word of Keies especially with this addition giuen vnto S. Peter telleth al men that the power there spokē of is spiritual and not ciuil And here the D. is directly against him self For before in this very diuision saying that this iudgment in ciuil causes is not incident but added to the ministery here he pretendeth owt of Barnard that ciuil iudgment in criminal causes is of the power and iurisdiction of the Ministers And if it be trw that he saith after the pastor must vse such discipline as semeth good to the Magistrate when the Magistrate ordeineth ciuil discipline onely ether that discipline must be incident to the pastorship or els in such a time there shal be a Pastor of god which hath no discipline incident into his office seing the ecclesiastical discipline which is taken by his iudgment from him laufully is not incident so that this idle distinction goeth flat to the ground I cal it idle be cause it maketh nothing to the question which is not whether a Minister may bear ciuil office in that respect that he is a Minister but whether he may bear it at al. And of this sort also is that our Bishops break not violently into these offices but receiue them of the Princes gift whereas our question is whether he may receiu these offices when they be giuen yet hath he vsed this distinction at the least fiue tymes After is added that it is committed to them by the Magistrate for fuller satisfying of their dutie yf so why should not al the Ministers alike haue this power to the end that al might doe their duties the better Again in saying that it is necessary for this tyme yow openly wrest this power owt of the Magistrats hād For thereby it followeth that the Magistrate of dutie owght to cōmit this vnto them and if he doe not he is giltie of gods wrath in leauing vndoen that which is necessary to be doen. yow doe also open iniury to the holy gost which is thus supposed to haue left that in the liberty of the Magistrate which is necessary for the accomplishing of the ministery whereas if it had bene necessary there had bene also nothing more easy then to haue giuen this general rule that alwaies vnder a Christian Magistrate the Minister should be armed with civil autority But this succour which yow seek in the tyme is Pigghius shift as is also this whole cause and the flower of your arguments For he saith As long as the church vuas in persecutiō al vuere obediēt vnto their Pastors hovu simple or base so euer the Ministers vuere but after that the church came to haue prosperity then it vuas needful that Bishops should be magnifical also to the end they might be more apt to gouern the magnifical Princes and that otherwise his power and autority should not be sufficiently reuerenced To whome as vnto the D. it is easy to answer that if Kinges and Princes being yet in deadly hatred against the gospel were browght by the ministery of the word vnaccompanied with any such pomp or iurisdiction to yeeld them selues vnto the gospel and to giue due reuerence vnto the ministery how much more now being friendes wil they be kept in dutie and convenient estimation thereof withowt this disguising of the ministery That alledged out of Caluin that euery man must respect his own vocation c. beside that it is drawen cleā from the minde of the autor it is absurdly applied For the application affirmeth it meet for the vocatio of the Minister that he should bear ciuil office which is that in question And where he saith Caluin speaketh nothing against these civil offices in ecclesiastical persons and after that nether he nor any godly man can disalow of yt he giueth suspition that he hath sould him self to speak vntruth withowt al chek of conscience For Calvin sheweth that albeit the godly Princes giuing these offices to church men had a good intent yet that they did euil provide thereby for the church considering that by it was corrupted or rather vtterly brovught to no vught al true and auncient sincerity and that the Bishops if they had had a spark of grace vuould vuhen they vuere offered such offices haue ansuuered that the armour of their vuarfare is not carnal but spiritual Here again also he is owt with him self For in the end of his book albeit the shiftes he vseth are to rowgh hewed yet when he commeth to Caluin in this matter void of al shift he is constreined to reiect his autority Yf he haue nothing against him why doeth he make so smale account of him as for nothing to cast him of if he be against him why doeth he here deny it And as I haue alledged M. Caluin and some others so the learned know that a number moe might be browght to the making vp of a book but for him beside the papistes as I am verely perswaded scarce one so bould an enemy of the truth as to commit this to writing Against the plain meaning of the Apostle opened in flat wordes verses 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. of Rom. 12. here is nothing but your suerly and certein which I wil suffer to haue that credit it can get against so manifest light Your argument is the same which I haue said The Bishop must gouern with discipline therefore with ciuil discipline your answer that he must vse discipline prescribed by the Magistrate whether ciuil or ecclesiastical is an asking of that in question The answer to the place of Timothy that it is spoken of al Christians indifferently merely faced out with the name of Caluin is Pigghius answer to the protestants And it is confuted in that S. Paul instructeth Timothy there not as a simple Christian but as a Minister of the gospel in that also he borowed this speach of the law which calleth the ministery a souldiarfare thirdly in that the same Apostle in other places giueth this title of souldiarship and felow souldiarship to those of the ministery Beside that it flatly condemneth Cyprian as an abuser of the place who by vertw hereof forbiddeth a Minister an Executorship which by the D. ether is not forbidden him or els is forbiddē to al Christians alike And not onely Cyprian is condemned but Ambrose and Ierome which vse it as the admonition Beside Bucer and other godly writers of our tyme as appeareth by Pigghius answer The reason whereby Pigghius and he would shew it vnderstanded of al Christians alike is this Al Christians be spiritual souldiars S. Paul speaketh of spiritual souldiars therfore he speaketh of al Christians concluding affirmatiuely in the second figure which is to open a faut where yow should vnderstand that althowgh Christianity be a kinde of spiritual warfare yet it foloweth not that every spiritual warfare is Christianitie Your answer to Cypriā whereby yow would restrein his iudgmēt to the Executorship and not
his wont is he doeth onely say so proof he bringeth none And as I for my part confes that there cometh not to my minde wherby I could precisely conclude yt owt of the ould Testament So I am assured that he is not able to proue that which he saith But that which the D. affirmeth otherwhere that it was onely at Ierusalem is vtterly vntrue For Iosaphat at one tyme set in Iudges in euery vualled citye throvughovut the kingdome of Iuda which of what sort they were namely in part ciuil in part ecclesiastical appeareth by the Iudges placed in Ierusalē And to thē men had recours to in matters of greater difficulty according to the causes if ciuil to the ciuil if ecclesiastical to the ecclesiastical iudgment where owght not to be forgotten the nūbre of cities in one onely tribe as it might be in york sheer to the numbre of a hūdreth and twelue least that the reader should measure the numbre of their cityes with ours So that where the Answ saith that therewas but one Senate in al the twelue tribes it is found that there were in one onely tribe at the least a hundreth ant twelue ecclesiastical Elderships Vuhether it may be cōcluded owt of the nue Testament that euery synagog of the Iues had this Eldership considering that the pollicy of the church now was in this point taken from the Iues church I leau it to the reader to iudg of that which I haue alledged wherevnto aideth the custome of the Iues vnto this day which in euery of their synaguogues haue their Elders Likewise Ieromes testimony of which it may be certeinly collected that he estemed that the Iues had their Elders in euery Synagog For he sheweth that they chose of the vuisest in their cōpany for gouernours vuhich should asvuel admonish those that had any corporal polution to absteyn from the assemblies as to reproue the breakers of the ceremonies of the Sabbat now seing ther was the same vse of these admonitions and reproofes as wel in vplandish synaguoges as in those which were plāted in the cities it foloweth necessarily that there were Elders aswel for them as for the other At the least the nue Testamēt in marking these Elders which it calleth cheif of the Synagog in diuers quarters doeth manifestly ouerthrow the D. which saith that they were onely at Ierusalē vpō al which matter appeareth how extremely bould yow are in your affirmatiōs which beside these two before mētioned say also that the Eldership was not alwaies no not in persecution wherein not to enter a nue field for euery light word yow cast forth what reason I pray yow cā yow assign why sometimes there should be an Eldership vnder pecsecutiō and other some tymes none cōsidering that yow imagin this Eldership to be in place of a Christian Magistrate whereby it must needes folow that his seat being void in tyme of persecution it owght to be occupied by the Eldership which yow fancy to be his Lieftenāt whether the D. pincheth the churches where with a Christian Magistrate the Eldership stil remayneth which he here denieth let the reader iudg of his former book where he affirmeth yt iniurious to the Magistrat and ful of confusion also that it can not nor owght not to be as in the Apostles tymes c. ▪ yea let hym iudg of this diuision For after that he graunteth to Princes to commit their autority to the church if they list then which there is nothing more vntrw he addeth whether it be wel doen I wil not determin wherein I besech yow mark first what contraries he speaketh For he doeth determin precisely that ciuil Magistrates may commit their right and autority to these Elders if they wil and yet he wil not determin whether it be wel doen or no. wheras if he would not haue determined of the one he should haue suspended his iudgment of the other for thus he assureth them they may doe that whereof he wil make them no assurance that it is wel doen. Secondly it is to be obserued that where the question was of the Bishops receiuing of ciuil autority from the Prince he maketh it not onely lawful but conuenient yea necessary that it should be deriued from the Prince to the Bishop but here towardes the Eldership he saith yt can not be practised withowt intollerable contentions and extreme confusion So that the Bishop Archdeacons and Deanes which with vs are the deepest churchministers may exercise yf the Prince wil commit yt vnto them euen the highest ciuil iurisdiction and that to the singular advancement of the church but these Elders whose office in the church is not such but that boeth they haue and may folow some ciuil trade of lyfe may not receiue that power of the Magistrate which he vntrwly affirmeth that they had in tyme of persecution on les al by and by fal vpon heapes In one and the same church the Bishop the Dean the Archdeacon and for a need some of the Prebendaryes may haue beside their ecclesiastical iurisdiction ciuil autority but these Elders althowgh they were but two in numbre may in no wise vse any This difference verely riseth not in the breadth of shoulders wherby they are able to cary al this and the Elders none but vpon the widenes of the throat which as the graue is neuer filled Thirdly it is to be obserued that the D. which for his own profit stretcheth the power of the Prince beyond al boundes here as yf he had to doe with a cheuerel scepter draweth it in For he giueth more liberty herein vnto the Magistrates of smal common wealthes then vnto monarches For to them he seemeth sometime to leau yt at liberty whether they wil communicate their autority vnto these Elders or retayn it with them selues but vnto kinges and Princes he wil in no wise permit yt Vuherein also he is contrary to him self which in another place saith that the office of the ciuil Magistrate may be committed vnto whome soeuer it pleaseth hym best to like of If that be true and this iurisdiction of the Elders were as he vntruly saith belonging to the ciuil Magistrate why might not the Prince commit yt vnto these Elders as for his reason that so euery parish should be a kingdome yt cometh to be answered in another place To that I alledged of the necessity of the Eldership because the Pastor can not haue his ey in euery corner of his parish c. he answereth an able Pastor is able to doe al required of a Pastor which is no answer at al. For that is not the question but this whether he be able to doe whatsoeuer church gouernment belongeth to the wealth of his church which because he durst not affirm or affirming it had nothing to proue yt he slipped away after this sort And now that he vnderstandeth that this reason is confirmed by M. Peter Martyr I trust hereafter he
may meet now it foloweth not For althowgh they might meet before the holy gost by the mouth of the Apost made a seueral office of yt yet they might not so afterward when it was otherwise determined of by the mouth of god There were diuers kinde of mariages with consanguinitie as brother with sister aunt with nevew c lawful in the beginning ▪ which after that the lord had otherwise disposed of in the law were vnlawful As for that owt of Caluin and 2 Corinth 8 it is friuolous For it neuer perteined to the Deacons office to exhort for the contribution of the poor but was and is the Ministers of the word the Deacons office being to receiu and to distribute yt in that church where he is Deacon The causes also which he alledgeth of the casting of of that office and the busines which the Deaconship did draw in that church of Ierusalem are to trifle out the tyme considering that the decree of the Apostles towching the nue office was general for al places and not where there should be many poor or so many thowsand professors what a bouldnes is it also when the Scripture doeth plainly shew the cause of deliuering them selues from this office to haue bene that they should not leau their ministery and that they might be cōtinually vpon it to reiect this cause and to set vp another which the scripture giueth no ynkling of That they ordeined others for because they should goe into the world is also nothing worth seing that in some of them it came not to pas diuers yeates after and in other some neuer as those which were determined there to remain when as notwithstanding al desired this releas Beside that he answereth nothing to the inequality of giftes betwene our Bishops and the Apostles nor considereth not that the Spiritual charge of our Bishop is ouer moe now then there were then in Ierusalem and that they were at that tyme twelu where he is but one had theyr church togither which he hath scartered I shewed that the Papists are not onely condemned for vuringing the ciuil autority ouut of Princes handes but simply for exercising it and there fore this first section is idle To that I alledged that it is as monstrous for the Bishop to goe from the pulpit vnto the place of ciuil iudgment as for my lord Maior to goe to the pulpit he answereth that it is not vncomely to goe from the pulpit to ciuil administration of iustice c which is a mere mockery of his reader For not daring to deny but it is vncomely for the lord Maior he answereth by affirming that in question For if he say it is not vncomely for the lord Maior to goe to the pulpit he runneth in to that which he saith I surmise of him where of notwitstanding I haue not a letter Albeit the truth is that he may aswel say the Magistrate may minister the Sacrament and preach which is the proper dwety of the Minister as to say the Minister of the word may sit in iudgment of ciuil causes which is the proper dwety of the Magistrat For look what difference the lord hath set betwene the office of the ciuil Magistrate and of the Minister the same must of necessity be betwene the office of the Minister and of the Magistrate as there is the self same distance betwene Athenes and Thebes vuhich is betuuene Thebes and Athenes and if there be a mile from the top of the hil to the foot it is as far from the foot to the top And althowgh yt abhorring the eyes and eares of al he is afraid here to affirm it comely that the lord Maior should preach and minister the sacramentes yet as a man whose iudgment wasteth not by litle and litle but is sodenly and at a clap taken away he shameth not a litle after to affirm that the Prince may preach and the Bishop exercise ciuil office if they be lawfully called therunto where if by lawful calling he vnderstand a wonderful and extraordinary from heauen he speaketh altogither from the cause our question being whether a Minister by calling of the Magistrat or a Magistrate by calling of the church may enter vpon eche others office And if he mean by lawful calling the ordinary calling then his answer is absurd For he falleth into that absurdity which the Papistes doe falsly surmise that we giue vnto our Princes power to minister the Sacramentes yea by his diuinitye which giueth the chois of the Bishops to the Prince alone and which maketh it lawful for one to offer him self to the ministery the king of the land may make him self Bishop withowt waiting for the church is consent Vpon that he alledgeth owt of M. Beza which wisheth some of the nobilitie to be of the Eldership compared with that which I affirm that the Eldership is an ecclesiastical office he concludeth that ether I must dissent from M. Beza or graunt that one person may at once bear ciuil and ecclesiastical office I answer that nether is necessary For whereas Lordships Baronryes and Erldomes are often ether by birth or giuen of the Prince as bare degrees of honour such being of the church Eldership doe not therfore bear boeth ciuil and ecclesiastical office considering that they haue no magistracy necessarily ioyned with them further then the same is particularly cōmitted Albeit hauing the Heluetian confession I finde no epistle of M. Bezas so that ether he mistaketh the place or els hath some other edition then I could get Yf the gentry and nobility of the realm be as yow confes fitter to bear these offices then ecclesiastical persons there needed some great causes to haue bene shewed by yow why the fittest should not be taken otherwise the white of expedience that churchmen should bear them which yow threap of them that they see wil be so dim that boeth the Prince and they passing by it wil I hope put down as there calling serueth this vsurped power In the mean season it being so expedient a thing for the churche at yow pretend the church is litle behoulding to yow that doe not make this expedience to appear I said that if there fal a question to be decided by the vuord of god and vuherein the aduise of the Minister is needful that then his help ouught to be required The D. herevpon fathereth of me that the magistrate may determin no weighty matter withowt him as if there were no weighty matter wherein the Magistrat could know what is the wil of god withowt sending for the Minister so that it appeareth that there is no vntruth so open which finedeth not as in a cōmon Inne lodging in the D. tong But els saith he wherfore are these wordes therfore forsooth that where yow and others might vnder colour of the knowledg which he hath in the word of god hould him the stirrup to clime into the ciuil gouernmentes it might appear that
I propounded yet his iudgment is al one Here Pantaleon and M. Bale are reiected as insufficient to make report of Eugenius doeinges which was so long before their tyme and yet Erasmus is stoutly vpholden for reporting Titus to haue bene an Archbishop albeyt Titus was 600 yeares before Eugenius But if the D. can not shew any that commaunded that the Bishops should haue prisons before Eugenius these writers shal be able easely to maintayn their credit against his bouldnes of affirming and denying what so euer he listeth To that owt of Possidonius that those matters alledged of the Bishop to be doen of Augustin could not be ciuil affaires considering that he immediately opposeth them vnto secular or worldly matters beside wordes he answereth nothing he opposeth other places owt of Augustin wherof the first owt of his book of the workes of monkes can not be vnderstanded as he would haue it of any iudgment giuen by reason of ciuil autority For that which he did he affirmeth that the Apostle commaunded it should be doen by the most contemptible in the church So that oneles he dare say that the Apostle commaunded that the simplest in the church might bear ciuil office when the Magistrat being an enemy would commit no autority vnto him this place is vtterly from the purpose Again when Augustin saith that the Apostle hath tyed him so to doe and laid yt vpon him if the D. wil haue that a ciuil office is there vnderstanded it must folow that the ciuil office is incideÌ„t vnto the office of the ministery and can not be seuered from it The place owt of his epistle 110 is to as smale purpose For in that it appeareth there that the Councels decreed that Augustin should ceas from those busines it is manifest that he dealt with them not by any right of ciuil office For what had the Councel to doe to decre that he should not doe that which the Magistrate had lawfully laid vpon him he owght to haue sowght the releas of that at the Magistrates haÌ„d and not at the Councels likewise in that he obteineth of the people that these matters should be turned from him vpon Eradius and that in an ecclesiastical assembly where they met for chusing of one to succede Augustin in the Bishoprik it is manifest that it was no ciuil office Last of al it is to be obserued that in boeth these places Augustin complaineth of these matters as of hinderances vnto his Ministery as thinges which did more let the cours of yt then if he had vurovught euery day vuith his handes in some occupation that he seeketh to be deliuered from them at the Councels and at the peoples handes whereas our D. saith that they are not onely no hinderances but necessary helpes to doe the Ministery with and not onely seeketh not that the Bishops may be discharged but maketh cordes to binde these offices streighter to theÌ„ I haue reported the truth the Bishops wordes are owt of Clement that it is not lavuful for a Bishop to deal vuith boeth svuordes likewise that he ovught to be remoued that vuil supply the place boeth of a ciuil Magistrate and of an ecclesiastical person These wordes doe not onely coÌ„demn the pulling the sword owt of Princes haÌ„des but al vse of it in eccles ê‘sons I pray god that the custome of shameful denials doe not so harden your forhead that no point of truth how sharp soeuer can perce it Howbeit I trust whatsoeuer yt please yow to say it is manifest to al that doe not willinglie close their eyes against the truth that the scripture teacheth that Ministers owght not to medle with ciuil offices That which yow ad owt of Deut. 17 maketh nothing for yow for they are there biddeÌ„ to resort vnto the Priest as to the Interpreter of the law when the question was difficult and they knew not what to doe which is manifest in that he distinguisheth there the Priest from the Iudges so that in such appeales he placeth the Priests and Leuites office in teaching what is the wil of god and the Iudgis office in giuing sentence accordingly as appeareth yet more plainly in the same chapter The same is to be answered to that alledged owt of Nombers 27. In which matter that the Priest was present and called to consultation for the difficulty thereof to know what was the wil of god in that behalf it is manifest in that he being not able to resolue of the matter Moses was fayn to bring it to the lord To let pas that it was not Aharon which was taken into that consultation but Eleazar onles yow wil haue Aharon decide controuersies after his death The example of Melchisedec boeth king and Priest is more absurdly alledged then the other not onely because he was before the law when this order of separating the priesthood from the ciuil gouernment was not yet established but because he had them boeth that he might be a figure of our Sauiour Christ as the Apostle and Prophet doe declare Yow might much better haue alledged Abraham which was boeth a Priest a Prophet and a noble warrior which notwithstanding yourself doe not permit vnto the Bishop As for the appeal which Constantine graunted from the ciuil Magistrate vnto the Bishops likewise Theodostus and Carolus graunt that men might chuse the Bishops Iudges of their controuersies if either party would they were the wrestes wherwith the Princes scepters were wrung owt of their handes and as I haue before shewed owt of M. Caluin al syncerity ovut of the churches yea vpon that very graunt of Constantin it is noted in the margent that it is repugnant boeth to the doctrine and example of S. Paul. And in deed by the first of these decrees the Bishops ciuil autoritie is made equal with the Emperours And by the other it is at the pleasure of the people whether al the ciuil Magistrates shal be Idoles or no hauing the bare name of the Magistrate withowt doeing any duty For if ether of the parties be affected towardes the Bishops iudgment the Magistrates may goe lay them down to sleep Nether doeth it folow that because the Emperours gaue such liberty or licentiousnes rather vnto the church or because some Bishops vsed it that therfore the practise of the church was such For I haue shewed that the godly Counceles forbad it and that the godly fathers vtterly misliked of it And as I haue alledged some so it is not hard to alledg others to the same effect In his example of Dorotheus his translation is fauty For in steed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a ciuil honour he hath turned it priesthood as if it had bene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the office also which Eusebius noteth he had was to ouersee the purple dyes in Tyre an office to aduance the Ministery I think in the D. own iudgment very vnfit His examples of Philaeas and
wil giue it some honester name then my fancy To that I alledged that if the Auncientes should not be vnder a Christian Magistrate yt vuould folovu that the lord should haue les care of his church vnder a Christian then vnder an vnchristian Magistrate he answereth that the Christian Magistrate is in place of the Eldership but nether addeth reason him self nor once towcheth the reason which I browght namely that yt vuas neuer lavuful for the church in persecution to appoint any that should enter vpon any part of the ciuil Magistrates office This also could not be a sufficient recompence in matters pertayning to the soul health that for an Eldership in euery church they should receiue one Prince in a whole countrey For one Prince can not in the spiritual gouernment of the realm bring that to pas which the Eldership in euery church did before althowgh he should doe nothing but attend vpon that So that to make the Magistrates to succede into the office of the Elders and therein to doe al the duties appointed vnto the Eldership in tymes past is to charge the Magistrates with a thing vnpossible and such as must needes kyl their consciences Thus where the Christian magistrate is giuen of god to kepe the order which god hath set in his church yow bring him in as a breaker and changer of the order which god hath appointed by his holy Apostles But the godly Christian Magistrates may vnderstand that as nether our Sauior Christ nor any wise and wel instructed mynistery vnder him wil meddle with any order or form of common wealth lawfully instituted of them for the better gouernment of their people but leau them as they finde them So they owght to leau whole and vntowched that order which Christ hath placed in his church And as the An. saith truly otherwhere that Christ came not to ouerthrow ciuil gouernmentes euen so it is as true that god sendeth not kinges to ouerthrow church gouernment planted by Christ and his Apostles Yea so much more absurd is this later then the first by how much they owght to haue more firmity which were set by the lord him self then which were by men For what son of Adam shal presume to alter that order which the lord hym self from heauen hath set And euen so doeth the Apostle precisely speak of this office with others that god hath set it in the church Yf it be said that he set also Prophetes and workers of miracles which are now no more it is true they are now no more but why are they not Ys it because any man hath remoued them no verely but because the lord him self hath withdrawen them For if the lord had giuen euen vnto these dayes these giftes of healing and working of miracles c. I think there is no man so extremely impudent that would say that the ciuile Magistrate might abolish or put them down Beside that it is vntrue which he saith otherwhere that this office is placed amongest those which be temporal for euen 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 meanes no more is giuen to the Christian Magistrate then to the Turk proceedeth onely of a famyn of reasons to answer which driueth him to this vnrulynes otherwise he can not tel how the establishment of this office should spoil the Prince of her autority S. Paul professeth of him self that he vurote the same that men red that is to say syncerely not pretending one thing and meaning another but al this ialousy pretended for the Prince against the Eldership is in deed for the Bishop So that albeit the name of the Magistrate be houlden owt to draw this cause into hatered yet the truth is that yt is to establish their own tyranny For as towching autority or preheminence there is nothing giuen to be doen by the Eldership ioyntly with the Pastor in one onely congregation al which and more to the Bishop him self alone doeth not vndertake to execute in a whole diocese or prouince Therfore if the exercise of this spiritual iurisdiction in the Eldership spoil the Magistrate of his autority then the Bishops are the chief in this robbery Vuhere he asketh how I shew owt of the scripture that those are the duties of the Elders which I haue assigned I answer that forasmuch as S. Paul appointeth them gouernours of the church togither with the teaching gouernours placing the difference onely in teaching and consequently in publik prayer and administration of sacramentes which are ioyned with yt or comprehended vnder yt that therfore the rest remain commō betwene them to be doen as wel of these as of them That the place of S. Mathew is not to be vnderstanded onely of priuate offences I haue before declared your interpretation of tel the church that is publikly reproue those which admonished priuately repent not is euil nurtured breaking in withowt leau where mark good reader how easy it is for the D. to write answers which being pressed giueth him self this liberty that hauing no key to open the dore breaketh it open after this sort To interpret tel by reproue might haue some colour by that the general is some tyme put for the special but that tel the church should be reproue the offender hath a disease that al the tropes and figures which I haue red of are not able to cure And me thincketh that yow which accuse others for making the scripture a nose of wax if yow wil not put of your shoes at the least yow should wipe them a litle cleaner when yow enter into the lords Sanctuary That which foloweth is not a whit better For after he saith that by the church may be ment one onely so that he be in autority which is not vnlike vnto that which the papistes say that a man may appeal from the Councel vnto the Pope wherof some of the papistes them selues if he doe not repent shal sit in iudgment which leauing vnto the Pope the highest place in the church haue notwithstanding vpon this place preferred the iudgment of the Councel to the Popes But where I require some example of this monstruous speach vuherby one is said to be many one membre a body one alone a company the D. is domb where I shew further that if one onely should be vnderstood by the church that then the going from thre to one should not rise but fal not goe forvuard but bakvuard he answereth that to tel one which hath autority to correct the faut is more then to tel twenty as thowgh the complaint is made to the end he should be corrected and not that he should be admonished For as for correction other then by wordes it owght not to be awarded onles he refuse to hear the church so that here stil the proces is from the admonition which is by many to that
the prebendes c. ovught to be called to a more lavuful vse namely to the fineding of Scholers Ministers and Poor And this is our meaning not that these goodes should be turned from the possession of the church to the filling of the bottomles sackes of their gredy appetites which yane after this pray and would therby to their perpetual shame purchase them selues a field of blud which thing althowgh we haue giuen playnly to vnderstand yet because we haue to doe with so importunat an aduersary that feareth not to charge vs with intent to gratifye such Cormorantes I thowght good in a word to protest yt As for the light account he maketh of those examples of the reformed churches which notwithstanding pretendeth to esteme so greatly of one or two of the auncient writers I leau to vtter what yt argueth oneles he were able to shew by the word of god that they did not wel The rest of this tractate which is a cartlode of vntruthes vttered partly in accusing me partly in maynteyning him self I wil not touch THAT EXCOMMVNICATION BELONGETH NOT TO THE Bishop alone Tractate ix and xviij according to the D. pag. 661. YT hauing bene shewed that in elections and depositions the Bishop can doe nothing withowt the aduise of the whole church nor in the common gouernmēt withowt assistance of the Eldership yt must folow that in excommunication which is one of the weightiest iudgmentes in the church this sole autoritie of the Bishop is vnlawful For as when in ciuil matters the iudgment is of life and death and as in the art of curing when consultation is taken of cutting or burning the bench is fuller and the assistance greater then when matters of les importance be debated euen so if it might be accorded to the Bishop to pas some other matters by him self yet it were not safe to cōmit vnto him the iudgment of excommunication wherevpon I mervail why euen here also yow goe abowt to pek owt our eys For the light of this truth is such that some of the Papistes them selues are ashamed to look against yt as appeareth by Pigghius which seeking al maner of peintynges to hyde the filthines of Rome could finde no colour to disguise this with but is fayn partly to confes her nakednes in this behalf saiyng that it is not lavuful the Bishop of Rome onely excepted for any Bishop to excommunicate by him self alone So that althowgh the weightines of the cause might require a long treatis yet the plaines of it wil be content with a short First whether the word discipline may note the vuhole gouernment or onely the punishmentes as in a disputation of wwordes I wil not striue althowgh it be knowen that the word discipline is vsed in good autors for the whole maner of gouernment ether at home or in war. Secondly charged vuith cōtrarietie he answereth that to ascribe excommunicatiō to the Minister of the word and to the Bishop onely agree because the Bishop is a Minister of the word which might haue bene admitted if it had bene al one to be a Bishop and a Minister of the word But seing by the word Minister with vs is noted a diuers degree and meinteined by him it is but an escape Howbeit I am content he amend his speach if he had yet amended it and not rather vtterly marred al. For pretending that the Bishop onely hath by the word of god the excōmunication committed vnto him he saith notwithstanding that the church if she wil may commit that autoritie vnto other giuig the church autority to make that common which the word of god hath made seueral Thus he enterfeereth at euery step almost cutting him self to pitifully The rest is answered so are the two next diuisions sauing that it appeareth that yow were somewhat hongry of a testimony of great reading which pres myne so sore that may be giuen to the veriest trewand that euer went on two legges which may in half an hower know the minde of twenty commentaries and requireth rather a man wel booked then ether wel red or wel learned To proue that the lord did not borow this form of gouernment of the Iues he assigneth one reason because he neuer appointed it vnto them which beside the vntruth that hath and shal further appear is contrary to that him self hath affirmed where he saith that al euen the least thinges vnder the law were commaunded So that oneles he wil denie that they had euer any Eldership or hauing it had it against the commādement of god it must folow that they had it by the prescript of god Another reason is for that the Iues abused their Eldership then which there can be nothing more disagreing from the D. whole cours of defence which wil not haue so much as a peeld ceremony remoued for the abuse Vnto the reason I alledged why the word Councel in S. Mathew is taken for the Eldership of the church he answereth nothing wherunto ad that in other places of the new Testament where it is oft mentioned it is alwaies so taken The testimonies he citeth are partly to no purpose partly before confessed of me This is a wonderful bouldnes that yow dare say yea and glory in yt that S. Paul kept an other order of excommunication then our Sau. Christ commanded considering that he autoriseth his doeinges in the church of Corinth with this that he gaue that vuhich he receiued who also in this very particular case of the incestuous man alledgeth the autoritie of our Sauiour Christ. That owt of M. Caluin maketh against him manifestly For vpon the places boeth of S. Mathew and Paul he sheweth that the church hath interest in the excommunication onely he noteth that our Sa. Christ applied his form of speach to the estate of the church then which is nothing to our purpose After vpon confidence of M. Caluins autority onely he triumpheth vpon the interpretation I browght of the purging of leuain noting the thrusting ovut of the incestuous person which notwithstāding is proued for as much as that vers is the conclusion of that before where by leuain cā not be denied but the incestuous person is noted vnles we wil say that the Apostle concluded another thing then that which he had before mentioned M Beza also comming after M. Caluin and not easely dissenting from him foloweth the same sens which I haue doen So that althowgh yow take your pleasure of me yet yow should not ride so hard vpon him But mark a litle how vnable your answers be to vphould such a confident insultation For where this here spoken by a borowed speach is playnly vttered yow are compelled to expoūd these wordes of the Apostle take avuay the vuicked man amongest yovu that is shun his cōpany which is not onely a wresting of words but also vnsitting to the cōparisō with the leuained bread which S. Paule vseth to
was ready to help if the other would thereto agree which may better appear by that epistle where the D. saith he can finde nothing of this matter which notwithstanding is most pregnant For Cyprian sheweth there how he trauailed greatly vuith his church to receiue those vuhich hauing fallen avuay repented them declaring thereby that it was not in him alone In the end althowgh he hath vsed such bouldnes as I am ashamed to giue the proper name of yet he feareth not to say that I haue abused the reader which let him vnderstand as touching three of the middle places to be spoken as wel against M. Caluin as me who vseth them to condemn the sole excommunication of the Bishop To the places owt of Augustin noting that he vuould haue this discipline ceas if the more part be infected vuhereby I gathered that he vuas of iudgment that the consent of the church vuas to be required he answereth that those sayinges are to be vnderstanded not of any right they had of excommunication but of the mislikyng of the fact for which the Bishop doeth excommunicate But where hath he in Augustin that interpretation more then I haue that which I set down I am wel assured that Augustins wordes are as fauorable to mine as to his and so much the more fauorable as the schism which he would haue by this meanes auoided riseth soner when one is excommunicate of whome they haue giuen the Bishop to vnderstand that they would not haue hym thrown owt then when no such iudgment hath passed from them For then the vngodly oppose thē selues not onely because they would haue the faut wherwith they them selues be infected vnpunished but also because they wil auow their own sentence Nether did I propound that sentence for Augustins wordes as he surmiseth but as that which I gathered of them As for the medicin which he pretendeth to giue that the people retain sinnes when they separate them selues from the company of the excommunicate it is giuen to him that is not sik For althowgh that may by a borowed speach be so called wherby the effect is put for the cause yet that Augustin meant not that onely it is manifest in that he attributeth vnto the church helping of the Bishop yea and the very word of accursing which he vseth for excommunicating so that the D. hath corrupted the minde of Augustin For Augustin putteth first of al the churches helping of the Bishop in excommunicating as one seueral thing and then the auoiding of his company for another which he expoundeth as al one but if he wil depart from the vsual speach he must shew vs some good autority wherby it may appear that we must needes wring Augustins wordes to that sens which I am assured he can not doe especially when Ierome who liued in the same age with Augustin affirmeth that togither with the Bishop the Elders in other censures of the church and the church yt self haue interest in the excommunication whereupon may appear that my interpretation of the places browght ether before or now towching the Bishop excommunicating vuhich is that he vuas the cheif in the action and had the publishing of the sentence and not the vuhole right of excommunication is soūd and cōformable boeth to the holy scripture and practis of the elder and purer churches That the Canon of the coūcel of Sardis whereof the Answerer glorieth is to be vnderstanded not of the Bishop alone one profe is in the Elders ioynt gouernment with the Bishop generally in al matters which I haue before set down Another shal be that another Councel autoriseth the suspension which the Elders and Clerkes decree against the Bishop and that as yt saith by autority of aunciēt decrees The Councels therfore giuing the Elders remedy at home and with in them selues the rash excommunication which the Coūcel ascribeth vnto the Bishop must needes be vnderstood to haue bene doen by aduise of the Elders For otherwise if the Elders consented not vnto yt they had by the auncient decrees autority to deal with the Bishop thē selues withowt running ether to Metrapolitane or other Bishop yf this answer like him not let him if he had rather take that which M. Caluin giueth that the Bishops vuhen they excommunicated of them selues alone did it ambitiously cōtrary to the decrees of the godly Councels As for that yow be of iudgment that the Bishop may not excommunicate whom he listeth withowt profe c. and therto cite a long sentence owt of Augustin it is wel said but wherfore serueth this wel saying doe yow think the church much behoulding to yow for that which neuer any yet the Popes Cāonistes excepted which giue him absolute power to throw owt and take in whom he list durst deny here therfore yow run fairely but owt of the way altogither If I of the other side should herein set down the iudgment of Bucer Martyr Zuinglius and other godly writers of our age against the sole excommunication by the Bishop it would require a book by it self But as in a thing clear and plain I wil not weary the reader The two next diuisions as meer and oft repeted reproches I omit In the next he confesseth that Chauncelors c. owght not to medle with excommunication The ciuil separation from trafique c. cited owt of Gualter is nothing but a rouing For we meddle not here with ciuil punishment except he peraduenture be of his iudgment that the ecclesiastical discipline of excommunication may be taken owt of the church and this ciuil separation put in place if he be let him speak owt that we may hear him But because these kinde of allegations be daungerous and tend to the shaking of this institution of god and for that alowing sometyme of excommunication as of the institution of god at other some tymes he insinuateth that yt should not be exercised especially against the Prince and nobility leauing M. Gualter I wil take me to hym And to speak in a word of yt yt is nothing but a meer mockery of the lord and to offer hym self as a Baud to al maner of synnes in Princes Yf al were deliuered from this correction as M. Gualter pretendeth then yt were good reason that the Prince should also but to insinuat that others being subiect onely Princes should be exempted I fear commeth from a wors cause then from simple error For who could be ignorant that our S. Christ speaketh generally when he saith yf thy brother c. whereby he cōprehendeth al those that are members of one church and childrē of one heauenly father In which nōber the scripture reckeneth the kyng whilest in yt he is boeth called a brother and calleth his subiectes brethren or who could be ignorant that S. Paul subiecteth al vnto this order sauing those onely which are straūgers from the church So that to say that Princes are not subiect vnto
this order is al one as yf he should say that Princes pertain no to the kingdome of heauen are none of the church haue no part with Christ c. Thus ys boeth Christ robbed of his honor which in cōtempt of his order as thowgh yt were to base for Princes to goe vnder is hym self contemned and Princes defrauded of a singuler ayd of saluation and way to draw them to repentance when they throwgh the common corruption fal into such diseases against which this medicin was prepared Hether belongeth the practise of the church in this and such kinde of censures toward the Emperoures Philip Theodosius and Anastasius on the one side and the godly Emperoures submission thereunto on the other which yf he vpon confidence of M. Gualters autority dare cōdemn of pride in them which exercised those censures or of foly in the Emperours that submitted them selues not to charge hym with Master Nowels autority which saith that the Prince ovught paciently to abide excommunication at the Bishops handes what wil he answer to the example of Mary Moses syster and kyng Vzzias which were subiect to the same law of vncleānes by reason of the leprosy aswel as any of the common people For that the separation commanded in respect thereof was not onely a ciuil policy to kepe the whole from the sik but that there was therein vsed a part of Ecclesiastical discipline yt may appear for that the Priest had the knowledg of the cause the shutting them owt and receiuing them in and for that Azarias the Priest of the lord with other his Assistantes remoued the kyng owt of the temple for the which he is commended in the scripture And if yt had bene onely a ciuil separation yet when the Princes could not be exempted from yt for fear of a corporal infecting of their subiectes how much les owght they to be exempted from that separation which is instituted against the spiritual contagion that which he obiecteth of the drawing this spiritual sword at euery light or no occasion at al thereby to deliuer the Prince from subiection thereto ys vayn for yf they abuse this power the Price needeth not onely to cōtēn yt but also may punish the abusers of yt So that in this respect there is les cause why the Prince should shake of this yoke of Christ then others considering that he hath better remedy against the abuse of yt then others That cōtractes of mariadg appertain not vnto the iudgment of church officers it is manifest considering that it is partly oeconomical and belonging to the right of the parentes partly ciuil in respect that it was in tymes past concluded before the Magistrate For as for the blessing in the church it is no part of the contract but a thing annexed vnto yt which appeareth in that vpon the bare contract before the blessing the parties althowgh not to haue company one with another be man and wife and for that the breaker of that contract is taken for an adulterer wherevpon it foloweth that the iudgment of diuors being meerly publik must be the ciuil magistrates alone For matters of willes it appeareth that they belong vnto the Magistrate considering that they are occupied in the commodities of this life and towch the distribution of goodes or landes As for the An. reason that the Bishop hauing best knowledg in those thinges may best iudg in them it is a hook to get al into their own handes But I deny first that they haue or can by their calling haue best knowledg in such thinges considering that there be diuerse thinges in them which require other knowledg then of the law of god And the case is rare when the question is whether a legacy a contract or a diuors be according to the law of god or no at least which requireth any deep knowledg to dissolue it And if al that which may fal into these matters were to be decided by the law of god yet to sit as iudg in them requireth not onely knowledg but also a calling which Bishops can not haue for the causes aboue alledged Therefore it is manifest that herein the Bishops are vsurpers whereof also the D. may read M. Nowels iudgment that vuhoredomes adulteries slaunders subtraction of tithes cases testamentary c. vuhich Bishops sometyme meddle vuith are no more spiritual then are murthers theftes oppressions and other iniuries Nether wil it help him that they exercise al maner of iurisdiction in the Princes right For first it hath bene shewed that they owght to exercise no ciuil iurisdiction althowgh it were committed vnto them Then how cometh it to pas that in right of their bishoprik withowt further commission from the Prince they take vpon them these iudgmentes of whoredome diuorces c euen as they found them in tyme of popery And as for excommunication and other censures ecclesiastical if they exercise them in the Magistrates right it foloweth that boeth the magistrate may much more exercise them him self and appoint other then ministers to doe thē boeth which as they be absurd so are they ouerthrowen by the D. him self which thinketh it vnlawful for Chauncelors to excommunicate for that as I suppose they be no ministers In the next where the Chauncelors are charged to excommunicate and absolue for money also one man for another c. he saith it is the faut of the man and not of the law which if it were true yet it argueth the Bishops vnsufferable carelesnes of godes glorie whose institution is thus shamefully profaned and neglect of duty towardes the Prince whose subiectes are thus pilled And here it is not to be omitted that where the ecclesiastical cēsures in reformed churches are exercised withowt a penny charge vnto any person our churches partly by reason of the Archbis and Bishops and partly the Archdeacons officers and their hangons which by this meanes liue in al brauery and iolytie of life are sore wrung So that they are therby much les able to contribute to the necessary charges ether of releeuing their poor minister or susteyning the subsidies laid vpon them for defence of the realm Therfore if the Archbishops and Archdeacons wil needes take more vpon them then them selues be able to beweld at the least let them pay their seruantes wages and not thus burden the church But thus the reader may see how vnworthely the Archbishops Bishops and Archdeacons deal with the church which not content them selues to vse tyranny ouer yt and to take vpon them of their priuate autority which belongeth vnto other with them haue also brought it into bondage vnder their seruantes and seruātes seruātes I mean Chauncelors Comissaries c. The next I pas by In the next where I shew that the office of Chorepiscopus alledged for defence of the Chauncelers office vuas far another thing he saith that he onely alledged yt to proue that Bishops had their deputies ▪ which how
of the Emperour being moderator of the Councel beside that yt proueth not his cause considering that the Moderator had not al the autority it is vntrue and contrary to the practis of Councels in al tymes oneles by moderatorship he mean the appointing of the tyme of the Councels assembly and dismission the houers of their sitting the ciuil punishment of them which behaue them selues tumultuously or otherwise disorderly If he doe it is that which we willingly graunt but which maketh nothing for this purpose To that alledged owt of Ambrose vuho refused to haue a church matter before the Emperour Valentinian first he answereth that he was young as thowgh his tender yeares could diminish his right or that a Prince of 18 or 20 yeares ould had not as ample autority as one of 40. Secondly that he was not baptized which was not for that he refused baptim but because the maner then was not to baptiz before the hower of death was supposed to approch For the Arians them selues doe not pretend any enmity or refusal of baptim And howsoeuer some haue alledged yt yow might haue bene ashamed to alledg yt which before affirmed that Ambrose was meet to be chosen Bishop notwithstāding that he were not baptized The last exception is that he was an Arian heretik so that no equal iudgment was to be hoped for at his hand which is no sufficient answer considering that Ambrose denieth the Emperour the determination of the cause not for that he was a wicked Emperour but because it was not red in scripture nor heard of before that any Emperour and therfore nether godly nor vngodly was Iudg ouer a Bishop in a cause of faith which was not his iudgment onely but the iudgment of other Bishops round abowt Therefore it is vntru that Ambrose stayed him self chiefly of a priuiledg graunted by Theodosius not onely for that it was not lawful for Theodosius to haue passed the right of the ciuil Magistrate to the Bishops but because Ambrose fetched his defence from the scripture and auncienter tymes then was Theodosius priuiledg Beside that if Theodosius had graunted that to the Bishops which belonged vnto hym his heir could be no more bound by his graunt herein then the committing of ciuil iudgmentes vnto them should haue hindred him to cal them bak again into his own hand So that when Valentinian had declared that he would haue the hearing of the matter hym self that could not be any iust defence Moreouer if it belong vnto the ciuil Magistrate to iudg in causes ecclesiastical no abuse or disorder of his can depriue hym of yt so long as he remayneth in the ful estate of a Prince no more then men can take away from him the right of iudgment in ciuil causes and erect another court against his because he peruerteth iudgment ether by giftes or fauour Therefore if it be true that the D. houldeth that this right belongeth to Cesar Ambrose owght to haue appeared and to haue waited what the Emperours iudgment would haue bene If it had bene against the truth then to haue answered as the Apostles to the Councel that he vuould rather obey god then man. This may yet better appear for that if the Emperour had sent for Ambrose and giuen hym summonce to shew what was his iudgment withowt pretending to be Iudg in the cause Ambrose could not haue refused yt althowgh the Emperour would after haue said that he was an heretik Last of al thys being obiected by Harding that there is the same right of a Christiā Prince and of a Tyrā is not denied of the Bishop of Sarisbury For the ordinance of god is one euen as there is the same right of a heathen master husband and father ouer a Christian seruant Son and wife as if they were Christian And yt was an error against which the Apostles labored that priuate men might deny vnto Princes and other their superiors which did not their duties thinges which otherwise were due vnto thē Nether owght the D. more to charge me with this saying because Harding hath yt then I charge hym with his opiniō of the same kinde in this behalf with Pigghius who teacheth another right of a Christian and of a profane Magistrate The relation of Athanasius matter to the Emperour was as may appear because the moste part of the Bishops were he retikes ether Coluthans Arians or Miletians That owt of Augustin demaunding why the Donatistes made the Emperour Iudg if it were not lawful for him to giue sentence in a matter of Religion was onely to beat them with their own rod not that Augustin alowed their fact in making the Emperour their Iudg. which is manifest in other places where he doeth precisely reproue them for it and cast yt in their teeth that they preferred the Emperours iudgment vnto the Bishops when notwithstanding the Emperour gaue the same iudgment which the Bishops did and was for his godlines the perl of al Emperours Vuherein it is also to be obserued that Augustin in another place saith that the Emperour not daring to iudg of the Bishops cause committed yt vnto the Bishops and that he did not once but twise Likewise that he was driuen by the Donatistes importunity which made no end of appealing vnto hym to giue sentēce in that matter for the which also he vuas to craue pardō of the Bishopes Hetherto maketh singulerly that Augustin putteth a playn distinction betwene these iudgmentes saying of the Donatistes which of their priuate autority russhed vpō the catholiks that yt vuas nether by ecclesiastical lavu nor by the kings lavu which were ridiculous if as the D. saith the ecclesiastical lawes were also the kings lawes That owt of Sozom. 4. lib. 16 owght not to haue bene alledged considering that boeth the Emperour Constantius which required to haue the ending of the matter and the moste of the Bishops in the Councel of Syrm which agreed vnto his request were infected with Arianism Likewise that owt of Socrates 5 book cap. 10 is idle seing nothing is doen there by Theodosius which is not confessed to belong vnto the Magistrate The next is answered before Vuhere I pressed him with his own wordes affirming that the church hath autority to make ceremonies he answereth that he included the Prince as cheif gouernour of the church which is not sufficient For ether the Prince alone must be the church or els one of his sentences goeth to ground ether that which saith that the church hath autority or this affirming that the Prince hath al the autority to make ceremonies I alledged for further answer against his shameful slaunders of vs as if we were ioyned with the papistes in this cause as foloweth First that the papistes exempt their Priestes from the punishment of the ciuil Magistrate vuhich vue doe not whereto he answereth that Harding and Saunders doe as much which is vtterly vntrw For by the wordes
they may be otherwise quieted when they be tawght not to think that the working of assurance in their heartes is so tyed vnto the sacrameÌ„tes that withowt them the lord nether wil nor can comfort them but rather to consider that euen as when the Iues were depriued of the sacrament of the Sanctuary the lord promised that he hym self would be for a Sanctuary vnto them and supply the want thereof euen so he wil not be wanting vnto them which hauing a desire to be partakers of yt can not so conueniently be receiued thereunto putting them also in remembrance of the horrible abominations of priuate mas which came first in by occasion of these priuate communions as they are called Here let the reader take heed of an error which the D. hath let fal that we haue remission of synnes by communication vnto this Sacrament whereas remission of synnes receiued by faith alone and sealed vp in baptim must be had before we come to the Communion To the Councel vuhich forbiddeth the communion in priuate hovuses he answereth that yt meaneth vsually for that the vse was such in some places which is said withowt al proof or likelihood of truth whereby for a shift he sticketh not to slaunder whole auncient churches notwithstanding that he pretendeth sometyme such reuerence to one onely man as the reader before hath seen Then he opposeth the Nicen Councel which is that I preuented in the 2 diuision and in the fift shewed to make against hym After folow M. Bucers and Martyrs notes which if they weâ—e theirs and had bene for further assurance thereof tawght by them to look vpon the Son yet being the testimonies of men how learned and godly soeuer they are subiect to examination I wil not deny but they might be of that iudgment considering that I see M. Caluin to haue bene of the same which I therefore let the reader vnderstand that he may be diligenter in the examination of the reasons against yt and not to descend into our iudgment onles he be compelled by the matter yt self Althowgh yt is not ours alone but as he hath heard of others yea of diuers reformed churches where this is not admitted putting hym also in minde of boeth M. Caluins and Martyrs iudgmentes in the matter of Baptim that yt owght not to be in a priuate how 's nor withowt a sermon desiring hym further to consider whether certein reasons making against the one doe not strike vpon the other And in deed as in my iudgment ys is vnmeet to administer ether of the sacramentes in priuate howses so that is yet les tollerable in the holy supper which hath a special mark and representation of brotherly communion more then Baptim Here I pas by as a thing political rather then perteining to conscience the skare that may come by these priuate communions when the siknes as often commeth to pas is contagious As for that of Musculus yt is idle seing his approbation of yt is not made to appear and no man denieth but they that vsed yt in tymes past did yt for a good end THE FOVRTH CHAPTER OF this Tractate tovuching the ceremonies in Baptim pag. 607 of the D. book NOw follow the corruptioÌ„s in the sacrameÌ„ts apart and first of those in Baptim where in mayntenaÌ„ce of the questions ministred to young infantes which can not answer he would make vs beleue that the catholik writers as yt were the Gouldsmithes were in dout whether the Denis which he browght were good money or no whereas the contrariety in opinions ys betwene the Papistes and Protestantes His euidence to proue hym legitimat because these bookes be very auncient implieth that a number of horrible abuses are as auncient And therefore in sted of saying some falshood might be thrust in he should haue said some truth might be thrust in to giue credit to the rest considering that the purenes of the tong which he wrote in being set apart there are few thinges worthy ether of S. Pauls Scholer or of the Bishop of AtheÌ„s His defence by the Bishop of Sarisbury is answered The not answering also of my reply against Denis vnder pretence of a flout is before noted To the reasons against Augustines kinde of speaking he can answer nothing onely he mispendeth the tyme in prouing that baptim is the seal of faith which none denieth but that yt is called faith which he owght to haue proued he could not finde a word For that also that Augustin maketh for the interrogatories ministred to infantes beside strong affirmations he can bring nothing As for that alledged by me yt is most manifest in another place where Augustin sheweth yt to haue bene the vse that the minister asked of the parentes vuhether the childe beleued they ansvuering that yt did so that althowgh this were an abuse yet yt is much different from the maner which we haue receyued from the papistes and more simple then yt In the next diuision he answereth nothing to the purpose nor in the next to yt sauing onely a vayn cauil for whereas I meant the true faith he flyeth to that of Simon Magus which was counterfait In the next where yt was alledged that al ovught to be doen simply and playnly in the church he can answer nothing onely yt may serue for a colorable cavil that as the book wil haue the infantes promise by the godfathers so saith he the Adm. wil haue infantes desire by their parentes For albeit the Adm. wordes might haue bene warelier set yet it is but a hauking after syllables when their meaning is playn that there owght to be no such strange and vnwonted kinde of speaches in the common seruice I pas by Musculus autority flat far vs but M. Bucers wherewith the D. often presseth vs so sore must not be forgotteÌ„ which doeth precisely finde faut with our seruice book herein His second chapter requireth no answer For as for his exception that we alow of godfathers deuised by the Pope yt is answered beside that yt was not by his own account deuised by a Bishop of Rome which was Antichrist The contrariety with my self in that page 18 I denying that the vsage of a thing by the whole church can giue yt such autority as that yt may not be abrogated yet here alow of godfathers as of an indifferent ceremony considering that the churches haue generally receiued yt is vnworthy of answer For there is great difference in allowing the churchis autority absolutely or withowt condition and in reuerencing her autority in an indifferent matter in yt self and towching the vse profitable when yt is vsed accordingly so that a blinde man might see how I might iustly improue the first and approue the last In the there first diuisions of his second chapter pag. 614 there is no answer worthy the reply Vuhere he would prefer crossing before milk in baptim he doeth yt contrary to Tertullians autority
elder church was such 109 110. whether refer that where they meddled with ether the administration of the word or Sacraments they did yt by a nw cōmission and not by vertu of the Deaconship 109. Also of the godly learned of our age M. Bucer Caluin Martyr Beza 99 109 113. The Deaconship owght to be in euery Church 113 114. Likewise vnder a Christian Magistrate 100 111 112 113. Tractate the eleuenth page 116. Of the corruptions in doctrine about the holy Sacraments the first chapter whereof is against the sacriledg of priuate persons wemen especially in administring baptim because Yt confirmeth the error of the condēnatiō of thē which dy withowt baptim 133. when as the want of baptim oneles yt be with neglect or cōtemt is not onely no probable sign of condemnation or cause why we are no Christians but also is in no respect praeiudicial and where that neglect or cōtemt is which can be none when yt is with al conuenient speed browght to be baptized by the publik minister in the congregation yt returneth vpon the parents onely 124 125 134 135. Yt is void which is so ministred 134. because the washing from our synnes coming onely frō our Sa. Christ to haue confirmation of our faith by this sacramēt yt is required that yt be ministred by hym whome he hath set in his place 138 139. As the princis seal stollen and set to by one to whome yt belongeth not bringeth no security c. 139. whether refer that yt is more lawfully administred by a minister which is an heretik then by a priuate person which is a catholik 131. Also that not to haue he rein chois of hym that administreth the sacrament approcheth to the dotage of the papists in the Shepards consecration 138. Hether refer that the keping of the wordes I baptiz the in the name c. are not onely of the substance of baptim 136 137 138. As he that propoundeth the word withowt vocation preacheth not 141 142. As he that taketh part of the wordes of the scripture passing by another part propoundeth not the scripture but a devise of his own brain 141. As the communicatiō in bread withowt the cup is no supper of the lord 140. As a priuate man which killing a murtherer executeth no iustice but is hym self a murtherer 139. As the seal of the same matter and figure with the Princis withowt his autoritie is none of his 139. God hath instituted that those onely should baptiz which haue that wemen can not vocation to preach 116 117. Hether refer the making of the Ark 117 118. Also of S. Paul which hauing commission to preach as a thing annexed to preaching administred baptim 118 119. further that otherwise there should be no commandement in the scripture to hinder that wemen may not aswel be taken to the ordinary administration of the sacramentes as men 118 119. Hether also refer that alledged of the wemens preaching 122 123. of Pauls baptizing and others at the commandement of Peter withowt a calling 119 120 121. Origins example 130 131. None may take honor vnto hym self but he that is called as was Aron 128. No not so much as in priuate howses althowgh they may teach privately 124. Nor in the tyme of the supposed necessity 128 129 130 132. Hether refer that of Sephora 126 127 The iudgmēt of the godly learned boeth aūciēt and of our tyme Coūcel of Carthage 132 Cyprian Chrysostome 130 Caluin 117 Bullinger 133 Beza 130. Infantes of boeth parents Papists owght not to be baptized 142. The second chapter of the corruptions in the sacrament of the holy supper 144. Against the receiuing by two or three with vs 144 145 146. Knowen papists not to be admitted much les comppelled to the supper 147 148. Examination of those whose knowledg in the principal points of religion is douted of is commanded in the scriptures 148 149 150. The tvuelfth Tractate page 151. The administration of the church matters vnder a Christian Magistrate doeth ordinarily and principally belong vnto the church officers because By the word of god the matters perteining vnto god are committed vnto the Priests and Leuites the matters perteining vnto the common wealth being committed to Ciuil persons 152 153 154. Nether maketh yt against this that certein Leuites handled common wealth matters 154 or that certein kinges determined of church matters 166 The church gouernours are by calling the fittest to determinyn of them 158 159. whether refer that the scripture requireth not of the ciuil magistrate that he should be able to conuince an heretik The church lawes are called the Bishops and not the Emperours decrees 155 156. Althowgh yt belong vnto the Magistrate to make lawes for a Christian common wealth yet yt foloweth not thereof that he may make lawes for the church the distinction of the church and common wealth remaining euen vnder a Christian magistrate pa. 151 152. Althowgh in confused tymes yet not in wel ordered 165 166. Yt is one thing to make lawes for the church another thing to put in execution the lawes alredy made whether deuine or ecclesiastical so that althowgh the later belōg vnto the Magistrate yet thereof foloweth not that the former doeth so 153 156 161. The danger of the Ministers erring in the determination of these matters letteth not this right of theirs 167. Nor that the papists hould some point herein with vs from whome notwithstanding euen in this cause we differ manifoldly 164 165 166 167. The learnedest and godliest boeth ould and nw confirm yt Constantine the great 157 163 Hillary 155 156 Ambrose 156 161 and other bishops of his tyme 162 Augustine 163 Bucer Caluin Beza 168 the Bishop of Salisbury 159 162 Nowel 159 euen the D. hym self 164 The thirtinth Tractate Of the indifferent ceremonyes the frute and necessitie whereof is shewed 171. The former part whereof is of the ceremonies in general The first chapter of which former part is that the church of Christ owght not to be like in ceremonies vnto the synagog of Antichrist because The Apostles conformed the Gentiles to the lwes not contrariwise 172 The lord seuered his people from prophane nations in thinges otherwise indifferent 172 Especially from those with whose corruptions in religiō they were entangled and with whome they lyued and had occasiō of conuersation in which respect yt is les danger for vs to be like in this point vnto the Turkes thē vnto the Papistes 172 173 174. The conformitye offendeth the papistes 177 namely in that they take occasion of speaking euil of our religion as if it yt could not stād withowt the ayd of their ceremonies 178 179. Also that thereby they conceyue hope of bringing in again their other corruptions whereby they hardē thē selues in their error likewise that they ascribe holynes to them 79 180. whether refer that yt is no sufficient exception that the people be warned of the abvse by preaching 177 178. Yt bringeth greif of mynde to many that are godly myneded and to the weaker sort occasion of a moste dangerous fal 180. Yt aedifieth not 180 181. The popish ceremonies haue pomp annexed 180 181. Euen as to establish the doctrine and discipline of the gospel the Antichristian must be removed so to remedy the infection crept in by the ceremonies they also owght to be removed 174. The godly and learned boeth ould and of our tyme confirm yt The councel of Laodicea of Braccara 176 177. Tertulliā 175. Constātine the great 175 176. The Bishop of Salesbury 177. Nether is the decree of any church of that autority as to binde vs that euen in the matter of ceremonies her iudgmēt should not be examined by the word of god The second Chapter Of the first part of this tractate that the churches owght to be like one to another in ceremonies pag. 142. As the churches in the Apostles times and after in the primitive church 142. As the children and seruantes of noble men goe in one liuery 142. How this may be doen 142 143. Althowgh the churches owght not to fal owt abowt yt nor men make a departure from the church for want hereof yet the church to the end she may correct yt owght to be tould of her faut in this behalf p. 143 144. The third chapter That the seruice book after a sort mainteineth an vnpreaching ministery 184. Partly throwgh the lenght of prayers 184 185. But especially in contenting yt self with a Mynister which can doe no more thē a childe of ten yeares ould 185. Or els the Bishop ys yet more gilty which maketh such Ministers withowt warrant ether of god or man ib. The fourth chapter That the frute that might be is not receiued p. 186 Throwgh the change of the place and gestures of the minister which hinder the vnderstanding of the people renw the leuitical Priesthood is vncomely ād according to M. Bucer boeth absurd and munkish page 186 187. That the order hereof is dangerously left in the Bishops discretion 187. The second part Of this Tractate of the particuler fautes in our ceremonies The first part Of the first chapter thereof is of abrogating the feastes of the Natiuitie Easter and whitsonday pa. 188. For the superstition crept into mēs myndes of them especially when they are not necessary pa. 185 the superstition also being not so wel remedied by preaching onely 189. They restrain the benefites of Christ vnto the tyme they are houlden in pa. 190. In appointing of holy dayes regard must be had not onely to the riche which may withowt their hinderance abstein from labor but vnto the poorest 192 193. The church may appoint standing tymes for the publik seruice of god and vpon extraordinary causes whole holy dayes yet not therefore ordinarily command suche feastes 191 192. As ordinarily yt can not be ordeyned that men should work the dayes which god hath commanded to rest in so ordinarily yt should not be forbidden to labor in those dayes which god hath licensed to work in 193. The elder church left the feastes free 189 198. The second part Of the first chapter against Saintes dayes pag. 194.
the excommunicate vuhich remayn obstinate The eightinth is ansvuered 64 65. The ninetinth 64 c. The tvuentith 164 165 166 167. For ansvuer vnto the one and tvuētith I refer my self partly to that I haue ansvuered in the former part partly to the examination of the D. censures In the second Table For the 38 and 39 I refer my self 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 smal vnderstand the great running letter Correct the number of the leaf wich is marked beneth with the letter N immediately folowing the number 96. AGAINST CIVIL OFFICES IN ECCLESIASTICAL PERSONS TRActate VII and 23 according to the Doctor HAving in the last Tractate of the former part shewed the vnlawful dominion of certein of our church officers ouer the whole church and especially over their fellow Ministers yt seemeth good to ioyn this next therevnto For thereby shal boeth better appear how vnsufferable this disorder is which ouerspreadeth boeth church and common wealth and the gouernment by the Eldership the tractate whereof shal follow immediatly in yt self iust shal by comparison with this church lordship be more iustified That the moste of the places quoted by the Admonit are vsed of vuriters of that excellency vuith vuhome the D. is not vuorthy to be named the same day hath and further wil appear His exception that by this they are lifted vp aboue god himself is vain For beside that it is a kinde of speach vsed of the best autors to note a great inequalitie he is les worth then I prised him at if he think that he is worthy to be named the same day that god him self is For if he wil so seruilely cleau vnto wordes yet the question is whether he be vuorthy to be named not as he writeth whether he may be named The place of S. Luke is vnderstanded properly of the Ministers of the word and not of al Christians which is manifest for that our Sauiour Christ biddeth him that would haue goen bak for burial of his father to preach the Kingdome of heauen which he neuer commanded to al Christians so that his meaning is of the calling vnto the ministery and not of the calling to eternal life That such ciuil offices as he alloweth in Ecelesiastical persons are helpes for them to doe their duties repeted seuen times is a demaunding of that in question For where after he saith he hath declared yt he saith vntruly he hath onely nakedly affirmed yt which how vntrw it is shal after also appear My reply is that our Sauiour Christes vocation vuas to be a Minister of the gospel but he refused ciuil iudgment because of his vocation therfore he refused it because he vuas a Minister of the gospel whervpon also followeth that Bishops being Ministers of the gospel owght not to receiue any such power See now how iustly he complaineth that I answer not to that he said that Christs refusal in the partition of the inheritans perteyneth no more to Bishops then to Kinges no mervail also if it require further answer it was so wel garded seing his reason ys because the doeinges of Christ be a patern for al Christians then which there can be nothing more absurd For althowgh al his doeinges be instruction to al Christians yet that they are a patern to them al draweth with it that al may preach that none may giue iudgment in civil causes and a number more horrible confusions yt being also a fals ground of popery wherby they would establish the lenton fast and other such corruptions Vvhere also he would giue to vnderstand that our Sa. Christ did refuse this not as a Minister of the gospel but as Redemer he renteth a sunder thinges which can not be separated For one part of his redemership standeth in that he was giuen of god vnto vs for a teacher so that if he would haue answered any thing in this kinde he must haue said that he refused to iudg of ciuil causes not as a Minister of the word but as a Priest or King whereof also the last he in part setteth down saying he refused yt to declare that his Kingdome was not earthly but heauenly as if it were not as necessary for hym to refuse it in respect of his Doctorship that he might declare likewise that his doctrine was not of earthly thinges but of heauenly and consequently as convenient in the same respect for the Ministers to abstein from it But the further confutation of this the reader shal take from thence where is shewed that our Sa. Christ by his own example calleth the Apostels and in them al the Ministers of the word from al pomp and dominion and therfore from these ciuil offices whervnto pomp and dominion are annexed Then he answereth that no man giueth the Bishops autority to iudg in matters of inheritans whereas our Sa. Christ refused it not because he was no Iudg of that cause but simply because he was no ciuil Iudg refusing vpon the same ground to giue sentence of the harlot The Ministers for sooth may not medle with ciuil occupations but with ciuil offices and in ciuil offices not with them of no countenance as the Iailers office c but with those of estate and amongest those of estate not with matters of inheritance but with criminal causes Thus yow take your self licence to say al thinges and to shew none But to leau the rest vnto an other place let the D. shew some reason why the Minister should rather sit in iudgmēt of criminal causes then in pleas of inheritans they boeth belong to the Magistrate alike yf he owght to accept one being committed vnto hym by the Magistrate why not also the other especially when as by criminal causes requiring more search and greater diligence then the other there must needes be greater hinderance from his ministery As for that he saith those are to be decided by law and haue other Iudges appointed for them the criminal causes are likewise And if there were no other Iudges appointed for them yet whether there owght to be is the question so that the D. answer is here an open demaund of the question Vvhere also owt of M. Caluin he alledgeth Barnard that the Ministers power is in crimes it is a shameful abusing of boeth Calvin and Barnard for they speak there of rebuking and punishing syn by ecclesiastical censures which is manifest in that they convey the title of this power to the Minister by the Keies deliuered vnto S. Peter now the very
yet more straunge in the practise by executing the office of a ciuil Iudg. For tel me I pray yow how the care yow owght to haue of the ciuil causes before yow come to iudgment the tyme to be informed of them on boeth sides the examining of witnesses the consultation to what law or to what braunch of the law the crime should be reduced tel me I say how doeth it make yow fitter to execute your ministery then if yow had bestowed that tyme in studie of the word of god if yow say that by the knowlegd of these thinges yow may doe your ministery the better so may yow by knowledg of the Potters the Vueuers the Carpenters occupation from which similitudes being taken the doctrine is deeplier imprinted as we see to haue bene doen by the Prophetes and Apostles But as it is not meet that because the knowledg of these thinges profiteth that therfore Ministers may exercise these craftes no more foloweth it that because the knowledg of ciuil iudgmentes profiteth for the better doeing of the ministery therfore a Minister should exercise them Now if M. Caluin answering the Papistes which onely say that the exercise of this ciuil povuer did not much hynder their spiritual ministery called their answer babling I leaue it to yow to consider how sharply he would haue censured this bouldnes of yours if he had met with al. As towching that which I said of bodily occupations fitter vnto the estate of a Minister then these ciuil offices it may appear for that they are doen withowt pomp or shew which accompaniyng the ciuil offices haue bene shewed to be vnlawful for the estate of a Minister and that glittering shewes and pomp in the Ministers are hinderances to their ministery may further appear by that S. Paul did forbear from al stately wisdom and brauery of wordes to this end that the vertue of the spirite of god in the simplicity of the ministery might shew it self more cleerly when therfore the ey seing this pomp is as wel affected with it as where the ear heareth it and carieth it to the minde as sone and in the common people especially sooner by the same reason that the one the other also must hinder the cours of the gospel Herevpon no dowt Ambrose saith that vuorldly gouernment is the vueaknning of the Priest alluding vnto the Apostles saying that he vuas then strong vuhen he vuas vueak Further when the minde is weried and that he vnbending it wil giue it rest for a tyme it is more apt for him to exercise him self ether in planting or setting somewhat in garden or orchyard by way of recreation then in shooting as it were cōtinually in yt in the end to break yt and to make it vnprofitable ether for the ciuil or ecclesiastical estate And I meruail what steel the edges of their wittes be of which wil not be turned when they cut boeth so deep and in so hard matters whereas it is knowen that men of counsail haue found in the office of a Iustice of peace or Quorum so much to doe that they haue had scarce tyme enowgh to doe the office of a father of a houshould in their priuate families And it must take vp so much more tyme in the Bishops then in them as they for want of being nourished in the knowledg of the lawes and customes of the realm are more vnready in such cases then the nobilitye commonly is onles they wil sit vpon the bench like idols nodding rather to the pleasures of others then vpon any grounded knowledg giuing iudgment them selues His reason of the difference that the Minister can not commit his power to whome he list but that the Prince may is I fear me an endeuour of to open flattery at the least it is to losely spoken For althowgh there be greater libertie in the one then in the other yet the Prince can not commit his power to whome he listeth but is bound first to chuse those which fear the lord then those which are best able to execute yt to the glorie of god and commodity of the subiectes and therefore not the Ministers which haue already as much as they can turn them to when they doe their most Beside that he can not thus escape For if the Prince wil accept the ministery of the Bishops hand then his difference falleth to the ground and thē by his saying the Prince may wel preach as the Bishop bear ciuil office As for his example of Samuel which did Saules office in slaying Agag when as Saul might not doe Samueles in sacrifising it maketh nothing for him For Samuel did it not by Sauls autority but by an extraordinary calling from god so that if this example proue that ecclesiastical persons may bear ciuil offices it proueth that they may doe it withowt any commaundement of the Prince I pas by that it was not Samuels office to sacrifice as the D. imagineth he being not of the race of Aharō to whome onely that apperteyned but a simple Leuite so that where it is said that he sacrificed ether it must be vnderstood that he procured the sacrifice to be made or els that it was doen by an extraordinary calling contrary to the rule that the lord had giuē of offering sacrifices To that I ask vuhy if the Minister be helped by exercising a ciuil office in his ovun person the Magistrate should not be helped by exercising likevuise an ecclesiastical he answereth the Magistrate may doe by corporal punishment which the Minister cā not doe by ecclesiastical so may the Minister doe by ecclesiastic which the Magistrate cā not doe by corporal And this in deed is the ordinance of god that euery one should doe that which properly belongeth vnto him and not that one should doe al. where he addeth that the Magistrate may bridle the most vnruliest where the greatest censures of the church few now a dayes doe regard verely it is no mervail thowgh they be contemned being exercised as they are by those to whom it apperteyneth not and for euery trifling and three halfpenny matter where if being duly executed they be contemned the Magistrate beareth the sword to punish that contempt But the D. would haue the Minister haue that sword in his hand that beside the sentence of excōmunicatiō he might haue also the ciuil sword wherby he might strike a further fear of him self into the peoples hartes In deed thus is fear which the Apostle most properly giueth vnto the ciuil Magistrate because of the sword which he beareth translated vnto the Ministers And thus it commeth to pas that they hauing boeth ciuil and ecclesiastical vengeance in their handes make them selues more terrible vnto the people then the Magistrate him self which hath but the ciuil sword onely Vuhereby hath growen and if it be not in tyme preuented wil grow contempt of Magistrates and other inconueniences wherwith Princes them selues hauing bene before beaten owght so much the
Epiphanius serue not his turn For nether is it said whether they medled with ciuil affaires before their bishoprik or in yt and if it were considering there is no approbation of their doeing but onely a bare telling that such a thing they did it can not help him For it is one thing to say they were commended for dexterity in such matters and another to say that they did it in dutie and wel euen as if the ciuil officer taking the pulpit and speaking fitly of a text a man might giue him the commendation of dexteritie in handling the text and withal condemn him for doeing it withowt calling Hether perteineth that which he alledgeth in another place of Letoius a Bishop which burned Monasteries but by what autority appeareth not beside that his act seemeth otherwise to haue no ground For if it had any good issw it was more by hap then by good konning The like and vpon like zeal was doen by one Audas a Persian Bishop that burnt an Idoles Temple which act gaue occasion of greuous persecution whereby may appear that Bishops went some tyme beyond their limites and did thinges permitted vnto them nether of god nor man. Of our age he citeth witnesses M. Cranmer Ridly Hoper and in another place Brentius for Brentius seing he hath no reason let him haue that credit which so smale a friend of sincerity deserueth especially against the consent of so many better then he for the other he maketh it not to appear that they were of that iudgment And of M. Hooper it is manifest that he did flatly condemn it which sheweth that the Bishops for the space of 400 yeares after the Apostles althovugh they vuere more able thē ours did meddle vuith no ciuil affaires where he sharply taūteth our Bishop which meddleth with boeth offices when one is more then he is able vuith al his diligence to discharge and impossible that he should doe boeth and that if the Magistrate vuil employ a Bishop in ciuil affaires he ovught to discharge him of his Ministery Yf M. Cranmer and Ridley did exercise boeth that is to be ascribed to the tyme wherein the Sun of the gospel being but lately risen in our climate al the cloudes which popery had ouercast our land with could not be so quikly put to flight Seing therefore the Ministers office is onely in thinges that pertayn to god which for a degree of excellency that they haue in promoting our saluation more then other the holy gost opposeth vnto the Princes and common wealth affaires seing also it is of greater weight then the strongest bak can bear of wider compas then the largest handes can faddam a soldiarfare that wil be onely attended vpon seing also it tendeth to the destruction of the body when one membre encrocheth vpon the office of another and that the ciuil Magistrate may by the same right invade the office of the Minister as he the office of the ciuil Magistrate seing further our Sauiour Christ hauing the spirit withowt measure refused as a thing vnmete for his ministery the office of a Iudg seing also the Apostles indued with such glorious giftes as are not now to be looked for gaue ouer the office of the Deaconship as that which they were not with the Ministery of the word able to exercise and seing for the burden thereof it was easier then the ciuil charge which the Bishops take vpō them and for the kinde of Ministery more agreable seing also the examples in the Scripture of thē which haue born boeth the charges are ether before this order was established of god or being sithens were extraordinary last of al seing this mingling of the estates is contrary to the practise of the elder church vttered boeth in Councels and fathers contrary also to the practise and iudgment of the godly learnedest of our tyme I conclude that it is vnlawful in an established estate of the church that a Minister of the church should bear ciuil office And thus much against the Ministers which haue one foot in the church and an other in the common wealth Now to the treatise of the Eldership for the cause before assigned THAT THE CHVRCH GOVERNMENT BY AN ELDERSHIP IN Euery 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 Oratour ful of wordes that he would make owtcries to get an appetite to drink may be feared somewhat otherwise in the D. who giueth suspition that he hath forced his pen to write not to get but to quench if it might be the thirst of honour And verely if this order of Eldership had not strenght to stand by our defence yet the vertw of it might easely appear in that yt so amazeth and astonieth the aduersary as if he had bene stricken with a thunderbolt from heauen so that beside a multitude of wordes wherwith by oppressing the reader he might make some shew of answer there wil be litle found that can of right chalendg a reply Howbeit to honor him with some answer leauing his disordered handling which I noted aswel for that his defence is fond as for that this is not the place to diduct that matter let vs see what he bringeth in this cause Against that I alledged owt of the Apostle The Elders vuhich rule vuel are vuorthy dubble honor especially vuhich labor in the vuord and doctrine to proue that there were Elders which assisted the teaching Ministers onely in the gouernment of the church he answereth first that the word Elder is the same commonly with Bishop or Pastor wherein partly he confuteth him self For if it be but commonly so taken and not alwaies then it may be taken otherwise in this place His first example likewise out of Peter 1. 5. is plain against him for thereby appeareth that Peter an Apostel and no Bishop is called Elder nether is there any word in that place wherby the exhortation to the Elders should not be applied as wel to the Elders which gouerned onely as to those which labored in the word also considering that the word of feeding respecteth not onely preaching but that gouernment also which is with owt preaching in which respect boeth in scripture and otherwise the ciuil Magistrate is said to feed And it is to great an ouersight to think that because al Bishops be Elders therefore al Elders are Bishops when as the name of Elder is common vnto al which haue gouernment of the church and most properly agreeth to those which haue the gouernment onely withowt further charge of teaching And the name is taken of the vsage vnder the law where they which had onely gouernment ether in church or common wealth were so called Secondly he saith that by those that gouerned and labored not in the word are vnderstanded those which ministred the sacramentes where to let pas that which hath and shal be after
should conclude that al haue power alike because Keis with power to lok and vnlok be giuen to al. For this manifest difference is in the maner of speach considering that Math. 16 he speaketh of one in the singuler nombre in Iohn 20 althowgh he speak in the plural yet he vnderstandeth yt distributiuely that ys that euery one of the Ministers binedeth and loseth by preaching But in S. Math. 18 those wordes being added to autorise the churchis excommunication which word church is a noun collectiue they can not be drawen to the particular person of the Minister Here also it is to be obserued that the D. hath quite ouerthrowen his difference of the Bishop and of another Minister in the matter of excommunication For if in S. Math. 16 and Iohn 20 togither with the preaching of the word is vnderstanded power to excommunicate al Ministers of the word hauing by those places autority to preach it must folow necessarily that they al haue power committed vnto them to excommunicate And so falleth his whole cause which is that by the word of god the Bishop onely hath the right of excommunication Vuhere to that of S. Paules excommunicating Alexander c I answered that one is said to doe alone that vuhich he vuas moderator of and vuherein he had assistāce he answereth that it is an imagined shift But now he knoweth at least if he wil not acknowledg it that it standeth of vnfallible reason and is confirmed with moste graue autority of learned men To that I answer towching the place of Titus that to auoid an heritik is not to excommunicate him but to troble him self no more vuith him he opposeth M. Caluins autoritie withowt any aid of reason wherein when I haue shewed the reason which led me so to expound the place let the reader doe as him thinketh good remembring that if he vnderstand it of excommunication yet it helpeth him not the same answer seruing which was giuen to the place of Timothe For so much then as the Apostle willeth that the Minister should avoid him as one vtterly peruerted and notwithstanding willeth otherwhere that the excommunicate should be houlden for a brother vntil such time as it appeareth how that medicine of excommunication wil work with him and for that also yt apperteineth vnto the Minister especially euen then priuately to cal vpon him when he is excommunicate it seemeth that this can not be vnderstanded of one to be excommunicated but of a desperate enemy whom excommunication hath not cured but rather is throwgh the poison in him hardened And hereof I haue the iudgment of Ireneus which saith that the fact of S. Iohn the Apostle which would not goe into the bathes where Cerinthus the heritik was nor once so much as speak vnto him vuas doen according to this rule of S. Paul to Titus And if an heretik be taken in that sens which the D. hath often taken him in saying he mayer but that he wil be no heretik that is to say for one that standeth stif in his fals opinion then we must needes vnderstād that this order which S. Paul prescribeth is vnderstāded of that which is to be doen after excommunication For in such we must not tarry vntil two or three admonitiōs be giuen but assone as one sheweth him self an heretik in that sens the sentence of excommunication lieth against him But if the D. wil needes haue it vnderstanded of excommunication it shal be the bane of his own cause and a confirmation of that answer which he so scornefully reiecteth For S. Paul noting excommunication by the auoiding of the person excommunicate in commanding Titus to auoid him doeth not therefore command him alone where as the D. wil haue these and such like commandementes addressed vnto Titus and Timothe alone But ether the church is not here excluded which yow denie or els it foloweth that the church may kepe company with an heretik and the Minister onely forbidden so to doe which is absurd In the next diuision in steed of Basiles offices cited in the latin and English book he hath set owt a long sentence of Ambrose but which maketh nether whot nor kould it being graunted that it apperteyneth to the Bishop but denied that it doeth onely whether to take one man for an other be so gros a faut as to cite a book which neuer was let al iudg yow should rather haue compared my faut with yours in the next diuision sauing one which yow pas by as yow doe other withowt any confession The next diuision I leau vnanswered In the next I confes I was deceiued in the order of the story which came thereupon that Sozomene telleth that first which was doen after and contrariwise but my answer that the Bishops sole excommunicating vuas but the publishing of the sentence giuen by him and the church standeth Nether is it of any weight that George would not be entreated or that sute was made to him for absolution For it is easely answered that George had numbers of his faction for the gaining of which it behoued to win him first The D. would with wordes bear vs down that Theodoret and Sozom. affirm Ambrose to haue excōmunicated the Emperour alone which is but a facing there being nether the word alone nether any wordes which countervail yt his reason that Ambrose caried away al the commendation is nothing worth seing it is knowen that the chief beareth the name as the general of the field or Captayn is often said to haue won the field whē notwithstanding he vsed thereto the valiancie of the souldiers And to set aside the institution of god it had bene no commendation of Ambrosis courage but a note of rashnes and folish hardines to haue enterprised that of him self against such a mightie Emperour wherein he might haue had the support of others seing therby not onely the danger should haue bene les towardes him but also the fruit greater towardes the Emperour whilest yt should haue had more autority that was doen by him with others then by him self alone And when Ambrose saith precisely that he should be more charged vuith displeasure then the rest he giueth to vnderstād that some of the displeasure would lye vpon the neckes of the other Bishops which with hym determined of that excommunication althowgh not so much as vpon his that should haue the execution of yt whereby yt is yet more apparant that the place owt of Ambrosis epistel towching the Synod and of his answer to the Emperour was cited faithfully withowt falsifying As for his answer that the Bishopes lamented it onely it hath no likelyhood as it is obserued Vuhere he saith that the Synod was assembled before the slaughter there appeareth no such thing althowgh the cause lieth not in that point For yt is al one to vs whether the Coūcel met for that matter or being assembled for other vpon the report of yt decreed of
vnhonest a shift it is may appear in that he maketh no difference betwene the Chauncelor and Chorepiscopus but onely in the name saying to contend for the name when the thing is certeyn is a token of a contentious person Althowgh he had not so gained that the Bishops had deputies seing I shewed that boeth the nature of the word and the autority of certein interpreters lead to the signification aswel of a Bishop in the countrey townes as of a deputie yt is vntrue that I haue any where alowed an ordinary deputy wherof the question is here but contrary wise haue shewed that there owght to be none not onely in the treatise of the Pastors residence but also in this wherunto the D. answereth nothing But if it were graunted that they might haue such as I haue shewed to haue bene Chorepisc yet what a strange conclusion is this that they may aswel haue Chauncelors considering that he is now constreyned to confes the office of the one greatly different from the other The rest is 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 browght better reason for it then is browght against yt which is no defence of his rashnes wherby he affirmed that which he confessed he knew not His reason which he hath learned sithens is that the Quenes prerogatiues are defended there As thowgh the Archbishop were the fittest man to defend her prerogatiues Also that it was set vp when the Pope was put down in deed so yt was which is a good sign that the Archbishop sauing profession of obedience to the king was made Pope in his place For herevpon it cometh that he exerciseth vntolerable and filthy marchandise of which diuers obiected by the Adm. he partly confessed and part throwgh lothnes to confes and vnability to answer were passed by That also of not changing lawes but vpon strong reasons which he other where repeateth hath no place where the question is whether they be against the word of god or no. For here that worthy sentence hath place yf god command any thing against the maner or decree of vuhatsoeuer they be if it vuere neuer doen before it ovught to be doen if it haue bene omitted it ovught to be restored if it vuere neuer before it ovught to be instituted Yf the D. allegation haue place it hath place in variable ceremonies which notwithstaÌ„ding as hath bene shewed the church hath changed according as the circumstances haue required to the most of her comodity Seing therfore our Sau. Christ commandeth that the excommunication should be made by the church Seing the Apostles his faithful interpreters coÌ„municate the same power with yt in commanding yt to thrust owt impeniteÌ„t synners to procure that boeth they may be saued and others also kept from infectioÌ„ seing also the holy gost chideth the church for that it had not vsed this power against the vnrepentant Seing he communicateth with it the power of absoluing those which were thrust owt wheÌ„ they declare their repentance Last of al seing boeth the iudgment and general practise of the elder churches and in a maner of those which are now lead vs hereunto Of the other side seing the Bishop can not pas smaller matters withowt the aduise of the church seing by his sole excommunication he hath browght the church to a miserable seruitude and that not to him self alone but to his seruantes Chauncelors Officials c. seing vnder colour hereof he hath thrust his sickle into the Magistrates office suffred the glory of god to be troden vnder foot the Quenes subiectes to be pilled And finally seing that for his sole excommunicatioÌ„ there is not so much as one ether approued example or writer to be browght some of the papistes them selues being ashamed of it let vs conclude that the excommunication doeth not belong vnto the Bishop alone but that by the ordinance of god the church also here owght to haue her interest THE TENTH TRACT OF THE OFFICE OF DEAcons vuhich conteineth the D. xix and xiiij HIs question where the office of widowes is restreined to the poor which are sik and strangers I pas as impertinent especially when he doeth not assign any other to whom their attendance belongeth that the contrary doeth appear almost in expres wordes is but his accustomed bouldnes of vntrue speaking Let vs therfore come to the Deacons whose office is assigned to be abowt the church money The first proof hereof receiued for answer that it was but daliance with the scripture â—ith which tyme althowgh M. Caluin Bucer Martyr and Beza haue bene shewed to haue so expounded the place yet his accusation is vnrepealed whereby al these learned men with many others stand charged stil by him as daliers with the scripture But what think yow doeth he answer to this whole colledg of godly learned men he opposeth the exposition of certain fathers who would haue looked for this answer at his hand in setting one writer against another withowt a tittle of reason wordes onely excepted which hath so bytingly condemned yt in other These learned men were not ignorant of those expositions nether did they lightly depart from the interpretation of the auncient writers For whome also it may be answered that in interpreting this place of priuate giuing they meÌ„t not to shut owt this office And of M. Bullinger it is manifest that he doeth so alow of that that he wil haue it vnderstood properly of the Deaconship so that yow openly abuse his testimony herein The cause why the auncient fathers folowed this exposition is known wel enowgh to those which haue bene conuersant in them with any iudgment namely a desire they had to draw al to the correction of maners streyning often tymes their textes in hand to draw them to the present vse of their churches by reason wherof whether in steed of milk they sometimes drw bloud I leau it to the iudgment of the learned reader But let vs see if this wrangling of his can be conuinced of the place yt self where first it is manifest that it is an explanation of that similitude which was drawen from the body in which the Apostle shewed that as al the members haue not one office So in the church euery one hath not the same function wherevpon foloweth that if this distributioÌ„ of money which is a part of that explanation should agree to al the church alike and should not be a seueral office he should quite ouerthrow his purpose For he should shew thinges agreeing vnto al alike in steed that he should haue shewed that some thinges be peculiar Yf he reply that he had shewed those before and that here he beginneth to shew the thinges which are common to al Christians alike he is manifestly beaten down by the order
aboue al other ministeries whatsoeuer So that it is no good reason to say that Phillip could not by laying on of his handes giue the holy gost therfore he was a Deacon considering that nether Euangelistes nor Prophetes them selues meddled with that kinde of laying on of handes which is there mentioned And if Phillip were then Deacon he was Deacon of the church of Ierusalem whereunto he was chosen But it ys manifest he was not Deacon there considering that S. Luke after his departure from thence and preaching in Samaria and certein other places bringeth hym to Caesarea where he leaueth hym as a houshoulder and towndweller so that vnles he dare say of Phillip that he was a continual non resident yt can not be that he was Deacon after his departure from Ierusalem But let vs graunt that Phillip was boeth a Deacon and Euangelist which is notwithstanding absurd seing that the Apostles confessed them selues insufficient to susteyn that burden togither with their preaching ministery I say let vs graunt that yet forasmuch as he can not deny but that yt belongeth vnto the office of an Euangelist to preach how is he able to proue that Phillip preached rather by vertue of his Deaconship thē of his Euangelistship So that onles he be so bould as to deny that Phillip was there no Euangelist he gaineth nothing by al this travail For otherwise it foloweth that Phillipes example wil not warrant the Deacons preaching except he haue some other ministery of the word ioyned with yt Therefore let not him any more pretend the autority of the godly writers but confes as the truth is that this argument was ministred hym owt of Pigghius who vpon this example of Phillip affirmeth as he doeth that the Deacons may preach euen as the Priestes doe As for Augustin he goeth abowt althowgh not so aptly as I haue declared rather to shew that the Deacons might not lay on their hādes then that yt belonged vnto them to preach which may appear in that he doeth not permit them to conceiue the prayers wherunto the people should answer which notwithstanding is les then to preach I shewed that by the same reason they are houlden from the administration of the supper they ovught also to be barred from that of baptim considering that it is not onely a miserable rending in sonder of thinges vuhich god hath ioyned but also giueth occasion or rather being crept in maynteyneth a daungerous error vuhich is that men esteme some holier thing to be in the sacrament of the holy supper then in baptim To this he answereth that the reason of this difference is because yt is mentioned that Phillip baptized and not that he administred the supper where by the way let the reader obserue that vpon two particuler examples which he also vntruly pretendeth he would ground a doctrine that the Deacons owght to preach althowgh he be able to shew no rule nor commandement for yt which notwithstanding he vtterly cōdemneth in vs althowgh yt be shewed to haue bene doen generally Secondly how he reasoneth negatiuely of autority that it was not doen because yt ys not so written yea which is more that yt owght not to be doen another thing also which he reprocheth vs with Now as for his answer yt is to friuolous For althowgh yt be a good reason in the direction of the church to say there is nothing wtitten towching yt therfore it is not to be admitted yet in the practise of that which is prescribed to be doen it is an euil argument to say it is not written therfore yt was not doen much more that yt may not be doen. For when our Sau. Christes actes were not al written is yt any marueil althowgh al that Phillip did be not written And by his reason the Bishops owght not to administer the supper considering that in al the scripture it is not mentioned that a Bishop ministred yt Nether if Phillip did not minister the supper foloweth yt therfore that he had not autority to administer yt aswel as baptim except he think that our Sa. Christ had not autority aswel to administer baptim which he did not as to administer the supper which he did To that wherein I noted the disorder in our church permitting to one that can not preach the administration of the supper and not to the Deacon as they cal hym which can preach he answereth that the one is called thereto the other is not where he must needes mean that the one is lawfully called thereto and the other lawfully shut therefro which is an asking of that in question My reply to his obiection of Steuens oration that yt vuas no sermon but a defence of hym self against his accusations is clear For yt appeareth that the high Priest and Scribes c. were there set in iudgment the fals witnesses were set vp against hym he was demaunded whether the accusation were true and vpon that demaund began his oration now let hym shew such a form of preaching to haue bene vsed in any church Yt is also vnlike that the high Priest and Scribes would permit hym to preach when as they had forbiddē the Apostles before but to giue hym leau to answer to his accusatiōs was needful for thē therby to mayntein that visard of holines whereby they pretended an exact obseruation of the law which was that no man should be cōdemned vnheard And so if he wil haue this a sermō he shal yet gain nothing considering that he had not this power by his ministery of Deaconship but by commaundement of the Councel that had power to require an account of that which he had propounded in disputation with those of the Colledg of Liber tynes c. His proof that it was in the Synagog is first withowt al warrāt there being not a word thereof in the scripture And yet being made in Ierusalem if it had bene a sermon it is liker to haue bene in the temple Nether if yt were in the Synagog hath yt any force to proue a sermon onles he think that euery one which pleaded his cause in Paules Consistory in Queen Maries tyme made a sermon That he also reprehended them sharply is no other thing thē diuers of the Martyrs of god haue doen with vs which I think he wil not say to haue preached by vertue of any ecclesiastical function althowgh I confes that that is not to be lightly doen and withowt some especial directiō whereof the lord in such tymes doeth furnish his otherwise those that are priuate men owght to content them selues with a simple and playn defence of the truth Nether is Paules answer vnto Tertullus accusation Act. 24 any sermō but a simple defence addressed onely to Felix as to his Iudg vttered at the bar as they speak in a ciuil Court and in a ciuil or common wealth cause namely of sedition and hath les of the nature of a sermon then Steuens oration
not occupied in the church ministery were willingly taken for assistance in ciuil iudgmentes which is because they being better acquainted with the law of god then commonly the rest of the tribes were consequently better seen in the iudicials by which the common wealth of the Israelites was gouerned And that al the Leuites were not applied vnto the ministery may appear by the example of a Banaias the high Priests son high Constable or general of the host Before I come to the Ans arguments I desire the reader to obserue that althowgh he hath owt of the auncient writers borowed certein places to iust with those which I haue taken from thence yet owt of the holy scripture whereof he should haue made the base and foundation of his defence he hath browght nothing But let vs see them such as they are Eusebius saith he calleth Constantine as yt were a general Bishop That maketh no more to proue that the iudgment of ecclesiastical causes belonged vnto him then that he calleth hym a Doctor apointed of god to al nations proueth hym to haue bene a publik preacher of the word Rather as he was called a Doctor because that the doctrine taught by the Bishops was maynteyned by his autority not for that he taught him self so he is called the general Bishop for that he caused them to meet in Councel protected them when they were there kept them in peace maynteyned with his princely autority that which was godlyly decreed not for that he determined the matters hym self This may also appear in his epistle to the churches where willing to draw credit vnto the decrees of that Councel he doeth not say that they were his but the Bishops decrees And in deed yt might more iustly be concluded that he was a minister of the word by the one place then by the other that he made ecclesiastical lawes of his own autority considering that the place browght by him is delaied and laid in water by that he calleth him not a Bishop simply but as it vuere a Bishop where as the other place is not so And it is further to be obserued that the word Bishop is taken some tymes generally for any ouerseer and not onely for the church Minister In which respect Constantyne calleth him self a Bishop but putteth a manifest difference betwene his Bishoprik and theirs namely that the church officers were Bishops and ouerseers of thinges vuithin the church and he Bishop or ouerseer of those that vuere vuithovut the church whereby he clearly also establisheth the distinction of the church and common wealth vnder a Christian Prince Hether also may be referred that of Hillary which exhorteth Constans that he would prouide that the gouernours of his prouinces vnder hym should not praesume to take vpon them the iudgment of ecclesiastical causes where also the same autor further affirmeth that the common vuealth matters onely belonged vnto them Likewise that Ambrose saith That Palaces belong vnto the Emperour but the churches vnto the Minister and that he had autority of the commoÌ„ vualles of the city and not ouer holy thinges That of Constantyne and after of Iustinian making lawes touching godlines as against the worship of Images c. is idle considering that it is nothing but an execution of that which is commanded of god and withowt the compas of thinges which fal into the church is consultation For in thinges which he is assured of to be the vnuariable truth of god who douteth but that he not onely may but owght also to mayntein them with his autority Sauing that if there be a general dowt raised what is the law of god therein to the end that the the truth may haue better cours and that the conscience may be prouided for there is herein great caution to be vsed For least that which is godly should be doeÌ„ vngodlily that is to say ignorantly or doutfully and to the end that the autors of error being conuinced may doe les hurt and finally to the end that the punishmeÌ„t of the obstinate may be boeth more iust and les grudged at yt belongeth vnto the ciuil Magistrate to cal as did the godly Emperour CoÌ„stantine a councel of the ministery by whome as by gods interpreters the people may receiu a resolution warranted by substantial groundes owt of hys word Yet so far it is that we suspend vpon the Councels determination the putting in execution of such as he is assured to be the vnchangeable commaundementes of god that boeth before in and after the Councel yea and howsoeuer they determin we esteme that the Prince owght to procure by al godly and conuenient meanes that such lawes of god haue place at the least that the contrary be not suffered not so much as if it might be one onely hower That owt of the Chalcedon councel that the orders there made were by the Emperours autority because they cried long life vnto the Senate and Emperour is vnsufficient For althowgh it was vnmeet that in such graue meetinges there should be vsed such shoutinges as then appeared to haue bene the maner when they liked or misliked any thing which was more fit for stage playes then for such a graue company yet who seeth not that there was cause enowgh why thanckes should be giuen vnto the Emperour for his care his paynes and his charges in calling and confirming yt althowgh nether the iudgment were his nor apperteyned vnto him Now touching the places alledged by me in the first gros ouersight there is none seing there is not a word in that place which enforceth external buildinges For in steed of that which is turned buildinges the greek hath vuorkes or affaiers also for that of selling the buildinges there is no such thing in the greek nether as I think owght to be For the place which no dowt is corrupt in Eusebius may be restored owt of Theodoret that reporteth the same epistle Howbeit whether it be vnderstood of the owtward or inward buildinges I wil not striue and I rather think that it is of the owâ—ward then otherwise considering that that seemeth to be more simple To the second where the Emperour confesseth the Bishops matters not to pertayn to him he answereth that the Emperour of modesty refused the determination But what modesty is yt to say that which is vntrue or what modesty to affirm that yt belongeth not to hym which is by yow his office and committed to him of god especially vnto his subiectes For it might haue more colour if yow had said that it were modesty for a Bishop to say that to administer the word and sacramentes belong not to hym but vnto the Prince Beside that yf he would haue shewed forth modesty he would haue rather said that he was not worthy then to say that it vuas not lavuful for him to doe yt To that that the Emperour vuould not determin of Arius heresy but committed
yt to the Synod he answereth that yt letteth not but that he had autority sauing that therby he shewed his wisdome in committing matters of doctrine to them which are moste fit to entreat of them A straunge kinde of wisdome to put ouer that which belonged vnto his office to them to whose office that did not belong verely this is not the wisdome which commeth from aboue For althowgh it be lawful for a Prince to discharge part of his burthen vpon others for the more commodity of his subiectes yet if this belong vnto him as he is appointed of god the ciuil Magistrate he can not put yt vnto any other thē vnto a ciuil Magistrate as I haue before shewed Here also I would ask of him how the Councel of Nice was fitter to iudg of the matter then the Emperour was it by some singuler case or by reason of their office of being Bishops Yf as needes he must he answer that they are by calling and by office fitter to iudg of such causes how must not that pertein vnto them which are hereof by calling the fittest Iudges For althowgh there be found sometymes some ciuil gouernour which hath more skil to iudg in church matters then some Bishop as also some Bishops to haue more skil in common wealth matters then some ciuil gouernour yet notwithstanding nether the one nor the other hath this kunning by any gift incident into his office which he exerciseth So that the Answerer in reputing it for wisdome in the Emperour to commit these matters vnto the Bishops as vnto the most able Iudges maketh a deep wound in the wisdome of god whilest he supposeth that god hath committed that to be doen by the Magistrate whereof by office he is not the fittest doer which is a voice vnworthy of a very sukling much more of a D. in diuinity And that this is most properly belonging vnto a Bishop it appeareth in that the Apostle requireth that he should be able to conuince the gainsayers which he neuer required of the ciuil Magistrate and notwithstanding would haue required yt if the decision of such causes had apperteyned vnto him For the lord calleth no man to any thing of whome he requireth not giftes meet to furnish his calling Not vnlike to this reason is that in the 5. diuision page 701 which is that for so much as the Ministers are moste able to decide of church matters that therfore the decision belongeth vnto them whereunto he answereth first that it is Hardings reason but sheweth not where it is to be found where I alledging it as his own reason pointed hym the place wherunto he answereth not a word Secondly he saith that yt proueth onely that it is most conuenient and necessary that the ministers while they be godly and learned may haue the deciding of matters in religion Here if the Answ had not fumbled and faultered in his speach we had had hym if not altogither yet very nigh consenting with vs therefore let the reader note that whereas he hath borowed boeth his answers and al his auncient autorities from the Bishop and M. Nowel withowt confessing any one onely place owt of the Bishop excepted in this answer wherein the cheif point of the question doeth consist he hath giuen them boeth the slip For they boeth doe flatly confes that as long as the Ministers be godly and learned yt is necessary they should decide these matters that the Prince is commanded to haue recours vnto them in dovutful matters that it belongeth to the Bishops office to decide of such causes but that Christian Princes haue rather to doe vuith these matters then ignorant and vuicked Priestes and that in case of necessity meaning when the ministery is wicked the Prince ovught to prouide for cōueniēt remedy the very self same thing which we maynteyn in saying vuhen there is no lavuful ministery that then the Prince ovught to take order in these thinges Now because he dissenting from them would yet seeme to be at one he also hath set down that it is necessary but how mark I pray yow and yow shal see that in stryuing against a manifest truth he became speachles Forsooth it is necessary that they may decide he durst not say that it is necessary they should but that they may decide where in saying that it is necessary he leaueth no choise again in saying that they may he destroyeth the necessity which he had before put leauing it in the Princis power whether they shal or no. Thus as the mous kleauing fast in the pitchbox in one sentence he affirmeth that a godly and learned ministery must of necessity and not of necessity decide of these causes That which he addeth that the autority doeth as wel stil remain in the Prince when the Ministers decide as when the Iudges determin of ciuil causes is vntrw Yf as he pretendeth it were at the Princis chois whether a godly mynistery should decide of them or no then yt were true he saith but if it be true which the Bishop and M. Nowel say that yt is necessary that a godly ministery should decide of them and that yt belongeth to the the Bishops office so to doe then the comparison is most vnequal For the iudgment of ciuil causes doeth so be long vnto the Magistrate that he is not bound by the law of god to translate yt vnto other Nay the law of god wil haue that Princes them selues so far as they may and are able shal bear their dominion vpon their own shoulders and iudg the causes of their subiectes in their own persons cōsidering that the scripture calleth al princes Iudges and setteth euery one a Throne to iudg the causes of his people Now to return bak where I leaft foloweth his answer to the Councel of Constantinople that it is to late a testimony being other in the year 549 or 681. which might haue place in this case where the question is of the Bishopes iurisdiction as that which in proces of tyme did owtreach were it not confirmed by other testimonies of the former age In the first of which Councels Menna the Patriark being president it is said that the decree of the Bishopes firm in yt self vuas cōfirmed by the Emperour Now seing the Bishops had then this autority how much more by his own confession had they the same in the other which was later And the same Constantine which the D. speaketh of giueth more to the Bishopes then we doe namely that he vuould compel none to the truth oneles they concluded something That yt was said that the Emperour confirmed the decrees of the Councel and not that the Emperour made the decrees serueth also wel for this purpose For if ether he had made them or they had bene made vnder his name they should haue bene said to haue bene made by him as decrees made by the Princis deputies are said to be made by the Prince That which he addeth
But to that alledged that yt hath no ground in scripture he answereth nothing wherein notwithstanding the question consisteth That alledged of the impositiō of hādes vntruly fathered of the Apostles he wil haue me proue whereas yt being affirmed of hym owght to haue bene shewed by hym That yt was not in Iustins tyme may appear in that he describing the liturgy of the churches in his tyme maketh no mention of yt That yt was no tradition of the Apostles left as Ierome al his proof in this behalf affirmeth hath bene before declared Hys exception of the abuse in laying on of handes in ordeyning Ministers against that I browght that this ceremony confirmed an opinion conceyued that yt is a sacrament is idle For that being the ordinance of god may not for any abuse be taken away but this being not althowgh yt were in yt self indifferent for the offence sake owght to be disanulled Hether appertayneth that otherwhere of M. Caluins alowance hereof where the reason I opposed owt of hym that the giftes by laying on of handes ceasing yt also ovught to ceas is vnanswered I graunt he speaketh against the popish imposition of handes but withal in this point he speaketh against ours which pretendeth as doeth theirs that the holy gost is giuen by this imposition of handes whereof there is no promise And therefore his defence that yt is giuen by prayer ys not sufficient considering that the book saith by putting on of hādes and prayers so that althowgh M. Caluin should like of laying on of hādes yet he must needes mislike of ours which presupposeth that the holy gost is giuen by the bishops laying on of handes His answer to the autority of so many reformed churches is fond For that they meant to disalow cōfirmation simply and not the popish onely may appear in that they purged not the popish imposition of handes but vtterly cast yt away And when they say they can vuant yt vuithovut damage they signify that in the best sort yt is vnprofitable To that alledged of the popish opinion that yt is better then baptim confirmed in that that our Bishop onely may confirm vuhere euery Minister may baptiz he answereth owt of Ierom and Bucer that yt is meet yt should be doen by the Bishop which I graunt yf yt were meet at al. But that the Bishop which Ierome and Bucer alow be not lord Bishops but simple Pastors of one onely church or not of the twentith part whereof our Bishops are hath bene before declared The reason of the inconuenience of bringing the children half a score miles vuith charges for that vuhich if yt vuere needful might be doen by the Pastor at home he answereth by calling yt chiledish such is the compassion he hath of the peoples trauail and especially of the necessity of the poor which are compelled thus beside extraordinary charges to lese two or three dayes work That he thincketh yt not worthy once to be considered belike is because they goe not vppon his legges nor spend of his purs There resteth the churching of wemen where this title implying a banishment from the church is defended b◠the common peoples vsage of Christmas a popish name as thowgh this error of the people owght to haue bene confirmed by the book and not rather corrected he might aswel answer that the drawer of the book might haue called the holy Communiō a mas because the ignorāt sort doe so But vnto this answer hath bene further replyed before Of two other pointes in that diuision he talketh but answereth not the next requireth no answer the next hath bene answered the next to yt requireth none To excuse his rashnes in permitting the vail which is a church ceremony to wemens discretion he saith ▪ yt is rather ciuil the vntruth whereof is manifest yt being doen of superstition and opinion that yt owght to be so not for succour against the ayer as he pretendeth beside that in saying rather ciuil he priuily confesseth that there is some part of yt ecclesiastical THE FIFT CHAPTER OF CEREmonies abovut the holy communion in the residu of the D. xv Tractate IN eleuen diuisions whereof to diuers reasons of the great inconuenience of ministring yt with wafer kakes and in kneeling there is nothing alledged worth the rehersal considering that yt hath bene shewed that the churchis power in thinges indifferent is not absolute to doe what she thincketh good but for the moste edifiyng in regard of the persōs and other circumstances and considering that against that we would haue the sitting of our Sa. Christ called again for remedy of the superstition yea idolatry committed of some by kneeling his instans of celebrating the communion in the night is insufficient For that was vpon a particuler occasion which is not in our church nor hath no place in the ceremonies in controuersy seing that for the causes assigned of me the celebrating of yt in the night was for that tyme necessary which is also answer to that of vnleauened bread vsed at the same tyme whereunto he can answer nothing Lastly considering that to shew the inconueniences and humbly to desire redres herein in such sort as for the abuses we doe not withdraw our selues from the holy communion is not as he slaunderously accuseth to make any tumult Therefore not to spend tyme in confutation of his bare sayinges the contrary of certeyn whereof are to be seen as in a playn matter I commit these vnto the iudgment of the reader Onely let hym obserue that M. Bucer doeth improue the kneeling at the communion and in one word al the gestures which the Papistes vsed in this imitation of the supper of the lord For that in the 17 diuision towching this whether yt be meeter to say take ye or take thow to the reason of the example of our Sauiour Christ he can not answer To the reason taken of the maner of preaching he saith that exhortation giuen in the second person singuler moueth moste which is not to the point of the question For yt is not debated here whether the Minister should speak to al at once by thow or by ye but whether yt is meeter that yt should be once onely spoken to al that communicate at one table or rehersed according to the number of persons that communicate Beside that a figuratiue speach as this is when by the word thovu are noted a great number is more fit for preaching and prophetical writing then for the ordinary seruice which owght to be moste simple I confes some difference of the exhibiting of the benefites of Christ in the sacramentes and in the word but how that difference should cause vs to change the form vsed by our Sau. Christ which knowing that difference best did notwithstanding at once speak to al at the table with hym I see not nor he sheweth not nor I am assured can not the rest in this chapter requireth no answer