Of conformitie to the state Ecclesiasticall.

MAy it please the wisedome of this honou­rable assembly, to weigh our reasons, not onely in the ballance of mans wit, but also in the skales of the sancturarie, why this conformiture is required. The A­postle 1. Cor. 1. 10. beseeching vs as brethren in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ, that wee all speake one thing, that there bee no dissentions among vs, that wee bee knit together in one minde and iudgement: commendeth it vnto vs as a necessary rule of Ecclesiasticall politie, for the better establishing of this consent in doctrine, the speedy cutting off of all iarres and discensions, the fast knitting and vniting of mindes and iudgements: vppon this ground and warrant other states haue vrged their Preachers to conforme themselues to the State vnder which they liued. And seeing by this rule apo­stolicall it cannot stand with the peace and good estate of any Church whatsoeuer, to permit such among them as are not of them, and to tollerate such in their Ministerie as [Page] are aduersaries: to their lawes and constitutions: much more then is conformitie so grounded vpon Scripture, and streng­thened by example of other Churches, deemed by the godli­est, and approued by the wisest, to be no lesse needfull in this present scisme and rent of the Church of England, then was pitch for the Arke of Noah floating vpon the water, and mor­ter for the ruines of the Temple exposed to the iniury of wind and weather, without which the one could not but presently sinke, and the other not long continue.

And, for as much as some fewe among vs in their priuate opinions dissent from vs, not onely godly politie teacheth, and Christian humilitie requireth, but also the Lawe of God which is of highest authority prescribeth and commandeth, that these fewe should submit themselues to the wisedome of the State, rather then the whole state should yeelde, and giue place to the contradiction of those priuate spirits. When certaine brethren at Antioch varied about circumsci­sion, Act. 15. 1. they were ouerswayed by the censure of the Councell helde at Ierusalem to whom the hearing of such differences, and disciding of such coutrouersies, did of right belong, but the sētence of the Councel gaue no way at all to those brethrē. And Saint Paule hauing spoken of the ceremonie deuised by 1. Cor. 11. the Church, and vsed in his time, in prayer and prophesie, that men should be bare, and women couered: noteth them for contentious persons which oppose themselues against this ceremonie, alledging: that it once being approued, and re­ceiued into the Church, ought not to bee called into que­stion, vel to nomine, because the Church had recei­ued it, when hee saith: If any man list to bee contentious, wee haue no such custome among vs, nor the Church of God.

For the better inlarging of this point, that I may not instance in the Turkish Gouernment, which suffereth no question to be moued against Ecclesiasticall rises, but endeth all such controuersies by the sword, neither yet in the Lu­theran Church, which admitteth none to any place in the [Page] ministery without subscription and oath to the reformation of Angsburge; nor in the Church of Rome, which inioy­neth their Clergie to maintaine the doctrine concluded in the councell of Trent: the Church of Geneua, whose lawes See the laws of the booke of Geneua. Chap. 1. and gouernment our brethren would impose vpon vs, as [...]he onely paterne of holinesse, and example of a true Chri­stian reformation, inioyneth all their Ministers before their admition, not onely to make open protestation, that they doe receiue and maintaine the doctrine approoued in Gene­ua, but simply, and absolutely to sweare, that they will keepe the Ecclesiasticall ordinances, which are passed and Chap. 2. in the forme of their oath. ordeined by the small, great, and generall councells of that Citie. By which law and practise of theirs, it is a cleare case, that with them there is no respect of priuate mens o­pinions, no satisfaction to bee yeelded to particular per­sons, no conference or disputation granted with men of contrary iudgements. But, it must be held pro concesso, for a conclusion or principle already proued, that all their or­dinances are according to Gods word, and of that vndoub­ted truth, that they may not be argued, sifted, or contro­uerted. Chap. 2. Finally, if there arise any difference concerning do­ctrine, which hath not beene already reconciled, it is inacted by their lawes, that the Ministers shall be called to a confe­rence; if then it cannot receiue an end, the Magistrates shall interpose their authority, and so proceede to a finall deci­sion. And for the better strengthening of their procee­dings, it is further inacted, that all opposition against their ordinances, shall be held for an hainous crime, called by the title of rebellion against Ecclesiastical lawes: & it is set down as punishable among the notorious crimes of heresie, scisme, blasphemy, simony, bribery, periury, and drunkennesse, The punishment to be inflicted vppon Ministers thus re­belling, is deposition from their ministery, and all con­tempt against Ecclesiasticall orders, in what persons soeuer, after three admonitions, is censured by excommunication. Yet I desire that no sinister or vncharitable construction should be made hereof, as if a state should vrge them which [Page] feele any the smallest check in their tender consciences with shipwrack of conscience, rashly to subscribe vnto that which they doe not approue, or for worldly respects, to allow of that whereof they cannot satisfie & well informe themselues. For albeit the state, which is well aduised, hath sufficient warrant to impose, yet the bare authority of the state, is no warrant vnto them to obey, which be not yet resolued, but stand in doubt, because they must build vpon this ground of the Apostle, that be the thing in it selfe neuer so lawfull, with­out faith, it is sinne. But onely I exhort them better to instruct and informe their weake consciences, which if they cannot, or will not doe, the imputation of this schisme must not be Rom. 14. 1. Cor. 10. laide vpon the state, which is well aduised, but vpon their weaknesse, which will not be perswaded when they are per­swaded, which are men wedded to their owne opinions, or that I may speake more mildely of them, which either can­not, or will not reforme their iudgements.

But for the better satisfaction of our Christian brethren, we will not refuse to yeeld reasons of our gouernment, albe­it it hath beene so long by law established: and for the iustifi­cation of our state, we will by Gods assistance, proue it in the chapters following, to stand with the lawes of the holy Bible. As namely, that the state of Archbishops and Bi­shops, which hath continued among vs euer since wee first receiued the Gospel, had their institution from God him­selfe, whereas parish Churches are mans inuention: and the gouernment of the Presbitery, is not onely repugnant to the lawes of the holy Scriptures, but also preiudiciall to the state of a Kingdome.

A defence of Church go­uernment established in England.
Of Eldership.

ALl would be in title as high as Aaron, all would bee gouernours rather then pri­uate Ministers; but because the keyes of the Church are not committed vnto all which be of the ministerie; therfore some of our brethren, being discontented with the present state, make it now a question, whether the Church of right, ought to be ordered by elders, as it is in Geneua, or by Diocesan Lord Bishoppes, as it is in England? I cannot denie but the gouernment of the Church is committed to Elders in the new Testament, where the A­postle saith: The elders which rule well, are worthy of double ho­nour, 1. Tim. 5. 17. especially they which labour in the word and doctrine. But, the disputation is between vs and our brethren, which stand for the eldership; whether these elders were lay men of trades & worldly vocations, as they be now in Geneua, or preachers, & ecclesiasticall persons? whether this Eldership was an annu­all, or a perpetuall office? whether they ought, their yeare be­ing ended, to relinquish that office, and so to returne to their trades and occupations, as they doe in Geneua, or else to con­tinue the whole terme of their liues? They alleage for the establishing of their laye Presbyterie, that because Saint Paul vseth these wordes: especially they which la­bour in the word: therefore two sortes of Elders are there included, some learned and preaching Ministers, some vnlearned, and therefore vnpreaching and silent gouernors. [Page 2] Therefore, to come to the true construction of this text, and due vnderstanding of the words, which may be consonant, and agreeable, both to the analogy of faith, and of that place: the doctrine of the Apostle includeth two things: a thesis, or generall conclusion; and afterward a particular ex­position of that thesis or generall conclusion, by a kinde of epanorthosis or reuocation of himselfe by a restraint and limita­tion of that generall doctrine, shewing how farre it is to be vnderstood; as namely, that if they labour in the word and doctrine, they are worthy of double honour: but if they la­bour not in the word, hee vouchsafeth them no double ho­nour. So that out of these wordes, can be collected no such distinction as they doe imagine, of preaching elders, and gouerning elders, which are no preachers, but of gouer­ning elders both of them preachers, one sort which labou­reth in the word, the other which preacheth also, but la­boureth not in preaching. For, it is one thing to be a prea­cher, and another thing to labour in preaching. And what it is to labour in preaching, he expoundeth in an o­ther place, where hee saith: I charge thee before God, and the Lord Iesus Christ, which shall iudge the quicke and the dead, 2 Tim. 4. at his appearing, and in his Kingdome, preach the word, bee instant, in season, and out of season. The Greeke word is (copion­tes) which is as much as to indure the heate and burthen of the day, to take extraordinary paines in the ministery. But that the writings of the Apostles acknowledge, neither an­nuall, nor lay elders, my reasons are these.

Because eldership is a lawfull ministery, therefore it is of 1 God: but a man which is called of God vnto the ministerie, may not after the expiration of one yeare, or at his own plea­sure, be discharged of that calling, or by any warrant from men play the Iordan to start backe againe. For, that were with Demas to forsake Saint Pauls fellowshippe, and to Psal. 114. 2. Tim. 4. 1. Cor. 3. Luke 9. 62 imbrace this present world. This ministrie is the Lords hus­bandry; that is, the Lords plough: and, hauing once laid their hands to this plough, if they looke backe, they make them­selues vnfit for the kingdome of God.

God calleth no man, whom he furnisheth not with some 2 talents, more or fewer, and these talents may not rust. But Matt. 25. Act. 8. such lay elders haue no talents at all committed vnto them: And therefore I say vnto them, as Saint Peter did to Si­mon Magus: They haue no part nor fellowshippe in this bu­sinesse.

The Church must be ordered accorcing to the precepts 3 and examples of holy writ; but wee haue neither example for instance, that euer there was, nor precept out of Gods booke for warrant, that euer there may be any such lay el­dership. But to the contrary, we abound in examples, and 1. Pet. 5. Iohn 2. E­pist. 1. Act. 20. haue expresse commandements. Saint Peter a preacher, calleth himselfe an elder, and chargeth other elders to feede the flocke. Saint Iohn, a preacher, calleth himselfe an elder, in his epistle to the elect Lady. Saint Paul chargeth the el­ders of Ephesus, to feede the Church of God which he pur­chased Tit. 1. with his blood. And to Titus, he giueth charge that he appoint ouer euery Citie Elders, and hee sheweth that by such elders he meaneth Bishops, which must be able to ex­hort with wholesome doctrine, and to conuince them which say against it.

Deacons which be of an inferiour calling in the Church, 4 must not be lay men, but able to preach: much more then Elders which haue an higher office, and as they be their selues consecrated by imposition of hands, so haue their au­thority to lay their handes vpon Deacons, and consecrate them. But concerning Deacons, the Apostles speake in this manner: Choose you out 7. men of honest report, full of the holy Act. 6. Ghost, and wisedome, whom we may appoint to this businesse, and we will giue our selues continually to prayer, and the ministration of the word. In these words: full of wisedome: they meane not world­ly, but heauenly wisedome, which is the knowledge of the Scriptures: but whosoeuer hath such fulnesse of knowledge and vnderstanding of the Bible, is very able to preach. And where the Apostles say: we wil giue our selues continually to praier, & ministration of the word: it doth not follow that therefore the deacons being appointed to their office of Deaonship, [Page 4] did wholy neglect preaching, and the ministration of the word, no more, then that they did also giue ouer praying, which is here mentioned in the imployment of the Apo­stles, as well as preaching, (for then had they beene repro­bates.) And that after they were called to be Deacons, they did also preach, and minister the sacraments: it appeareth by the examples of Stephen, and Philip, which both preached, Act. 7. Act. 8. 35. 38. 50. and baptised. Neither can a man of sober iudgement con­ceiue such an idle opinion of the Apostles, that they would haue admitted them to that office, by that great solemnity of prayer and imposition of hands, if they should haue beene estranged from the ministerie, and wholly attended vpon ta­bles, and beene but gatherers of almes.

God which hath established kingdomes, and ordained se­cular 5 Princes to be supreame gouernours in Ecclesiasticall causes, by his word, cannot so much crosse his owne ordi­nance, as to appoint in the same word, such a consistory, or state of ecclesiasticall gouernment, as may not stand with the state of a kingdome. As for the gouernment of Bishops vn­der the King, it hath alwaies vpheld the state of a kingdom, and maintained the soueraigne authority of Princes, as hol­ding their Scepter and Crowne immediately from God, and not from the people, that they are not to be deposed, nor censured by the people. But contrariwise, the Presbyte­rie and their fauourers, both by their doctrine, and also by practise, make all Kings subiect to the people, and by a con­sequent, to the Consistorie to be punished and depriued by them, because they are the Magistrates which are chosen by the people, and for the people, & the authority of the people is executed by thē. And for the better proofe of this assertiō, I wil produce some writings of the presbyterians thēselues. The Scottish Consistorian hath these words following: Po­pulo Eucan: de iure regni apùd Sco­tos. iu [...] est, vt imporiū cui velit deferat. It resteth in the hands of the people, to set the Crown vpon whose head they please.

B. Nam nisi regem suffragijs electum habeamus, vereor nè le­gitimum habituri simus. M. Ego quo (que) idem islud vereor. No man is a lawfull King, but by election of the people.

Nam, & quem nes Venetorum [...] vocamus, is nihil aliud est, qùám rex legitimus. He whom we we call the Duke of Venice, is nothing else, but a lawfull King.

Leges igitùr hâc dè causâ inuentae sunt à populis, regesque co­acti, non suâ [...]n iudicijs licentiâ, sed quod populus in se dedisset iure, vti. For this cause lawes are deùised by the people, and Kings constrained, not to vse their own liberty in the seate of Iustice, but that whereunto the people hath restrained them.

Sit, quando ita vis, p [...]në [...] populum vt leges serat, & perferat, sint reges velut tabulariorū custodes. The making of lawes is onely in the power of the people, kings are but as it were keepers of the records.

Vides opinor, quantam vno versu des principi licentiam: nempè, vt quod velit ipse, dicet lex, quod nolit non dicat. Id si semèl recipia­mus, non proderit bonas leges condere, quae principem bonum officij sui [...]oneant, malum circumscribant. Immo, vt dicā apertiū [...], nullas omninò▪ leges habere praestaret, quàm liberum latrocinium, atquè eti­am honoratū, sub legis praetextu tolerari. M. Certè, non modo potest [...] ­tē legum iubendarū, sed etiàm eas interpretandi, regiabstulist: As kings may not be makers of lawes, so they may not be trusted with the exposition of lawes, for then it were all one as if no good lawes were made, which may put a good Prince in mind of his duty, & compell an euil Prince to doe his dutie, because they will wrest them to their owne purpose. And so robberie shal not onely be free, but also rewarded and honou­red vnder the colour and pretence of lawe.

Concerning such Princes as behaue not themselues well in their gouernment: Deo & hominibus habendes inimicos, eosqùe in luporum, aliorumnè noxiorum animalium genere, potiùs quàm ho­minum, habendos putem, quae qui alit, & sibi perniciē alit, & alijs & qui occidit, non sibi modo, sed publicè vniuersis prodest. Interfectori­bus autèm praemia decarni non ab vniuerso tantùm populo, sed à sm­gulis: quemadmodùm vulg ò fieri solet ijs qui lupos aut vrsas occide­runt. They be enemies to God and man: Wolues, who so kil­leth them, benefiteh the common wealth, and is to be rewar­ded as he that killeth Wolues, Bares, and such harmful beasts. And what is this lesse then which the conspirators of Rome do hold it meritorious to murther Princes.

Againe, saith this Presbyterian: Quemadmodùm in primis regibus vsquè, ad Kennethum 3 qui primus regnum in suâ familiâ stabiliuit, perspicuā est quae fuerit potestas populi in regibus creandis, & in ordinem redigendis: ità necesse est vt is aut populo inuito id fecerit, aut à persuaso impetrauerit. Perrò, si ceëgit populum sibi parere, populus quoquè vbi primum caeperit suis viribus confide­re, violentum illud imperium poterit excutere, cùm à regibus & populo recepta iura pronuncient, & natura clamet, quicquid per vim fiat simili vi solui posse Si tu mecum ex conuentu agas, quid causae est, quin ego ex aduerso eas causas ponam, cur pacta & conuenta solui possint? What power the people hath both in setting vp kings, and ruling them after they be established, Kennethus the third, is an example, which first established the kingdome in his own family. If by violence he compelled the people to yeeld vnto it, by the same violence they may free themselues a­gaine, if by their consent, they may pretend cause enough to reuerse that whereunto they gaue consent. And what is this but the doctrine of the Papists, that faith with heretikes is not to be held?

To them which alledge that wee must pray for Prin­ces, though they be wicked, and therefore not lift vp our Tim. 2. hands against them; he answereth. Nèc slatim, si promalis principibus orandum est, hinc allegare debemus corum vitia non esse punienda: non magis quam latronum, prò quibus etiam orare iubemur, nec si bono principi parendum est, ideò malo non est resisten­dum. We are bound to pray for wicked Princes, in such sort as for theeues: we must pray for them both, and punish them both.

Quod autem àd Caligulam, Neronem, Domitianum & reliquos eius generis tyrannos attinet: cur violats iuris diuini & humani poe­nae non [...]ebeant exigi, nihil hic apùd Paulum habes, qui de ipsâ magi­stratuum potestate, non dè malis ma [...]è potestatem eam gerentibus disserat. Nec, si ad Pauli regulam id genus tyrannorum examines, omninò magistratus erunt. As for Caligula, Nero, Domitian, and such tyrants, it standeth with Paules doctrine that they may be punished for their offences. For he disputeth onely of the lawful autoritie of the magistrates not of wicked magistrates [Page 7] which abuse their authoritie. Neither according to Saint Paules doctrine are such Kings to be held for Magistrates.

Vt cunque negare non possunt: aulici adulatoras carnificis functi­onem pariem esse muneris publici, & fortasse etiam regij, vel ipso­rum regum testimonio, qui quoties aliquis è ministus publicis viola­tur, se, suamquè maiestatem, & corpus violari queruntur. The flat­tering Courtiers cannot denie, but that the office of the hang­man doth belong to the King, witnes the Kings themselues, which when their Catchpoles, and hangmen receiue any wrong, doe complaine that their owne person is in them wronged, and their princely Maiestie.

M. Quid tandē e scripturis profers cur liceat tyrannos impunè occidere? B. Primùm id affero, quod quùm diserte praeceptum sit de scelere, & sceleratis à medio tollendis, sinè vllâ exceptione gradus aut ordinis nusquàm tamen in saeris literis tyrannis magis quàm priuatis est cautum. Hauing a generall commandement out of Gods word, to put to death wicked men, without respect of any degree or order in particular, tyrants haue no more pri­uiledge then priuate men, and therefore, according to his word, it is lawfull to kill tyrants.

Rationem excogitarunt Canonistae quá & scelera plecterentur, & Papa tamē sacro sanctus & inuiolatus haberetur. Aliud enim Pa­pa, aliud illius hominis qui Papa esset, ius existimabant, &c. Wee may distinguish betweene the Kings person and his office, to punish him as he is a man offending, setting a side his place, and so not the King, but the malefactor is chastised.

Nos contendimus idem ius reges habere in multitudinem quod illi in singulos e multitudine habent. The people haue ioyntly the same authoritie ouer the King, which the King hath ouer e­uery seuerall person among the people.

The French Consistorians write in this manner: Subditi Vindiciae contra ty­rannos. non tenentur regibus obedire, siquid aduersùs legem Dei imperent. Subiects are not bound to obey Kings, if they command any thing contrary to Gods word. In which assertion, first they Quest: 1 make the subiects to be both the plaintiues, and the Iudges betweene their King and themselues, whether he hath com­manded any thing against Gods word or no? so that it shall [Page 8] be an easie matter for them at their pleasure to discharge thē ­selues of all dutie and obedience to the King. Secondly, they deceiue the simple reader by a fallacie, for, the ambiguitie ly­eth in these words: Si quid aduersus legem dei imperant, If they cōmand any thing contrary to Gods word. For, the question is, whether they meane onely in that particular thing which is against Gods word, the King is not to be obeyed, or else, that in nothing he is to be obeyed, because he hath comman­ded some one thing repugnant to the law of God? In this last sense, it is by them vnderstood, as appeareth by the words fol­lowing, which are these: Ʋassallus se Domino superiori iura­mento diuincit, sic & Rex, ex legis diuinae precepto se imperaturum iurat. Ʋassallus deniquè nisi iusiurandum seruat, feedum committit, ipsoque iure se omni praerogatiuâ priuat. Rex quoque si deum negli­gat &c. ipso iure regnum committit, & èx facto plerumque amittit. Duplex autem foedus in regum inaugurations legimus, primum in­ter De [...]m, & regem & populum, vt esset populus Dei populus, se­cundum vero inter regem & populum, vt bene obtemperanti benè obtemperaretur. The vassall is bound to his Lord by an oath, and the King sweareth that hee will rule according to Gods word: if the vassal keepeth not his oath, he forfeiteth his estate, so if the King breake his oath, hee forfeiteth his Crowne. There is a double couenant at a Kings Coronation, the first betweene God on the one side, and the King with the people on the other side, that the people shall be Gods people: the second betweene the King and the people, that the people shall be faithfull subiects no longer then the King shal conti­nue a good King.

Populus si regem non coercet, culpâ tenebitur, quià correi sunt. Licet Isràels si Rex legem Dei Ecclesiamne euertat, resistere: nèc id Vindicïae contra ty­rannos modo, verum nifecerit, eiusdem criminis tonebitur, & eandem poenā luet. Resistat vero verbo si verbo oppugnabitur, vi si vi, arte inquàm & marte, quin et dolo bono si bono, cùm nihilintersit vbi iustum bellū Qust: 2 susceperis, vtrum aperte pugues an èx insidijs. It is lawfull for the people to resist the King which impugneth Gods law, or his Church, and vnles they doe resist him, they shall be accessarie as he is principall, and incurre the same punishment which is [Page 9] due vnto him. If he deale by sword or word, they must op­pose themselues against him with the same weapons. For as much as the warre which in that cause they doe wage against him is iust, it maketh no matter whether they vse open warre and hostilitie, or secret slight and politie.

Nemo rex nascitur, nemo per se rex est, nemo absqùe populo reg­nare Vindic [...]oe contra ty­rannos, potest, populus per sè esse potest, &c. No man is borne to a kingdome, no man is of himselfe à King, no man can raigne but by the fauour of the people, but the people are absolute Quest: 3 of themselues, the people is in time before the king, & there­fore all Kings are ordained, & authorized by the people, and in such kingdomes as are haereditarie, the child may not suc­ceed his Father, vnles he haue the approbation of the people. Quùm reges a populo constituantur, vniuersus populus rege prior est &c, Seeing kings are appointed by the people, the whole peo­ple is aboue the king, his authoritie being deriued from them, he is vnder them as Ioseph was vnder Putifer, Daniel vnder Nabuchadnazer. The king is but a seruāt to the cōmonwealth as a shipmaster to the honour of the ship. Whatsoeuer accru­eth to the king by wars, or by his Exchequor, he must be ac­countable for it to the people, as a Merchants factour is to his. Mr: Let the people forsake their king, he wil be a contēptible person in the eyes of all men, when they shall put him from his dominion ouer men, he will be glad to be some paedanti­call fellow, and to vse his paedagogical authoritie ouer boyes.

As for our English Consistorians, they haue these words: T. C. lib: 2. pag. 15. 7. T. C. lib. 2. pag. 165. Admonit: 2. No ciuil Magistrate hath preheminence by ordinary autho­ritie to determine of Church causes. And, no ciuil magistrate in Councels & assemblies for Church causes, can be chief mo­deratour, Iudge, or gouernour. And, no ciuil magistrate hath such authoritie, as that without his consent it should not be lawful for Ecclesiasticall persons to make any Church orders or ceremonies. For as much therfore as God hath established kingdomes, but a presbytery and a kingdome cannot both stand together, because one standing, the other falleth. They are enemies not onely to Gods ordinance, but also to the state of Kings, which goe about to establish this Eldership in a kingdome.

Of Diocesan Bishops.

MAister Iacob, in his Booke of reformation obiecteth against the state of Bishops, and Cathedrall Churches, that of right there are no Diocesan, but onely parochi­all Bishops, that the authoritie, & iurisdiction, and rites of a Bishop, are no other then belongeth to all parsons of parish Churches, and consequently that euery parson is a Bishop. That there is no visible Church ministeriall, besides the pa­rish Churches, and that they as depending vpon no other, nor subiect to any other, nor parts or members of any other, haue absolute authoritie and power, as wel of gouernment as of teaching within themselues, and so consequently, there are no cathederal Churches. And, as one absurditie being gran­ted, a thousand will followe, so vpon these proemises, which without proofe, he taketh for granted, he inferreth these fiue conclusions, to the slander of our state, as absord as the proe­mises were, That the case standing thus: 1. Our Bishops be no Christians, for (saith he) euery Christian is a pastour, or one of the people, of the people they denye themselues to be, and pastours they are not, 2. Being not lawfull Dioce­san Bishops, much lesse may they be Lord Bishops. 3. Ha­uing no lawfull authoritie, nor calling their selues, they can­not conferre Ecclesiasticall orders, and lay handes vpon o­thers, and so consequently our ministers by them ordered, haue no lawefull ministerie. 4. That by their meanes wee are defrauded of a mayne point of our ordinarie meanes of saluation, which is the true Ecclesiesticall discipline.

5. That in our state Christ is robbed and spoiled of some parts of his kingly and propheticall office, his kingly office being to appoint vs, and his prophetical office, being to teach vs solely of himselfe the true Ecclesiasticall gouernmēt, which our Bishops take from him, and ascribe vnto men, altering that discipline and gouernment, which he alone as king hath appointed, and as a Prophet hath taught in his holy word, which cōclusions because they are inferred vpō false, groūds, [Page 11] the grounds being shaken, the conclusions will fall of them­selues. Therefore let vs come to the examination of these grounds, to shewe how weake, and vnsufficient a foundation they be to build vpon.

He impugneth the Church & state of Bishops, first by shew of argument, secondly by his own idle conceits, vaine coniec­tures, and imaginations. He maketh shew of two arguments, the first is this; that the state of Bishops is a breach of the 2. commandement, and by a consequent, idolatrie. For in this cōmandement: Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image, thou shalt not bow down to it▪ nor worship it (saith he) are forbidden all meanes being humane inuentiōs, wherby men would giue honour to the true God. But, one of these meanes of diuine worship being an humane inuention, he saith, to be the state of Bishops, our Diocesan, & prouincial Churches vsing gouern­ment, with the ministeries & offices proper to them. For an­swer to which argument, I denie the MINOR proposition, which consisteth of 2. parts, meanes of diuine worship, & hu­mane inuention. And because he bringeth no proofe of his MINOR being the subiect of his disputation, which all op­ponents ought to doe, I will disproue it, and each part of it. And first, Diocesan & prouinciall Churches vsing gouern­ment, and their ministeries, which are of Archbishops, & Bi­shops, were neuer intended by the founders of them, nor v­sed by the officers & ministers of them, nor held by the defen­dours, & maintainers of them, nor conceiued by men of vn­derstanding, to be any meanes of diuine worship but of go­uernment. God can be, and is worshipped, without these, and was worshipped as sincerely as now hee is, when they were not, but the Ecclesissticall state vnder a kingdome cannot be peaceably gouerned without these. God is worshipped alike in Geneua and in England▪ though this gouernment and these offices, are not in Geneua which are in England. And God is worshipped as sincerely, and as fully, and amplely in our pa­rish Churches as in our cathederal churches, and by ordinarie pastors, as by Bishops, so that their ministeries and high cal­lings doe not afforde them any greater or other meanes to [Page 12] worship God; then they had when they were first admitted to be priuate ministers. But their places, and high callings do strengthen and arme them with authoritie for the better go­uerning of the churches which are committed to them, wher­as being but priuate ministers, they had no such charge of gouernment. These things therefore are not morall or doctri­nall, & therefore belong not vnto worship, but politicall, and therefore belong vnto gouernment. And according to the course of the holy Bible, that which is politicall & that which is morall, being of sundrie natures, are to be distinguished the one from the other. God in his word established 3. lawes a­mong his people, one politicall, which did bind the Iewes to the obseruation of it, but, it was not imposed vpon other na­tions that they should be bound to receiue it, further then that it might stand with the peace, and good of the state. The o­ther ceremoniall which was to abide in force till the cōming of our Sauiour, and by his death to be abolished, so that now ceremonies vnder the Gospell doe cease, excepting those on­ly which serue, not for worship, but decensie, comlinesse, and good order, and so the primitiue Church did in the dayes of the Apostles, and the Church of Geneua now doth deuise ceremonies, witnes their owne Booke of Lawes, and that all 1. Cor. 11. Churches may doe the like, witnes Caluin, Beza, Vrsinus, their owne Doctors. The third morall, which containeth rules of Gods worship, which was from the beginning, and must con­tinue as a patterne of holines to the ende, and bindeth all to the obseruation of it. But this is no part of that lawe, and all these three Lawes differ in nature one from the other. Se­condly, that such Churches, and Church offices, are not hu­mane inuentions, I proue by euident demonstration. For, the first Church ministeriall that euer was, had ordination from God, which was the Church of the Iewes vnder Aaron and his successours, and that Church was both Diocesan, and prouinciall, and also nationall, hauing all rites and iuris­diction which a Diocesan, or prouinciall, or nationall church euer had or coulde haue. Also vnder the Gospell, Saint [Page 13] Paul by warrant from the holy Ghost, appointed Timothy a prouinciall Bishop of Ephesus, hauing many Bishops vnder him, and Titus a nationall Bishop ouer all the kingdome of Crete, hauing many Churches and Bishops vnder him, wit­nesse Tit. 1. 5. . 1 Tim. 1. 3 Eeseb. hist. l. 3. c. 4. not onely the Scriptures, but also Eusebius, his wordes being these: Timotheus sanè primus Ephesinae paraechiae, sicut & Titus Cretensium Ecclesiarum Episcopatum sortitus scribitur. Ti­mothy was the first Bishop of the whole praecinct of Ephesus, in as ample manner as Titus of all the Churches of Creete. Thus haue I freed our Church Gouernment vnder Dioce­san and Prouinciall Bishops, from that slanderous imputa­tion of idolatry, seeing their institution is of God, and no way opposite to his commandement.

In his second argument, he defineth that onely to be a vi­sible Church, which is indued with outward spirituall go­uernment. And so concludeth, that there can be no Diocesan or Prouinciall, or Nationall Church, nor by a consequent, a­ny such Bishop, but onely parish Churches, and by the like consequent, parish Bishops. The reason of this sequell, he produceth onely this: Because, if there might be such Dioce­san, or Prouinciall, or Nationall Churches ministeriall, or indued with Church gouernment, then also would it follow, that there might be a Catholike, or vniuersall Church, visi­ble ministeriall; and so by a consequent, the Papists might lawfully inforce a Catholike gouernment, and so establish the Papacie againe.

To the sequell of which sequell I answer, it is no good consequence, that; it being granted one may be a Bishop o­uer one Diocesse, Prouince, or Nation: therefore one may bee a Bishoppe ouer the world. For first, one Bishoppe cannot gouerne the whole worlde, consisting of manie Kingdomes, Oligarchies, and Democraticall states, and sub­iect to seuerall Princes, and temporall gouernours, as he can one Diocesse, Prouince, or Nation, subiect to one secular Prince. And secondly, we haue no example of any vniuer­sall Bishoppe that euer was since the beginning of the world, not the Pope himselfe, which chalengeth that title, [Page 14] For the east part of the world, which is the Greeke Church, was neuer yet subiect vnto him, neither could be induced to vse the same rites, ceremonies, & leitourgie which he vseth. But of prouinciall and nationall Bishops, wee haue exam­ples out of the Scriptures: the high Priestes among the Iewes were so ordained of God, & that office not only cere­moniall, but also politicall; which office, so farre as it was po­liticall, might as well continew, and be executed in the same Temple by Saint Iames, the first Archbishop of Ierusalem vnder the Gospel, as it was by the high Priests vnder the Law, that which was ceremoniall being abolished, euen as the obseruation of the Sabaoth, beeing partly ceremoniall, & partly morall, the ceremony being out of date, that which is morall, doth abide. Our Sauiour in the Gospel reformed the Temple, but he did not plucke it downe, to shew that it Ioh. 2. 15. might continue still being lawfully vsed.

Hauing answered his arguments, we will come to his sup­positions, and bare coniectures, which without shew of ar­gument, he bringeth in defence of his assertion. Hee distin­guisheth Bishops into sixe sorts, two lawfull, a parishionall Bishop, or ordinary Pastour, and a Diocesan titular Bishop, who hath a bare title aboue others, but no Episcopall iuris­diction at all: these two sortes it pleaseth him to allow. A Diocesan ruling Bishop, which hath more power than Par­sons of parish Churches, yet not sole power to rule in his Diocesse, a Diocesan Lord Bishop' which ruleth by his sole authoritie, a Patriarke, and a Pope; which foure sorts he con­demneth as repugnant to the lawes of the Scriptures. To speake therefore of the first, which is but a Parson of a pa­rish; what example can he alledge to proue, that euer there was, or place of Scripture to proue that there ought to be such a Bishop? His bare opinion without proofe, can be no satisfaction to perswade others, howsoeuer in his owne con­ceit, he may please himselfe. He alledgeth, that all Bishops mentioned in the new Testament, and in the Ecclesiasticall writers which were within 200. yeares after our Sauiour Christ, were such Bishops. But that is his owne assertion [Page 15] without proofe, neither doth hee instance in any author which doth affirme the same. To disproue him, besides that, neither parish Churches, nor parishes were erected or insti­tuted vntill 260. yeares after our Sauiour Christ, in the Platina d­vitis pontiofi [...]um. Charion Monarch. 4. daies of Dionysius Bishoppe of Rome, and that they had their institution not from God, but from the Pope, whereas wee haue examples of Diocesan Churches out of Gods word, as before I haue proued: that all the Bishoppes mentioned in Ecclesiasticall writers, within 200. yeares after our Saui­our Christ, were not parish Bishops: wee haue for instance Iulian, the tenth Bishop of Alexandria, in the yeare of our Lord 181. which was Bishop of many Churches. For Euse­bius Euseb. hist. l. [...]. c. 9. writeth: Alexandrinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopatum accepit: he tooke vpon him the Bishopricke of the Churches of A­lexandria. And againe, Eusebius writeth of a Bishop which was set ouer many Bishops long before that time, in the daies of Saint Iohn the Euangelist, and by the appointment of St. Iohn himselfe. His words are these: Post, mortuo tyranno quùm Easeb. hist. l. 3. c. [...]0. ex insu [...]â Pathmo Ephesum reuersus esset, abijt etiam rogatus ad vicina gentium loca, vt partim constitueret Episcopos, partim totas Ecclesias componeret, partim clerum ex his quos spiritus sanctus in­dica [...]a [...], sorte deligeret. Quùm ergò ad ciuitatem quandam haud procul dissitam, cuiui etiam nomen nonnulli dicunt, venisset, verso ad cum vultu qui supèr cunctos Episcopos erat constitutus, adolescen­tem corpore valido, facie eleganti, animo (que) feruenti conspicatus, hunc, inquit, tibi summo studio, testibus Christo & Ecclesiâ com­mendo. When the Tyran (meaning Domitian) was dead, hee returned out of Pathmos to Ephesus, at the request of others, he visited the places bordering there vpon, that he might or­daine Bishops, constitute Churches, and elect clergy men by lots, whom the holy Goost had assigned. And comming to a Citie not farre of, which by many other writers is expressy named, hee cast his eye vpon that Bishop which was set ouer all the rest, and committed to his tuition, a young Gentle­man proper in body, and faire in face, youthfull in courage, saying: I doe earnestly commend vnto you this young man, witnesses Christ and his Church.

Such pregnant examples, all making against him, and none for him, that ye may know what motiue hath induced him to write, that all Bishoppes within 200. yeares menti­oned in Eusebius,, were but parish Bishops: surely he suffe­red himselfe willingly to be deceiued by the fallacye, called, fallacia figurae dictionis. For, Eusebius (saith he) sheweth that the Churches of most famous Cities, were but parishes onely, as the parish of Ierusalem, the parish of Ephesus, of Alexandria, Assert. 2. Euseb. hist. l. 3 c. 11. l. 3. c. 28. l. 2. c. 13. l. 4. c. 11. &c. 22. Hierapolis, &c. But all the cunning resteth in the proofe ther­of, to shew that Eusebius did call them parishes. Eusebius in­deed writeth, that Celedion and Agrippa were Bishops in A­lexandrinâ paraechia, and so that Dionysius in paraechia Corinthi­orum Episcopatum tenuit. But can Maister Iacob be so simple, as to take that weake aduantage of the word, and so to inter­pret that Latine word paraechia, parish in the English tongue? and to restraine that word in Eusebius, to as small limits and confines as a parish is with vs, that all the Christians in it might meete together in one place to heare Diuine seruice, as with vs for the most part they doe? though in some places they cannot doe so. Can hee thinke this a good argument, that the praecincts of their Bishoprickes, were called by this generall name paraechiae, bounds, or borders, containing and including some set compasse of ground and place; and this generall name paraechia, may also include the small circuit of a parish, as well as a larger iurisdiction: therefore they were but parish Bishops? that the precincts of their Bishoprickes were no larger then the praecincts of a parish, and that their Episcopall authoritie, was no more then the iurisdiction of euery priuate Pastour? In like sort may I as well conclude, that paraechia doth also signifie a larger iurisdiction, so as it haue confines, and a certaine limitation, as a Diocesse, a Pro­uince, a whole Kingdome: therefore that they were Dioce­san, Prouinciall, and Nationall Bishops. It is well knowne that Alexandria conteined many Churches, as appeareth by Eusebius, whom I haue alreadie cited, where he saith, that In­lian the tenth, had Alexandrinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopatum, Euseb lib. 5. hist. c. 9. the Bishopricke of the Churches of Alexandria. And againe, [Page 17] where we writeth: Primus post Marcum Apostolvm & Euange­listam Eeseb. hist. l 4. ca. 24. Anianus paraechiae Alexandrinae administrationem suscepit: Anianus immediately succeeded Marke the Apostle and Euangelist, in the gouernment of the paraechia of Alexandria. That this parechia was such a limitation as contained in it many Churches, it is manifest by the confession of Eusebius, where he hath these words: that Saint Marke did primuus Ec­clesias Alexandriae constituere: first institute the Churches of Hist. l. 2. c. 16. Alexandria. So then, if because of the word paraechia, Ana­nias Bishop of Alexandria, should be held onely for a parish Bishop, by the like absurditie, Saint Marke, which was an E­uangelist, and did first conuert the Citizens of Alexandria, and instituted many Churches there, should not haue autho­rity ouer his owne Churches, which his selfe instituted, but onely pastorall authority ouer one of them, because hee was Alexandrinae Ecclesiae administrator, gouernour of the Church of Alexandria: as Eusebius writeth. And, that being an Euan­gelist, and of higher authority, which founded many chur­ches, should not be Bishoppe ouer as many as Iulian his suc­cessour, which was no Euangelist, nor founded none, and therefore was of lesse dignitie and authority, because the argument must follow, being deriued from the word in the singular number, hee did Alexandrinam Ecclesiam administra­re, gouerne the Church of Alexandria. And, what is the true grammaticall signification of this Greeke word (paroicia) of whom paraechia, the Latine is deriued, no better witnesse then Scapula himselfe, which in his Lexicon writeth; That it signifieth any iurisdiction which is limitted, or any Church, bee it great or small, or manie Chur­ches. His wordes are these: (paroicia) incolam esse, item accolarum conuentus, & accolatus, sacraqúe vicinia, prò Ecclesiâ vsurpari dicitur Can: 18. Concilij Ancy­rani.

And, to speake of the Bishoppe without a Bishopricke, whom hee calleth Titular Diocesan, I would gladly haue for instance, when, and where there was anie such Bishoppe? For proofe thereof, hee alleageth nothing else, but his [Page 18] owne doubtfull coniecture, saying: Perhaps Iulian, the tenth Bishop of Alexandria, was the first of that sort. And againe: It seemeth to me that this was Ieroms meaning, that the first ruling Bishop was Diony sius, the thirteenth Bishop of Alexandria. And againe, At Heracles it is probable there was a period of one sort of Bishops, and with Diony sius began another. That priority of or­der of one Bishop ouer a parish, seemeth to haue cōtinued from Mar­cus to Iulianus. And againe, Nothing letteth vs, but that we may thinke, &c. To which I answer: his bare & naked coniectures, and idle surmises, grounded vpon no reason nor authoritie, or proofe, but onely vpon: perhaps, it seemeth, it is probable, no­thing letteth but that we may thinke, are no warrant to the state to disturbe the peace, and discipline of our Church so long e­stablished, and to ouerthrow the gouernment of Bishops, which hath continued among vs since Christian religion was first planted, and the land conuerted to the faith. And therefore to him may fitly be applied, the saying of St. Paul: They would be Doctours of the law, and vnderstand not what they 1. Tim. 1. 7 speake, neither whereof they affirme. It is more safe to beleeue with the Church, that Iulian the 10. was not the first Bishop which had many Churches vnder him in title and name, but that all his nine predecessours, Marcus, Anianus, Albia­lus, Cerdon, Pius, lustus, and the rest, had the same prae­heminence which hee had, and especially Saint Marke be­ing an Euangelist, and the first conuerter of that people, and founder of those Churches. And that in other places, Bi­shoppes were set ouer many Churches before his time, be­cause I haue instanced out of Eusebius alreadie in a Bishop in Saint Iohns daies, which was suprà cunctes Episcopos constitu­tus, set ouer all the Bishops in that place. And it is far safer to beleeue the wordes of Eusebius: Alexandrinarum Ec­clesiarum Episcopatum accepit, & suprà omnes Episcopos con­stitutus est, hee was Bishoppe of the Churches of Alexan­dria, and, hee was set ouer all the Bishoppes, to bee vnder­stoode of both title and iurisdiction, according to the inter­pretation, vse, and practise of all Churches, and not of bare title, without iurisdiction, rather then to subscribe to Maister [Page 19] Iacob, his opinion, which hath nothing to ground vpon, but his owne opinion, which hath no better proofe, then teste me ipso, witnesse my owne selfe.

And, not to passe ouer with silence those foure sorts of Bishoppes whom hee condemneth as vnlawfull. Maiority, saith he, of ruling Bishoppes in the Diocesse, seemeth to haue begun with Dionysius, the next successour after Heraclas. To which I answere as before. Quaedam videntur & non sunt, many things seeme to be otherwise then they are: among which, this his supposition is one. Againe, Quoedam videntur pau­cioribus & indoctioribus, quaedam pluribus & san oribus, that may seeme so to the fewest, and vnlearnedest, but to the most and soundest of iudgement, it seemeth otherwise, that this maiority of ruling in the Diocesse, began in Alexandria, not with Dionysius which was the fourteenth, but with S. Marke which was the first Bishop of that place; and with the Apo­stles in other places: and so continued by succession from them, vntill these daies, vnlesse when their succession was in­terrupted by warres, or schisme, or persecution.

But to come to a Diocesan Lord Bishop, ruling by his sole power, which is indeed, the chiefe matter now in questi­on. Such a Bishop, saith hee, seemeth not to haue beene establi­shed in Ambrose, Ierom, and Augustines time. It may be it seemeth not so to Maister Iacob; but it seemed so to Zozo­mene, that Saint Ambrose himselfe did rule like a Lord Bi­shoppe Sozom. l. 7. ca. 24. by his sole authority, when meeting the Emperour Theodosius as hee went to Church, without any consent or consultation had with other Priests, on a suddaine took him by the gowne in the sight of the people, interdicted him both from the holy communion & the Church, for the offence he had committed; and the Emperour obeyed his authority. His wordes are these: Imperator quum Mediolanum venisset, ad Ecclesiam processit vt oraret. Sed quùm ad ostium iam pernenisset, occurrit et Ambrosius eius ciuitatis Episcopus: & apprehensâ illius purpû-â in prae [...]entiâ populi, siste gradum inquit, homini enim ob peccata prophano, & manus innoxio sanguine comaculatas habē ­ti, fa [...] non est antequā poenitentiā egerit, vel sacrum ingredi solium [Page 20] vel ad diuinorū mysteriorum communionem admitti. Imperator li­bertatem sacerdotis admiratu [...], cogitationibus conscientiam accu­santibus, regressus est poenitentia compunctus. The Emperour, when he came to Millanie, went towards the church to pray, whē he was but at the doore: Ambrose, the Bishop of that citie, ran to him, caught him by his purple robe in the presence of the people, cōmanded him to stay there, shewing that it was not permitted him, hauing defiled his hands with innocent blood, to goe into the Church, nor to be partaker of the Sa­crament, before he had shewed himselfe penitent. The Em­perour meruailed at the great spirit of the Bishop, his con­science pricked him, vpon his remorse, hee went backe and repented. And afterward, more plainly he saith: Ambrosius Imperatorem insimulans, vt consentaneum est, ab Ecclesiâ arcuit, & à communione seclusit. Ambrose laying to the Emperour his charge his crime which he committed, as it did behooue him, thrust him out of the Church, & secluded him from the com­munion. In this Story, that action is ascribed solely vnto the Bishop: no mention is made of any other, whose consent was required. Though soone after we doubt not (saith Maister Iacob) it tooke place in the Church. Therefore, by his owne confessi­on, the office of Lord Bishop, ruling by his sole authoritie, is of great antiquitie: and therefore to be preferred before the Eldership, which is but a nouelty, and neuer preuailed vntill our age, and that but in some few Churches.

And that I may speake something for the iustification of Bishoppes, ruling by their sole authority, Timothy and Titus were such Bishops. Maister Iacob replieth two manner of waies. First he saith: the Apostles did not ordeine Ministers, nor censure offenders by their sole authority, much lesse then Timothy and Titus, which were inferiour to the Apo­stles. For answer to his reply, which consisteth of nothing but manifest vntruthes, I do instance in S. Peter, which by his sole authority, censured Ananias & Suphira, when they lied to the holy Ghost, smiting them with present death: & St. Paul, which alone censured Elymas the sorcerer, whē he smote him Acts. 5. Act. 13. 11 with blindnes, for seeking to peruert the deputy frō the faith, [Page 21] And both these censures were then in the place of excommu­nicatiō, Vide Bu­cerum dè clauibus. 1. Cor. 16. 22. anathema maran­natha. Politiae Iu­daicae. c. 2. which is now the ordinarie censure of the church. And besides that Saint Paule by his sole authoritie excommuni­cated in general, all that loued not the Lord Iesus; euen vnder the time of nature, Henoch as Cornelius Ber [...]ram writeth in his booke Printed at Geneua, and allowed of by that church did a­lone: anathema illud solenne suoe aetatis hominibus proponere quod extat Iudae ver: 14 &. 15. pronounce that solemne sentence of excommunication against the men of his time, of which men­tion is made in S. Iude ver. 14. & 15. Behold the Lord commeth with thousands of his Saints to giue iudgement, &c. And so did Saint Ambrose, by their examples. And as for making Mini­sters, our Bishops doe not conferre orders alone, but assisted with other ministers which ioyne with them in prayer & im­position of hands. Yet still the chiefest authoritie resteth in Bishops, as S. Paule writeth to Titus: For this cause I left thee in Creete, that thou shouldest ordaine Elders in euery citie. And to Ti­mothy: Tit: 1 5. lay hands sodainly on no man: by which words it appeareth that ordination, & imposition of hands belong to the Bishops 1. Tit: 5. 22. principally, and to the inferiour Ministers but as assistants to the Bishop. But that it belonged to the same men to censure offenders, & rule by their sole authoritie, the places of Scrip­ture doe make it so plaine, that ir may not be denied. Rebuke 1. Tim: [...]. v. 1. 9. 11. 17. 19. 21. not an Elder, but exhort him as a Father. Let not a widdow be taken into the number vnder 60 yeares old. Refuse the yonger widdowes. The elders that rule wel, let thē be had in doble honor, Obserue these things without preferring one before another, & doe nothing parti­ally Receiue no accusatiō against an elder, but vnder 2. or 3 witnesses. Secondly, he saith: that if these things were granted, that Ti­mothy & Titus ruled by their sole anthoritie, it would not fol­low that therefore our Bishops might do the like: his reason is this: For, saith he, they are not to be reckoned in the catalogue of Bi­shops; neither were they properly called Bishops, because they were not affixed to certaine places, but often remoued to other churches as the Apostles did. Which reason I refute by manifest text, for as much as Timothy was affixed to Ephesus as his proper charge, and so Titus to Creete as to his peculiar place, witnesseth the Apostle.

I besougbt thee to abide still in Ephesus. For this cause haue I left 1. Tim. 1. 3. Tit. 1. 5. thee in Creete that thou shouldest continue there to redresse the things that remaine But what then, though they afterward re­moued, and were called to other places? so are our Bishops also, and priuate pastours, oftentimes called from one con­gregation to another. I cannot deny, but the cannon Lawe hath determined, that Bishops shal not remoue from one Bi­shopricke to another, without some vrgent cause, as when they are required by another Church, their gifts beeing thought fitter for a greater charge, and the lawe is grounded vpon the decrees of the first generall councell of Nice, which so concludeth: Episcopus, Presbyter, aut diaconus, non aebet trans­ferri ab vnâ ciuitate ad a [...]iam, quia id est contrà regulas, & si trans­feratur, Concilij Niceni: 1. Can: 15. & 16. mitti debet ad ciuitatem vbi primò ora [...]â [...]us fuit. It is a­gainst the Canons, that Bishops, Priests, Deacons, should bee translated, and therefore, if any be so translated, let them be dismissed, and sent backe to the places to which they were first appointed. And, Qui discedit ab Ecclesiâ fibi commissa, ad a­liam, excommunicetur, & reuerti cogatur. Who so remoueth from one Church to another, let him be excommunicated, & forced to his first charge. But these are the ordinances of men, we find nothing in the word of God, why Bishops may not be translated, neither doth it followe that Timothy and Titus were not to be reckoned for Bishops, because they remoued from one place to another.

Last of all, Patriarchical Churches (saith he) beganne some­times before the councell of Nice. I answer, therefore they are of more credit then the Presbyterie, which beganne but with Maister Caluin. And as for that Councell, it was in the pure age of the primitiue Church, before corruption crept in, it was the first general councell, and therefore of greater autho­ritie, called by the Emperour and not by the Pope, and there­fore freest from suspition, a Greeke, and not a Latine Councel, therefore more sincere. And whereas it seemeth to him, that patriarchical Bishops began but sometime before the Coun­cell of Nice, it seemeth to the Councel it selfe, that they began long before, because the Canon it selfe speaketh in this man­ner: [Page 23] Seruetur antiqua consuetudo, vt Episcopus Alexandrinus ha­beat potestatem in Aegyptum, Pentapolin, Libiam, quià & Episcopo Concil: Nicen 1. Can. 6. Romano parilis mos est, sie apud Antiochiam, & ceteras Ecclesias sua priuilegia seruentur. Let the ancient custome be kept, that the Bishop of Alexandria haue his iurisdiction ouer Aegypt, Pen­tapolis and Libia, because the Bishop of Rome hath the like custome, so let the Church of Antiochia and other Churches keepe their priuiledges. But if patriarchicall churches be of such reuerend antiquitie, and allowed of by so venerable a councell: that maketh much for the credite, and dignitie of Di­ocesan churches, which are more ancient and of lesse iurisdic­tion, and not so subiect to enuie, and nere vnto Papacie, as the Patriarchicall churches are. It cannot be denied, but the Fathers which were presēt in that Councel, were prouincial, Diocesan, and patriarchicall Bishops, ruling by their sole au­thoritie. And concerning the credit of that councell, with the other three following, which were oecumenicall, as that was; Gregory affirmeth that their doctrine and decrees were con­sonant to the writings of the 4. Euangelists, and no way to be impeached. And Maister Iacob his owne Doctor, whom hee Grëg: li. 1. epist 24. Pag. 31. Respons: ad 4. Campiani ra­tionem. calleth the reuerend Maister Whitaker, giueth as large a testi­monie of them, saying: Et nos illorum quatuor Conciliorum salu­berimam fuisse authoritatem planissimè confitemur. Maister Iacob therefore, must either denie the authoritie of his own Doctor, and of this Councell, which no learned man will doe, or else subscribe to the state of Diocesan Bishops ruling by their sole authoritie, which hitherto he hath impugned.

Of Cathedrall Churches.

IN defence of Cathedrall Churches, wee haue to alledge, Platima dè vitis Pontificū. Carion in ann [...]l: monar. that till the time of Dionysius Pope of Rome, no other kinde of Church ministeriall was euer heard of from the begin­ning of the world. For, from Adam to Moses there was no Church ministeriall at all. In Moses his time, a Tabernacle was erected by Gods commandement, which stood in steede [Page 24] of a Church for all the land of Iudaea, and was to be caried vp and downe, vntill the dayes of Solomon. But Solomon erected Exed: 25. 40. Act: 7. 44 2. Sam: 7. 6. Act. 7, 47. a Temple as a standing church at Ierusalem, to be in the place of the Tabernacle. And vntill the time of the Gospell there was no other Church for Gods people through the whole world. And that Church was more then Diocesan, or Pro­uinciall, for it was Nationall. After the Gospell was preached to the Gentiles, & al nations were conuerted, sundry churches ministeriall were erected, according to the number of the Bishops, so that euery Bishop had his Church after the imita­tion of the Iewes, which hauing but one Bishoprik, had also but one Church for that whole nation, vntill afterward hu­mane politie vnder Dionysius the Pope deuised parish chur­ches, and diuided euery Bishoprik into particular constant congregations, which were but members of the Diocesan and prouinciall Churches. But saith Maister Iacob, Although the Iewish Church were nationall vnder one Bishop or high Priest according to Gods ordinance, yet now vnder the Gospell, our Saui­our Christ hath changed that forme of gouernment into parochiall Churches, which are euery one a particular congregation, and euery particular congregation is a diuided body by it selfe, and of it selfe a visible Church, and being absolute of it selfe, ought to vse within it selfe proper Ecclesiasticall gouernment. So then two things rest to be proued by him, first that euery particular congregation is a diuided body of it selfe, and secondly, that euery particu­lar congregation is to vse gouernment of it selfe without re­ference vnto any other aboue it selfe.

The first hee would proue by this argument. There was, saith he, but one Church at Corinth, because the Apostle saith: When the whole church is come together in one place, &c. And the same may be affirmed of Rome, Antioch, Ierusalem, and the o­ther 1. Cor. 14. 23. cities, therefore in euery of these cities, though they were so populous, yet the beleeuers were so fewe, that they all as­sembled in one place. Againe saith he, Ignatius perswading the Church of Philadelphia to concorde, writeth: I exhort you to vse one faith, one preaching, one supper of the Lord, for there is Ignatius ad philad: but (en thusiasterion pase te ecclesia) one communion Table to [Page 25] the whole church (HERE IN THIS CITIE). For an­swer whereof I deny his argument, for a man may in the like manner write to the Citizens of London dwelling in Bowe pa­rish, when your whole Church is come together: and so to them which dwell in any other parish, though there be many other Churches in London, and they not diuided bodies absolute of themselues, but all subordinate vnto, and members of that Church which belongeth to the whole Diocese. And so I answer to Ignatius his wordes: euery one of them haue one communion Table, not euery one collectiue, but distributiue, not iointly, but seuerally. But whervnto Ignatius; his words, he addeth his owne words (HERE IN THIS CITIE) he dealeth not ingenuously. For these words which he alledgeth out of Ignatius, as he alledgeth thē, do not import that y^t whole citie should haue but one Communion Table, and by a con­sequent but one church, but that the citie might haue many churches, and euery church his proper Communion Table, as with vs in this Citie. And againe, that there were many chur­ches in those cities which he named, euē in the Apostles time, I haue alreadie proued, when I shewed out of Eusebius that not onely Iulian the 10. did Alexandrinarum, Ecclesiarum E­piscopatum accipere, take vpon him the gouernment of the Euseb: hist: l. 5. cap. 9. l. 2. c. 16. churches of Alexandria, but also that Saint Marke did, p [...]imus Ecclesias Alexandriae constituere, first institute many churches in Alexandria. And that the beleeuers were not so fewe, as that they might be assembled in one congregation, it is euident by the storie of the Acts of the Apostles, and because he nameth Ierusalem, I will instance in Ierusalem. It is written in the Acts, there were men at Ierusalem that feared God, of euery nation Act. 2. 5. vnder heauen, which heard the Gospell preached in their owne language▪ and concerning the multitude of these saith Maister Beza, they are to be vnderstood: Quicunqù [...]x [...]eri illo Beza in annotat: mai [...]rib in [...]ilum locum. tempore Hierosolymis vrsabantur: adeò vt non modo exteros com­prehendat, quisedes illic vt in vrbe maximâ, & frequentissimâ posu­erunt, sed eos quoqùe qui studiorum, & religionis discendae cansâ illic ad tempus commorabantur, quorum distributa fuisse collegia intelli­gimus ex ijs quae narrantur Cap, 6. verse 9. and 9. 29. All strangers which at that time were resiant at Ierusalem, that [Page 26] such a multitude comprehendeth not onely the strangers which had dwellings there, being so great and populous a citie, but also those which were students, and came thither as vniuersitie men for lear­ning sake, which were diuided into Colledges as appeareth by the Act. Ch: 6. 9. Where there arose certaine of the Synagogue which are called Libertines, & Cyrenians, and of Alexandria, and of them of Silicia, & Asia, which disputed with Stephen, and Act ch: 9. 29 where the Grecians disputed with Paule. And againe (saith he) Oportuit tam amplam ciuitatem ad quam etiam vndiqùe Iudaei tanqum ad cōmunem Academiam suos erudiendes mittebant, in varios cae [...]us distribu [...], quos apparet ex hoc loco pro nationum va­rietate fuisse distinctos, vt hedie Lutetiae multa collegia, &c. So spati­ous a citie to whom the Iewes farre and wide sent their sonnes as to a common vniuersitie to be trained vp, was of necessitie diuided into many Colledges, as it is now at Paris, according the diuersitie of the nations as out of this place it appeareth &c. Againe, how did they all heare the Gospel preached in their owne languages? Nar­rat Apostolus varij [...] linguis loqui coepisse, id est modò hác modò iliâ, non tamē cōfusè aut furiosê, sed prou [...] h [...]c vel ille in varias gentes incide­rat, The Apostle sheweth that they spake diuerse languages, not cōfu­sedly like mad men, but as this or that Apostle did happen vpon this or that nation so he spake to them in their owne language. There­fore, at the very first there were diuerse Preachers, and seue­rall congregations, speaking seuerall languages, vncapable of hearing the word preached before them al at one time, as they which be but one church or congregation. And againe, in the same chap: v 41. there were added to the church in one day a­bout 3000. & ver. 47. the Lord added to the church from day to day. Yet Maister Iacob would haue all these, being so many thousands, & so many nations, not of one language, but spea­king diuerse languages, to haue bin but one cōgregation. Nei­ther were they first all one congregation, & then by reason of their great increase, as not able to assemble in one place, di­uided themselues into many congregations, vpon the perse­cution of S. Stephen, as Mr. Iacob affirmeth, but they were ma­ny churches at the first, as I haue already proued, being seue­ral nations, and speaking seuerall languages, and those many Act. 8. 1. churches were scattered as it is written: A great persecution was [Page 27] raised against the cburch of Ierusalē, & they were scattered abroad through the regions of Iudaea & Samaria. In which words the ho­ly Ghost calleth Ierusalem but one Church, which wee haue proued to haue consisted of diuerse congregations, & be­cause all those congregations were but one church, therefore they could not be diuided bodies absolute of themselues, &c. And, wheras Mr. Iacob obiecteth that these congregations so diuided, were not to be called churches, because they were vn­certaine, and but occasionall. I answer, that so were all other churches in time of persecution, euen those churches which he mentioneth out of Ignatius, for as much as al the time of Igna­tius there was persecution, & long after his time, & therefore they were but occasionall, & vncertaine. But this disproueth me not, but that I do rightly alledge against him, that the be­leeuers in Ierusalē were more then could be assembled in one congregation, & so in Alexandria, and other cities. Secondly, he goeth about to proue that euery congregation is a diuided body absolute in it selfe, because the Scriptures still speake of the churches as of one. There is one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, one Eph. 4, 4. 5. faith, one baptisme, &c. To which I answer, that these words are vnderstood of Christ his vniuersal church, which is inded vni­ca sponsa, vnica columba, one Doue, one spouse, betroathed to one husband, one body knit and vnited to one head, which is Iesus Christ, for one head cannot haue many diuided bodies. And therfore this argumēt maketh against himselfe. The whole church is but one, & therefore parish churches are but members of that one, and not diuided bodies, for vnitas non po­test diuidi, that which is but one cannot be diuided.

And that euery parish, or particular congregation must vse gouernment within it selfe; he taketh vpon him to proue by the wordes of our Sauiour: If thy brother trespasse against thee, Mat. 18. 17. goe tell him his fault betweene thee & him alone if he heare thee, thou hast won thy brother, if he heare thee not, take with thee one or two, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses euery thing may be confirmed, if he refuse to heare them, tell it vnto the church, if he refuse to heare the church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a pub­lican. Out of these words (saith he) is proued that euery ordi­nary congregation is a proper visible Church, and a visible [Page 28] Church is but one congregation, and euery such Church is indued immediately from Christ with power absolute to go­uerne within it selfe, and euery member of the Church must haue a sensible and visible vse of the whole intirely together. In which wordes he ascribeth the Ecclesiasticall gouernment to the whole multitude of euery parish. Further, he diuideth this Church gouernment into these two parts, to wit, excom­munication and elections, so that euery priuate man (be hee neuer so vnfit) should haue his free voice and consent in all excommunications and elections. Eor answer whereof, I de­nie his argument. For, besides that, in the fift page of his booke, hee affirmeth that man cannot make a societie to be a visible church, but Christ alone, and it is proued that all these parishes are the institution of men, which onely haue distin­guished the bounds of Parishes, and that very vnequally, making some too large, and some too small, and so he contra­dicteth himselfe: the multitude haue not the keyes of the Church committed vnto them, but onely the ministers, where our Sauiour saith to Peter, in the behalfe of the rest: Tibi dabo claues, to thee I will giue the keyes. And to the Apostles, whose sinnes yee remit, they are remitted: and whose sinnes ye retaine, they are retained. And whereas there be two keyes Mat: 16. 19. Ioh. 20. 23. of the Church, the one of the word and the Sacraments, the other of gouernment: the key of gouernment witnes Maister Beza himselfe, is not giuen to all ministers, much lesse to the people, but onely vnto such ministers as be magistrates of the Church, as Timothy and Titus was. For saith he: Ecclesia inter­dum prò Senatu Ecclesiastico vsurpatur vt infrà Cap: Mat: 18. verse 17. Dic Ecclesiae. This word Church, is sometimes taken for Beza in annotat: maior: in Mat: 16. the senate or Consistorie Ecclesiastical, as Mat: 18. 17. where our Sauiour saith: Tell the Church. And his owne Doctor Maister Beza vpon this place expoundeth these wordes: Tell the church, more at large in his notes vpon that place, shewing that Maister Iacobs exposition is very absurde, and that such discipline as that the peoples consent should bee required in excommunications, is very far from the discipline receiued in Geneua. His wordes are these. Dic Ecclesiae, spectat ad forum [Page 29] Ecclesiasticū, quia versu proximo fit mentio ligandi & soluendi Haec potestas erat penes eos qui (archisunagogo [...]) vocantur Marci 5. 22. Et huius conscietudinis exemplum extat. Iohn 9. 22. & 12. 42. & 16. 2. Vt apud Iudaeos idem fuisse videatur paenaegenus (aposunagogon genesthai) at (que) apud Christianos excommuni­cari. Sed notandum est turpiter errare qui ex hoc confici volunt, dè singulis rebus referendum esse ad totius multitudinis caetum A [...]unt enim Ecclesiae nomen nusquam aliter accipi quod vel ex hoc ipso loco falsum esse counincitur. Nam certè, tanquàm aè Iodaeis haec dici ap­paret, saitem ex eò quod addit: sit tibi ficut Ethnicus & publicamus. Sed iudicia de his rebus penes seniores fuisse apud Iudaeos, nec sem­per cogi consueuisse totum populi caetū, omnes illarū rerum scriptores testantur Et certè Christus nisi ad suorū tēporū consuetudinem totū hunc sermonē accōmodasset, quis eum loqu [...]ntē intellexisset? Quod si quis excipiat tyrannicā fuisse illā consuetudinē, ne id quidē vere dix­erit quum Christus sic loqui non potuer [...]t, quin eum morē vt legitimū approbaret. These words: te [...] the Church, belong to the Ecclesiasti­cal court, because in the 9 verse, mentiō is made of binding & loo­sing. For this power belonged only vnto thē which Mark 5. 22. were called the Rulers of the Synagogs. And we haue example of this cu­stome. Iohn. 9. 22. where the Iewes had ordeined, that euery one which confessed Christ should be excommunicated out of the Syna­gogue. And Iohn 12. 42. Among the chiefe Rulers, many beleeued in him, but because of the Pharisies, they durst not cofesse him, lest they should be cast out of the Synagogue: and Ioh. 16. 12. They shall excommunicate you, and cast you out of their Synagogues. And a­mong the Iews, to be cast cut of the Synagogue, was all one, as among the Christians to be excōmunicated. And, it is to be noted, that they erre filthity, which out of this place conclude: that in all matters of excōmunication, the multitude must be consulted. And where [...] they obiect, that the name of the church is no where vnderstord otherwise then for the multitude, their expositiō is out of this place conuicted to be false & erroneous. For our Sauiour deliuereth these laws of dis­cipline to Christiās, in the same maner as if he spake to the Iewes be­cause he saith: let him be to thee as an heathē & a Publicā. But only the Magistrates amōg the Iews, did exercise these iudgmēnts without the cōsent & knowledge of the people, as all their writers do testifie. [Page 30] And surely, vnlesse our Sauiour had applied his speech vnto the cu­stome of his times, no man could haue vnderstood what he meant by these words. And, if any shall obiect, that this custome was tyranni­call and vnlawfull, hee deliuereth an vntruth in so saying: because our Sauiour could not haue spoken to christians after this maner of the Iewes, vnlesse he had approued this maner of excommunication among the Iewes, which was by the Magistrates, and not by the peo­ple, to haue beene also lawfull, and to be vsed among christians. So farre Theodorus Beza vpon this place.

And, as for popular election, which is the other part of go­uernment Ecclesiasticall, to which hee intituleth the whole multitude: let the case be put, that sometimes of fact, the peo­ple had a consent in the election of their Bishops, in time of persecution: and, when the church being not indowed with any landes or maintenance, they liued onely by charity and deuotion of the people: what proofe hath he that it ought to be so? or that euer it was so in any setled estate? Hee saith it is plaine, the people had their free election of their Bishops in the daies of Ignatius; because in one epistle hee writeth these words: Prepon esi vmin es ecclesia theou cheirotonesai ton epis­copon vmon; which ignorantly he englisheth in this maner: It is meete for you, being the church of God, to choose by common consent your Bishop. First, it is well knowne, that when Ignatius liued, which was in the very infancy of the Church, there was neither any certaine maintenance for the Ministers, nor any setled estate of a Church, but all liued vpon the beneuolence of the people. Secondly, this word Church, signifieth not the people, but the Ecclesiasticall per­sons, as before I haue shewed you out of Mr. Beza. Third­ly, no learned man would haue translated this word (cheiro­toneo) to choose by common consent, as he hath translated it. For, the very grammaticall signification of this word is, not to elect by suffrages, or voyces, or lifting vp of hands, as the people choose their Mairos, or Bailiffes, and ciuill officers; but consecration by imposition of hands, as all Ministers are to be consecrated, by the rule of the Scriptures. That the peo­ple should haue any voyce in elections; it is so strange a posi­tion [Page 31] as was neuer read of in the Scriptures. For, as no man Matth. 3. Exod 3. Exod. 4. Matth. 4. 1 Tim. 1. Tit. 1. may enter into the ministerie without a lawfull calling, (for our Sauiour had his calling from his Father, Moses from God, Aaron from Moses, the Apostles from our Sauiour, Timothy & Titus, from S. Paul) so we must consider in whom this authority resteth, to call men to the ministery: for none of these of whom I haue spoken, had any consent of the peo­ple. This custome of popular election is borrowed out of the Turkes Alcaron, and not of the Bible. It is saide to the congregation, concerning the election of Deacons; Looke ye out 7. men of honest conuersation, &c: by which it is iustified which our law doth require, that they vpon whom the Bi­shoppe Act. 6. shall lay hands, must bring with them sufficient testi­mony of their worthinesse: but in the words following it is said; whom we may appoint to this businesse. And afterward, verse 6. when they were found out, they set them before the Apo­stles, and the Apostles prayed, and laide hands vpon them, but not the people, as our Bishops assisted with other mini­sters, without the helpe of the people, ordeine ministers with vs. Therefore in their obiection out of the Acts, where they alleage these English words; When they had ordeined Elders by Act. 14. election, in euery Church, &c: they doe but deceiue themselues. For the Greeke word is (cheirotoneo) of (cheir) an hand, and (teino) porrigo, extendo, noteleno, to reach, or stretch forth, or lay on, not to eleuate or lift vp; so (cheirotoneia) is not eleuati­on, but imposition of hands, in Eccesiasticall writers. These words then: (cheirotonesantes eautois presbuterous) is, manuum impositione consecrantes sibi ipsi [...] presbyteros, when by impositi­on of hands, they had consecrated Elders, or Ministers, as Moses by imposition of hands, conferred the holy Ghost vpon Iosua, and sanctified him to be a Magistrate: and our Deut. 24. Matt. 19. Sauiour in the Gospel, by laying hands on the children, bles­sed them. And th [...] (cheirotoneia) is expressed more plainely by another Greeke word in the Acts of the Apostles, concer­ning Act. 6. the consecration of Deacons, to be (epithesis ion cheiron) imposition of hands, where the text saith: (proseuxamenoi op [...]thecan autois tas cheiras) when they had prayed, they layed [Page 32] hands vpon them. And Gual [...]er in his Commentary vpon that place of the Acts, which before was alleaged, when they had ordeined Elders by election in euery Citie, after he hath iustified these popular elections vsed in the Church of Tigurie, and dispraised our manner of ordination, reuoketh himselfe, and confesseth by the word (cheirotonesantes) magis verisimiliter hîc incelligi manuum impositionem, & non incerto po­pulo rem tam seriam committendam: that in that place, imposi­tion of hands is rather to be vnderstoode, then any popular election, and that a matter of so great importance as the or­dination of Ministers, is not to be committed to the rude and inconstant common people.

He commeth now to his ob & Sol: and obiecteth in our behalfe, as we doe our selues commonly alleage; that it can­not stand with the state of a Kingdome, that there should be a popular gouernment of the Church. And he answereth himselfe, that it is not requisite that the gouernment of the Church should bee answerable to the gouernement of the Realme. To which his answer I reply, that if the gouern­ment of the Church be not answerable to the gouernment of the Realme, then our assertion is true, that this popular gouernment cannot stand with the state of a Kingdome, be­cause the King is by the people excluded out of the Church gouernment. With vs Bishops are the Kings Lieutenants in Ecclesiasticall causes, and all Ecclesiasticall Courts are the Kings Courts, they be held immediately vnder the King, his authority in causes Ecclesiasticall, being subalternate, and immediately subordinate vnto our Sauiour Christ. Now for as much as they which hold with the lay Eldership, and po­pular gouernment, doe claime their authority immediately from God, without the King, they derogate from the Kings authority in Ecclesiasticall causes, and in Church matters they hold him for no King.

Lastly, whereas we obiect, that popular gouernment with vs, cannot be but tumultuous: and hee answereth, that no tumults can arise by their gouernment, considering foure circumstances. First, that it is Gods ordinance. Secondly, [Page 33] that it is to be executed by no greater multitude then a pa­rish. Thirdly, that the Church guides being seperated from the people, determine the matter and prepare it, onely the people consent with them. Fourthly, if any few be violent and vnruly, the next Iustices are to keepe the peace among them. It is but an answerlesse answer. For first, that popular gouernment is not Gods, but mans ordinance, as I haue shewed. Secondly, it is apparant, that diuers parishes with vs be so populous, that they consist of many thousands, and are as large in compasse, as some Diocesse in other places. Thirdly, for the guides of the Church, priuately to agree vp­on the matter, and to vrge the people, and constraine them by the authority of Iustices of peace, to yeelde vnto that which they haue decreed, is as much as to make it no popular election at all, because then free consents are denied them, and all authority resteth in the guides of the Church. For, if there be no tumult, it is wholly in the power of the Church Magistrates, to conclude and establish what they list, and the people must agree to it: if there be a tumult, the Magistrates of the Church are to command the Iustices to execute what their selues would haue done: so that the people are vsed but as ciphers, and haue no liberty in themselues. So this is as good as no election.

Of Lord Bishops, and Ecclesiasticall persons, ex­ercising ciuill authoritie.

THe common obiection is, that our Sauiour being the chiefe Bishop, was not held for a Lord, neither had hee any outward pompe or glory in this world. To which I answer: if so be they inferre this conclusion vpon that example therefore, Bishops must not be Lords: the weake­nesse of that argument will appeare by the like: for they may as well conclude against Kings; that because our Sauiour being a King, yet was no Lord, had no pompe nor glorie-therefore [Page 34] Kings must not be Lords, &c. I could answer fur­ther, Tit. 2. that he was a Lord, and so the Apostle doth call him a great Lord, and the head of the Church, and the Prince of Eph. 4. 15. Apoc. 1. the kings of the earth: and because he is head of the Church, all Kings doe holde their Crownes vnder him. That the world did not acknowledge him for a Lorde, it was their blindnesse. Hee came to be crucified, and had the world knowne him, non Dominum gloriae crucifixissent, they had not crucified the Lord of glory. And yet in his state of humility, hee had an honourable retinew to attend vpon him, to the number of eighty two, his twelue Apostles, and seuenty Dis­ciples, Matth. 1 [...]. Luk. 10. Iudas was his treasurer or pursbearer, he sent Philip to the market to buy bread, he imployed his Disciples in such seruices as to him did appertaine, as appeareth by the story of the Gospel. But thus I prooue that Bishops ought to be Lords: Our Sauiour being asked whether a man might put away his wife? answereth negatiuely, his argument of proofe being drawne from the law of nature, saying: Ab initio non fuit sic, from the beginning it was not so. Likewise the argu­ment Mat. 19. followeth: Bishops ought to be Lords, and Ecclesiasti­call persons to exercise ciuill authority, quoniam ab initio fuit sic, because frō the beginning it was so. From Adam to Moses it was so, from Moses to our Sauiour Christ & the Apostles it was so, with them it was so, and from them it hath continu­ed so vntill this time, excepting onely the times of persecuti­on, when the course of the Gospel was interrupted, and there was no setled state of a Church. No meruaile though in time of persecution, they were not held for Lords, for then they were not allowed to be Citizens, nor thought worthy to liue in a Common wealth. The Pagan Emperours helde them for seditious persons, troublers of the state, and of all men most worthy of death. Our question is not what then was of fact, but what ought to haue beene of right. It must not seeme strange that Saint Iohn, or Saint Paul could not be in authority vnder Nero & Domitian, nor the godly Bishops vnder the ten persecutions, sceing our Sauiour was not al­lowed any authority vnder Herod, nor Pilat, nor Augustus, nor [Page 35] Tiberius. No meruaile though Titus could not be held as a Lord in the Kingdome of Creete, seeing that neither Iehoa­haz, being lawfully anoynted King of Iuda, could not reigne 2. Reg. 25. 2. Rug. 24 as a King, being taken captiue by Pharao, nor Iehoiakim nor Sedechias, being oppressed by Nebuchadnezer.

From Adam vnto Moses, he that was the eldest of euery Gen. 1. 26 Gen. 2. 23 Gen. 4. 3. 4 familie, was both the king and the priest ouer his own fami­ly, among Gods people. So Adam was a king, because God gaue him absolute power ouer the whole world: he was also a priest, for hee offered sacrifice: Caine and Abel brought to him their sacrifices, that he might offer in their behalfe, they are onely saide to haue offered, as Asa the King, and all the people are saide to haue offered, when the Priest did offer in 2. Chr. 15 their behalfe. Henoch seeing the children of God to fall dai­ly from faith to infidelity, which was the cause of the deluge, published against them the sentence of excommunication, saying: The Lord commeth, which is the most grieuous kinde of excōmunicatiō. And S. Paul did borrow that form of him Iudae. v. 14 where he writ; Hee that loueth not the Lord Iesus, let him be an athema marannatha, cursed vntill the Lords comming. And Mo­ses 1. Cor. 16 did reckon vp so long a catalogue of all the eldest sonnes descended from Adam before the flood, to this end, that it Gen. 5. might appeare vnto whom from time to time the Lord com­mitted the care of gouerning & instructing the Church. No­ah a king, was a preacher of righteousnesse one hundred and twenty yeares before the flood, hee offered sacrifice after the flood. That Iethro the father in law of Moses, was both a 2. Pet. 2. 5 1. Pet. 2. 19 & 4. 16. Gen. 8. 20. Numb. 3. 12. 12. & 8. 16. 17. prince & a priest: & likewise Iob, in the land of Huz, no lear­ned man will deny. And that none might offer sacrifices, but the eldest and Princes of euery family, it appeareth by the writings of Moses, because God said, he would take the tribe of Leui, to be seperated for his seruice, as a redemption of all the rest of the first borne of Israel. In which words, hee did but call to remembrance the time of nature, wherein the eldest were all his: that is, they were consecrated for the offering of sacrifice vnto him. When Melchisedech was King and Priest of Sa­lem, Ge. 14. 18 Abraham also was King and Priest ouer his own family. [Page 36] It was saide of him, Thou art a great Prince of God among vs Gen. 23. 6 Ge. 18. 19. Ge. 22. 10 Gen. 17. Ge. 26. 24 And he taught them Gods word, he erected an altar, and of­fered sacrifice. To him first was committed the sacrament of circumcision, and he circumcised his sonne Isaac. Isaac his heire, crected an altar, and offered cacrifice for the exercise of his faith. Iacob after him did the like, taught purity of reli­gion, and how Idolls were to be abolished. Ge. 35. 11.

In the daies of Moses, vnder the time of the law, when priesthood was appropriated to one peculiar tribe of Leui, and the Bishoprick to one certaine family, Moses and Aaron both being priests, Moses the yonger brother had the chiefe authority in ciuill businesses, Aaron the elder in Ecclesiasti­call causes: but all supreame authority was committed to these two priests, Moses and Aaron. That Moses was a priest, Exod. 24. 6. 7. 8. it is euident, because all the whole tribe of Leui, were then consecrated [...]o holy priesthood, whereof hee was one, hee in particular offered sacrifice, preached Gods word, consecra­ted Exod. 40. Numb. 20. Aaron to be an high priest, and Eleazar in his place when he was dead, consecrated the altar, which none could doe without sacrilege but a priest. Yet he was the supreame ci­uil Magistrate. And in his absence 40. daies he substituted Aaron the priest in his roome, to heare ciuill causes, and sup­ply the place of a ciuill Magistrate. Phinees the high priest, Numb. 25. was a Captaine in warre, and busied himselfe with secular affaires, and it pleased God so much, that the priesthood was conferred not onely vpon him, but also his posterity. Samuel the Prophet, who ministred before the Lord in a linnen E­phod, was also the chiefe ciuil Magistrate, and in his own per­son did ride his circuit as a Iudge euery yeare ouer all the 1. Sam▪ 12. 18. 1. Sam. 7. 1. Sam. 8. land. All the daies of the Iudges, which was about two hun­dred ninety and nine yeares from the death of Iosua, vnto Eli the priest, there was no certaine supreame ciuill magistracie in any, but in the high priests or Bishops, among the people. When the people desired a king of God, they cōsulted with Samuel in that secular busines. After those 299. yeares of the Iudges, Eli the Bishop reigned as supreame ciuill Magistrate 40. yeares: so did Samuel after him the space of 40. yeares. [Page 37] Afterward, when Saule was by him annointed King, yet Samuel ruled ioyntly with Saule so long as he liued, and in­deed, bore the greatest sway in the realme, because Saule had little more then the title of a King, during the life of Sa­muel, and was to doe nothing without allowance from him.

How the Clergie among Gods people busied themselues with the affaires of the temporal [...]ie, and howe much they pleased God in so doing, it appeareth by these examples. Numb. 31 6. 26. Numb: 34. 17. Iosua. 22. 13. Numb: 26. 63. 64. 2. Chron: 13. Iosua, 6. 1. Pet: 23. 4. Phinees the Sonne of Eleazar the Bishoppe, was a Captaine against the Midianites, and Eleazar his selfe, ioyntly with Moses diuided the spoyles among the Souldiers, Eleazar with Iosua diuided the land of promise among the Tribes, Phineas the Bishop was sent Ambassador to proclaime warre against Gad, Ruben, and halfe Manasses, Moses and Eleazar numbred the people in the plaine of Moab, and Moses, and Aaron in the wildernes of Sina. The Priests and Leuites soun­ded their Trumpets, and bid the battell in the warre of Abias against Ieroboam. The Priests ouerthrewe the citie Iericho. And the godly King Dauid setting the Kingdome in better order then it was before, appointed 6000. Leuites to be Iud­ges and Magistrates ouer the people. Likewise, beyond Iordan towardes the West, 1700. both to serue God in the place of Leuites, and also to serue the King in ciuill offices pertaining to the common wealth, and also 2700. he set ouer Ruben, Gad, and Manasses to heare and determine all causes, both ecclesi­asticall and ciuill, concerning God in the Church, and the King in the common wealth.

The Kings were annointed, and confirmed in their king­domes, by the hands of the Bishops, & ecclesiasticall persons. 1. Sam: 10. 1. Sam: 16. 1. Reg: 1. So Samuel annointed Saule & Dauid, Sadoc annointed Solo­mon, when Adoniah had proclaimed himselfe King, by help of Abiathar the Priest: Nathan the Prophet said to Dauid: me thy seruant, & Sadoc the Priest, haue they not called, nor Benoiah the son of Ichoiada. Then Dauid said: Call me Sadoch the Priest, and Nathan the Prophet and let them annoint and proclaime Solo­mon Ier: 26. Exod: 32. King. Ieremy was condemned to death by the Priests and the Prophets. The Leuites by the commandement of Moses slewe with the sword 3000. that committed idolatry.

It was commanded by God, that when they went to warre, Ex: 32. Deut: 20. Deut: 21. 19. 1. Sam. 15 the Priests should go before them & exhort them to be cou­ragious and valiant. That if there were inquisition after mur­ther, the Priests should come forth, and by their word the cause should be tryed. Samuel valiantly slewe Agag the King of the Amalakites, whom Saule the King for foolish pittie could not find in his heart to smite.

Godly Iosephat in his reformation of the Church and com­mon 2. Chron: wealth, appointed Iudges in euey citie throughout the land, as it appeareth, verse 5. And what kinde of men these Iudges were, it appeareth in the 8. verse following. In Ierusa­lem, as also in other cities, he appointed Iuges out of the Prin­ces of euery family, and the Priests and Leuites which were to heare both ciuil and Ecclesiastical causes, (and so doth Tre­melius expound it according to the truth of the Hebrew text) and at Ierusalem which was the chamber of the Kingdome, there was established by him the highest bench of iustice, vnto which, as vnto the highest court, it was lawfull to appeale from all inferiour Courts and Iudges, euen as it is now with the Kings Bench, and the high commission Court at London. And among these Iudges who were to take place before o­ther, it is explaned in the 11. verse of that chapter, namely, in ecclesiasticall causes, ecclesiasticall men: in temporall causes, temporal men: but so that in euery ciuil court of Iustice there should be some Priests and Leuites in Commission.

Moreouer the Lord saith: If there arise a matter too hard for thee in iudgement, betweene blood, and blood: plea, and plea: plague, Deut: 17. 8. and plague: in the matters of controuersie within thy gates, then shalt thou arise, and goe vnto the place which the Lord thy God shal choose, and thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuites, and to the Iudge that shal be in those dayes, and aske, and they shal shew thee the sentence of iudgement; & thou shalt doe according to the thing which they of that place (which the Lord hath chosen) shal shewe thee, &c. and that man which wil doe presumptuously, not hearkening to the Priest which standeth before the Lord thy God to minister there, and the Iudge, that man shal dye, and thou shalt take eway euill from Israel, so all the people shal heare, and feare, and doe no more pre­sumptuously.

As for Ezra the Priest, he had authoritie from Artaxerxes the King of Persia, to order all matters whatsoeuer, spiritual, Ezra. 7. and temporall: concerning the returne of the people out of captiuitie, he ordered both the Princes and the people, Priests and Leuites, he appointed al the Iudges in the land, that who­soeuer would not doe according to the Lawe of God, and the Kings Lawe, should haue iudgement without delay, whether it were vnto death, or banishment, or confiscation of goods, or imprisonment. And there was by Ezra set down the whole Ezra. 8. platforme of the ciuill estate of the common wealth. Againe, he gathered together the Princes, and all the Clergy, proclai­med a fast, humbled them before God, that hee would guide them in their iourney, beeing ashamed to aske of Artaxerxes an Army of horsemen to helpe them, because he had saide be­fore, that their trust was in God alone. In the 10, Chapter hee causeth all, as well temporall as spirituall, to sweare that they would put away their strange wiues, caused a proclamation to goe out through Iuda and Ierusalem, to assemble in Ierusalem within three dayes in paine of confiscation of their goods.

How afterward the Maccabes, being Gods seruants, held both the Priesthood and the Kingdome among the Iewes be­ing Gods people, and that without impeachmenr, the learned know very well, and that they continued both high Priests and also Kings vntil the land was conquered by the Romans, and the ciuill gouernment committed vnto the family of the Herods, vntil the comming of our Sauiour Christ, who trans­lated both the kingdome and the Priesthood of right vnto himselfe.

And, whereas some men doe obiect against these exam­ples Ioh. 18. by me alledged for confirmation of spirituall mens au­thoritie in temporal causes among Gods people; That when our Sauiour Christ was to bee arrayned, they brought him from the high Priest, to the iudgement seate of Pilate a tem­porall Iudge, and saide to Pilate, verse 31. It is not lawful for vs to put any man to death. I answere, first the Priest in particular did not say these wordes: It is not lawfull for vs to put any man to death, but the Iewes in generall, not to the preiudice of Priests [Page 40] onely but of the whole nation of the Iewes. Secondly, they speake not these wordes, as if the Iewes had of right from God no authoritie to put mē to death. For Pilate himself doth confesse, that they had right in themselues, where he saith: Take him, and iudge him according to your owne lawe. But these wordes are to be vnderstood, that according to the Lawes of Herod a stranger, and of the Romans which made them tribu­tary, and by force tooke from them all power of life & death, not onely from the Priests, but also from the whole nation, 40. yeares before that time, as Maister Beza hath well obser­ued, it was not lawfull for them to put any man to death. Thirdly, if the Iewes had had all their authoritie in their Beza in annot: ma­iorib: in Ioh: 18. hands without controlment, yet it appeareth by the 28. verse of that chapter, that the Priests at that time would not be pre­sent at that iudgement where sētence of death was to be pro­nounced, because the feast of Easter was at hand, and so doing they should haue made themselues vncleane, and by a conse­quent disinabled themselues from executing their office at that solemnitie.

Thus you haue heard proued out of the holy Scriptures, that among Gods people, in that kingdome which was go­uerned according to Gods own lawes, euen then when it was reformed by godly kings, there was no bench of Iustice for hearing and ending of ciuill causes, vpon which Priests and Leuites did not sit as Iudges and Iustices. Therefore I de­mand other sound reasons, or places of Sctipture, to proue why it should not so continue among vs which are also Gods people, especially our Ecclesiasticall persons being more honourable vnder the Gospel, then they were vnder the law? I confesse that the Popes lawes haue decreed the contrarie, but Lancelelot iustitut: iuris can: l 1. Tit: 4. Concil: Lat: 31. partis 1. can: 12. it is not fit that wee which are a reformed Church, and haue long since abandoned the Popes authoritie, should nowe for­sake God, and the examples of the holy Bible to followe the Pope and his Canons. The Popes lawe saith: Laici sunt quibus licet temporalia prssidere, vxere [...] ducere, causes agere, intèr virum & virum iudicare, Clerici qui diuinis officijs mancipati sunt, & quos ab omni strepitu cessare conueuit. Lay men are they to whom it [Page 41] is lawful to haue temporal possessions, to marie wiues, handle causes and controuersies in Law, to iudge betweene man, and man: but as for Clergy men, their state and condition is other­wise, they are so deuoted and mancipated to the seruice of God, that they must not intermeddle with such worldly trou­bles. Some of our brethren giue this answerles answer: that arguments drawen from the state of the Ministerie in the olde Testament, to that which is vnder the Gospell, doe not holde, that we must not followe examples of the olde Testa­ment in Church gouernment, and that therefore the ar­gument doth not followe, that because Bishoppes in the olde Testament were Lords, and of the Kings Counsell in the highest place, and inferiour Ministers were ciuill Ma­gistrates, therefore vnder the Gospell it may be so, although what should hinder, they cannot shewe. But that I may followe them in that course of disputation: They say wee must not followe the examples of the olde Testament in Church gouernment, and that therefore the argument doth not followe: Bishops in the olde Testament were Lords, and Kings Counsellers, and inferiour Ministers were ciuill Ma­gistrates, therefore vnder the Gospel they must be so. To whō I alledge, that by the like reason, these arguments which Bi­shop Iuell, and the learned men of the reformed churches haue vrged against the Popes authoritie, and for the vpholding of Princes cannot follow, when they conclude in this manner: Solomon deposed Abiathar the Priest for committing high Treason, and placed Sadoc in his roome, therefore vn­der the Gospell Christian Kings may punish their Mi­nisters for high Treason: Ezechias reformed the Church, Iosias reade the Lawe before the Priestes in the house of the Lord, and commanded Helchias the high Priest, and the Priests of the second order, to bring forth of the Tem­ple all the vessells made for Baall, put downe Idolls, 1. Reg: 2. 2. Reg: 18. slewe the idolatrous Priestes; therefore Christian Kings may put downe idolatrie, and reforme the Church: You see thereforefore the weakenes, and great vnsufficiency of this answere.

Againe, why doe the Lawes of Geneua punish adulterie with death after the example of the olde Testament, and why doe our brethren, which stand for the reformation, labour that the same punishment may bee inflicted vpon adulterers with vs, vrging vs with the authoritie of that Law, if so be that they will holde that the Lawes of the old Testament may not pre­uaile vnder the Gospell? In their simplicitie and want of iudgement, they shape this answere, as if it were the Trum­pet to blowe downe Iericho, Dauids sling to kill Golias, Samp­sons iawe-bone to slay a thousand Philistines, that the cere­moniall Lawe is abolished, whereas before I haue shewed, thal this is not ceremoniall, but politicall, and that the Priest­hood is abolished, whereas onely that which is ceremonicall, concerning the Priests office is abolished, but that which is moral indureth to the end. And againe, a Minister of the Gos­pell may with more conueniencie be a ciuill Magistrate, then the Priests vnder the Lawe, because now the daily sacrifices, the great number of feasts, and solemnities, the infinite num­ber of ceremonies do cease, which then procured vnto them a whole world of businesses in their Ministery▪ by which they had lesse vacant time to heare ciuill causes, then our Ministers haue vnder the Gospell.

The answer to the common obiection, Luk: 22, 25. they that beare rule ouer them, are called gra­cious Lords, but ye shall not be so.

FOr the opening of this text, these things are to be exami­ned? First, whether our Sauiour spake these wordes to his

Apostles onely, or in the name of the Apostles to al Chri­stians? For albeit the Apostles onely were personally present, and his apostrophe was vnto thē, yet many circumstances do proue that these words doe cōcerne al Christians. For, first we find else where another speech parallel vnto this: The Scribes and Pharisies loue the chiefe places at feasts, and to Mat: 2. 3. [Page 43] haue the chiefe seates in the assemblies, and greeting in the markets, and to be called of men: Rabbi, Rabbi: that is, Lord, Lord: but be not yee called Rabbi: for one is your Rabbi, to wit, Christ, and all ye are brethren, &c. but he that is greatest among you, let him be your seruant. No man can iustly say, this was spoken vnto Ecclesiasticall persons onely, but also to lay men, for so the text saith: Then Iesus spake to the multitude, and to his Disciples. 2. In the same chapter it appeareth, that our Sauiour did celebrate his last Supper immediately before he spake these wordes, but that storie being set downe more plaine by the other Enangelist, hee saide: drinke you of this all, Mat: 26. which wordes were spoken onely to his Apostles, and yet, none but they of the Church of Rome will so conster them, as if they were ment onely of Ecclesiasticall persons. For, euen as the Cuppe in the holy Communion, did not appertaine onely vnto the Ministerie, but also vnto the laitie; so humili­tie, which is the Subiect of this speech, is not commended onely to the Apostles, but to all men. So that, if the title of Lord belong not to the Apostles, neither doth it belong vnto ony other, because these wordes doe indifferently concerne all.

The second question is, whether in these wordes of our Sauiour any mention is made concerning the title of Lord, or no? Surely whosoeuer shall say that the title of Lord is here forbidden, hee hath as litle iudgement in the Greeke tongue, as the man in the Gospell, which was not able to dis­cerne men from trees. For the Greeke which is authenticall, because it was written by the holy Ghost, hath no such words as gracious Lords, but euergetai bountifull, or benefactors, or doers of good: they which bare rule ouer them are called well doers, but yee shall not be so. There cannot be one place of Scripture alledged betweene the first of Genesis, and the last of The Apocalips, to proue that Gods Ministers may not be cal­led Lords, but some places may bee alledged to proue that they are Lords. Our Sauiour his selfe doth accept of that ti­tile Ioh: 3▪ 2. of Lord giuen him by Nicod [...]mus, when hee called him Rabbi, that is, my Lord. For Rabbi, as Pagnin sheweth in his [Page 44] Lexicon, signifieth: Magistrum; honorabilem, inclytum, ob multiplices quibus po [...]let dignitates, a Maister, an honourable Ioh. 13. 13. person, a man that is eminent by reason of his manifold dig­nities, and places of honour which he holdeth. And in ano­ther place he saith, the name Kurios Lord, doth of right belong vnto him, Vmeis phoneite me o didascales, caio Kurios, cai calos legete, eimigar. You call me Doctor, and Lord, and ye say wel, for so I am. Furthermore, Saint Paule and Silas accepted of the same [...]itle of Curios Lord, when it was giuen them by the keeper of the prison, when hee fell downe before them, and saide: Kur [...]oi Lords, what must I doe to be saued? to whom they Act. 16. 30 answered: beleeue in the Lord Iesus, and thou shalt be saued. And a greater title then Lord is giuen to Gods Ministers in his owne word, they are called Gods. For that of the Prophet: Psal. 82. 6. Ioh: 10. 33. God standeth in the assemblie of Gods, and I haue saide ye are Gods, meaning of Princes and Iudges, our Sauiour his selfe ex­poundeth of Ministers. For, when the Iewes saide to him: For thy good worke wee stone thee not: but for blasphemie, and that thou being a man, makest thy selfe God. Iesus answered them: Is it not written in your Lawe, I saide yee are Gods? if hee call them Gods vnto whom the word of God is giuen, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say yee of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I sayd: I am the Sonne of God? You see how in the whole course of the Scrip­ture the Minister and the Magistrate goe together, both of them are Gods annointed, both called Gods, because they re­present the person of God vpon earth: both Lords, because they be the deputies and Leiftenants of him that is the Lord of Lords: to the ciuill Magistrate is especially committed the temporall sword, to the Minister the dispensation of the word. And you see here the reason plainly expressed, why our Sauiour calleth Ministers Gods, because vnto them the word of God was giuen, and the same word which was com­mitted to the ministers vnder the law, is cōmitted more abun­dantly to the ministers of the Gospel, and must continue with them to the worldes end. The king is called Poimen, shep­heard, so is the minister, & in the originall tongues, pascere, & Psal: 2. [Page 45] regere, to feede and to gouerne is all one And that the Eng­lish translation is corrupt, where it hath; ye shall not be called gratious Lords: it appeareth, not onely by the originall, but al­so by the analogy of faith: because according to faith, Bi­shops may be Lords, as I haue shewed, and then much more gratious Lords: for else they were gracelesse Lords. For this word grace, according to the Scriptures, is taken actiuely for the loue and fauour of the superiour, which hee vouchsafeth the inferiour. So the Apostle saith: By the grace of God, I am 1. Cor. 15. Luk. 1. Luk 2. Luk. 4. Rom. 3. Tit. 3. Eph. 4. 1. Tim. 4. that I am: or else passiuely, for any good parts & gifts in the inferiour, by which he is respected of his superiour. So the Virgin Mary was ful of grace, the child Iesus grew in grace: they all meruailed at the wordes of grace which proceeded out of his mouth, wee are freely iustified through his grace; if of grace, then not of works; we are saued by grace through faith. To euery one of vs is giuen grace, according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Do not neglect the grace which is conferred on thee by imposition of hands. Let euery man 1. Pet 4. Eph. 2. as hee hath receiued grace, minister the same one to ano­ther.

Thirdly, that wee may come to the true exposition of these wordes: There arose a controuersie among them, who should seeme to be the greatest, &c. In which story, are two things to be obserued: their example of ambition, which did striue for superiority, and our Sauiour, his doctrine of humility, tea­ching, that such ambition is found among the Gentiles, and ought not to bee among Christians. The Kings of the Nations, saith hee, reigne ouer them: that is, ouer the Nations which are vnder them, and that by oppressi­on, as Saint Chrysostome, and Musculus haue ezpounded it, not according to iustice, as Gods word willeth them to doe, but after their own sensuall lusts and fleshly desires, and they are called (euergetai) doers of good, as the Ptolomes King of Aegypt, two of them did sername their own selues, albeit they were not doers of good, but of euill, and oppressors of their subiect Cōcerning the applicatiō of this to christiās, he saith you shal not be called so: that is, you shall not reign as kings, but [Page 46] gouerne as subiects, not tyrannically, but iustly, you shall not be called doers of good, but (cacoergoi) euill doers, and male­factours, although ye doe good, as the Apostle speaketh; Wee are reuiled, and yet we blesse, wee are persecuted, and wee suffer, 1. Cor. 4. 12. 13. Act. 10. 38 we are euill spoken of, and we pray. It is your dutie to doe good, as it is said of our Sauiour (dielthen euergeton) he went about doing good: yet you shall not haue the due praise of your well doing, as our Sauiour himselfe was called Belzebub, a glutton, a drunkard, Iohn the Baptist an hypocrit, all the A­postles seditious men, &c: notwithstanding they were all doers of good. So then, in this place is not forbidden honour and authority, but ambitious seeking of it, as when they stroue, and vniust vsing of it, as the Kings of the Nations did: as when he saith; The Scribes and Pharisies loue the chiefest places, &c: and to be called Rabb, &c: Maister Beza vpon that Mat. 23. 8 In annot. maioribus. text, saith; The title of Rabbi, was giuen to such as were Do­ctours in the Chaldaean vniuersities, as also which in Iudaea by imposition of hands, were declared to be the wise men of the land, as also it was a title giuen to those noble and wise men which were counsellers to King Dauid. And saith hee; When our Sauiour forbiddeth them: be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Doctour, to wit, Christ, &c: Ne vocemini, id est, nè ambiatis, ne (que) enim vetat Christus ne suum honorem exhibeamus magistra­tus, vel doctoribus, sed ambitionem damnat, vt declarat August: ser: deverbis Domini ex Matthaei. 11. Be not you called Rabbi: that is, doe not you ambitiously seeke after that title; for o­therwise our Sauiour doth not forbid vs to giue due honour to the Magistrate and Doctour, but onely he forbiddeth the ambitious seeking after such honour, as appeareth by Saint Augustine, his exposition. One is our Doctour, that is, the chief pastour, the fountaine of all knowledge, according to that of the Prophet: And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord. Call Esa. 54. 13 no man your father: that is, nourish no man in his ambition, which glorieth in such titles, respicit enim Iudaeorum consuetu­dinem, apud quos non modo Aboth, id est patres, sed & Abothenu, id est patres nostri, salutabantur Rabbini: he hath reference to the custome of the Iewes, among whom the Rabbines would [Page 47] not be contented to be called fathers, but our fathers. Ye are brethren, that is, beate downe the pride of them which exalt themselues aboue their brethren. For otherwise it is lawfull to call them fathers which are fathers. So the King of Israel called Elisaeus his father: and Saint Paul will haue an elder to 2. Reg. 6. 21. . 1 Tim. 5. 1. Cor. 4. 15. bee rebuked as a father, and hee calleth himselfe a father of them whom he hath instructed in the word. As for the A­postles, they did not exercise ciuill iurisdiction, according to forme of humane lawes, as Magistrates in Courts of iustice vse to doe, partly because they being to trauell through the world, had no certaine abiding place, and partly because Iud­ges and Iustices are subordinate vnto Kings & Princes, and haue their commission from them, as our Sauiour speaketh: Quis me constituit Iudicem? who hath appointed mee to be a Iudge ouer you? But all Kings & Princes were at that time Luk. 12. 14 infidells, and therefore would not call them to such offices, which if they had been called vnto, they might lawfully haue executed. And yet it may be iustified, that Saint Peter exe­cuted ciuill iustice vpon Saphira, when hee pronounced sen­tence of death against her, saying: Behold, the feete of them Act. 5. 9. which haue buried thy husband, are at the doore, and shal carry thee out: and Saint Paul vpon Elymas, when hee pronounced sen­tence Act. 13. of depriuation of his sight, saying: Thou shalt be blinde, and not see the Sunne for a season: although outward forme of proceeding was wanting; like to that example of Dauid a King which said of the man which brought tydings of Sauls 2. Sam. 1. 15. 1. Sam. 19. 33. death, without any further processe or course of law: Goe, fall vpon him; and he smote him that he died: and of Samuel which tooke Agag, & he wed him in pieces: and of Ioiada the priest, which when Athalia the Queene in the Temple cried; trea­son, treason, without any iudiciall examination, or kinde 2. Reg. 11. 15. of proceeding, commanded the Captaines immediately to carry her out and kill her.

And that these things may not seeme strange, the Apostle Saint Paul, and the Prophet Esay foretolde so much. For the 2. Cor. 3. 6 Apostle writeth in this manner: Hee hath made vs able Mini­sters of the new Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the [Page 48] letter killeth, but the spirit giueth life. If then the ministration of death, written with letters, and ingrauen in stone was glori­ous, so that the children of Israel were not able to beholde Moses his face, for the glory of his countenance, which glory is done away, how shall not the ministration of the spirit be more glorious? For, if the ministery of condemnation was glorious, much more doth the ministration of righteousnesse exceede in glory: for if that which should bee abolished was glorious, much more shall that which remaineth bee glori­ous. In which wordes are to be obserued two things: the an­ti [...]hesis or contrariety, betweene the Ministers of both the Testaments, and then the correspondency and agreement betweene them both: that is, wherein they consent, & where­in they dissent. They disagree in these points, the letter and the spirit, death and life, condemnation and righteousnesse, that which was to be abolished, and that which is to abide vntill the end of the world: and yet both agree in glorie, but the spirit excelleth the letter, life death, righteousnesse, condemnation, that which is that which is not. Therefore the ministerie of the Gospel by an argument, a minori ad maius, is also glori­ous, and by so much more glorious then the ministerie of the law, by how much it is more excellent then the law. The question is now, what is meant by glory? And because men may be resolued of that point, the text it selfe doth make it plaine, it was outward. The children of Israel could not be­hold Moses his face, for the glory of his countenance. After he had talked with God, the skin of his face shone so bright, Exod. 34. Exod. 33. Matth. 17 that they were afraid to come neare him. And that sheweth what is meant by the glory of God which Moses desired to see, when answer was made, hee should see his backe parts one­ly, but not his face. And it is shewed by example, how our glo­rified bodies shal looke after the resurrection, when the face of our Sauiour being transfigured, did shine like the Sunne. The Lord said to Moses: Thou shalt make holy garments for thy Exod. [...]8. brother Aaron, glorius & beautifull, of gold, blew silke, purple, &c. The holinesse of his garments consisted in this, that they [Page 49] were consecrated to an holy vse, they were for the priest to weare in his ministration, the glory of them is specified to be the outward beauty, that they were of glod, silk, purple, &c. Solomon in his glory was not like a lily in the field, but wherin Mat 6. Solomons glory cōsisted, no man is ignorāt: that is, in his out­ward pompe, riches, seruice, honourable retinew, the adifice of his Temple, the world did admire him. So it is plaine, that the priesthoode of Israel, the glory of it consisted in the riches of the Temple, the large possessions of the Leuites, their authority and worldly reputation, the high Priest be­ing next in place of honour vnto the king. But how the mi­nistery of the Gospel should exceede them in glory; the Prophets haue foretolde, and especialle Esay, where he saith: Esa. 60. Thine heart shall be astonished, and inlarged, because the multude of the Sea shall be conuerted vnto thee, and the riches of the Gen­tiles shall come vnto thee, the multitude of Camel [...]s shall couer thee, the Dromedaries of Midian and of Ephah, they of Sheba shall bring gold and incense, and shew forth the praise of the Lord, &c. Surely the Isles shall wayte for me, and the Shippes of Tha [...]sis, as at the beginning, that they may bring thy sonnes from farre, and their siluer, and their gold with them to the name of the Lord, and to the holy one of Israel, because he hath glorified thee. The sonnes of strangers shall build vp thy walls, and their Kings shall minister vn­to thee, &c. The Nation of the Kingdome that will not serue thee, shall perish, and those Nations shall be vtterly destroyed, the glory of Lebanon shall come vnto thee, the firre, the elme, the boxe, to beautifie the place of my sanctuarie, for I will glorifie the place of my feete. The sonnes of them that afflicted thee, shall come and bowe vnto thee, all they that despised thee, shall fall downe at the soules of thy feete, &c: Thou shalt sucke the milke of the Gentiles, thou shalt sucke the breastes of Kings, &c.

That the Reader may be yet better satisfied. Flacius Iilyri­cus In claui scripturae. diuideth glory to be two folde, the one of God, the other of men: and as for the glory of God, it cannot be vnderstood [Page 50] in this place, but of men onely; because hee speaketh one­ly of the glory of the Ministers of the olde and new Testa­ments, which were onely men. Againe, hee diuideth the glory of men, either into that which is eternall in heauen, or temporall vpon the earth: but the latter onely is vnderstood, because it is the glory of the ministery, which ministery is temporall, and must cease after this life, euen as also then faith and hope must cease, onely loue must indure. Third­ly, he diuideth this temporall glory of men, into gloriam fame 1. Cor. 13 & bonitatis rei; the glory of wordes, and of matter and sub­stance, the glory of wordes or fame, which consisteth in the fame and good report of other men, which is chiefly in them which doe glorifie vs, and not in our selues which are glo­rified and magnified, but the glory which is not in wordes, but substance, which indeed is the cause why men doe praise and magnifie vs, is our riches, honour, authority, all out­ward ornaments, which stirre vp the outward senses, and mens affections, to admiration of our persons, places, and calling, is onely to be vnderstood in this place, as appeareth by these reasons. First, the glory of fame is defined by Illyri­cus, and also by Melancthon, in his common places, to be: Ap­probatio conscientiae nostrae rectè iudicantis, & al [...]crum rectè iudi­cantium: The testimony of a good conscience, approuing vs that we haue walked sincerely, and the report of other men, consenting in iudgement with vs, that wee haue so walked. But in that sense, wee cannot be more glorious then Aaron and Moses, and the Priestes of the old Testament, because they were men of as holy life as wee, and walked euery way as sincerely in their calling, as wee doe in our vocation, and were as pleasing to God, and as well approoued of Gods people as we be. Secondly, it were vnworthy of the Maie­sty of the holy Ghost, to play the so phister in this place, and to vse aequiuocation of the word glory, as if by their glory and ours, he did not vnderstand one and the same thing: for then it were no iust comparison. For the things which be compared together, must agree in that thing in which they [Page 51] be cōpared: therfore, being cōpared in glory, they must agree in the same glory; only they must differ secundū magis & mi­nus, being compared not in the positiue, but in the compara­tiue degreee, one must be more glorious then another. So then, the glory of one being outward in pompe and state, the glory of the other must also be so, but in a greater mea­sure.

Thirdly, if some men should be so ignorant as to say, that the glory of our ministery consisteth in this, that it is the mi­nistery of the spirit, of life, of righteousnesse, and of that which must remaine. I answer; that cannot be, for then the glory of the ministery of the olde Testament, should con­sist in letters, death, condemnation, &c: but that is disproued by the text it selfe, which sheweth that these things were the subiect of that ministery, but the glory consisted in the brightnesse of Moses his face: therefore I say; spirit, life, righteousnesse, are the subiect of our ministery, and not the glory of it: & the cause why it ought to be so much the more glorious then the old priesthood was. Fourthly, if we con­sider the scope and drift of Saint Paul in that place, it was to magnifie himselfe, and credit his calling, that so it might not be brought into contempt, as poore and beggarly, which were inglorious. For, saith thee: Doe wee beginne to praise our selues? Neede we as some other, an epistle of commendation? Hee answereth: that hee needeth not to commend himselfe, hee needeth not mans commendation to credite his ministery, for as much as his calling is of sufficient credite of it selfe, and his owne person credited by it three manner of waies. First, by the Corinthians themselues, to whom hee did minister. Secondly, by that which was inward in his mi­nistery, as spirit, life, righteousnesse. Thirdly, by that which was outward, and apparent to the eye, and that was glorie.

Now, lest any man should obiect out of Saint Chryso­stome, Theophilactus, Aquinas, and others, that in their interpre­tation of that place of Saint Paul, they affirme that the [Page 52] glory of his ministery, was no such glory as was visible and subiect to outward senses. I confesse that when Saint Paul wrote that epistle, it was not so of fact, although it was so of right. It could not be then outwardly glorious, by reason of the present persecution, the ministery of the Gospel being not established by Princes. Therefore the Apostle spake not so much of the glory which then was, as of that which in the peace and prosperity of the Church, should afterward be, when the world was conuerted. For his words are these: P [...]s o [...]ch [...] mallon e diaconia tou pneumatos estai en doxe? how shall not the ministration of the spirit bee more glorious? where hee speaketh in the future tence, as of a thing in due time to be performed, and not present. And therefore, where he speaketh in the present tence in the next verse; Pollo mal­lon perisseu [...]i e diaconia tes dicaiosunes en doxe; much more doth the ministration of righteousnesse exceede in glory, as it is a figure called enalloge temporis, where one tense is vsed for another, as it appeared by the euent (which is the best in­terpreter of all prophecies) when the riches, authority, and outward pompe of the Church was increased. And yet it cannot be said, that the ministery of the Gospel was without outward glory, in the extreamest pouerty of the Church, for as much as the Apostles at Ierusalem had all the riches of the Church layed at their feete, and at their owne dispositi­on; and when worldly promotion was most of all wan­ting, they had the gift of working miracles, which was a grea­ter glory and countenance to their ministery, then any Kings or earthly meanes could giue vnto them. St. Peter, his sha­dow was more glorious and more honoured then the body and person of any Prince. Saint Pauls napkins and hand­kerchers, and such like ragges which came from his bo­dy, Act. 5. Act. 93. were of more account then the purple robes, and golde and siluer of earthly Kings. And this gift of working miracles, continued as the portion and in­haeritance of Christ his Ministers, vntill they ob­teined peace, and so were indewed with worldely [Page 53] possessions, and honours, which were to countenance their ministerie in the place of miracles which did cease. So that still the ministery of the Gospell was outwardly glorious and honourable, not vile, abiect, or contemptible. The Lord of his mercy continue the state of it vnto his own glory, to the worlds end.

Amen.

To come to the MINOR, in which he indeuoureth to proue that the Crosse is an idoll.

HE writeth for a marginall note in capitall letters, THE PROOFE OF THE MINOR: because in his owne conceit it is already proued. But for the proofe of it, he onely alleageth the authority of Bellarmine, Potiformus, Hart, Costerus, Aquinas, being Papists, which hold that the signe of the Crosse is to bee worshipped with diuine wor­ship, and ascribe to it diuine power. And grant all this to be true, that the Papists worship the Crosse, & ascribe so much to it. I answer as before, it toucheth not our signe of the Crosse in Baptisme, which ascribe no such thing vnto it. Therfore nothing is here alleaged by him for the confirma­tion of the MINOR, which is not already by vs answered and refuted sufficiently, in the confutation of the MAIOR.

The author now commeth to his Ob: & Sol: and in our be­halfe obiecteth, that our Crosse is ne (que) numero ne (que) vsu, the same Crosse which was among the Papists, neither yet vsed a­mong vs as it was vsed among thē The validity of this obiecti­on in our behalfe, wee shew to be of as great validity on our side, as it was for the tribes of Ruben, Gad, and halfe Ma­nasses on their side, which being chalenged by their brethren for suspiciō of idolatry whē they erected an altar, which as it was not numero, so they answered it was not vsu, such an altar as they suspected it to be: which answer cōtented the Iews, & might as well satisfy our brethren, if they were as charitable.

But let vs examine the answer he maketh to this obiection. When (saith he) God commanded his people to breake downe the images of the heathen, and to extinguish the very name of them, they could not haue performed that charge, if they had burnt all the idolls of Canaan, and made others new of the same forme, though to another vse not idolatrous: so cannot we discharge our [Page 68] duties, if hauing defaced the Popish idolls, wee erect them new in our Church, though not to worship; because it cannot be without breach of the commandement: Babes, keep your selues from idolls. So farre disputeth the maker of the syllogisme, in our behalfe. But, because it may be verified of vs, which was saide of the blinde man who receiued his sight; aetatem habet, prò se respon­deat, we are old enough to answer for our selues; we will an­swer our own selues for our selues, we craue no helpe of our aduersary, but we will shew the vnsufficiency of this answer two maner of waies. First, he hath dig [...]essed from his matter, because the subiect of this disputation is an humane ordi­nance become an idoll, whereas he instanceth in humane or­dinances which are not become idolls, but which originally were idolls, and erected by infidells to this end, that they should be worshipped: for that was to the imitation of the heathen people, & this is not so. And, according to this kinde of disputation, he might as well impose a necessity vpon vs, of suppressing all our parish Churches, as the Brownists do; because they were not onely the Popes ordinance, but also ordeined for the celebration of the Masse, and so imployed from their first erection, vntill this late reformation of the Church. For, according to Gods commandement, not one­ly the idolls their selues were to bee put downe, but also the altars, groues, and high places, where the idolatry was com­mitted, and the Priests which did offer the sacrifices, all they being abhominable as the idoll it selfe. Secondly, in that he taketh it pro concesso, as a thing granted, that the Crosse is an idoll, it is but a begging of the question, as before I haue shewed; because it is not yet proued, that the signe of the crosse is an idol among vs: neither doth it follow, that if with the Papists it were so; therfore with vs it is so, no more then because their bread in the sacramēt is an idol, therfore ours is also an idoll. That only numero which is worshipt is an idol; for y^e author cōfesseth, wher there is no worship ther cā be no idol.

That we may proceede farther. For as much as the signe of the Crosse, like the bread in the Lords Supper, in the be­ginning was free from superstition, & the abuse of it which grew after, is remoued by vs, why may not the one continue [Page 69] among vs as well as the other without any such slanderous imputation of idolatry? His answer is; because one is an hu­mane ordinance, and the other diuine, as the brasen serpent which being an humane ardinance when it was abused, was defaced by E­zechias. To which wee reply, that neither the signe of the Crosse is an humane ordinance, as before wee haue shewed, neither might an humane ordinance bee vsed though not an idoll, by his own doctrine, neither an idoll, though at the first it were a diuine ordinance, neither was that brasen serpent an humane ordinance, as by the text it appeareth: For the Lord said to Moses, make thee a serpent, and set it vp for a signe, that as many as are bitten may looke vpon it, and liue; So Moses made a ser­pent Numb: 21. 8. of Brasse, &c. And, whereas he alledgeth out of Tertulli­an: horum si legem postules scripturarum, nullam inuenies, that we haue no warrant out of the Scripture; it is to be vnderstood that according to Tertullian we haue no expresse commande­ment out of holy writ to vse the signe of the Crosse particu­larly in baptisme, and therefore we hold it as a thing indiffe­rent, whether it be vsed or omitted, yet we haue an example of signing with the signe of the crosse out of Ezechiel as I haue alledged, to shew that man is not the first deuiser of it, but that man followeth gods example: so thē albeit we haue not legem aut praecaptum, a law or cōmandement to impose vpon vs the vse of the crosse, yet we haue an exāple to shew that God was the first author of it. And againe, authoritas in negatiuis non va­let, it followeth not that because the Scriptures make no men­tion of Melchisedech his father, therefore hee had no father: or because the Scriptures commend Ioseph for a iust man, and make no mention of his sinnes, that therefore he had no sinnes as Rodolphus Agricola in his Topics obserueth out of S. Augustin. All things necessarie to saluation, are expresly set downe in the holy Scriptures, but this is a matter indifferent, & no way concerning the state of our saluation.

Now he cōmeth with his coleworts twice sodden, & repea­teth that which he hath so often said before: that the crosse is become an idoll, and therefore not fit to be vsed in the seruice of Ie­houa, which because it is but a tautalogy, or repetition of the same thing, I refer this obiection to the answere made before. [Page 70] And farther, to presse vs with more vnthruthes, hee al­ledgeth that it is retained among vs with opinion very superstiti­ous and erroneous, because in our 30. Canon ecclesiasticall, wee read these words: That the child is dedicated by it, to the seruice of him that dyed vpon the crosse, which (he saith) is to equal the or­dinance of man, with the ordinance of God, to ascribe that vnto the Crosse which is due vnto Baptisme, such an absurditie, as no water can cleanse it. To which I answere: that which cannot be washed away by water, may bee auoided by distinction.There are two sortes of dedication to the seruice of him that died vpon the Crosse, one actiue, the other significatiue, action is due to Baptisme, but signification after the act is ended, is ascribed to the signe of the Crosse, because the mini­stration of Baptisme dedicateth them, and the signing of the Crosse signifieth, that they are already dedicated vnto that ser­uice, but there is the difference betweene the work it selfe, and the declaration or testifying of the worke after it is finished, when Baptisme being ended, we make a solemne declaration of it vnto the people. Farther, this syllogiser saith: we vse not the signe of the Crosse as Augustine, Cyprian, and Chrysostome did, which vsed it to consecrate the elements, and not to crosse the chil­dren, but referred that to the Bishoppes confirmation, as if wee were necessarily tyed to followe their example, or as, if be­cause they did that, we might not doe this, or as if because they did that, therefore they did not this: or as if the signe of the Crosse were not as effectual to liuing children which are mē ­bers of the body of Christ, as to dead elements to whom the merits of the Crosse & sufferings of Christ doe no way ap­pertaine: or as if it were not as lawfull for the minister to vse the crosse in baptisme, as it was for the Bishop to vse it in cō ­firmation, or the signe were lesse effectuall in the one then in the other. But, let vs examine his proofes by which he confir­meth his assertion, that the Fathers vsed not the crosse in bap­tisme. First he saith by way of anticipation, that this place of Tertullian: The flesh is washed, that the soule may be purged: the De resur­restione caruis. flesh is annointed, that the soule may be consecrated: the flesh is sig­ned, that the soule may be guarded, may as wel be referred to con­firmation as to Baptisme.And, I retort it againe vpon him, [Page 71] that it may be as indifferently vnderstood, of baptisme as of confirmation. But saith he: the fathers describing the forme of baptisme did make no mention of it in baptisme. To which I an­swer, Martyr in defens: ad Antoninū Tertul: de Baptismo, et coronâ mil [...]tis. that the Crosse is no part of the forme or essence of bap­tisme, but onely the word and the element, neither is it vsed vntill the sacrament be finished, and therefore no meruaile though describing the forme of baptisme they made no men­tion of the Crosse, therefore this negatiue argument cannot o­uerthrow the vse of the Crosse. And yet, that the Fathers did vse to signe them with the Crosse which were baptized, it is euident by their owne words: for Tertullian saith in these ge­neral Dè coronâ cap: 3. termes: ad omnem progressum atquè promotum, ad omnem aditum atqùe exitum, ad vest [...]tum, ad calciatū, ad lauacra, ad meu­sas, ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quaecun (que) nos conuersatio ex­ercet, frontem crucis signaculo terimus, that in his time, at their goings out & commings in, when they put on their clothes, their shooes. when they wash or eate, or light the candle, at their lying downe, or sitting vp, whatsoeuer they doe, they signe their forheads with the signe of the Crosse. And Cyril­lus Hierosolymit saith: Non pudeat igitur nos crucifixum confiteri, Cyrillus sed in fronte confidentèr signaculum crucis digitis imprimatur, & in alijs omnibus crux fiat. That wee may not be ashamed to confesse Christ crucified, we signe our forheads confidently, and in all other actions we make the Crosse. And S. Ierō saith: Heiron: Epist: 22. Ad omnem actum & progressuus manus crucem pingit, whatso­euer we doe we make a Crosse. The conclusion followeth out of their assertions, that if in their dayes, in all actions the crosse was vsed and the forheads signed, then a Crosse was made vpon their forheads which were Baptized.

As for our signing with the Crosse, we doe it after Baptis­me is finished, to shew that we adde nothing to Gods institu­tion, & that we thinke so honourably of that ordinance, that it needeth no addition, to cleare our selues of that iniust imputa­tion which is laid vpon vs, of adding vnto it. And therefore, whereas hee alledgeth that the praying and crossing are one continuall action of the administration of the Sacrament, and that by our selues the Crosse is called signum crucis in Baptis­mo, the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme. I answer: Baptisme is [Page 72] taken two manner of waies, for the sacrament it selfe, simply and barely considered in its own nature & essence, consisting onely of the element and word, and as in the holy Scriptures it is set down & comended vnto vs, & so Signum crucis est ex­trà the signe of the Crosse is no part of baptisme, nor any ad­dition vnto it: or else it is taken, Prò sacrame [...] v [...]â cùm singu­lis baptismū concōitantibus, for the action, together with all solē ­nities which mā hath appointed for the celebritie of the acti­on, & so, not onely the Crosse, but also the prayers which are vsed, and preaching, which are not cōmanded by the Scrip­ture, are extra baptismum, no part of baptisme, and yet may be called preces lectae in baptismo, prayers which are read in bap­tisme, and so concio habi [...]a in baptismo, a Sermon made at Bap­tisme, so crux in baptismo the Crosse in Baptisme, though nei­ther of them are held for any part of Baptisme, and therefore by them no violence is offred to the diuine ordinance.

We conclude, This signing with the signe of the Crosse, hath beene commended to vs from antiquitie of the primi­tiue Church, to shew that it is not a noueltie of 60. yeares old, as this syllogiser hath obiected, neither doe we alledge anti­quitie as though we did groūd vpon bare antiquitie without reasō, but we alledg antiquity against the nouelty of thē which slaunder vs, shewing that antiquitie in points of Religion is to be preferred before nouelty. And, to his reply which asketh why we doe not also giue vnto them which are Baptized, milke & hony? why we doe not vse the signe of the Crosse with opinion of ver­tue and efficacy as the ancient Fathers did? and ascribe that vnto it which antiquitie did? I answer: the argument doth not follow that, because we doe colliger [...] vuas, gather grapes: therfore we may not cauerespinas, take heed of being pricked with thorns, 1. Thes. 5. 21. but we must first by the Apostles rule omnia probare proue all things, & thē quod benum [...]ct tenere retaine that which is good. And if ther be any which think baptisme vnauailable without the crosse, insomuch as that they rebaptize when the crosse is omitted, as this syllogisme maker alledgeth, the fault is in their superstiti­on, and not in our religion, which teach the contrary by our canons, and punish such offenders by our lawes.