A Second Reply to an Answer Made by Doctor Whitgift Part 2

TO THE READER.

ACcording unto my promise, yovu have here the residvu of my reply, unto the Doctors answer. Of the late appearing whereof, yt will not be vneasy to conjecture: if both the distance whereby I am removed from yovu, and the alterations in the place where I remained, be remembered. In me verily, the cause was not: which more then a year ago, had brovught yt in a manner, to the redines which yt was in, when yt began to be printed▪

But, considering the great enmytie against the cavuse, with some displeasure against myself: some will (peradventure) say, that I have rather need to seek excuse, why I set yt forth at all, then so late. To vuhome I would yt were ansvuered, that for the cause yt self: I never fear, least yt should come to often, into the field. For, although throvugh the poverty of the defenders thereof, she come never so naked and unarmed: yet the lord hath set such a majesty in her countenance, that as with one of her eyes, she rauisheth into her love, those which are desirous of the trvuth in this behalf: so with the other, she so astonisheth her enemies, as if they were cast into a dead sleap: in such sort, that the stovutest of them, when they come to the fight, cannot find their hands.

Uuhome I admonish, and beseech also in gods behalf, that hovusoeuer they have hitherto, been overtaken by the adversary: they would novu at the last withdraw their foot, and those that have been Standerd bearers herein, not only to retire them selves, but to blovu the retire also unto others. Let yt be enovugh for them, to have stumbled at the truth, least if they run them selves against yt, in stead of thinking that they have to do with men and with vuordes, they meet with Christ himself: at vhome (as at a rok) they shall vurake them selves myserably, upon vuhome also, if any come proudly, the same stone vuilfal, and break them all to fitters: to their both deepest, and moste remediles condemnation. For hovu gloriously soever men speak of the sun of god: yet they all (no dovut) rush them selves upon him, that rush them selves upon his word. Let them therefore in time look unto yt, that they give place unto the rok for the rok will give none to them: and assure them selves, that their heels will sooner ache with kicking against the prik, then yt in receiving their broken and strenghtles resistance. Uuhich, as in assurance of the trvuth maintained by us, I propound unto them: so, if in building upon this golden foundation of the church discipline, there hath escaped any stubble or hey of mine: I will (god willing) not forget the same admonition, to be a lavu unto myself, to bring the first fire, to consume yt with.

Novu when the truth, by this trial, getteth ground: the displeasure against myself, is no sufficient cause, to withdraw my hand, from this defense. For, when the compass of our love tovuards god, must be moten by the thread of our affection tovuards his truth: I see not, hovu I could persvuade myself, to have to the quantity of a grain of mustard seed, of trvu love tovuards him: if unto the trvuth laboring and travailing in this point, I should deny my simple help. And verily, yt were a deintynes and dilicacy intolerable, if I should not afourd, the loss of a little ease and commodity unto that, where unto my life yt self, if yt had been asked, was dvu: if I should grudge, to dvuel in another korner of the world for that cavuse, for the which, I ought to be ready, altogether to depart out of yt: finally, if I should think much, to witness with a little ink and paper that, which numbres, in other places, have already witnessed with their blood.

Uuhereunto serveth, that yt is not the least part of my comfort, that in this vacation from the ministry: the lord hath not suffered me, to be altogether idle: but employed me if not in griffing and setting, which are the mastervuorkes, yet in hedging and ditching abovut the Orchard of his church purchased with his moste precious blood.

Last of all, I assure myself, that the same cavuse which hath brovught this displeasure: is able (if need be) to set me in favor again. Uuherof, I would little do vut: if yt might come to answer before them, before vuhome, yt hath been so unworthily accused. Alcibiades, vuhē one lifted up his staf, ready to smyte him, if he would not hold his peace: trusting unto the vertvu of the truth, Smite (saith he) so that yovu hear. Uuhen therefore these human trvuthes, being propounded, notvuithstanding all oppositions, by reason of former praeiudices, in the end find favor, and have a resting place: hovu much more, the heavenly trvuth, sanctified and sealed by the blood of the sun of god, shall at the length have the gates opened unto her. I grant, there is greater resistance unto this holy trvuth, then unto other common and human: but he that is autor and mainteiner of all trvuth, dravueth a great deal deeper, when he shooteth forth this arrovu, then when he sendeth forth the other. And thus much for answer to them, which, not misliking the cavuse, may for that ether (in their judgment) I strive against the stream, or else for that I deprive myself of commodities, which I might othervuise enjoy: esteem my labor, out of season.

Sauing the table, where the greater letter is the Doctors: the variety of letters is the same, and to the same end, which yt was in the former part of this book: where the reader may take his direction. Of vuhome, as before I craved prayer, for the lords assistance: so novu I desire, that thanks may be given unto him, for all that, wherein he shall understand yt, to have been with me.

AN ANSWER TO THE RESIDVE of the surmises: as they are comprehended, in the D. tvuo tables.

In the first Table.
• The eight, is ansvuered, 248, 249, 250, 251.
• The tenth is ansvuered, 173.
• The eleventh, 138, &c.
• The tvuelfth, 145, &c.
• The thirtinth, 191, 192, 193.
• The sixtinth is unworthy any answer: seeing yt is manifest, that all those which have right to be baptezed, ought to be holden of the visible church, or family of god, where of the question is: as yt is further declared, by the examination of the D. censures.
• The seuentinth is maintained, touching papists childrē, 142. And there is the same reason, of the children of the excommunicate, which remain obstinate.
• The eightinth is ansvuered, 64, 65.
• The ninetinth, 64, &c.
• The tvuentith, 164, 165, 166, 167. For answer, unto the one and tvuētithe: I refer myself partly to that I have ansvuered in the former part, partly to the examination of the D. censures.

In the second Table.
• For the 38, and 39: I refer myself, to the examination of the D. censures.
• The 40, is ansvuered 132, and 219.
• The 41, is confessed.
• The 42, is ansvuered, 230.
• The 43, p. 67.
• The 44, p. 85.
• The 45, p. 85.
• The 46, p. 87.
• The 47, p. 90.
• The 48, p. 96.
• The 49, p. 157.
• The 50, in the former part.
• The 51, p. 262.

Fautes escaped.

Page 18, line 30, read may as. pag. 255, line 32, read three first. pag. 26, l. 23 & 24, also pag. 27, l. 6. for the small, understand the great running letter. Correct the number of the leaf, wich is marked beneth, with the letter N, immediately following the number 96.

AGAINST CIUIL OFFICES, IN ECCLESIASTICAL PERSONS: TRActate VII, and 23 according to the Doctor.

HAving in the last Tractate of the former part, shown the unlawful dominion of certain of our church officers, over the whole church, and especially over their fellow Ministers: yt seemeth good, to join this next thereunto. For thereby shall both better appear how unsufferable this disorder is, which ouerspreadeth both church and common wealth: and the government by the Eldership (the tractate whereof shall follow immediately) in yt self just, shall by comparison with this church lordship, be more justified.

That the moste of the places quoted by the Admonit. are used of vuriters of that excellency, with vuhome the D. is not worthy to be named the same day: hath, and further will appear. His exception, that by this, they are lifted up above god himself: is vain. For, beside that it is a kind of speech used of the best authors, to note a great inequality: he is les worth, then I prised him at, if he think that he is worthy to be named the same day that god himself is. For if he will so servilely cleau unto words: yet the question is, whether he be worthy, to be named, not (as he writeth) whether he may be named.

The place of S. Luke, is understanded properly of the Ministers of the word: and not of all Christians, which is manifest, for that our Savior Christ biddeth him, that would have goen back for burial of his father, to preach the Kingdom of heaven, which he never commanded to all Christians: so that his meaning is of the calling unto the ministry, and not of the calling to eternal life. That such civil offices as he alloweth in Ecelesiastical persons, are helps for them to do their duties, repeated seven times: is a demanding of that in question. For, where after he saith, he hath declared yt: he saith untruly, he hath only nakedly affirmed yt: which how untrue it is, shall after also appear.

My reply is that our Savior Christ's vocation, was to be a Minister of the gospel, but he refused civil judgment because of his vocation: therefore he refused it, because he was a Minister of the gospel. whereupon also followeth, that Bishops being Ministers of the gospel: owght not to receive, any such power. See now how justly he complaineth, that I answer not to that he said, that Christ's refusal in the partition of the inheritans, pertaineth no more to Bishops then to Kings: no mervail also, if it require further answer, it was so well guarded: seeing his reason ys, because the doeinges of Christ be a pattern for all Christians: then which, there can be nothing more absurd. For although all his doeinges, be instruction to all Christians: yet that they are a pattern to them all, draweth with it, that all may preach, that none may give judgment in civil causes, and a number more horrible confusions: yt being also a falls ground of popery, whereby they would establish the lenton fast, and other such corruptions.

Where also he would give to understand, that our Sa. Christ did refuse this, not as a Minister of the gospel, but as Redemer: he renteth a sunder things, which cannot be separated. For one part of his redemership, standeth in that he was given of god unto us, for a teacher: so that, if he would have answered anything in this kind, he must have said, that he refused to judge of civil causes, not as a Minister of the word, but as a Priest, or King, whereof also the last, he in part setteth down: saying he refused yt, to declare that his Kingdom was not earthly, but heavenly: as if it were not as necessary, for him to refuse it in respect of his Doctorship, that he might declare likewise, that his doctrine was not of earthly things, but of heavenly: and consequently, as convenient in the same respect, for the Ministers to abstain from it. But the further confutation of this, the reader shall take from thence, where is shown, that our Sa. Christ, by his own example, calleth the Apostles and, in them, all the Ministers of the word, from all pomp and dominion: and therefore from these civil offices, whereunto pomp and dominion are annexed.

Then he answereth, that no man giveth the Bishops authority to judge in matters of inheritans: whereas our Sa. Christ, refused it not, because he was no Judge of that cause, but simply because he was no civil Judge: refusing upon the same ground, to give sentence of the harlot. The Ministers (for sooth) may not medle with civil occupations, but with civil offices: and in civil offices, not with them of no countenance, as the Iailers office &c, but with those of estate: and amongst those of estate, not with matters of inheritance but with criminal causes. Thus, yow take yourself license, to say all things, and to show none. But to leave the rest unto another place, let the D. show some reason, why the Minister should rather sit in judgment of criminal causes, then in pleas of inheritans: they both belong to the Magistrate alike, if he owght to accept one, being committed unto him by the Magistrate, why not also the other: especially, when as by criminal causes, (requiring more search and greater diligence then the other) there must needs be greater hindrance from his ministry. As for that he saith, those are to be decided by law, and have other Judges appointed for them: the criminal causes are likewise. And if there were no other Judges appointed for them: yet, whether there owght to be, is the question: so that the D. answer, is here an open demand of the question. Where also owt of M. Calvin, he alledgeth Barnard, that the Ministers power is in crimes: it is a shameful abusing, of both Calvin and Barnard. for they speak there of rebuking and punishing syn, by ecclesiastical censures: which is manifest, in that they convey the title of this power, to the Minister, by the Keies delivered unto S. Peter. now the very word of Keies, especially with this addition, given unto S. Peter: telleth all men, that the power there spokē of, is spiritual, and not civil. And here the D. is directly against himself. For before, in this very division, saying that this judgment in civil causes is not incident, but added to the ministry: here he pretendeth owt of Barnard, that civil judgment in criminal causes, is of the power and jurisdiction of the Ministers.

And if it be true that he saith after, the pastor must use such discipline, as seemeth good to the Magistrate: when the Magistrate ordeineth civil discipline only, ether that discipline must be incident to the pastorship, or else in such a time, there shall be a Pastor of god, which hath no discipline incident into his office: seeing the ecclesiastical discipline, which is taken (by his judgment) from him laufully, is not incident: so that this idle distinction goeth flat to the ground. I cal it idle, because it maketh nothing to the question: which is not, whether a Minister may bear civil office, in that respect that he is a Minister, but whether he may bear it at all. And of this sort also is, that our Bishops break not violently into these offices, but receive them of the Princes gift: whereas our question is, whether he may receive these offices when they be given: yet hath he used this distinction, at the least, five times.

After is added, that it is committed to them by the Magistrate, for fuller satisfying of their duty: if so, why should not all the Ministers alike have this power, to the end, that all might do their duties the better. Again, in saying that it is necessary for this time: yow openly wrest this power, owt of the Magistrates hand. For thereby it followeth, that the Magistrate of duty, owght to commit this unto them: and if he do not, he is guilty of gods wrath, in leaving vndoen, that which is necessary to be done. yow do also open injury to the holy ghost, which is thus supposed to have left that in the liberty of the Magistrate, which is necessary for the accomplishing of the ministry: whereas, if it had been necessary, there had been also nothing more easy, then to have given this general rule, that always under a Christian Magistrate, the Minister should be armed with civil authority. But this succor which yow seek in the time, is Pighius shift: as is also this whole cause, and the flower of your arguments. For he saith, As long as the church was in persecutiō, all were obedient unto their Pastors, hovu simple or base so ever the Ministers were: but after that the church came to have prosperity, then it was needful, that Bishops should be magnifical also, to the end they might be more apt, to govern the magnifical Princes: and that otherwise his power and authority should not be sufficiently reverenced. To whom, as unto the D. it is easy to answer, that if Kings and Princes, being yet in deadly hatred against the gospel, were brought by the ministry of the word, vnaccompanied with any such pomp or jurisdiction, to yield them selves unto the gospel, and to give due reverence unto the ministry: how much more now, being friends, will they be kept in duty and convenient estimation thereof, without this disguising of the ministry.

That alleged out of Calvin, that every man must respect his own vocation &c. beside that it is drawn cleā from the mind of the autor, it is absurdly applied. For the application, affirmeth it meet for the vocatio of the Minister, that he should bear civil office: which is that in question. And where he saith, Calvin speaketh nothing against these civil offices in ecclesiastical persons, and after, that nether he nor any godly man, can disallow of yt: he giveth suspicion that he hath sold himself to speak untruth, without all chek of conscience. For Calvin showeth, that albeit the godly Princes, giving these offices to church men, had a good intent: yet, that they did evil provide thereby for the church, considering that by it was corrupted, or rather utterly brovught to no vught, all true and ancient sincerity, and that, the Bishops if they had had a spark of grace, would when they were offered such offices, have ansuuered, that the armor of their vuarfare, is not carnal but spiritual. Here again also, he is owt with himself. For in the end of his book, albeit the shifts he useth are to rowgh hewed: yet, when he cometh to Calvin, in this matter void of all shift, he is constrained to reject his authority. If he have nothing against him, why doeth he make so small account of him, as for nothing to cast him of: if he be against him, why doeth he here deny it. And as I have alleged M. Calvin, and some others: so the learned know that a number moe might be brought, to the making up of a book: but for him, beside the papists (as I am verily persuaded) scarce one so bold an enemy of the truth, as to commit this to writing.

Against the plain meaning of the Apostle, opened in flat words, verses 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. of Rom. 12. here is nothing but your surely, and certain: which I will suffer to have that credit, it can get, against so manifest light. Your argument, is the same which I have said. The Bishop must govern with discipline, therefore with civil discipline: your answer that he must use discipline prescribed by the Magistrate, whether civil or ecclesiastical, is an asking of that in question.

The answer to the place of Timothy, that it is spoken of all Christians indifferently merely faced out with the name of Calvin: is Pighius answer, to the protestants. And it is confuted, in that S. Paul instructeth Timothy there, not as a simple Christian, but as a Minister of the gospel: in that also he borrowed this speech of the law, which calleth the ministry a souldiarfare: thirdly in that the same Apostle in other places giveth this title of souldiarship, and fellow souldiarship, to those of the ministry. Beside that it flatly condemneth Cyprian, as an abuser of the place: who by vertw hereof, forbiddeth a Minister an Executorship, which, by the D. ether is not forbidden him, or else is forbid̄ to all Christians alike. And not only Cyprian is condemned, but Ambrose and Jerome which use it, as the admonition: Beside Bucer and other godly writers of our time, as appeareth by Pighius answer. The reason whereby Pighius and he, would show it understanded of all Christians alike, is this. Al Christians be spiritual soldiers: S. Paul speaketh of spiritual soldiers: therefore he speaketh of all Christians: concluding affirmatively in the second figure, which is to open a faut. where yow should understand, that although Christianity be a kind of spiritual warfare: yet, it followeth not, that every spiritual warfare, is Christianity. Your answer to Cypriā, whereby yow would restrein his judgment to the Executorship, and not suffer it to have place in civil offices: is frivolous, and flatly against his words, which saith that it was decreed in a Council, that the Minister should only serve the altar, and the sacrifices, and give them selves to prayer. Your reason is as fond, that the executorship is more troublesome then to bear civil office, because sometime temporal men (as yow cal them) do refuse it: as if therewere not, which refused other civil offices, for the same cause. The reply to the next division, the reader may take, owt of the former part of my book.

The exception out of the Coloss. that wives must obey their husbands in the lord: doeth not hinder, but that the place to the Thessa. may put a difference betvuene the civil and ecclesiastical government. For S. Paul (as the Hebrews do the preposition • ) useth the preposition (In) diversely. where therefore he willeth the Thessalonians to acknovulegd those, which were set over them in the lord, he meaneth, in things pertaining unto the lord: but when he willeth the wives, to obey their husbands in the lord, he meaneth, that they should do it, no further then is agreeable unto the will of god: not that he would restrein their obedience, only to such things as pertein to the kingdom of heaven, as the words be taken in the other place.

In saying, that although the godly Magistrate ruleth in the lord over us, yet that this title is given by excellency unto the ecclesiastical officers: I do not daly; it is the distinction of the doly Gost himself. For, albeit they that handle common wealth matters, serve the lord, and do things tending to his glory: yet the scripture comparing both these governments together, giveth this title, as a note to discern the ecclesiastical officers from the civil, as appeareth in the Chronicles from whence (it is like) the Apostle toke this manner of speech. The reason whereof is: for that civil governments are not so nighly, nor so immediately referred unto the glory of god, as are the ecclesiastical. Beside that this reproach is against M. Calvin, and Beza: who upon that place of the Thessal. ground the same distinction. I grant, there be some things common to both the governments, as be also to things diverse, yea contrary: but in confessing the civil government distinguished from the ecclesiastical, and yet affirming certain civil offices common to both, yow speak wthout all sense. For, where that which should agree, owght to be a third thing from the ecclesiastical and civil power: yow make one of these two, to agree to them selves.

And although he still rubbeth upon this, that civil offices, such as he meaneth, are not only no hinderans, but a help for the Bishop to do his office: yet he can never be brought to express, what those offices be. For he feareth partly, that the confutation will be a great deal easier: partly least, if he should prik high, he should draw his cause into the hatered of all, if he should fallow, he should not serve their appetite, to whom he would, peradventure, offer unto in this cause.

It is in deed a good reason, as the cours of this disputation doeth declare: they must exercise ecclesiastical discipline, therefore not civil: they must have the spiritual sword of corrections always in their hand, therefore not the civil: unless they can hold, and beweld two swords at once: and unless the two hāded sword of the word of god, occupiyng both their hands, they have a third hand, for the civil.

To the next I answer, as unto the seventh diuis. As for the answer which he asketh to his untrue surmise, of the Admonit. abbridging the Magistrates authority, seeing it is so often, and of no not only cause, but not so much as occasiō, as a thing unworthy once to loke back for, I quietly pas by: albeit this untruth hath, and shall (god willing) after generally appear.

To that I alleged, of the difficulty and multitude of duties, which the ministry of the word doeth lay upon the Bishop, of one side, and of the weakness of man's nature, of the other, thereby to bind the Bishop from reaching owt his hand to other functions: he saith, that this had had likelihood, if he should exercise a function, contrary to the ecclesiastical. Of this sort, are also these profess alleged other where: that they may exercise both jurisdictions, because they tend both to one end, that is to the maintenance of religion, reformation of manners, and punishment of syn. where the reader may see, that the distinction which he churmeth after so painfully, will not come. As if there were any lawful function, be it never so base, contrary to another lawful function: seeing that good cannot be contrary to good: nether are there any, which pertein not to the maintenance of religion. And the judgment of lands (which notwithstanding he confesseth unmeet for a Minister) pertaineth to reformation of manners, and punishment of syn: whilst that which is his, being given to everyone, the wrong doers are punished. Likewise is also the Princis office: so that, if he may receive all these callings, he may ether exercise all the offices and occupations in the land, or at the least moe then himself dare avouch. But the proverb shall thē be (as it is already) true in thē: that he which embraceth much, streyneth but a little. After he excepteth, that by this reason a Christiā man should be continually in spiritual meditation, and never medle with worldly affairs: which proceedeth of a great want. for as well (although not so principally) pertaineth it to the duty of every Christian, to have to do with worldly affairs: as at times convenient, to be occupied in spiritual meditation. And as the reason which I brought, hath not so much as the least seed of Anabaptism: so the D. answer, leadeth to plain monckery, whilst he placeth the whole duty of a Christian man in spiritual meditation. But, seeing yow imagine the Bishops, to be men of so great burden, that beside their church ministry, they be able to carry the civil office: answer me, how cometh it to pas, that they commit part of their own and proper office, unto Chancelors, Archdeacons &c, except they have more to do then they can do them selves? what a confusion is it, to turn over to others, things which (they say) belong properly to their office: and to take offices, which they confess, are not incident to their calling.

I alleged, that the Apostles of greater gifts, then can be hoped for of any, for accomplishment of the ministry of the word, gave over even that which they had received upon them, that is to say, the disposition of the church money, a thing merely ecclesiastical, and therefore that which might have been easilier joined with the ministry of the word, then a civil office. To this he answereth, the Apostles did both those charges before, and therefore that these offices may sometime meet: where, if he mean, they may meet now, it followeth not. For although they might meet, before the holy ghost, by the mouth of the Apost. made a several office of yt: yet they might not so afterward, when it was otherwise determined of, by the mouth of god. There were diverse kind of marriages, with consanguinity, as brother with sister, aunt with nevew &c lawful in the beginning▪ which, after that the lord had otherwise disposed of in the law were unlawful.

As for that owt of Calvin, and 2 Corinth 8, it is frivolous. For it never pertained to the Deacons office, to exhort for the contribution of the poor: but was, and is the Ministers of the word: the Deacons office being, to receive, and to distribute yt, in that church where he is Deacon. The causes also which he alledgeth, of the casting of of that office, and the business which the Deaconship did draw in that church of Jerusalem, are to trifle out the time: considering, that the decree of the Apostles, touching the new office, was general for all places, and not where there should be many poor, or so many thousand professors. what a boldness is it also, when the Scripture doeth plainly show, the cause of delivering them selves from this office, to have been, that they should not leave their ministry and that they might be continually upon it: to reject this cause, and to set up another, which the scripture giveth no ynkling of.

That they ordained others, for because they should go into the world, is also nothing worth: seeing that in some of them, it came not to pas diverse yeates after, and in other some, never: as those which were determined there to remain, when as notwithstanding, all desired this releas. Beside that, he answereth nothing to the inequality of gifts, between our Bishops and the Apostles: nor considereth not, that the Spiritual charge of our Bishop, is over moe now then there were then in Jerusalem: and that they were at that time twelu, where he is but one: had their church together, which he hath scartered.

I shown, that the Papists are not only condemned, for vuringing the civil authority ouut of Princes hands, but simply, for exercising it: and there fore this first section, is idle.

To that I alleged, that it is as monstrous for the Bishop to go from the pulpit, unto the place of civil judgment, as for my lord Major to go to the pulpit: he answereth, that it is not uncomely to go from the pulpit to civil administration of justice &c, which is a mere mockery of his reader. For not daring to deny, but it is uncomely for the lord Major: he answereth, by affirming that in question. For if he say, it is not uncomely for the lord Major to go to the pulpit, he runneth in to that, which he saith I surmise of him: where of notwithstanding I have not a letter. Albeit the truth is, that he may as well say, the Magistrate may minister the Sacrament and preach, which is the proper dwety of the Minister: as to say, the Minister of the word, may sit in judgment of civil causes, which is the proper dwety of the Magistrate. For, look what difference the lord hath set, between the office of the civil Magistrate, and of the Minister: the same must of necessity be between the office of the Minister, and of the Magistrate: as, there is the self same distance between Athens and Thebes, which is betuuene Thebes and Athens: and if there be a mile, from the top of the hill to the foot, it is as far from the foot, to the top.

And although, yt abhorring the eyes and ears of all, he is afraid here to affirm it comely, that the lord Major should preach and minister the sacraments: yet as a man whose judgment wasteth not by little and little, but is suddenly and at a clap taken away, he shameth not a little after to affirm, that the Prince may preach and the Bishop exercise civil office, if they be lawfully called thereunto. where, if by lawful calling, he understand a wonderful and extraordinary from heaven, he speaketh altogether from the cause, our question being whether a Minister by calling of the Magistrate, or a Magistrate by calling of the church, may enter upon eche others office. And if he mean by lawful calling, the ordinary calling then his answer is absurd. For he falleth into that absurdity, which the Papists do falsely surmise: that we give unto our Princes power to minister the Sacraments. yea by his diuinitye, which giveth the choice of the Bishops to the Prince alone, and which maketh it lawful for one to offer himself to the ministry: the king of the land may make himself Bishop, without waiting for the church is consent.

Upon that he alledgeth owt of M. Beza, which wisheth some of the nobility to be of the Eldership, compared with that which I affirm, that the Eldership is an ecclesiastical office: he concludeth, that ether I must dissent from M. Beza, or grant that one person may at once bear civil and ecclesiastical office. I answer, that nether is necessary. For, whereas Lordships, Baronryes and Erldomes are often ether by birth, or given of the Prince, as bare degrees of honor: such being of the church Eldership, do not therefore bear, both civil and ecclesiastical office: considering that they have no magistracy necessarily joined with them, further then the same is particularly committed. Albeit, having the Heluetian confession, I find no epistle of M. Beza's: so that, ether he mistaketh the place, or else hath some other edition, then I could get.

If the gentry and nobility of the realm, be (as yow confess) fitter to bear these offices, then ecclesiastical persons: there needed some great causes, to have been shown by yow, why the fittest should not be taken: otherwise the white of expedience, that churchmen should bear them, which yow threap of them, that they see, will be so dim, that both the Prince, and they passing by it, will (I hope (put down (as there calling serveth) this usurped power. In the mean season, it being so expedient a thing for the church, at yow pretend: the church is little behoulding to yow, that do not make this expedience to appear.

I said that if there fall a question to be decided by the word of god, and wherein the advise of the Minister is needful: that then his help, ouught to be required. The D. hereupon fathereth of me, that the magistrate may determine no weighty matter, without him: as if there were no weighty matter, wherein the Magistrate could know what is the will of god, without sending for the Minister: so that, it appeareth that there is no untruth so open, which finedeth not (as in a common Inn) lodging in the D. tongue. But else (saith he) wherefor are these words? therefore, forsooth, that where yow and others might, under color of the knowledge which he hath in the word of god, hold him the stirrup, to clime into the civil governments: it might appear, that the common wealth might reap that commodity, without such iumbling of offices together, which cause I expressed. The place of Deuteronomy, is faithfully alleged. That, before the lord, in diverse places, signifieth before the Ark, it is well known: that it doeth so here, first there is nothing against yt, thē the translation of vau by ( and ) rather then by ( that is to say ) is more used, albeit, whether it be or no, it maketh nothing to this matter. For, the weight of my allegation, lieth in this, that the handling of the matter, is appointed unto the Judges, not unto the Priests: whereunto, beside his bare affirmation, he answereth nothing Likewise is Ezra faithfully alleged: and that owt of Esr. 10. 4. 5. is nothing against it. For, although that matter of divorce pertained unto him, first, in respect that he should convince the people of their faut, secondly, in showing what was to be done in such a difficult case, where the Israelites had been so long married with strange we men forbidden, and begotten diverse children of them, and thirdly in the ecclesiastical censure of separation from the congregation, there mentioned: yet to sit in judgment of them, or by civil punishment to drive those, which would not willingly, is not shown to pertein unto him.

To the next division, wherein is shown that those which had only the light of nature, yea and were great extollers of man's ability, did yet see in part the incommodity, of this clapping of many offices upon one man's back: is answered nothing, but that which is confuted before. Of the uniformity of church government, partly hath been, and more shall, god willing, be said afterward.

Here the D. hath not a word of answer, his reason why he will not answer, for that it is a matter of policy, and not of divinity, doeth as it were, with one stroke of a pen, cross owt almost his whole book: where he hangeth all these church matters of the circumstance of time, place, person, and of the form of the common wealth. Nether doeth my reason, accuse the prince and the council which is, that if it were at liberty for Ministers, to execute that which pertaineth to the Magistrate, or the Magistrate to do that which belongeth to the Minister: yet, that the later, with us, ought rather to be done, then the first: for that there is a greater vuant of sufficient church men, then of able common wealth men. But as I altogether excuse none, from the highest to the lowest of us, which have continued this popish corruption so long: so I accuse especially yow, and such as yow are, which in steed of refusing them, and showing the unlawfulness of mingling them, gape after them, and are ready to proclaim war (as the Prophet saith) if yow durst unless by hurling in some morsel one or other, your mouths were stopped. And yt may be said of Princes, how godly soever other wise, which lift the Bishops into this honor, that is said of a wicked Emperor, which promoted them likewise: he honored the Priests, that they should be no Bishops, that is, that they should be unable, to do the office of a Bishop.

This worldly principality, entered not, as yow pretend, into the ministry, with the Christian Magistrate, immediately after the time of persecution: but long after. For, it began first at Alexādria in Cyrils time, and after entered into Rome. your answer also, to the canō attributed unto the Apostles, is vain, for the canō opposeth the attendance in his ecclesiastical ministry, unto worldly offices: beside, that your answer is otherwise to homely. For it is as much, as if yow should answer, that the canon is understanded of all worldly offices: saving those which yow defend.

My reason owt of the Calcedō Council is, for that it forbiddeth to take the charge of an Orphan, which requireth not so much attendance, as the civil offices, and which commō charity, would otherwise lay vpō him. Again, for that it forbiddeth the Minister, to receive upon pain of excommunication, any secular honor: and therefore the office of a Justice of peace, of a Justice of Quorum, of having judgment of life and death which the D, I will not say craftily (for it is to manifest) but fearfully, passeth by, whereunto ad that decreed in another Council, that the Bishop should only attend unto prayer, reading, and preaching. where, so far it is, that it will suffer him to deal with civil offices: that it forbiddeth to medle, with matters of his own household: which notwithstanding belong unto him. and therefore I do not allegd it, as that which I altogether allow: but to show how severe the ancient councils have been in this point, whereof he would bear us down, that there is not a word. For otherwise, without some favorable interpretation, this canon in this point is owt of rule.

To the D. which will not have the Ministers work: in any handy craft occupation &c, but bear civil office: I replied, that it was as much as if he should say, that he would not be bound with iron, but with golden fetters &c. whereto he answereth, that I do but deride. Here, I leave it to the reader to consider, whether by this which he calleth derision, I have broken the head of his cause: so that, if it could, it would weep. As for that owt of M. Bucer, there is no man dowteth of: but that one, and the same may do the office of a Minister, and of a Magistrate at once he affirmeth not: he doeth the clean contrary, as I have shown, and further may be seen.

M. Calvin doeth not only invey against the papists, which enter forcibly upon the Magistrates office: but against those also, that receive it being givē. For his reasons that no man is able to sustain both those charges &c. are general. I grant, the D. alledgeth not all the Papists reasons: yet this of the papists, is the same with his: yea in this point, with grief, I am compelled to see him further carried from the bounds of modesty, then they are. For they (as ys alleged by M. Calvin) content them selves with this defense, that their ministry is not greatly hindered by it: but he dare say, that these offices are a furtherance to their ministry. which trwly, without miracle will hardly be done, that a man having already a burden, as much as he is able to bear: should handle the matter so konningly, that he should not only be able to bear another as heavy almost as yt, but to bear it also easilier.

Hether pertaineth, that he hath afterward, where he affirmeth that the necessity of studying the laws of the realm, maketh him fitter for the ministry: that is to say in effect, maketh him have more leisure to study the laws of the kingdom of heaven, thereby to give the riper judgment in things pertaining thereto.

And as this is strange, in the study of the laws of the realm: so it is yet more strange in the practice by executing the office of a civil Judge. For tell me, I pray yow, how the care yow owght to have of the civil causes before yow come to judgment, the time to be informed of them on both sides, the examining of witnesses, the consultation to what law, or to what branch of the law, the crime should be reduced: tell me (I say) how doeth it make yow fitter to execute your ministry, then if yow had bestowed that time, in study of the word of god? if yow say, that by the knowlegd of these things, yow may do your ministry the better: so may yow by knowledge of the Potters, the Vueuers, the Carpenters occupation, from which similitudes being taken, the doctrine is deeplier imprinted: as we see to have been done by the Prophets and Apostles. But as it is not meet, that because the knowledge of these things profiteth, that therefore Ministers may exercise these crafts: no more followeth it, that because the knowledge of civil judgments profiteth for the better doing of the ministry, therefore a Minister should exercise them. Now, if M. Calvin answering the Papists, which only say that the exercise of this civil povuer, did not much hynder their spiritual ministry, called their answer babbling: I leave it to yow to consider, how sharply he would have censured this boldness of yours, if he had met with all.

As touching that which I said, of bodily occupations fitter unto the estate of a Minister, then these civil offices: it may appear, for that they are done without pomp or show, which accompaniyng the civil offices, have been shown to be unlawful for the estate of a Minister. and that glittering shows and pomp in the Ministers, are hindrances to their ministry, may further appear: by that S. Paul did forbear from all stately wisdom and bravery of words, to this end that the virtue of the spirit of god in the simplicity of the ministry, might show itself more clearly. when therefore the ey seeing this pomp, is as well affected with it, as where the ear heareth it, and carrieth it to the mind as sone, and in the common people especially, sooner: by the same reason that the one, the other also must hinder the cours of the gospel. Herevpon no doubt, Ambrose saith, that worldly government is the weakening of the Priest: alluding unto the Apostles saying, that he was then strong when he was weak.

Further, when the mind is weried, and that he vnbending it, will give it rest for a time: it is more apt for him to exercise himself, ether in planting or setting somewhat in garden or orchyard by way of recreation, then in shooting as it were continually in yt, in the end to break yt, and to make it unprofitable ether for the civil or ecclesiastical estate. And I meruail what steel the edges of their wits be of, which will not be turned, when they cut both so deep, and in so hard matters: whereas it is known, that men of counsel have found in the office of a Justice of peace or Quorum, so much to do, that they have had scarce time enough, to do the office of a father of a household, in their private families. And it must take up so much more time in the Bishops, then in them: as they, for want of being nourished in the knowledge of the laws and customs of the realm, are more unready in such cases, then the nobilitye commonly is: unless they will sit upon the bench like idols, nodding rather to the pleasures of others, then upon any grounded knowledge, giving judgment them selves.

His reason of the difference, that the Minister cannot commit his power to whom he list, but that the Prince may: is (I fear me) an endeavor of to open flattery, at the least it is to losely spoken. For, although there be greater liberty, in the one, then in the other: yet, the Prince cannot commit his power to whom he listeth, but is bound first to choose those which fear the lord, then those which are best able to execute yt, to the glory of god and commodity of the subjects: and therefore not the Ministers, which have already as much as they can turn them to, when they do their most. Beside that he cannot thus escape. For, if the Prince will accept the ministry, of the Bishops hand: then his difference falleth to the ground, and thē, by his saying, the Prince may well preach, as the Bishop bear civil office.

As for his example of Samuel, which did Saul's office in slaying Agag, when as Saul might not do Samueles in sacrifising: it maketh nothing for him. For, Samuel did it not by Saul's authority, but by an extraordinary calling from god: so that if this example prove, that ecclesiastical persons may bear civil offices, it proveth that they may do it without any commandment of the Prince. I pas by, that it was not Samuel's office to sacrifice, as the D. imagineth: he being not of the race of Aharō to whom only that appertained, but a simple Levite: so that where it is said that he sacrificed, ether it must be understood that he procured the sacrifice to be made, or else that it was done by an extraordinary calling, contrary to the rule that the lord had givē, of offering sacrifices

To that I ask, why if the Minister be helped by exercising a civil office in his ovun person, the Magistrate should not be helped by exercising likevuise an ecclesiastical: he answereth, the Magistrate may do by corporal punishment, which the Minister cā not do by ecclesiastical: so may the Minister do by ecclesiastic. which the Magistrate cā not do by corporal. And this in deed is the ordinance of god, that everyone should do that which properly belongeth unto him: and not that one, should do all. where he addeth, that the Magistrate may bridle the most vnruliest, where the greatest censures of the church, few now a days do regard: verily it is no mervail, though they be contemned, being exercised as they are, by those to whom it appertaineth not, and for every trifling and three halfpenny matter: where if, being duly executed, they be contemned, the Magistrate beareth the sword, to punish that contempt. But the D. would have the Minister, have that sword in his hand: that beside the sentence of excōmunicatiō, he might have also the civil sword, whereby he might strike a further fear of himself into the people's hearts. In deed, thus is fear, which the Apostle most properly giveth unto the civil Magistrate because of the sword which he beareth, translated unto the Ministers: And thus it cometh to pas, that they having both civil, and ecclesiastical vengeance in their hands, make them selves more terrible unto the people, then the Magistrate himself, which hath but the civil sword only. Whereby hath grown (and if it be not in time prevented) will grow contempt of Magistrates, and other inconveniences: wherewith Princes them selves having been before beaten, owght so much the straiter to look unto. As for that he bringeth, of other ecclesiastical punishments which may be used, beside those prescribed in the scripture: it appertaineth to another questiō. And so doeth Gualters testimony, which is not only idly, but shamefully alleged, in this cause especially: considering that he doeth precisely condemn the exercise of any civil government in ecclesiastical persons. The two next divisions, are answered.

I know that corporal punishments be means to bring men to hear. and (if yow will also) to believe the word: but that it doeth so, or at least so much when it is executed by the Minister, as when it is executed by the Magistrate, I deny: even as it is in excommunications and ecclesiastical censures, when they are executed by those to whom they do not appertain.

It followeth not, that because fear of civil punishment is profitable, therefore yt is profitable in the Ministers hand: nether for that it hindereth faith when the Minister, preaching in the pulpit, hath the civil svuord in his hand, there fore it hindereth, when the Magistrate holdeth it in his hand. For the profit of the fear of the sword, dependeth upon the blessing of god, that giveth it efficacy: which blessing is then given, when the sword is drawn by him, unto whom it properly belongeth. There are of judgment, that it is not convenient, that the same should teach scholars, and chasten them with the rod, but that some other rather should have that charge, wherewith I will not medle: but if the Scholemaster should have beside the rod, the sword also to take away the lives of their scholars, or to send them to the iayl, who seeth not the inconvenience that would rise thereof. And yet the Scholemaster, as he whose office is les ecclesiastical: is much more capable of this power, then is the Bishop.

That he supposeth me to affirm, that the causes which they medle with as the Queens majesties Commissioners, are ecclesiastical, and that they may give a iudicial sentence of them: is a flat untruth. This only I gave to understand, which I yet affirm, that the same causes may be both civil, and ecclesiastical. For in respect that inquisition is made, to punish yt with corporal punishment, it is civil: the same is also ecclesiastical, when it is examined, to the end that the conscience may be touched with sense of the syn, by the church censures.

The D. similitude is (as I said) manifestly injurious to the Magistrate. For if the execution of the laws belong unto the Bishop, as the making of them doeth to the Magistrate: it followeth, that as the one is the proper office of the Magistrate, so the other is the proper of the Bishop. And further, that in that common wealth, where the Magistrate may make the laws himself alone: there, by his reason, the Bishops may execute them alone. As for his answer, it is nothing but a demanding of that in question.

That moses did the office of the Sacrificer is certain: in that he sprinkled the blood upon the altar, and people, which pertained properly unto the Priest. likewise the same is confirmed by his ordaining of Aaron, and his sons, to the priesthood: which belongeth unto the Priest in like manner.

That Moses (after Aaron was made Priest) prescribed Aaron what he should do: he did it from the mouth of the lord, and that also as the Prophet of god, and in a figure of the doctorship of our savior Christ, and not simply as the civil governor of the people. For although the ptieshood, were taken from him: yet he remained a Prophet unto his dying day, and therefore that exception is insufficient. So is that also, of them, in whom he saith that both offices civil, and ecclesiastical met. For not to inquire how truly those examples are alleged, especially of Nehemiah's, of whom there is not a step of likelihood, that he exercised both the offices: it helpeth him no whit although it were so, as he alledgeth: considering that such were extraordinarily raised up of god, and not by any established order or election of men. Which also is a piece of answer to that alleged after to this purpose of our Savior Christ's whipping, which was in ruinous, and not in standing estates of the church.

Nether is this once to move, much les to ouerthow that which was before disputed. For the question is, what order the church is bound unto, not what laws the lord is bound unto: likewise the question is, not what ether may be done, or tolerated in the desolation and wast of the church, but what owght to be done, in a church established and reformed: and what that order is, for establishment whereof, every man must employ himself, according to his calling. In Eli's and Samuel's times, it appeareth that the church was in miserable estate: both by the whole discourse of the story, and namely that there was a great dearth of the word of god. But mark (I pray yow) this divinity, he would have their examples which have been (as he saith) both Priests and Princes, yea and Captains also of the host, serve to prove that Ministers may be Justices of peace, but not that, they may be Princes or Captains where as if those examples prove, that a Minister may be chosen to bear civil office, they prove especially, that he may be chosen to bear that office, which they bare, from whom he fetcheth his proof. For if that wherefore they may be chosen to other civil offices, do not agree unto them: the other which have their ground from thence can much les agree. Therefore, if the D. be afraid to confess, that thes examples prove, that a Bishop may be a king or a Captain if he be chosen to yt: he owght also to be afraid, to confess that a bishop may be a Justice of peace, when he is chosen unto it.

To that I say, that these examples do as vuel prove, that the civil Magistrate may be a Bishop, as that the Bishop may be a civil Magistrate: he answereth, that the civil office is accidental to the ministry, and such as may be removed from it, but the ministry is not so unto Princes, unless they be ordinarily called: then which, what can be more confusedly spoken. For, if I should grant, that the Prince might be a Minister of the gospel, and the Minister of the gospel a Prince: why should not (I beseech yow) the ministry be as accidental to the princehood, as the princehood unto the ministry. Surely, if it be not accidental to the princehood, and yet such a thing as agreeth unto it: it must needs be essential, that is, that which cannot be severed from it, without hurt of that estate. Beside that, in placing the difference of the respect of the Ministry, to the princehood, and of the princehood to the Ministry, in that the Prince may not be a Minister without an ordinary calling: yow give to understand, that the Minister may bear civil office, without an ordinary calling. For if the Minister may not bear civil office, until he be ordinarily called: then here is yet no distinction made, between the respect of a Minister to a civil office, and the civil officer, to the Ministry. In the end yow are compelled, to destroy your own distinction: affirming, that as a minister may join to his Ministry, a civil office, if he be called thereunto by the Prince, so the Prince may join to his office the function of the Minister, if he be called unto it by the Bishop. For so yow must needs mean, seeing yow make him the Stward of ecclesiastical officis: which absurdity before this birth of yours, I suppose was never heard of: and it is thorough owt the whole discourse confuted. For, as for that yow ad, if they be lawfully called, it is to open folly: seeing the question is, whether there be any such election lawful.

Here the D. is taken again, in his words. For if the example of our Savior Christ's whipping, do prove that, a Minister may medle with civil affairs: then it proveth, that he may not only sit in judgment of crimes, but also be the Tortor himself, which he denieth. For our Savior Christ, executed the punishment with his own hand.

To that also I alleged, that the Ministers, by the examples of Paul and Peter, may be Fishers, and Tentmakers, if of the D. examples it may be concluded, that it is lawful for a Minister to bear civil office: he answereth, they may do so upon like occasion. The occasion of S. Paul's laboring with his hands was, partly that he might not in that point be inferior to the falls. Apostles, which toke no stipend: partly to support the need, and poverty of the churches. There being now therefore Anabaptists, which teach without wages and diverse churches which are very poor: by the D. answer, it is convenient the Bishops should exercise some handycraft. which beside other inconveniences, is against that which himself hath truly said, that they are hindrances unto the ministry: considering that there be no such gifts now a days as the Apostles had, which were able to do more with one hand, then we with both. And if his answer were true, yet it is nothing to purpose. For, if by these examples he will conclude, that Ministers may ordinarily be called to the civil government: then it must also follow, that by these examples of S. Paul and Peter, the Ministers may ordinarily have occupations joined with their ministries. But if the Ministers may not exercise any handicraft, but in like cases as the Apostles did, and upon like callings: then it followeth also, that they may not exercise civil offices, but in like time, and upon like callings as those did, from whom he draweth his proofs. The rest is answered.

Before the D. said, that the Ministers could not exercise any civil jurisdiction in time of persecution: here he saith, that Timothy, which lived in time of persecution, exercised civil jurisdiction. Thus, like a windshaken reed, he never standeth in one sentence. But (I pray yow) note his reason, which is because mention is made of accusers and witnesses: as if they were not common to all kind of judgments. For where the thing is not manifest, there the trial must needs be ether by confession, or witnesses: so that if there be an ecclesiastical judgment, there must needs be witnesses and accusers: otherwise the Minister in time of persecution, should take upon him civil jurisdiction, without the consent of the Magistrate, which is absurd, and being urged by me, is unanswered. yea the Housemother, which, upon accusation and witness of some of hir children, chasteneth other some: should by the D. saying, break upon the office of the civil Magistrate.

Upon diverse reasons brought to show, that S. Peters killing Ananias and Saphyra with the word (which reason was ministered him owt of Pighius) proveth not that the Ministers may have their prisons: he answereth nothing, but taking up the carcase of his argument, in steed of burying of it, assayeth to blow life into it, after this sort. Peter punishing with death, did nothing repugnant to his vocation: therefore it is not repugnant, to the vocation of a Minister, to punish with temporal punishment: which followeth not. For as much as the vocation of a Minister now, is not the same which Peters was at that time: not only for that he was an Apostle, but also, for that without a particular motion of the spirit of god, it was unlawful for any, or for Peter himself to have done so.

That brought to uphold this with, that that which Peter did by extraordinary power, the Ministry now may do by an ordinary: is a very cartrope, to pul in all confusion into the church and common wealth. For thus, of that Phinehas a private man killed, and the Israelites borrowed, which they never meant to restore: if the Magistrate will license men to do so, it shall be lawful by the D. rule. If he say, that those are things forbidden, but not this, that a Minister should bear civil office: it is nothing but an asking of that in controversy, whereupon he continually falleth. And where he saith, he speaketh of the fact of Peter, and not of the manner: even the fact of Peter, was to kill a man, without any under Minister. And therefore of this answer also, it followeth that the Magistrate may appoint the Bishops, to be the Tortors and hangmen: which the D. hath before denied. How cometh it also to pas, that he which before compared the politik laws of god, putting Idolaters and adulterers to death, in cruelty with the Turks laws: now maketh it a death matter, if a man, to conceal some part of his wealth, being judicially demanded thereof, do make a lie. For thus much he saith in effect: when he affirmeth, that it may now be done ordinarily, which Peter did then extraordinarily.

Where I added, that the povuer which S. Peter used was ecclesiastical, and withal, my reason out of the Apostle, vuho reckoneth that amongst the church gifts: leaving the reason, he opposeth the authority of M. Beza. whereas, if that had been any lawful kind of disputing: I could have alleged learned writers, that such punishments were done by virtue of that church office. But how could S. Peter, do that by right of the civil Magistracy: when as the civil Magistrate had no right, to punish that dissimulation, which was hid. Hitherto also refer, that the D. himself in his former book, affirmeth that their offense was against no ordinary law of the church, or common wealth. whereupon followeth, that there being no transgression against his laws, there could be no punishment due. M. Beza's meaning is only, that as the lord, when there was no Christian Magistrate, did use corporal punishments, and those of death, against them which resisted the doctrine of the gospel: so the Christian Magistrate, should do the same: so that although his manner of speech be diverse with that I propounded, yet his judgment is all one.

Here Pantaleon and M. Bale, are rejected as insufficient to make report of Eugenius doeinges, which was so long before their time: and yet Erasmus is stoutly upholden, for reporting Titus to have been an Archbishop, albeyt Titus was 600 years before Eugenius. But, if the D. cannot show any that commanded, that the Bishops should have prisons before Eugenius: these writers shall be able easily, to maintayn their credit against his boldness, of affirming and denying, what so ever he listeth.

To that owt of Possidonius, that those matters alleged of the Bishop to be done of Augustine, could not be civil affairs, considering that he immediately opposeth them unto secular or worldly matters: beside words he answereth nothing. he opposeth other places owt of Augustine, whereof the first owt of his book of the works of monks, cannot be understanded, as he would have it, of any judgment given by reason of civil authority. For that which he did, he affirmeth, that the Apostle commanded it should be done, by the most contemptible in the church: So that unless he dare say, that the Apostle commanded, that the simplest in the church might bear civil office, when the Magistrate being an enemy would commit no authority unto him, this place is utterly from the purpose. Again, when Augustine saith, that the Apostle hath tied him so to do, and laid yt upon him: if the D. will have, that a civil office is there understanded, it must follow, that the civil office is incidēt unto the office of the ministry, and cannot be severed from it.

The place owt of his epistle 110, is to as small purpose. For, in that it appeareth there, that the Councils decreed, that Augustine should cease from those business: it is manifest, that he dealt with them, not by any right of civil office. For what had the Council to do, to decree that he should not do that which the Magistrate had lawfully laid upon him: he owght to have sought the releas of that, at the Magistrates hand, and not at the Councils. likewise, in that he obtaineth of the people, that these matters should be turned from him, upon Eradius, and that in an ecclesiastical assembly, where they met for choosing of one to succeed Augustine in the Bishoprik: it is manifest, that it was no civil office. Last of all, it is to be observed, that in both these places, Augustine complaineth of these matters as of hindrances unto his Ministry, as things which did more let the cours of yt, then if he had vurovught every day with his hands in some occupation: that he seeketh to be delivered from them at the Councils and at the people's hands: whereas our D. saith, that they are not only no hindrances, but necessary helps to do the Ministry with, and not only seeketh not, that the Bishops may be discharged, but maketh cords, to bind these offices straiter to thē. I have reported the truth, the Bishops words are owt of Clement, that it is not lawful for a Bishop to deal with both svuordes: likewise that he ought to be removed that will supply the place both of a civil Magistrate, and of an ecclesiastical person. These words do not only condemn the pulling the sword owt of Princes hands, but all use of it in eccles. {per}sons.

I pray god, that the custom of shameful denials, do not so harden your forehead: that no point of truth how sharp soever, can perce it. Howbeit I trust, whatsoever yt please yow to say, it is manifest to all that do not willingly close their eyes against the truth: that the scripture teacheth that Ministers, owght not to medle with civil offices. That which yow ad owt of Deut. 17, maketh nothing for yow: for, they are there bid̄ to resort unto the Priest, as to the Interpreter of the law, when the question was difficult, and they knew not what to do. which is manifest, in that he distinguisheth there the Priest, from the Judges: so that in such appeals, he placeth the Priests and Levites office, in teaching what is the will of god, and the Iudgis office in giving sentence accordingly: as appeareth yet more plainly in the same chapter.

The same is to be answered, to that alleged owt of Nombers 27. In which matter that the Priest was present, and called to consultation for the difficulty thereof, to know what was the will of god in that behalf, it is manifest, in that he being not able to resolve of the matter, Moses was fain to bring it to the lord: To let pas, that it was not Aaron which was taken into that consultation, but Eleazar: unless yow will have Aaron decide controversies, after his death.

The example of Melchizedek both king and Priest, is more absurdly alleged, then the other: not only because he was before the law, when this order of separating the priesthood from the civil government, was not yet established, but because he had them both, that he might be a figure of our Savior Christ: as the Apostle and Prophet do declare. Yow might much better have alleged Abraham, which was both a Priest, a Prophet, and a noble warrior: which notwithstanding, yourself do not permit unto the Bishop.

As for the appeal, which Constantine granted, from the civil Magistrate unto the Bishops, likewise Theodostus and Carolus grant that men might choose the Bishops Judges of their controversies, if either party would: they were the wrestes, wherewith the Princes scepters were wrung owt of their hands, and (as I have before shown owt of M. Calvin) all sincerity out of the churches. yea upon that very grant of Constantine, it is noted in the margent, that it is repugnant both to the doctrine, and example of S. Paul. And in deed by the first of these decrees, the Bishops civil authority, is made equal with the Emperors. And by the other, it is at the pleasure of the people, whether all the civil Magistrates shall be Idols or no, having the bare name of the Magistrate, without doing any duty. For, if ether of the parties, be affected towards the Bishops judgment: the Magistrates may go lay them down to sleep. Nether doeth it follow, that because the Emperors gave such liberty, or licentiousness rather, unto the church, or because some Bishops used it: that therefore, the practice of the church was such. For I have shown, that the godly Counceles forbad it: and that the godly fathers utterly misliked of it. And as I have alleged some, so it is not hard to allege others, to the same effect.

In his example of Dorotheus, his translation is fauty. For in steed of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifieth a civil honor, he hath turned it priesthood: as if it had been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . the office also which Eusebius noteth he had, was to oversee the purple dies in Tyre: an office to advance the Ministry (I think) in the D. own judgment, very unfit. His examples of Philaeas and Epiphanius, serve not his turn. For nether is it said, whether they meddled with civil affairs before their bishoprik, or in yt: and if it were, considering there is no approbation of their doing, but only a bare telling that such a thing they did, it cannot help him. For it is one thing to say, they were commended for dexterity in such matters: and another to say, that they did it in duty, and well. even as if the civil officer, taking the pulpit, and speaking fitly of a text, a man might give him the commendation of dexterity in handling the text, and withal, condemn him for doing it without calling. Hether pertaineth that which he alledgeth in another place, of Letoius a Bishop which burned Monasteries: but by what authority, appeareth not, beside that his act seemeth otherwise to have no ground. For if it had any good issw, it was more by hap then by good konning. The like and upon like zeal was done by one Audas a Persian Bishop, that burnt an Idols Temple, which act gave occasion of grievous persecution: whereby may appear, that Bishops went some time beyond their limites, and did things permitted unto them, nether of god, nor man.

Of our age he citeth witnesses M. Cranmer, Ridley, Hoper, and in another place Brenz. for Brenz, seeing he hath no reason, let him have that credit, which so small a friend of sincerity deserveth, especially against the consent, of so many better then he: for the other, he maketh it not to appear, that they were of that judgment. And of M. Hooper, it is manifest that he did flatly condemn it: which showeth that the Bishops for the space of 400 years after the Apostles, although they were more able thē ours, did meddle with no civil affairs. where he sharply taūteth our Bishop which meddleth with both offices, when one is more then he is able, with all his diligence, to discharge, and impossible that he should do both: and that if the Magistrate will employ a Bishop in civil affairs, he ought to discharge him of his Ministry. If M. Cranmer and Ridley did exercise both, that is to be ascribed to the time: wherein the Sun of the gospel, being but lately risen in our climate, all the clouds which popery had overcast our land with, could not be so quikly put to flight.

Seeing therefore the Ministers office, is only in things that pertain to god, which for a degree of excellency that they have in promoting our salvation, more then other, the holy ghost opposeth unto the Princes, and common wealth affairs: seeing also it is of greater weight, then the strongest back can bear, of wider compass, then the largest hands can faddam: a soldiarfare that will be only attended upon: seeing also it tendeth to the destruction of the body, when one member encroacheth upon the office of another: and that the civil Magistrate may by the same right invade the office of the Minister, as he the office of the civil Magistrate: seeing further our Savior Christ, having the spirit without measure, refused as a thing unmeet for his ministry, the office of a Judge: seeing also the Apostles endued with such glorious gifts, as are not now to be looked for, gave over the office of the Deaconship, as that which they were not, with the Ministry of the word, able to exercise: and seeing for the burden thereof, it was easier then the civil charge, which the Bishops take vpō them, and for the kind of Ministry more agreeable: seeing also the examples in the Scripture, of thē which have born both the charges, are ether before this order was established of god, or being sithens, were extraordinary: last of all, seeing this mingling of the estates is contrary to the practice of the elder church uttered both in Councils, and fathers, contrary also to the practice and judgment of the godly learnedest of our time: I conclude, that it is unlawful in an established estate of the church, that a Minister of the church should bear civil office. And thus much against the Ministers, which have one foot in the church, and another in the common wealth. Now to the treatise of the Eldership, for the cause before assigned.

THAT THE CHURCH GOUERNMENT BY AN ELDERSHIP IN Every congregation: is by the ordinance of god, and perpetual. Tractat 8. and 7. according to the Doctor p. 626.

THat which ^a Tully saith of an Orator full of words, that he would make owtcries, to get an appetite to drink: may be feared somewhat otherwise in the D. who giveth suspicion, that he hath forced his pen to write, not to get, but to quench (if it might be) the thirst of honor. And verily if this order of Eldership, had not strength to stand by our defense: yet the vertw of it might easily appear, in that yt so amazeth, and astonieth the adversary, as if he had been stricken with a thunderbolt from heaven: so that beside a multitude of words, wherewith by oppressing the reader, he might make some show of answer, there will be little found, that can of right chalendg a reply. Howbeit, to honor him with some answer, leaving his disordered handling which I noted: as well for that his defense is fond, as for that this is not the place to diduct that matter, let us see, what he bringeth in this cause.

Against that I alleged owt of the Apostle, The Elders which rule vuel, are worthy dubble honor, especially which labor in the word and doctrine, to prove that there were Elders, which assisted the teaching Ministers, only in the government of the church: he answereth first, that the word, Elder, is the same commonly with Bishop or Pastor: wherein partly he confuteth himself. For, if it be but commonly so taken, and not always: then it may be taken otherwise in this place. His first example likewise out of Peter 1. 5. is plain against him: for thereby appeareth, that Peter an Apostle, and no Bishop, is called Elder. nether is there any word in that place, whereby the exhortation to the Elders should not be applied, as well to the Elders which governed only, as to those which labored in the word also: considering that the word of feeding, respecteth not only preaching, but that government also which is with owt preaching: in which respect both in scripture, and otherwise, the civil Magistrate is said to feed: And it is to great an oversight, to think that because all Bishops be Elders, therefore all Elders are Bishops: when as the name of Elder is common unto all, which have government of the church, and most properly agreeth to those, which have the government only, without further charge of teaching. And the name is taken, of the usage under the law: where they which had only government ether in church or common wealth, were so called.

Secondly he saith, that by those that governed, and labored not in the word: are understanded, those, which ministered the sacraments. where to let pas that which hath, and shall be after (god willing) shown, that the same owght to be Ministers of the word and Sacraments: I would know of him, which hangeth so of the interpretation of men, why he hath here departed from the judgment of the learned and godly writers of our age, and forged an interpretation, which hath no approbation of any auncienty. For, as for that he saith of Chrysostom, beside that yt is untrue: if he had never so small a sound that way, he would have rong it so deep, that withal he would have turned Chrysostom's clapper. But observe, how improperly he maketh the Apostle to speak, in giving the name of government unto that, wherein there is no government at all. For is yt not (think yow) a strong kind of government, and needeth it not a great gift of discretion and judgment, to pour a little water upon the childes head, distribute a lofe of bread, carry the cup, and say, or read a sentence, all, as he is prescribed? when the Apostle, nowhere giveth this title of government unto the Deacons, in whom notwithstanding is required no common discretion, to know to whom, and how much is to be given: how much les would he give it to such, as have the only, and bare administration of the Sacraments.

How should also S. Paul be made to agree with himself, which went the nearest way to work, to ease the churches of charges: if he should have brought into yt, such unprofitable burdens as is this order of Ministers of Sacraments, which the D. imagineth, especially seeing a Pastor was needful in every church, who being present at the Sacraments, might as commodiously Minister them, as be a receiver only. His reason, that the Apostle would otherwise have said, which labored in the word and Sacraments, is weak: not only because it is usual unto the scripture, by the chief part to note the whole, but also, for that the Sacraments are contained under the word, and are a visible word, in which respect they are also said to have a voice. Nether doeth he here make mention of praying, another of the Bishops duties: so that by your answer, we should have another order in the church, of Sayers of prayers. Alike vain it is, that S. Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach, when he was called to both, although rather to the one, thē to the other, as yourself some where have confessed. As for that yow would conclude, that Pastors have no more bond to baptize in their churches, then S. Paud had, yow might as well have concluded, that all Pastors are Apostles: considering, that he speaketh that in respect of his Apostleship, whereby he was bound to go from place to place, and not to tarry (as the pastor) in one place.

The titles of Christ's Vicares, and of gods Prelates, do both agree unto the Elders, which only govern. And although nether Ambrose nor Calvin make any mention of this Eldership upon • . Timoth. 5. 19. yet how followeth it, that they meant no such Eldership in the place which I alleged, this is but a strange conclusion. M Calvin's place also Institut. chap. 8. sect. 72, is shamefully abused: for he saith, that those which teached were Elders. And where as the rule of the action, when the Eldership met, appertained unto the Ministers of the word: that they chose amongst them, one which governed the action. Now in steed that M. Calvin saith, that all the Ministers of the word, were called Elders: • he An. maketh him to say, that all the Elders of the church, were Ministers of the word. where Calvin in the self same chapter doeth expressly make two kind of Elders: one of those which Ministred the word, another of those which were only Censores of the manners of the church. This Jerome is (if I have not taken my note amis) a bastard: and yet he hath nothing for him. For in that he saith that there was and order, which had the word, but labored not: he is as favorable unto this Eldership, as unto his order of sacrament Ministers. The next division hath nothing, but that which cometh afterward to be handled.

Against the place, that Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders by voices in every church, first he excepteth, that the plentith of preachers then was such, that every congregation where Paul and Barnabas had to do, might have moe then one: which is said without ether proof, or likelihood. the untruth whereof may easily appear, in that to the great cities, where there was greatest store: S. Paul was fain to send Timothy and Titus for supplies, which otherwise he could so hardly spare. Then he saith, to ordain Elders through every church, is to ordain one Pastor in everyone, which is no plain, but a figurative speech, and that doubly: both in that the general name of Elder, is put for the particular, and in that the plural number is put for the singular. Therefore unless he can work it owt with good reasons, to prove that the governing Elders, cannot here be understanded: the simple and plain sense, is to be praeferred. As for the place of Titus, it helpeth him not. For the Apostle referring Titus to that order, which he had prescribed him: contenteth him self, to pursu the office of the teaching Elder, upon occasion of falls teachers, which troubled the church.

For that owt of Calvin and Brenz, it may be said, that although S. Luke cal them Elders, which were Bishops: yet he calleth them not so only. And of M. Calvin, it must needs be so understanded: seeing he avoucheth the place of Titus, which the An. confesseth all one with the 14 acts, for the establishment of these governing Elders. But if the D. had read M. Nowels catechism, so diligently as he would seem: this would not have been so strange to him. For where he showeth, that the Pastor owght not to excommunicate without the judgment of the church, and declareth that for that purpose there were in the well ordered churches certain Seniors chosen, and joined with the Pastor: he quoteth this very place, which the admonition doeth. And I see not why, it may not be as well referred to the Elders, as to the Bishops: Seeing S. Luke there setteth forth, how they set a full order in the church. And of that judgment, is the greek Scholiast, which affirmeth that those which folovued S. Paul and Barnabas, were worthy to be Bishops: and that they created of them Elders and Deacons also. In the next division, if the D. first answer be only considered, he might justly complain of me: but when he by and by, reasoneth against the admonition, for that yt would prove Seniors owt of that place of 14 Acts, all see that I have done him no wrong.

To prove further, that both Pastors, and Elders which only govern, can not be understanded in that place of the Acts: he assigneth this reason, for that the holy ghost should use equivocations, or speak dowtfully: then which, there can be nothing more unsavory. For it is a great oversight, that he cannot put a difference, between a word that is general, and hath diverse forms under yt (of which sort this word Elder is) and between that which hath diverse significations. Rather I may say, that for so much as S. Luke did not use, the particular word of Bishop, but the word Elder, which containeth both Bishop, and other Elders: that his meaning was, not that the Bishops only should be meant. And surely, when as the word Elder, doeth so agree to Bishops, that it doeth much more properly (as hath been shown) agree to the Seniors: it were hard to understand Bishops, and shut owt Seniors, to whom that name doeth most properly pertain: especially there being no circumstance in that place, whereby that should be of necessity tied to the Pastor only. Beside that those which have knowledge in the Hebrew tongue, know that the scripture useth some times equivocations, and yet nothing thereby derogated from the simplicity thereof: but (as it is observed) maketh sometime to the elegancy, and ornament of the speech.

That the place to the Corinth. cannot be understanded of civil Magistrates, as the An. and Papists would have it, and therefore that yt owght to be understood of ecclesiastical officers, I have shown: whereof also there is the same reason, in the place to the Romans. Nether can that owt of M. Gwalther, maintain any such opinion: seeing it was not lawful for the church, to appoint any ordinary Magistrate, to hear civil causes: nether needed any ether go to them for judgment, or stand unto the judgment given, further then the parties listed, therefore that could not be any government, which was without authority. How true it is, that learned men expound the word governments, of civil and ecclesiastical, at the least to the D. knowledge: the reader may thereby know, that Gwalther which he chose to speak for them all, doeth not affirm it. For in that he saith, there is now no need of them seeing there is a Christian Magistrate: he manifestly opposeth them to a Christian Magistrate. Althowgh M. Gualters authority, may not be received in this question of discipline. For beside that his hand, is herein against the learned both old, and new which I have ether red or heard of, also against the practice approved in the churches of all ages, and amongst them against the practice also, used in ours: it shall appear, that the reasons drawn from him, are altogether insufficient.

Then he saith, that by that word Governors, the Pastors may be understanded, because having spoken of the Doctor before, he mentioned not the Pastor: which is absurd, both because it should be a marvelous confusion, to have carried the Pastor so far from his fellows, which are the Ministers of the word, and reckoned up in the beginning: and for that, the Pastor is not severed from the Doctor in governing, but only in the kind of teaching. whereas he, by his answer, shutteth owt the Doctor from the government of the church. Beside that howsoever I do make a Pastor, and a Doctor, diverse: yet for as much as himself, maketh them all one, S. Paul placing the Doctor before, he owght to have been ashamed to say that S. Paul may mean this of the Pastor. That he addeth, that the place being doutful, it cannot serve to establish the Seniors, is dangerously spoken, and smelleth of popery: as if the scripture should lose her authority, because men agree not of the understanding of it. Althowgh (I suppose) there are few places of scripture, wherein things are spoken of, so shortly: that have so full consent of learned interpreters of our time, as this place hath, for that signification of Seniors, which we use it for. And in deed, when the Apostle maketh it a distinct office, from the Ministers of the word, which notwithstanding have the government of the church: it must needs be an office occupied in government alone, otherwise it should not be severed, from their office.

The same reason, is of the place to the Romans: against which, that which the D. bringeth owt of Calvin, is nothing worth. For although the precept of bearing rule in diligence, may by proportion, be carried to all Magistrates, yea and to all crafts men, over their Apprentises: yet the words of the Apostle, are nevertheless understood properly of the Elders in question, as M. Calvin declareth both there, and other where. Likewise are M. Martyr &c. Bucer, idly cited of him. For seeing they both agree, that these Elders are comprehended in that word: what ether hurteth it us, or helpeth yt him, that other beside them are understanded.

If they preached some time, that was not by vertw of this office: and the place of Timothy alleged of M Beza, doeth not prove it. Nether owght the An. to have alleged that interpretation, against this cause: seeing himself doeth therein differ from M. Beza, as well as I, which by presidentes in the word, hath before expounded the Bishop, as it is in deed and not as M. Beza, for a kind of Elder, differing both from the Pastor, and Doctor. But the An. is like that fellow that would have both his eyes put owt, that his neighbor might lese one. For to the end he may do some scare to the truth, he bringeth evē that which is the overthrow of his cause: namely M. Beza's judgment of an Eldership governing, beside the Ministers of the word, that is beside both Pastor and Doctor. And of this trweth which we maintain out of this place unto Timothy, emongest others, we have M. Bucer's moste plain and moste full testimony: which upon this sentence of S. Paul, flatly confirmeth that there were tvuo kind of Elders: one, which together with the discipline, had the charge of the word and Sacraments, and another, which had charge of the discipline only. I confess there was some faut here, in ascribing words unto him, which he hath not: but it was an oversight only, not as he maketh yt, with mind to forge.

Here the An. repenteth him of his good deeds. For where he had accorded before, that there were such Elders, as are in questiō: now he saith, he meant them of Seniors, which be Ministers. wherevpō it followeth, that it is not meet that there should be any Ministers at this time. For of the same Elders, which he granted to have been in times past: he affirmeth, it incōuenient that they should be now. And if he say (as he hath said) that they were only Ministers of Sacraments, first he giveth his reading Ministers the wipe, which by this judgment of his, are clean cut of, as utterly inconvenient for this time. Again, he affirmeth that the Seniors in times past, were such as exercised the jurisdiction, which the Magistrate doeth now: in that he saith, that they cannot now be without injury of the Magistrate. whereas if this office were, ether a Ministry of the word, or Sacraments, it could not touch the office of the Magistrate: so that through the nawghtines of this cause, in his whole cours of answer, he doeth nothing, but as it were pave his way, with snares to entrap himself. And for answer to him, this may be more then sufficient.

Howbeit for the readers sake, although this Eldership is manifest in itself, of the words of the holy scripture: yet the same shall receive some confirmation of the practice of the churches after, which kept this order both in persecution and peace. This I will do, if I first in a word, note how this order of Eldership, was taken from the government of the people of god, before and under the law. yt is therefore to be observed, that so sone as there is made mention, of any fixed form of church, which standing of diverse houshouldes, were divided into particular assemblies: so soon is made mention, of this office of Elders. For Moses to let the churches, and assemblies of the Israelites to understand his Embassage from god: assembled the Elders. which, that they were ecclesiastical officers, thereby may appear: for that under such a Tyrant, and such oppression as the Israelites were in, it is altogether unlike, that they had the benefit of Magistrates of their own. And if a man would say, that those Elders were the Taskmasters, which Pharaoh had set over the Israelites: beside diverse vnlikelihoodes thereof, it is flatly confuted, in that after the Israelites departure owt of Egypt, before any new creation of officers, this order of Elders is spoken of, and as church officers, taken to the administration of church matters.

Another example hereof is, where Elisha is said to have had the Elders in his hows, to consult with: what time the king of Israel, sent a messenger to take of his head. The like is said, of other Prophets: which in that state they were in, were utterly unlike to have the civil governors to consult with. Likewise in Nehemiah, there are mentioned certain, which as they are distinguished from the people, in that they are reckoned as assistantes unto Ezra, both on the right, and left hand: so be they also distinguished, from the teaching Levites, in that the Prophet, after he had spoken of these, speaketh of that sort of Levites, which had the teaching of the people. This is also strenghtned, by that the new testament speaking of the ecclesiastical officers amongst the Jews, joineth with the Scribes (which I have shown to note those, that had the handling of the word) the elders: which should have been without reason, if there had not been a kind of Elders, which had not the handling of the word. whereby it may appear, that it is wntrue, which the An. gathereth owt of Calvin's words: that these Elders should have their beginning, after the Jews return owt of the captivity: whereas he only affirmeth, that there was a bench or (as some term it) a Consistorye of ecclesiastical offices appointed, after their rerurn: but saith not (as he pretendeth) that they were then first of all appointed. Nether can M. Calvin's words, be drawn to that sense. For, if by these words of his ( the Sanhedrin were appointed after the Jews return ) should be understood, that they were then first created, and not rather, that they were then restored: yt must follow, that the Priests and other leuitical teachers, which were a portiō of that bench, had then their first institution. which sentence so absurd, and so full of ignorance of the state of the church: no man which hath a spark of equity, can ascribe unto M. Calvin. Althowgh if it were so, as he pretendeth, that these Elders did then begin: yet, that helpeth him nothing at all. For it should not have therefore, the les authority: considering that it were to be esteemed, that they toke it not up of their own head, but by the authority of the Prophets of god, which lived then, and directed the stern of that government. And herein (howsoever the An. misconstrueth him) M. Calvin is flat: that this estate was lawful, and approved of god.

Having thus spoken, of this order of Elders, in the Apostles times, and before: I will now return to that I promised, of the practice of the churches after the Apostles times, to see if this order of Elders can find anymore favor of thē, then of the Answerer. Amongest which, that of Tertullian, before alleged of me, is most clear. Nether can the D. escape with this, that the colledg was likely to be of Ministers of the word &c. considering that it is incredible, that all the churches, whose defense Tertullian taketh upon him, and whose usage he describeth, had such a colledg. Then, that of Cyprian cometh to be considered, which noteth a piece of the office of these Elders, by deviding the communion bread into equal portions and carrying it (for the assistance of the Bishop) in little baskets or trayes: where by placing their office in this assisting the Minister, he doeth manifestly shut them owt from the ministering of the Sacrament: especially seeing Cyprian in that place, noteth the honor of that office, to consist in that they had by reason of it, acces to this assistance of the Pastor, in so great mysteries. which should have been fondly put, if they might also by virtue of that office, them selves have ministered the Sacraments, as well as the Bishop: whereof also it cometh, that in another place, he calleth them brethren, which had care of the basket.

But touching the use of the Affricane churches, until Augustine's time, that one testimony is more then sufficient: whereby is affirmed, that Valerius Bishop of Hippo, did contrary to the custom of the African church, in that he committed the office of teaching unto Augustine, which was an Elder of that church, and that he was checked therefore of the Bishops: checked (I say) nothwithstanding that Valerius is there declared, to have done it for support of his infirmity, because himself was not so apt to preach. And howsoever Possidonius, alow of Valerius fact: yet both the continuance of that order by the space of 400 years, and the judgment of other Bishops round about, is without comparison of more weight: especially, when it appeareth by Possidonius writings, that (being a good simple man) he was nether of great learning, nor deep judgment. where also, it is to be observed, that as the discipline was best kept in those churches of Afrik: so the doctrine remained purest in them: As may appear not only by the Councils of Carthage, compared with other councils of that time, but also by Augustine's writings, compared with Jerome's, and other Doctors both greek and latin, in the same age.

In other churches, where this discipline was not so diligently looked unto: there are notwithstanding marks, whereby we may know, that they went owt of the way. As at Alexandria, where, although the Elders did teach: yet after Arius was convicted of heresy, it was decreed, that the Elders should no more teach. by which decree, they did, as it were, covertly confess: that they had received the reward of breaking the order of god, in permitting that the Elder, should teache in the church. For if it had been of the institution of an Elder, to preach: Nether Arius, nor ten thousand moe such heretic Elders, owght to have given cause of such a decree: seeing the institution of the lord owght not to be broken, for any abuse of men. Jerome (I grant) somewhere doeth reprehend this, and some learned of our time after him, have esteemed the decree of Alexandria fauty herein. But that being considered, which I have alleged, there is no cause to condemn that decree, whether it were of the Nicene council, or of Athanasius and the Eldership of Alexandria. And what if Jerome himself, although an Elder of Rome, give testimony unto this cause: that is to say, that yt belongeth not unto an Elder of the church, to minister the word, or Sacraments? Let his words be weighed, whereby he confesseth plainly, that nether Elder nor Deacon had right, but upon the Bishops commandment, so much as to baptize: which notvuithstanding (saith he) is licenced even to laymen in time of necessity. Vnhereunto also, refer that, which Tertullian writeth, that it belonged unto the Bishop only to baptize: and that the Elder and Deacon could not baptize, but upon the Bishops license.

Now, if the Elders had no right to preach &c. by reason of their office, or as incident into yt, if the Bishop only had right, and the other but by indulgence, or commandment: thus far we have both Tertul. and Jerome agreeing with us, that by the word of god and his institution, the Elder hath not to do with the word and Sacraments. And the same authors we have also, flatly contrary to the D. which holdeth (as appeareth by the discourse of his book) that all Elders and Deacons of the church, although not in government, yet touching the ministry of the word and sacraments, are equal, and have as much authority, as the Bishop himself. This difference only remaineth, between Jerome and us, whether this being not of gods institution, that an Elder may preach, or Minister the sacraments: it be lawful for any man, to give license thereof. which boldness of removing and changing the bounds, which the lord, in the tarriers of his word hath limited: both is before, and shall afterward (god willing) be further handled.

Last of all, for proof of these church Elders, which being occupied in the government, had nothing to do with the word: the testimony of Ambrose alleged in my former book, is so clear and open, that he which doeth not give place unto yt, must needs be thought as a bat, or an owl, or some other night bird, to delight in darkness. His saying is, that the Elders fell avuay by the ambition of the Doctors: where by opposing the Elders to Doctors, which taught, he plainly declareth that they had not to do with the word. whereupon it is manifest, that both yt was the use in the best reformed churches, certain hundredth years after the times of the Apostles, to have an Eldership which meddled not with the word, nor administration of Sacraments: and that they which wanted it, partly complained of the want, partly declining from this institution of god, corrected their error, at the least, they kept this difference, that whereas the Bishop preached and ministered the Sacraments, in right of his office: the Elder did it not as a thing incident to his office, but only upon indulgence of the Bishop.

Another point wherein the D. turneth his tongue is, that where he confessed before, that there was in every church Seniors: now he saith, in some only. And to salve this contradiction, with himself: he saith by every church, he meant, every chief city. Thus yow speak, but by what rule, and according to whose language, when yow expound every church, every chief city? as if their were no churches, but in chief cities. But thus must all their tongues be divided, which put them forth against the truth. Howbeit to come to that point, by what reason can yow show, that the Apostles instituted a several Ministry for chief cities, which they did not for uplandish towns? what were this, but to bring in an inequality, amongst the churches: which yourself otherwhere, confess owght not to be. Yt is (I grant) meet for the furtherance of the gospel, that the chiefest cities, when all cannot be served, should have the first, the sufficientest, and (according to their need) the greater number: but, that they should have a several Ministry ordained for them, into the fellowship whereof, the smaler churches may not be admitted, is without reason.

Secondly, the gospel which containeth the doctrine and discipline, went not owt of Ierusalē, into the chief cities only: but into all the world. Thirdly, it hath been shown, that the epistle of S. Paul to Timothy, wherein mention is made of the interteinment of these Elders: was not a rule prescribed to churches in great cities only, but unto all churches wherosoeuer. Further, seeing the Elders are continually joined, with the Bishop: it being shown, that the lord ordained for every congregation a Bishop, it must follow, that he ordained for every congregation Elders. finally, for as much as the Apostles labored, to bring the churches one with another to an uniformity, evē in the smalest ceremonies: how can they be thought, to have made so uneven work, in the Ministry of the church.

I let pas here the place in the Acts, before handled: where it is said, that Elders were ordained in every church. Likewise, the necessity of them, as well in other churches, as in churches in the city: which is after to be handled. Only I will note, what hath been the practice of the churches, in this point: whereby may appear, how the ancient fathers have understood this order. That Ignatius, which the An. will have S. John's scholar affirmeth, that there is no church, which can stand without her Eldership, or Counsail. This is manifest also by the Apology of Tertullian, wherein he defending the government of all the churches, not of those only in cities, and showing for that cause the order observed in them: maketh precise mention of this Senate of Elders, as hath been before alleged. The testimony of M. Bucer, is also manifest in this point: as it is alleged of me before. Likewise of M. Martyr, who affirming that certain of the people, were joined with the Pastor in the government of the church: assigneth the cause, for that the Pastor could not do all himself, thereby giving to understand, that the Eldership was as general, as the Pastor. For he doeth not say, where the Pastor could not do all, there he had assistance of an Eldership: but because the Pastor could not do all &c.

The only reason, which the An. hath against this, is: that there was not an Eldership amongst the Jews, in every of their synaguoges. But (as his wont is) he doeth only say so, proof he bringeth none. And as I for my part confess, that there cometh not to my mind, whereby I could precisely conclude yt owt of the old Testament: So I am assured, that he is not able to prove, that which he saith. But that which the D. affirmeth otherwhere, that it was only at Jerusalem: is utterly untrue. For Jehoshaphat at one time, set in Judges in every vualled city throvughovut the kingdom of Judah: which of what sort they were, namely, in part civil, in part ecclesiastical, appeareth by the Judges placed in Ierusalē. And to thē men had recours to, in matters of greater difficulty, according to the causes: if civil, to the civil, if ecclesiastical, to the ecclesiastical, judgment. where owght not to be forgotten, the nūbre of cities in one only tribe (as it might be in york sheer) to the number of a hundred and twelve: least that the reader, should measure the number of their cities, with ours. So that where the Answ. saith, that therewas but one Senate in all the twelve tribes: it is found that there were in one only tribe, at the least, a hundredth ant twelve ecclesiastical Elderships. Whether it may be concluded owt of the new Testament, that every synagog of the Jews had this Eldership, considering that the policy of the church now, was in this point taken from the Jews church, I leave it to the reader to judge, of that which I have alleged. whereunto aideth the custom of the Jews, unto this day: which in every of their synaguogues, have their Elders: Likewise Jerome's testimony, of which it may be certainly collected: that he esteemed that the Jews had their Elders, in every Synagog. For, he showeth that they chose of the wisest in their company, for governors: which should asvuel admonish those that had any corporal polution, to abstain from the assemblies, as to reprove the breakers of the ceremonies of the Sabbat. now, seeing there was the same use of these admonitions and reproofs as well in uplandish synaguoges, as in those which were planted in the cities: it followeth necessarily, that there were Elders as well for them, as for the other. At the least, the new Testament in marking these Elders, which it calleth chief of the Synagog, in diverse quarters: doeth manifestly overthrow the D. which saith, that they were only at Ierusalē. vpō all which matter, appeareth how extremely bold yow are in your affirmatiōs: which beside these two before mentioned, say also, that the Eldership was not always, no not in persecution. wherein, not to enter a new field, for every light word yow cast forth: what reason (I pray yow) cā yow assign, why sometimes there should be an Eldership under pecsecutiō, and other some times none: considering that yow imagine this Eldership, to be in place of a Christian Magistrate. whereby, it must needs follow, that his seat being void in time of persecution: it owght to be occupied by the Eldership, which yow fancy, to be his Lieftenāt. whether the D. pincheth the churches, where, with a Christian Magistrate, the Eldership still remaineth, which he here denieth: let the reader judge of his former book, where he affirmeth yt injurious to the Magistrate, and full of confusion, also that it cannot, nor owght not to be as in the Apostles times &c.▪ yea let him judge of this division. For after that he granteth to Princes, to commit their authority to the church if they list (then which there is nothing more untrue) he addeth whether it be well done, I will not determine. wherein I beseech yow mark first, what contraries he speaketh. For he doeth determine precisely, that civil Magistrates may commit their right and authority to these Elders, if they will: and yet, he will not determine whether it be well done or no. whereas if he would not have determined, of the one, he should have suspended his judgment, of the other: for thus he assureth them, they may do that, whereof he will make them no assurance, that it is well done. Secondly, it is to be observed, that where the question was of the Bishops receiving of civil authority from the Prince, he maketh it not only lawful, but convenient, yea necessary that it should be derived from the Prince to the Bishop: but here towards the Eldership, he saith, yt cannot be practiced, without intolerable contentions and extreme confusion. So that the Bishop, Archdeacons, and Deans, which with us are the deepest churchministers, may exercise (if the Prince will commit yt unto them) even the highest civil jurisdiction, and that to the singular advancement of the church: but these Elders, whose office in the church is not such, but that both they have, and may follow some civil trade of life, may not receive that power of the Magistrate which he untruly affirmeth that they had in time of persecution, on les all, by and by, fall upon heaps. In one and the same church, the Bishop, the Dean, the Archdeacon, and for a need, some of the Prebendaryes, may have beside their ecclesiastical jurisdiction, civil authority: but these Elders, although they were but two in number, may in no wise use any. This difference verily, riseth not in the breadth of shoulders, whereby they are able to carry all this, and the Elders none: but upon the widenes of the throat, which as the grave, is never filled.

Thirdly, it is to be observed, that the D. which for his own profit, stretcheth the power of the Prince beyond all bounds: here, as if he had to do with a cheuerel scepter, draweth it in. For he giveth more liberty herein, unto the Magistrates of small common wealths: then unto monarches. For to them, he seemeth sometime to leave yt at liberty, whether they will communicate their authority unto these Elders, or retayn it with them selves: but unto kings and Princes, he will in no wise permit yt. Wherein also, he is contrary to himself: which in another place saith, that the office of the civil Magistrate, may be committed unto whom soever it pleaseth him best to like of. If that be true, and this jurisdiction of the Elders were (as he untruly saith) belonging to the civil Magistrate: why might not the Prince, commit yt unto these Elders? as for his reason, that so every parish should be a kingdom: yt cometh to be answered, in another place.

To that I alleged of the necessity of the Eldership, because the Pastor cannot have his ey, in every corner of his parish &c. he answereth, an able Pastor, is able to do all required of a Pastor, which is no answer at all. For that is not the question, but this, whether he be able to do, whatsoever church government belongeth to the wealth of his church: which because he durst not affirm, or affirming it, had nothing to prove yt, he slipped away after this sort. And now that he understandeth, that this reason is confirmed by M. Peter Martyr: I trust hereafter, he will give it some honester name, then my fancy.

To that I alleged, that if the Auncientes should not be under a Christian Magistrate, yt would folovu that the lord should have les care of his church under a Christian, then under an unchristian Magistrate: he answereth, that the Christian Magistrate is in place of the Eldership, but nether addeth reason himself, nor once toucheth the reason which I brought, namely that yt was never lawful for the church in persecution, to appoint any that should enter upon any part of the civil Magistrates office. This also could not be a sufficient recompense, in matters pertaining to the soul health, that for an Eldership in every church, they should receive one Prince in a whole country. For one Prince, cannot in the spiritual government of the realm bring that to pas, which the Eldership in every church did before: although he should do nothing, but attend upon that. So that to make the Magistrates to succeed into the office of the Elders, and therein to do all the duties appointed unto the Eldership in times past: is to charge the Magistrates with a thing impossible, and such as must needs kyl their consciences.

Thus, where the Christian magistrate is given of god, to keep the order which god hath set in his church: yow bring him in as a breaker and changer of the order, which god hath appointed by his holy Apostles. But the godly Christian Magistrates may understand, that as nether our Savior Christ, nor any wise and well instructed ministry under him, will meddle with any order or form of common wealth lawfully instituted of them, for the better government of their people, but leave them as they find them: So they owght to leave whole and untouched, that order which Christ hath placed in his church. And as the An. saith truly otherwhere, that Christ came not to overthrow civil governments: even so it is as true, that god sendeth not kings to overthrow church government, planted by Christ and his Apostles. Yea so much more absurd is this later, then the first: by how much they owght to have more firmity, which were set by the lord himself, then which were by men. For what son of Adam shall presume to alter that order, which the lord him self from heaven hath set, And even so doeth the Apostle precisely speak of this office with others, that god hath set it in the church. If it be said, that he set also Prophets and workers of miracles, which are now no more: it is true, they are now no more, but why are they not? Ys it, because any man hath removed them? no verily, but because the lord himself, hath withdrawn them. For if the lord had given even unto these days, these gifts of healing and working of miracles &c. I think there is no man so extremely impudent, that would say, that the civil Magistrate might abolish or put them down. Beside that, it is untrue which he saith otherwhere, that this office is placed amongst those, which be temporal: for even that next before yt, noteth the office of the Deacon, which is perpetual.

As for that he crieth owt and so oft repeateth, that, by this means, no more is given to the Christian Magistrate, then to the Turk, proceedeth only of a famyn of reasons to answer, which driveth him to this vnrulynes: otherwise, he cannot tell how the establishment of this office, should spoil the Prince of her authority. S. Paul professeth of himself, that he vurote the same, that men red, that is to say sincerely, not pretending one thing and meaning another: but all this ialousy, pretended for the Prince against the Eldership, is in deed for the Bishop. So that, albeit the name of the Magistrate be holden owt, to draw this cause into hatered: yet the truth is, that yt is to establish their own tyranny. For as touching authority or preeminence, there is nothing given, to be done by the Eldership jointly with the Pastor, in one only congregation: all which, and more to, the Bishop himself alone, doeth not undertake to execute in a whole diocese or province. Therefore, if the exercise of this spiritual jurisdiction in the Eldership, spoil the Magistrate of his authority: then the Bishops, are the chief in this robbery.

Where he asketh, how I show owt of the scripture, that those are the duties of the Elders, which I have assigned. I answer, that forasmuch as S. Paul appointeth them governors of the church, together with the teaching governors, placing the difference only in teaching, and consequently in public prayer and administration of sacraments, which are joined with yt, or comprehended under yt: that therefore, the rest, remain commō between them, to be done as well of these, as of them.

That the place of S. Matthew, is not to be understanded only of private offenses: I have before declared. your interpretation of tell the church, that is publicly reprove those which, admonished privately, repent not: is evil nurtured, breaking in without leave. where mark (good reader) how easy it is for the D. to write answers, which being pressed giveth himself this liberty: that having no key to open the door, breaketh it open after this sort. To interpret tell by reprove, might have some color, by that the general is some time put for the special: but that tell the church, should be, reprove the offender, hath a disease, that all the tropes and figures which I have red of, are not able to cure. And me thinketh, that yow which accuse others for making the scripture a nose of wax: if yow will not put of your shoes, at the least yow should wipe them a little cleaner, when yow enter into the lords Sanctuary. That which followeth, is not a whit better.

For, after he saith that, by the church may be meant one only, so that he be in authority: which is not unlike unto that, which the papists say, that a man may appeal from the Council, unto the Pope. whereof, some of the papists them selves (if he do not repent) shall sit in judgment: which leaving unto the Pope the highest place in the church, have notwithstanding upon this place, preferred the judgment of the Council, to the Popes. But where I require some example of this monstrous speech, whereby one is said to be many, one member a body, one alone a company: the D. is domb. where I show further, that if one only should be understood by the church, that then the going from three to one, should not rise but fall, not go forvuard but bakvuard: he answereth, that to tell one which hath authority to correct the faut, is more then to tell twenty: as though the complaint is made, to the end he should be corrected, and not that he should be admonished. For as for correction, other then by words, it owght not to be awarded, unless he refuse to hear the church: so that here still the process is, from the admonition which is by many, to that which is by one. And if the Pastor be he, that doeth first privately admonish him, and afterward take two moe: by his answer, the Pastor must from his own admonition in the presence of one or two moe, take the matter to himself, and admonish himself alone.

He having thus dalied with the holy scripture, after confesseth that by the word church, are understood many: but those owt of Chrysostom are (saith he) Prelates and Presidētes: as though S. Paul, did not also cal these Elders Presidentes, which is all one with Prelates. Then he addeth, that the place is understanded of the government under the law, not of any rule which our Savior Christ gave, to govern his church under the gospel: even as where our S. Christ biddeth, to leave the gift before the Altar: which overthroweth his other interpretation. And again owt of Musculus, that it was but unto the time of the Christian Magistrate: which overthroweth also this next before. But if this be ether the law government, or the gospel government only, until the time of the Christian Magistrate: then to admonish privately him that offendeth, to take one or two, if he rest not in the admonition, be also of the same sort. For our Savior Christ putteth them alike general, alike necessary, of like limitation of time: for he chayneth them one with another, by the link of his commandment, that if this way profit not, then the second must follow, and the third after that.

Then also it followeth, that the means to bring sinners to repentance, served only for the time of the law, and unchristian Magistrates. For after that our Sau. Christ, had taught how the lord delighteth in the return of the sinner, and in the fyneding of the lost sheep: he propoundeth this, as a principal mean, whereby he will have that brought to pas. But, let the D. show, any light owt of the word of god, whereby it may appear, that certain of these commandments are temporal, and certain perpetual, certain to serve for the time of the law, and an unchristian Magistrate: if not, then the commandment of Christ remaineth, whereof nether he, nor none other can show any countermandement. Beside that it is absurd, that it should be here declared, what order was used under the law, and not under the gospel: when our Sav. Christ instructeth his Apostles, how to behave them selves in the church, and speaketh of the order, that should be in his church, in time to come.

That also which he citeth owt of mathews, is flat against him. For, although our Sau. Christ useth manner of speeches, drawn from the service of god, which, then in use, be not so now: yet the commandment he there giveth, under that kind of speech, is perpetual. And as, whatsoever is abrogated of that precept Matthew 5, is abrogated by the prescript word of god, which teacheth us, that offering of calves upon the altar, and other ceremonial laws are done away: So, if he will have this ordinance of god abrogated, he must show us some place of Scripture, where our Sau. Christ repealed yt. what we ascribe unto the Christian Magistrate, shall appear afterward.

To the place of Timothy, requiring a necessary observation of things comprised in that Epistle: he answereth first, that these Elders are not there comprised, nor their office. I have shown, that both they and their office be there: which is the same with the Bishops, that only excepted, which I have before noted. Further in the word Deacons (as yt is well observed) the Apostle comprehendeth both the Elders, and those which had the alms to dispose: which may appear, in that, describing the qualities of the Deacons, he noteth there no special quality, of him that hath the order of the church is treasure, but those qualities only which are common as well to the Elder, as to him that disposed the church money.

After, he saith that those words cannot be extended, unto all the precepts, first because the office of widows should be then necessary: But he doeth not consider, that S. Paul ordeyneth them not simply, but upon condition. if he had instituted the Eldership with condition, if he had ordained that office, rather for the maintenance of the persons them selves, then for the service of the church, if he had left so small choice of those to this office, as to that, namely that none might be chosen but poor, none but destitute of all friends, none under the age of lx years: then he had said somewhat. And even now, the perpetuity of that commandment touching widows, remaineth in that sort it was given: that is upon condition. Then he saith, that so, Ministers which have such infirmities as Timothy, should of necessity drink wyne. By wine, the Apostle meaneth, not only the blood of the grape, but strong drink also, and whatsoever might be apt against Timothies infirmities: And so it is a plain commandment, not only to Timothy, but to all ministers in his case, that they should use such remedies against their diseases, whereby they might be more able, to do their Ministry. Nether is it les, a perpetual commandment, to all Ministers, because all countries have not wyne: then the commandment of excommunication, because all countries have not such Publican's, as were in Jury, to make their pattern of excommunication by.

Last of all, he bringeth Chrysostom and Calvin, which refer those words unto Timothes office: which is to no purpose. For Timothy for his part (and in his place the Minister of the word) had to do in all those offices, as well to ordain, as to reprehend and punish them, if they did not their duty: so that, in commanding Timothy to execute his duty, according to the tenure of that Epistle, he doeth plainly command the maintenance of this office. whether the word, without spot, be referred unto Timothy, or unto the commandment, I leave to the readers judgment: So I do the next division. In the next also, beside Musculus and Gualters judgment, there is nothing saving an extreme, ether forgetfulness, or that which is worse: in saying that he remembereth not to have red any autor, that maketh mention of this Eldership. For if he had never red the authors them selves: yet he could hardly forget that owt of them: which I alleged to that purpose.

To the first reason, proving that an Eldership is more needful novu, then in the Apostles times, for that the Pastors novu are not of that sufficiency to govern all alone, as they were then: he answereth, that there be not also so sufficient men to make an Eldership now, as there were then: which serveth, as well to prove that we should have no Pastors at all, as that there should be no Eldership, to support the Pastor. But how absurd is it, that because they cannot give so full and plentiful assistance now, as the Elders in times past, therefore they must give no assistance at all. So that unless he will say, that none of the parish can do anything in the government of the church, but the Pastor alone: he must needs confess, that, that wchich may be, owght to be for support of the Pastor. his other answer, is before confuted.

Secondly yt was alleged, that S. Paul, so loeth to lay any unnecessary charge, upon the church: yet enjoined this ministry unto the poor and persecuted churches. The strēght of which reason lieth in this, that some contributiō was necessary to their maintenance then: where as novu in time of peace, this ministry, may be without all charges unto the church. To this, in stead of answer, he frameth other arguments of his own, wherewith he dalieth, skowreth up his old stuf of widows, and the civil Magistrate, before answered, alledgeth the poverty of some parishes, the unwillingness of other some to contribute: which is a mere trifling. For seeing, the poverty of the churches could not exempt them from this charge, when they were much poorer , as appeareth by S. Paul, seeing also yt may be now without the charge of the church, as appeareth by the practice of the churches, which are so governed in these days, where there is not a penny allowed to any Elder: ether he owght to confute this, or blush to set down that for answer: yet he is not afraid after to put yt, for a reason against the Eldership. whereunto may be added, that the churches in persecution, nether those now, nor other in times past, could have such helps of houses or lands, appropriated to the fineding of their ministry, as the churches with us: but were driven to pay for all of their own purs. And not that only, but cōstrained to pay their tithes, or other exactions, to the Idolatrous priesthood, of that place where they abode: which we are freed from, under a Christian Magistrate.

To the third reason, that the declining of a popular rule, or that of the best, hath not so easy redress under a Tyrant, as under a Christian magistrate: he saith, men in persecution are not desirous of honor &c. which (in a manner) is as much to say, as men in persecution, cease to be men, and is untrue, as appeareth both in the Apostles times, and after, as I have shown. Secondly, he answereth, that the governors thē, were but during the pleasure of such as ppointed them, whereof he bringeth no proof at all, and is likewise untrue, considering, that they were chosen to remain so long in their office as they behaved them selves vnblamably: or at the least, until a certain term, before which they could not by any equity, but upon their faut, or their own desire, be put owt. In the first of which two cases, they are somewhere now, as they were then and in the later, they may if it seme expedient, even now, as well as then: so that here is no difference at all, between those, and these times. Nether doeth he consider, that the governors, being corrupt, the greatest part of the church, is commonly led away with them: In which case, the church is without remedy under persecution, when notwithstanding she hath an easy remedy, under a Christian Magistrate.

Thirdly he saith, that, this granted, the argument followeth not: reason he showeth none, but open askinges of that in question. And whether it follow well, that for so much as there ys les inconvenience, in the government of the Eldership under a Christian magistrate, then under a Tyrant: therefore it may be better under him, then under a Tyrāt, let all the world judge. his owtcourses, as also his open untruth, that I confess the church government to be a monarchy, I pas by: I only said, that it is a monarchy, in respect of our Sau. Christ, which is nothing to that purpose, he alledgeth yt for.

In the fourth, that the Elders could not then meet without danger, which they may do novu, and therefore, that the government by one only, as of the Bishop, had been ( if ever, then most convenient: he answereth, that it was not so dangerous, which is contrary to all reason, and experience. Then he saith, the church must be subject to the civil magistrate: whereby (as appeareth both in this division and in the next) he meaneth nothing else, but that yt owght to allow of that church government, which the Magistrate will appoint, although yt be diverse from the Apostles, which is a fat begging of that in question. his first and third answers also, touch not the cause at all.

Where against his distinction, that this government of Elders may be in a Cytie, but not in a Realm, I alleged, that it hath had place, by his ovun confession, in a vuhole Realm: he saith, that that is true, where every church is, as yt were, within yt self a common wealth, as in France and other persecuted churches. wherein he doeth shameful injury, to all those churches of god, and to the Apostles them selves which used that order: in ascribing unto them, as though they made new common wealths, or lived not under the same form of civil government, were not obedient unto the same civil laws, and to the same Magistrates, which the Idolatres them selves were. what one, ether action, or property can yow assign in an Eldership, under a kingdom, which should cause this rent: that there should be so many common wealths, and so many kingdoms, as there are Elderships? why also doeth this Eldership make a greater rent, in a monarchy where one governeth: then in a common wealth, where many govern. If yow think therefore, because a monarchy is greater, then a common wealth, whereby there must be moe Elderships in the one, then in the other: beside that the argument is naught, that also whereupon it is grounded, is untrue. For, there are common wealths, where many rule, greater then the monarchies, where one only governeth: as Rome in times past, Venys within our remembrance, and such like.

Where I alleged also, that, by his reason, a monarchy should not be good in the common wealth, because the government of one is good in a hovushould, &c. He answereth, that the authority of the Master of the howshould, derogateth not from the Princes, but the Eldership doeth: which is his accustomed beggary. where, in deed, the authority of a Master of a howshould, approacheth nearer unto the kind of government of the Magistrate, as that which hath, corporal punishment annexed unto yt: then the authority of the Eldership, which meddleth not that way.

And because I am entered into that example, I would know of him, which will have other governments, fashioned to the form of government of the common wealth: whether in a common wealth, where many have equal authority, the magistrate may ordain, that the father of the household, shall not rule his own hows alone, or be chief in yt, but shall have his wife of like authority, or some of his servants quarter Master. If he be ashamed of this, then he seeth that the wall of all his defense, against the discipline of the church, as well in this cause, as in diverse other, pauncheth: so that it is not able to abide, the vueight of a fox. For thus, there is not only (as he objecteth) a several government in every Town: but in every private hows. And if the Master of the household may, and owght to retain his authority without prejudice of the Magistrate: why may it not be so, in the government of the church.

What will he further say, to the Scholemaster, which he otherwhere affirmeth to be an Ecclesiastical officer: may there not be, ether two in one Schole, under a Prince, or one in one Schole under a common wealth where many have like authority, unless the common wealth be thereby mangled, and the magistrates authority impaired? But of this matter, I have also spoken otherwhere. Howbeit, whereas the D. alowing of this Eldership in a common wealth, cannot abide it in a monarchy: I will say this further, that if there were any danger to a common wealth, by this Eldership, it should be greater to the small common wealths, then to great monarchies: considering that they, should not be able, so well to repres the Eldership ouerreaching and going beyond their bowndes. And if the Elders hips authority, belong unto the magistrate (as he saith): then by how much, these magistrates have les power, and fewer perogatives over their people's, then the monarches over their subjects, by so much have they more need, then the other, to keep all in their own hand.

Upon his own confession, that there be more disordered persons now, then in time of persecutiō: I concluded that there needeth so much more assistance, for the Pastor to find them out, to judge of the quality of the faut, and to correct them with censures of the church. Herevnto he answereth, that it is better done by the Magistrate, and by corporal punishment: which is before answered, although yt be unworthy answer, considering that albeit the bodily punishment, were more apt to reform things amis: yet thereof followeth not, but that both the civil punishment, and ecclesiastical together, will do more then the civil punishment alone.

I would also know, why the Pastor owght not, to carry, even private offenses great or small, unto the Magistrate: if it be so, that this ecclesiastical authority, be escheted to him. As for that he alledgeth owt of Gwalther, that men will not set a straw by the authority of the Eldership: it serveth as well against the ecclesiastical censures of all Pastors, and of our Bishops, as against the Elders: and more against them, then against these. For so much as, if they set not a straw by the Elders and Pastor together jointly, they will much les esteem the Pastors or Bishops alone. And if they set nothing by it, whē it is countenāced by the civil magistrate: they will much more set them at naught in persecution, when for the contempt of yt, there is not only no corporal punishment, but a reward at the hands of the Tyrants. The bare names of suspensions and excommunications, strike a fear into the hearts of the people: which notwithstanding (through an horrible abuse of them, for every trifling money matter) are not to be feared: according to the wise man's saying, acauseles curs, shall not come, but flieth avuay as the sparovu or svualovu.

Seeing then thes fray bugs, no more to be esteemed, as touching the conscience, or further then they empty the purs, then the braying of an Ass, strike such a fear: with what power, would the lord accompany them, when they be executed according to his institutiō. for further answer, the reader may have recours unto M. Bucer: who confuteth this very objection, of contempt of the churches censures. And this voice tendeth, as well to the subversion of all ecclesiastical censures, forever hereafter: as to the utter condemning of that, which was used by the Apostles heretofore.

Althowgh, if it be the ordinance of god, this is no reason against yt: considering that the owtrage of men, cannot put the lord to silence, or make his ordinance to give place. In the next, where, upon his answer, I conclude, that ether we must have no Pastor at all (which is absurd,) or else an Eldership in as many places, as sufficient men may be gotten: he answereth nothing, beside repetitions, and demands of that in question.

In the next, where is proved that the hardness or apparent impossibility may not be considered, when there is a commandment to do anything: he letteth all that defense go to the ground, wherein notwithstanding he placed great force. Let him therefore strike owt that objection, or if he move further debate herein, let him not be ashamed, to return back, and take his work before him. And for further answer thereunto, let him loke M. Bucer: who confuteth also this objection. where he excepteth, that it is not commanded, thereof let the reader judge, of that which hath been written. Althowgh it hath been shown, that the example of the Apostles, and general practice of the churches under their government: even without a commandment, draweth a necessity.

Then he saith, that if it were▪ yet it were but a temporal commandment, as the widows, the eating of blood, and washing of feet. Of the widows, hath been answered, the decree of the blood, was never a simple prohibition, after our Sau. Christ (whose blood that did shadow) had finished his oblation: but only to the support of the Jews. So that even then, when that decree was made, the faithful, both of the Jews or Gentiles, might have eat yt: so they did yt without offense of those which were weak. And if there were now any Iue weak in faith, whom we should by eating of blood, drive from the gospel: I doubt not, but that until he be fully instructed of the liberty I have in Christ, I owght to use the same charitable support towards him. And this appeareth manifestly, both in the same, and other places: where S. Paul which gave owt that decree to be kept, teacheth generally the free use of all meats, so yt be without offense.

As for the washing of feet, commanded unto the Apostles, it is nothing but a trope or borrowed speech: whereby our Sau. Christ willeth them, and, in them, us all, not for a time, but to the end of the world, that, for help one of another, eche should submit himself to other, even unto the doing of the basest offices. which may appear, in that he placeth perfect blessedness in the obediens to that commandment: which he would never have done, in the washing of the feet: So that this commandment, might well be of them (as of us) fulfilled, without that particular actiō, of washing eche another's feet.

But here observe, I pray yow, how dangerously yow behave yourself, in respect of the common Adversary. Before yow have made us things necessary to observe, and that as of the Apostles authority, which were never written, but as yow would make us believe, left by tradition: here, yow bear us in hand of commandments (I know not how many) written, not necessary to be observed, but only to last, for a time. if unwritten traditions be perpetual, and written cōmandementes be not: what wanteth to the utter banishment of all truth, and settling of all falsehood in the church of god. For as yow may except against this, so may other against any commandment of the Apostles: whereas the authority of god in them, once being shown, ether men owght to show some place, whereby that is called back, or else let yt stand, in that authority it was first set in, of the lord.

To that I alleged, that god is present in his church, with the riches of his spirit, in knovuledg, wisdom, &c. and especially with those lavufully called unto office, confirming it by the example of Saul: he answereth, the church is sometime without good Pastor, or good governor, as in Elias time: which is untrue: for there were a hundredth prophets, kept of one man alone. Then he saith, that it is Anabaptistical, upon a miraculous change, and that of one, to make a general rule: But yt is his great faut, not to know, that the miracles wrought upon certain, have a general doctrine, and serve to the confirmation of our faith, in all our necessities. As the feeding of the people of god in the desert with man, &c. serveth to this: that although, the ordinary means of norishment fail, yet that the lord will otherwise provide for us: the feeding of the people in the desert, by our Sau. Christ to this, that those which seek the kingdom of heaven, shall have all other things cast unto them.

If I had given hope, of the assistance of god, in things taken in hand without a calling, or in a calling, without using the lawful means, which god putteth in our hands, then yt had been Anabaptistical: but to assure the church of the assistance of god, in going about that, which I hold for commanded of him, when yt assaieth all lawful means it can, ys more skillful divinity, then yow can stayn with all the skil yow have. I could have brought other examples of David, Solomon &c. but that one of Saul, was more pressing, the force whereof noted by me, yow clean pas by.

Nether hath the lord done this, in certain particular persons: but generally, in his whole church. For when he would make his tabernacle, which was a figure of the church, he commanded an exquisite workmanship in yt. where, albeit there was nothing more gros and rude then the Israelites, as those which had been many years holden in vile slavery, occupied in clay and dirt, and all other kind of drudgery: yet the lord gave numbers of such dexterity, in working all kind of broidery, and riche works, as if they had been brought up in all liberal exercise, and norished as Princes children.

Moreover, when as the lord furnished unto the church under the law, able men for this function, notwithstanding he used not that larges toward yt, which he doeth now towards us: they are to injurious unto the grace of god, towards the church now, which, under pretence of want of able men, would drive this order owt of yt. In the city of Athens (as Tertullian reporteth) children spake, when they were but a month old: and shall we think, that in Jerusalem, which the lord will have to be the beauty of the world, and which he hath set upon a stage, that in yt he might, as it were, make a show of all his riches, shall we think (I say) that men of 30 and 40 years, shall be all such babes, that they shall not be able to give any judgment of the laws of that city, whereof they have been so long Burgesses. Ad also, that yow, to give the Pastor a pasport, to be away from his charge, say that there may be diverse found in his absence, able to answer all the dowtes, that a dowtful and turmoiled conscience can minister: which verily although it be not the same, yet is a rarer gift, then is necessarily required, of an Elder of the church, such as we require.

To that I alleged, that the common wealth government, must be framed unto the church, and not the church government unto the common wealth, as the hanginges to the hovus, and not the house to the hanginges: he answereth, as though I had meant, that the form, of the government must be changed, and made the same with the form of the church government: which is an open wresting of my words, seeing all know, that to be framed according to another thing, is not all one as to be made the same with yt: unless he that commandeth his hanginges to be framed to his hows, commandeth that his hows and hanginges should be made the same, or that the Master which biddeth his servant frame himself to him, biddeth him to give commandment for commandment, chek for chek, blow for blow.

Therefore, my meaning could not be such, but it was as it is, which I also expounded in the example of the Prince, the principal part of the common wealth: that if there were any custom, prerogative, or pomp in the common wealth, before the Prince joined himself to the church, contrary to the order of a church vuel established, that that should be corrected.

And if I had had any such meaning, as he surmiseth, yet our common wealth could have received no such change by this: considering that I had both declared my liking of yt, and shown how the form thereof, resembleth the form of the church government. whereby also appeareth, what a shameful slander it is, which he surmiseth of me, that I would have Princes throw down their crowns, before the Seniors of the church &c. which I precisely prevented with plain words, because I knew with whom I had to do. Albeit, that Princes should be excepted frō ecclesiastical discipline, and namely from excommunication, as he here and otherwhere signifieth: I utterly mislike.

Now he hath left the point of his slanderous speech in me, in his answer to my arguments, as a be which hath lost her sting: he is altogether unprofitable. For unto the similitude of the hows and hanginges, he saith, that it proveth yt not: but reason he showeth none. unto that also, that the church was before the common wealth, and therefore that yt should serve the church, and not the church yt: he saith, the argument followeth not, but he saith yt only. whereas, if the church and commō wealth were otherwise equal, which cannot be, one only respecting the life to come, the other the cōmodityes of this life: yet having this preeminence above yt, that it was before yt, it must needs be better then yt, and consequently owght rather to be served of yt, then to serve yt. the Apostle also useth the same reason, to prove that the woman is subject to the man.

To that I alleged, that the church is the foundatiō of the world, and therefore the common wealth, built upon yt, must be framed unto yt: he saith that yt is obscure &c. But it is for want of light in him self, for otherwise, the thing is clear. And to leave Solomon's proverb, which Rabbi Levi Ben Gerson doeth so interpret, and whereof in deed the sense may well be, that where the wicked are carried away with the tempest, the just not only stand fast, but be the cause why the world standeth: I say to leave that, S. Peter plainly confirmeth, that the cause why this world endureth, is for that the full number of the elect is not yet gathered: so that, as sone as they are assembled by the ministry of the church, there shall be forthwith an end of the world. As for that he bringeth against this, yt is unworthy the rehersal: for of the three first, he can conclude nothing, and his last answer, is no better. For yt talketh of a change of that, which is laid upon the foundatiō, whereunto the common wealth is likened, and is that which I affirm: but of changing the foundation, whereunto the church is compared, not a word. the two next divisions be answered.

Here, he presseth that, which he inferreth of the Admo▪ that if the rule of moe in the church, be better then of one, because it is easier to turn one then a company from truth and equity: it should therefore follow, that the moe that govern, the better it should be, which he hath now mended, by putting for moe, moe good men, nothwithstāding that this also is but sophistry. For by the same form of reasoning, it should follow, that because two bittes of meat norish more thē one? therefore the more a mā eateth, the more he shall be norished. he should therefore understand, that as there is in this government a defect, so there is an exces, and between both a mean, which is to be holden. and that as the comodity of having the church judgments, handled by a company, is to be sought after: so the inconvenience and confusion, of assembling a great multitude for every ecclesiastical case that may befall, is to be avoided. Beside, that it is not enough, that they which should govern be good mē: unless they be of greater counsel and judgment then the rest of the body: of which sort, when he will not affourd us any just number, he might well have spared this objection.

If it were greatly to the matter, it were easy to show, moe lawful forms of common wealths thē three. Likewise, that although commō wealths have their names, of that which beareth the chief sway: yet that they are, to their profit, tēpered and mixed one with another, singularly the monarchy. This is to be seen namely in our land, where to the passing of diverse things: the consent of the Parliament is so required, as that without yt, those matters cannot pas. The next is already partly, and partly cometh after to be answered.

Here, he denieth most shamefully, that he alleged Ambrose, to prove, that Seniors owght not to be under a Christian Prince. For, both the sentence immediately going before and following after, drive thereunto: yea and that he affirmeth upon confidence of Ambrose saying only, for other proof he hath not. It is therefore to great boldness, that he asketh me, why I gathered the time between Phillip and Ambrose,

Then he denieth, that the Eldership flourished in Constantine's time: but he is much to blame. For the Centuries, wherein he hath been raking so often, must needs have told him: that the same orders and functions of the church, were in that time which were before. And it is manifest, that the churches were governed under him, as before, by Bishops Elders and Deacons: by that which is recited of an infinite number of Elders and Deacons, which came to the Council of Nice, with the 250 Bishops. moreover, yt being before declared, and in part confessed by him, that this government was before Constantine's time: if he be not able to show that Constantine changed yt, the same must be presumed.

After, not denying but that it might be under some Christian Prince, he saith, that it is not the question, whether it may be, but whether it owght to be: which, how untrue it is, let the reader judge of that I have before noted.

To Jerome that saith, that the Christian church hath her Eldership, he answereth they were Ministers of the word and Sacraments: his reason, because they were such as S. Paul speaketh of unto Timothy, maketh for us, which have shown that S. Paul speaketh there of Elders, that govern only. which may be better understanded, in that Jerome compareth them with the Eldership of the Jews: which was, as hath ^b appeared, a several order from the Priests and Scribes, that interpreted the law, and offered the sacrifices. Duarenus also helpeth him not, rather he maketh against him. For, in that he saith, that the Canons succeeded into the place of the Elders: he declareth, that the Canons are of another order then they were. As when Jerome saith that the Bishops, succeeded unto the Apostles: he meaneth not, that the Bishops are of the same degree and order of ministry, with the Apostles. the next I leave to the readers judgment.

Unto Ambrose he answereth: if he misliked the abrogating of this Seignory, why did he not labor to restore yt. That he misliked yt, is manifest, when he condemneth the Ministers of the word of negligence, for suffering it to vuear out of the church: or rather of pride, vuhilest they only would seme to be some what. he labored also in part to restore yt, in that he reprehended the abolishing of yt. whether he did further labor or no, is not expressed, the best is to be supposed: which is that, to his power, he endeavored to set in that, the want whereof he condemneth: But Ambrose was no lord Bishop, that he could do in the church, whatsoever he desired. his extreme boldness in denying, that ether he was abused, or would have abused other, let the reader judge of: also in that he saith, Ambrose maketh nothing for our cause, to whose judgment I also leave the next division.

If he deny, that church officers which handle church matters, and vuatch over the sovules of mē, be ecclesiastical officers: then let him deny also, that two and two make four. But so gentilmen and handycraftes mē, should be ecclesiastical persons: why not? if they be chosen thereto. were S. Paul and Isaiah the Prophet no ecclesiastical persons: because one was a Tentmaker, the other of the kings stok. Nether occupations nor dignities have any such mark of uncleanness, or profanation, that they may not be coupled with the church ministry: when the ministry is such, as together with their professions, they may also execute yt: in which kind is the Eldership of the church. I omit, that the D. hath here patched together a sentence of M. Calvin before answered, and another of M. Beza: which, in that sense he pretendeth them, are quite contrary one to another. yt is therefore meruail, if he can make of them one vniform, and even answer.

Now he hath ranged and roued, almost in this whole disputation: he must have leave to run back the way he came, to see whether he hath let any of his pieces fall. And first, good reader, he dasheth the in the face, with two open untruths, in the forehead of this chapter. For the order of the church propounded by us, is vniform, and standing, as it is left us in the word of god: and not as he surmiseth, varying according to the number of the churches. Also for ceremonies variable by circunstance, it is frankly confessed: that they owght to be determined of, by advise of the church Synod, assembled especially of the flower and most sufficient of the ecclestical governors, sent by consent of the rest, if all (as yt happeneth) cannot be coueniently there.

Secondly, it is nether affirmed, nor ever practiced in any church where this order is, or hath been used: that he that is chosen may not refuse yt. So that, if there be any that thinketh his honor stained, in being joined in counsel of church matters with poor men, when there ether are not, or are not enow of others: he hath not to complain, seeing he is at his choice. Albeit, if any man should be so myneded, to think skorn to hear the sentence of a poor man, in that he is a poor mā: let the same know, that he reproacheth god that made him poor. And if he be lawfully appointed, to this office: thē he doeth not disdain the man, but Christ him self. Therefore, if he have any fear of god before his eyes: he will from hence forth be ashamed to use this for a reason. Beside that, he thus overthroweth the high court of Parliament: where, with the nobility, are joined in consultation the commons of the Realm: where also the estates, being unequal, the voices notwithstanding are equal. I omit, how that if there were any inconvenience in this, that the sentence of the Pastor and other not so rich or so noble, should weigh down the sentence of that noble man he speaketh of: yet himself hath delivered us of yt, which telleth us, that the lord of the town, or some other of countenance will lead away the rest of the church: how much more then, shall he be able to lead away two or three? Thus he playeth on both hands: for there he pincheth at the nobility, and here he pretendeth, as if he were tender over their honor.

His third reason is answered before: likewise his fourth: his fifth: his sixth, and ^a seventh. As for the eight, of partial affectiō and contentions which would ensue: it is plentifully answered, in the question of the church election. For if these be frivolous reasons against those ecclehastical actions, where the whole church hath interest: much more are they, against the assemblies of three or four only, and those of the choicest. the ninth is also answered.

The tenth, that it would be to great extremity to punish for one faut twice: is a falls principle, taken from the Pelagian herefy. For the Magistrate may appoint four kind of punishmētes, for one faut, if he think good, to be executed at diverse times: so that they altogether and jointly, exceed not the quantity of the faut. And, by his reason, the Magistrate shall be shut owt, from his right of punishyng syn: if it fall owt, that the lord by some punishment laid upon the offender, prevent the Magistrates punishment, especially when the punishment is in such sort, that it may appear that yt was sent for that special faut: for examples sake, if of drunkenness, he fall into some sickness: na, thus the lords sword, is wrung owt of his hand. For nether may he punish those faults, which the Magistrate punished before: and if he punish a man in this life, he hath bound his hands, for punishing him in the world to come. For in deed the church discipline, is the punishment, or rather the correction of the lord: in a far other kind, and to another end, then the civil punishment. But I have shown, that both these were practiced amongst the people of god, for one and the same faut. And is not this, in the Apostles, to condemn the holy ghost himself? For if it be true, which he saith, when one had stolen, or committed adultery, it had not been lawful for them to have used the ecclesiastical censure, least the offender being after apprehended, and punished according to the laws of the common wealth where he lived, should thereby have been wronged. Beside that, the D. accuseth all our Bishops, which for diverse causes punishable by the laws of the Realm, send forth their excommunications: yea all the elder churches, which did not leave to proceed in ecclesiastical censures against those, whom the heathen Princes had justly punished. But hereof the reader may know further in M. Calvin's institutions: also in M. Bucer, who praecisely cōfuteth them which say, that the punishment by the civil Magistrate is sufficient.

His eleventh, that alterations are dangerous: is unworthy answer. For when yt hath been shown, that ceremonies otherwise in different, owght when they breed offense to be changed: how much more, owght those to be changed, which are shown to be contrary to the institutiō of god. And nether this, nor the next clause in this eleuēth article, nor diverse other allegations in this chapter, have so much as a countenance of reason: unless it be first granted unto the D. which is the principal questiō, that is to fay, that the Eldership of the church is not commanded of the lord. his two other reasons in this article, are both often repeated, and utterly untrue: there having been never any Christiā Prince that used the spiritual sword, which only is givē to the Eldership, nether any noble mā or gentilmā which in our land useth this kind of correction, but only the Bishop, which usurpeth yt, and abuseth yt. I omit his often jesting, at the Pastor, by calling him diverse times in contempt, Master Pastor: which the Angels them selves dare not do: when as himself cannot deny, but to have a Pastor in every congregation, is the ordinance of god. If men will not look to such disorders: I doubt not, but the lord will lay to his hand.

The first reason, to prove no certain kind of church government appointed, is answered before: likewise the second and third: the fourth is a gros asking of that in question. In the fifth M. Calvin's and M. Beza's first and last sentences, are violently drawn from their meaning: as hath been shown. The middle sentence, beareth no such argument, as he would gather: for there is no word, that shutteth owt the necessity of the Eldership under a Christian Magistrate: no, or that maketh it, so much as les necessary under a Christian Magistrate, then under persecution. For the word, especially, is restrained, unto the government which the Bishop had over the Elders: so that if there be anything to be gathered of that, it is this, that the Bishop should not have so much preeminence over the Eldership, when there is a Christian Magistrate, as when there was not. And how doeth not he blush, to allege men's sentences directly contrary to their judgments, plainly declared in this matter of the Eldership: which counteth yt such a faut, to set one writer against another. I omit other places, owt of M. Beza, where this cause is confirmed both generally in the invariable government of the church, and particularly in this case of the Eldership. The reasons alleged of M. Musculus and Gwalther have been answered. His sixth reason of giving no more here, to the Christian Magistrate, then to Nero: is but only said, the untruth whereof shall appear in place.

Seeing therefore, the lord him self hath once set this government by Elders in the church, and that no man may displace, which he hath placed: seeing yt is a supply of that in the church, which the most sufficient and most diligent ministry of the word, is not able to perform by yt self alone: seeing the churches under the law, and in the Apostles times could not want this help: and seeing the antiquity which followed for diverse hundred years, partly held the same, partly lamented the want of yt, and partly left marks and footinges whereby, being lost, yt might be recovered again: seeing further, the liberality of god towards the church is commended, in that for the greater safety of yt, he would have many watchmen of one church. Lastly, seeing the Apostle in the person of Timothy, chargeth most straitly all the Ministers of the word, with the keeping of this order, until the appearing of our Sa. Christ: let us conclude that the Eldership ordained for the government of the church only, is the perpetual and unchangeable decree of god, and therefore not only in common wealths where many, but also in Monarchies where one governeth, not only in time of perseqution, but also in time of peace, to be retained.

Again, forsomuch as the Apostle ordained thes Elders, church by church: forasmuch as giving a rule of the government of all, as well of churches in the country, as in the City, he enjoined the praeseruation of this order: forasmuch also as the gospel, whereof this is a part, brake forth owt of Jerusalem into all places, not into cities only: and for that, the Pastor of an uplandish town, is no more able to do all that is to be done in his church, then the Pastors in the city: considering also that the churches, as dawghters and coheirs of one father and mother, owght to enjoy like privileges: seeing further the Bishop to whom this Eldership is assistant, hath been shown to belong as well to churches in the country, as in the city: finally, forasmuch as the use both of he churches under the law, and of those after the Apostles times, lead us hereūto: yt is likewise brought, to pas, that this Eldership owght to be in all churches, not in those only which are planted in great cities.

Thus is also ended, the question of Cathedral churches: whereof the D. hath made, a whole tractate. wherein there appeareth, scarce a step of this institution of god: of which, when he would brag of, and set the highest price, he hath valued twelve of the best of them at no more, then one poor halin Cambridge or Oxford, is able to yield. yea then they were at, Queen Mary's time: when there were commonly in everyone some, which dissembling for fear, were not withstanding able to confute all Papists & Anabaptists, whereunto he can answer nothing. That the offices came, from the bottomless pit of hell: may partly appear by that which I have alleged, partly in that the names of Prebendaries &c. are not to be found in any godly or pure writer, but in the dregs of the canon law. For further understanding of which disorders, I refer the reader to that which M. Calvin writeth of them: who peinteth them owt in their colors. And where I shown, that to look for any good unto the church in the Popes invention, is to look to be fed with the Cockatrice eggs, and to be clad with the spiders vueb: he answereth, that the Pope, as the Ethnics, may make good laws: which is untrue, in matters belonging to the church, especially in so great a matter, as the appointing of an office. I will not deny, but they may devise good laws for the commodity of this life: but yt cannot be shown, that ever the lords people fetched their laws to govern the church by, from the heathen, much les from the Pope, which is the head of the heathen.

Therefore all may see, what a singular profit both the church and common wealth should have: if they were converted into Colleges, for the bringing up of scholars, which they would yield (as I think) in greater number, then both the universities do now, with furniture of professions in all good knowledge: where now, they serve but for the fatting up of a few, and those ether unworthy to be norished of the Alms of the church, or else whose presence is necessary in other places, and dutiful by reason of pastoral residence. wherein, as well against theirs, as against our university men's non residence: I refer the reader to the special tractate thereof. [ 748] That they should serve for rewards, to those which have spent much time in getting learning: is but to foam at the mouth, that which is a shame once to conceive in the mind. considering that by reward, he understandeth not the honest and sufficient provision for his competent how should, and convenient hospitality for the poor, which is confessed most due: but meaneth some surplice beside this, which is before confuted. Nether is any good to be hoped from them, whom the excellency of this office before Angels and men, doeth not content: to whom the fruit which they shall receive daily, in that by their ministry god is glorified, and men are saved, doeth not satisfy: finally to whom the special crown of glory, which remaineth thē in the life to come, with sufficient provision for this present life, doeth not make the ministry sauory, unless it be also sauced, with these inticementes of worldly wealth and dignity. So that this is rather a lure, to draw hyrelinges into the church: then an honest provocation, to cal in faithful Pastors.

Hereunto cometh the example of other churches, which have pulled them down, and converted them to other uses: which the D. partly denieth, partly maketh no great account of. That they were pulled down, the experience teacheth: at the least, of as many as I have ether seen, or could understand of. And yt is namely recorded, of the church of Zürich: yea of all of them, M. Calvin teacheth that the prebendes &c. ought to be called to a more lawful use, namely to the fineding of Scholers, Ministers, and Poor. And this is our meaning: not that these goods should be turned from the possession of the church, to the filling of the bottomless sacks of their greedy appetites, which yane after this pray, and would thereby, to their perpetual shame, purchase them selves a field of blood. which thing, although we have given plainly to understand: yet because we have to do, with so importunat an adversary, that feareth not to charge us with intent to gratifye such Cormorantes, I thought good in a word to protest yt.

As for the light account, he maketh of those examples of the reformed churches, which notwithstanding pretendeth to esteem so greatly, of one or two of the ancient writers: I leave to utter what yt argueth, unless he were able to show by the word of god, that they did not well. The rest of this tractate, which is a cartlode of untruths: uttered partly in accusing me, partly in maynteyning himself, I will not touch.

THAT EXCOMMUNICATION, BELONGETH NOT TO THE Bishop alone: Tractate ix. and xviij, according to the D. pag. 661.

YT having been shown, that in elections and depositions, the Bishop can do nothing without the advise of the whole church, nor in the common government without assistance of the Eldership: yt must follow, that in excommunication, which is one of the weightiest judgments in the church, this sole authority of the Bishop is unlawful. For as, when in civil matters, the judgment is of life and death, and as in the art of curing, when consultation is taken of cutting or burning, the bench is fuller, and the assistance greater, then when matters of les importance be debated: even so, if it might be accorded to the Bishop, to pas some other matters by himself, yet it were not safe to commit unto him the judgment of excommunication. whereupon I mervail, why even here also yow go about, to pek owt our eyes. For the light of this truth is such, that some of the Papists them selves, are ashamed to look against yt: as appeareth by Pighius, which seeking all manner of peintynges to hyde the filthiness of Rome, could find no color to disguise this with: but is fain, partly to confess her nakedness in this behalf: saying that it is not lawful (the Bishop of Rome only excepted) for any Bishop to excommunicate by himself alone. So that, although the weightines of the cause, might require a long treatis: yet the plains of it, will be content with a short.

First, whether the word discipline, may note the vuhole government, or only the punishments, as in a disputation of wwordes, I will not strive: although it be known, that the word discipline, is used in good authors, for the whole manner of government, ether at home or in war. Secondly charged with cōtrarietie, he answereth, that to ascribe excommunicatiō to the Minister of the word, and to the Bishop only, agree, because the Bishop is a Minister of the word: which might have been admitted, if it had been all one, to be a Bishop and a Minister of the word. But seeing by the word Minister, with us, is noted a diverse degree, and meinteined by him: it is but an escape. Howbeit, I am content he amend his speech: if he had yet amended it, and not rather utterly marred all. For pretending that the Bishop only, hath by the word of god, the excommunication committed unto him, he saith notwithstanding that the church, if she will, may commit that authority unto other: giuig the church authority, to make that common, which the word of god hath made several. Thus he enterfeereth at every step almost, cutting himself to pitifully. The rest is answered: so are the two next divisions, saving that it appeareth that yow were somewhat hongry, of a testimony of great reading, which pres mine so sore: that may be given to the veriest trewand, that ever went on two legs, which may in half an hour know the mind of twenty commentaries, and requireth rather a man well booked, then ether well red, or well learned.

To prove, that the lord did not borrow this form of government of the Jews, he assigneth one reason, because he never appointed it unto them: which beside the untruth, that hath and shall further appear, is contrary to that himself hath affirmed: where he saith, that all, even the least things, under the law were commanded. So that unless he will deny, that they had ever any Eldership, or having it, had it against the commandment of god: it must follow, that they had it, by the prescript of god. Another reason is, for that the Jews abused their Eldership: then which, there can be nothing more disagreing from the D. whole cours of defense, which will not have so much as a peeld ceremony removed, for the abuse.

Unto the reason I alleged why the word Council, in S. Matthew, is taken for the Eldership of the church: he answereth nothing. whereunto ad, that in other places of the New Testament, where it is oft mentioned: it is always so taken. The testimonies he citeth, are partly to no purpose, partly before confessed of me.

This is a wonderful boldness, that yow dare say, yea and glory in yt, that S. Paul kept another order of excommunication, then our Sau. Christ commanded: considering that he autoriseth his doeinges in the church of Corinth, with this, that he gave that which he received, who also in this very particular case of the incestuous man, alledgeth the authority of our Savior Christ. That owt of M. Calvin, maketh against him manifestly. For upon the places both of S. Matthew and Paul, he showeth that the church hath interest in the excommunication: only he noteth, that our Sa. Christ applied his form of speech, to the estate of the church then, which is nothing to our purpose.

After, upon confidence of M. Calvin's authority only, he triumpheth upon the interpretation I brought, of the purging of leuain, noting the thrusting out of the incestuous person: which notwithstanding is proved, for as much as that verse, is the conclusion of that before, where, by leuain cā not be denied, but the incestuous person is noted: unless we will say, that the Apostle concluded another thing, then that which he had before mentioned. M Beza also, coming after M. Calvin, and not easily dissenting from him: followeth the same sense, which I have done: So that although yow take your pleasure of me, yet yow should not ride so hard upon him.

But mark a little, how unable your answers be, to uphold such a confident insultation. For, where this here spoken by a borrowed speech, is plainly uttered: yow are compelled to expound these words of the Apostle, take avuay the wicked man amongst yovu, that is, shun his company: which is not only a wresting of words, but also vnsitting to the cōparisō with the leuained bread, which S. Paul useth to set forth excommunication by. For it was not enough for the Israelites not to touch or use any leavened bread, in the celebration of the Pasouer: but they were bound to put it out of their hovuses, to provide that no leavened bread were found in their hovuses, and not to kill the Pasouer, before they had rid their hovus of it.

Like violence he useth, touching the receiving of the excommunicate. For where S. Paul useth the same word of forgiving, or as it is called, absolving, as well to note his own releas, as the churches, he will have, that the same word in the same verse, in one and the same cause, to be taken diversely: and that referred to S. Paul, it shall have the proper signification, to remit, but referred to the church, to signify the effects and signs of the remission, or absolution.

Where I show, that S. Paul's declaration of his good will to excommunicate, could be no full excommunication, because that that notvuithstanding, the Minister and church (although unjustly) might have received him to the communion of the Sacrament: he answereth, that he is yet excommunicate in heaven, which is a mere abusing of the reader, for I expressly prevented that. And it is most untrue, that it is enough to make the ecclesiastical censure of excommunication, that a man be bound in heaven: when as our Sa. Christ noteth it, in that he is taken of the church, for a Publican and a Synner, and in that, there is an actual secluding from the sacrament. For otherwise, as sone as such wickedness is committed, and withal so long as it is unrepented: the sinner is bound in heaven, and in right shut owt from the communion of the Sacrament, although no man excommunicate him: which being alleged of me, is unanswered.

To that I alleged, that S. Paul joineth the Corinthes with him, in the excommunication: he answereth, that they are joined as lookers on or as witnesses, not as doers in that action. But who hath taught him, thus to play, with the word of god: when as S. Paul ascribeth the same cause, of the corporal assembly of the church for that action, which he doeth unto that presence, wherewith he saith his spirit should be (after a sort) there. If therefore S. Paul's spirit were (after a sort and as it might) there, to look on, and to be witness only: then the church was also. else let him show us, with what words S. Paul declareth: that his spirit should be there for one thing, and the Corinthians for another.

But what a shameful defense this is, that one voice declareth: whereby the Apostle giveth unto the church, the judgment of this matter. now, to judge, or to give sentence of malefactors: is more (I think) then to look on, or to be witness. And what that judgment is, is yet more clearly declared, by that which followeth, where the Apostle saith, that the lord judgeth those that are none of the church: giving to understand, that they had only to use their censures upon those of the church, and that they should leave the infidels to the judgment of god. so that, if he say that the judgment of the church is nothing but a looking on &c. he must also expound these words, the lord judgeth the infidels, that is, the lord standeth by, and looketh on whilst some other punish thē: whereto ad, that the Apostle ascribeth to the church the same word of judging, which he taketh to him self. Likewise that the writer to the Hebrews, giveth to the church, that they should provide, that no poisoned root remain amongst them: which although it be carried of some, from the person to the crime, yet it ys certain, both by the place of Moses, from whom it was taken, and by the scope of the Apostle, that yt is to be understood of the persons. For he exhorteth the church, first to give diligence, that there be no such amongst them: then, if there be, not to suffer them to remain, to the infection of other. which is yet also more manifest, because according to the custom of the scripture, that which he spake before, by a metaphor or borrowed sp •• ch: he expoundeth in the next verse when he saith; let there be no whoremonger or profane person &c. Ad further, that S. Jude, alluding unto the prophet Zacharias, willeth the church in taking pity of some, to save others, as it were, out of the fire, by fearing them: which church, had no other means to strike any fear into persons, that were (through obstinacy in syn) as firebrandes almost half burnt, but by ecclesiastical censure.

To that I asked, why S. Paul chideth with the church, before he had signified, that he would have him excommunicate, if it belonged not unto the church: he answereth, because they did not complain of him, whereof there is not a letter to be gathered, in the holy Scripture. And what a mischief had it been, for the church to have had no remedy, for such a contagious disease at home: but must go seek for yt, in another country, and languish all that time whilst the messengers went and came.

I leave to those which have the books, to look with what faith he hath cited these authorities, seeing contrary to his wont, he maketh them not to speak: Beside that, they are alleged for defense of excommunication by the Bishop alone, owt of them which are open enemies to that kind of excommunication, especially the later writers. I say, leaving that, I answer, that none of them (one excepted) is to purpose. For, albeit the 18 of math. be explained, by the other of Math. 16. and John 20: yet it followeth not therefore, that they be all one. And although in the 16 of mathew and John 20, together with the preaching, the excommunication were understood: yet the place of the 18 of S. Matthew, being of the authority of excommunication and not of the preaching, the difference doeth still remain. Nether hurteth it, that every several Minister of the word, hath by these places authority to excommunicate: being understood of everyone for his portion. which must needs, seeing in S. Math. 18 the church hath authority likewise: so that it cannot • e, that one several minister, can by those places chalendg the sole authority of excommunicating. That alleged of Musculus, wherein it is said, that he confoundeth these three places, is untrue: for he extēdeath math. 18 to all Christians, restraining math. 16 to the Ministers.

As for his reason to prove them all one, because they were all spoken to the Apostles, yt is frivolous: seeing our Sa. Christ did not only instruct them of things belonging to their Ministry, but also of those that touched their private life, and of the duties of the whole church. Of the same sort is, that the same words are used in all three places. which is all one, as when the Prince ordaining, that one chest may be opened and shut by one only, one other not so, but by others with him: he should conclude, that all have power alike, because Keis with power to lok and vnlok, be given to all. For this manifest difference, is in the manner of speech, considering that Math. 16, he speaketh of one in the singular number, in John 20, although he speak in the plural, yet he understandeth yt distributiuely, that ys, that everyone of the Ministers binedeth and loseth by preaching. But in S. Math. 18, those words being added to autorise the churches excommunication, which word church, is a noun collectiue: they cannot be drawn, to the particular person of the Minister.

Here also, it is to be observed: that the D. hath quite overthrown his difference, of the Bishop, and of another Minister, in the matter of excommunication. For if in S. Math. 16 and John 20, together with the preaching of the word, is understanded power to excommunicate: all Ministers of the word having by those places authority to preach, it must follow necessarily, that they all have power committed unto them to excommunicate. And so falleth, his whole cause: which is, that by the word of god, the Bishop only hath the right of excommunication.

Where to that of S. Paul's excommunicating Alexander &c, I answered, that one is said to do alone, that which he was moderator of, and wherein he had assistance: he answereth, that it is an imagined shift. But now he knoweth at least, if he will not acknowledge it: that it standeth of infallible reason, and is confirmed with moste grave authority of learned men. To that I answer, touching the place of Titus, that to avoid an heritik, is not to excommunicate him, but to trouble himself no more with him: he opposeth M. Calvin's authority, without any aid of reason. wherein, when I have shown the reason, which led me so to expound the place: let the reader do, as him thinketh good: remembering, that if he understand it of excommunication, yet it helpeth him not, the same answer serving, which was given to the place of Timothy.

For so much then, as the Apostle willeth that the Minister should avoid him, as one utterly perverted: and notwithstanding willeth otherwhere, that the excommunicate should be holden for a brother, until such time as it appeareth, how that medicine of excommunication will work with him: and for that also, yt appertaineth unto the Minister especially, even then privately to cal upon him, when he is excommunicate: it seemeth, that this cannot be understanded of one to be excommunicated, but of a desperate enemy whom excommunication hath not cured, but rather is (through the poison in him) hardened. And hereof, I have the judgment of Irenaeus: which saith, that the fact of S. John the Apostle, which would not go into the bathes where Cerinthus the heritik was, nor once so much as speak unto him, was done according to this rule of S. Paul to Titus. And if an heretic be taken in that sense, which the D. hath often taken him, in saying he mayer, but that he will be no heretic, that is to say for one that standeth stif in his falls opinion: then we must needs understand, that this order which S. Paul prescribeth, is understanded of that which is to be done after excommunication. For in such, we must not tarry, until two or three admonitions be given: but assone as one showeth himself an heretic in that sense, the sentence of excommunication lieth against him.

But if the D. will needs have it understanded, of excommunication: it shall be the bane of his own cause, and a confirmation of that answer, which he so scornfully rejecteth. For S. Paul noting excommunication, by the avoiding of the person excommunicate: in commanding Titus to avoid him, doeth not therefore command him alone. where as the D. will have these, and such like commandments: addressed unto Titus and Timothy alone. But ether, the church is not here excluded, which yow deny: or else it followeth, that the church may keep company with an heretic, and the Minister only forbidden so to do, which is absurd.

In the next division, in steed of Basiles offices cited in the latin and English book, he hath set owt a long sentence of Ambrose, but which maketh nether hot nor kould: it being granted, that it appertaineth to the Bishop, but denied, that it doeth only. whether to take one man for another, be so gros a faut, as to cite a book which never was: let all judge. yow should rather have compared my faut, with yours in the next division saving one: which yow pas by, as yow do other without any confession. The next division, I leave unanswered.

In the next, I confess I was deceived in the order of the story, which came thereupon, that Sozomene telleth that first, which was done after, and contrariwise: but my answer, that the Bishops sole excommunicating, was but the publishing of the sentence, given by him and the church, standeth. Nether is it of any weight, that George would not be entreated, or that suit was made to him for absolution. For it is easily answered, that George had numbers of his faction, for the gaining of which, it behooved to win him first.

The D. would with words bear us down, that Theodoret and Sozom. affirm Ambrose to have excommunicated the Emperor alone: which is but a facing, there being nether the word, alone, nether any words which countervail yt. his reason, that Ambrose carried away all the commendation, is nothing worth: seeing it is known, that the chief beareth the name, as the general of the field or Captayn, is often said to have won the field, whē notwithstanding he used thereto, the valiancie of the soldiers. And to set aside the institution of god, it had been no commendation of Ambrosis courage, but a note of rashness and foolish hardines: to have enterprised that of himself, against such a mighty Emperor, wherein he might have had the support of others. seeing thereby, not only the danger should have been les towards him: but also the fruit greater, towards the Emperor, whilst yt should have had more authority, that was done by him with others, then by himself alone. And when Ambrose saith precisely, that he should be more charged with displeasure, then the rest: he giveth to understand, that some of the displeasure would lie upon the necks of the other Bishops, which with him determined of that excommunication, although not so much as upon his, that should have the execution of yt. whereby yt is yet more apparent, that the place owt of Ambrosis epistel touching the Synod, and of his answer to the Emperor, was cited faithfully, without falsifying. As for his answer, that the Bishops lamented it only, it hath no likelihood, as it is observed. Where he saith, that the Synod was assembled, before the slaughter, there appeareth no such thing: although the cause lieth not in that point. For yt is all one to us, whether the Coūcel met for that matter: or being assembled for other, upon the report of yt, decreed of that censure.

The confession of his faut before the congregation, and asking forgiveness of the church: was alleged to purpose. For what is yt, to ask forgiveness, but to ask absolutiō of the church: and why should he ask to be absolved of the church, if the church had not bound him? That he saith, the penitentes do so with us: touching any demand of absolution of the church, I think it be untrue, wherein nothwithstanding, I refer me unto the practice. but if it be, it is a very mockery, to crave absolution of it, whē as, howsoever it is satisfied, the Bishops absolution, right or wrong, must stand. In the first section of his next division, let the reader judge, how shameful his denialis, and in the fourth section, how miserable his defense is: the rest are answered.

Here, as though Tertullian, had committed some high treason, the D. draweth him, and quartereth him, upon Rhenanus coment: whereas, although Rhenanus disioyn the sentences by putting his comment between that which I conjoined: yet he joineth thē in expositiō, as those which hang together. for Tertull. having before spokē, of the casting forth of the wicked owt of the communion of the church: Rhenanus addeth, least yt should be thovught a confused company it is said, that there were certain Elders etc. yt is to much boldness therefore for yow to say, that it cannot be gathered of this place, that these elders meddled with excommunication. If they meddled with other things (as yow confess) much more with this: if the putting between of Rhenanus commentary, doeth not hinder, that this sentence should be referred, unto things which are further from yt: why should it hinder the referring of yt, to excommunication, which goeth immediately before. And beside this open light of Tertulliās words, yow have M. Peter Martyr, that was no mangler nor corrupter of Tertullian: which upon this place, precisely affirmeth, that these Seniors had their government in excommunication. your shift, that the Elders Tertullian speaketh of, were likely to be Ministers of the word and sacraments: is answered.

In that yow say, this authority being admitted, the people is quite shut owt, first yow conclude negatively of authority, namely that they have nothing to do, because Tertullian doeth not say they had. Then yow faut again in not marking, that when Tertullian saith, that these were Presidentes or chief in the matter: he leaveth a significatiō, that other had to do in yt, which followed with their sentence those, that with the ripeness of their judgment, went before the rest is answered.

If the excommunicate might not be received, without the people's request, much les without their consent: for men use not to make request, for that they consent not unto. As for that alleged, because Cyprian would have that absolution stand, which was done by one, that therefore it is lawful for the Bishop alone to absolve: is to trifle. For so Cyprian, will have it stand, that in the mean season, he condemneth the doer of yt. And the D. owght to understand, that it is one thing to prescribe what should be done: and another to support a thing which being commanded, is otherwise done then it owght: as hath been shown, in the baptism by heretics. Victor also being repentant, and having shown fruits thereof: it had been against right, to have thrust him owt again. If he had not repented: it is certain, that Cyprian would have dealt with him afresh.

Cyprian professeth, that he would never do anything in his bishoprik, without the counsel of the Elders, and consent of the people: and yet the D. cannot see, how this should make against his sole excommunication. what stronger words, could there have been? If he would do nothing without them, how much les excommunicate, which is so weighty a judgment. As for that he expoundeth no matter, that is no doutful matter: it is a shameful corruptiō. which appeareth, in that beside the counsel of the Elders, to resolve him of the doubt, if any were: he addeth also, the consent of the people. Also, for that the same case, wherein he protesteth he would have done nothing without the church: was a plain case, and whereof he was able to resolve, without the advise of other. Likewise that he saith, it was in Cyprians power to have done all himself alone, because he saith, he determined not to do so ) is yet more ridiculous: as though David in saying he determined to keep the word of god, or any other, that he determineth to keep his promise, do thereby give to understand, that ether the one needed not to keep the word of god, or the other his promise.

The next place maketh the Elders and other church men, as vuel to have povuer in absolving, as the Bishop: yet the D. seeth not how that maketh against him, which would have the Bishop alone. but (saith he) the people is not there mentioned: as though that was not sufficiently shown in other places, and here left owt, because they did not lay on their hands as the church officers. although in the later end of that epistle, he also threateneth the disordered persons: that if they go forvuard, they shall be made to answer the matter before the people. But yt appeareth (saith he) that it could not be done without the Bishop: even as it could not be done without those, whom Cypriā calleth clerks: beside that it is to great daliance, seeing none denieth the Bishops an interest.

The next place is wherein Cyprian saith, that for so much as absolution belonged unto all, meaing of those in his church, that he alone durst not do yt. yet (saith he) in that they desire it at Cyprians hand: it argueth, that the manner was then for one to absolve. was yt in deed, the manner to do that which was not lawful, even by your own confession: that is for one to lose that which many had bound? For they which desired absolution, knew that they were excommunicate by many: if therefore upon that they desired absolution of one, it be well concluded that one was wont to absolve: it followeth, that they were wont to do that, which was unlawful, which is a slander of that time, and yet helpeth yow not. But the reader may understand, that they came therefore to desire absolution of Cyprian: because it belonged unto him, to assemble the Seniors by whom the receiving was first handled, before yt came to the church.

And who knoweth not, that the grief of the penitent sinner, languishing and feinting with desire of being joined with the church again, doeth even wring owt petitions to be helped of them, which are not able alone to help: especially when as they (likely) thought, that the rest would be counseled by Cyprian. who seeth not also, that the sense of Cyprians answer to those afflicted persons, which would have been delivered before the time prescribed of their repentance: is to show himself moved with compassion of their sorrow, which he for his part was ready to help, if the other would thereto agree. which may better appear by that epistle, where the D. saith, he can find nothing of this matter: which notwithstanding is most pregnant. For Cyprian showeth there, how he travailed greatly with his church, to receive those which, having fallen avuay, repented them: declaring thereby, that it was not in him alone. In the end, although he hath used such boldness, as I am ashamed to give the proper name of: yet he feareth not to say, that I have abused the reader. which, let him understand (as touching three of the middle places) to be spoken as well against M. Calvin, as me: who useth them, to condemn the sole excommunication of the Bishop.

To the places owt of Augustine, noting that he would have this discipline cease, if the more part be infected, whereby I gathered that he was of judgment, that the consent of the church was to be required: he answereth, that those sayings are to be understanded, not of any right they had of excommunication, but of the mislikyng of the fact, for which the Bishop doeth excommunicate. But where hath he in Augustine that interpretation, more then I have that which I set down? I am well assured, that Augustine's words, are as favorable to mine, as to his, and so much the more favorable, as the schism which he would have by this means avoided: riseth sooner, when one is excommunicate, of whom they have given the Bishop to understand, that they would not have him thrown owt, then when no such judgment hath passed from them. For then the ungodly oppose thē selves, not only because they would have the faut, wherewith they them selves be infected, unpunished: but also, because they will avow their own sentence. Nether did I propound that sentence, for Augustine's words, as he surmiseth, but as that, which I gathered of them.

As for the medicin which he pretendeth to give, that the people retain sins, when they separate them selves from the company of the excommunicate: it is given to him, that is not such. For, although that may, by a borrowed speech, be so called, whereby the effect is put for the cause: yet that Augustine meant not that only, it is manifest in that he attributeth unto the church, helping of the Bishop, yea and the very word of accursing, which he useth for excommunicating: so that the D. hath corrupted the mind of Augustine. For Augustine putteth first of all, the churches helping of the Bishop in excommunicating, as one several thing, and then the avoiding of his company for another: which he expoundeth as all one. but if he will depart from the usual speech, he must show us some good authority: whereby it may appear, that we must needs wring Augustine's words to that sense. which I am assured he cannot do: especially when Jerome who lived in the same age with Augustine, affirmeth that together with the Bishop, the Elders in other censures of the church, and the church yt self, have, interest in the excommunication. whereupon may appear, that my interpretation of the places brought ether before or now, touching the Bishop excommunicating, which is that he was the chief in the action, and had the publishing of the sentence, and not the vuhole right of excommunication: is sound, and conformable both to the holy scripture, and practice of the elder and purer churches.

That the Canon of the council of Sardis, whereof the Answerer glorieth, is to be understanded not of the Bishop alone: one proof is, in the Elders joint government with the Bishop generally in all matters, which I have before set down. Another shall be, that another Council autoriseth, the suspension, which the Elders and Clerks decree against the Bishop: and that (as yt saith) by authority of ancient decrees. The Councils therefore, giving the Elders remedy at home, and with in them selves: the rash excommunication, which the Coūcel ascribeth unto the Bishop, must needs be understood to have been done by advise of the Elders. For otherwise, if the Elders consented not unto yt: they had by the ancient decrees, authority to deal with the Bishop thē selves, without running ether to Metropolitan, or other Bishop. if this answer like him not, let him (if he had rather) take that which M. Calvin giveth: that the Bishops, when they excommunicated of them selves alone, did it ambitiously, contrary to the decrees of the godly Councils.

As for that yow be of judgment, that the Bishop may not excommunicate whom he listeth, without proof &c. and thereto cite a long sentence owt of Augustine: it is well said, but wherefor serveth this well saying? do yow think the church much behoulding to yow, for that which never any yet (the Popes Cāonistes excepted which give him absolute power to throw owt and take in whom he list) durst deny? here therefore, yow run fairly, but owt of the way altogether.

If I of the other side, should herein set down the judgment of Bucer Martyr, Zwingli, and other godly writers of our age, against the sole excommunication by the Bishop: it would require a book, by itself. But as in a thing clear and plain, I will not weary the reader. The two next divisions, as mere and oft repeated reproaches, I omit.

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

But because these kind of allegations be dangerous, and tend to the shaking of this institution of god: and for that alowing sometime of excommunication as of the institution of god, at other some times he insinuateth, that yt should not be exercised, especially against the Prince, and nobility: leaving M. Gwalther, I will take me to him. And to speak in a word of yt, yt is nothing but a mere mockery of the lord, and to offer him self, as a Baud to all manner of sins in Princes. If all were delivered from this correction (as M. Gwalther pretendeth) then yt were good reason that the Prince should also: but to insinuate, that others being subject, only Princes should be exempted (I fear) cometh from a worse cause, then from simple error.

For who could be ignorant, that our S. Christ speaketh generally, when he saith, if thy brother &c. whereby he comprehendeth all those that are members of one church, and childrē of one heavenly father. In which noneber the scripture reckoneth the king: whilst in yt he is both called a brother, and calleth his subjects brethren. or who could be ignorant, that S. Paul subjecteth all unto this order: saving those only, which are strangers from the church. So that to say, that Princes are not subject unto this order: is all one, as if he should say, that Princes pertain no to the kingdom of heaven, are none of the church, have no part with Christ &c. Thus ys both Christ robbed of his honor, which in contempt of his order (as though yt were to base for Princes to go under) is him self contemned: and Princes defrauded of a singular aid of salvation, and way to draw them to repentance, when they (through the common corruption) fall into such diseases, against which this medicin was prepared.

Hether belongeth the practice of the church in this, and such kind of censures, toward the Emperors Philip, Theodosius, and Anastasius on the one side, and the godly Emperors submission thereunto on the other, which if he (upon confidence of M. Gualters authority) dare condemn of pride in them which exercised those censures, or of folly in the Emperors that submitted them selves: not to charge him with Master Nowels authority, which saith that the Prince ought patiently to abide excommunication at the Bishops hands, what will he answer to the example of Mary Moses syster and king Vzzias, which were subject to the same law of vncleānes by reason of the leprosy, as well as any of the common people. For that the separation commanded in respect thereof, was not only a civil policy, to keep the whole from the such, but that there was therein used, a part of Ecclesiastical discipline, yt may appear, for that the Priest had the knowledge of the cause, the shutting them owt, and receiving them in: and for that Azarias the Priest of the lord, with other his Assistantes, removed the king owt of the temple, for the which he is commended in the scripture.

And if yt had been only a civil separation, yet when the Princes could not be exempted from yt, for fear of a corporal infecting of their subjects: how much les owght they to be exempted from that separation, which is instituted against the spiritual contagion. that which he objecteth, of the drawing this spiritual sword, at every light or no occasion at all, thereby to deliver the Prince from subjection thereto: ys vain. for if they abuse this power, the Price needeth not only to cōtēn yt, but also may punish the abusers of yt: So that in this respect, there is les cause, why the Prince should shake of this yoke of Christ, then others: considering, that he hath better remedy against the abuse of yt, then others.

That cōtractes of mariadg, appertain not unto the judgment of church officers, it is manifest, considering that it is partly economical, and belonging to the right of the parents, partly civil, in respect that it was in times past concluded before the Magistrate. For as for the blessing in the church, it is no part of the contract, but a thing annexed unto yt. which appeareth, in that upon the bare contract, before the blessing: the parties (although not to have company one with another) be man and wife: and for that the breaker of that contract, is taken for an adulterer. whereupon it followeth, that the judgment of diuors, being merely public, must be the civil magistrates alone. For matters of willes, it appeareth that they belong unto the Magistrate: considering that they are occupied in the commodities of this life, and touch the distribution of goods or lands.

As for the An. reason, that the Bishop having best knowledge in those things, may best judge in them: it is a hook, to get all into their own hands. But I deny first, that they have, or can (by their calling) have best knowledge in such things: considering that there be diverse things in them, which require other knowledge, then of the law of god. And the case is rare, when the question is, whether a legacy, a contract, or a diuors be according to the law of god, or no: at least which requireth any deep knowledge to dissolve it. And if all that which may fall into these matters, were to be decided by the law of god: yet to sit as judge in them, requireth not only knowledge, but also a calling, which Bishops cannot have, for the causes above alleged. Therefore it is manifest: that herein the Bishops are usurpers, whereof also the D. may read, M. Nowels judgment, that whoredoms, adulteries, slanders, subtraction of tithes, cases testamentary &c. which Bishops sometime meddle with: are no more spiritual, then are murders, theftes, oppressions, and other injuries.

Nether will it help him: that they exercise all manner of jurisdiction, in the Princes right. For, first it hath been shown, that they owght to exercise no civil jurisdiction, although it were committed unto them. Then, how cometh it to pas, that in right of their bishoprik, without further commission from the Prince: they take upon them these judgments of whoredom, diuorces &c, even as they found them in time of popery. And as for excommunication, and other censures ecclesiastical, if they exercise them in the Magistrates right: it followeth that both the magistrate may much more exercise them himself, and appoint other then ministers to do thē, both which, as they be absurd, so are they overthrown by the D. himself: which thinketh it unlawful for Chancelors to excommunicate, for that (as I suppose) they be no ministers.

In the next, where the Chancelors are charged to excommunicate, and absolve for money, also one man for another &c. he saith, it is the faut of the man and not of the law. which if it were true, yet it argueth the Bishops unsufferable carelessness of godes glory, whose institution is thus shamefully profaned: and neglect of duty towards the Prince, whose subjects are thus pilled. And here it is not to be omitted, that where the ecclesiastical censures in reformed churches, are exercised without a penny charge unto any person: our churches, partly by reason of the Archbis. and Bishops, and partly the Archdeacons officers and their hangons, which by this means live in all bravery and iolytie of life, are sore wrung: So that they are thereby much les able, to contribute to the necessary charges, ether of relieving their poor minister, or susteyning the subsidies laid upon them, for defense of the realm. Therefore if the Archbishops and Archdeacons will needs take more upon them, then them selves be able to beweld: at the least, let them pay their servants wages, and not thus burden the church. But thus the reader may see, how unworthily the Archbishops, Bishops and Archdeacons deal with the church, which not content them selves to use tyranny over yt, and to take upon them of their private authority, which belongeth unto other with them, have also brought it into bondage under their servants, and servants servants, I mean Chancelors, Comissaries &c. The next I pas by.

In the next, where I show that the office of Chorepiscopus alleged for defense of the Chauncelers office, was far another thing: he saith, that he only alleged yt to prove that Bishops had their deputies▪ which, how dishonest a shift it is, may appear: in that he maketh no difference, between the Chauncelor and Chorepiscopus, but only in the name: saying, to contend for the name when the thing is certain, is a token of a contentious person.

Althowgh he had not so gained, that the Bishops had deputies: seeing I shown, that both the nature of the word, and the authority of certain interpreters, lead to the signification as well of a Bishop in the country towns, as of a deputy. yt is untrue, that I have anywhere allowed an ordinary deputy, whereof the question is here: but contrary wise, have shown that there owght to be none, not only in the treatise of the Pastors residence, but also in this, whereunto the D. answereth nothing. But if it were granted, that they might have, such as I have shown to have been Chorepisc. yet what a strange conclusion is this, that they may as well have Chancelors: considering that he is now constrained to confess, the office of the one greatly different from the other. The rest is answered: so are the two next.

In the next, where he is charged for alowing as necessary the Archbishops court of faculties &c, which he confesseth he knoweth not, what it meaneth. He saith, he brought better reason for it, then is brought against yt. which is no defense of his rashness, whereby he affirmed, that which he confessed he knew not. His reason which he hath learned sithens is, that the Queens perogatives are defended there: As though the Archbishop were the fittest man to defend her perogatives. Also, that it was set up, when the Pope was put down: in deed so yt was, which is a good sign, that the Archbishop (saving profession of obedience to the king) was made Pope in his place. For hereupon it cometh, that he exerciseth intolerable and filthy merchandise: of which diverse objected by the Adm. he partly confessed, and part through lothnes to confess and vnability to answer, were passed by.

That also, of not changing laws but upon strong reasons, which he other where repeateth: hath no place, where the question is, whether they be against the word of god or no. For here that worthy sentence hath place: if god command anything against the manner or decree of whatsoever they be, if it were never done before, it ought to be done, if it have been omitted, it ought to be restored, if it were never before, it ought to be instituted. If the D. allegation have place, it hath place in variable ceremonies: which notwithstanding (as hath been shown) the church hath changed, according as the circumstances have required, to the most of her comodity.

Seeing therefore, our Sau. Christ commandeth, that the excommunication should be made by the church: Seeing the Apostles his faithful interpreters, communicate the same power with yt, in commanding yt to thrust owt impenitēt sinners, to procure that both they may be saved, and others also kept from infectiō: seeing also the holy ghost, chideth the church, for that it had not used this power against the unrepentant: Seeing he communicateth with it, the power of absolving those which were thrust owt, whē they declare their repentance: Last of all, seeing both the judgment, and general practice of the elder churches, and in a manner of those which are now, lead us hereunto: Of the other side, seeing the Bishop cannot pas smaller matters, without the advise of the church: seeing by his sole excommunication, he hath brought the church to a miserable servitude, and that not to himself alone, but to his servants, Chancelors, Officials, &c. seeing under color hereof, he hath thrust his sickle into the Magistrates office, suffered the glory of god to be trodden under foot, the Queens subjects to be pilled: And finally, seeing that for his sole excommunicatiō, there is not so much as one ether approved example, or writer to be brought (some of the papists them selves being ashamed of it:) let us conclude, that the excommunication doeth not belong unto the Bishop alone, but that by the ordinance of god, the church also here owght to have her interest.

THE TENTH TRACT. OF THE OFFICE OF DEAcons: which containeth the D. xix, and xiv.

HIs question, where the office of widows is restrained to the poor which are such, and strangers, I pas as impertinent: especially when he doeth not assign any other, to whom their attendance belongeth. that the contrary doeth appear, almost in express words: is but his accustomed boldness, of untrue speaking.

Let us therefore come, to the Deacons: whose office is assigned, to be about the church money. The first proof hereof, received for answer, that it was but daliance with the scripture: • ith which time, although M. Calvin, Bucer, Martyr, and Beza, have been shown to have so expounded the place, yet his accusation is vnrepealed: whereby all these learned men, with many others stand charged still by him, as daliers with the scripture. But what, think yow, doeth he answer, to this whole colledg of godly learned men? he opposeth the exposition of certain fathers. who would have looked for this answer at his hand, in setting one writer against another, without a tittle of reason, words only excepted, which hath so bytingly, condemned yt in other.

These learned men, were not ignorant of those expositions: nether did they lightly depart, from the interpretation of the ancient writers. For whom also it may be answered, that in interpreting this place of private giving: they ment not, to shut owt this office. And of M. Bullinger it is manifest, that he doeth so alow of that, that he will have it understood properly of the Deaconship: so that yow openly abuse his testimony herein. The cause why the ancient fathers followed this exposition, is known well enough to those which have been conversant in them, with any judgment: namely a desire they had, to draw all to the correction of manners streyning often times their texts in hand, to draw them to the present use of their churches. by reason whereof, whether in steed of milk, they sometimes drw blood, I leave it to the judgment of the learned reader.

But let us see, if this wrangling of his: can be convinced, of the place yt self. where first it is manifest, that it is an explanation of that similitude which was drawn from the body: in which the Apostle shown, that as all the members have not one office, So in the church, everyone hath not the same function. whereupon followeth, that if this distributiō of money, which is a part of that explanation, should agree to all the church alike, and should not be a several office: he should quite overthrow his purpose. For he should, show, things agreeing unto all alike: in steed that he should have shown, that some things be peculiar. If he reply, that he had shown those before, and that here he beginneth to show the things, which are common to all Christians alike: he is manifestly beaten down, by the order of the Apostle. For seeing both that which immediately goeth before this, and which followeth immediately after, be public offices: what extreme boldness would it be, to say that this in the midst, is but private. If he do give himself this license, let him show example, of such an order.

Further, the Apostle here maketh a partition: as it is manifest by the words and articles, which are instruments to part with. Now if he will have one member in this partition, bigger then all the rest, and to conteyn them all: he maketh the holy ghost (which is to be detested) an evil and an uneven parter. Herevpon it cometh, that when he speaketh of the duties, which belong to all alike: he beginneth with another form of speech.

Last of all, yt is not to be omitted, that he useth the word of Distributor, rather then the word giver. For although it be taken sometime, for the giver, yet that is but by a trope: for so much as the same is often the distributor, which is the giver: so that the proper signification being, to dispose that which was given of others, agreeth unto the Deacon, and not unto one which giveth of his own. His exceptions of Prophesy, and widows office be answered. In the next being convicted of his untruth, he falleth to jesting: albeyt it be manifest, that the Adm. toucheth not only things in controversy, but sometime also, the breach of that which is established.

To prove, that the Deacon owght not to meddle with the administration of the word and Sacraments, I alleged first, that the Apostle willing everyone to keep himself in his bounds, boundeth the Deacons office in distributing of the church treasur, and by that separateth him, from those which have the dispensation of the word: whereas, if he should preach the word as the other, the Apostle should have made an evil partition, and pretended a separation where none is. His answer hereunto is, that it is no reason: but why it is not, he keepeth to himself.

The second reason was, that for so much as the Apostles having such passing gifts, did find them selves unable to susteyn both the ministries, of the word, and for the poor: that therefore there can be much les novu, any able to do them both together. His first exception whereunto, is frivolous, and before confuted: his other that they spent no great time in provision for their sermons, is untrue and openeth a gap to Anabaptism. For although their gifts were greater in those times, then now: yet they omitted not therefore, to study diligently which may appear, in that S. Paul is so careful to have his parchmentes brought: in that S. Peter had red S. Paul's epistles so diligently: Likewise that the Prophets in times past which had extraordinary gifts, used great diligence in reading, as it may appear in Daniel. which, notwithstanding he was so wise, so expert in the tongues, and had so oft and so wonderful revelations: yet studied the prophesy of Jeremiah. And in a word, of them all, S. Peter pronounceth, that they took great pains in their prophesies: using words most strong, to set forth their great labor, in providing fo • that they taught.

Nether was this of pleasure, and a thing which they might ether do or leave vndoen, but a commandment: as it is to be seen in the example of Timothy, which had gifts so much the more excellent then the Deacons, as his office of Euangelistship, was higher then the Deaconship. For he is bid̄, to read, to meditate and to preach, joining one with another, and that not slightly but with attention, yea that he should dvuel in them, or be as it were shut up and enclosed in them: thereby noting the great diligence that was to be bestowed, as well in reading and studying, as in preaching, And thus went the building of god singulerly forward, whē unto the gifts which came without their labor miraculously: they labored also after ether encreas of them, or getting of new, by the ordinary means provided of god in that behalf.

Again, S. Paul reckoning up, all the ministers of the word: the Deacon not being there, it followeth that he is no mininister of the word. And here the D. is plainly found, at strife with himself. For he confessing, that there is in that place, a complete and perfect division of the ministries of the word, and withal that the Deacon is not there contained: doeth notwithstanding here, sing a clean contrary song.

Moreover, it is diligently to be observed, that S. Paul in describing this office, requireth not that they should be able, or apt to teach: which notwithstanding being (by the An. judgment) the chief point belonging unto him, should have been most absurdly left owt. Lastly, if the Deacons office had been, together with the Stewardship of the church treasure, to have preached and administered the sacramenres: yt must follow, that his office must have been a greater office, then the Pastors, as that which requireth greater gifts for executing both that which the pastor doeth, and more to: which being absurd, that is also, whereof this followeth. That monster, which remaineth in this division: I will set upon, whē I shall have run through that which pertaineth unto this matter, as it lieth in the 14 Tract.

As I did not before deny, so now I cōfes him to have been Phillip the Evangelist, and not Phillip the Apostle, which is mentioned Acts the 8: and hold as before, that he preached by virtue of his Euangelistship, and not by virtue of his Deaconship, which was then ceased, for that the church whereunto he served was scattered. Against which answer, his authority owt of the Acts 21, to prove that he was still Deacon: is quite contrary, to himself. For it affirmeth of the time past, that he was, before Paul's arrival unto Cesarea, Deacō: not that he was so, when he arrived. For then the interpreters, would have turned the participle, which serveth both for the time past and present, according to the circumstance of the place, which is one of the seven, and not which was: So that, here we have the common consent of all interpreters, flatly against the D. namely, that Phillip was not then Deacon when S. Paul came to Cesarea, but had been before.

That of M. Gwalther, maketh also against him: which placeth the Deacons office, in the disposing of the church treasure, and that they preached not, but in times of necessity. So that where M. Gwalther permitteth preaching no more unto Deacons, then yow do baptism unto women: yow will have it, their standing office.

The difference between a Priest and a Deacon, brought owt of Augustine and Epiphanius, can by no means stand: considering that, that imposition of hands whereby gifts were extraordinarily given, which Phillip abstained from, he did not abstain from, only as Deacon, but also as he was Evangelist: seeing that was a thing peculiar unto the Apostles, and a proper note, whereby the lord magnified their ministry, above all other ministries whatsoever. So that, it is no good reason to say, that Phillip could not by laying on of his hands give the holy ghost, therefore he was a Deacon: considering that, nether Evangelists, nor Prophets them selves meddled with that kind of laying on of hands, which is there mentioned.

And if Phillip were then Deacon, he was Deacon of the church of Jerusalem, whereunto he was chosen. But it ys manifest, he was not Deacon there: considering that S. Luke after his departure from thence, and preaching in Samaria, and certain other places, bringeth him to Cesarea, where he leaveth him as a houshoulder and towndweller. so that unless he dare say of Phillip that he was a continual non resident: yt cannot be, that he was Deacon after his departure from Jerusalem.

But let us grant, that Phillip was both a Deacon and Evangelist, which is notwithstanding absurd: seeing that the Apostles confessed them selves insufficient, to susteyn that burden, together with their preaching ministry. I say let us grant that, yet forasmuch as he cannot deny, but that yt belongeth unto the office of an Evangelist to preach: how is he able to prove, that Phillip preached rather by virtue of his Deaconship, thē of his Euangelistship. So that unless he be so bold, as to deny that Phillip was there no Evangelist: he gaineth nothing, by all this travail. For otherwise, it followeth that Phillipes example, will not warrant the Deacons preaching: except he have, some other ministry of the word, joined with yt.

Therefore, let not him anymore pretend, the authority of the godly writers: but confess, as the truth is, that this argument was ministered him owt of Pighius: who upon this example of Phillip, affirmeth (as he doeth) that the Deacons may preach, even as the Priests do. As for Augustine, he goeth about (although not so aptly, as I have declared) rather to show, that the Deacons might not lay on their hands: then that yt belonged, unto them to preach. which may appear, in that he doeth not permit them to conceive the prayers, whereunto the people should answer: which notwithstanding is les, then to preach.

I shown, that by the same reason, they are holden from the administration of the supper, they ought also to be barred from that of baptism: considering that, it is not only a miserable rending in sonder of things which god hath joined, but also giveth occasion, or rather, being crept in, maynteyneth a dangerous error: which is, that men esteem some holier thing to be in the sacrament of the holy supper, then in baptism. To this he answereth, that the reason of this difference is: because yt is mentioned that Phillip baptized, and not that he administered the supper. where, by the way, let the reader observe, that upon two particular examples, which he also untruly pretendeth, he would ground a doctrine, that the Deacons owght to preach, although he be able to show no rule, nor commandment for yt: which notwithstanding he utterly condemneth in us, although yt be shown, to have been done generally. Secondly, how he reasoneth negatively of authority, that it was not done, because yt ys not so written: yea which is more, that yt owght not to be done, another thing also, which he reproacheth us with.

Now, as for his answer, yt is to frivolous. For, although yt be a good reason in the direction of the church, to say, there is nothing wtitten touching yt, therefore it is not to be admitted: yet in the practice of that which is prescribed to be done, it is an evil argument to say, it is not written, therefore yt was not done: much more, that yt may not be done. For, when our Sau. Christ's acts, were not all written: is yt any marueil, although all that Phillip did, be not written? And by his reason, the Bishops owght not to administer the supper: considering that, in all the scripture it is not mentioned, that a Bishop ministered yt.

Nether, if Phillip did not minister the supper: followeth yt therefore, that he had not authority to administer yt, as well as baptism: except he think, that our Sa. Christ had not authority, as well to administer baptism, which he did not, as to administer the supper, which he did.

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

My reply to his objection of Stevens oration, that yt was no sermon, but a defense of him self against his accusations: is clear. For yt appeareth, that the high Priest and Scribes &c. were there set in judgment, the falls witnesses were set up against him, he was demanded whether the accusation were true, and upon that demand began his oration. now, let him show such a form of preaching, to have been used in any church.

Yt is also unlike, that the high Priest and Scribes would permit him to preach: when as they had forbid̄ the Apostles before. but to give him leave to answer to his accusations, was needful for thē: thereby to maintain that visard of holiness, whereby they pretended an exact observation of the law, which was, that no man should be condemned unheard. And so, if he will have this a sermō, he shall yet gain nothing: considering that he had not this power by his ministry of Deaconship, but by commandment of the Council, that had power to require an account of that, which he had propounded in disputation, with those of the College of Liber tynes &c.

His proof, that it was in the Synagog, is first without all warrant: there being not a word thereof, in the scripture. And yet being made in Jerusalem, if it had been a sermon: it is liker, to have been in the temple. Nether, if yt were in the Synagog, hath yt any force to prove a sermon: unless he think, that everyone which pleaded his cause in Paul's Consistory, in Queen Mary's time, made a sermon.

That he also reprehended them sharply, is no other thing, thē diverse of the Martyrs of god have done with us, which, I think he will not say to have preached, by virtue of any ecclesiastical function. although I confess, that that is not to be lightly done, and without some especial directiō, whereof the lord, in such times, doeth furnish his: otherwise those that are private men, owght to content them selves, with a simple and plain defense of the truth.

Nether is Paul's answer unto Tertullus accusation Act. 24, any sermō but a simple defense, addressed only to Felix as to his Judge, uttered at the bar, as they speak, in a civil Court, and in a civil or common wealth cause, namely of sedition: and hath les of the nature of a sermon, then Stevens oration: yet, it is singulerly profitable for instruction of our behavior, in like cases. The least part also of S. Peters oration Act. 2, is spent in answer to the accusation of dronckennes: and that nether compelled, nor iudicial, as was S. Stevens.

I grant, a man may defend him self against falls accusations in a sermon: but that is not, whē he standeth judicially accused like a malefactor, as S. Stephen did. whose vuhole oration, how apt a purgation yt is (which he denieth): the reader may fetch from M. Calvin, upon that place: that I be not compelled, to lenghthen my book by so long translations. Against M. Beza (in quoting of whom, I failed) are opposed Gwalther and the Centuries: of whose sentences, which is truer, let it be judged of the reasons on both sides. whether in the two next divisions, the Ans. shifteth his gros oversight, let the reader judge: especially, whē as his pretence, that the Adm. assigned the deaconship, to be only in handling the church treasure, is untrue. For nether have they the word, only, nor anything of that value: and it is manifest, that their drift was, only to shut owt the Deacō from the administratiō of the word and sacraments. so that, in taking his words, in that sense which he now would have them: in effect he confesseth, him self to have but trifled with the Admonition: changing the pricks, which they had set him to shoot at and roving after a mark of his own finedīg. In the next, I alleged, that if the Deconship were granted, a step to the ministry, yet thereof folovueth not that yt is the ministry: but contrarivuise, that it is not, and therefore ought not to do things pertaining to the ministers. To this he answereth, he concluded not so: which I confess, cannot be forcibly won owt of his words. But he saith, he might have so concluded: which is absurd, and all one as if he should say, that the foot of the stayer is the same with the top, whether it, in ascending, leadeth. And how dare he say that he might have so reasoned: when as to the argument, which I drw from these words of his, he can answer nothing, how could he have hurt us, with this, which he suffereth to be driven so flat, upon the head of his own cause.

Where afterward, to prove it no step to the ministry, I alleged, that the gifts are diverse, and that one may vuel dispence the church treasure which, for vuant of utterance, should never be fit Minister: he answereth, that the Bishops and Deacons gifts, required 1. Timot. 3, do not much differ, which is a great untruth. For it is required of the one, that he should be both able to teach, and of long time in profession of the gospel, nether whereof, is required of the Deacon: when notwithstanding, the first only of them, maketh a greater difference, as touching the duty of preaching which is in question, then if he had made them to differ, in an hundredth other things. he addeth that they may be put by the ministry, for their lewd life: which is a mere misspending of the time, for so may the Clokkeper or the Sexten. Again, that Ambrose with other, expound yt so: which is likewise, that being before confessed by me: especially, when other learned men, by his own confession, leaving their exposition, take this which I propounded.

Further, that utterance sufficient for the distribution of the church money, is sufficient also for the ministry of the word: which must of necessity be his answer, if he speak to the purpose. And being so, it is to absurd: the confutation whereof (if it deserve any) may be fetched from that before handled. Althowgh, if that were true, the argument is not avoided: unless he will also say, that there is as great knowledge and as deep judgment in the scriptures, required for the disposing of the church treasure, as for the preaching of the word. unto the other reason, which I brought against this, that the deaconship should be a step to the ministry, raised owt of the same place: he answereth nothing.

Here he abuseth the readers patience again. For where before, not able to show one testimony owt of any ancient writing, that the Deacons had to do with the word and sacraments, I confessed notwithstanding frankly, that there were some: he hath here, set them down. whereunto, beside the answer before made, I ad: that those cited owt of Tertullian and Jerome, be so far from helping him, that they make against him. For in that the Deacons could not meddle with the word or Sacraments, but upon the Bishops license: it argueth, that yt belōged not unto their office: seeing it is absurd, that that which they were bound to do by reason of gods institution, should be hanged upon the Bishops pleasure.

Likewise, that owt of M. Beza, is against him. For in saying, they supplied the Pastors office: he giveth to understand, that it belonged properly unto Pastors, and was done by Deacons but in time of necessity. And so was, the Administration of the supper: which ( saith he) he cannot read in any autor, to have been permitted to the Deacon. wherein, to let pas the Council of Arles and others, which license this unto thē, in absence of other: at the least, did he not read M. Beza's sentence, which he hath thrust into his own book, that they ministered the sacraments, not only the Sacrament of Baptism: although the places quoted 1. Corin. 1. 14. 15. and John 4. 2. prove no such thing, no not in the Ans. own judgment, as I think. For, will he say, that the twelve Apostles which baptized, were all Deacons? or that because S. Paul did not commonly baptize, those whom he converted, that therefore Deacons baptized them: as if there were nether Evangelists nor Pastors, to do yt. Nether is yt enough for him thus to trifle, except he use most vile reproaches against me: as though I strived, against a manifest truth. But that (even by M. Beza's judgment) the administering of baptism, doeth lawfully belong to the Minister alone, and not to the Deacon: the D. may see otherwhere.

Now, unto the most certain grounds, of the word of god: let him hear, the testimonies of the ancient times. And first of the general Council, which maketh the Decons Ministers of the poor, whom it calleth Ministers of tables and not of the holy things. Another Council decreed, that in the Ministers sickness: the Deacon should read, the homilies of the fathers. whereby appeareth, that that Coūcel, not so much as in the time of the Pastors sickness, suffered them to preach the word, but to read homilies: thereby assigning also, the greatest honor in doing anything which the Minister used to do in the church, in that he might read ether the scriptures or homilyes. Chrysostom saith, that the Deacons had need of great wisdom: although the preaching of the word be not committed unto thē. And further showeth, that yt is absurd, that they should do both the office of preaching, and caring for the poor: considering that they be not able, to do both thorovughly. yea, even immediately after that corrupt sentence, which the Ans. will needs father upon Ambrose: it is said, that in his time, the Deacons did not preach. Of this practice of the elder churches, we have M. Bullinger that giveth a plain testimony with us, that although, the goods of the church increasing, there were beside the Deacons, Subdeacons and Archdeacons: yet that the Deacons remained still in their charge for the poor, and were not as yet mingled, with the Bishops or priests, and with the order of those which tavught.

This being thus set, that which, for the straūgenes, I called a monster: falleth flatly. for whē yt hath appeared, both by the word of god, and practice of the elder churches, that it be lōgeth not unto the office of the Deacō, to meddle with the ministry of the word and sacraments, if yt be true, which the Ans. saith, that provision for the poor by a Deacō, is not necessary under a Christian Prince: yt must follow, that the office of Deaconship under a Christian Prince is unnecessary. which as yt ys absurd, so him self (I think) will not affirm yt: if he do, yt hath the same refutation, which the denial of the necessity of the office of Elders, hath had before.

Na although yt were granted, which he would have, that the Deacons office were to minister the word and sacrament: yet this point of prouisiō for the poor taken away, the Deacon is quite extinguished: considering that there should remain, no part of office, whereby the minister of the word, should be severed. if he say, that there should be difference, in that the one might minister the supper, and the other not: beside that I have shown how absurd that is, he cā not so escape. for still the gifts are all one: considering that whosoever hath gifts of god to minister the word and Baptī, the same hath also gifts to enable him, to minister the supper. whereas seeing S. Paul separateth the offices by their gifts: yt were against reason to make thē diverse offices, which have the same gifts for their executiō. Beside that, in taking away that which he is cōstrained to cōfes, to have been by gods institutiō, at the least a part of this office: he is manifestly convicted, of chāging and corrupting, if not of utter overthrowing the lords ordinance. Els, let him show us, what tittle of the scripture he hath: whereby yt may appear, that the ministry of the word and Baptism (which he surmiseth to belong unto yt) should be perpetual, and the provision for the poor temporal.

So also appeareth, that the cōtradictiō is unanswered which was laid unto him: in that in the lati book saying yt owght not to be takē away, in this and the other, he saith that this part is not necessary. for thus should yt not be the office of a Deacō, instituted by the holy Apost. but another functiō, forged by D. whitgift. This assertiō of his, being straūg: his reason whereupon yt is grounded, is yet further owt of fashiō. for he contenteth not him self, to say that mē may devise as good away for the provision of the poor, as did the lord him self: unless in this behalf, he set up the wisdom of men above the lords. For this doeth he plainly in effect affirm, when he saith, that the poor may by other lawful and politik means, be better provided for: considering that yt was the lords own order, established by the Apost. where, beside that his reason, is a demand of that in question, and that the untruth thereof, hath been before noted: I will answer further owt of Ezra, where there is a notable story, towchīg a matter not much unlike. for after he had received of king Darius, both precious vessels and other gifts for gods service: being now in journey frō Babylō unto Jerusalem, and understanding, upon view of his company, that there were not of Priests and Levites a sufficient number, to whom he might commit this treasure: stayed there with his whole suit, until such time as he had recovered, a competent number of the church men. For that this was the cause of their sending for, appeareth by the yssu, of committing the treasure unto their custody.

And albeit there might be some other use of them at Jerusalem, beside this cariadg: yet that their presence was necessary in this respect, it is manifest, not only because otherwise he might have givē order, that they should have come after, without staying so great a company, for their sakes: but especially upon the words of Ezra, which assigneth the cause of their election unto that charge, to have been, for that the money and plate being consecrate to a holy use, yt behooved them which were likewise consecrated, to have the custody of yt.

Now, if the Ans. should sit in judgment of this act of Ezra, and judge by his Canon law, which he hath here set down: this godly learned Priest, hath already received the blak stone or sentence of condemnation. For were there not as faithful, and as wise for that purpose in the company, as ether the Priests or Levites were? were there not of the Princes, which for their skil in fight, and for the train which followed them, were more able to make head with the enemy, that should give the attempt to take them away: then were ether the Priests or Levites? finally, is it not a mere superstition, to stand thus upon the difference of a tribe or family, with loss of time, and expens of money, in so great a company?

But the Priest, appealeth to that court, where the canon of the holy scripture, sitteth Judge. which because yt teacheth, that the safety and prosperous succes of things, depend upon the blessing of god, and that that blessing is especially given, where things are done according to his institution: the same restoreth his righteousness again, and giveth him the white stone of absolution: for that the weaker, and more unlikely, having the calling of god thereunto, is more apt, then without that calling, the strongest Sampson that can be got. So that, if in common reason, the Collectors were fitter then the Deacons, which is untrue (considering that the same may be ecclesiastically ordained Deacons, which are Collectors) yet, forasmuch as it is the vnrepealed and vnrevoked order of god, that the Deacon should do this: yt owght to be preferred, to all the inventions of men, how faier and colorable soever they appear.

But of the confutation of this, enough is said: especially, considering that beside the continual practice of the church, with the common consent of the learned both old and new, M. Bucer hath labored this point particularly, in the behalf of our church: which showeth, that this office must of necessity be restored, as yt is described Act. the vi, if England will receive, the true discipline of Christ.

Hereupon also, considering there be poor in every church: the use of this office in every church, is manifest. For further confirmation of which point, the reader may have recours to that I have proved before: that in every church, according to gods institution, there owght to be a Bishop: especially, when the Ans. him self will not deny, but the Bishop and Deacon should go together. Likewise, unto that which hath been said of the Eldership, in this behalf: considering that some of the reasons, are common to both. As for the first of his exceptions, that the Deacons of one city, may serve all the whole Dioces, yt is to far owt of square: considering that for one only church, and that within one city Jerusalem, there were seven.

His second, that in scripture yt cannot be shown, that Deacons were placed anywhere then in cities: is first to reason negatively of authority, not in the question whether yt owght to be done or no, but whether yt was done: which not we alone, but him self also condemneth. Secondly, if this be a reason to bar the churches, which are not in cities, because there are none specified but in great cities: thē he shall by the same reason, bereue them of their Pastors: considering that there is never a small town, of which yt is anymore said, that yt had a Pastor, then that yt had a Deacon.

Thirdly, he saith that the same cannot be shown (unless he be greatly deceived) in any ancient writer. wherein he giveth suspitiō, that he toke not his wares by tale, but in gros: otherwise, he might better have known what he hath suffered his book, to be stuffed with. For yt hath examples of country churches, belonging to the church of Alexandria: which had both Elders and Decons. And his own Ignatius, whom he will have John the Apostles scholar: affirmeth, that every church ought to have this office of Deaconship.

His comparison of this reason, there were Deacons at Ierusalē, therefore in all churches, with this there be preachers in Cambridge, therefore in all England: is vnaequal. For yt was not nakedly so propounded, but warranted with reasons: in that the Apostles labored after the comformity of the churches. so that the proof, that there was such an office in one, is proof, that there was in all: or at least that there owght to have been, which is all one, to the matter in hand, his answer whereunto is before confuted. Therefore, the comparison had been iuster with this: that the men in the city have two hands a piece, therefore they in the country have so to: and if any have not, that there is a faut. The next is answered, so is the next to yt.

To the reason I alleged, that the church may be at as small charges with a Deacon, as with a Collector, seeing that yt may make of the Collector a Deacon: he maketh no answer, only he covereth him self, under color of the admonit: which (ironically as I judge) saith that every parish, cannot be at cost, to have both a Curat and a Deacon: considering, that yt requireth, both a Pastor and a Deacon, in every congregation. although, to cut of occasion, about their meaning herein, I will not strive. The second chapter of this tractat, is answered before.

Seeing then, the Apostle separateth the office of the Deacon, from the ministry of the word, making them diverse members of one whole: and seeing that in the perfect division of the ministry of the word, he is not remembered: seeing also the Apostle describing his qualities, requireth not that he should be able to teach: Again, seeing that in executing his office towards the poor, together with the function of preaching, he should be charged with more, then the Apostles them selves could do, and had need of greater gifts, then the Pastor: last of all, seeing both by judgment, and practice of the purer churches, the Deacons have been ether altogether shut owt from preaching, or being permitted to preach, have done yt upon a new grace, over and above the calling, of a Deacon: I conclude, that the Deacon hath no calling of god to preach the word, and by the same reason, that he hath none to administer any Sacrament: which later conclusion shall further appear, in the next Tractat.

THE ELEUENTH TRACTATE, AGAINST THE CORRVPTIons in doctrine, tovuching the holy Sacraments.

LEaving to the readers judgment, upon the reasons alleged, whether the meaning of the book be to admit baptism by Midwiues, for as much (as I trust) there shall no such horrible profanation be suffered hereafter: let him observe how the An. because he hath once undertaken this cause (covertly as he dare) continueth the defense thereof. Iwis, of folies the shortest are best. yt had been better for him, to have laid his hand upon his mouth: or rather in confessing of his faut, to have given god the glory. But let us see what he bringeth.

To that which was alleged out of the place of S. Mathevu, that yt maketh as much against baptism by vuemen, as against there preaching: he answereth, that by that reason, Pastors may nether preach nor baptize, for that they are no Apostles: which followeth not. For the Pastor succeeding unto the Apostles, as touching preaching and baptising in their proper churches: have by the same place authority to do both. For further answer whereto: I refer the reader, to that I have written before. And I think, there is not so much as one of the godly writers, ether old, or new, which speaking of the ordinary ministry under the gospel, whether it be to stablish or overthrow things pertaining to it: useth not the places, that were first spoken to the Apostles alone. As for M. Calvin, he useth this place expressly, which the Adm. doeth: to prove that women owght, at no hand, to baptize, but only the Ministers ordained to preach the gospel: the same doeth M. Beza. yea the Ans. himself, to prove the Bishops saying to those he ordeyneth alledgeth these words, receive the holy ghost: which notwithstanding were first said, by our Savior Christ, unto the Apostles alone: so that the Ans. frowardness, is here intolerable. Nether is it anything excused by Zwingli. For, although baptism be not instituted here, which was instituted in the ministry of John the Baptist, nor here be mentioned any circumstance: yet the minister of that institution, which is no circunstance, but a subordinate efficient cause, may well be appointed.

For confirmation hereof, I alleged that the ministry of the word and Sacraments, joined of god together, ought not to be pulled asonder: and therefore cited examples, wherein we see observed continually, that the same were Ministers of both together. whereūto first he answereth generally, that examples prove not: which is before answered. Thē unto the particular example of the Ark, he excepteth, first that if that were a sacrament, the Minister may make sacraments, for that Noah made yt: as if it owght to be so strange, that the Minister ministerially and subordinately, according to the institution prescribed of god, should be said, to make the sacrament. For as yt it often times said, that the Priests made the sacrifices: So, the Minister in using the water, which was common before, unto that use, and after that sort, which Christ hath appointed, maketh yt holy and Sacramental water. Nether owght yt to be more strange unto him, that the minister should after this sort make the sacrament: then that he should save his hearers, that he should harden their hearts, close up their eyes, stop up their ears, &c. all which things, the scripture ascribeth unto the minister.

Secondly he saith, it had no promise of eternal life, nor was a seal of any promise: both which are untrue. For it confirmed Noah in the promise that god had given, that he should not be drowned, with the rest of the world. And as the promises, made of temporal blessings unto the fathers, extended them selves unto the everlasting: so the sacraments to confirm those promises, were sacraments to confirm thē, in the hope of eternal life. This doeth S. Peter confirm, which teacheth that the preservation of Noah in the Ark, was the same to him and his, which baptism is to us: to whom, the Ans. doeth in this point, directly oppose himself.

Thirdly, he addeth, that it was a figure of the church, and therefore no sacrament: which followeth not. For the bread and wine in the holy supper, are so a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: that they are nevertheless, Sacraments of the church represented thereby, in that, as many corns make one loaf, and many grapes one cup of wine: so many members, make one body of Christ, which is the church. Nether is the example of the miracles, unaptly alleged: for they be signs to confirm the word of god, as are the Sacraments. therefore whosoever can show, that Ministers of the word owght only to be Ministers of the signs, whereby it is confirmed: showeth, that they only must be Ministers, of the Sacraments.

To prove, that the forbidding of them, from the ministering of the word, is their forbidding from the ministering of the Sacraments: I brought an argument of contraries, for that S. Paul being bidden to minister the word, as in things which go together, did without further commandment, minister the Sacraments: which was, belike, as a pil, that he could not well swallow, considering that he answereth nothing. And if this, be not a good argument, then there is no commandment in the scripture, to bar women from being public ministers of the Sacraments: for it is nowhere expressly forbidden them, to minister the sacraments, but only to minister the word. If therefore the godly learned, have judged them unmeet, to minister the sacraments, because the holy scripture hath disabled them, to minister the word: yt followeth necessarily, that none may have power to minister the sacraments, which hath not also to minister the word. for otherwise, if those might publicly minister the sacraments, which cannot do the word: women by reason of their sex, are not so shut owt, but that they may have entrance into that ministry.

Against this, and to prove, that there may be ministers of the sacraments and not of the word: he referreth me to his pag. 483, where are cited Chrysostom, Ambrose, Martyr and Calvin vpō these words, Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach. For answer whereunto, first it must be understanded, that when S. Paul saith, that he was not sent to baptize: his meaning is not, that he had no manner of sending at all to baptize. For so should his own mouth condemn him: as one which had undertaken to do that, whereunto he was not sent: considering that he confesseth in the same place, that he baptized certain howshouldes. what is then his meaning? Verily even that, which he declareth by his practice: that he was rather sent to preach, then to baptize. And of such negatives by comparison, the Ans. could not be ignorant: seeing both he hath otherwhere made mention of them, and it is a thing which a young divine, and he that hath yet the pap in his mouth, may easily understand. As when it is said, receive my discipline, and not silver: Likewise that thy name shall be no more called Jacob, but Israel: that is to say rather discipline, then silver, rather Israel, then Jacob.

Now, seeing S. Paul did both preach and baptize, by authority of god, and virtue of his calling: all may see, that no man can conclude of this place, that one may be minister of the sacraments, and not of the word. if anything cā be concluded, it is: that some may be occupied in administering the word, more thē in the sacraments. And this is also an answer to that alleged owt of Zwingli, touching Christ teaching and his disciples baptising: considering that the disciples preached also although not so much as our Sav. Christ.

Secondly, in so great numbers of men and women to be baptized, if to the end that the Apostles cours of preaching should not be stayed, others had that charge to pour on the water, which were no Ministers of the word: that was in the beginning, before any ordinary ministry of Bishop was erected in the churches: and therefore nothing pertaining to our question, which in quire, what owght to be the ordinary and settled government of the church. For is it credible to a man of any judgment, that ether the Apostle would commit, or these writers would say: that he committed the office of baptizing, unto those which were not Ministers of the word, passing by the Pastor himself.

Albeit, where there was no Pastor to assist the Apostles: I see not, why the help that others, which were no ministers of the word, gave in that administration, should be properly called baptizing: no more then he which serveth the Pastor, ether in carrying about the bread, or reaching the cup, can be said to have ministered the lords supper. So that, the Apostle S. Peter, having preached of the use of baptism, and pronounced the words of the institution: although he poured not the outward element of water with his own hand, might well be said, to have baptized them all. Beside that, nothing hindereth, why the words Act. 10 he commanded them to be baptized: may not be expounded, that he commanded water to be brought, wherewith they should be baptized.

Howsoever it was, yt could not be, as the D. saith very dangerously owt of Ambrose: for that he would not vouchsafe to do it himself, other ministers being present: considering that the ministry of the holy sacraments, being of the same nature with the preaching of the word, is of greater excellency, then any man upon earth is worthy to handle. Beside that, seeing he alloweth of Ambrosis place to the Ephesians, which affirmeth that all men preached in the Apostles times: he can receive; no benefit of him in this place. For if all did preach, as well as baptize: then it is true which I say, that none had the ministry of the sacraments, but he which had the ministry of the word withal: and untrue which he affirmeth owt of Ambrose, that some were ministers of the word, which were not of the sacraments.

Likewise is the testimony owt of M. Beza (whereto I have answered before) flat against him in this cause: considering that his judgment is, that the Deacons did both preach, and administer the sacraments sometime. And as there is no harmony between him, and his autorityes: so is there none, between the sentences of his authors, which he hath mashed together. For where some say, all: other say, that Priests only baptized. where he saith Musculus doeth alow, that some should minister the sacraments, which cannot preach: yt is very true, and further, that he would rather have yt done by them, then by those that can preach. But his ground, is upon the misvnderstanding of Act. the 6: whilst he toke the ministering to tables, which is the provision for the poor, for the ministering of the lords supper. The foundation therefore of his assertion, being naught: the assertion yt self, can have no place.

The place of the 1. Timoth. 5. is answered: so is his question. To return again therefore to his demand. where he asketh, what point of Anabaptism it is, that women may preach in the church, when there is no other that can, nor will? I answer, that yt approacheth to that branch, whereby the Anabaptists hold, that mē may preach without an outward calling of the church: only, if they think it needful.

Where I objected, his building upon examples, of a fevu particular persons, which alovueth not ours, although they be grounded upon the general use of the churches in the Apostles time: he answereth, that he buildeth no necessary rule, but only that yt may be done upon like occasion. But this is but a vain shift. For those extraordinary acts which are comendable, were done ether by express commandment, or by special direction of the spirit of god: the obedience whereunto, was not at their choice to do, or to leave vndoen. So that, if the Ans. will have these examples, to be the directers of baptism by midwives: they not only may, but owght to do yt. And if there were any such case of necessity, as he untruly pretendeth, and that yt might in such a case be ministered by women: it were absurd to leave it in the choice of the Midwife, whether she would minister it or no.

But note (I beseech yow) what horrible confusion, he bringeth into the world, by this saying. For if extraordinary examples do prove, that such things may be done in such cases: then may private men execute malefactors, because Phinehas did so: and men may borrow and never pay, as did the Israelites. If he say, that he addeth upon like occasion and circumstance: it is true, but thereby he meaneth, if like need or necessity be. For if he mean as he owght, having a particular commandment of god by word, or a rare and extraordinary instinct by the spirit of god: his answer is nothing to purpose, considering that he will not (I think) say, that the Midwiues have any of these two: and if they had, they do it not in respect of the former example, but only by reason of the extraordinary, ether commandment, or motion.

His example of the Samaritan woman John 4, is frivolous: that she should become a public preacher, which had not yet learned her catechism, nor was scarce owt of her Christian A. B. C. where it is manifest, that she did nothing, which belongeth not to everyone: that is, that we should exhort one another, to go where the knowledge of Christ is to be had: so that, she did only, as it were, towl the bel, to draw the Samaritans to our Sau. Christ, that he might preach unto them. Nether doeth his other example, of the women Math. 28 which preached the resurrection, help him. For if that may be called a public ministry, it hath an express commandment of the lord, by the Angel. which commandment, as oft as Midwiues can show, we will acknowledge their ministry lawful: otherwise the general commandment, which we are bound to follow, is direct against their preaching, which being shown of me, is unanswered by him. So that here he merely trifleth, often saying, that there is nothing against the baptism by women, and never answering the scriptures alleged, whereby it is generally forbid̄ thē, to deal in these matters.

To that I concluded of his words ( women may preach, if there be no man that ether can, or will ) that vuemen by that means have his license to preach in diverse places: he answereth it needeth not, seeing the scriptures are red in all places. But that is but an escape: considering that although they have a reader, yet they have no preacher, reading not being preaching, as I have ^a shown. And who seeth not, that many with us, for want of teaching, lie in horrible ignorance of the truth: so that, by his rule, this is the time, in which women may teach openly with us.

But here again, he opposeth M. Calvin, which saith there is a time wherein a woman may speak. If he mean in her own hows, or otherwhere private • lie, I grant: if publicly in the church, upon an extraordinary calling, I grant that also: otherwise I cannot grant it, for the reasons before, and after alleged. And that M. Calvin, had no such meaning as he pretendeth: appeareth, in that he will at no hand, admit baptism by women: to whom, although he oppose Zwingli, yet he showeth not, nor (I think) is able to show, that he alloweth, of baptism by Midwiues.

The next division, which showeth that godly vuemen never toke the ministry of the word, but by extraordinary calling from god, approved ether by miracle, or some not able yssu, (saith he) is needles, as that whereunto he agreeth: which is not so. For hereby is condemned, the baptizing both by wemē, and other private persons whatsoever: as that which hath no such calling, and approbation of god. The next to it, showeth his poverty: which endeavoring to defend the baptism by women, was ignorant of the principal hold of that cause: and was needfully met with for their sakes, whom that might trouble.

In he next, he would insinuate, that they may baptize in the hows: for that S. Paul biddeth them teach in private places. where, if he had made his argument just, and to clasp well together: he should have concluded, that they owght to teach their howshold in private places, therefore they owght to baptize in private places: and they owght to teach their families ordinarily, therefore they owght to baptize their families ordinarily. thus must the argument be cut owt, according to his measure: and he may as well say, that a woman owght to do the same in the holy supper. But the knot is not yet loosed, my answer whereunto is, that if there were any private sacraments, as there is private teaching: I would accord unto him, that women having power to teach privately, might also minister the sacraments privately. But because that the holy sacraments are public, as is the preaching: his argument, hath no force. For in what place, will he lodge this argument: a woman may do a private act, therefore she may do a public. The division following, being evil severed of him from the next chapter, whereunto it belongeth: I leave, until I come unto that matter.

Now, it may please the reader, to turn unto the 5 chapter pag. 516, which is also of this point in hand: touching the person, by whom this sacrament should be administered. where first mark (I pray yow) a wily distinction, which in effect is, that he defendeth not baptism by women, but improueth the Adm. that disaloweth yt: as though one could improve the one, and not defend the other. And unless he had brought the example of Sephora, to maintain baptism by women, it had been fondly alleged: considering that the words of the Adm. are of the practice of the Apostles times, an exception against which, fetched from the time which was 1000 years before, might seme to come from him, whose wits were not at home: especially, when the question is, what was done, and not what owght to be done, as he him self now pretendeth.

Secondly he saith, he will not contend with me in diverse things in this division, for that he misliketh their error, which condemn infantes that be not baptized, as much as I: which is not so. For he saith, that the lak of baptism, may seme to be a probable token and sign of reprobation, which is both untrue, and perilous: considering that not the want, but the contempt or neglect only of the holy Sacrament, can draw any, the least apparance of the lords wrath. Nether is that ether neglect, or contempt preiudicial to the infant, but to the parents only, whose faut that is. which notwithstanding, can be none, where they seek to thir uttermost, that yt may be baptized of the minister of the church, orderly, and conveniently: no more then it was preiudicial, ether to the child, or parents under the law, when the infant died, before the eight day, which was the time appointed, for the administration of the Sacrament of circumcision. For as the eight day, was to them: so is a convenient, and orderly time, to us.

Yt is therefore a shameful dealing, that he maketh us here to join with the Anabaptists: which reject childrē from baptism, until they be able to make profession of their faith. whereas we confess it owght to be ministered, with all convenient speed: so it be by the minister, whom god hath ordained for the same purpose. In which accusatiō of Anabaptism, with us, he windeth up also (as it were in one bottom) the reformed churches: where it is not permitted, that the infant in any case should be baptized, but by the minister. withal, the reader may perceive, how idle he is, which translateth a great piece of M. Calvin: to prove that, which none denieth. whom also, he goeth about to oppose to himself, which is of the same judgment with us, in this behalf: although, there be not so much as a tittle in the words he setteth down, bending that way.

Yt may well stand, that this profanation came from the Gentiles, from Victor, and from the Papists: Victor borrowing it of the heathen, and the Papists of him. For both popery is like a bundel of corruptions, which being picked owt of sundry times and places, it hath cocked up together: and the Pope is like a hog, which when he cometh into a garden, leaving the sweet flowers, taketh himself always to that, which is most filthy in all the place. otherwise, the D. might deny, any corruption almost, to be papistical: seeing they have few, whereof ether paganism, or declinyng from Christianism, hath not been the first founder.

To that I alleged, to prove the unlawfulness of the circumcision by Moses wife, for that she did it, in presence of her husband a Prophet, which is M. Calvin's reason: he opposeth the note of the bible printed at Geneva, that he could not do it, because he was such, and that the Lord required it then. whether he was able or no, I will not strive: but that the lord required circumcision, if there were no ordinary minister for it, doeth not appear. For, as it was an order of god, that the male child should be circumcised the eight day: so was yt also his order, that he should be circumcised by a minister. Now, how can it be shown, by that the lord strake Moses, that he would therefore, have this ordinance changed: when as the sickness sent, was a correction for the breaking of one of his orders, and not a trumpet blown, to cal them to the breach of the other.

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

To that alleged, that she did it in a koler: he answerereth not. To that, that Moses recovery is no proof of the lavufulnes of it, considering that when things are measured by the event, the good are condemned, and the wicked justified oftentimes: he answereth that the event oft declareth the thing, which is but to wast wind. For if it do oft otherwise: it can serve for no reason, or allowance of that circumcision. And if the judgment by the event, be to be taken, it is there, where the causes do not appear: but here the cause of circumcision, which is the institution of god, is able to try the matter. where also appeareth, how affamished he is, to find contrarietyes in my book: in that he supposeth variance in this, that here, I cal Moses a prophet, and in another place, say that the priesthood was taken from him, and given to Aaron: which is to foul an oversight. For both, there were Prophets, which were no Priests nor of the race of Priests: and the time of the deliverance over of the Priesthood unto Aaron, was long after the time, here spoken of.

Against that I affirm it a necessary point of the Sacrament, that yt be ministered by a Minister, he maketh many owtcryes: but they be not these loud clamours, which can gain the cause, where there is so deep silence of reason: and where owt of the scripture, not so much as one sily reason, is once pretended. Therefore, to cut his comb, that he crow not so loud hereafter: he hath flatly betrayed his cause, in that, not able to allege one reason owt of the word of god, he placeth the strength of this cause herein, that against baptizing by lay men in the time of necessity, we have (as he saith) no scripture and he hath learned men for yt. For first, in that he can bring no reason owt of the word of god, why a lay man or woman in time of necessity (as he termeth yt) may baptize: yt is manifest, that he owght not to have set yt down. For this is a matter of doctrine, and a matter of faith: even in that narrow signification, that he taketh matters of faith. this is none of the variable ceremonies, which alter by the diversity of times, of countries, and of persons: and therefore by his own rule, here an argument of the authority of the scripture negatively, is good: so that here it is a good argument, the scripture commandeth not that lay men or women should baptize, therefore they may not baptize.

Beside also, that he doeth us wrong, in saying, that it is avouched without proof. It might have contented him, to have said without good proof: for proof there is, whatsoever yt be. where, that which he affirmeth, that the scripture doeth not forbid lay men to baptize, is an untruth: considering it forbiddeth that any should take honor to himself, but he which is called as was Aaron. which sentence doeth manifestly shut owt, all private persons from this administration: seeing yt is a singular honor, in the church of god. As for that string, which he continually runneth upon, that in time of necessity, it may be admitted: yt is but a plain asking of that in controversy. For, it being confessed, that baptism is necessary, whē it may be administered according to the order which god hath ordained: the state of the question is, whether there be any such necessity of baptism, as for the attaining thereof the order which god hath set in his church, of administering it by a public minister, owght to be broken. Of the same sort, is his often̄ idle talk, of the refusal, neglect, or contempt of baptism: as though, there could be any of these, in this case. If he can show, that women, or lay men owght to baptize in such times, and that god hath ordained, that in defaut of a Minister, they may lay to hand: then let him talk his fil.

But that I am assured he cannot, the contrary rather may be seen: that the lord hath condemned such rashness, as may appear by the examples of Saul and Uzziah. For what greater apparance of necessity of sacrificing, could there be: then when Saul toke upon him, to sacrifice. And how probable reasons, in the judgment of men, doeth he bring to defend his fact: as that the people would otherwise have forsaken him, that the Philistines pressed him, that Samuel, came not within the time appointed. Likewise what greater apparance of necessity: then when Uzziah stayed the ark, otherwise like to have fallen. yet (these necessityes notwithstanding) forasmuch as they toke upon them, that whereunto they were not called: they received, the reward of their boldness. whereas here there is (as I have said) no danger: so that the ordinary meāes be not neglected. And verily it is all one, as if he should say, that if there be no magistrate at hand, or none that will do his duty in executing justice against a murderer: that then a private man may take vpō him, to hang the murderer.

Now where he propoundeth, to prove two pointes, the one that baptism by lay men is lawful, the other, that although they were no fit nor lawful Ministers, yet that the baptism is lawful: to the end the reader may have more light wherewith to judge of these matters, or ever I touch the second, I will rid his arguments of the former point. for he hath confusedly blinded and meddled them both together.

His authorities here, for the moste part, are idly set down: as those which I confessed before, when I granted the auncienty of this corruption. But seeing they are here: I will speak a word with them. First owt of Ambrose upon Ephes. 4. is cited, that all baptized. If this make anything, to prove baptism by lay men: it proveth not only, that they may baptize in this pretended time of necessity, and privately, but that they may daily, and publicly baptize: so that he, by this means, will have lay mē ordinary Ministers. Then, let the reader observe, how dishonestly he dealeth with him. For in the same place, it is contained, how in the time wherein Ambrose lived, it was not permitted unto lay men, nor unto clerks them selves, which were an inferior order of church men, to baptize: so that this Autor maketh directly against him, affirming that although it were so then, yet that it is no direction for us now.

Augustine followeth, another of his witnesses, in this cause: whose judgment is herein flat against him. For when he dowteth, whether one baptized by a lay man, ought to be rebaptized: it is manifest, that he alloweth not, that a lay mā should take upon him to baptize, but only standeth in doubt, whether that baptism, being so vnduly ministered, owght to be counted for baptism. Otherwise, if he had holden the ministry of a lay man lawful: there had been no place unto his doubt, whether the baptism be good or no. And therefore the D. durst not set down his words: but carried them thr • e or four divisions further, where they serve him, for the second point in controversy.

Hys third witness, is Jerome ad Luciferianos: which maketh not to prove, what was lawful by the word of god, but what was permitted then by the church. There remain therefore Tertull. and Zwingli, which do affirm yt lawful: to whom, if the matter should be tried by authority, he hath his own Ambrose, and Augustine to encounter with. Chrysostom also, as himself citeth him: which will give none leave to baptize, but a Priest. Ad to these Cyprian, who although he erred in rebaptization, yet proveth by substantial reasons, of the vengeance of god against Chore, Dathan, Abiram, and of the sons of Aaron: that only the ministers of the church, may baptize: secluding thereby a lay man, although he be never so catholic. I leave his Denys, which is here full for us, and come to the later writers: where he hath beside M. Calvin before alleged, Beza, and Bullinger with others. Beside that whatsoever, or whosoever shall be alleged afterward, to prove that the Sacraments owght to be celebrated in a public assembly, serveth to bar all private persons and especially (by the D. own confession) women, from this administration of Sacraments.

Now, it may please the reader, to turn over the leaf in his book page 521: where this question is yet pursued, and examples brought of lay men which preached in Origins time. where it is first to be noted, that the Ans. is contrary to himself: which page 139 and last section, denieth that any man may preach the word, no not so much as to show a proof of his ability, unless he be at the least admitted into the ministry. If he have an admittance, to the ministry of the word: how is he a lay man? As for that he addeth, it was upon occasion: I would know what occasion there could be then, when the churches were built, and an order set, why lay men should preach. Or why might not those Bishops, which gave lay men leave to preach, have ordained them ministers of the word: seeing the Bishop only (by his opinion) had then the ordaining of them. was it not as easy for them, to have made them Ministers of the word, and so to have kept the order of god: as to have sent them owt in the quality of lay men, contrary to that order: so that, his drift seemeth to be to bring in all disorder and confusion, into the church of god.

Then I answer, that although they were not duly chosen, yet were they not mere lay men: considering, that thei, had an ecclesiastical calling, such as yt was, even the Bishops admission: unless he will have all the Ministers with us, lay men, which have only the same admision. The place was brought of me before, not that I approved it in all pointes, as I also noted: but to show in what estimation that election was had, which was made by the Bishop alone.

Here, upon that I said, that Baptism ministered by an heretical Minister, is good: he thinketh it to be rather good, when it is ministered of a lay man, that is a member of the church: which is a foul error. For an heretical Minister, so long as he is suffered to enjoy his ministry, and not deposed therefrom: is both a member of the church, and a Minister of god, although both and evil member, and an evil Minister. And, it is as much, as if he should say, that the execution of a malefactor by a private man, which is honest: is rather lawful, then by a public Magistrate, which is a briber. withal, let it be noted, that here the Ans. both contrary to the truth, and contrary to that him self professeth, hangeth the effect of the sacrament, upon the goodness or naughtiness of the Minister: in that, in this respect, he preferreth the sacrament ministered by a private mā, being good, unto that which is ministered by an evil man, although he be a public Minister. The rest in this division: ether hath had answer, or requireth none.

Yt had been (as I said) a gros error: if M. Bucer had judged it meet, that women should baptize. And whether the Ans. would have had him so understood, or no: I leave to the readers judgment, upon the discourse in both his books. Nether can it want, some skar of error: to alow of the title of private baptism. for, although it were convenient, that the child should be baptized in the hows, when there is danger to bring it to the church: yet, forsomuch as that owght not to be without a conveniēt number of the faithful, and without the public Minister, the baptism is not (as also it cannot be) private, but public. As for the reasons, they have been answered: and come to be answered further, in the treatise of administration of the sacraments, in private houses. How unworthy a thing it is, that he should charge us with private vuritinges, which he keepeth in his study, leaving his public works: let the reader judge.

I made mention, of other gros absurdities, of M. Bucer's: least the excellency of his learning and godliness, should carry the simpler sort to believe anything, contrary to the truth. And if it be judged of the godly, that I might have spared that speech: it is a thing, wherein I will not stand against them, in mine own defense.

Here, first he asketh, where Augustine disaloweth baptism by women. although these words of mine doeth not alovu, be not so full: yet, in that, talking of this surmised case of necessity, he never cometh so low, as to the baptism by wemē, but stayeth in that which is ministered by lay men: it is manifest, that he disallowed the baptism by women. For otherwise, if he had thought, that women in that case might have baptized: it stoed him upon to have taught, that in defaut of a lay man, a woman might be taken: seeing that, in his judgment, the salvation of the child, stoed thereupon. when he dowteth also, whether it ought to be ministered again, which was ministered by a lay man: he could hardly leave any dout, of the utter misliking of baptism by women. whereunto serveth, the practice of his times, which was (as hath been shown) in such cases: to run to the church, with their children. His other question, cometh to be answered afterward.

Against the fourth Council of Carthage, which forbiddeth vuemen to baptize: he runneth for aid to Gratian, the common falsifier of the good canons, of whom I have before spoken. Althowgh if the answer be true, which he frameth owt of this forger, that she may not baptize in public: forsomuch as all baptism is to be ministered in public assembly, and that even then, when it is ministered in the hows, it followeth that a woman may never baptize. And to the intent, the Ans. may know his error the better: let him repair unto M. Bullinger, who citeth this canon, to condemn all manner of baptizing by women. Here also, let it be noted, that albeit the Answ. seeing such consent of the learned against baptism by women, dare not flatly meynteyn it: yet, where he finedeth anything to defend yt by, although never so base, he forgetteth it not.

To that alleged, that the breaking of the orders of god, whereof one is, that the minister only should baptize, the other, that it be done publicly, confirmeth men greatly in that heresy, that all are damned, which are not baptized: he answereth nothing. Likewise, to that, that if a man could not be saved without baptism, yet we might not therefore break the order of god, he answereth also nothing, but wandereth idly in talking of the necessity of baptism, which we confess, as hath been before declared. Where, against his absurd saying, that the teaching of this kind of private baptism, implieth no more the tying of salvation unto the sacrament, then to teach that children should be baptized before they be able to answer for them selves, I replied that the baptism of young children, hath ground in the scripture, but baptism by lay men or vuemen hath none: he answereth, that this confirmeth his saying. wherein, the reproach of trifling, is to easy, to set forth his intolerable abusing of his reader. For to have answered, he owght to have taught, a rule owt of the word of god, whereby it might have appeared: that a private person, may take upon him in this pretensed case of necessity, to do that which god hath not committed, but unto the Minister: so that here, it is manifest, that he had never a knee to bow unto the truth, but was like that beast, which having never a joint in her leg, must rather break then bend.

To that I alleged, of the continual, and almost general practice of the church: he answereth, that lay men from the beginning have been permitted to baptize: whereof let the reader judge. In the mean season, he is able to show no practice of baptism by women, but in the extreme ruins of the church: otherwise we should have been sure to have heard of yt. Howbeit here he asketh whotly, what order of god is broken in private baptism: even the same which is broken in private preaching. So that whatsoever hath been before spoken of the church preaching, that it owght to be public and not private: serveth in like manner, for the holy Sacraments. The next division, must rest in the readers judgment.

Now remaineth the other point which is, whether baptism administered by one which is no Minister, although against the word (as yt is contained in his pag 518 &c.) be yet available. the D. saith yea. his first reason is, that otherwise many should go under the name of Christians, which were never baptized: and so (saith he) I may prove myself to be no Christian. where I deny the argument, and withal desire the reader to take heed of the venom: which, he going about in other places to hide, brake owt here at unawares. In another place, he said that it is a probable sign of reprobation, if children dy without baptism: but here he setteth down flat, that they be no Christians, which are not baptized. So that, the children of the faithful, by his doctrine, are not Christians, before they be baptized: and consequently condemned. whereas the truth is otherwise, that if he be not a Christian, before he come to receive baptism: baptism can make him no Christian, which is only the seal of the grace of god before received. And what will he here say, to those in times past of Thessalia, with whom the sacrament of baptism was celebrated but once a year, namely at Easter: were all the children paganes all that while? what will he say to that time, wherein they received it not, but at their death: were they also all the time of their life paganes? I grant, both the customs naught: but in the mean season, he shall do the good Emperors, and other good men great injury, in saying that they were heathen, or no Christians.

His second reason is, that there must be by this mean; some general rebaptization: which is the flat reason of the Anabaptists, and in deed plain Anabaptism, that for a doubt whether some be baptized or no, all should be rebaptized. For thus they prove, that men must be rebaptized: because (say they) they are not assured, whether they were baptized or no: as it is reported of Zwingli. But it is enough for me, which am assured of the favor of god in Christ Jesus, the thing itself whereof baptism is the sacrament: that I know myself to have been born in that people, where the common use is to administer baptism by a public Minister, such as he was. So that, unless he can show assuredly, that I was not baptized by such a one: the want of baptism, shall not hurt me: seeing that I nether neglect it, nor contemn yt.

And if he could show, that I was not baptized: yet the case of rebaptization is not so clear, as he maketh yt. considering that Dyonisius the great and famous Bishop of Alexandria, when one came unto him, which sware that the baptism he received of the heretics, was nothing like the catholic baptism, but full of horrible blasphemies, and desired to be baptized of him, for that he was troubled in his conscience: said that ^b he durst not baptize him, adding that forsomuch as he had often said Amen unto the thanks giving in the church, and received the holy supper of the lord: that he should therevuith content, and comfort him self. If the Ans. had but such an authority, vncontraried of other: he would quikly shape us owt, a definitive sentence. howbeit, I stay not thereupon: only I bring it, that whē such a case should befall, we come not unto this remedy, without inquiring into the matter, and that yt be not done upon the D. bare word.

Where I alleged that the Minister is of the substance of the sacrament, considering that it is a principal part of Christ's institution: he answereth, that the essential form, is to baptize in the name of the father, the Son and the holy ghost: which being kept, the Sacrament remaineth, by whomsoever, or howsoever yt be ministered. This he fathereth of Augustine, and Zwingli: whereas, nether of them goeth further then to the person, by whom yt is ministered: so that he hath here falsified them. Beside that I have shown, that Augustine standeth in doubt, whether baptism by a lay man, be available or no. where, by all likelihood, he was owt of doubt, that that which was ministered by a woman, whose unaptness herein is dubble to that of a lay man: was of none effect. he citeth also M. Calvin: but utterly to another purpose, then he meaneth. For where he showeth, that the goodness or euilnes of the Minister maketh not, nor marreth not the sacrament: the D. pretendeth, as though it were not to be esteemed, whether he were a public minister or no, which is a mere abusing. For further answer, I refer the reader to that already answered: so do I, for answer to that of Ministers which crepe in without calling, unseasonably spoken of: likewise for the cavil of rebaptization.

Now, if the reader compare the answers of his together: he shall see, that the Ans. himself, hath clean overthrown his own grounds. And first of all this, that the being of the sacrament hangeth only hereof, if the form of words, I baptize the in the name of the father &c. be kept. For to prove that the being of the sacrament, dependeth not in any respect of the person which ministereth yt: he alledgeth first, that so we should be always in doubt, whether we be baptized: which maketh stronglier against this, that the being of baptism dependeth of the using of those words I baptize the in the name of the father &c. then against this that yt dependeth upon a public Minister. for all may understand, that yt is easier for a man to know, that he was in his infancy baptized of a public Minister: then to know, that the Minister then used these words, I baptize the in the name of the father &c.

Another reason is, for that the force of the sacrament is not in the mā, but in god himself, his spirit, and free effectual operation: and thereto abuseth 1. Corinth. 3. what is Paul &c. which is rather to prove, that the being of the sacrament dependeth not of the using of the words, I baptize the in the name of the father &c. forasmuch as S. Paul speaketh there, of the vocale ministry, whereof this is a part, wherein the D. him self placeth the being of the Sacrament. And in deed, the drift of his reason is, that there is no outward thing whatsoever, necessarily required in the being of the Sacrament: which is a shameful error.

Howbeit, let it be, that the usage of these words, is the only essential form: what shall be the material cause? For there must be as well a matter, whereof the sacrament must consist, as a form whereby it is: and as well is the material cause of the sacrament a substantial cause, as ys the form. For evē as a thing cannot stand without the form: so can yt not stand without the matter. Now when the one is as necessary, to the constitution of a thing, as the other: let him show me, why a faut in the form, or departing from the words, should more destroy the nature of the sacrament, then a defaut, or departure from the matter, which is the water. And verily for my part, I would rather judge him baptized, which is baptized into the name of Christ, without adding the father and holy ghost, when the element of water is added: then when the other words being duly kept, some other liquor is used.

This also is declared by his own example of the • ue baptized with sand: in that yt was decreed, that he should have vuater povured on him. whereby appeareth, that yt is untrue which he saith, that the sacrament always remaineth, what error soever be committed, when the form of words is retained. For there the words were kept, and yet the sacrament was not supposed, to be ministered. Althowgh the example otherwise, in my poor judgment, be unsound: that a man having the words said at one time, and the Element poured at another, should be judged baptized. For it is as much, as if a man receiving the bread in the church at Easter, and the cup at the Nativity: should be therefore said, to have received the holy 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 holy supper of the lord.

Therefore, howsoever some learned and godly, give some liberty in the change of the Elementes of the holy sacraments, yet I do not see, how that can stand: considering also that the prophet threatening a general dearth of corn, wyne and oil, showeth, that the Priests should weep and lament, for that both the meat offering, and drink offerīg should • ease. whereas, nether the offerings needed to have ceased, nor the Priests for that to have lamented: if they might for wine and oil have used water, or for the beasts of the land, taken the fishes of the sea, or other creeping things for their offerings.

Having thus spoken of the matter, that it must necessarily be such as the institutiō of god hath prescribed: let us come to the Minister, which is a subordinate efficiēt cause. whom seeing I have also proved (whatsoever he say) to be instituted the only minister of the sacraments: let him show me, why the breach of the institutiō in the form should make the sacrament vnavailable, and not the breach of this part. for if this be not also necessary, and of the being of the sacram: then when two go together, if one speak the words of the institution, although no man pour on water, but god only by rayn from heaven, yt is baptism. And if it be baptism which is ministered of a child in sport (which thing M. Farel derideth as a mere toy ) then if a mad mā, with mind to hurt, do speak those words in pouring water upon his head, which is not baptized, it shall be baptism also. further, if it be administered by him, which is by profession a Turk: it must, by his rule, be a good baptism. so we shall come to the dotage of the papists, which imagine that the Shepherd in the field consecrated their host; in saying certain words of the institutiō of the supper: which was the cause why, afterward, they would have thē mūbled up in secret. These things being absurd, it is certain that the D. rule, that it is baptism by whomsoever it be ministered: is crooked. But whē none cā wash us from our sins but our S. Christ, and none can represent his person in that outward sacrament of the inward washing, but he whom our Sav. Christ him self hath appointed: if we will receive the benefit of the holy seal of baptism, to assurance of our conscience, that we are washed frō our sins, we must have the public minister. If it be said, that this is to ty men to straight to the outward means, and that for so much as it is Christ that washeth from sins, there is les matter who be the Minister: I answer, that as our Sa. Christ's blood, being the spiritual matter of the sacrament, and that only wherewith we are purged, yet we may not therefore lak the water, which he hath ordained: so although he be he which alone washeth us from our sins, yet we may not therefore lak that outward minister, which he hath appointed.

And if the will of a Prince, do make that only to be his seal, which he hath appointed for that purpose, so that although another ether without or against his will be made, of the same matter and faschion, and in all things like yt, yet the same is none of his seal: how much more owght the will of god, which is, that only those should minister the sacrament, which have a public calling thereūto, have that authority. And, as by the seal, which the Prince hath set apart to seal his grauntes with, when it is stolen, and set to by him that hath no authority, there groweth no assurance unto the party that hath yt: so if it were possible to be the seal of god, which a woman should set to, yet for that she hath stolen yt, and put it to, not only without, but contrary to the commandment of god: I see not, how any can take any assurance by reason thereof. If it be said, that the Princes confirmation afterward, maketh even that stolen seal, which was set to, of force: I answer, that where yt can be shown, that baptism by women is confirmed of god, there I will grant the like in yt. hitherto may be referred, the pursuit of the former comparison. For as a private man, kylling a murderer, hath him self murdered, and executed no justice, because he had no calling thereunto: even so, those which without all calling have taken in hand to baptize, have made a profane washing, and ministered no sacrament of the lord.

That a distinction hath been kept in names of offices, when the offices thē selves have not been distinguished, or at least not so thorowghly as they owght: is an easy thing to show, if it were to great purpose. But yt is enough for us, that the D. him self cannot deny: but that baptism, which is ministered, by him which they cal a Deacon with us, is ministered by a Minister of the word: so that there is here, no danger of rebaptization.

I alleged, that part of the institution (as that which tovucheth the vuordes of the holy Trinity) being observed, and not this, it is no more baptism, then the papists communiō is the supper, where one piece takē, the other is left. whereto he answereth, that the cup is of the substance, because it is expressly commanded. So is this of the Minister also commanded: therefore by his own answer, of the substance of the sacrament. But (saith he) I cannot show a commandment, that a Minister only shall celebrate the Baptism, or else be no Baptism: no more can he in so many words, that if the cup be not received, it is no supper. But if his proof be sufficient, because the lord hath commanded that yt should be received: my proof is also, that have shown the same in the ministering of baptism: especially seeing the breach is not in the circumstance, but in the causes.

He alledgeth further, that circumcision ministered by such as were no Priests, was good: I grant, if it were done by those which were simple Levites, if yt were done also by Prophets which were no Priests: But if he can show it good, done by those to whom it belonged not, then he saith some what.

To that I brought out of S. Paul, that he cannot preach which is not sent: he answereth it is understanded of the extraordinary calling: as though it were not as well required in ordinary callings, that one be sent, as in the extraordinary. For although, there be diverse sortes of sendinges: yet that the Minister be sent, is required of all. So that although S. Paul should there draw that disputation, unto the sending of the Apostles: yet the rule whereby he confirmeth the Apostleship, is general. For a Pastor can no more preach now, in a particular congregation without a sending: then an Apostle could then, in all the world. The words I added, no not although he spake the vuordes of the scripture, be no such addition, as he surmiseth: seeing they are necessarily contained, in the Apostles sentence. For when himself denieth not, but that one which is not sent, may speak the words of scripture, and the Apostle saith, that the same cannot preach: it followeth, that one not sent, although he speak the words of the scriptures, cannot therefore be said to preach.

He proceedeth further, saying that as it is the word of god which is preached by minister, or other: so is baptism true baptism, by whomsoever it be ministered. as if he had already gotten, ether that whosoever speaketh the word preacheth yt: or that it were already baptism, without the public minister, both which are in demand. Moreover, if he can prove, that the washing with the element, without any to apply it, is a sacrament, as the word is the word, although no man handle yt, or speak of yt: then I will grant, that which he saith. But if it be no Sacrament, but when it is brought into use, and the use be defined to be such as is said: then yt is apparent, that there is a great difference, between the word and sacraments, in this respect.

Last of all, as he, which taking one part of the words of the scripture, an leaving another that should go with yt, propoundeth not the word of god, but his own idle fancy: even so, he that keepeth one principal part of the sacramtē, leaving another behind, ministereth no sacrament of god, but a devise of his own head. Now, where he would draw this cause into hatered, in that there is (as he saith) no learned man of this judgment: although the reason be weak, and yt unmeet, that the truth should be mistrusted, because she can find no suertishyp emongest men: yet, if that will help him, he hath M. Beza which doeth praecisely affirm, that the baptism which is ministered by a private man (much more by a woman) is utterly void.

Seeing then they only are bidden in the scripture to administer the Sacraments, which are bidden to preach the word, and that the public Ministers have only this charge of the word: and seeing that the administration of both these, are so linked together, that the denial of license to do one, is a denial to do the other, as of the contrary part, license to one is license to the other: considering also, that to minister the Sacraments, is an honor in the church, which none can take unto him, but he which is called unto yt as was Aaron: and further, forasmuch as the baptizing by private persons, and by women especially, confirmeth the dangerous error of the condemnation of young children, which dy without baptism: Last of all, seeing we have the consent of the godly learned of all times, against the baptism by women▪ and of the reformed churches now, against the baptism by private men: we conclude, that the administration of this Sacrament by private persons, and especially by women, is merely both unlawful and void.

There remaineth another question, whether the infantes of papists, are to be received to baptism. Of which, as of a thing more dowtful amongst the godly learned, because I wrote privately and more at large: when I came to the confutation of the D. book in that point, I passed by yt, with mind to take afterward my reply thereunto, more commodiously from the discourse I wrote of yt. Howbeyt, the truth is, until I came to the place of the printing, where I had not his book with me: I forgot yt. If therefore in answering, I ether pas by any weight of reason, or ascribe anything to him otherwise then truth: I desire the readers gentle support herein, ether until his next answer, or else unto another opportunity, when the arguments of both sides may be more fully debated. Unto the reason that I alleged owt of S. Paul (to my remembrance) he answereth nothing: but only opposeth M. Beza's authority in his epistles, which if they had not come forth whilst his book was in making, yt seemeth, that he had been utterly destitute of answer. His reason owt of him, that the papists are to be compared with the Israelites, which fell away from the t • w religion, and not with the Idumeans: cannot help him, unless he first show, that the infantes of those Apostatas were lawfully circumcised. For, if they were not circumcised by gods order and institution, but rather at the lust and pleasure of those which, being fallen away from the covenant, ceased not to put to the seal, as if they had been still within the covenant: yt followeth that, in this respect, there is no more succor for the Papists in their resemblance with such Israelites, then when they are matched with the Idumeans or Ishmaelites.

THE II. CHAPTER OF THIS TRACTATE: OF THE CORRVPTIONS in doctrine abovut the holy communion, beginning pag. 526. diuis. vii. of the D. book.

AMongest diverse reasons brought, to prove that the whole body of the church, should (so much as may be) communicate • n the holy supper together: he cavilleth • t that alleged, owt of S. Paul, saying that he blameth those, which did contentiously separate them selves: whereas, the Apostle under one kind, noteth all needeles sundring of the members one from another, in that holy action. That owt of S. Matthew 18 of two or three gathered in Christ's name: ys answered. nether ys it denied, but that two or three may communicate, if the other will not at all: only yt ys said, that where the other will, although not so often as is convenient, yet that in such a case, the three should (for the reasons alleged, whereunto he answereth nothing) tarry for the rest. his next division, is answered in the 9 division, which he taketh up before, by rending my book asonder, that he might seem able to say somewhat: which answer of mine, upon how good ground yt standeth, let the reader judge, his reply whereunto, is senseless. where also, his mervailing, that I say, the tvuelue were made Apostles after their first calling, argueth his want: considering that the ordaining of them, to be Ambassadors throughout the world, which is the vocation of their Apostleship, was not, until after the resurrection. That which deceiveth him, is, for that he considereth not, that yt is the use of the scripture, in speaking of the beginninges of things, to term them by the names, which they had at the time of the writing, and not which they had, when that which they wrote, was done: as in the names of Babel, and Peleg, &c. the next, requireth no answer.

In the next, he accordeth that by ecclesiastical censures, and civil punishments, the rest of the church should be brought to communicate, with the three: where he manifestly forsaketh the book, which leaveth yt free, three seasons of the year only excepted. And the truth is, if it be convenient, that yt should be celebrated oftener: yt is also meet, that there should be punishments, for the breach of that conueniency. his exception, against the proof of excommunication, for want of doeyng this duty, that to cut out his soul from the people, signifieth to put to death, and not to excommunicate: uttereth his want, considering that the same commandment, was given to Abraham in the government of his hows, which was the church of god. And yet that no civil sword was put into his hand, ys manifest: in that, being a private man in the common wealth he dwelt in, he had no power of life and death. But of this matter, he may learn further other where. His objections against the Adm. and my allegation of canons, ascribed to the Apostles: are answered.

That the outward uncleanness under the law, may be easlier avoided, then the inward, which owght to keep us from the communion: being so generally spoken, is untrue, and refuted by me, in the case of procuring the funeral of our friends, to which we are bound: whereunto he answereth nothing. nether can the uncleanness of life, which is private, and not openly known, hinder any: unless yt be such, as men mean not to amend. That weakness of faith, owght to withdraw us from the communion, is a manifest untruth: yt being instituted, for the strenghtning of the weakness thereof. The examination of him self, is required, not only in the partaking of the communion, but also in hearing of the word of god: as whether he come with mind to be taught, and to follow, or whether he come of curiosity, or of custom, or to please men, and such like. As for corruption of judgment, want of instruction in the use of the sacrament, open offenses, and all such disorder of life, as requireth separation by the churches censures: they fall not into this case, where is disputed, not for what causes men owght to be put from the holy communion, but for what causes they may withdraw them selves, when they be, by common and good policy of the church admitted. Therefore, all this is but an abusing of the time, which is brought against that which I said: that if, being of the church, and able to examine them selves, they be not fit for the hearing of the word, nether are they fit for the receiving of the cōmuniō. whereby also may appear, how unworthily, he doeth now the second time: object contraryety with myself, so openly refuted, by express words.

As for the reasons, which I alleged to confirm this sentence with, he once toucheth not: whereunto, I will ad the judgment of the ancient writers: that he may learn to blush, which not contented to have reprehended yt here, setteth yt in the beginning of his book, as a dangerous point, and palpable error. Chrysostom writeth thus of the supper. hovu tariedst thovu behind? I am (thovu sayest) unworthy: then art thovu also unworthy, of the communication, which is in the prayers. The like sentence he hath, in another of his homilies, unto the people of Antioch. Ambrose saith, he that is not fit to receive the bread of the supper, daily: is not fit, once in a year. August. speaking of this matter, showeth that if the sins be not so great, that one should be excommunicated for them, that then a man ought, not to separate him self, from the daily medicine of the lords body. whereunto ad M. Bucer, which disalowing the communion which is by the Minister and one other, and withal showing that the rest of the church, owght to be driven unto yt: both alledgeth, and alloweth that sentence of Chrysostom, before rehearsed. In the next diuisiō, of the cause of the superstitious fear of coming to the communion, let the reader judge of: considering that, of the evil beginninges of lenton fast, I have spoken before, and will not suffer the D. to start away, by moving of other questions.

To this chapter belongeth, the rest of the 15 Tracta. where in the pag. 590 first division, for his saying, we read not that women received the supper: he pretendeth M. Calvin and Zwingli: but they excuse not his rashness. For, although they have the same words, yet they match this cause, with others which are necessary, and which have certain proof owt of the scripture, although not in express words: whereas, he matcheth yt with those things which are (by his own confession) indifferent and not necessary, giving thereby to understand, that there is no better ground of the one, then of the other. which reason, being alleged to prove the occasion of triumph which he giuith here unto the Catabaptistes, and Anabaptists: he answereth not. The three next divisions are answered.

Next unto this followeth another unchangeable doctrine as yt lieth pa. 603 of the D. book. where, although the Answ. dare not openlie undertake the defense of driving of known papists unto the lords supper: yet, partly, in trifling with the proofs brought for the shutting of thē owt, partly castīg in other matter of his own: privily, and as it were under the ground, he maynteyneth his former rashness, of saying, that the Admo. were good patrons of the papists, for maynteining, that papists owght not to be thrust into the lords supper.

There was alleged, that the scripture which forbiddeth to have any familiarity with notorious offenders: doeth much more forbid that they should be received to the cōmuniō To this he answereth, owt of M. Calvin: his marvelous unfaithful dealing wherein, hath been before noted. I say marvelous, because there can be hardly any, of so small perceiuerāce as not to understand the difference, between the Anabaptists which thereupon falsely gathered, that a man might not communicate, when any such open offender was admitted unto the communiō: and between the Adm. which holdeth, that the papists ought not to be admitted unto the lords supper, which is justly concluded of yt. To that, alleged, that our Sau. Christ instituted his supper amongst his disciples, and those which were within: he answereth first, that Judas was present, yet not of the church, but without: which is a foul error. For, although in some signification, he were not of the church: yet he was both within, and as touching the outward calling (whereof our question is) of the church also. But unto this I have already answered. Secondly, he chargeth me with a gilty conscience: for that cyting S. Paul, I nether quoted the Epistle, nor chapter: which how unworthy an accusation it is, let the reader judge. But if yt be a good argument, that he hath a gilty conscience, which leaveth the testimony vnquoted: let the face of his conscience be looked on, by the glas which I have set before him in another place. How untrue it is, that no papist with us, is admitted to the communion, which he affirmeth: let the reader judge.

To that I said, that papists not to be admitted unto the holy supper, ought to be compelled to hear the word of god: he objecteth as contrary, that I had said before, that if they be not meet to receive the communion, nether be they to hear the word, which is a mere misspending of time. For I added expressly, and that twice: As many as be of the church, from which I had before, shut owt the papists.

In that the Admo. will not have men come constreynedly to the holy Communion: they take not away the punishment, against those which owght to present them selves. And their saying hath an easier defense, then his otherwhere: that the book will not have men compelled, to come to the communion. For the punishment of such, is therefore taken: that afterward they may come in diligence, and good will. But if (notwithstanding that punishment) yt be manifestly perceived, that they come with no affection, but constreynedly: then the Adm. would have such put by: which is their meaning, and a judgment agreeable to the word of god. to the rest in this chapter, I answer not.

Hereunto ad that of the examination of those, whose knowledge of the mistery of the gospel, is douted of: as yt standeth in his book page 592. which examination, he is not afraid to deny, to be necessary, or commanded by the word of god. his first reason is, because that in the Apostles times no such would offer them selves: which is a manifest untruth, as may be gathered of that I have said, and by that the seed of the word of god, is taken out of the heart of diverse that profess the gospel, which notwithstanding, ether through hypocrisy in desire to be counted to have the same knowledge with others, or insensiblenes of not feeling their want, will offer them selves. And if there were none such then, yet forsomuch as, there be such amongst us: that answer is insufficient, considering that the scripture containeth remedy, not only against the corruptions in the time of the Apostles, but in all times.

His second reason, that offering them selves so, it is their own only faut: is a craving of that in question. For that it is only their faut, and that the governors of the church have no commandment, to look to yt: are the same in effect.

His third reason, that if yt had been so necessary, S. Paul, would have spoken of yt here especially, is to fond: considering that the Apostle writeth only, ether of such faults as were in that church, or of matters whereof his judgment was asked. That also owt of M. Calvin, is merely idle. For it is one question, whether a private man, under color of an unmeet person admitted to the supper, owght to withdraw him self: and another, whether such a one, should be admitted by the governors of the church. his answer maketh also as much to prove, that known whoremongers should not be driven to repentance, before they come to the communion, as known papists: considering, that it belongeth not to private men, to take in hand the correction of them, when they present them selves.

Against that alleged, of the commandment to the Levites, to prepare the people to the receiving of the Pasouer, which was the same with them, that the holy supper is with us: he excepteth, and that confidently, and with reproaches, that it is abrogated. whose shameful dealing herein, let all the world judge of: considering that, by how much our sacrament is excellenter then theirs, by so much, owght there to be greater care and diligence in preparing the people thereto. But of this, more hath been said otherwhere. After he excepteth, that the text is, that they should prepare, not examine: which is frivolous, and prevented, in that I added, that examination is a part of preparation. So that he that commādeath the whole, must needs do the part: whereunto he answereth not, but affirmeth yt manifest, that the Levites used no such examination. of which manifestnes, there is not a letter in the text. The contrary, by all likelihood, is to be intended: considering, that diverse of the people, new come owt of ignorance and Idolatry, had need of particular trial. against which the marginal note maketh not: seeing exhortation may well stand with examination, and the nature of a note, is not to lay owt things at large.

That the papists may as well use this for auriculer confession, is so placed, that yt may be taken, that the Jews used auricular confession, as a ceremony under the law, which is untrue: and so yt is propounded, as if there were as good ground in the word of that, as of this: which beside the untruth, is overturned of his own words, confessing that examination may be: unless he will say, that auriculer confession, may be likewise. his argument, which he renounceth, is as I have framed yt: whereof let the reader judge, as also of the Admo. meaning.

OF THE AUTORITY OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE, IN CAVSES ECclesiastical: Tract. the tvuelfth and tvuentith, according to the D. page 694.

THere ys a proper place, where the D. (if he had been able) should have shown, that I agree in this cause, with the Papists: namely in the end of this treatise, where I show, how far I stand from them in this behalf. Howbeit having (beside untrue surmises) little or nothing at all to maintain himself with, he hath, to strike a prejudice into the mind of the reader, and to set (as it were) a bias of his judgment, to draw it unto his side, here in the forefront set up this untrue accusation: whereunto I will answer, when I come to that place. Now for better clearing of this matter, the distinction betvuene the church and common wealth under a Christian Magistrate, denied by him: is to be confirmed.

Wherein as touching the authority of the word of god, both owt of the old Testament and the new: I refer the reader, to that which I have writ̄. saving that the place of the Cronicles cometh after to be touched again. In the churches after the Apostles, and that under godly Princes: the same difference, hath been diligently observed, by the ecclesiastical writers. As when it is said, that the church and common wealth, not only suffer but flourish together: keeping this distinction, as well in the church is prosperity, as in her adversity. Also, that the hovuses of prayer, being restored to the church: other places were adjudged to the use of the commō wealth. Likewise, that there is one cause of the Province: and another of the church.

If he cannot conceive, how this should be: he may be givē to understand it, after this sort. that a man may, by excommunicatiō, be sundered frō the church: which forthwith leeseth not of necessity, his Burgeship or freedom in the city, or common wealth. Likewise, that the civil Magistrate may, by bannishment, cut of a man from being a member of the common wealth: whom the church cannot by and by, cast owt by excommunication. Again, when one is for his misbehauior deprived of his privileges, both in the church and common wealth: albeit the church be, upon his repentance, bound to receive him in again, as a member thereof: yet the common wealth, is at her liberty whether she will restore him or no. Finally infidels under a Christian Prince, may, until such time as they refuse instruction, be members of the common wealth: yet are they not therefore, members of the church. where, if the church and common wealth, were (as he saith) under a Christian Prince, all one: it should follow, that whosoever is a part of one, should needs be a part of the other: and contrawise, whosoever is cut of from one, must be cut of from the other.

His authority pretended against this distinction, owt of Musculus, that the Christian Magistrate is not profane: is to no use. For, not only the high dignity of the civil Magistrate, but the moste basest handicraftes: are holy, when they are directed to the honor of god: but to conclude thereof, that they are not distinguished from ecclesiastical causes, is to much vnaduisednes. For will he conclude, that for because the government of the hows, and the government of the commō wealth, are both holy: that therefore, the government of the hows, is not distinguished, from the government of the common wealth: or will he say, because the company of a man with his wife in lawful matrimony is holy, that therefore it is a church matter?

This distinction, of the church and common wealth, under a Christian Prince, being so apparent in certain cases, there is no reason, why it should not be so, in the rest: which shall yet better appear, in this discourse: where, cometh first to be considered, what he answereth to the place of the Cronicles: where, upon that certain Priests and Levites, had the handling of matters pertaining unto god, and certain others the matters pertaining unto the king: I concluded, that the church judgments ought ordinarily to be handled, by the church officers. His answer hereunto is, that forsomuch as Jehoshaphat the king, by his authority committed both ecclesiastical, and civil causes: therefore he had power himself of both. whereunto I reply, that he committed not those ecclesiastical matters, unto the Priests and Levites, as those which he might have retained with himself, or as a thing in his own discretiō: but used only his princely authority, to put in executiō, that which the lord had commanded. For yt is manifest, that the self same thing which Jehoshaphat did here, was commanded to be done, in the law. And if this prove, that the judgment of ecclesiastical causes pertaineth to the king, because he confirmed by his authority the ecclesiastical Judges: it proveth also, that both the ordination of Ministers, and the preaching of the word, belong unto him: considering that this very king, is said to have sent forth preachers into all lury.

But let the reader observe, how he hath here utterly passed by the weight of my argument, which standeth in this, that the holy ghost maketh this partition, that some matters pertain to god, and others to the king: whereas, if the matters pertaining unto god, pertained also to the king, the partition should be fauty. Nether by matters pertaining unto the king, are understanded those which pertain unto his own person, or his family, but matters within the compass of his princely judgment: as appeareth, by the example of the cause of blood, which the scripture setteth down, especially if this place be compared, with that of Deuteronomy, where this example is put particularly, and opposed to the judgment of leprosy, which then belonged unto the priest.

To the place in the Hehrues, that the high Priest is appointed, over things which appertayn unto god: he answereth, that the Apostle declareth, that those things are to offer gifts &c. which is nothing worth. For, the proposition is general, whereupon the Apostle concludeth so much, as served for the present purpose: otherwise yow may as well say, that yt belonged not to the high Priest, to preach, because the Apostle mentioneth not that part of his office, in that place. Seeing then it is apparent, owt of the Cronicles, that judgment in church matters pertaineth unto god: Seeing likewise, it is evident owt of this testimony of the Apostle, that the high Priest is set over those matters in gods behalf: it must needs follow, that the principality or direction of the judgment of them, is by gods ordinance pertaining unto the high Priest, and consequently to the ministry of the church. And if it be by gods ordinance, apparteyning unto thē: how can it be translated from them, unto the civil Magistrate?

That which I said, of Levites used to the judgment of civil causes, for that they could not all be employed to the ministry, considering that, so there should have been almost for every xijmē a Levite: is barely denied, and nether the reason which I brought confuted, nether any of his set down. whereunto may be added the reason, why the Levites not occupied in the church ministry: were willingly taken, for assistance in civil judgments. which is, because they being better acquainted, with the law of god, then commonly the rest of the tribes: were consequently better seen in the iudicials, by which the common wealth of the Israelites was governed. And that all the Levites, were not applied unto the ministry, may appear by the example of ^a Banaias, the high Priests son, high Constable or general of the host.

Before I come to the Ans. arguments, I desire the reader to observe, that although he hath owt of the ancient writers, borrowed certain places, to just with those, which I have taken from thence: yet owt of the holy scripture, whereof he should have made the base and foundation of his defense, he hath brought nothing. But let us see them such as they are. Eusebius (saith he) calleth Constantine, as yt were a general Bishop. That maketh no more to prove, that the judgment of ecclesiastical causes, belonged unto him: then that he calleth him a Doctor, appointed of god to all nations, proveth him to have been a public preacher of the word. Rather, as he was called a Doctor, because that the doctrine taught by the Bishops, was maintained by his authority, not for that he taught himself: so he is called the general Bishop, for that he caused them to meet in Council, protected them when they were there, kept them in peace, maintained with his princely authority, that which was godlyly decreed, not for that he determined the matters him self. This may also appear, in his epistle to the churches, where willing to draw credit unto the decrees of that Council, he doeth not say that they were his, but the Bishops decrees. And in deed yt might more justly be concluded, that he was a minister of the word by the one place, then by the other, that he made ecclesiastical laws, of his own authority: considering, that the place brought by him, is delayed and laid in water, by that he calleth him not a Bishop simply, but as it were a Bishop: where as, the other place is not so.

And it is further to be observed, that the word Bishop is taken some times generally, for any overseer: and not only for the church Minister. In which respect, Constantyne calleth himself a Bishop, but putteth a manifest difference, between his Bishoprik and theirs: namely, that the church officers were Bishops and overseers of things within the church, and he, Bishop or overseer of those that were without the church. whereby he clearly also establisheth, the distinction of the church and common wealth under a Christian Prince. Hether also may be referred, that of Hillary: which exhorteth Constance, that he would provide, that the governors of his provinces under him, should not praesume to take upon them, the judgment of ecclesiastical causes: where also the same autor further affirmeth, that the common wealth matters only belonged unto them. Likewise that Ambrose saith: That Palaces belong unto the Emperor, but the churches unto the Minister: and that he had authority of the commō vualles of the city, and not over holy things.

That of Constantyne, and after of Justinian, making laws touching godliness, as against the worship of Images &c. is idle, considering that it is nothing but an execution of that, which is commanded of god, and without the compass of things, which fall into the church is consultation. For in things, which he is assured of, to be the invariable truth of god: who douteth but that he not only may, but owght also to maintain them, with his authority. Sauing that, if there be a general doubt raised, what is the law of god therein: to the end that the the truth may have better cours, and that the conscience may be provided for, there is herein great caution to be used. For least that which is godly, should be dō ungodlily, that is to say ignorantly or doutfully, and to the end that the authors of error (being convinced) may do les hurt, and finally to the end that the punishment of the obstinate, may be both more just, and les grudged at: yt belongeth unto the civil Magistrate, to cal (as did the godly Emperor Constantine) a council of the ministry, by whom, as by gods interpreters, the people may receive a resolution, warranted by substantial grounds owt of his word.

Yet so far it is, that we suspend upon the Councils determination, the putting in execution of such as he is assured to be the unchangeable commandments of god: that both before, in, and after the Council, yea and howsoever they determine, we esteem that the Prince owght to procure by all godly and convenient means, that such laws of god have place: at the least that the contrary be not suffered, not so much as (if it might be) one only hour.

That owt of the Chalcedon council, that the orders there made were by the Emperors authority, because they cried long life unto the Senate and Emperor: is insufficient. For, although it was unmeet, that in such grave meetings, there should be used such shoutinges, as then appeared to have been the manner, when they liked or misliked anything, which was more fit for stage plays, then for such a grave company: yet who seeth not, that there was cause enough, why thanks should be given unto the Emperor for his care, his pains, and his charges in calling and confirming yt, although nether the judgment were his, nor appertained unto him.

Now touching the places alleged by me, in the first, gros oversight there is none: seeing there is not a word in that place, which enforceth external buildings. For in steed of that which is turned buildings: the greek hath, works or affaiers. also for that, of selling the buildings: there is no such thing in the greek, nether (as I think) owght to be. For the place, which (no doubt) is corrupt in Eusebius: may be restored owt of Theodoret, that reporteth the same epistle. Howbeit whether it be understood of the outward, or inward buildings, I will not strive: and I rather think, that it is of the ow • ward, then otherwise: considering, that that seemeth to be more simple.

To the second, where the Emperor confesseth the Bishops matters, not to pertain to him: he answereth, that the Emperor of modesty refused the determination. But what modesty is yt, to say that which is untrue: or what modesty, to affirm that yt belongeth not to him, which is (by yow) his office, and committed to him of god, especially unto his subjects? For it might have more color, if yow had said, that it were modesty for a Bishop to say: that to administer the word and sacraments belong not to him, but unto the Prince. Beside that, if he would have shown forth modesty: he would have rather said, that he was not worthy, then to say that it was not lawful for him to do yt.

To that, that the Emperor would not determine of Arius heresy, but committed yt to the Synod: he answereth, that yt letteth not but that he had authority, saving that, thereby he shown his wisdom, in committing matters of doctrine to them, which are moste fit to entreat of them. A strange kind of wisdom, to put over that which belonged unto his office, to them to whose office that did not belong: verily this is not the wisdom, which cometh from above. For although it be lawful for a Prince, to discharge part of his burden upon others, for the more commodity of his subjects: yet, if this belong unto him, as he is appointed of god the civil Magistrate, he cannot put yt unto any other, thē unto a civil Magistrate, as I have before shown.

Here also, I would ask of him, how the Council of Nice was fitter to judge of the matter, then the Emperor? was it by some singular case, or by reason of their office of being Bishops? If (as needs he must) he answer, that they are by calling and by office, fitter to judge of such causes: how must not that pertein unto them, which are hereof, by calling, the fittest Judges. For, although there be found sometimes, some civil governor which hath more skil to judge in church matters, then some Bishop, as also some Bishops to have more skil in common wealth matters, then some civil governor: yet notwithstanding, nether the one, nor the other hath this kunning, by any gift incident into his office which he exerciseth. So that, the Answerer, in reputing it, for wisdom in the Emperor, to commit these matters unto the Bishops, as unto the most able Judges, maketh a deep wound in the wisdom of god, whilst he supposeth, that god hath committed that to be done by the Magistrate, whereof, by office, he is not the fittest doer: which is a voice, unworthy of a very sukling, much more, of a D. in divinity. And, that this is most properly belonging unto a Bishop, it appeareth, in that the Apostle requireth, that he should be able to convince the gainsayers: which he never required of the civil Magistrate: and notwithstanding would have required yt, if the decision of such causes, had appertained unto him. For the lord, calleth no man to anything: of whom he requireth not gifts, meet to furnish his calling.

Not unlike to this reason, is that in the 5. division page 701, which is: that for so much as the Ministers, are moste able to decide of church matters, that therefore, the decision belongeth unto them. whereunto he answereth first, that it is Hardings reason, but showeth not, where it is to be found: where I alleging it, as his own reason, pointed him the place, whereunto he answereth not a word. Secondly, he saith, that yt proveth only, that it is most convenient and necessary, that the ministers, while they be godly and learned, may have the deciding of matters in religion. Here, if the Answ. had not fumbled, and faultered in his speech: we had had him, if not altogether, yet very nigh consenting with us. therefore, let the reader note, that whereas he hath borrowed both his answers, and all his ancient authorities from the Bishop and M. Nowel, without confessing any (one only place owt of the Bishop excepted:) in this answer, wherein the chief point of the question doeth consist, he hath given them both the slip. For they both do flatly confess, that as long as the Ministers be godly and learned, yt is necessary, they should decide these matters, that the Prince is commanded to have recours unto them in dovutful matters, that it belongeth to the Bishops office to decide of such causes: but that Christian Princes, have rather to do with these matters, then ignorant and wicked Priests, and that in case of necessity (meaning when the ministry is wicked) the Prince ought to provide for convenient remedy: the very self same thing, which we maintain, in saying, when there is no lawful ministry, that then the Prince ought, to take order in these things.

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

That which he addeth, that the authority doeth as well still remain in the Prince, when the Ministers decide, as when the Judges determine of civil causes: is untrue. If, as he pretendeth, it were at the Princis choice, whether a godly ministry, should decide of them or no, then yt were true he saith: but if it be true, which the Bishop and M. Nowel say, that yt is necessary, that a godly ministry should decide of them, and that yt belongeth to the the Bishops office so to do: then the comparison, is most unequal. For the judgment of civil causes, doeth so be long unto the Magistrate, that he is not bound by the law of god, to translate yt unto other. Nay the law of god, will have, that Princes them selves (so far as they may, and are able) shall bear their dominion upon their own shoulders, and judge the causes of their subjects in their own persons: considering that the scripture calleth all princes, Judges, and setteth everyone a Throne, to judge the causes of his people. Now (to return back, where I left) followeth his answer to the Council of Constantinople: that it is to late a testimony, being other in the year 549 or 681. which might have place in this case, where the question is of the Bishops jurisdiction, as that which in process of time did owtreach: were it not confirmed, by other testimonies of the former age. In the first of which Councils, Menna the Patriarch being president, it is said that the decree of the Bishops firm in yt self, was confirmed by the Emperor. Now seeing the Bishops, had then this authority: how much more, by his own confession, had they the same, in the other which was later. And the same Constantine which the D. speaketh of, giveth more to the Bishops, then we do: namely that he would compel none to the truth, unless they concluded something.

That yt was said, that the Emperor confirmed the decrees of the Council, and not that the Emperor made the decrees: serveth also well for this purpose. For, if ether he had made them, or they had been made under his name: they should have been said, to have been made by him: as decrees made by the Princis deputies, are said to be made by the Prince.

That which he addeth, of the Emperor being moderator of the Council, beside that yt proveth not his cause, considering that the Moderator had not all the authority: it is untrue, and contrary to the practice of Councils in all times: unless by moderatorship, he mean the appointing of the time of the Councils assembly and dismission, the houers of their sitting, the civil punishment of them which behave them selves tumultuously, or otherwise disorderly. If he do, it is that which we willingly grant: but, which maketh nothing for this purpose.

To that alleged owt of Ambrose, vuho refused to have a church matter before the Emperor Ualentinian, first, he answereth that he was young: as though his tender years, could diminish his right: or that a Prince of 18 or 20 years old, had not as ample authority as one of 40. Secondly, that he was not baptized: which was not, for that he refused baptism, but because the manner then was not to baptize, before the hour of death was supposed to approach. For, the Arians them selves, do not pretend any enmity, or refusal of baptism. And howsoever some have alleged yt, yow might have been ashamed to allege yt: which before, affirmed that Ambrose was meet to be chosen Bishop, notwithstanding that he were not baptized.

The last exception is, that he was an Arian heretic: so that no equal judgment, was to be hoped for at his hand. which is no sufficient answer: considering that Ambrose denieth the Emperor the determination of the cause, not for that he was a wicked Emperor, but because it was not red in scripture, nor heard of before, that any Emperor, (and therefore nether godly nor ungodly) was Judge over a Bishop, in a cause of faith. which was not his judgment only, but the judgment of other Bishops round about. Therefore, it is untrue, that Ambrose stayed himself chiefly, of a priuiledg granted by Theodosius: not only, for that it was not lawful for Theodosius, to have passed the right of the civil Magistrate, to the Bishops: but because Ambrose fetched his defense, from the scripture and auncienter times, then was Theodosius priuiledg. Beside that, if Theodosius had granted that to the Bishops, which belonged unto him: his heir could be no more bound by his grant herein, then the committing of civil judgments unto them, should have hindered him to cal them back again, into his own hand. So that, when Valentinian had declared, that he would have the hearing of the matter him self: that could not be, any just defense.

Moreover, if it belong unto the civil Magistrate, to judge in causes ecclesiastical, no abuse or disorder of his, can deprive him of yt, so long as he remaineth in the full estate of a Prince: no more then men can take away from him, the right of judgment in civil causes, and erect another court against his, because he perverteth judgment, ether by gifts or favor. Therefore, if it be true that the D. holdeth, that this right belongeth to Caesar: Ambrose owght to have appeared, and to have waited, what the Emperors judgment would have been. If it had been against the truth, then to have answered as the Apostles to the Council, that he would rather obey god then man. This may yet better appear, for that if the Emperor had sent for Ambrose, and given him summonce, to show what was his judgment, without pretending to be Judge in the cause: Ambrose could not have refused yt, although the Emperor would after have said, that he was an heretic. Last of all, this being objected by Harding, that there is the same right of a Christiā Prince and of a Tyrā: is not denied of the Bishop of Sarisbury. For the ordinance of god is one: even as there is the same right of a heathen master, husband, and father, over a Christian servant, Son and wife, as if they were Christian. And yt was an error, against which the Apostles labored: that private men, might deny unto Princes and other their superiors, which did not their duties, things which, otherwise, were due unto thē. Nether owght the D. more to charge me with this saying, because Harding hath yt: then I charge him with his opiniō, of the same kind in this behalf with Pighius: who teacheth, another right of a Christian, and of a profane Magistrate.

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

That owt of Augustine, demanding why the Donatists made the Emperor Judge, if it were not lawful for him to give sentence in a matter of Religion: was only to beat them with their own rod, not that Augustine allowed their fact, in making the Emperor their Judge. which is manifest in other places, where he doeth precisely reprove them for it: and cast yt in their teeth, that they preferred the Emperors judgment unto the Bishops: when, notwithstanding, the Emperor gave the same judgment which the Bishops did, and was, for his godliness, the perl of all Emperors. Wherein, it is also to be observed, that Augustine in another place saith, that the Emperor, not daring to judge of the Bishops cause, committed yt unto the Bishops: and that he did, not once but twice. Likewise, that he was driven by the Donatists importunity, which made no end of appealing unto him, to give sentence in that matter: for the which also, he was to crave pardō of the Bishops. Hitherto maketh singulerly, that Augustine putteth a plain distinction between these judgments: saying of the Donatists, which of their private authority russhed vpō the catholiks, that yt was nether by ecclesiastical lavu nor by the kings lavu: which were ridiculous, if (as the D. saith) the ecclesiastical laws, were also the kings laws.

That owt of Sozom. 4. lib. 16, owght not to have been alleged: considering that both the Emperor Constantius, which required to have the ending of the matter, and the moste of the Bishops in the Council of Syrm, which agreed unto his request, were infected with Arianism. Likewise, that owt of Socrates 5 book, cap. 10, is idle: seeing nothing is done there by Theodosius, which is not confessed to belong unto the Magistrate. The next is answered before.

Where I pressed him with his own words, affirming that the church hath authority to make ceremonies: he answereth that he included the Prince, as chief governor of the church: which is not sufficient. For ether the Prince alone, must be the church, or else one of his sentences, goeth to ground: ether that which saith, that the church hath authority, or this affirming that the Prince hath all the authority, to make ceremonies.

I alleged for further answer, against his shameful slanders of us, as if we were joined with the papists in this cause: as followeth. First, that the papists exempt their Priests from the punishment of the civil Magistrate: which we do not. whereto he answereth, that Harding and Saunders do as much: which is utterly untrue. For by the words, he citeth owt of Saunders, yt appeareth, that he doeth not subject them unto the Magistrate, in respect of their priesthood. Owt of Harding, he nether citeth words, nor quoteth place: which his burning desire, of coupling us with the papists, would not have passed, if it could have been found.

And that the reader, may better know his great unfaithfulness in so weighty a matter: let him take Hardings own words to the Bishop, which are these. Yovu teach princes, to use violence against Priests, as thovugh their faults could not be redressed, by the Prelates of the clergy. And after, yt is not convenient, that the king should cal Priests before him, to his ovun seat of judgment. I assigned also another difference, that where the papists, will have the Prince execute whatsoever they conclude, be yt good or bad: we say, that if there be no lawful ministry, as in the ruinous decays of religion, that then the Prince ought to set order. And if, when there is a lawful ministry, it shall agree of any unlawful thing: that the Prince ought to stay yt, and to drive them, to that which is lawful. This difference, although he could not deny, and although, by it, we are sundered from the papists, as far as he is frō him that said, the king of Persia might do what he lusted: yet he continueth his former slander, that we shake hands with the papists: and feareth not still to say, that he seeth not wherein (in this article) we differ from them.

But not able to deny this difference, he cavilleth at yt: asking first, why the prince owght rather to determine of ecclesiastical causes when there is no lawful ministry, thē whē there is: forsooth because the Magistrate is bound to see, the service of god maynteined in his dominion. which, when yt cannot be by the means, which god hath appointed ordinary, yet for as much as his bond still remaineth, the next is, that yt be done as nerely unto that order as may be: until such time (which owght to be with all possible speed) as the standing, and set order, be established. I say, as nere as may be unto the order prescribed of god, least any should think, that because that order cannot be precisely kept, he were by and by at liberty, to set up clean another order, which should seem best to him: neglecting, upon occasion of the vnability of observing all, the observation of those things which may be observed. For herein owght to be followed, the example of the godly learned Priest Abimelech: which admitted David and his company, to the participation of the show bread, that was otherwise lawful for the Priests only to eat of. who, although (to keep charity which is the end of the law) he brake so much of the ceremonye, as the present necessity did require: yet he ceased not therefore, to be careful of the observation of the rest: as appeareth, in that he asked, whether they had abstained from the company of their wives.

Again, yt is known, that the Priests and Prophets have extraordinarily meddled with civil affairs, in confused times: will he therefore say, that this power is ordinarily annexed unto the Bishops office. The cases, I grant, are not altogether like: yet to his question, which supposeth that there is no cause, why the Magistrate should not judge of church matters, as well when there is a lawful ministry, as when there is none: this may serve, for part of an answer.

Moreover, as in sickness, there is another diet, then in health: so the church in her grievous diseas, hath another kind of government, then that which is ordinary, and used in a good constitution of her body. which thing, being said of the ruinous estate of the church, is to be understood also, of her beginninges and, as yt were, infancy: where ether there was no church before, or having been, yt was rased from the foundations. If this content him not: let him answer me, why the Prince must of necessity, commit these matters to the ministry when it is learned and godly, rather then when yt is otherwise: if, at the least, he will now at the last, have this the meaning of this broken english. And of his answer, to this question, will easily rise an answer to his.

But some sharper Adversary, might here have objected: that Moses, David, and Salomō, being Princes in the moste flourishing estate of the church: did notwithstanding make church orders. whereunto I answer, that they did so, partly, for that they were not kings only and Princes, but also Prophets of god: partly, for that they had special and express direction thereto, from god by the prophet: whereby they did even those things in the church, which, without such special revelation, was not lawful, for the Priests thē selves to have dō. And although, the truth of this answer, be apparent: yet, that it may have the more authority, especially with the D. that tasteth nothing without this sauce: he may understand, that it is M. Calvin's answer of Moses, and David, and that in this present cause now debated.

His other quarrel against this answer is, that if a lawful ministry determining something unlawful, will not be brought to that which is just, that then the Prince must have ether that which they will, or no religiō. As though, such a ministry were a lawful ministry, that is obstinate. or as if, this obstinacy being general or for the moste part, the state is not here ruinous: so that the Prince may, after due means, assayed to bring them home, procure that other be put in their places. we herby appeareth, that the remedy of this inconvenience, which (he saith) he cannot see: was comprehended, in the first part of the second difference, between ours, and the Papists judgment.

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

And, to make the partition wall, between the papists and us in this question, one cubit higher, that those which will not open their eyes to see it, may feel yt, in not only stumbling, but running also their heads against yt: I will ad this much, that in ascribing unto the ministry, the decision of matters in controversy, and the making of church ceremonies: our meaning is not utterly to seclude the Magistrate. For, when experience teacheth us, that often times a simple man, and, as the proverb saith, the Gardener hath spoken to good purpose, but especially when in the holy scripture, the old Testament and the new: and thirdly, when in the ecclesiastical writers, yt is found, that there have been of the people admitted unto these consultations: when further it is found, that they have had their consent there, and sometime also their speech: with far greater reason, may the Christian Magistrate, both be assistant, and have his voice in such assemblies.

That then, which we give unto the ministry in such church consultations, which are not of the daily ministry, as Synods be: is both a fore consultation, as we see to have been done in the scripture, to the end that the matter being digested, and as it were cut owt, and prepared a forehand, yt might be the better handled in a fuller assembly: as also the direction and moderation of that meeting, where these matters are defined and concluded of.

But in the chief point, he is sure we agree with the papists: even as the godly and learned writers, old and of our age, do agree with them, and none otherwise. whereof two, the D. is himself constrained to cōfes: meaning (as I think) M. Calvin and Beza. whether he do or no, so they are, as may appear. And how durst he say of those two, upon no ground, that in this article of the Magistrates authority, they differ nothing from the papists. For so he saith in effect, when he saith so of us: whom he is compelled to confess, to have their assistance in this cause. Althowgh they are not (as he saith) alone: but have diverse others bearing them company. Amongest whom, M. Bucer may seem to be worthy of the chief place: which affirmeth, that the magistrate ought not to administer the discipline of the church.

So that, so far as we consent here with the papists, we do it, as in the article of the holy Trinity, where we have with warrant of the word of god, the approbation also of the best. we hold with them, things in common: in which respect, we are not afraid to confess, that we consent in some point, with the Jews and Turks, or they rather with us. But yow are found in diverse places, in their private orcheyardes, gathering your fruit of trees, which their hands did first plant: and from thence yow bring your stocks, which yow would place in the lords vineyard. And even in this question, whom have yow opposed unto these two: which yow cōfes of our judgment. yow pretend in deed, the Bishops of Sarisbury and winchester, with M. Nowel: but for two of them, I have shown, that they are in effect of the same judgment we are: assured I am, they are further from yow then from us: of the third also (albeit I have not seen him (I persuade myself likewise.

There remaineth only Musculus, whose saying if I should deny not to be charged upon us, but on the papists only, seeing we do not deny altogether as they do, that he hath authority to make church laws: yow se we have hold, which yow cannot easily put us from. But because, when I confessed some of contrary judgment: I meant him, at the least as one which (if he thought as we) did not sufficiently express yt: let us grant yow, this reed to ride upon, and to bear yourself up, in this great triumph. And let it be granted yow, to make your faut seem so much the les: that yow have one learned man, of the same judgment with yow.

That I have no other reasons then the papists, is untrue: at least yow show yt not. And I may holily profess, and in the presence of god, that I went not to the papists for them: but in reading the scriptures, and the authors them selves, observed them. Nether could the papists abusing them, to the maintenance of their tyranny over Princes, and the whole church, affray me to use them, as I have: no more, then they affraied M. Calvin and others, which have used of them in like manner.

Of all which matter, the reader may understand, how unworthy owtcries they be, which he so often̄ raiseth against us: that we give no more to a godly Christian magistrate, then to the Turk or Nero, with such like. For who will communicate the church matters, with Nero, open to him the necessity of holding a Council, desire his confirmation of the church orders, pray his aid in the maynteyning them, cal upon him as well for making them, where the lawful ministry faileth, as for redress of the evil?

Yt is true, the Turk and Nero, owght to do all these: even as they owght to do, whatsoever belongeth unto a godly Christian Prince: for the leaving of which vndoen (much more for doeyng the contrary) the wrath of the lord resteth upon them, and theirs. But for as much, as they profess enmity of the truth: as they must want both the honor in this world, and reward in the world to come, which the lord giveth unto a Christian magistrate: so the church must patiently bear, the want of these things under the one, which she enjoyeth under the other.

To end this matter, seeing the church and common wealth, are distinguished as well under a Christian Prince, as under an unchristian, and that thereof followeth the distinctiō one from another, not only of the lower, but also of the higher members, which are the governors in both the bodies: seeing also, the lord hath appointed the Ministers, to be over the matters pertaining to himself: Seeing further, the ministry of the church is, by calling and gifts incidēt thereunto, the fittest Judge of the church matters: last of all, seeing the ancient practice of the church, holdeth up her hand hereunto: I conclude, that as well in the decision of the doctrine, as in the choice of the variable ceremonies of the church, the principal authority belongeth unto the ministry. The rest of the sections in this tractate, as those which require no reply: I will not touch, but leave them to the readers judgment.

THE THIRTINTH AND LAST TRACTATE, AND NINTH WITH THE D. beginning page 474: of the inconvenience of the Ceremonyes used in the church of England, divided into tvuo partes: the first whereof, is of the general faults, the other, of the particular.

THe doctrine and discipline of the church, as the weightiest things, owght especially to be looked unto: but the ceremonies also, as mynt and comyn, owght not to be neglected. For, if honest matrones have regard, to the smalest part of the attire of their daughters, that yt be nether sluttish, nor gawish, nor after the manner of harlots: much more, owght that care to be taken for the church of god, that by her comely and maidenlike apparel, she may content evē the eyes of all, which love her spiritual chastity. And although the corruptions in them stryke not strayt to the heart: yet, as gētil poisons, they consume by little and little. which is rather, to be takē heed unto: for that the harm they do, is to the moste part so insensible, that the church may seem to dy hereon almost without any grief or sense of yt, or go away, as yt were, in a sleap. Hereupon, it cometh, that this part hath before been somewhat labored in, and now also shall have her defense, but short: especially when as the Ans. beside a heap of words, open untruths, dissembling, and perverting my arguments, hath almost nothing worthy the answer.

For even in this first division, what an opē untruth is yt, that it ys one of our principles, not to be lawful to use the same ceremonies, which the papists did: whē as I have both before declared the contrary, and evē here have expressly added, that thei are not to be used, vuhē, as good, or better may be established. what an abusing also is yt, to affirm the mangling of the gospels and epistels to have been brought in to the church by godly and learned men: not a word of proof, being brought therefore, which afterward, he saith generally, of all the Ceremonies in question: beside the insufficiency of his answer otherwise, to prove them not Antichristian, which I have before observed. what both untruth, and abusing the time is yt, to reason against me, as though I had confessed all errors in our ceremonies taken away: when I name expressly, gros errors, and manifest impieties. Finally, how single so led an argument is yt, that we may retayn popish ceremonies, because we say the churches are reformed, and not transformed: seeing that, as transforming may be in part, or in whole, so may also reforming? and seeing that the scripture, noting the whole and total restoring of a man, setteth yt forth as well by renuyng, as by transforming. who can patiently, bestow his travail in such refuse, as this is?

For the maintenance of this reason, that the Apostles in ceremonies conformed the Gentiles unto the Jews, and not contrarivuise, the Jews unto the Gentiles, and therefore, that the churches in the matter of ceremonies, should be instituted rather according to the pattern of the churches dressed up before them, then of the popish sinagog: I refer the reader, to that I have already written. That the lord, forbad his people to do some things, which in them selves were lawful: is manifest in the law. That he hath shown, that the Christians have conformed them selves unto Idolaters in their church ceremonies, with approbation ether of the word, or of Augustine, is untrue: only he shown, that the use of things necessary, owght not to be taken away for the abuse: which he both oft, and idly repeateth, as that which is confessed.

Where I shown, that the lord being careful, to sever his people by ceremonies from all strangers: was so especially, to sever them from the Egyptians and Cananeans emongest vuhome they lived, and amongst vuhome they vuent to live: he answereth, that the Egyptians nether worshipped, nor pretended the true god, but the papists do, which is before answered: that the Gentiles, had like ceremonies &c. which is also answered: that having certain ceremonies common, with those from whom we differ wholly in substance of religion, we may much more have the same with the papists, from whom we differ but in certain substātial pointes. The one part whereof, is answered: the other (to take yt in the best sense a man can expound yt) is untrue. For the Turks believe one god, and so do we: and therefore, we differ not in all substantial pointes, from them. And although popery holdeth diverse things, better then they: yet the Turks hold some things, better then yt.

Where I affirm yt, more safe for us to conform our indifferent ceremonies to the Turks, which are far of, then to the papists which are so near, he chargeth me, with diverse reproaches, both here and otherwhere: but the reasons in this division, whereof one is, that the lord used the same wisdom to vuardes his people, another, that there is greater fear of infection from those which are near, then from those which are further of, he toucheth not. As for his reason, that the Turk is a professed enemy unto Christ and his name, the Pope pretending the contrary: the first is not altogether, and in all respects, true. For the Turk, acknowledgeth our Savior Christ a prophet, and giveth the true Christians more rest under him, then the papists do under them: Nether can the pretence of the name of Christ, when the effect is contrary, diminish the Popes faut: seeing beside the enmity against Christ, the syn is rather increased by his hypocrisy. Howbeit, I will not here dispute, whether the Turks or papists are greater enemies: yt is enough, that they are both fallen from Christ, the one by errors in the head pointes of his person, the other by errors in the head pointes of his office: in which respect, as both their ceremōies are to be avoided, so in that the papists are nearer us thē the Turks, theirs are more to be avoided, then those of the Turks. That we do not in any kind of ceremonies, conform our selves to the papists: requireth no confutation, as that for the proof whereof, the Ans. must put owt the eyes, and stop the ears, of all. The rest, of the falls pretence of Christian liberty, is before confuted.

To that, that contraries are cured by contraries, and that as to establish Christ's doctrine and discipline, yt is necessary to abolish the popish doctrine and government, so to heal the infection crept in by the popish order of service, yt is meet that another were put in place: he answereth, that as in doctrine and discipline, they have some good, so in ceremonies. wherein, he toucheth not the point of my reason. For the cause why, that good which is in Popery of the doctrine and discipline, cannot be changed, is, for that they are perpetual commandments, in whose places, no other can come: but the ceremonies we speak of, are changeable, so that if ether better, or but as good as they can be ordained, yt is manifest, that for the cause assigned, those abused in popery, owght to give place. Again, whatsoever good they have, ether in doctrine or in discipline: yt is none of theirs, but the church is. Therefore by his answer, as no popish doctrine or discipline, is fit for the church of Christ: so are no ceremonies, brought in by popery. And in deed, whē the ordinance of convenient church ceremonies, proceedeth of the light and knowledge of the word: there being such darkness and ignorance in Popery, yt is maruail, if yt could shape owt one convenient ceremony for the church of Christ. The second sectiō of this division, is not to the purpose.

To that I alleged, of the vuay to bring a man from his vice, to carry him as far from yt, as may be, which I made plain, by examples of reforming drunk̄nes and streightning of a crooked styk: he disputeth against me, as though I allowed that a man might run from one vice, for remedy against the other: which is an open untruth, and intolerable, seeing I added expressly, that I did not alovu yt, but only that of tvuo euiles, yt was the les: whereunto he could not answer. I omit that yow bring in S. Paul Ro. 3, saying that which he hath not. The sentence is true, but yow owght to make a difference, between that he saith, and that which is concluded of his saying: especially seeing yow have (although untruly) twice charged me, with the like.

To that of Tertullian, commending the Gentiles, which would not wittingly keep any of the feasts of the Christians, and of the other side, discōmending the Christians, that kept the feasts of the Gentiles: he answereth, that they communicated with thē, in their Idols: which is untrue, there being not a word cited here by himself, importing so much. For, to cease frō labors the same days they did: was not simply unlawful. He chargeth thē also, with feasting on the same days which they did, also with sending of nueyeares gifts: were these not things, in thē selves indifferent, and only condemned of Tertullian, because they were the ceremonies of profane nations? and doeth he not see, how Tertulliā maketh with us, in that he preferreth the use of the ceremonies of the Jews which are abrogated (for that they were sometime autorized of god) to the ceremōies, which other profane nations, had takē up of their own brayn. This also, may be understood, by the opposition he maketh, of the cōmendatiō of the Gentiles. for, seeing Tert. commendeth not the Gentiles, for that they worshipped not god with the Christians, but for that they would not admit the ceremonies, of a religion contrary to their own: to make the opposition answerable, we must needs say, that he rebuketh the Christians, for that they used the ceremonies of a religion, contrary to that they approved. For further knowledge, of Tertullian's judgment herein: I refer the reader, to that before written.

To that of Cōstātin, disalovuing for diverse causes, that the Christians▪ hold hold the feast of Easter, at that time which the Jews did: he saith, that the East partes kept yt, as the Jews: which is no answer seeing he showeth not, whether he alow of Cōstantines judgment, or no. his second answer, that he meant, we should have nothing common with them, repugnant to Christian liberty: is untrue, seeing in itself, there was nothing more free, then whether a feast should be kept upon thursday, or Sunday.

His third reason, that if he had generally misliked their ceremonies, he would have abrogated them, cleaveth not together. In steed whereof, he should have said, if he had utterly misliked ceremonies, and not their ceremonies. For as for theirs, he abrogated them: not only in propounding another end, then they did, but also in disannulling a number of ceremonies, used in the keeping thereof. At the least, this example teacheth, that if we will hold holy-days and fishdayes, with the papists: yet in detestation of their religion, and for avoiding of superstition, which hath crept into men's minds by them, we owght to change the days.

His last answer, that as Constantyn changing the day, and keeping the feast, put a difference between the Jews and Christians, so we greatly differ, from the papists in the ceremonies taken from them: ys likewise insufficient. For although that the Christians, had kept the same day with the Jews: yet their keeping of the Easter, should have differed from the Jews keeping, as much as we differ now from the papists, in the ceremonies we have from them. But, they thought yt not enough, to differ from the Jews, in things merely unlawful: unless they were also severed from them, by a ceremony, which was in itself moste indifferent.

To that alleged owt of the Councils, that they would not have the Christians communicate in unleavened bread, because the Jews did, nor dek their hovuses with green bovughes, because the pagans did so: he asketh, to what purpose they be alleged: yow know full well, that these go to the heart of your cause. For, what can be in yt self more indifferent, then these two, forbidden the Christians: for that they were used, of the enemies of the church. And being a reason, yt must be general of all such as the church may well want: much more of those, in place whereof, it may have as good, or better. As for your often repeating, that the ceremonies in question are godly, comely & decent: yt is your ouldwont, of dēaunding the thing in question, and an vndowted argument of your extreme poverty. That I cited owt of the Council of Braccaras is to be found in the council and Tome I alleged Can. 74. And the 73 can. which I cited, is generally against all ceremonies used by the paganes. for the two next sections, I refer the reader to that already answered.

And that this complaint of ours is just, in that we are thus constrained to be like unto the papists, in any their ceremonies, and that this cause only, owght to move them, to whom that belongeth, to do them away, forasmuch as they are their ceremonies: the reader may further see, in the Bishop of Sarisbury, which bringeth diverse proofs thereof, directly against the D. and flatly for us.

To this place belongeth, as that which is general, the reason of the offense, ^c before handled, whereunto page 288 he addeth, that those which are offended at this apparel, take an offense where yt is not given: which is (as he meaneth an offense taken ) nothing else, but a demand of that in question. And yt deceiveth him, that he considereth not, that the Apostle teacheth that an offense is not only given, when an unlawful thing is done: but also, when a thing, in yt self lawful, is done unlawfully: that is, owt of time and place. Howbeit, yt is further said, that the offense may be taken away by preaching: but yt, was also replied, that yt is not so convenient, that the ministers, having so many necessary pointes to bestow their time in, should be driven to spend it, in giving warning of not abusing them, of which (although they were used at the best) there is no profit. whereunto, his answer (that the abuse of meats, and costly apparel for Princes &c. doeth not take away the use ) being of things, whereof there appeareth a manifest profit: is partly before, and further cometh to be answered, in the diduction of the particulars. The untruth also of his surmise, that I would hereby take away owt of the church, the doctrine of indifferent things: is manifest. For, I spake not of all ceremonies, but of such, as have been shamefully abused, and whereof there is no manifest profit: nether did I disallow the doctrine, against the abuse of them, seeing I added, that one sermon against their abuse, joined with their removing by them to vuhom that appertaineth, would do more good, then a thovusand without: as appeareth by the example of our Sau. Christ, which for the better rootīg owt of error, refused the hurtful ceremonies, and taught the abuse of them together. And what wisdom is yt, I pray yow, that by continuance of the popish ceremonies, the church should reciue a wound, to the end that afterward, by continual warning, yt might receive a plaster: so that the inconueniēce which I assigned, lieth in this, that the ministers by the continuance of them, should be driven to occupy a great deal more time, and with les fruyt, then when they should be taken away: the confuting whereof, he is so far from, that he rather confirmeth my saying. For, if the taking away of these things from the eyes, doeth not by and by root owt the opiniō owt of the heart, when as doctrine is joined withal (as I set yt down, and as in deed yt owght to be:) then how much les, will the doctrine be able to pul yt owt of their hearts, when they be always before the eyes, and in use. This I made plain, by his example, which should set one to vuatch a child all day long, least he should hurt him self with a knife: whereas, by taking avuay the knife quite frō him, the danger is avoided, and the service of the mā better employed: his answer whereunto, of a child which hath discretion, is no answer, when I meant of a little child which, by age, is not able to guide a knife. Of which sort, yt is les meruail, if there be amongst us: seeing there appear to have been such, in the Apostles times. the rest in that division, is to no purpose.

Hether appertaineth also, that in page 259 diuis. 5. of the surplice, that by using of these ceremonies the papists take occasion to blaspheme: saying that our religion cannot stand by yt self, unless yt lean upon the staf of their ceremonies. whereunto his first answer, that they were before Antichrist: is before answered. His second, that they make no great accompt of them, is very untrue, even in the very surplice: seeing they have so many mysteries in yt, as Durand in his Rationali diuinorū reckoneth up. which answer also of his, is Hardings shift: confuted by the bishop, who showeth, by diverse testimonies, what great holiness they put in these things. His third, that they know we could be well without them: is but an asking of that in controversy, and contrary to that them selves do speak. Also that we do not (but for obedience sake) much esteem them: but how shall they know that, when they may see greater severity used for the omitting of them, then for the lords own commandments. where also, yt is to be noted, that although the wearing of the surplice and of the cap, were free by the laws of the church: yet the D. would not willingly, altogether part with them, although he would not so greatly esteem them. the rest there, often̄ repeated: hath partly been, and partly cometh, to be answered.

To that, that thus they conceiving hope of having the rest of their popery in the end, causeth them to be more frozen in their wickedness: he answereth, that they have no cause so to hope, which is no answer. For not the cause, but the occasion also, owght to be taken away: where yt may be so chepe, that is to say, without removing anything, whereof we may not have ether as good, or better in place. Althowgh, let the reader judge, whether they have cause given, to hope that the tail of popery yet remaining, they shall the easilier hale in the whole body after: considering also, that M. Bucer noteth, that where these things have been left, there popery hath returned: but of the other part, in places which have been cleansed of these dregs, yt hath not yet been seen, that yt hath had any entrance. the rest, touching thir hopping without their hope &c. nether letteth thē in the mean season, through this hope, to dy in their sins, nor is (if yt come to pas) any gramercy unto this remnant of popish ceremonies, which do their best, to keep the memory of Egypt with us.

To prove the papists triumph and joy in these things, I alleged further, that there are none which make such clamours for these ceremonies, as the papists, and those which they suborn. He answereth, that they do so justly &c. all which dependeth of the demand, of that in question: albeyt what meat, I beseech yow, is yt like to be, which a popish stomak, doeth so gredily embrace? I deny not, but some of ours, may speak for them, through a good intention, they have to obey the Prince: but there be none so lickerous of them, as are the papists, nor none cry so loud for them, as they: which is that I meant, and uttered. the second section is ^a answered partly, and partly cometh to be answered after.

Yt is there further alleged, against the incommodity of these ceremonies, that there be numbers which have Antichristianity in that detestation: that they cannot without grief of mind behold them. The same persons, upon so easy an opening of the wicket, unto this trus of popish ceremonies: fear least if the assault should be hot, they would set open the gates, to the bringing in of greater packes: whereunto his answer owt of M. Calvin, is from the cause. For, let hardly his sentence strike upon them, which, for every light corruption in the church, will make a departure from yt: yet their frowardness, shall never excuse the sluggisnes of them which labor not, as they may, to remove those imperfections, at which they have so miserably fallen. Your surmise, of transforming our selves daily into a new shape, if we will please the people: ys (to let the rest go) but a wandering from the matter. For I added, that such godly brethren, are not easily to be grieved: which they seme to be, when they are thus martyred in their minds, for ceremonies which (to speak the best of them) are unprofitable. Beside that your proof of this, that the people are always desirous of noueltyes, which is that man's nature is desirous of nwes: is to wide. For yt taketh the prince, and other estates both in church, and common wealth by the head: as well, as the people.

Hether is to be referred, that yt is required, that the ceremonies should not only not offend, but also tend to edification: which being barely denied, by the Answerer, hath been declared, of me. Also, that many of these popish ceremonies, faut by reason of the pomp in them, where they should be agreeable, to the simplicity of the gospel of Christ crucified: which he likewise denieth, to be necessary, and might as well deny, that the rest of the building should be conformable unto the foundation. But of this also there hath been spoken before, in the matter of the church discipline: whereof there is (in this respect) one reason.

Hether also belongeth, the eight division pag. 551. where first he alledgeth, that in matters of order, the church is judgment is to be preferred, before a private man's: where, if he understand, that we must do so always, and generally, he differeth nothing herein, from the papists. For why should we for matters of order, always hang our judgment vpō the church is sleue: rather then in matters of doctrine. The determination, of the goodness of them both, is fetched (as hath been shown) from the word of god: if therefore, the church is hand, may slip in the one, yt may do so in the other. And if a private man, may sometime in a matter of doctrine wake, whē the church sleapeth: he may do the same, in a matter of order. But if he understand, that the church is judgment, is to be preferred to a private man's, when hers is framed according to the word of god, and not his: yt is in deed true, but then his reason is a mere daliance, and an open demand of that in question: Beside that this judgment, is not the opinion of a private man, but of thowsandes, and of those amongst which, diverse are in public charge and authority.

Touching the next division, I know that god is the autor of all truth, and consequently the holy ghost: but I resisted this, that all that speak yt, speak yt moved by the holy ghost, which seemed to me to be your meaning. And although, the knowledge of god which the wicked have, be his gift: yet the use of yt, proceedeth not from the spirit of god, further then of his general working, whereby they live and are moved, and whereby the Devil him self knoweth the same. therefore, that which in this case, yow durst not affirm of the devil: yow owght not to have affirmed of the wicked, which are led by his spirit.

THE SECOND PART OF this Tractate.

A TABLE, WHEREBY YT IS NOT VNEASY TO FYNDE, ANY OF the principal pointes, contained in this part of the booK.