of the word, he is not remembred: seing also the Apostle describing his qualities, requireth not that he should be able to teach: Again, seing that in executing his office towardes the poor, togither with the function of pre­aching, he should be charged with more, then the Apostles them selues could doe, and had need of greater giftes, then the Pastor: last of al, seing boeth by iudgment, and practis of the purer churches, the Deacons haue bene ether altogi­ther shut owt from preaching, or being permitted to prea­ch, haue doen yt vpon a nue grace, ouer and aboue the calli­ng, of a Deacon: I conclude, that the Deacon hath no calli­ng of god to preach the word, and by the same reason, that he hath none to administer any Sacramēt: which later conclusion shal further ap­pear, in the next Tra­ctat.

LEaving to the readers iudgment, vpon theDiuis. 1. reasons alledged, whether the meaning of the book be to admit baptim by Midwiu­es, for as much (as I trust) there shal no su­ch horrible profanation be suffered here­after: let him obserue how the An. because he hath once vndertaken this cause (cou­ertly as he dare) continueth the defence thereof. Iwis, of folies the shortest are best. yt had bene better for him, to haue laid his hand vpon his mouth: or rather in confessing of his faut, to haue giuen god the glory. But let vs see what he bringeth.

To that which was alledged ovut of the place of S. Ma­thevu, Math. 28. [...]9. that yt maketh as much against baptim by vuemen, as against there preaching: he answereth, that by that reason, Pastors may nether preach nor baptiz, for that they are no Apostles: wh­ich foloweth not. For the Pastor succeding vnto the Apost­les, as touching preaching and baptising in their proper ch­urches: haue by the same place autority to doe boeth. For further answer whereto: I refer the reader, to that I haue wri­tten In the former part p. 369. line 30. before. And I think, there is not so much as one of the godly writers, ether ould, or nue, which speaking of the or­dinary [Page 117] ministery vnder the gospel, whether it be to stablish or ouerthrow thinges perteyning to it: vseth not the places, that were first spoken to the Apostles alone. As for M. Inst. booK 4. chap. 25. sect. 22. Cal­uin, he vseth this place expresly, which the Adm. doeth: to proue that wemen owght, at no hand, to baptise, but onely the Ministers ordeyned to preach the gospel: the same doe­th M. Quaest. de Sacram. quaest. 136. Beza. yea the Ans. him self, to proue the Bishops saying to those he ordeyneth pag. 227. alledgeth these wordes, receiu the holy gost: which notwithstanding were first said, by our Sauior Christ, vnto the Apostles alone: so that the Ans. frowardnes, is here vntollerable. Nether is it any thing excused by Zuin­glius. For, althowgh baptim be not instituted here, which was insti­tuted in the ministery of Iohn Baptist, nor here be mentioned a­ny circumstance: yet the minister of that institution, which is no circunstance, but a subordinate efficient cause, may wel be appointed.

For confirmation hereof, I alledged that the ministe­ry of the vuord and Sacramentes, ioyned of god togither, o­vught not to be pulled asonder: and therfore cyted exam­ples, vuherin vue see obserued continually, that the same vuere Ministers of boeth togither. whereūto fyrst he answe­reth generally, that examples proue not: which is In the former part p. 155. &c. before ans­wered. Thē vnto the particular example of the Ark, he ex­cepteth, first that if that were a sacrament, the Minister may make sa­cramentes, for that Noah made yt: as if it owght to be so straung, that the Minister ministerially and subordinately, accordi­ng to the institution praescribed of god, should be said, to make the sacrament. For as yt it often tymes said, that the Priestes made the sacrifices: So, the Minister in vsing the wa­ter,Leuit. 9. 7. 22. et 14. 19▪ &c. which was common before, vnto that vse, and after that sort, which Christ hath appointed, maketh yt holy and Sa­cramental water. Nether owght yt to be more straung vnto him, that the minister should after this sort make the sacra­ment: then that he should 1. Tim. 4 [...]. saue his hearers, Isay. 6 [...]. that he should [Page 118] harden their heartes, close vp their eyes, stop vp their eares, &c. al which thinges, the scripture ascribeth vnto the mini­ster.

Secondly he saith, it had no promise of eternal life, nor was a seal of any promise: boeth which are vntrue. For it confirmed Noah in the promise that god had giuen, that he should not be drowned, with the rest of the world. And as the promises, made of temporal blessinges vnto the fathers, extended th­em selues vnto the euerlasting: so the sacramēts to confirm those promises, were sacramentes to confirm thē, in the ho­pe of eternal life. This doeth S. Peter confirm, which teach­eth that the preseruation of Noah in the Ark, was the same [...]. Epist. 3. 21 to him and his, which baptim is to vs: to whome, the Ans. doeth in this point, directly oppose him self.

Thirdly, he addeth, that it was a figure of the church, and therfore no sacrament: which foloweth not. For the bread and wine in the holy supper, are so a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: that they are neuertheles, Sacramentes of the ch­urch represented thereby, in that, 1. Cor. 10. as many cornes make o­ne loaf, and many grapes one cup of wine: so many membe­rs, make one body of Christ, which is the church. Nether is the example of the miracles, vnaptly alledged: for they be sign­es to confirm the word of god, as are the Sacramentes. the­refore whosoeuer can shew, that Ministers of the word ow­ght onely to be Ministers of the signes, wherby it is confir­med: sheweth, that they onely must be Ministers, of the Sa­cramentes.

To proue, that the forbidding of them, from the minist­ring of the word, is their forbidding from the ministring of the Sacramentes: I browght an argument of contraries, for that S. Paul being bidden to minister the word, as in th­inges which goe togither, did withowt further commande­ment, minister the Sacramentes: which was, belike, as a pil, that he could not wel swalow, considering that he answereth nothing. And if this, be not a good argument, then there is no commandement in the scripture, to bar wemen from be­ing publik ministers of the Sacramentes: for it is no where [Page 119] expresly forbidden them, to minister the sacramentes, but onely to minister the word. Yf therfore the godly learned, haue iudged them vnmeet, to minister the sacramentes, be­cause the holy scripture hath disabled them, to minister the word: yt foloweth necessarily, that none may haue power to minister the sacramētes, which hath not also to minister the word. for otherwise, if those might publikly minister the sa­cramentes, which can not doe the word: wemen by reason of their sex, are not so shut owt, but that they may haue en­trance into that ministery.

Against this, and to proue, that there may be ministers of the sacramentes and not of the word: he referreth me to his pag. 483, where are cited Chrysostom, Ambrose, Martyr and Caluin v­pō these wordes, Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach. For answer whereunto, first it must be vnderstanded, that w­hen S. Paul saith, that he was not sent to baptiz: his meaning is not, that he had no maner of sending at al to baptiz. For so should his own mouth condemn hym: as one which had vndertaken to doe that, wherunto he was not sent: conside­ring that he confesseth in the same place, that he baptized certein howshouldes. what is then his meaning? Verely eu­en that, which he declareth by his practis: that he was rather sent to preach, then to baptiz. And of such negatiues by cō ­parison, the Ans. could not be ignorant: seing boeth he hath otherwhere made mention of them, and it is a thing which a yong diuine, and he that hath yet the pap in his mouth, may easely vnderstand. As when it is said, receiu my discip­line, Prou. 8. 10. and not siluer: Likewise that thy name shal be no mo­re Genes. 32. vs. 28. called Iacob, but Israel: that is to say rather discipline, th­en siluer, rather Israel, then Iacob.

Now, seing S. Paul did boeth preach and baptiz, by autority of god, and vertue of his calling: al may see, that no man can cōclude of this place, that one may be minister of the sacra­mētes, and not of the word. if any thing cā be cōcluded, it is: that some may be occupied in administring the word, mo­re thē in the sacramentes. And this is also an answer to that [Page 120] alledged owt of Zuinglius, towching Christ teaching and his disciples baptising: considering that the disciples preached also althowgh not so much as our Sav. Christ.

Secondly, in so great numbers of men and wemen to be baptized, if to the end that the Apostles cours of preaching should not be stayed, others had that charge to pour on the water, which were no Ministers of the word: that was in the beginning, before any ordinary ministery of Bishop was e­rected in the churches: and therfore nothing perteyning to our quaestion, which in quire, what owght to be the ordinary and settled gouernment of the church. For is it credible to a man of any iudgment, that ether the Apostle would com­mit, or these writers would say: that he committed the office of ba­ptizing, vnto those which were not Ministers of the word, passing by the Pastor him self.

Albeit, where there was no Pastor to assist the Apostles: I see not, why the help that others, which were no ministers of the word, gaue in that administration, should be proper­ly called baptizing: no more then he which serueth the Pa­stor, ether in carying abowt the bread, or reaching the cup, can be said to haue ministred the lordes supper. So that, the Apostle S. Peter, hauing preached of the vse of baptim, and pronounced the wordes of the institution: althowgh he po­wred not the owtward element of water with his own hand, might wel be said, to haue baptized them al. Beside that, no­thing hindereth, why the wordes Act. 10 he commanded th­em to be baptized: may not be expounded, that he commā ­ded water to be browght, wherwith they should be bapti­zed.

Howsoeuer it was, yt could not be, as the D. saith very dangerously owt of Ambrose: for that he would not vouchsafe to doe it him self, other ministers being present: considering that the ministery of the holy sacramentes, being of the same natu­re with the preaching of the word, is of greater excellency, then any man vpon earth is worthy to handle. Beside that, seing he aloweth of Ambrosis place to the Ephesians, which affir­meth that al men preached in the Apostels tymes: he can receiu; no [Page 121] benefite of him in this place. For if al did preach, aswel as baptiz: then it is true which I say, that none had the ministery of the sacramentes, but he which had the ministery of the word withal: and vntrue which he affirmeth owt of Ambrose, that some were ministers of the word, which were not of the sacramentes.

Likewise is the testimony owt of M. Beza (wherto I haueIn the Tra­ctat of the Deacon. answered before) flat against hym in this cause: consideri­ng that his iudgment is, that the Deacons did boeth prea­ch, and administer the sacramentes sometyme. And as there is no harmony betwene hym, and his autorityes: so is there none, betwene the sentences of his autors, which he hath mashed togither. For where some say, al: other say, that Prie­stes onely baptized. where he saith Musculus doeth alow, that so­me should minister the sacramentes, which can not preach: yt is very tr­ue, and further, that he would rather haue yt doen by them, then by those that can preach. But his ground, is vpon the misvnderstanding of Act. the 6: whilest he toke the ministr­ing to tables, which is the prouision for the poor, for the mi­nistring of the lordes supper. The foundation therefore of his assertion, being naught: the assertion yt self, can haue no place.

The place of the 1. Timoth. 5. is In the tractat of the presbytery. answered: In the former part p. 371. line 10 so is his que­stion. To diu. 3. and 4. pa. 506. 507. return again therfore to his demaund. where he asketh, what point of Anabaptism it is, that wemen may preach in the church, when there is no other that can, nor wil? I answer, that yt ap­procheth to that braunch, whereby the Anabaptistes hould, that mē may preach withowt an owtward calling of the ch­urch: onely, if they think it needful.

Vuhere I obiected, his building vpon examples, of a fevu particular persons, vuhich alovueth not ours, alt­hovugh they be grounded vpon the general vse of t­he churches in the Apostels tyme: he answereth, that he buildeth no necessary rule, but onely that yt may be doen vpon like occasion. But this is but a vayn shift. For those extraordinary actes whych are comendable, were doen ether by expres cō ­mandement, or by special direction of the spirit of god: the [Page 122] obedience whereunto, was not at their chois to doe, or to leau vndoen. So that, if the Ans. wil haue these examples, to be the directers of baptim by midwiues: they not onely may, but owght to doe yt. And if there were any such case of ne­cessity, as he vntruly pretendeth, and that yt might in such a case be ministered by wemen: it were absurd to leau it in the chois of the Midwife, whether she would minister it or no.

But note (I beseche yow) what horrible confusion, he br­ingeth into the world, by this saying. For if extraordinary examples doe proue, that such thinges may be doen in such cases: then may priuate men execute malefactors, because Phine­es did so: and men may borow and neuer pay, as did the Is­raelites. If he say, that he addeth vpon like occasion and circum­stance: it is true, but thereby he meaneth, yf like need or ne­cessity be. For if he mean as he owght, hauing a particu­lar commandement of god by word, or a rare and extraor­dinary instinct by the spirit of god: his answer is nothing to purpose, considering that he wil not (I think) say, that the Midwiues haue any of these two: and if they had, they doe it not in respect of the former example, but onely by reason of the extraordinary, ether commandement, or motion.

His example of the Samaritan woman Iohn 4, is friuolous: that she should become a publik preacher, which had not yet learned her catechism, nor was scarce owt of her Christian A. B. C. where it is manifest, that she did nothing, which be­longeth not to euery one: that is, that we should exhort o­ne another, to goe where the knowledg of Christ is to beIsay 2. 3. had: so that, she did onely, as it were, towl the bel, to draw the Samaritanes to our Sau. Christ, that he might preach vnto them. Nether doeth his other example, of the wemen Math. 28 which preached the resurrection, help him. For if that may be called a publik ministery, it hath an expres commandeme­nt of the lord, by the Angel. which commandement, as oftMath. 28. 7 as Midwiues can shew, we wil acknowledg their ministery lawful: otherwise the general commandement, which we a­re1. Cori. 14. 34. 1. Tim. 2. 11. bound to folow, is direct against their preaching, which being shewed of me, is vnanswered by hym. So that here he [Page 123] merely trifleth, often saiyng, that there is nothing against the ba­ptim by wemen, and neuer answering the scriptures alledged, wherby it is generally forbiddē thē, to deal in these matters.

To that I concluded of his wordes (wemen may preach, if th­ere be no man that ether can, or wil) that vuemen by that meanes haue his licence to preach in diuers places: he answereth it needeth not, seing the scriptures are red in al places. But that is but an escape: considering that althowgh they haue a reader, y­et they haue no preacher, reading not being preaching, as I haue ^a shewed. And who seeth not, that many with vs, forIn the for [...] mer part Tract. 5. want of teaching, ly in horrible ignorance of the truth: so t­hat, by his rule, this is the tyme, in which wemen may teach openly with vs.

But here again, he opposeth M. Caluin, which saith there is a Diui. 5. and 6. p. 507. tyme wherein a woman may speak. Yf he mean in her own hows, or otherwhere priuat [...]ly, I graunt: if publikly in the church, v­pon an extraordinary calling, I graunt that also: otherwise I can not graunt it, for the reasons before, and after alledged. And that M. Caluin, had no such meaning as he pretendeth:Inst. 4. bo­oK. chap 15 sect. 20. appeareth, in that he wil at no hand, admit baptim by we­men: to whome, althowgh he oppose Zuinglius, yet he shewe­th not, nor (I think) is able to shew, that he alloweth, of bap­tim by Midwiues.

The next diuision, which sheweth that godly vuemen ne­uer toke the ministery of the vuord, but by extraordinary calling from god, approued ether by miracle, or some not a­ble yssu, (saith he) is needles, as that wherunto he agreeth: which is not so. For hereby is condemned, the baptizing boeth by wemē, and other priuate persons whatsoeuer: as that which hath no such calling, and approbation of god. The next to it, sheweth his pouerty: which endeuoring to defend the baptim by wemen, was ignorant of the principal hould of that cause: and was needfully met with for their sakes, whom that might trouble.

In he next, he would insinuate, that they may baptiz in the hows: for that S. Paul biddeth them teach in priuat places. where, if he had made his argument iust, and to clasp wel togither: [Page 124] he should haue concluded, that they owght to teach their howshold in priuate places, therefore they owght to baptiz in priuate places: and they owght to teach their families or­dinarily, therefore they owght to baptiz their families or­dinarily. thus must the argument be cut owt, according to his measure: and he may as wel say, that a woman owght to doe the same in the holy supper. But the knot is not yet lo­osed, my answer whereunto is, that if there were any priuate sacramentes, as there is priuate teaching: I would accord vn­to him, that wemen hauing power to teach priuately, might also minister the sacramentes priuately. But because that the holy sacramentes are publik, as is the preaching: his ar­gument, hath no force. For in what place, wil he lodg this argument: a woman may doe a priuate act, therfore she may doe a publik. The diuision folowing, being euil seuered of him from the next chapter, whereunto it belongeth: I leau, vntil I come vnto that matter.

Now, it may please the reader, to turn vnto the 5 chapter pag. 516, which is also of this point in hand: towching the person, by whom this sacrament should be administred. w­here first mark (I pray yow) a wily distinction, which in effect is, that he defendeth not baptim by wemen, but improueth the Adm. th­at disaloweth yt: as thowgh one could improue the one, and not defend the other. And vnles he had browght the exam­ple of Sephora, to mayntein baptim by wemen, it had bene fondly alledged: considering that the wordes of the Adm. are of the practis of the Apostles tymes, an exception agai­nst which, fetched from the tyme which was 1000 yeares be­fore, might seme to come from him, whose wittes were not at home: especially, when the question is, what was doen, a­nd not what owght to be doen, as he hym self now preten­deth.

Secondly he saith, he wil not contend with me in diuers thinges in this diuision, for that he misliketh their error, which condemn infantes that be not baptized, as much as I: which is not so. For he saith, that the lak of baptim, may seme to be a probable token and sign of reproba­tion, p. 524. which is boeth vntrue, and perillous: considering that not the want, but the contempt or neglect onely of the holy [Page 125] Sacrament, can draw any, the least apparance of the lordes wrath. Nether is that ether neglect, or contempt preiudicial to the infant, but to the parentes onely, whose faut that is. which notwithstanding, can be none, where they seek to th­ir vttermost, that yt may be baptized of the minister of the church, orderly, and conueniently: no more then it was pre­iudicial, ether to the childe, or parentes vnder the law, when the infant died, before the eight day, which was the tyme a­pointed, for the administration of the Sacrament of circū ­cision. For as the eight day, was to them: so is a conuenient, and orderly tyme, to vs.

Yt is therfore a shameful dealing, that he maketh vs he­re to ioyn with the Anabaptistes: which reiect childrē from ba­ptim, vntil they be able to make profession of their faith. whereas we confes it owght to be ministred, with al conue­nient speed: so it be by the minister, whome god hath orde­yned for the same purpose. In which accusatiō of Anabaptism, with vs, he windeth vp also (as it were in one bottom) the re­formed churches: where it is not permitted, that the infant in any case should be baptized, but by the minister. withal, the reader may perceiue, how idle he is, which translateth a great peece of M. Caluin: to proue that, which none denieth. whom also, he goeth abowt to oppose to him self, which is of the same Inst. 4. booK chap. 15. sect. 20. Lib. epist. p▪ 179. iudgment with vs, in this behalf: althowgh, th­ere be not so much as a tittle in the wordes he setteth down, bending that way.

Yt may wel stand, that this profanation came from the Gentils, from Victor, and from the Papistes: Victor borowing it of the hea­then, and the Papistes of hym. For boeth popery is like a bundel of corruptions, which being picked owt of sundry tymes and places, it hath cocked vp togither: and the Pope is like a hog, which when he cometh into a garden, leauing the sweet flowers, taketh him self alwaies to that, which is most filthy in al the place. otherwise, the D. might deny, a­ny corruption almost, to be papistical: seing they haue few, w­hereof ether paganism, or declinyng from Christianism, ha­th not bene the first founder.Diuis. 3. pa. 517.

To that I alledged, to proue the vnlawfulnes of the cir­cumcision [Page 126] by Moses wife, for that she did it, in presence of her husband a Prophet, which is M. Caluins reason: he op­posethInst. 4. bo­oK chap. 15 sect. 22. the note of the bible printed at Geneua, that he could not doe it, because he was sik, and that the Lord required it then. whether he was able or no, I wil not striue: but that the lord required circumcision, if there were no ordinary minister for it, doeth not appear. For, as it was an order of god, that the male childe should be circumcised the eight day: so was yt also his order, that he should be circumcised by a minister. Now, how can it be shewed, by that the lord strake Moses, that he would there­fore, haue this ordinance changed: when as the siknes sent, was a correction for the breaking of one of his orders, a­nd not a trumpet blown, to cal them to the breach of the o­ther.

And what if (as it cometh to pas) the lord had, as yt we­re, stricken Moses by siknes in the childe, or that the chil­de, being of discretion, had hym self willingly wanted cir­cumcision: owght the childe therfore, by and by, with the present hazard of his life haue bene circumcised? no vere­ly. But as this siknes, should haue instructed boeth father and son, to repent them of the former negligence, and to purpose the amendement of yt, when the childe should be able to abide the wound: so the siknes of Moses, was for th­at end sent, that he should repent him of the former negli­gence and amend it, when it might be according to the or­der appointed.

To that alledged, that she did it in a koler: he answere­reth not. To that, that Moses recouery is no proof of the la­vufulnes of it, considering that vuhen thinges are measu­red by the euent, the good are condemned, and the vuicked iustified oftentimes: he answereth that the euent oft declareth the thing, which is but to wast winde. For if it doe oft otherwise: it can serue for no reason, or allowance of that circumcisi­on. And if the iudgment by the euent, be to be taken, it is there, where the causes doe not appear: but here the cause [Page 127] of circumcision, which is the institution of god, is able to try the matter. where also appeareth, how affamished he is, to finde contrarietyes in my book: in that he supposeth variance in this, that here, I cal Moses a prophet, and in another place, say that the priesthood vuas taken from hym, and giuen to Aharon: which is to foul an ouersight. For boeth, there were Prophetes, which were no Priestes nor of the race of Prie­stes: and the tyme of the deliuerance ouer of the Priestho­od vnto Aharon, was long after the tyme, here spoken of.Dinis. 4. p. 518.

Against that I affirm it a necessary point of the Sacram­ent, that yt be ministred by a Minister, he maketh many owtcryes: but they be not these lowd clamours, which can gain the cause, where there is so deep silence of reason: and where owt of the scripture, not so much as one sily reason, is once pretended. Therefore, to cut his comb, that he crow not so lowd hereafter: he hath flatly betrayed his cause, in that, not able to alledg one reason owt of the word of god, he placeth the strenght of this cause herein, that against bap­tizing by lay men in the tyme of necessity, we haue (as he saith) no scri­pture and he hath learned men for yt. For first, in that he can bring no reason owt of the word of god, why a lay man or woman in tyme of necessity (as he termeth yt) may baptiz: yt is mani­fest, that he owght not to haue set yt down. For this is a ma­tter of doctrine, and a matter of faith: euen in that narrow signification, that he taketh matters of faith. this is none of the variable ceremonies, which alter by the diuersity of ty­mes, of countreis, and of persons: and therfore by his own rule, here an argument of the autority of the scripture ne­gatiuely, is good: so that here it is a good argument, the scripture commaundeth not that lay men or wemen sho­uld baptiz, therfore they may not baptiz.

Beside also, that he doeth vs wrong, in saying, that it is auouched withowt proof. It might haue contented him, to ha­ue said withowt good proof: for proof there is, whatsoeuer [Page 128] yt be. where, that which he affirmeth, that the scripture doeth not forbid lay men to baptiz, is an vntruth: considering it forbidde­th that any should take honor to him self, but he vuhich is called as vuas Aaron. which sentēce doeth manifestly sh­utHeb. 5. 4. owt, al priuate persons from this administration: seing yt is a singular honor, in the church of god. As for that string, which he continually runneth vpon, that in tyme of necessity, it may be admitted: yt is but a plain asking of that in cōtrouersy. For, it being confessed, that baptim is necessary, whē it may be administred according to the order which god hath or­deyned: the state of the question is, whether there be any such necessity of baptim, as for the atteining thereof the o­rder which god hath set in his church, of administring it by a publik minister, owght to be broken. Of the same sort, is his oftē idle talk, of the refusal, neglect, or contempt of baptim: as t­howgh, there could be any of these, in this case. If he can shew, that wemen, or lay men owght to baptiz in such tym­es, and that god hath ordeyned, that in defaut of a Minister, they may lay to hand: then let him talk his fil.

But that I am assured he can not, the contrary rather may be seen: that the lord hath condemned such rashnes, as may appear by the examples of Saul and Vzziah. For what grea­ter1. Sam. 13. 11 apparance of necessity of sacrificing, could there be: th­en when Saul toke vpon him, to sacrifice. And how probab­le reasons, in the iudgment of men, doeth he bring to defe­nd his fact: as that the people would otherwise haue forsa­ken hym, that the Philistins pressed hym, that Samuel, came not within the tyme appointed. Likewise what greater ap­parance of necessity: then when Vzziah stayed the ark, ot­herwise like to haue fallen. yet (these necessityes notwith­stāding)2. Samu. 6. 6. 7. forasmuch as they toke vpon them, that wherevn­to they were not called: they receiued, the reward of their bouldnes. whereas here there is (as I haue said) no danger: so that the ordinary meāes be not neglected. And verely it is al one, as if he should say, that if there be no magistrat at ha­nd, or none that wil doe his dutie in executing iustice agai­nst a murtherer: that then a priuate man may take vpō him, to hang the murtherer.

Now where he propoundeth, to proue two pointes, the one that baptim by lay men is lawful, the other, that althowgh they were no fit nor lawful Ministers, yet that the baptim is lawful: to the e­nd the reader may haue more light wherwith to iudg of the­se matters, or euer I towch the second, I wil rid his argumē ­tes of the former point. for he hath confusedly blinded and meddled them boeth together.

His autorities here, for the moste part, are idly set down: as those which I confessed before, when I graunted the aun­cienty of this corruption. But seing they are here: I wil spe­ak a word with them. First owt of Ambrose vpon Ephes. 4. is ci­ted, that al baptized. If this make any thing, to proue baptim by lay men: it proueth not onely, that they may baptiz in t­his pretended tyme of necessity, and priuately, but that th­ey may daily, ād publikly baptiz: so that he, by this meanes, wil haue lay mē ordinary Ministers. Then, let the reader ob­serue, how vnhonestly he dealeth with hym. For in the same place, it is conteyned, how in the tyme wherein Ambrose li­ued, it was not permitted vnto lay men, nor vnto clerkes them selues, which were an inferior order of church men, to baptize: so that this Autor maketh directly against him, affirming that althowgh it were so then, yet that it is no di­rection for vs now.

Augustin foloweth, another of his witnesses, in this cau­se: whose iudgment is herein flat against hym. For when he dowteth, whether one baptized by a lay man, ovught to be 2. li. contrae litteras Parm. ca. 13 rebaptized: it is manifest, that he aloweth not, that a lay mā should take vpon him to baptiz, but onely standeth in do­wt, whether that baptim, being so vnduly ministred, owght to be counted for baptim. Otherwise, if he had houlden the ministery of a lay man lawful: there had bene no place vnto his dowt, whether the baptim be good or no. And therefore the D. durst not set down his wordes: but caried them thr [...]e or fower diuisions further, where they serue hym, for the se­cond point in controuersy.

Hys third witnes, is Ierom ad Luciferianos: which maketh [Page 130] not to proue, what was lawful by the word of god, but what was permitted then by the church. There remayn therfore Tertull. and Zuinglius, which doe affirm yt lawful: to whom, if the matter should be tried by autority, he hath his own Am­brose, and Augustin to encounter with. Chrysostome also, as him self pag. 483. citeth him: which wil giue none leau to bap­tiz, but a Priest. Ad to these Cypr. ad Iubatanū. Cyprian, who althowgh he er­red in rebaptization, yet proueth by substantial reasons, Nomb. 16. Leuit. 10. of the vengeance of god against Chore, Dathan, Abiram, and of the sonnes of Aaron: that onely the ministers of the church, may baptiz: secluding thereby a lay man, althow­gh he be neuer so catholik. I leau his Denys, which is here ful for vs, and come to the later writers: where he hath besi­de M. Caluin before alledged, Beza in quaest. de sacr. quaest. [...]37. Beza, and Bulling. 5. Decad. Ser. 8. Bullinger with others. Beside that whatsoeuer, or whosoeuer shal be alled­ged afterward, to proue that the Sacramentes owght to be celebrated in a publik assembly, serueth to bar al priuate persons and especially (by the D. own confession) wemen, from this administration of Sacraments.f In the se­cond part of the last Tractate and third chap.

Now, it may please the reader, to turn ouer the leaf in his book page 521: where this question is yet pursued, and examples browght of lay men which preached in Origins tyme. whe­re it is first to be noted, that the Ans. is contrary to him self: which page 139 and last section, denieth that any man may pre­ach the word, no not so much as to shew a proof of his ability, vnles he be at the least admitted into the ministery. Yf he haue an admittance, to the ministery of the word: how is he a lay man? As for th­at he addeth, it was vpon occasion: I would know what occasion there could be then, when the churches were builded, and an order set, why lay men should preach. Or why might not those Bishops, which gaue lay men leau to preach, ha­ue ordeyned them ministers of the word: seing the Bishop onely (by his opinion) had then the ordeyning of them. w­as it not as easy for them, to haue made them Ministers of the word, and so to haue kept the order of god: as to haue sent them owt in the quality of lay men, contrary to that or­der: so that, his drift seemeth to be to bring in al disorder a­nd [Page 131] confusion, into the church of god.

Then I answer, that althowgh they were not duly chosen, yet were they not mere lay men: cōsidering, that thei, had an ecclesiastical calling, such as yt was, euen the Bishops ad­mission: vnles he wil haue al the Ministers with vs, lay men, which haue onely the same admision. The place was brow­ght of me before, not that I approued it in al pointes, as I al­so noted: but to shew in what estimation that election was had, which was made by the Bishop alone.

Here, vpon that I said, that Baptim ministred by an he­retical Diuis. 7. p. 521. Minister, is good: he thincketh it to be rather good, when it is ministred of a lay man, that is a member of the church: which is a foul error. For an heretical Minister, so long as he is suffered to enioy his ministery, and not deposed therefrom: is boeth a member of the church, and a Minister of god, althowgh bo­eth and euil member, and an euil Minister. And, it is as mu­ch, as if he should say, that the execution of a malefactor by a priuate man, which is honest: is rather lawful, then by a publik Magistrat, which is a briber. withal, let it be noted, that here the Ans. boeth contrary to the truth, and contrary to that hym self professeth, hangeth the effect of the sacra­ment, vpon the goodnes or naughtines of the Minister: in that, in this respect, he preferreth the sacramēt ministred by a priuat mā, being good, vnto that which is ministred by an euil man, althowgh he be a publik Minister. The rest in this diuision: ether hath had answer, or requireth none.

Yt had bene (as I said) a gros error: if M. Bucer had iudgedDiui 8. and 9 pag 522. it meet, that wemen should baptiz. And whether the Ans. would haue had hym so vnderstood, or no: I leau to the readers iu­dgment, vpon the discours in boeth his bookes. Nether can it want, some skar of error: to alow of the title of priuate ba­ptim. for, althowgh it were cōueniēt, that the childe should be baptized in the hows, when there is danger to bring it to the church: yet, forsomuch as that owght not to be withowt a conveniēt nombre of the faithful, and withowt the publik Minister, the baptim is not (as also it can not be) priuate, but publik. As for the reasons, they haue bene answered: and [Page 132] come to be answered further, in the treatise of administra­tion of the sacramentes, in priuate howses. How vnworthy a thing it is, that he should charge vs vuith priuate vuri­tinges, vuhich he kepeth in his study, leauing his publik vuorkes: let the reader iudg.

I made mention, of other gros absurdities, of M. Buce­rs: least the excellency of his learning and godlines, should cary the simpler sort to beleue any thing, contrary to the tr­uth. And yf it be iudged of the godly, that I might haue spa­red that speach: it is a thing, wherin I wil not stand against them, in myne own defence.

Here, first he asketh, where Augustin disaloweth baptim by we­men. Diuis. 10 p. 523. althowgh these wordes of myne doeth not alovu, be not so ful: yet, in that, talking of this surmised case of neces­sity, he neuer cometh so low, as to the baptim by wemē, but stayeth in that which is ministred by lay men: it is manifest, that he disalowed the baptim by wemen. For otherwise, if he had thowght, that wemen in that case might haue bapti­zed: it stoed him vpon to haue taught, that in defaut of a lay man, a woman might be taken: seing that, in his iudgment, the saluation of the childe, stoed thereupon. when he dow­teth also, vuhether it ovught to be ministred again, vuhich Contra E­pist. Parm. lib. 2. ca. 13. vuas ministred by a lay man: he could hardly leau any do­ut, of the vtter misliking of baptim by wemen. whereunto serueth, the practis of his tymes, which was (as hath bene shewed) in such cases: to run to the church, vuith their ch­ildren. His other question, cometh to be answered after­ward.

Against the fourth Councel of Carthage, which forbid­deth Diuis. 11. p. 523. Tom. prim. Can. 100. vuemen to baptiz: he runneth for aid to Gratian, the common falsifier of the good canons, of whome I haue In the former part p. 285. be­fore spoken. Althowgh if the answer be true, which he fram­eth owt of this forger, that she may not baptiz in publik: forsom­uch as al baptim is to be ministred in publik assembly, and [Page 133] that euen then, when it is ministred in the hows, it foloweth that a woman may neuer baptiz. And to the intent, the Ans. may know his error the better: let hym repair vnto M. Decad. 5. ser. 8. Bul­linger, who citeth this canon, to condemn al maner of bap­tizing by wemen. Here also, let it be noted, that albeit the Answ. seing such consent of the learned against baptim by wemen, dare not flatly meynteyn it: yet, where he finedeth any thing to defend yt by, althowgh neuer so base, he for­getteth it not.

To that alledged, that the breaking of the orders of god, Diuis 12. a­nd 13. p. 523 vuhereof one is, that the minister onely should baptiz, the other, that it be doen publikly, confirmeth men greatly in that heresy, that al are damned, vuhich are not baptized: he answereth nothing. Likewise, to that, that if a man cou­ld not be saued vuithovut baptim, yet vue might not the­refore break the order of god, he answereth also nothing, but wandereth idly in talking of the necessity of baptim, which we confes, as hath bene In the 5. and 6. diuisions of this chap. before declared. Vuhere, a­gainst his absurd saying, that the teaching of this kinde of priuate baptim, implieth no more the tying of saluation vnto the sacrament, then to teach that children should be baptized before they be able to answer for them selues, I replied that the baptim of young children, hath ground in the scripture, but baptim by lay men or vuemen hath none: he answereth, that this confirmeth his saying. wherein, the reproch of triflyng, is to easy, to set forth his vntollerab­le abusing of his reader. For to haue answered, he owght to haue tawght, a rule owt of the word of god, whereby it mig­ht haue appeared: that a priuate person, may take vpon him in this pretensed case of necessity, to doe that which god hath not committed, but vnto the Minister: so that here, it is manifest, that he had neuer a knee to bow vnto the truth,Alces. Caesar li. 6. de bel. gall. but was like that beast, which hauing neuer a ioynt in her leg, must rather break then bend.

To that I alledged, of the continual, and almost gene­ral [Page 134] practis of the church: he answereth, that lay men from the beginning haue bene permitted to baptiz: whereof let the reader iu­dg. In the mean season, he is able to shew no practis of bap­tim by wemen, but in the extreme ruines of the church: o­therwise we should haue bene sure to haue heard of yt. Ho­wbeit here he asketh whotly, what order of god is broken in pri­uate baptim: euen the same which is broken in priuate preac­hing. So that whatsoeuer hath bene In the former part p. 72. &c. before spoken of the church preaching, that it owght to be publik and not priua­te: serueth in like maner, for the holy Sacramentes. The ne­xt diuision, must rest in the readers iudgment.

Now remayneth the other point which is, whether baptim administred by one which is no Minister, althowgh against the word (as yt is conteyned in his pag 518 &c.) be yet auai­lable. the D. saith yea. his first reason is, that otherwise many sh­ould goe vnder the name of Christians, which were neuer baptized: and so (saith he) I may proue my self to be no Christian. where I deny the argument, and withal desire the reader to take heed of the venom: which, he going abowt in other places to hide, bra­ke owt here at vnawares. In an other pag. 524. place, he said that it is a probable sign of reprobation, if children dy withowt baptim: but here he setteth down flat, that they be no Christians, which are not bap­tized. So that, the children of the faithful, by his doctrine, a­re not Christians, before they be baptized: and consequen­tly condemned. whereas the truth is otherwise, that if he be not a Christian, before he come to receiu baptim: baptim can make him no Christian, which is onely the seal of the grace of god before receiued. And what wil he here say, to those in tymes past of Thessalia, with whome the sacrament of baptim Socra: 5. li. chap. 22. was celebrated but once a year, namely at Ea­ster: were al the children paganes al that while? what wil he say to that tyme, wherein they receiued it not, but at their death: were they also al the tyme of their life paganes? I gra­unt, boeth the customes naught: but in the mean season, he shal doe the good Emperours, and other good men gre­at iniury, in saying that they were heathen, or no Christi­ans.

His second reason is, that there must be by this mean; some general rebaptization: which is the flat reason of the Anabap­tistes, and in deed plain Anabaptism, that for a dowt whe­ther some be baptized or no, al should be rebaptized. For thusZuing. lib. de baptis. Tractat 2▪ they proue, that men must be rebaptized: because (say th­ey) they are not assured, whether they were baptized or no: as it is reported of Zuinglius. But it is enowgh for me, w­hich am assured of the fauour of god in Christ Iesus, the thing it self whereof baptim is the sacrament: that I know my self to haue bene born in that people, where the com­mon vse is to administer baptim by a publik Minister, such as he was. So that, vnles he can shew assuredly, that I was not baptized by such a one: the want of baptim, shal not hurt me: seing that I nether neglect it, nor contemn yt.

And if he could shew, that I was not baptized: yet the case of rebaptization is not so clear, as he maketh yt. con­sideringa Euseb. 7 lib. cap. 9. that Dyonisius the great and famous Bishop of A­lexandria, when one came vnto hym, which sware that the baptim he receiued of the heretikes, was nothing like the catholik baptim, but ful of horrible blasphemies, and desi­red to be baptized of him, for that he was trobled in his conscience: said that ^b he durst not baptiz him, adding that forsomuch as he had often said Amen vnto the thankes giuing in the church, and receiued the holy supper of the lord: that he should therevuith content, and comfort hym self. Yf the Ans. had but such an autority, vncontrari­ed of other: he would quikly shape vs owt, a definitiue sen­tence. howbeit, I stay not thereupon: onely I bring it, that w­hē such a case should befal, we come not vnto this remedy, withowt inquiring into the matter, and that yt be not doen vpon the D. bare word.

Vuhere I alledged that the Minister is of the substance of the sacrament, considering that it is a principal part of Christs institution: he answereth, that the essential form, is to [Page 136] baptise in the name of the father, the Son and the holy gost: which being kept, the Sacrament remayneth, by whomsoeuer, or howsoeuer yt be mi­nistred. This he fathereth of Augustin, and Zuinglius: whereas, nether of them goeth further then to the person, by whome yt is ministred: so that he hath here falsified them. Beside th­at I haue pag. 521. 523. shewed, that Augustin standeth in dowt, whether baptim by a lay man, be available or no. where, by al likeli­hood, he was owt of dowt, that that which was ministred by a woman, whose vnaptnes herein is dubble to that of a lay man: was of none effect. he citeth also M. Caluin: but vtterly to another purpose, then he meaneth. For where he she­weth, that the goodnes or euilnes of the Minister maketh not, nor marreth not the sacrament: the D. pretendeth, as thowgh it were not to be estemed, whether he were a publik minister or no, which is a mere abusing. For further answer, I refer the reader to that In the ex­aminatiō of the D. cen­sures. already answered: so doe I, for ans­wer to that of Ministers which crepe in withowt calling, vnseaso­nably spoken of: likewise for the cauil of rebaptization.

Now, if the reader compare the answers of his togither: he shal see, that the Ans. him self, hath clean ouerthrown his own groundes. And first of al this, that the being of the sacrament hangeth onely hereof, if the form of wordes, I baptiz the in the na­me of the father &c. be kept. For to proue that the being of the sacrament, dependeth not in any respect of the person which mini­streth yt: he alledgeth first, that so we should be alwaies in dowt, whe­ther we be baptized: which maketh stronglier against this, that the being of baptim dependeth of the vsing of those wordes I baptiz t­he in the name of the father &c. then against this that yt dependeth vpon a publik Minister. for al may vnderstand, that yt is easier for a man to know, that he was in his infan­cy baptized of a publik Minister: then to know, that the Mi­nister then vsed these wordes, I baptiz the in the name of the father &c.

Another reason is, for that the force of the sacrament is not in the mā, but in god him self, his spirit, and free effectual operation: and th­ereto abuseth 1. Corinth. 3. what is Paul &c. which is rather to [Page 137] proue, that the being of the sacrament dependeth not of the vsing of the wordes, I baptize the in the name of the fa­ther &c. forasmuch as S. Paul speaketh there, of the voca­le ministery, whereof this is a part, wherein the D. hym self placeth the being of the Sacrament. And in deed, the drift of his reason is, that there is no owtward thing whatsoeuer, necessarily required in the being of the Sacrament: which is a shameful error.

Howbeit, let it be, that the vsage of these wordes, is the onely essential form: what shal be the material cause? For there must be aswel a matter, whereof the sacrament must consist, as a form whereby it is: and as wel is the material cause of the sacrament a substantial cause, as ys the form. For euē as a thing can not stand withowt the form: so can yt not stand withowt the matter. Now when the one is as ne­cessary, to the constitution of a thing, as the other: let him shew me, why a faut in the form, or departing from the wor­des, should more destroy the nature of the sacrament, then a defaut, or departure from the matter, which is the water. And verely for my part, I would rather iudg him baptized, which is baptized into the name of Christ, withowt adding the father and holy gost, when the element of water is add­ed: then when the other wordes being duly kept, some oth­er liquor is vsed.

This also is declared by his own example of the [...]ue bapt­ized with sand: in that yt was decreed, that he should haue v­uater povured on hym. whereby appeareth, that yt is vn­true which he saith, that the sacrament alway remayneth, what error soeuer be committed, when the form of wordes is retayned. For there the wordes were kept, and yet the sacrament was not suppo­sed, to be ministred. Althowgh the example otherwise, in my poor iudgment, be vnsound: that a man hauing the wo­rdes said at one tyme, and the Element powred at another, should be iudged baptized. For it is as much, as if a man re­ceiuing the bread in the church at Easter, and the cup at the Natiuity: should be therfore said, to haue receiued the holy [Page 140] [...] [Page 141] [...] [Page 138] holy supper of the lord.

Therefore, howsoeuer some learned and godly, giue some liberty in the change of the Elementes of the holy sacramē ­tes, yet I doe not see, how that can stand: cōsidering also that the [...] Ioel. 1. 9. prophet threatning a general dearth of corn, wyne and oyl, sheweth, that the Priestes should wepe and lament, for that boeth the meat offering, and drink offerīg should [...]eas. whereas, nether the offeringes needed to haue ceased, nor the Priestes for that to haue lamēted: if they might for wine and oyl haue vsed water, or for the beastes of the land, taken the fishes of the sea, or other creeping thinges for their off­eringes.

Hauing thus spoken of the matter, that it must necessarily be such as the institutiō of god hath prescribed: let vs come to the Minister, which is a subordinat efficiēt cause. whome seing I haue also proued (whatsoeuer he say) to be instituted the onely minister of the sacramentes: let him shew me, why the breach of the institutiō in the form should make the sa­cramēt vnavailable, and not the breach of this part. for if th­is be not also necessary, and of the being of the sacram: then when two goe togither, if one speak the wordes of the insti­tution, althowgh no man powr on water, but god onely by rayn from heauen, yt is baptim. And if it be baptim which is ministred of a childe in sport (which thing M. Farel derideth as a mere toy) then if a mad mā, with minde to hurt, doe speaklibr. Episto. Calu. p. 85. those wordes in powring water vpon his head, which is not baptised, it shal be baptim also. further, if it be administred by him, which is by profession a Turk: it must, by his rule, be a good baptim. so we shal come to the dotage of the papist­es, which imagin that the Shepard in the field cōsecrated th­eir host; in saying certeyn wordes of the institutiō of the supper: which was the cause why, afterward, they would haue thē mūbled vp in secret. These thinges beīg absurd, it is certeyn that the D. rule, that it is baptim by whomsoeuer it be ministred: is crooked. But whē none cā wash vs from our synnes but our S. Christ, and none can represent his person in that owtward sacramēt of the inward washing, but he whome our Sav. Ch­rist hym self hath appointed: if we wil receiu the benefit of [Page 139] the holy seal of baptim, to assurance of our conscience, that we are washed frō our synnes, we must haue the publik min­ister. If it be said, that this is to ty men to streight to the owt­ward meanes, and that for somuch as it is Christ that washe­th from sinnes, there is les matter who be the Minister: I answer, that as our Sa. Christs bloud, being the spiritual matter of the sacrament, and that onely wherewith we are purg­ed, yet we may not therfore lak the water, which he hath or­deyned: so althowgh he be he which alone washeth vs from our synnes, yet we may not therefore lak that owtward mi­nister, which he hath appointed.

And if the wil of a Prince, doe make that onely to be his se­al, which he hath appointed for that purpose, so that altho­wgh another ether withowt or against his wil be made, of t­he same matter and faschion, and in al thinges like yt, yet the same is none of his seal: how much more owght the wil of god, which is, that onely those should minister the sacra­ment, which haue a publik calling thereūto, haue that auto­rity. And, as by the seal, which the Prince hath set apart to seal his grauntes with, when it is stollen, and set to by hym that hath no autority, there groweth no assurance vnto the party that hath yt: so if it were possible to be the seal of god, which a woman should set to, yet for that she hath stollen yt, and put it to, not onely withowt, but contrary to the cō ­mandement of god: I see not, how any can take any assuran­ce by reason therof. If it be said, that the Princes confirma­tion afterward, maketh euen that stollen seal, which was set to, of force: I answer, that where yt can be shewed, that bap­tim by wemen is confirmed of god, there I wil graunt the li­ke in yt. hetherto may be referred, the pursuit of the former comparison. For as a priuate man, kylling a murtherer, hath hym self murthered, and executed no iustice, because he ha­d no calling thereunto: euen so, those which withowt al cal­ling haue taken in hand to baptize, haue made a prophane washing, and ministred no sacrament of the lord.

That a distinction hath bene kept in names of offices, v­uhen the offices thē selues haue not bene distinguished, or at [Page 140] least not so thorowghly as they owght: is an easy thing to shew, if it were to great purpose. But yt is enowgh for vs, th­at the D. hym self can not deny: but that baptim, which is ministred, by him which they cal a Deacon with vs, is mini­stred by a Minister of the word: so that there is here, no dan­ger of rebaptization.

I alledged, that part of the institution (as that vuhich Diuis. 5. p. 520. tovucheth the vuordes of the holy Trinity) being obserued, and not this, it is no more baptim, then the papistes com­muniō is the supper, vuhere one peece takē, the other is left. whereto he answereth, that the cup is of the substance, because it is ex­presly commanded. So is this of the Minister also commanded: therfore by his own answer, of the substance of the sacram­ent. But (saith he) I can not shew a commandement, that a Minister on­ely shal celebrate the Baptim, or els be no Baptim: no more can he in so many wordes, that if the cup be not receiued, it is no sup­per. But yf his proof be sufficient, because the lord hath cō ­manded that yt should be receiued: my proof is also, that haue shewed the same in the ministring of baptim: especi­ally seing the breach is not in the circumstance, but in the causes.

He alledgeth further, that circumcision ministred by such as were no Priestes, was good: I graunt, if it were doen by those w­hich were simple Leuites, if yt were doen also by Prophetes which were no Priestes: But if he can shew it good, doen by those to whom it belonged not, then he saith some w­hat.

To that I browght ovut of S. Rom. 10. [...]5. Paul, that he can not Diuis 6. p. 520. preach vuhich is not sent: he answereth it is vnderstanded of the extraordinary calling: as thowgh it were not aswel required in ordinary callinges, that one be sent, as in the extraordina­ry. For althowgh, there be diuers sortes of sendinges: yet th­at the Minister be sent, is required of al. So that althowgh S. Paul should there draw that disputation, vnto the sending of the Apostles: yet the rule wherby he confirmeth the Apo­stelship, is general. For a Pastor can no more preach now, in [Page 141] a particular congregation withowt a sending: then an Apo­stle could then, in al the world. The wordes I added, no not althovugh he spake the vuordes of the scripture, be no such addition, as he surmiseth: seing they are necessarily conteyned, in the Apostles sentence. For when him self de­nieth not, but that one which is not sent, may speak the wor­des of scripture, and the Apostle saith, that the same can not preach: it foloweth, that one not sent, althowgh he speak the wordes of the scriptures, can not therefore be said to preach.

He procedeth further, saying that as it is the word of god w­hich is preached by minister, or other: so is baptim true baptim, by whom­soeuer it be ministred. as if he had already gotten, ether that w­hosoeuer speaketh the word preacheth yt: or that it were al­ready baptim, withowt the publik minister, boeth which are in demaund. Moreouer, if he can proue, that the washing with the element, withowt any to apply it, is a sacrament, as the word is the word, althowgh no man handle yt, or speak of yt: then I wil graunt, that which he saith. But if it be no Sacrament, but when it is browght into vse, and the vse be defined to be such as is said: then yt is apparant, that there is a great difference, betwene the word and sacramentes, in this respect.

Last of al, as he, which taking one part of the wordes of the scripture, an leauing another that should goe with yt, propoundeth not the word of god, but his own idle fancy: euen so, he that keepeth one principal part of the sacramtē, leauing another behynde, ministreth no sacrament of god, but a deuise of his own head. Now, where he would draw th­is cause into hatered, in that there is (as he sayth) no learned man of this iudgment: althowgh the reason be weak, and yt vnmeet, that the trwth should be mistrusted, because she can fynde no suertishyp emongest men: yet, if that wil help hym, he hath M. Beza which doeth praecisely affirm, that the baptim Libell. [...]e quaest. in Sacra. quaest. 139. &c. vuhich is ministred by a priuate man (much more by a v­uoman) is vtterly void.

Seing then they onely are bidden in the scripture to administer the Sacraments, which are bidden to preach t­he word, and that the publik Ministers haue onely this ch­arge of the word: and seing that the administration of boe­th these, are so lincked together, that the denial of licence to doe one, is a denial to doe the other, as of the contrary part, licence to one is licence to the other: considering al­so, that to minister the Sacraments, is an honor in the chur­ch, which none can take vnto hym, but he which is called vnto yt as was Aaron: and further, forasmuch as the bapti­zing by priuate persons, and by wemen especially, confirm­eth the dangerous error of the condemnation of young ch­ildren, which dy withowt baptim: Last of al, seing we haue the consent of the godly learned of al tymes, against the ba­ptim by wemen▪ and of the reformed churches now, against the baptim by priuate men: we conclude, that the administ­ration of this Sacrament by priuate persons, and especially by wemen, is merely boeth vnlawful and void.

There remaineth another quaestion, whether the in­fantes of papistes, are to be receiued to baptim. Of which, as of a thing more dowtful amongest the godly learned, be­cause I wrote priuately and more at large: when I came to the confutation of the D. book in that point, I passed by yt, with mynde to take afterward my reply thereunto, more commodiously from the discours I wrote of yt. Howbeyt, the trwth is, vntil I came to the place of the printing, where I had not his book with me: I forgot yt. Yf therefore in ans­wering, I ether pas by any weight of reason, or ascribe any thing to hym otherwise then trwth: I desire the readers gen­tle support herein, ether vntil his next answer, or els vnto another opportunity, when the argumentes of boeth sid­es may be more fully debated. Vnto the reason that I al­ledged owt of 1. Cor. 7. 14. S. Paul (to my remembrance) he answere­th nothing: but onely opposeth M. Bezas autority in his epistles, which yf they had not come forth whilest his book was in making, yt seemeth, that he had bene vtterly destitute of answer. His reason owt of hym, that the papistes are to be com­pared with the Israelites, which fel away from the t [...]w religion, and not [Page 143] vuith the Idumeans: can not help hym, oneles he first sh­ew, that the infantes of those Apostatas were lawfully cir­cumcised. For, if they were not circumcised by gods order and institution, but rather at the lust and pleasure of tho­se which, being fallen away from the covenant, ceased not to put to the seal, as yf they had bene stil within the coue­nant: yt foloweth that, in this respect, there is no more suc­cour for the Papistes in their resemblance with such Is­raelites, then when they are matched with the Idumeans or Isma­elites.

AMongest diuers reasons browght, to pro­ue that the whole body of the church, sh­ould (so much as may be) communicate [...]n the holy supper togither: he cauilleth [...]t that alledged, owt of S. Paul, saying th­at1. Cor. 11. he blameth those, which did contentiously sepa­rate them selues: whereas, the Apostle vnder one kinde, noteth al needeles sundring of the members o­ne from another, in that holy action. That owt of S. Mathew 18 of two or three gathered in Christs name: ys answered. nether ys it denied, but that two or three may communicate, yf the o­ther wil not at al: onely yt ys said, that where the other wil, althowgh not so often as is conuenient, yet that in such a c­ase, the three should (for the reasons alledged, whereunto he answereth nothing) tarry for the rest. diu. 8. 530 his next diuision, is answered in the 9 diuision, which he taketh vp before, by rending my book asonder, that he might seem able to say somewhat: which in 9. diu. answer of myne, vpon how good ground yt standeth, let the reader iudg, his reply whereunto, is sen­seles. where also, his mervailing, that I say, the tvuelue vuere m­ade Apostles after their first calling, argueth his want: considering that the ordeyning of them, to be Embassadors th­rowghowt the world, which is the vocation of their Apost­leship, was not, vntil after the resurrection. That which de­ceiueth hym, is, for that he considereth not, that yt is the vse of the scripture, in speaking of the beginninges of thinges, to term them by the names, which they had at the tyme of the writing, and not which they had, when that which they wrote, was doen: as in the Cenes. 10. 10. 25. names of Babel, and Peleg, &c. [Page 145] the next, requireth no answer.

In the next, he accordeth that by ecclesiastical censures,Diuis. 11. p. 531. and ciuil punishmentes, the rest of the church should be browght to communicate, with the three: where he manife­stly forsaketh the book, which leaueth yt free, three seasons of the year onely excepted. And the truth is, yf it be conue­nient, that yt should be celebrated oftener: yt is also meet, that there should be punishmentes, for the breach of thatNumh. [...]. conueniency. his exception, against the proof of excomm­unication, for want of doeyng this duty, that to cut ovut his soul from the people, signifieth to put to death, and not to excō ­municate: vttereth his want, considering that the same com­mandement,Gen. 17. 14. was giuen to Abraham in the gouernment of his hows, which was the church of god. And yet that no ciuil sword was put into his hand, ys manifest: in that, being a pr­iuate man in the common wealth he dwelt in, he had no po­wer of lyfe and death. But of this matter, he may learn furt­her In the bo­oK of the d [...] scipline of England. other where. His obiections against the Adm. and my allegation of canons, ascribed to the Apostles: are p. 170. Diuis. 12. [...]. 532. answered.

That the owtward vncleannes vnder the law, may be easlier auoi­ded, then the inward, which owght to kepe vs from the communion: bei­ng so generally spoken, is vntrue, and refuted by me, in the case of procuring the funeral of our friendes, to which we a­re bound: whereunto he answereth nothing. nether can the vncleannes of lyfe, which is priuate, and not openly knowen, hinder any: oneles yt be such, as men mean not to amend. That weaknes of faith, owght to withdraw vs from the communion, is a manifest vntruth: yt being instituted, for the strenghtning of the weaknes thereof. The examination of hym self, is required, not onely in the partaking of the communion, but also in hearing of the vuord of god: as whether he come with minde to be taw­ght, and to folow, or whether he come of curiosity, or of cu­stome, or to please men, and such like. As for corruption of iud­gment, want of instruction in the vse of the sacrament, open offenses, and al such disorder of life, as requireth separation by the churches cēsures: they fal not into this case, where is dispu­ted, [Page 146] not for what causes men owght to be put from the holy communion, but for what causes they may withdraw them selues, when they be, by common and good policy of the c­hurch admitted. Therfore, al this is but an abusing of the ty­me, which is browght against that which I said: that yf, bei­ng of the church, and able to examin them selues, they be not fit for the hearing of the vuord, nether are they fit for the receiuing of the cōmuniō. whereby also may appear, ho­w vnworthily, he doeth now the second tyme: obiect contra­ryety with my self, so openly refuted, by expres wordes.

As for the reasons, which I alledged to confirm this sen­tence with, he once towcheth not: whereunto, I wil ad the iu­dgment of the auncient writers: that he may learn to blush, which not contented to haue reprehended yt here, setteth yt in the beginning of his book, as a dangerous point, and palpa­ble error. Hom. 3. in Ephes. [...] Chrysostom writeth thus of the supper. hovu tari­edst thovu behynde? I am (thovu saist) vnvuorthy: then art thovu also vnvuorthy, of the communication, vuhich is in the prayers. The like sentence he hath, in another of his ho­milies, ūto the people of Antioche. li. 5. de Sa­cra. cap. 4. Ambrose saith, he that is not fit to receiu the bread of the supper, dayly: is not fit, o­nce in a year. Ep. 118. ad Ianuar. August. speaking of this matter, sheweth that yf the synnes be not so great, that one should be excōmuni­cated for them, that then a man ovught, not to separate hym self, from the daily medicine of the lords body. where­unto ad M. Bucer, which disalowing the communion whichBucer. in cē sur. Liturg. Anglic. c. 3. is by the Minister ād one other, and withal shewing that the rest of the church, owght to be driuen vnto yt: boeth alled­geth, and aloweth that sentence of Chrysostom, before re­hersed. In the next diuisiō, of the cause of the superstitious fe­ar of coming to the cōmunion, let the reader iudg of: cōside­ring that, of the euil beginninges of lenton fast, I haue spo­ken before, and wil not suffer the D. to start away, by mo­uing [Page 147] of other questions.

To this chapter belongeth, the rest of the 15 Tracta. where in the pag. 590 first diuision, for his saying, we read not that we­men receiued the supper: he pretendeth M. Caluin and Zuinglius: but they excuse not his rashnes. For, althowgh they haue the sa­me wordes, yet they match this cause, with others which are necessary, and which haue certein proof owt of the scriptu­re, althowgh not in expres wordes: whereas, he matcheth yt with those thinges which are (by his own confession) indif­ferent and not necessary, giuing thereby to vnderstand, that there is no better grownd of the one, then of the other. whi­ch reason, being alledged to proue the occasion of triumph which he giuith here vnto the Catabaptistes, and Anabapti­stes: he answereth not. The three next diuisiōs are answered.

Next vnto this foloweth another vnchangeable doctrine as yt lyeth pa. 603 of the D. book. where, althowgh the Answ. dare not opēly vndertake the defence of driuing of known papistes vnto the lords supper: yet, partly, in trifling with the proofes browght for the shutting of thē owt, partly ca­stīg in other matter of his own: priuily, and as it were vnder the ground, he maynteyneth his former rashnes, of saying, that the Admo. were good patrones of the papistes, for maynteining, th­at papistes owght not to be thrust into the lordes supper.

There was alledged, that the scripture vuhich forbiddeth 1. Cor. 5. 11. to haue any familiarity vuith notorius offēders: doeth mu­ch more forbid that they should be receiued to the cōmuniō To this he answereth, owt of M. Caluin: his maruelous vnfaithful dealing wherein, hath bene In the former part p. 246. lin. 35. before noted. I say marue­lous, because there can be hardly any, of so smal perceiuerā ­ce as not to vnderstand the difference, betwene the Anaba­ptistes which thereupon falsly gathered, that a man might not communicate, when any such open offendor was admi­tted vnto the communiō: and betwene the Adm. which ho­uldeth, that the papistes ovught not to be admitted vnto t­he lordes supper, which is iustly concluded of yt. To that, alledged, that our Sau. Christ instituted his supper Diuis. 2 p. 604. amōgest his disciples, ād those vuhich vuere vuithin: he ans­wereth [Page 148] first, that Iudas was present, yet not of the church, but withowt: which is a foul error. For, althowgh in some signification, he were not of the church: yet he was boeth within, and as towching the owtward calling (wherof our question is) of the church also. But vnto this I haue In the for­mer booK p. 168. lin. 16. alredy answered. Se­condly, he chargeth me with a gilty conscience: for that cyting S. 1. Co. 5. 12. Paul, I nether quoted the Epistle, nor chapter: which how vnworthy an accusation it is, let the reader iudg. But if yt be a good ar­gument, that he hath a gilty conscience, which leaueth the testimony vnquoted: let the face of his conscience be looked on, by the glas which I haue set before hym in an other In the for­mer part p. 605. l. 26. place. How vntrue it is, that no papist with vs, is admitted to the communion, whi­ch he affirmeth: let the reader iudg.

To that I sayd, that papistes not to be admitted vnto Diuis. 3. p. 604. the holy supper, ovught to be compelled to hear the vuord of god: he obiecteth as contrary, that I had said before, that if they be not meet to receiu the communion, nether be they to hear the vuord, which is a meer mispending of tyme. For I added expresly, and that twise: As many as be of the church, from which I had before, shut owt the papistes.

In that the Admo. vuil not haue men come constrey­nedly to the holy Communion: they take not away the punishme­nt, against those which owght to present them selues. And their saying hath an easier defence, then his pag. 530. otherwhere: that the book wil not haue men compelled, to come to the communion. For the punis­hment of such, is therfore taken: that afterward they may come in diligence, and good wil. But if (notwithstanding that punishment) yt be manifestly perceiued, that they co­me with no affection, but constreynedly: then the Adm. wo­uld haue such put by: which is their meaning, and a iudgm­ent agreable to the word of god. to the rest in this chapter, I answer not.

Hereunto ad that of the examination of those, whose knowledg of the mistery of the gospel, is douted of: as yt standeth in his book page 592. which examination, he is not [Page 149] affraid to deny, to be necessary, or commanded by the wo­rd of god. his first reason is, because that in the Apostles tymes no such would offer them selues: which is a manifest vntruth, as may be gathered of that I haue In the former part. p. 244. l. 16. said, and by that the seed of the vuord of god, is Mat. 13. 4 taken ovut of the heart of diuers th­at profes the gospel, which notwithstanding, ether throwgh hypocrisy in desire to be counted to haue the same know­ledg with others, or insensiblenes of not feeling their want, wil offer them selues. And if there were none such then, yet forsomuch as, there be such amongest vs: that answer is in­sufficient, considering that the scripture conteyneth reme­dy, not onely against the corruptions in the tyme of the A­postles, but in al tymes.

His second reason, that offering them selues so, it is their own on­ely faut: is a crauing of that in question. For that it is onely their faut, and that the gouernours of the church haue no commandement, to look to yt: are the same in effect.

His third reason, that if yt had bene so necessary, S. Paul, would haue spoken of yt here especially, is to fond: considering that the Apostle writeth onely, ether of such fautes as were in that church, or of matters whereof his iudgment was asked. That also owt of M. Caluin, is meerly idle. For it is one question, w­hether a priuate man, vnder coulor of an vnmeet person ad­mitted to the supper, owght to withdraw hym self: and ano­ther, whether such a one, should be admitted by the gouer­nours of the church. his answer maketh also as much to pro­ue, that knowen whoremongers should not be driuen to re­pentance, before they come to the communion, as knowen papistes: considering, that it belongeth not to priuate men, to take in hand the correction of them, when they present them selues.

Against that alledged, of the commandement to the Le­uites, Diuis. 3. p. 592. Cronicl. 2. 35. 6. to prepare the people to the receiuing of the Pasouer, vuhich vuas the same vuith them, that the holy supper is vuith vs: he excepteth, and that confidently, and with repr­oches, that it is abrogated. whose shameful dealing herein, let [Page 150] al the world iudg of: considering that, by how much our sa­crament is excellenter then theirs, by so much, owght there to be greater care and diligēce in preparing the people the­reto. But of this, more hath bene said In the former part p. 162. lin. 10. and 220. l. 28. otherwhere. After he excepteth, that the text is, that they should prepare, not examin: whi­ch is friuolous, and preuented, in that I added, that exami­nation is a part of preparation. So that he that commādeth the whole, must needes doe the part: whereunto he answer­eth not, but affirmeth yt manifest, that the Leuites vsed no such exa­mination. of which manifestnes, there is not a letter in the text. The contrary, by al likelihood, is to be intended: consideri­ng, that diuers of the people, nue come owt of ignorance a­nd Idolatry, had need of particular trial. against which the marginal note maketh not: seing exhortation may wel stand with examination, and the nature of a note, is not to lay owt thi­nges at large.

That the papistes may as wel vse this for auriculer confession, is so placed, that yt may be taken, that the Iues vsed auricular confession, as a ceremony vnder the law, which is vntrue: a­nd so yt is propounded, as if there were as good ground in the word of that, as of thys: which beside the vntruth, is ou­erturned of his own wordes, confessing that pag. 593. examination may be: vnles he wil say, that auriculer confession, may be likewi­se. diu. 4. 593 his argument, which he renounceth, is as I haue fra­med yt: whereof let the reader iudg, as also of the Admo. meaning.

THere ys a proper place, where the D. (if he had bene able) should haue shewed, that I agree in this cause, with the Papistes: namely in the end of this treatise, where I shew, how far I stand from them in this behalf. How­beit hauīg (beside vntrw surmises) little or nothing at al to mayntein him self with, he hath, to strike a preiudice into the minde of the reader, and to set (as it were) a bias of his iudgment, to draw it vnto his side, here in the forefront set vp this vntrue accusation: whereunto I wil answer, when I come to that place. Now for better clearing of this matter, the distinction betvuene the church and cōmon vuealth vnder a Christian Magistrate, denied by him: is to be confirmed.

Vuherin as towching the autority of the word of god, bo­eth owt of the ould Testamēt and the nue: I refer the reader, to that which I In the 7. Tract diui. 8 p. 755. haue writtē. sauing that the place of the Cr­onicles cōmeth after to be towched again. In the churches after the Apostles, and that vnder godly Princes: the same differēce, hath bene diligētly obserued, by the ecclesiastical writers. As when it is said, that the church and common v­uealth, Socr. 5. li. in praefat. Soz. 3. libr. 26. cap. not onely suffer but florish togither: keping this di­stinction, as wel in the church is prosperity, as in her aduersi­ty. Also, Euse. 3. li. de vita Cō stan. that the hovuses of prayer, being restored to the church: other places vuere adiudged to the vse of the com­mō vueaelth. Likewise, Aug. epist. 167. ad A­pung. that there is one cause of the Prou­ince: and another of the church.

Yf he can not cōceiue, how this should be: he may be giuē to vnderstand it, after this sort. that a man may, by excom­municatiō, be sundred frō the church: which forthwith lee­seth [Page] not of necessity, his Burgeship or freedome in the city, or common wealth. Likewise, that the ciuil Magistrate may, by bannishment, cut of a man from being a member of the common wealth: whome the church can not by and by, cast owt by excommunication. Again, when one is for his mis­behauior depriued of his priuileges, boeth in the church a­nd common wealth: albeit the church be, vpon his repen­tance, bound to receiu him in again, as a member thereof: y­et the common wealth, is at her liberty whether she wil re­store him or no. Finally infidels vnder a Christian Prince, may, vntil such tyme as they refuse instruction, be members of the common wealth: yet are they not therefore, membe­rs of the church. where, if the church and common wealth, were (as he saith) vnder a Christian Prince, al one: it should folow, that whosoeuer is a part of one, should needes be a part of the other: and contrawise, whosoeuer is cut of from one, must be cut of from the other.

His autority pretended against this distinction, owt of Musculus, pag. 180. et 695. that the Christian Magistrate is not profane: is to no vse. For, not onely the high dignity of the ciuil Magistrate, but the moste basest handicraftes: are holy, when they are directed to the honour of god: but to conclude thereof, that they a­re not distinguished from ecclesiastical causes, is to much vnaduisednes. For wil he conclude, that for because the go­uernment of the hows, and the gouernment of the commō wealth, are boeth holy: that therfore, the gouernment of the hows, is not distinguished, from the gouernment of the cō ­mon wealth: or wil he say, because the company of a man with his wife in lawful matrimony is holy, that therefore it is a church matter?

This distinction, of the church and common wealth, vn­der2. Diuis. pa. 697. a Christian Prince, being so apparant in certein cases, there is no reason, why it should not be so, in the rest: which shal yet better appear, in this discours: where, commeth first to be considered, what he answereth to the place of the Cro­nicles: where, vpon that certeyn Priestes and Leuites, had 2. Chro. 19. vers. 8. 11. the handling of matters perteyning vnto god, and certeyn [Page 153] others the matters perteyning vnto the king: I concluded, that the church iudgmentes ovught ordinarily to be han­dled, by the church officers. His answer hereunto is, that for­somuch as Iehosaphat the king, by his autority committed boeth ecclesiast­ical, and ciuil causes: therfore he had power him self of boeth. whereun­to I reply, that he committed not those ecclesiastical matte­rs, vnto the Priestes and Leuites, as those which he might haue reteyned with him self, or as a thing in his own discre­tiō: but vsed onely his princely autority, to put in executiō, that which the lord had commanded. For yt is manifest, th­at the self same thing which Iehosaphat did here, was com­mandedDeut. 17. 8. &c. to be doen, in the law. And if this proue, that the iudgment of ecclesiastical causes perteyneth to the king, because he confir­med by his autority the ecclesiastical Iudges: it proueth also, that bo­eth the ordination of Ministers, and the preaching of the word, belong vnto hym: considering that this very king, is 2. Cronicles 17. 7. 8. 9. said to haue sent forth preachers into al lury.

But let the reader obserue, how he hath here vtterly pas­sed by the weight of my argument, which standeth in this, that the holy gost maketh this partition, that some matte­rs pertayn to god, and others to the king: whereas, if t­he matters pertayning vnto god, pertayned also to the kin­g, the partition should be fauty. Nether by matters pertay­ning vnto the king, are vnderstanded those which pertayn vnto his own person, or his family, but matters within the compas of his princely iudgment: as appeareth, by the exa­mple of the cause of blood, which the scripture setteth down,vers. 10. especially if this place be compared, with that of Deutero­nomy, where this example is put particularly, and opposed to the iudgment of Deu. 17. 8 leprosy, which then belonged vnto the priest.

To the place in the Heb. 5. 1. Hehrues, that the high Priest is appointed, ouer thinges vuhich appertayn vnto god: he answereth, that the Apostle declareth, that those thinges are to offer giftes &c. which is nothing worth. For, the proposition is ge­neral, [Page] wherupon the Apostle concludeth so much, as serued for the present purpose: otherwise yow may as wel say, that yt belonged not to the high Priest, to preach, because the A­postle mentioneth not that part of his office, in that place. Seing then it is apparant, owt of the Cronicles, that iudg­ment in church matters pertayneth vnto god: Seing likewi­se, it is euident owt of this testimony of the Apostle, that the high Priest is set ouer those matters in gods behalf: it must needes folow, that the principality or direction of the iudg­ment of them, is by gods ordināce pertayning vnto the hi­gh Priest, and consequently to the ministery of the church. And if it be by gods ordinance, apparteyning vnto thē: how can it be translated from them, vnto the ciuil Magistrate?

That which I said, of Leuites vsed to the iudgment of ciu­il causes, for that they could not al be employed to the min­istery, considering that, so there should haue bene almoste for euery xijmē a Leuite: is barely denied, and nether the reason which I browght cōfuted, nether any of his set down. whereunto may be added the reason, why the Leuites not occupied in the church ministery: were willingly taken, for assistance in ciuil iudgmentes. which is, because they being better acquainted, with the law of god, then commonly the rest of the tribes: were consequently better seen in the iudi­cials, by which the common wealth of the Israelites was go­uerned. And that al the Leuites, were not applied vnto the ministery, may appear by the example of ^a Banaias, the hi­gh [...]. Reg. 4. 4. Priests son, high Constable or general of the host.

Before I come to the Ans. arguments, I desire the readerDiuis. 3. p. 698. to obserue, that althowgh he hath owt of the auncient wri­ters, borowed certein places, to iust with those, which I haue taken from thence: yet owt of the holy scripture, whereof he should haue made the base and foundation of his defence, he hath browght nothing. But let vs see them such as they are. Eusebius (saith he) calleth Constantine, as yt were a general Bishop. That maketh no more to proue, that the iudgment of ecclesiasti­cal [Page 155] causes, belonged vnto him: then that he calleth hym a Doctor, Euseb. 1. li. de vita Cō ­stan. apointed of god to al nations, proueth hym to haue bene a publik preacher of the word. Rather, as he was called a Do­ctor, because that the doctrine taught by the Bishops, was maynteyned by his autority, not for that he taught him se­lf: so he is called the general Bishop, for that he caused th­em to meet in Councel, protected them when they were th­ere, kept them in peace, maynteyned with his princely au­tority, that which was godlyly decreed, not for that he de­termined the matters hym self. This may also appear, in his epistle to the churches, where willing to draw credit vnto t­he decrees of that Councel, he doeth not say that they were his, but the Bishops decrees. And in deed yt might more iu­stlyEuseb. 3. li. de vita Cō ­stan. be concluded, that he was a minister of the word by the one place, then by the other, that he made ecclesiastical la­wes, of his own autority: considering, that the place browg­ht by him, is delaied and laid in water, by that he calleth h­im not a Bishop simply, but as it vuere a Bishop: where as, the other place is not so.

And it is further to be obserued, that the word Bishop is taken some tymes generally, for any ouerseer: and not o­nely for the church Minister. In which respect, Constanty­ne calleth him self a Bishop, but putteth a manifest differ­ence, betwene his Bishoprik and theirs: namely, that the c­hurch officers were Bishops and ouerseers of thinges vuit­hin Euseb 4. li. de vita Cō stan. the church, and he, Bishop or ouerseer of those that vuere vuithovut the church. whereby he clearly also estab­lisheth, the distinction of the church and common weal­th vnder a Christian Prince. Hether also may be referred, that of Hillary: which exhorteth Constans, that he wo­uldIn lib. ad Constan. prouide, that the gouernours of his prouinces vnder hym, should not praesume to take vpon them, the iudg­ment of ecclesiastical causes: where also the same autor [Page] further affirmeth, that the common vuealth matters onely belonged vnto them. Likewise that Ambrose saith: That Palaces belong vnto the Emperour, but the churches Amb. lib. 5. Epist. 33. vnto the Minister: and that he had autority of the commō vualles of the city, and not ouer holy thinges.

That of Constantyne, and after of Iustinian, making lawes tou­ching godlines, as against the worship of Images &c. is idle, consider­ing that it is nothing but an execution of that, which is co­mmanded of god, and withowt the compas of thinges, wh­ich fal into the church is consultation. For in thinges, which he is assured of, to be the vnuariable truth of god: who dou­teth but that he not onely may, but owght also to mayntein them, with his autority. Sauing that, if there be a general do­wt raised, what is the law of god therein: to the end that the the truth may haue better cours, and that the conscience may be prouided for, there is herein great caution to be v­sed. For least that which is godly, should be doē vngodlily, that is to say ignorantly or doutfully, and to the end that t­he autors of error (being conuinced) may doe les hurt, and finally to the end that the punishmēt of the obstinate, may be boeth more iust, and les grudged at: yt belongeth vnto the ciuil Magistrate, to cal (as did the godly Emperour Cō ­stantine) a councel of the ministery, by whome, as by gods interpreters, the people may receiu a resolution, warranted by substantial groundes owt of hys word.

Yet so far it is, that we suspend vpon the Councels de­termination, the putting in execution of such as he is assu­red to be the vnchangeable commaundementes of god: th­at boeth before, in, and after the Councel, yea and howsoe­uer they determin, we esteme that the Prince owght to pro­cure by al godly and conuenient meanes, that such lawes of god haue place: at the least that the contrary be not suf­fered, not so much as (if it might be) one onely hower.

That owt of the Chalcedon councel, that the orders there made were by the Emperours autority, because they cried long life vnto the Se­nate and Emperour: is vnsufficient. For, althowgh it was vnme­et, that in such graue meetinges, there should be vsed such [Page 157] shoutinges, as then appeared to haue bene the maner, wh­en they liked or misliked any thing, which was more fit for stage playes, then for such a graue company: yet who seeth not, that there was cause enowgh, why thanckes should be giuen vnto the Emperour for his care, his paynes, and his charges in calling and confirming yt, althowgh nether the iudgment were his, nor apperteyned vnto him.

Now touching the places alledged by me, in the first, gros ouersight there is none: seing there is not a word in that place, which enforceth external buildinges. For in steed of that which is turned buildinges: the greek hath, vuorkes or affaiers. [...]. also for that, of selling the buildinges: there is no such thing in1 lib cap. 15 the greek, nether (as I think) owght to be. For the place, whi­ch (no dowt) is for insted of that Eu­seb. hath [...] yt should hau [...] bene [...]. corrupt in Eusebius: may be restored owt of Theodoret, that reporteth the same epistle. Howbeit whet­her it be vnderstood of the owtward, or inward buildinges, I wil not striue: and I rather think, that it is of the ow [...]ward, then otherwise: considering, that that seemeth to be more simple.

To the second, where the Soz [...]. 1. li. cap 17. Emperour confesseth the Bis­hops matters, not to pertayn to him: he answereth, that the Emperour of modesty refused the determination. But what modesty is yt, to say that which is vntrue: or what modesty, to affirm that yt belongeth not to hym, which is (by yow) his office, and com­mitted to him of god, especially vnto his subiectes? For it might haue more colour, if yow had said, that it were modesty for a Bishop to say: that to administer the word and sacramentes belong not to hym, but vnto the Prince. Beside that, yf he would haue shewed forth modesty: he would haue rather said, that he was not worthy, then to say that it vuas not lavuful for him to doe yt.

To that, that the Emperour vuould not determin of Arius heresy, but committed yt to the Synod: he answeret­h, that yt letteth not but that he had autority, sauing that, therby he she­wed his wisdome, in committing matters of doctrine to them, which are moste fit to entreat of them. A straunge kinde of wisdome, to put [Page 158] ouer that which belonged vnto his office, to them to who­se office that did not belong: verely this is not the wisdo­me, which commeth from aboue. For althowgh it be law­ful for a Prince, to discharge part of his burthen vpon ot­hers, for the more commodity of his subiectes: yet, if this belong vnto him, as he is appointed of god the ciuil Magi­strate, he can not put yt vnto any other, thē vnto a ciuil Ma­gistrate, as I haue Tract. 7. before shewed.

Here also, I would ask of him, how the Councel of Nice was fitter to iudg of the matter, then the Emperour? was it by some singuler case, or by reason of their office of being Bishops? Yf (as needes he must) he answer, that th­ey are by calling and by office, fitter to iudg of such cau­ses: how must not that pertein vnto them, which are here­of, by calling, the fittest Iudges. For, althowgh there be fo­und sometymes, some ciuil gouernour which hath more s­kil to iudg in church matters, then some Bishop, as also some Bishops to haue more skil in common wealth mat­ters, then some ciuil gouernour: yet notwithstanding, ne­ther the one, nor the other hath this kunning, by any gi­ft incident into his office which he exerciseth. So that, the Answerer, in reputing it, for wisdome in the Emperour, to com­mit these matters vnto the Bishops, as vnto the most able Iudges, ma­keth a deep wound in the wisdome of god, whilest he sup­poseth, that god hath committed that to be doen by the Magistrate, whereof, by office, he is not the fittest doer: w­hich is a voice, vnworthy of a very sukling, much more, of a D. in diuinity. And, that this is most properly belon­ging1. Tit. vnto a Bishop, it appeareth, in that the Apostle re­quireth, that he should be able to conuince the gainsa­yers: which he neuer required of the ciuil Magistrate: and notwithstanding would haue required yt, if the decision of such causes, had apperteyned vnto him. For the lord, calle­th no man to any thing: of whome he requireth not giftes, meet to furnish his calling.

Not vnlike to this reason, is that in the 5. diuision pa­ge [Page 159] 701, which is: that for so much as the Ministers, are mo­ste able to decide of church matters, that therfore, the de­cision belongeth vnto them. whereunto he answereth first, that it is Hardings reason, but sheweth not, where it is to be fo­und: where I alledging it, as his own reason, pointed hym the place, wherunto he answereth not a word. Second­ly, he saith, that yt proueth onely, that it is most conuenient and ne­cessary, that the ministers, while they be godly and learned, may haue the deciding of matters in religion. Here, if the Answ. had not fum­bled, and faultered in his speach: we had had hym, if not al­togither, yet very nigh consenting with vs. therefore, let the reader note, that whereas he hath borowed boeth his answers, and al his auncient autorities from the Bishop a­nd M. Nowel, withowt confessing any (one onely place o­wt of the Bishop excepted:) in this answer, wherein the ch­eif point of the question doeth consist, he hath giuen them boeth the slip. For they boeth doe flatly confes, that as long as the Ministers be godly and learned, yt is neces­sary, Defence of the Apol. 6. part. ch. 11. diu. 11. and 12. ch. di. 4. M. Novuel. Tom. 2. pa. 35. 38. 34. 27. they should decide these matters, that the Prince is commanded to haue recours vnto them in dovutful mat­ters, that it belongeth to the Bishops office to decide of su­ch causes: but that Christian Princes, haue rather to doe vuith these matters, then ignorant and vuicked Priestes, and that in case of necessity (meaning when the ministery is wicked) the Prince ovught to prouide for cōueniēt remedy: the very self same thing, which we maynteyn, in saying, vuhen there is no lavuful ministery, that then the Prince ovught, to take order in these thinges.

Now, because he dissenting from them, would yet see­me to be at one, he also hath set down, that it is necessary: but how? mark I pray yow, and yow shal see that, in stryui­ng against a manifest truth, he became speachles. For­sooth it is necessary, that they may decide: he durst not say [Page] that it is necessary they should, but that they may decide. where in saying that it is necessary, he leaueth no choise: again, in sa­ying that they may, he destroyeth the necessity, which he had before put, leauing it in the Princis power, whether they s­hal or no. Thus as the mous kleauing fast in the pitchbox, in one sentence: he affirmeth that a godly and learned mini­stery, must of necessity, and not of necessity, decide of the­se causes.

That which he addeth, that the autority doeth as wel stil rema­in in the Prince, when the Ministers decide, as when the Iudges determin of ciuil causes: is vntrw. Yf, as he pretendeth, it were at the Prin­cis chois, whether a godly mynistery, should decide of th­em or no, then yt were true he saith: but if it be true, which the Bishop and M. Nowel say, that yt is necessary, that a go­dly ministery should decide of them, and that yt belongeth to the the Bishops office so to doe: then the comparison, is most vnequal. For the iudgment of ciuil causes, doeth so be long vnto the Magistrate, that he is not bound by the law of god, to translate yt vnto other. Nay the law of god, wil haue, that Princes them selues (so far as they may, and are able) shal bear their dominion vpon their own shoulders, and iudg the causes of their subiectes in their own persons: cōsidering that the scripture calleth al princes, Iudges, and setteth euery one a Throne, to iudg the causes of his peop­le. Now (to return bak, where I leaft) foloweth his answer to the Councel of Constantinople: that it is to late a testimony, being other in the year 549 or 681. which might haue place in this case, where the question is of the Bishopes iurisdiction, as that which in proces of tyme did owtreach: were it not con­firmed, by other testimonies of the former age. In the first of which Councels, Menna the Patriark being president, it is said that the decree of the Bishopes firm in yt self, vuas cō ­firmed by the Emperour. Now seing the Bishops, had then this autority: how much more, by his own confession, had they the same, in the other which was later. And the sa­me Constantine which the D. speaketh of, giueth more to the Bishopes, then we doe: namely that he vuould compel none [Page 161] to the truth, oneles they concluded something.

That yt was said, that the Emperour confirmed the de­crees of the Councel, and not that the Emperour made the decrees: serueth also wel for this purpose. For, if ether he had made them, or they had bene made vnder his name: they should haue bene said, to haue bene made by him: as decre­es made by the Princis deputies, are said to be made by the Prince.

That which he addeth, of the Emperour being moderator of the Councel, beside that yt proueth not his cause, considering that the Moderator had not al the autority: it is vntrue, and contrary to the practis of Councels in al tymes: oneles by moderatorship, he mean the appointing of the tyme of the Councels assembly and dismission, the houers of their sitti­ng, the ciuil punishment of them which behaue them selu­es tumultuously, or otherwise disorderly. If he doe, it is that which we willingly graunt: but, which maketh nothing for this purpose.

To that alledged owt of Ambrose, vuho refused to Diuis. 4. p. 700. Amb. li. E­pist. 5. 32. haue a church matter before the Emperour Ʋalentinian, first, he answereth that he was young: as thowgh his tender yea­res, could diminish his right: or that a Prince of 18 or 20 yea­res ould, had not as ample autority as one of 40. Secondly, that he was not baptized: which was not, for that he refused ba­ptim, but because the maner then was not to baptiz, before the hower of death was supposed to approch. For, the Aria­ns them selues, doe not pretend any enmity, or refusal of baptim. And howsoeuer some haue alledged yt, yow might haue bene ashamed to alledg yt: which before, affirmed th­atpag. 146. Ambrose was meet to be chosen Bishop, notwithstāding that he we­re not baptized.

The last exception is, that he was an Arian heretik: so that no equal iudgment, was to be hoped for at his hand. which is no suffici­ent answer: considering that Ambrose denieth the Empero­ur the determination of the cause, not for that he was a wic­ked Emperour, but because it was not red in scripture, nor [Page 162] heard of before, that any Emperour, (and therfore nether godly nor vngodly) was Iudg ouer a Bishop, in a cause of faith. which was not his iudgment onely, but the iudgment of other Bishops round abowt. Therefore, it is vntru, that Ambrose stayed him self chiefly, of a priuiledg graunted by Theodosius: not onely, for that it was not lawful for Theodosius, to haue passed the right of the ciuil Magistrate, to the Bishops: but because Ambrose fetched his defence, from the scripture a­nd auncienter tymes, then was Theodosius priuiledg. Besi­de that, if Theodosius had graunted that to the Bishops, w­hich belonged vnto hym: his heir could be no more bound by his graunt herein, then the committing of ciuil iudgm­entes vnto them, should haue hindred him to cal them bak again, into his own hand. So that, when Valentinian had de­clared, that he would haue the hearing of the matter hym self: that could not be, any iust defence.

Moreouer, if it belong vnto the ciuil Magistrate, to iudg in causes ecclesiastical, no abuse or disorder of his, can de­priue hym of yt, so long as he remayneth in the ful estate of a Prince: no more then men can take away from him, the ri­ght of iudgment in ciuil causes, and erect another court a­gainst his, because he peruerteth iudgment, ether by giftes or fauour. Therefore, if it be true that the D. houldeth, that this right belongeth to Cesar: Ambrose owght to haue ap­peared, and to haue waited, what the Emperours iudgment would haue bene. If it had bene against the truth, then to haue answered as the Apostles to the Councel, that he vuo­uld Act: 5. rather obey god then man. This may yet better appe­ar, for that if the Emperour had sent for Ambrose, and giuen hym summonce, to shew what was his iudgment, witho­wt pretending to be Iudg in the cause: Ambrose could not haue refused yt, althowgh the Emperour would after haue said, that he was an heretik. Last of al, thys being obiectedpart. 6. chap. 12. diuis. [...]. by Harding, that there is the same right of a Christiā Prince and of a Tyrā: is not denied of the Bishop of Sarisbury. For the ordinance of god is one: euen as there is the same right [Page 163] of a heathen master, husband, and father, ouer a Christian seruant, Son and wife, as if they were Christian. And yt was an error, against which the Apostles labored: that priuate men, might deny vnto Princes and other their superiors, w­hich did not their duties, thinges which, otherwise, were due vnto thē. Nether owght the D. more to charge me with this saying, because Harding hath yt: then I charge hym with his opiniō, of the same kinde in this behalf with Pigghius: whoHier. 5. lib. cap. 4. teacheth, another right of a Christian, and of a profane Ma­gistrate.

The relation of Athanasius matter, to the Emperour: was (asApolog. 2. may appear) because the moste part of the Bishops, were he retikes, ether Coluthans, Arians, or Miletians.

That owt of Augustin, demaunding why the Donatistes made the Em­perour Iudg, if it were not lawful for him to giue sentence in a matter of Religion: was onely to beat them with their own rod, not that Augustin alowed their fact, in making the Emperour their Iudg. which is manifest in other places, where he doeth pre­cisely reproue them for it: and cast yt in their teeth, that August. in psal. contra partent Donat. and Epist. 68. they preferred the Emperours iudgment vnto the Bishops: when, notwithstanding, the Emperour gaue the same iudg­ment which the Bishops did, and was, for his godlines, the perl of al Emperours. Vuherein, it is also to be obserued, t­hat Augustin in another place saith, that the Emperour, Epist. 166 not daring to iudg of the Bishops cause, committed yt vnto the Bishops: and that he did, not once but twise. Likewise, t­hat he was driuen by Epist. 162 the Donatistes importunity, which made no end of appealing vnto hym, to giue sentēce in th­at matter: for the which also, he vuas to craue pardō of the Bishopes. Hetherto maketh singulerly, that Augustin put­tethd Li. prim [...] contra lite­ras Parme­nian. ca. 7. a playn distinction betwene these iudgmentes: saying of the Donatistes, which of their priuate autority russhed v­pō the catholiks, that yt vuas nether by ecclesiastical lavu nor by the kings lavu: which were ridiculous, if (as the D. saith) the ecclesiastical lawes, were also the kings lawes.

That owt of Sozom. 4. lib. 16, owght not to haue bene alle­dged: considering that boeth the Emperour Constantius, which required to haue the ending of the matter, and the moste of the Bishops in the Councel of Syrm, which agreed vnto his request, were infected with Arianism. Likewise, that owt of Socrates 5 book, cap. 10, is idle: seing nothing is doen there by Theodosius, which is not confessed to belong vnto the Magi­strate. The next is answered before.

Vuhere I pressed him with his own wordes, affirming thatdiuis. 6. pa. 702. &c. also the first diu. p. 694. the church hath autority to make ceremonies: he answereth that he included the Prince, as cheif gouernour of the church: which is not suf­ficient. For ether the Prince alone, must be the church, or els one of his sentences, goeth to ground: ether that which sai­th, that the church hath autority, or this affirming that the Prince hath al the autority, to make ceremonies.

I alledged for further answer, against his shameful slaun­ders of vs, as if we were ioyned with the papistes in this cause: as folo­weth. First, that the papistes exempt their Priestes from the punishment of the ciuil Magistrate: vuhich vue doe not. whereto he answereth, that Harding and Saunders doe as much: whi­ch is vtterly vntrw. For by the wordes, he citeth owt of Sau­nders, yt appeareth, that he doeth not subiect them vnto t­he Magistrate, in respect of their priesthood. Owt of Harding, he nether citeth wordes, nor quoteth place: which his bur­ning desire, of coupling vs with the papistes, would not haue pas­sed, if it could haue bene found.

And that the reader, may better know his great vnfaith­fulnes in so weighty a matter: let him take Hardings own wordes to the Bishop, which are these. Apolo. 6. part cap. 9. diui. 1. & 2. Yovu teach princes, to vse violence against Priestes, as thovugh their fautes co­uld not be redressed, by the Prelates of the cleargy. And aft­er, yt is not conuenient, that the king should cal Priestes before hym, to his ovun seat of iudgment. I assigned also another difference, that vuhere the papistes, vuil haue the Prince execute vuhatsoeuer they conclude, be yt good or [Page 165] bad: vue say, that if there be no lavuful ministery, as in the ruinous decayes of religion, that then the Prince ovught to set order. And if, vuhen there is a lavuful ministery, it shal agree of any vnlavuful thing: that the Prince ovught to stay yt, and to driue them, to that vuhich is lavuful. This difference, althowgh he could not deny, and althow­gh, by it, we are sundred from the papistes, as far as he is frō him that said, the kyng of Persia might doe vuhat he lusted: yet he continueth his former slaunder, that we shake handes with the papistes: and feareth not stil to say, that he seeth not whe­rein (in this article) we differ from them.

But not able to deny this difference, he cauilleth at yt: asking first, why the prince owght rather to determin of ecclesiastical causes when there is no lawful ministery, thē whē there is: forsooth be­cause the Magistrate is bound to see, the seruice of god ma­ynteined in his dominion. which, when yt can not be by the1. Tim. 2. meanes, which god hath appointed ordinary, yet for as mu­ch as his bond stil remayneth, the next is, that yt be doen as nerely vnto that order as may be: vntil such tyme (which o­wght to be with al possible speed) as the standing, and set o­rder, be established. I say, as nere as may be vnto the order prescribed of god, least any should think, that because that order can not be precisely kept, he were by and by at liber­ty, to set vp clean another order, which should seem best to hym: neglecting, vpon occasion of the vnability of obserui­ng al, the obseruation of those thinges which may be obser­ued. For herein owght to be folowed, the example of the g­odly learned Priest Abimelech: which admitted Dauid and his company, to the participation of the shew bread, that was otherwise lawful for the Priests onely to eat of. who, alt­howgh (to kepe charity which is the end of the law) he brake so much of the ceremonye, as the present necessity did re­quire:1. Sam. 21. 4 [...] yet he ceased not therefore, to be careful of the obseruation of the rest: as appeareth, in that he asked, vuhether they had absteyned from the company of their vuiues.

Again, yt is known, that the Priestes and Prophetes haue extraordinarily meddled with ciuil affaires, in confused ty­mes: wil he therfore say, that this power is ordinarily anne­xed vnto the Bishops office. The cases, I graunt, are not alt­ogither like: yet to his question, which supposeth that there is no cause, why the Magistrate should not iudg of church matters, aswel when there is a lawful ministery, as when there is none: this may serue, for part of an answer.

Moreouer, as in siknes, there is another diet, then in he­alth: so the church in her greuous diseas, hath an other kin­de of gouernment, then that which is ordinary, and vsed in a good constitution of her body. which thing, being said of the ruinous estate of the church, is to be vnderstood also, of her beginninges and, as yt were, infancy: where ether there was no church before, or hauing bene, yt was rased from the foundations. Yf this content him not: let him answer me, why the Prince must of necessity, commit these matters to the mini­stery when it is learned and godly, rather then when yt is otherwise: if, at the least, he wil now at the last, haue this the meaning of this broken english. And of his answer, to this question, wil easely rise an answer to his.

But some sharper Aduersary, might here haue obiected: that Moses, Dauid, and Salomō, being Princes in the moste florishing estate of the church: did notwithstanding make church orders. whereunto I answer, that they did so, partly, for that they were not kinges onely and Princes, but also Prophetes of god: partly, for that they had special and ex­pres direction therto, from god by the prophete: whereby they did euen those thinges in the church, which, withowt such special reuelation, was not lawful, for the Priestes thē selues to haue doē. And althowgh, the truth of this answer, be apparant: yet, that it may haue the more autority, espe­cially with the D. that tasteth nothing withowt this sauce: he may vnderstand, that it is M. Caluins answer of Moses, and Dauid, and that in this present cause now debated.Lib. epistol. Gal. pa. 46

His other quarrel against this answer is, that if a lawful mi­nistery determining some thing vnlawful, wil not be browght to that which is iust, that then the Prince must haue ether that which they wil, or [Page 167] no religiō. As thowgh, such a ministery were a lawful ministe­ry, that is obstinate. or as if, this obstinacy being general or for the moste part, the state is not here ruinous: so that the Prince may, after due meanes, assaied to bring them home, procure that other be put in their places. we herby appea­reth, that the remedy of this inconuenience, which (he saith) he can not see: was comprehended, in the first part of the second dif­ference, betwene ours, and the Papists iudgment.

But, if for that, a lawful ministery is subiect to error, or doeth er in the decision of ecclesiastical causes, he think that yt should not therefore handle these matters: he may as wel take from them, the preaching of the word: conside­ring that an error, may as wel be found in the pulpit, as in the Councel hows. And look what remedy the Magistrate hath against a ministery, teaching falsly or inconueniently in the pulpit: the same hath he against yt, determining so in Councel.

And, to make the partition wal, betwene the papistes and vs in this question, one cubite higher, that those which wil not open their eys to see it, may feel yt, in not onely stumb­ling, but running also their heades against yt: I wil ad this muche, that in ascribing vnto the ministery, the decision of matters in controuersy, and the making of church ceremo­nies: our meaning is not vtterly to seclude the Magistrate. For, when Ruff 1. li. cap. 3. experience teacheth vs, that often tymes a sim­ple man, and, as the prouerb saith, the Gardener hath spo­ken to good purpose, but 2. Croni. 30. vers. 20. 4. and 34. vers. Act. 11. 2. 4. & 15. 22. & 21. 22. especially when in the holy scri­pture, the ould Testament and the nue: and thirdly, when in the 1. Tom. cō cil. in praef. [...]. conci. Carthag. Ambrose E­pist. lib. 532 Hether be­lōgeth that vuhich the bishop hath vuritten in defence of the Apolo­gie 6. part. chap. 3. di­uis. 3. ecclesiastical writers, yt is found, that there haue bene of the people admitted vnto these consultations: when further it is found, that they haue had their consent there, and sometyme also their speach: with far greater reason, may the Christian Magistrate, boeth be assistant, and haue his voice in such assemblies.

That then, which we giue vnto the ministery in such church consultations, which are not of the dayly ministe­ry, as Synods be: is boeth a fore consultation, as we see to [Page 168] haue bene doen in the Act. 21. 18 scripture, to the end that the matter being digested, and as it were cut owt, and prepared a fore­hand, yt might be the better handled in a fuller assembly: as also the direction and moderation of that meeting, where these matters are defined and concluded of.

But in the cheef point, he is sure we agree with the papistes: euen as the godly and learned writers, ould and of our age, doe agree with them, and none otherwise. whereof two, the D. is him self constreyned to cōfes: meaning (as I think) M. Cal. Inst. 4. booK 11. cha. sect. 15. & 12. sect. 7. Cal­uin and Beza Epi. 8. Beza. whether he doe or no, so they are, as may ap­pear. And how durst he say of those two, vpon no ground, that in this article of the Magistrats autority, they differ nothing from the papistes. For so he saith in effect, when he saith so of vs: w­home he is compelled to confes, to haue their assistance in this cause. Althowgh they are not (as he saith) alone: but ha­ue diuers others bearing them company. Amongest who­me, M. Bucer may seem to be worthy of the cheif place: whi­ch affirmeth, that the magistrate ovught not to administer d Bucer lib. de cura a­nim. the discipline of the church.

So that, so far as we consent here with the papistes, we doe it, as in the article of the holy Trinity, where we haue w­ith warrant of the word of god, the approbation also of the best. we hould with them, thinges in common: in which re­spect, we are not afraid to confes, that we consent in some point, with the Iues and Turkes, or they rather with vs. But yow are foūd in diuers places, in their priuate orcheyardes, gathering your frute of trees, which their handes did first p­lant: and from thence yow bring your stockes, which yow would place in the lords vineyard. And euen in this questi­on, whome haue yow opposed vnto these two: which yow cō fes of our iudgmēt. yow pretend in deed, the Bishops of Saris­bury and winchester, with M. Nowel: but for two of them, I haue shewed, that they are in effect of the same iudgment we are: assured I am, they are further from yow then from vs: of the third also (albeit I haue not seen hym (I perswade my self li­kewise.

There remaineth onely Musculus, whose saying if I sho­uld [Page 169] deny not to be charged vpon vs, but on the papistes o­nely, seing we doe not deny altogither as they doe, that he hath autority to make church lawes: yow se we haue hould, which yow can not easely put vs from. But because, when I confessed some of contrary iudgment: I meant him, at the least as one which (if he thowght as we) did not sufficiently expres yt: let vs graunt yow, this reed to ride vpon, and to bear your self vp, in this great triumph. And let it be graun­ted yow, to make your faut seem so much the les: that yow haue one learned man, of the same iudgment with yow.

That I haue no other reasons then the papistes, is vntrue: at least yow shew yt not. And I may holily profes, and in the presen­ce of god, that I went not to the papistes for them: but in re­ading the scriptures, and the autors them selues, obserued them. Nether could the papistes abusing them, to the main­tenance of their tyranny ouer Princes, and the whole chur­ch, affray me to vse them, as I haue: no more, then they affra­ied M. Caluin and others, which haue vsed of them in like maner.

Of al which matter, the reader may vnderstand, how vn­worthy owtcries they be, which he so oftē raiseth against vs: that we giue no more to a godly Christian magistrate, then to the Turk or Nero, with such like. For who wil communicate the church matters, with Nero, open to hym the necessity of houlding a Councel, desire his confirmation of the church orders, pr­ay his aid in the maynteyning them, cal vpon him aswel for making them, where the lawful ministery faileth, as for red­res of the euil?

Yt is trw, the Turk and Nero, owght to doe al these: euen as they owght to doe, whatsoeuer belongeth vnto a godly Ch­ristian Prince: for the leauing of which vndoen (much more for doeyng the contrary) the wrath of the lord resteth vpon them, and theirs. But for as much, as they profes enmity of the truth: as they must want boeth the honour in this wo­rld, and reward in the world to come, which the lord giueth vnto a Christian magistrate: so the church must paciently bear, the want of these thinges vnder the one, which she e­nioyeth vnder the other.

To end this matter, seing the church and common we­alth, are distinguished aswel vnder a Christian Prince, as vn­der an vnchristian, and that thereof foloweth the distinctiō one from another, not onely of the lower, but also of the hi­gher members, which are the gouernours in boeth the bo­dies: seing also, the lord hath appointed the Ministers, to be ouer the matters perteyning to him self: Seing further, the ministery of the church is, by calling and giftes incidēt the­reunto, the fittest Iudg of the church matters: last of al, seing the auncient practis of the church, houldeth vp her hand hereunto: I conclude, that as wel in the decision of the doct­rine, as in the chois of the variable ceremonies of the chur­ch, the principal autority belōgeth vnto the ministery. The rest of the sections in this tractate, as those which re­quire no reply: I wil not towch, but leau them to the readers iud­gment.

THe doctrine and discipline of the church,The first chapter, of the first part that the church in indif­ferent cere­monies, ou­ught▪ not to becōformed vnto the popish Syna­goges. as the weightiest thinges, owght especial­ly to be looked vnto: but the ceremonies also, as mynt and comyn, owght not to be neglected. For, if honest matrones haue regard, to the smalest part of the attire of th­eir daughters, that yt be nether sluttish, nor gawish, nor af­ter the maner of harlots: much more, owght that care to be taken for the church of god, that by her comely and maide­nlike apparel, she may content euē the eyes of al, which lo­ue her spiritual chastity. And althowgh the corruptions in them stryke not strayt to the heart: yet, as gētil poisons, they consume by little and little. which is rather, to be takē heed vnto: for that the harm they doe, is to the moste part so in­sensible, that the church may seem to dy hereon almoste wi­thowt any grief or sens of yt, or goe away, as yt were, in a sle­ap. Hereupon, it commeth, that this part hath before bene somewhat laboured in, and now also shal haue her defence, but short: especially when as the Ans. beside a heap of wor­des, open vntruthes, dissembling, and peruerting my argu­mentes, hath almoste nothing worthy the answer.

For euen in this first diuision, what an opē vntruth is yt, that it ys one of our principles, not to be lawful to vse the same ceremonies, which the papistes did: whē as I haue boeth pag. 256. diui. 2. and p. 272. diui. 1. p. 475. before declared the cōtrary, and euē here haue expresly added, that thei are not to be vsed, vuhē, as good, or better may be established. what an abusing also is yt, to affirm the mangling of the gospels and epistels to haue bene browght in to the church by godly [Page 172] and learned men: not a word of proof, being browght therefo­re, which afterward, he saith generally, of al the Ceremoni­es in question: beside the insufficiency of his answer other­wise, to proue them not Antichristian, which I haue Tract. 11. di. 6 p. 522. before ob­serued. what boeth vntruth, and abusing the tyme is yt, to reason against me, as thowgh I had confessed al errors in our cere­monies taken away: when I name expresly, gros errors, and ma­nifest impieties. Finally, how single so led an argument is yt, that we may retayn popish ceremonies, because we say the churches are reformed, and not transformed: seing that, as transforming may be in part, or in whole, so may also reforming? and seing th­at the Ro. 12. 2. scripture, noting the whole and total restoring of a man, setteth yt forth as wel by renuyng, as by transforming. who can patiently, bestow his trauail in such refuse, as th­is is?

For the mayntenance of this reason, that the Apost­les di. 2. p. 474 in ceremonies conformed the Gentiles vnto the Iues, and not contrarivuise, the Iues vnto the Gentiles, and therfore, that the churches in the matter of ceremonies, should be instituted rather according to the patern of the churches dressed vp before them, then of the popish sinagog: I refer the reader, to that I haue In the for­mer part p. 470. already written. That the lord, forbad his people to doe some thinges, vuhich in them selu­es vuere lavuful: is manifest in the Leuit. 19. 19. 27. law. That he hath shewed, that the Christians haue conformed them selues vnto Idolaters in their ch­urch ceremonyes, with approbation ether of the word, or of Augustin, is vntrue: onely he shewed, that the vse of thinges necessary, owght not to be taken away for the abuse: which he boeth oft, and idly repeateth, as that which is confessed.

Vuhere I shewed, that the lord being careful, to seuer Diuis. 3. pa. 475. his people by ceremonies from al straungers: vuas so especi­ally, to seuer them from the Egiptians and Cananeans e­mongest vuhome they liued, and amongest vuhome they [Page 173] vuent to liue: he answereth, that the Egiptians nether worshipped, nor pretended the true god, but the papistes doe, which is In the former part p. 184. &c. before an­swered: that the Gentiles, had like ceremonies &c. which is also In the former part p. 470. an­swered: that hauing certein ceremonies common, with those from who­me we differ wholy in substance of religion, we may much more haue the same with the papistes, from whom we differ but in certeyn substātial po­intes. The one part whereof, is answered: the other (to take yt in the best sens a man can expound yt) is vntrue. For the Turkes beleue one god, and so doe we: and therefore, we differ not in al substantial pointes, from them. And althow­gh popery houldeth diuers thinges, better then they: yet t­he Turkes hould some thinges, better then yt.

Vuhere I affirm yt, more safe for vs to conform our in­different ceremonies to the Turkes, vuhich are far of, then to the papistes vuhich are so near, he chargeth me, with di­uers reproches, boeth here and otherwhere: but the reasons in this diuision, wherof one is, that the lord vsed the same vuisdome to vuardes his people, another, that there is grea­ter fear of infection from those vuhich are near, then from those vuhich are further of, he toucheth not. As for his rea­son, that the Turk is a professed enemy vnto Christ and his name, the Pope pretending the contrary: the first is not altogither, and in al re­spectes, true. For the Turk, acknowledgeth our Sauior Chr­ist a prophet, and giueth the true Christians more rest vnder hym, then the papistes doe vnder them: Nether can the pre­tence of the name of Christ, when the effect is contrary, di­minish the Popes faut: seing beside the enmity against Ch­rist, the syn is rather increased by his hypocrisy. Howbeit, I wil not here dispute, whether the Turkes or papistes are gr­eater enemies: yt is enowgh, that they are boeth fallen from Christ, the one by errors in the head pointes of his person, the other by errors in the head pointes of his office: in whi­ch respect, as boeth their ceremōies are to be auoided, so in that the papistes are nearer vs thē the Turkes, theirs are more to be avoided, then those of the Turkes. That we doe not in [Page 174] any kinde of ceremonies, conform our selues to the papistes: requireth no confutation, as that for the proof whereof, the Ans. must put owt the eyes, and stop the eares, of al. The rest, of the fa­ls pretence of Christian liberty, is pag. 256. 257. 258. also in the former part of this booK p. 403. lin. 29 before confuted.

Diu. 4. p. 476. To that, that contraries are cured by contraries, and t­hat as to establish Christs doctrine and discipline, yt is ne­cessary to abolish the popish doctrine and gouernment, so to heal the infection crept in by the popish order of seruice, yt is meet that an other vuere put in place: he answereth, that as in doctrine and discipline, they haue some good, so in ceremonies. whe­rein, he toucheth not the point of my reason. For the cause why, that good which is in Popery of the doctrine and disci­pline, can not be changed, is, for that they are perpetual cō ­mandements, in whose places, no other can come: but the ceremonies we speak of, are changeable, so that if ether bet­ter, or but as good as they can be ordeyned, yt is manifest, that for the cause assigned, those abused in popery, owght to giue place. Again, whatsoeuer good they haue, ether in doctrine or in discipline: yt is none of theirs, but the churc­h is. Therefore by his answer, as no popish doctrine or disci­pline, is fit for the church of Christ: so are no ceremonies, b­rowght in by popery. And in deed, whē the ordinance of cō ­uenient church ceremonies, procedeth of the light and kn­owledg of the word: there being such darknes and ignoran­ce in Popery, yt is maruail, if yt could shape owt one conue­nient ceremony for the church of Christ. The second sectiō of this diuision, is not to the purpose.

To that I alledged, of the vuay to bring a man from his diuis. 5. pa. 476. vice, to cary him as far from yt, as may be, which I made p­layn, by examples of reforming dronkēnes and streightni­ng of a crooked styk: he disputeth against me, as thowgh I al­lowed that a man might run from one vice, for remedy against the othe­r: which is an open vntruth, and vntollerable, seing I added expresly, that I did not alovu yt, but onely that of tvuo eui­les, yt vuas the les: whereunto he could not answer. I omit t­hat yow bring in S. Paul Ro. 3, saying that which he hath not. [Page 175] The sentence is true, but yow owght to make a difference, betwene that he saith, and that which is concluded of his sa­ying: especially seing yow haue (althowgh vntruly) twise ch­arged me, with the like.

To that of Tertullian, commending the Gentiles, vuhich Diuis. 6. p. 477. Lib. de Ido­latria. vuould not vuittingly kepe any of the feastes of the Christiās, and of the other side, discōmending the Christians, that ke­pt the feastes of the Gentiles: he answereth, that they cōmunica­ted with thē, in their Idoles: which is vntrue, there being not a word cyted here by him self, importing so much. For, to ceas frō labors the same dayes they did: was not simply vnlawful. He char­geth thē also, vuith feasting on the same dayes vuhich they did, also vuith sending of nueyeares giftes: were these not th­inges, in thē selues indifferēt, and onely condēned of Tert­ullian, because they were the ceremonies of prophane nati­ons? and doeth he not see, how Tertulliā maketh with vs, in that he preferreth the vse of the ceremonies of the Iues whi­ch are abrogated (for that they were sometyme autorized of god) to the ceremōies, which other prophane natiōs, had ta­kē vp of their own brayn. This also, may be vnderstood, by the opposition he maketh, of the cōmendatiō of the Genti­les. for, seing Tert. cōmendeth not the Gētiles, for that they worshipped not god with the Christians, but for that they would not admit the ceremonies, of a religion contrary to their own: to make the opposition answerable, we must nee­des say, that he rebuketh the Christians, for that they vsed the ceremonies of a religion, contrary to that they approu­ed. For further knowledg, of Tertullians iudgment herein: I refer the reader, to that In the fir­st booK and first Tractate. Diuis. 7. p. 478. before written.

To that of Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 17. Socra. lib. 1. cap. 9. Cōstātin, disalovuing for diuers causes, that the Christiās▪ hould hould the feast of Easter, at that tyme vu­hich the Iues did: he saith, that the East partes kept yt, as the Iues: which is no answer seing he sheweth not, whether he alow of Cōstantines iudgmēt, or no. his secōd answer, that he meāt, we should haue nothing cōmon with them, repugnant to Christian liberty: is vntrue, seing in it self, there was nothing more free, then whether a feast should be kept vpon thursday, or sonday.

His third reason, that if he had generally misliked their ceremoni­es, he would haue abrogated them, cleaueth not togither. In steed wherof, he should haue said, yf he had vtterly misliked cere­monies, ād not their ceremonies. For as for theirs, he abrogated them: not onely in propounding another end, then they d­id, but also in disanulling a number of ceremonies, vsed in the keping thereof. At the least, this example teacheth, that if we wil hould holydayes and fishdayes, with the papistes: yet in detestation of their religion, and for avoiding of su­perstition, which hath crept into mens mindes by them, we owght to change the dayes.

His last answer, that as Constantyn changing the day, and kep­ing the feast, put a difference betwene the Iues and Christians, so we gre­atly differ, from the papistes in the ceremonies taken from them: ys like­wise insufficient. For althowgh that the Christians, had kept the same day with the Iues: yet their keping of the Easter, s­hould haue differed from the Iues keping, as much as we di­ffer now from the papistes, in the ceremonies we haue from them. But, they thowght yt not enowgh, to differ from the Iues, in thinges meerly vnlawful: onles they were also seue­red from them, by a ceremony, which was in it self moste in­different.

To that alledged owt of the Councels, that they vuould Diuis. 8. p. 478. Zaodicens. cap. 38. 2. Tom. Bracar can. 73. 74. not haue the Christians communicate in vnleauened bre­ad, because the Iues did, nor dek their hovuses vuith green bovughes, because the pagans did so: he asketh, to what purpo­se they be alledged: yow know ful wel, that these goe to the heart of your cause. For, what can be in yt self more indifferent, th­en these two, forbidden the Christians: for that they were v­sed, of the enemies of the church. And being a reason, yt must be general of al such as the church may wel want: mu­ch more of those, in place wherof, it may haue as good, or better. As for your often repeating, that the ceremonies in question are godly, comely & decent: yt is your ouldwont, of dē ­aunding the thing in question, and an vndowted argument of your extreme pouerty. That I cyted owt of the Councel [Page] of Braccaras is to be found in the councel and Tome I alledged Can. 74. And the 73 can. which I cyted, is generally against al ce­remonies vsed by the paganes. for the two next sections, I refer the reader to that In the ex­amination of the D. cē ­sures. already answered.

And that this complaint of ours is iust, in that we are thus constreined to be like vnto the papistes, in any their cerem­onies, and that this cause onely, owght to moue them, to w­home that belongeth, to doe them away, forasmuch as they are their ceremonies: the reader may further see, in the Apol. first part chap. 2. diui. 8. Bi­shop of Sarisbury, which bringeth diuers proofes thereof, directly against the D. and flatly for vs.

To this place belongeth, as that which is general, the reason of the offence, ^c before handled, whereunto page 288a In the former part of this booK p. 403. he addeth, that those which are offended at this apparel, take an of­fence where yt is not giuen: which is (as he meaneth an offence ta­ken) nothing els, but a demaund of that in question. And yt deceiueth hym, that he considereth not, that the Apostle te­acheth that an offence is not onely giuen, when an vnlawful thing is doen: but also, when a thing, in yt self lawful, is do­en vnlawfully: that is, owt of tyme and place. Howbeit, yt ispag. 277. et diuis. 6. further said, that the offence may be taken away by preaching: but yt, was also replied, that yt is not so conuenient, that the mini­sters, hauing so many necessary pointes to bestow their ty­me in, should be driuen to spend it, in giuing warning of n­ot abusing them, of which (althowgh they were vsed at the best) there is no profit. whereunto, his answer (that the abuse of meates, and costly apparel for Princes &c. doeth not take away the vse) being of thinges, wherof there appeareth a manifest profit: is partly In this chapter. before, and further commeth to be answered, in the diduction of the particulers. The vntruth also of his sur­mise, that I would hereby take away owt of the church, the doctrine of indifferent thinges: is manifest. For, I spake not of al ceremoni­es, but of such, as haue bene shamefully abused, and where­of there is no manifest profit: nether did I disalow the doct­rine, against the abuse of them, seing I added, that one ser­mon against their abuse, ioyned vuith their remouing by [Page 178] them to vuhom that appertayneth, vuould doe more good, then a thovusand vuithovut: as appeareth by the example of our Sau. Christ, which for Math. 15. 2. 16. Marc. 7. 2. 14. the better rootīg owt of error, refused the hurtful ceremonyes, and tawght the abuse of th­em together. And what wisdome is yt, I pray yow, that by cō tinuance of the popish ceremonies, the church should rec­iue a wound, to the end that afterward, by continual warni­ng, yt might receiue a plaster: so that the inconueniēce whi­ch I assigned, lyeth in this, that the ministers by the cōtinu­ance of them, should be driuen to occupie a great deal mo­re tyme, and with les fruyt, then when they should be taken away: the confuting wherof, he is so far from, that he rather confirmeth my saying. For, yf the taking away of these thinges fr­om the eyes, doeth not by and by root owt the opiniō owt of the heart, w­hen as doctrine is ioyned withal (as I set yt down, and as in deed yt owght to be:) then how much les, wil the doctrine be able to pul yt owt of their heartes, when they be alwaies before the eies, and in vse. This I made playn, by his ex­ample, vuhich should set one to vuatch a childe al day lo­ng, least he should hurt hym self vuith a knife: vuhereas, by taking avuay the knife quite frō hym, the dāger is auoi­ded, and the seruice of the mā better imployed: his answer whereunto, of a childe which hath discretion, is no answer, when I meant of a little childe which, by age, is not able to guide a knife. Of which sort, yt is les meruail, yf there be amongest vs: seing there appear to haue bene such, in t­he [...] Rom. 14. 1. Cor. 3. Heb. 5. Apostles tymes. the rest in that diuision, is to no pur­pose.

Hether appertaineth also, that in page 259 diuis. 5. of the surplice, that by vsing of these ceremonies the papist­es take occasion to blaspheme: saying that our religion can not stand by yt self, vnles yt lean vpon the staf of their ce­remonies. whereunto his first answer, that they were before Antichrist: is [...] Tract. 11. Diuis. 6 p. 522. before answered. His second, that they make no [Page 179] great accompt of them, is very vntrue, euen in the very surplice: seing they haue so many misteries in yt, as Durandus in his Rationali diuinorū reckeneth vp. which answer also of his, is Hardings shift: confuted by the bishop, who In the de­fence of the Apol. 3 part chap. 5. Diuis. 1. sheweth, by diuers testimonies, what great holines they put in these thinges. His third, that they know we could be wel withowt th­em: is but an asking of that in controuersy, and contrary to that them selues doe speak. Also that we doe not (but for obedi­ence sake) much esteme them: but how shal they know that, when they may see greater seuerity vsed for the omitting of th­em, then for the lords own commaundementes. where al­so, yt is to be noted, that althowgh the wearing of the sur­plice and of the cap, were free by the lawes of the church: yet the D. would not willingly, altogither part with th­em, althowgh he would not so greatly esteme them. the rest there, oftē repeated: hath partly bene, and partly commeth, to be answered.

To that, that thus they conceiuing hope of hauing the rest of their popery in the end, causeth them to be more frozen in their vuickednes: he answereth, that they haue no cause so to hope, which is no answer. For not the cause, but the occasion also, owght to be taken away: where yt may be so chepe, that is to say, withowt remouing any thing, whereof we may not haue ether as good, or better in place. Althow­gh, let the reader iudg, whether they haue cause giuen, to hope that the tayl of popery yet remayning, they shal the easelier hale in the whole body after: considering also, that M. Bucer noteth, that where these thinges haue bene left, th­erevpō the 18. of S. math­evu. popery hath returned: but of the other part, in places which haue bene clensed of these dregges, yt hath not yet be­ne seen, that yt hath had any entrance. the rest, towching th­ir hopping withowt their hope &c. nether letteth thē in the me­an season, throwgh this hope, to dy in their synnes, nor is (yf yt come to pas) any gramercy vnto this remnant of po­pish ceremonies, which doe their best, to kepe the memory of Aegipt with vs.Diuis. 6. p. 259.

To proue the papistes triumph and ioy in these thinges, [Page 170] I alledged further, that there are none vuhich make such clamours for these ceremonies, as the papistes, and those v­uhich they suborn. He answereth, that they doe so iustly &c. al which dependeth of the demaund, of that in question: albe­yt what meat, I beseche yow, is yt like to be, which a po­pish stomak, doeth so gredily embrace? I deny not, but some of ours, may speak for them, throwgh a good intention, they haue to obey the Prince: but there be none so lickerous of them, as are the papistes, nor none cry so lowd for them, as they: which is that I meant, and vttered. the second section is ^a an­sweredb In the former part p. 245. Diui. 7. pa. 260. partly, and partly cometh to be answered after.

Yt is there further alledged, against the incommodity of these ceremonies, that there be numbers vuhich haue Antichristianity in that detestation: that they can not vuithovut grief of minde behould them. The same persons, vpon so easy an opening of the wicket, vnto this trus of po­pish ceremonies: fear least if the assault should be whot, th­ey would set open the gates, to the bringing in of greater packes: whereunto his answer owt of M. Caluin, is from the cau­se. For, let hardely his sentence strike vpon them, which, for euery light corruption in the church, wil make a departure from yt: yet their frowardnes, shal neuer excuse the sluggis­nes of them which labour not, as they may, to remoue those imperfections, at which they haue so miserably fallen. Your surmise, of transforming our selues dayly into a new shape, yf we wil please the people: ys (to let the rest goe) but a wādring from the matter. For I added, that such godly brethren, are not ease­ly to be greued: which they seme to be, when they are t­hus martyred in their mindes, for ceremonies which (to sp­eak the best of them) are vnprofitable. Beside that your pro­of of this, that the people are alwaies desirous of noueltyes, which is that mans nature is desirous of nwes: is to wide. For yt taketh the pri­nce, and other estates boeth in church, and common wealth by the head: as wel, as the people.

Hether is to be referred, that yt is required, that the [Page 171] ceremonies should not onely not offend, but also tend to ed­ification: which being barely denied, by the Answerer, In the for­mer part p. 279. Tra. 1. ha­th bene declared, of me. Also, that many of these popish ce­remonies, faut by reason of the pomp in them, vuhere they should be agreable, to the simplicity of the gospel of Christ crucified: which he likewise denieth, to be necessary, and m­ight aswel deny, that the rest of the building should be con­formable vnto the foundation. But of this also there hath bene spoken Tract. 7. and [...]. before, in the matter of the church discipline: whereof there is (in this respect) one reason.

Hether also belongeth, the eight diuision pag. 551. whe­re first he alledgeth, that in matters of order, the church is iudgment is to be preferred, before a priuate mans: where, yf he vnderstand, that we must doe so alwaies, and generally, he differeth no­thing herein, from the papistes. For why should we for mat­ters of order, alwayes hang our iudgment vpō the church is sl­eue: rather then in matters of doctrine. The determination, of the goodnes of them boeth, is fetched (as hath In the for­mer part a­nd first Tr. bene sh­ewed) from the word of god: if therfore, the church is hand, may slip in the one, yt may doe so in the other. And if a pri­uate man, may sometyme in a matter of doctrine wake, whē the church sleapeth: he may doe the same, in a matter of or­der. But yf he vnderstand, that the church is iudgment, is to be preferred to a priuate mans, when hers is framed accor­ding to the word of god, and not his: yt is in deed true, but then his reason is a meer daliance, and an open demaund of that in question: Beside that this iudgment, is not the opi­nion of a priuate man, but of thowsandes, and of those amōgest which, diuers are in publik charge and autority.

Touching the next diuision, I know that god is the autor of al truth, and consequently the holy gost: but I resisted this, that al that speak yt, speak yt moued by the holy gost, whi­ch seemed to me to be your meaning. And althowgh, the knowledg of god which the wicked haue, be his gift: yet the vse of yt, procedeth not from the spirit of god, further then of his ge­neral working, wherby they liue and are moued, and wher­by [Page 182] the Deuil hym self knoweth the same. therefore, that whi­ch in this case, yow durst not affirm of the deuil: yow owght not to haue affirmed of the wicked, which are led by his spirit.