if he had bene able should haue shewed that I agree in this cause with the Papistes namely in the end of this treatise where I shew how far I stand from them in this behalf Howbeit hauīg beside vntrw surmises little or nothing at al to mayntein him self with he hath to strike a preiudice into the minde of the reader and to set as it were a bias of his iudgment to draw it vnto his side here in the forefront set vp this vntrue accusation whereunto I wil answer when I come to that place Now for better clearing of this matter the distinction betvuene the church and cōmon vuealth vnder a Christian Magistrate denied by him is to be confirmed Vuherin as towching the autority of the word of god boeth owt of the ould Testamēt and the nue I refer the reader to that which I haue writtē sauing that the place of the Cronicles cōmeth after to be towched again In the churches after the Apostles and that vnder godly Princes the same differēce hath bene diligētly obserued by the ecclesiastical writers As when it is said that the church and common vuealth not onely suffer but florish togither keping this distinction as wel in the church is prosperity as in her aduersity Also that the hovuses of prayer being restored to the church other places vuere adiudged to the vse of the commō vueaelth Likewise that there is one cause of the Prouince and another of the church Yf he can not cōceiue how this should be he may be giuē to vnderstand it after this sort that a man may by excommunicatiō be sundred frō the church which forthwith leeseth not of necessity his Burgeship or freedome in the city or common wealth Likewise that the ciuil Magistrate may by bannishment cut of a man from being a member of the common wealth whome the church can not by and by cast owt by excommunication Again when one is for his misbehauior depriued of his priuileges boeth in the church and common wealth albeit the church be vpon his repentance bound to receiu him in again as a member thereof yet the common wealth is at her liberty whether she wil restore him or no. Finally infidels vnder a Christian Prince may vntil such tyme as they refuse instruction be members of the common wealth yet are they not therefore members of the church where if the church and common wealth were as he saith vnder a Christian Prince al one it should folow that whosoeuer is a part of one should needes be a part of the other and contrawise whosoeuer is cut of from one must be cut of from the other His autority pretended against this distinction owt of Musculus that the Christian Magistrate is not profane is to no vse For not onely the high dignity of the ciuil Magistrate but the moste basest handicraftes are holy when they are directed to the honour of god but to conclude thereof that they are not distinguished from ecclesiastical causes is to much vnaduisednes For wil he conclude that for because the gouernment of the how 's and the gouernment of the commō wealth are boeth holy that therfore the gouernment of the how 's is not distinguished from the gouernment of the cōmon wealth or wil he say because the company of a man with his wife in lawful matrimony is holy that therefore it is a church matter This distinction of the church and common wealth vnder a Christian Prince being so apparant in certein cases there is no reason why it should not be so in the rest which shal yet better appear in this discours where commeth first to be considered what he answereth to the place of the Cronicles where vpon that certeyn Priestes and Leuites had the handling of matters perteyning vnto god and certeyn others the matters perteyning vnto the king I concluded that the church iudgmentes ovught ordinarily to be handled by the church officers His answer hereunto is that forsomuch as Iehosaphat the king by his autority committed boeth ecclesiastical and ciuil causes therfore he had power him self of boeth whereunto I reply that he committed not those ecclesiastical matters vnto the Priestes and Leuites as those which he might haue reteyned with him self or as a thing in his own discretiō but vsed onely his princely autority to put in executiō that which the lord had commanded For yt is manifest that the self same thing which Iehosaphat did here was commanded to be doen in the law And if this proue that the iudgment of ecclesiastical causes perteyneth to the king because he confirmed by his autority the ecclesiastical Iudges it proueth also that boeth the ordination of Ministers and the preaching of the word belong vnto hym considering that this very king is said to haue sent forth preachers into al lury But let the reader obserue how he hath here vtterly passed by the weight of my argument which standeth in this that the holy gost maketh this partition that some matters pertayn to god and others to the king whereas if the matters pertayning vnto god pertayned also to the king the partition should be fauty Nether by matters pertayning vnto the king are vnderstanded those which pertayn vnto his own person or his family but matters within the compas of his princely iudgment as appeareth by the example of the cause of blood which the scripture setteth down especially if this place be compared with that of Deuteronomy where this example is put particularly and opposed to the iudgment of leprosy which then belonged vnto the priest To the place in the Hehrues that the high Priest is appointed ouer thinges vuhich appertayn vnto god he answereth that the Apostle declareth that those thinges are to offer giftes c. which is nothing worth For the proposition is general wherupon the Apostle concludeth so much as serued for the present purpose otherwise yow may as wel say that yt belonged not to the high Priest to preach because the Apostle mentioneth not that part of his office in that place Seing then it is apparant owt of the Cronicles that iudgment in church matters pertayneth vnto god Seing likewise it is euident owt of this testimony of the Apostle that the high Priest is set ouer those matters in gods behalf it must needes folow that the principality or direction of the iudgment of them is by gods ordināce pertayning vnto the high Priest and consequently to the ministery of the church And if it be by gods ordinance apparteyning vnto thē how can it be translated from them vnto the ciuil Magistrate That which I said of Leuites vsed to the iudgment of ciuil causes for that they could not al be employed to the ministery considering that so there should haue bene almoste for euery xijmē a Leuite is barely denied and nether the reason which I browght cōfuted nether any of his set down whereunto may be added the reason why the Leuites
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
church aswel in this cause as in diuers other pauncheth so that it is not able to abide the vueight of a fox For thus there is not onely as he obiecteth a seueral gouernment in euery Town but in euery priuat how 's And if the Master of the houshould may and owght to retein his autority withowt preiudice of the Magistrate why may it not be so in the gouernment of the church Vuhat wil he further say to the Scholemaster which he otherwhere affirmeth to be an Ecclesiastical officer may there not be ether two in one Schole vnder a Prince or one in one Schole vnder a common wealth where many haue like autority oneles the common wealth be therby mangled and the magistrates autority empaired But of this matter I haue also spoken otherwhere Howbeit whereas the D. alowing of this Eldership in a common wealth can not abide it in a monarchy I wil say this further that if there were any daunger to a common wealth by this Eldership it should be greater to the smale common wealthes then to great monarchies considering that they should not be able so wel to repres the Eldership ouerreaching and goeing beyond their bowndes And if the Elders hips autority belong vnto the magistrate as he saith then by how much these magistrates haue les power and fewer prerogatiues ouer their peoples then the monarches ouer their subiectes by so much haue they more need then the other to kepe al in their own hand Vpon his own confession that there be more disordered persons now then in tyme of persecutiō I concluded that there needeth so much more asistance for the Pastor to finde them ovut to iudg of the quality of the faut and to correct them with censures of the church Herevnto he answereth that it is better doen by the Magistrate and by corporal punishment which is before answered althowgh yt be vnworthy answer considering that albeit the bodily punishment were more apt to reform thinges amis yet thereof foloweth not but that boeth the ciuil punishment and ecclesiastical togither wil doe more then the ciuil punishment alone I would also know why the Pastor owght not to cary euen priuate offences great or smale vnto the Magistrate if it be so that this ecclesiastical autority be escheted to him As for that he alledgeth owt of Gualter that men wil not set a straw by the autority of the Eldership it serueth aswel against the ecclesiastical censures of al Pastors and of our Bishops as against the Elders and more against them then against these For somuch as if they set not a straw by the Elders and Pastor togither iointly they wil much les esteme the Pastors or Bishops alone And if they set nothing by it whē it is countenāced by the ciuil magistrate they wil much more set them at nawght in persecution when for the contempt of yt there is not onely no corporal punishment but a reward at the handes of the Tyrants The bare names of suspensions and excommunications strike a fear into the heartes of the people whych notwithstanding throwgh an horrible abuse of them for euery trifling money matter are not to be feared according to the wise mans saying acauseles curs shal not come but flyeth avuay as the sparovu or svualovu Seing then thes fray bugges no more to be estemed as towching the conscience or further then they empty the purs then the braying of an Asse strike suche a fear with what power would the lord accompany them when they be executed according to his institutiō for further answer the reader may haue recours vnto M. Bucer who confuteth this very obiection of contempt of the churchis censures And this voice tendeth aswel to the subuersion of al ecclesiastical censures for euer hereafter as to the vtter condemning of that which was vsed by the Apostles heretofore Althowgh if it be the ordinance of god this is no reason against yt considering that the owtrage of men can not put the lord to silence or make his ordinance to giue place In the next where vpon his answer I conclude that ether vue must haue no Pastor at al vuhich is absurd or els an Eldership in as many places as sufficient men may be gotten he answereth nothing beside repetitions and demaundes of that in question In the next where is proued that the hardnes or apparant impossibility may not be considered vuhen there is a commandement to doe any thing he letteth al that defence goe to the ground wherein notwithstanding he placed great force Let him therfore strike owt that obiection or if he moue further debate herein let him not be ashamed to return bak and take his work before hym And for further answer thereunto let hym loke M. Bucer who confuteth also this obiection where he excepteth that it is not commaunded thereof let the reader iudg of that which hath bene written Althowgh it hath bene shewed that the example of the Apostles and general practise of the churches vnder their gouernment euen withowt a commandement draweth a necessity Then he saith that if it were ▪ yet it were but a temporal commandement as the widowes the eating of blud and washing of feet Of the widowes hath bene answered the decree of the blud was neuer a simple prohibition after our Sau. Christ whose blud that did shadow had finished his oblation but onely to the support of the Iues. So that euen then when that decree was made the faithful boeth of the Iues or Gentiles might haue eat yt so they did yt withowt offence of those which were weak And if there were now any Iue weak in faith whom we should by eating of blud driue from the gospel I dowt not but that vntil he be fully instructed of the liberty I haue in Christ I owght to vse the same charitable support towardes him And this appeareth manifestly boeth in the same and other places where S. Paul which gaue owt that decree to be kept teacheth generally the free vse of al meates so yt be withowt offence As for the washing of feet commanded vnto the Apostles it is nothing but a trope or borowed speach wherby our Sau. Christ willeth them and in them vs al not for a tyme but to the end of the world that for help one of an other eche should submit him self to other euen vnto the doeing of the basest offices which may appear in that he placeth perfect blessednes in the obediens to that commandement which he would neuer haue doen in the washing of the feet So that this commandement might wel be of them as of vs fulfilled withowt that particular actiō of washing eche anothers feet But here obserue I pray yow how dangerously yow behaue your self in respect of the common Aduersary Before yow haue made vs thinges necessary to obserue and that as of the Apostles autority which were neuer written but as yow would make vs
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
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
saying that yt was no law but a custome and that yt was not penal to those vuhich did not kepe yt Socrates confirmeth the indifferency which I affirmed to haue bene in in the beginning For the alowance of Saintes dayes whereof the question is here althowgh he hath onely M. Bullingers testimony which ys retracted and condemned by M. Bullingers own self yet he marcheth forward stil as bouldly as yf he had a whole legion of learned men of hys side what dealing this ys let the world iudg But they be forsooth his own wordes which he hath alledged so are these yours Basil in his book of offices yet I suppose yow wil be loth that yt should be now accounted your iudgment after yow haue corrected your self Here also to the iudgment of such a number of reformed churches vuhich haue condemned the keping of these dayes as vnlavuful he not onely answereth nothing but walketh stil in his ould path of bould and vntrue affirmation that the custome of the whole church confirmeth them as thowgh the reformed churches now were no churches at al. And that the reader may further know hys importunity in this behalf he may vnderstand that beside M. Bullingers consent in general with the rest of the churches the disalowance of that particular church of Zurich and consequently of hym towching these Saintes dayes doeth appear in a book a part And if the learned reader look the later edition of M. Bullingers commentary vpon the Romanes he may peraduenture finde his former iudgment alledged by the D. corrected Hetherto also commeth Musculus iudgment in particular which affirmeth that there can be no defence for the saintes dayes vuhatsoeuer be pretended likewise M. a Hopers which condemneth them notwithstanding their gray heares yea the very first institution of them and that vpon credit of that which the D. calleth an vnlearned shift that ys to say by opposing the autority of the word of god and the examples of the churches gouerned by the Apostles and Prophetes In the next diuision in Caluins iudgment towching the three feastes dedicated to the lord I wil procede no further considering that yt appeareth in his epistles that he was not the cause of the abrogating them As for the saintes dayes whereof onely in deed the question is in thys place considering that which hath bene alledged I think the D. hym self wil make hym no patrone of Althowgh throwg◠the multitude of our papistes the obseruation of these dayes as of Easter c. amongest vs vuould haue inconueniences vuhich yt should not haue vuith them vuhere there are none as I haue also before obserued The rest in this chapter is answered THE SECOND CHAPTER OF the second part of this Tractate of the fautes touching prayers THE FIRST PART OF THE chapter touching the fautes in the matter TO mayntein that we should pray to be deliuered from al aduersity he falleth fowly and as yt were vpon al fower teaching with great confidence that we pray for thinges whereof we haue no promes For seing our prayers made withowt faith be abominable and no fayth ys able to be grounded but vpon the word of promes yt must needes folow that the praier conceiued withowt promes ys likewise abominable But then sayth he we may not pray to be free from al syn no more in deed we may in thys lyfe because we must alwayes pray forgiue vs our synnes nor yet saith he pray against persecution no nether against al persecutiō because yt ys cōtrary to that word which sayth that euery one vuhich vuil liue godly in Christ Iesu must suffer persecution Hereunto he abuseth S. Iohn 14 13 whatsoeuer yow ask I wil giue which S. Iohn hym self soluteth when he saith that he heareth vs in al that vue ask according to hys vuil and that wil ys in hys word Hether he draweth the example of our Sau. Christ which prayed to haue the cup remoued that he knw he should not obteyn which as he alledgeth yt serueth to proue that we owght to pray for that which we are sure we shal not obtein which ys absurd and not onely to pray withowt but also contrary to faith Nether did our Sau. Christ pray withowt promes For as other the children of god to whose condition he had humbled hym self haue so had he a promes of deliuerance so far as the glory of god in the accomplishment of hys vocation would suffer And I deny that at that tyme he made that prayer to hys holy father he knew he should not obteyn For althowgh he knw that he should suffer yet yf I answer that as towching hys humanity he knw not the most infinite and extreme weight of sufferances which god hys heauenly father had measured vnto hym or knowing them had throwgh the vnspeakable force of the panges which he then was in forgotten them I see not how thys answer may not be maynteyned as a Christian and catholik answer For our Sau. Christ takyng vnto hym togither with our nature our infirmities might withowt al contagion of syn boeth not know some thinges and be subiect to forgetfulnes of that which he knw not to the forgetfulnes which commeth of negligence but which commeth of a sodayn astonishment and shaking of al the powers boeth of body and mynde Al forgetfulnes I graunt ys the punishment of syn but that al forgetfulnes is syn and vpon al occasions I think the Answ hym self wil not affirm As for that he wandereth in abowt the conditiō yt nothyng excuseth hys error For we owght not to desyre to be free from al aduersity yf yt be hys wil considering that he hath already declared hys wil therein but onely of this or that aduersity whereof we know not but vpon the euent what ys hys good pleasure He hath much other fog to this purpose but not worth the naming After he cyteth the 91 psalm that no euil shal come to the where he manifestly ouerthroweth that he hath affirmed before For pouerty and persecution are amongest those euiles of which hym self saith we haue no promes to ground our selues vpon when we pray against them As for the place yt self yt must not be vnderstood that the afflictions shal not touch vs which ys manifest in that assigning the maner of performance of these promises he saith that the lord vuil be vuith hym in hys troble and deliuer hym noting that he shal be in troble which ys contrary to that that he shal be free from al troble So that to accord the scripture with yt self the meaning of of the promise must needes be that he shal not be ouerlayed or oppressed but contraryly that the afflictions shal serue as the Apostle saith to hys good Here therfore a difference must be put betwene euil and aduersity in such sort that althowgh the scripture doe promise to deliuer the faithful frō al euil yet yt foloweth not thereof that yt
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
suffer it to haue place in civil offices is friuolous and flatly against his wordes which saith that it vuas decreed in a Councel that the Minister should onely serue the altar and the sacrifices and giue them selues to praier Your reason is as fond that the executorship is more troblesome then to bear ciuil office because sometime temporal men as yow cal them do refuse it as if therewere not which refused other ciuil offices for the same cause The reply to the next diuision the reader may take owt of the former part of my book The exception out of the Coloss that wiues must obey their husbandes in the lord doeth not hinder but that the place to the Thessa. may put a difference betvuene the ciuil and ecclesiastical gouernment For S. Paul as the Hebrews doe the preposition ◠vseth the preposition In diuersly where therefore he willeth the Thessalonians to acknovulegd those vuhich vuere set ouer them in the lord he meaneth in thinges perteining vnto the lord but when he willeth the vuiues to obey their husbandes in the lord he meaneth that they should doe it no further then is agreable vnto the wil of god not that he would restrein their obedience onely to such thinges as pertein to the kingdome of heauen as the wordes be taken in the other place In saying that althovvgh the godly Magistrate ruleth in the lord ouer vs yet that this title is giuen by excellency vnto the ecclesiastical officers I doe not daly it is the distinction of the doly Gost him self For albeit they that handle cōmon wealth matters serue the lord and doe thinges tending to his glory yet the scripture comparing boeth these gouernments togither giueth this title as a note to discern the ecclesiastical officers from the ciuil as appeareth in the Chronicles from whēce it is like the Apostle toke this maner of speach The reason whereof is for that ciuil gouernments are not so nighly nor so immediately referred vnto the glory of god as are the ecclesiastical Beside that this reproch is against M. Caluin and Beza who vpon that place of the Thessal ground the same distinction I graunt there be some thinges common to boeth the gouernmentes as be also to thinges diuers yea contrary but in cōfessing the ciuil gouernment distinguished from the ecclesiastical and yet affirming certein ciuil offices common to boeth yow speak wthout al sens For where that which should agree owght to be a third thing from the ecclesiastical and ciuil power yow make one of these two to agree to them selues And althowgh he stil rubbeth vpon this that ciuil offices such as he meaneth are not onely no hinderans but a help for the Bishop to doe his office yet he can neuer be browght to expres what those offices be For he feareth partly that the confutation wil be a great deal easier partly least if he should prik high he should draw his cause into the hatered of al if he should fallow he should not serue their appetite to whom he would peraduenture offer vnto in this cause It is in deed a good reason as the cours of this disputation doeth declare they must exercise ecclesiastical discipline therfore not ciuil they must haue the spiritual sword of corrections alwaies in their hand therfore not the ciuil oneles they can hould and beweld two swordes at once and oneles the two hāded sword of the word of god occupiyng boeth their handes they haue a third hand for the ciuil To the next I answer as vnto the seuenth diuis As for the answer which he asketh to his vntrw surmise of the Admonit abbridging the Magistrates autority seing it is so often and of no not onely cause but not so much as occasiō as a thing vnworthy once to loke bak for I quietly pas by albeit this vntruth hath and shal god willing after generally appear To that I alledged of the difficulty and multitude of duties vuhich the ministery of the vuord doeth lay vpon the Bishop of one side and of the vueaknes of mans nature of the other therby to binde the Bishop from reaching owt his hand to other functions he saith that this had had likelihood if he should exercise a function contrary to the ecclesiastical Of this sort are also these profes alledged other where that they may exercise boeth iurisdictions because they tend boeth to one end that is to the maintenance of religion reformation of manners and punishment of syn where the reader may see that the distinction which he churmeth after so painfully wil not come As if there were any lawful function be it neuer so base contrary to an other lawful function seing that good can not be contrary to good nether are there any which pertein not to the maintenance of religion And the iudgment of landes which notwithstanding he confesseth vnmeet for a Minister pertayneth to reformation of maners and punishment of syn whilest that which is his being giuen to euery one the wrong doers are punished Likewise is also the Princis office so that if he may receiu al these callinges he may ether exercise al the offices and occupations in the land or at the least moe then him self dare avouch But the prouerb shal thē be as it is already trw in thē that he vuhich embraceth much streyneth but a litle After he excepteth that by this reason a Christiā man should be cōtinually in spiritual meditation and neuer medle with worldly affaires which procedeth of a great want for aswel althowgh not so principally perteyneth it to the dutie of euery Christian to haue to doe with worldly affaires as at times conuenient to be occupied in spiritual meditation And as the reason which I browght hath not so much as the least seed of Anabaptism so the D. answer leadeth to plain monckery whilest he placeth the whole duty of a Christian man in spiritual meditation But seing yow imagin the Bishops to be men of so great burden that beside their church ministery they be able to cary the ciuil office answer me how cometh it to pas that they commit part of their own and proper office vnto Chauncelors Archdeacons c except they haue more to doe then they can doe them selues what a confusion is it to turn ouer to others thinges which they say belong properly to their office and to take offices which they confes are not incident to their calling I alledged that the Apostles of greater giftes then can be hoped for of any for accomplishment of the ministery of the vuord gaue ouer euen that vuhich they had receiued vpon them that is to say the disposition of the church money a thing merely ecclesiastical and therfore that vuhich might haue bene easelier ioyned vuith the ministery of the vuord then a ciuil office To this he answereth the Apostles did boeth those charges before and therfore that these offices may sometime meet where if he mean they
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
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
shutting of thē owt partly castīg in other matter of his own priuily and as it were vnder the ground he maynteyneth his former rashnes of saying that the Admo were good patrones of the papistes for maynteining that papistes owght not to be thrust into the lordes supper There was alledged that the scripture vuhich forbiddeth to haue any familiarity vuith notorius offēders doeth much more forbid that they should be receiued to the cōmuniō To this he answereth owt of M. Caluin his maruelous vnfaithful dealing wherein hath bene before noted I say maruelous because there can be hardly any of so smal perceiuerāce as not to vnderstand the difference betwene the Anabaptistes which thereupon falsly gathered that a man might not communicate when any such open offendor was admitted vnto the communiō and betwene the Adm. which houldeth that the papistes ovught not to be admitted vnto the lordes supper which is iustly concluded of yt To that alledged that our Sau. Christ instituted his supper amōgest his disciples ād those vuhich vuere vuithin he answereth first that Iudas was present yet not of the church but withowt which is a foul error For althowgh in some signification he were not of the church yet he was boeth within and as towching the owtward calling wherof our question is of the church also But vnto this I haue alredy answered Secondly he chargeth me with a gilty conscience for that cyting S. Paul I nether quoted the Epistle nor chapter which how vnworthy an accusation it is let the reader iudg But if yt be a good argument that he hath a gilty conscience which leaueth the testimony vnquoted let the face of his conscience be looked on by the glas which I haue set before hym in an other place How vntrue it is that no papist with vs is admitted to the communion which he affirmeth let the reader iudg To that I sayd that papistes not to be admitted vnto the holy supper ovught to be compelled to hear the vuord of god he obiecteth as contrary that I had said before that if they be not meet to receiu the communion nether be they to hear the vuord which is a meer mispending of tyme For I added expresly and that twise As many as be of the church from which I had before shut owt the papistes In that the Admo vuil not haue men come constreynedly to the holy Communion they take not away the punishment against those which owght to present them selues And their saying hath an easier defence then his otherwhere that the book wil not haue men compelled to come to the communion For the punishment of such is therfore taken that afterward they may come in diligence and good wil. But if notwithstanding that punishment yt be manifestly perceiued that they come with no affection but constreynedly then the Adm. would haue such put by which is their meaning and a iudgment agreable to the word of god to the rest in this chapter I answer not Hereunto ad that of the examination of those whose knowledg of the mistery of the gospel is douted of as yt standeth in his book page 592. which examination he is not affraid to deny to be necessary or commanded by the word of god his first reason is because that in the Apostles tymes no such would offer them selues which is a manifest vntruth as may be gathered of that I haue said and by that the seed of the vuord of god is taken ovut of the heart of diuers that profes the gospel which notwithstanding ether throwgh hypocrisy in desire to be counted to haue the same knowledg with others or insensiblenes of not feeling their want wil offer them selues And if there were none such then yet forsomuch as there be such amongest vs that answer is insufficient considering that the scripture conteyneth remedy not onely against the corruptions in the tyme of the Apostles but in al tymes His second reason that offering them selues so it is their own onely faut is a crauing of that in question For that it is onely their faut and that the gouernours of the church haue no commandement to look to yt are the same in effect His third reason that if yt had bene so necessary S. Paul would haue spoken of yt here especially is to fond considering that the Apostle writeth onely ether of such fautes as were in that church or of matters whereof his iudgment was asked That also owt of M. Caluin is meerly idle For it is one question whether a priuate man vnder coulor of an vnmeet person admitted to the supper owght to withdraw hym self and another whether such a one should be admitted by the gouernours of the church his answer maketh also as much to proue that knowen whoremongers should not be driuen to repentance before they come to the communion as knowen papistes considering that it belongeth not to priuate men to take in hand the correction of them when they present them selues Against that alledged of the commandement to the Leuites to prepare the people to the receiuing of the Pasouer vuhich vuas the same vuith them that the holy supper is vuith vs he excepteth and that confidently and with reproches that it is abrogated whose shameful dealing herein let al the world iudg of considering that by how much our sacrament is excellenter then theirs by so much owght there to be greater care and diligēce in preparing the people thereto But of this more hath bene said otherwhere After he excepteth that the text is that they should prepare not examin which is friuolous and preuented in that I added that examination is a part of preparation So that he that commādeth the whole must needes doe the part whereunto he answereth not but affirmeth yt manifest that the Leuites vsed no such examination of which manifestnes there is not a letter in the text The contrary by al likelihood is to be intended considering that diuers of the people nue come owt of ignorance and Idolatry had need of particular trial against which the marginal note maketh not seing exhortation may wel stand with examination and the nature of a note is not to lay owt thinges at large That the papistes may as wel vse this for auriculer confession is so placed that yt may be taken that the Iues vsed auricular confession as a ceremony vnder the law which is vntrue and so yt is propounded as if there were as good ground in the word of that as of thys which beside the vntruth is ouerturned of his own wordes confessing that examination may be vnles he wil say that auriculer confession may be likewise his argument which he renounceth is as I haue framed yt whereof let the reader iudg as also of the Admo meaning OF THE AVTORITY OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE IN CAVSES ECclesiastical Tract the tvuelfth and tvuentith according to the D. page 694. THere ys a proper place where the D.
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
he citeth owt of Saunders yt appeareth that he doeth not subiect them vnto the Magistrate in respect of their priesthood Owt of Harding he nether citeth wordes nor quoteth place which his burning desire of coupling vs with the papistes would not haue passed if it could haue bene found And that the reader may better know his great vnfaithfulnes in so weighty a matter let him take Hardings own wordes to the Bishop which are these Yovu teach princes to vse violence against Priestes as thovugh their fautes could not be redressed by the Prelates of the cleargy And after yt is not conuenient that the king should cal Priestes before hym to his ovun seat of iudgment I assigned also another difference that vuhere the papistes vuil haue the Prince execute vuhatsoeuer they conclude be yt good or bad vue say that if there be no lavuful ministery as in the ruinous decayes of religion that then the Prince ovught to set order And if vuhen there is a lavuful ministery it shal agree of any vnlavuful thing that the Prince ovught to stay yt and to driue them to that vuhich is lavuful This difference althowgh he could not deny and althowgh by it we are sundred from the papistes as far as he is frō him that said the kyng of Persia might doe vuhat he lusted yet he continueth his former slaunder that we shake handes with the papistes and feareth not stil to say that he seeth not wherein in this article we differ from them But not able to deny this difference he cauilleth at yt asking first why the prince owght rather to determin of ecclesiastical causes when there is no lawful ministery thē whē there is forsooth because the Magistrate is bound to see the seruice of god maynteined in his dominion which when yt can not be by the meanes which god hath appointed ordinary yet for as much as his bond stil remayneth the next is that yt be doen as nerely vnto that order as may be vntil such tyme which owght to be with al possible speed as the standing and set order be established I say as nere as may be vnto the order prescribed of god least any should think that because that order can not be precisely kept he were by and by at liberty to set vp clean another order which should seem best to hym neglecting vpon occasion of the vnability of obseruing al the obseruation of those thinges which may be obserued For herein owght to be folowed the example of the godly learned Priest Abimelech which admitted Dauid and his company to the participation of the shew bread that was otherwise lawful for the Priests onely to eat of who althowgh to kepe charity which is the end of the law he brake so much of the ceremonye as the present necessity did require yet he ceased not therefore to be careful of the obseruation of the rest as appeareth in that he asked vuhether they had absteyned from the company of their vuiues Again yt is known that the Priestes and Prophetes haue extraordinarily meddled with ciuil affaires in confused tymes wil he therfore say that this power is ordinarily annexed vnto the Bishops office The cases I graunt are not altogither like yet to his question which supposeth that there is no cause why the Magistrate should not iudg of church matters aswel when there is a lawful ministery as when there is none this may serue for part of an answer Moreouer as in siknes there is another diet then in health so the church in her greuous diseas hath an other kinde of gouernment then that which is ordinary and vsed in a good constitution of her body which thing being said of the ruinous estate of the church is to be vnderstood also of her beginninges and as yt were infancy where ether there was no church before or hauing bene yt was rased from the foundations Yf this content him not let him answer me why the Prince must of necessity commit these matters to the ministery when it is learned and godly rather then when yt is otherwise if at the least he wil now at the last haue this the meaning of this broken english And of his answer to this question wil easely rise an answer to his But some sharper Aduersary might here haue obiected that Moses Dauid and Salomō being Princes in the moste florishing estate of the church did notwithstanding make church orders whereunto I answer that they did so partly for that they were not kinges onely and Princes but also Prophetes of god partly for that they had special and expres direction therto from god by the prophete whereby they did euen those thinges in the church which withowt such special reuelation was not lawful for the Priestes thē selues to haue doē And althowgh the truth of this answer be apparant yet that it may haue the more autority especially with the D. that tasteth nothing withowt this sauce he may vnderstand that it is M. Caluins answer of Moses and Dauid and that in this present cause now debated His other quarrel against this answer is that if a lawful ministery determining some thing vnlawful wil not be browght to that which is iust that then the Prince must haue ether that which they wil or no religiō As thowgh such a ministery were a lawful ministery that is obstinate or as if this obstinacy being general or for the moste part the state is not here ruinous so that the Prince may after due meanes assaied to bring them home procure that other be put in their places we herby appeareth that the remedy of this inconuenience which he saith he can not see was comprehended in the first part of the second difference betwene ours and the Papists iudgment But if for that a lawful ministery is subiect to error or doeth er in the decision of ecclesiastical causes he think that yt should not therefore handle these matters he may as wel take from them the preaching of the word considering that an error may as wel be found in the pulpit as in the Councel how 's And look what remedy the Magistrate hath against a ministery teaching falsly or inconueniently in the pulpit the same hath he against yt determining so in Councel And to make the partition wal betwene the papistes and vs in this question one cubite higher that those which wil not open their eys to see it may feel yt in not onely stumbling but running also their heades against yt I wil ad this muche that in ascribing vnto the ministery the decision of matters in controuersy and the making of church ceremonies our meaning is not vtterly to seclude the Magistrate For when experience teacheth vs that often tymes a simple man and as the prouerb saith the Gardener hath spoken to good purpose but especially when in the holy scripture the ould Testament and the nue and thirdly when in the ecclesiastical writers yt is found that there haue bene
of the people admitted vnto these consultations when further it is found that they haue had their consent there and sometyme also their speach with far greater reason may the Christian Magistrate boeth be assistant and haue his voice in such assemblies That then which we giue vnto the ministery in such church consultations which are not of the dayly ministery as Synods be is boeth a fore consultation as we see to haue bene doen in the scripture to the end that the matter being digested and as it were cut owt and prepared a forehand yt might be the better handled in a fuller assembly as also the direction and moderation of that meeting where these matters are defined and concluded of But in the cheef point he is sure we agree with the papistes euen as the godly and learned writers ould and of our age doe agree with them and none otherwise whereof two the D. is him self constreyned to cōfes meaning as I think M. Caluin and Beza whether he doe or no so they are as may appear And how durst he say of those two vpon no ground that in this article of the Magistrats autority they differ nothing from the papistes For so he saith in effect when he saith so of vs whome he is compelled to confes to haue their assistance in this cause Althowgh they are not as he saith alone but haue diuers others bearing them company Amongest whome M. Bucer may seem to be worthy of the cheif place which affirmeth that the magistrate ovught not to administer the discipline of the church So that so far as we consent here with the papistes we doe it as in the article of the holy Trinity where we haue with warrant of the word of god the approbation also of the best we hould with them thinges in common in which respect we are not afraid to confes that we consent in some point with the Iues and Turkes or they rather with vs But yow are foūd in diuers places in their priuate orcheyardes gathering your frute of trees which their handes did first plant and from thence yow bring your stockes which yow would place in the lords vineyard And euen in this question whome haue yow opposed vnto these two which yow cōfes of our iudgmēt yow pretend in deed the Bishops of Sarisbury and winchester with M. Nowel but for two of them I haue shewed that they are in effect of the same iudgment we are assured I am they are further from yow then from vs of the third also albeit I haue not seen hym I perswade my self likewise There remaineth onely Musculus whose saying if I should deny not to be charged vpon vs but on the papistes onely seing we doe not deny altogither as they doe that he hath autority to make church lawes yow se we haue hould which yow can not easely put vs from But because when I confessed some of contrary iudgment I meant him at the least as one which if he thowght as we did not sufficiently expres yt let vs graunt yow this reed to ride vpon and to bear your self vp in this great triumph And let it be graunted yow to make your faut seem so much the les that yow haue one learned man of the same iudgment with yow That I haue no other reasons then the papistes is vntrue at least yow shew yt not And I may holily profes and in the presence of god that I went not to the papistes for them but in reading the scriptures and the autors them selues obserued them Nether could the papistes abusing them to the maintenance of their tyranny ouer Princes and the whole church affray me to vse them as I haue no more then they affraied M. Caluin and others which haue vsed of them in like maner Of al which matter the reader may vnderstand how vnworthy owtcries they be which he so oftē raiseth against vs that we giue no more to a godly Christian magistrate then to the Turk or Nero with such like For who wil communicate the church matters with Nero open to hym the necessity of houlding a Councel desire his confirmation of the church orders pray his aid in the maynteyning them cal vpon him aswel for making them where the lawful ministery faileth as for redres of the euil Yt is trw the Turk and Nero owght to doe al these euen as they owght to doe whatsoeuer belongeth vnto a godly Christian Prince for the leauing of which vndoen much more for doeyng the contrary the wrath of the lord resteth vpon them and theirs But for as much as they profes enmity of the truth as they must want boeth the honour in this world and reward in the world to come which the lord giueth vnto a Christian magistrate so the church must paciently bear the want of these thinges vnder the one which she enioyeth vnder the other To end this matter seing the church and common wealth are distinguished aswel vnder a Christian Prince as vnder an vnchristian and that thereof foloweth the distinctiō one from another not onely of the lower but also of the higher members which are the gouernours in boeth the bodies seing also the lord hath appointed the Ministers to be ouer the matters perteyning to him self Seing further the ministery of the church is by calling and giftes incidēt thereunto the fittest Iudg of the church matters last of al seing the auncient practis of the church houldeth vp her hand hereunto I conclude that as wel in the decision of the doctrine as in the chois of the variable ceremonies of the church the principal autority belōgeth vnto the ministery The rest of the sections in this tractate as those which require no reply I wil not towch but leau them to the readers iudgment THE THIRTINTH AND LAST TRACTATE AND NINTH VVITH THE D. beginning page 474 of the inconuenience of the Ceremonyes vsed in the church of England deuided into tvuo partes the first vuhereof is of the general fautes the other of the particuler THe doctrine and discipline of the church as the weightiest thinges owght especially to be looked vnto but the ceremonies also as mynt and comyn owght not to be neglected For if honest matrones haue regard to the smalest part of the attire of their daughters that yt be nether sluttish nor gawish nor after the maner of harlots much more owght that care to be taken for the church of god that by her comely and maidenlike apparel she may content euē the eyes of al which loue her spiritual chastity And althowgh the corruptions in them stryke not strayt to the heart yet as gētil poisons they consume by little and little which is rather to be takē heed vnto for that the harm they doe is to the moste part so insensible that the church may seem to dy hereon almoste withowt any grief or sens of yt or goe away as yt were in a sleap Hereupon it commeth that this part hath before
acceptable seruice vnto god as hath bene alledged where he fel at the very same stone whereas yf bodily labour were carnal liberty the church and the Magistrate not onely might but were streightly bownd to restrayn yt yea vtterly to abolish yt After he asketh why the church may not aswel restrayn froÌ„ working any part of the day as from the most part of yt which saith he I confes where first my wordes taken at the largest affourd no further vacation from labours then the tyme wherein the ordinary seruice may be celebrated which is not the most part of the day Secondly where he concludeth thereupon that yt may restrayn vs any part of the day yf that were admitted what would folow that therefore yt may restrayn from labour the whole day there is great oddes for yt is one thing to restrayn any part of the day and another to restrayn the whole day Therefore to haue concluded any thing for these wordes any part of the day yow should haue put the whole day Now yf yow ask me why the church may not aswel restrain men from labour the whole day ordinarily for in extraordinary cases yt is confessed as to restrayn them so much tyme as the deuine seruice may be celebrated in yt is but a faiÌ„t question For I would ask of yow whether yf it were lawul forthe church to appoint two holy dayes euery week yt were therefore lawful for her to appoint six And yf yow wil haue your reason trust vp in few wordes yt is this The church may doe that which is les therefore yt may doe that which is more Again the deuine seruice wherefore the vacation is commanded being ended whereupoÌ„ should the rest of the day be better imploied theÌ„ in the dayly vocations yow wil answer in priuate reading the word of god and prayer This in deed might haue better colour yf the charge were as streight to driue men from playing and dissolutnes often tymes vnto this exercise at yt is to driue them from their work Howbeit here owght not to be forgotten the wise mans counsail that vue should not be to iust So that as the greatest heap fal away from god by prophanes and contempt of his seruice thorowgh the desire of folowing the world eueÌ„ so of the contrary part men boeth may and haue sometymes declined whilest they estemed that the cutting away of some peece from their necessary trauail could not be vnacceptable vnto the lord so that the same were bestowed in the church exercises And althowgh the wealth of some may wel suffer al these vacations from their dayly callings and moe to yet in making the church ceremonies respect must be had what the comon sort may doe euen as yt is in a musical consent where the sweeter or finer voice ys not alwayes takeÌ„ but that which wil best accord and fal in with the rest of the Quier As for those to whom the lord hath giuen the meanes to occupie them selues oftener in priuate reading of the holy scripture and prayer yf they haue affection thereunto they wil likely doe yt withowt this order if they haue none they wil abuse the rest to fulfil their nawghty desires which might be in part restrayned by trauail in their vocation The reason is like For the autority is al one to make yt vnlavuful to vuork vuhen god hath made yt lavuful and to make yt lavuful to labour vuhen god hath made yt vnlavuful And therefore euen as the church can not commaund men to labour the seuenth day wherein the lord hath commanded rest but vpon some good coÌ„sideration so can yt not but vpon like considerations restrayn men from labour any of the six dayes so that his answer that the one is a commandement the other a permission is nothing worth For as the commandement of resting the seuenth day must because of gods autoritye abide in the nature of a commandement so the permission to work the six dayes warranted by the same autority must abide in the nature of a permission The third section is beside the cause For yt is not in question whether priuate men should be subiect vnto such orders but whether the church should charge them with this yoke or no. Of the liberty of the church in this matter so yt be vpon conditions before specified there is no question Howbeit the example owt of Esther 9 of the two dayes which the â—ues instituted in the remembrance of their deliuerance is no sufficient warrant for these feastes in question For first as in other cases so in this case of dayes the estate of Christians vnder the gospel owght not to be so ceremonious as was theirs vnder the law Secondly that which was doen there was doen by a special direction of the spirit of god ether throwgh the ministery of the Prophetes which they had or by some other extraordinary meanes which is not to be folowed of vs This may appear by another place where the Iues changed their fastes into feastes onely by the mouth of the lord throwgh the ministery of the Prophet For further proof whereof first I take the 28 verse where yt appeareth that this was an order to endure alwayes euen as long as the other feastes dayes which were instituted by the lord hiÌ„ self So that what abuses so euer were of that feast yet as a perpetual decree of god yt owght to haue remained whereas our churches can make no such decree which may not vpoÌ„ change of tymes and other circumstaÌ„ces be altered For the other proof hereof I take the last vers For the Prophet coÌ„tenteth not hym self with that that he had rehearsed the decree as he doeth sometyme the decree of prophane kynges but addeth precisely that as sone as euer the decree was made yt was registred in this book of Esther which is one of the bookes of the canonical scripture declaring thereby in what esteme they had yt Yf yt had bene of no further autority then our decrees or then a canon of one of the councels yt had bene presumption to haue browght yt into the library of the holy gost The sum of my answer is that this decree was diuine and not ecclesiastical onely That which he addeth of euery priuate mans consent in these matters is not to the question and yet is b before answered THE SECOND PART OF THIS chapter of Saintes dayes YF purgatory were propounded onely as a thing indifferent which a man might beleue or not beleue and yt were in our chois whether we would pray for the dead or no yet this liberty is nawght wherefore your answer that purgatory is made necessary to saluation is insufficient But as purgatory ys vnlawful with what sauce soeuer yow set yt before vs so the keping of Saintes dayes holy can by no glos be made good your confounding therefore of Saintes dayes with holy dayes as yf there were one case of them boeth is no simple dealing
vnlavuful thing notwithstanding that he protest that yt is for orders sake onely For as for that he addeth withowt any suspitiō of superstitiō yf it be vnderstood that the Magistrate doeth not cōmand yt superstitiously that doeth not heal vp the matter seing he may faut by other wayes thē by superstitiō yf he vnderstand that the subiectes doe not abuse yt to superstitiō yt is that in questiō But here he is fallē again frō him self For before he answereth as thowgh a church ceremony might be comely and not tend to edificatiō inasmuch as to me obiecting that yt ovught to tend to edification he answereth that yt is sufficient yf yt pertayn to order and comelines Here presuming comelines he concludeth thereof that not onely yt tendeth to edification but also that yt edifieth The rest is an open asking of that in controuersy that onely excepted which is before answered Against his reason that the surplice edifieth because those which wear yt edify I alledged the Midvuiues lye whereunto he answereth nothing to the purpose but that which I gaue hym which is not enowgh to mayntein hym seing he propounded generally that those thinges edify which are doen by them which edify And what auantageth yt hym to proue that this apparel may be worn that the lye profited when yt owght not to haue bene doen yf yt might haue saued al the world The similitude of stammering is vnanswered For seing he is browght to that pinch that he cā here assign no other cause why they edify then because the Minister can not otherwise be admitted to preach yf there should be a Magistrate which in contempt of the gospel should ordeyn that none should preach but those which stammer he seeth that the similitude houldeth Yf this example be not graue and sad enowgh to match with the cope which hath bene alwayes estemed so fit for a players garment let hym take the example in oyl c propounded vnder the same conditions The rest is answered In the next to the reasons against his assertion that the wearing of the surplice maketh the wearers to agree in other pointes of doctrine and the not wearing to disagree he partly answereth not and the answer which he maketh hangeth altogither of blinde experience I cal yt blinde because he can giue no reason of yt and therefore as that which hath no light to shew yt by yt must needes be vnuisible As for his vntrue surmises that we imagin a perfection whereby we haue no need of lawes or Magistrate they neuer fail hym as if yt were not emongest other a singuler vse and profite of the Magistrate to procure by lawes and punishmentes that those meanes which god hath ordeyned to mayntein godly vnity with be straytly obserued althowgh he deuise none of his own The next diuision is answered In the next being not able to cary his reason they are signes of good thinges therefore they are good any further he dischargeth yt vpon M. Bucer which hath yt not also vpon the commō vse of speach which he also slaundereth For we doe not cal yt a good sign comonly vnles that as the thing is good so the sign to mark yt owt with be agreable And yf he presume that here in the surplice he openly beggeth the question otherwise what is he that wil say that a wolfs skyn is a good sign of a lamb because the lamb which is good is clothed in yt althowgh his answer is nothing but a shift For he considered not what the thing is in common speach but what yt is in deed and in reason The example of the goulden calf was wel alledged For yt was to the Israelites a sign of the true god but a nawghty and a wicked sign and so yf none but Ministers of the gospel did wear the surplice I would confes that with vs yt were a sign of a Minister of the gospel but yet an vncomely and an inconuenient sign And to the intent the reader may know how vnfaithfully the D. dealeth with him in houlding owt M. Bucers autority for the surplice and the rest of this popish apparel he may vnderstand that he doeth boeth for that it serueth to superstition in many and for diuers other causes require that they should be taken avuay in our church His first section is to no purpose of that which I towched hym for In the next his answer that the abuse of the brasen serpent could not be taken away oneles the superstition yt self were is withowt al proof and may be as wel said of this apparel For althowgh no man worship the apparel by falling down before yt yet he may haue a damnable opinion of yt and as hard to be pulled owt as the other Beside that by how much the abuse of the serpent was greater then of this apparel by so much was the profit of the brasen serpent if yt had bene called to the right vse withowt comparison greater then of these ceremonies And althowgh the necessary and commanded vse of the serpent were but for the tyme wherein yt was a mean to heal those which were bitten yet afterward yt had a notable vse of continuyng the remembrance of gods vuōderful benefite to vuards that people whereūto he answereth not Els I ask of hym why it was continued in the church so many hundred yeares vnder so many boeth good kinges and godly Priestes His answer to that obiected of the loue feastes I receiue so far as concerneth the inconuenience of keping them in that place wherein the lords supper was celebrated Howbeit to that that the church hath for the abuse vtterly taken those feastes avuay notvuithstanding that they vuere likely meanes to norish loue vuith he answereth not That those loue feastes were borowed of the Gentiles is vnlike considering that S. Peter giueth sufficiently to vnderstand that they were vsed in the churches of the Iues which abhorred from the ceremonies of the Gentiles For writyng vnto the churches of the Iues he alludeth plainly vnto that of S. Iude where these feastes are expresly named Yt is much more probable that they were taken from the imitation of the Iues vnder the law who are bidden to feast before the lord in Ierusalem wherein are commended vnto them as gests and partakers of the same blessing of god with them straungers and widowes with other nedy and destitute persons which is manifest to haue bene one of the endes of this loue feast The two first sections are nothing but an asking of that in demaund especially hauing regard to this point whether this apparel be conuenient for the ministery or no or whether being inconuenient yt owght so to be declared in which pointes this question lieth As towching that point whether the Minister should wear yt althowgh yt be inconueniēt the truth is that I dare not be autor to any to forsake his pastoral charge for the inconuenience thereof considering that this charge being an absolute
can doe any thing in the gouernment of the church but the Pastor alone he must needes confes that that wchich may be owght to be for support of the Pastor his other answer is before confuted Secondly yt was alledged that S. Paul so loeth to lay any vnnecessary charge vpon the church yet enioyned this ministery vnto the poor and persecuted churches The strēght of which reason lyeth in this that some contributiō vuas necessary to their mayntenance then vuhere as novu in tyme of peace this ministery may be vuithovut al charges vnto the church To thys in sted of answer he frameth other argumentes of his own wherewith he dalieth skowreth vp his ould stuf of widowes and the ciuil Magistrate before answered alledgeth the pouerty of some parishes the vnwillingnes of other some to contribute which is a meer trifling For seing the pouerty of the churches could not exempt them from this charge when they were much poorer as appeareth by S. Paul seing also yt may be now withowt the charge of the church as appeareth by the practise of the churches which are so gouerned in these dayes where there is not a penny alowed to any Elder ether he owght to confute this or blush to set down that for answer yet he is not afraid after to put yt for a reason against the Eldership whervnto may be added that the churches in persecution nether those now nor other in tymes past could haue such helpes of howses or landes appropriated to the fineding of their ministery as the churches with vs but were driuen to pay for al of their own purs And not that onely but cōstreyned to pay their tythes or other exactions to the Idolatrous priesthood of that place where they abode which we are freed from vnder a Christian Magistrate To the third reason that the declyning of a popular rule or that of the best hath not so easy redres vnder a Tyrant as vnder a Christian magistrate he saith men in persecution are not desirous of honor c. which in a maner is as much to say as men in persecution ceas to be men and is vntrue as appeareth boeth in the Apostles tymes and after as I haue shewed Secondly he answereth that the gouernours thē were but during the pleasure of such as ppointed them wherof he bringeth no profe at al and is likewise vntrue considering that they were chosen to remayn so long in their office as they behaued them selues vnblamably or at the least vntil a certeyn term before which they could not by any equity but vpon their faut or their own desire be put owt In the first of which two cases they are somewhere now as they were then and in the later they may if it seme expedient euen now as wel as then so that here is no difference at al betwene those and these tymes Nether doeth he consider that the gouernours being corrupt the greatest part of the church is commonly led away with them In which case the church is withowt remedy vnder persecution when notwithstanding she hath an easy remedy vnder a Christian Magistrate Thirdly he saith that this graunted the argument foloweth not reason he sheweth none but open askinges of that in question And whether it folow wel that for so much as there ys les inconuenience in the gouernment of the Eldership vnder a Christian magistrate then vnder a Tyrant therfore it may be better vnder hym then vnder a Tyrāt let al the world iudg his owtcourses as also his open vntruth that I confes the church gouernment to be a monarchy I pas by I onely said that it is a monarchy in respect of our Sau. Christ which is nothing to that purpose he alledgeth yt for In the fourth that the Elders could not then meet vuithovut danger vuhich they may doe novu and therfore that the gouernment by one onely as of the Bishop had bene if euer then most conuenient he answereth that it was not so dangerous which is contrary to al reason and experience Then he saith the church must be subiect to the ciuil magistrate whereby as appeareth boeth in this diuision and in the next he meaneth nothing els but that yt owght to allow of that church gouernment which the Magistrate wil appoint althowgh yt be diuers from the Apostles which is a fat begging of that in question his first and third answers also towch not the cause at al. Vuhere against his distinction that this gouernment of Elders may be in a Cytie but not in a Realm I alledged that it hath had place by his ovun confession in a vuhole Realm he saith that that is true where euery church is as yt were within yt self a common wealth as in Fraunce and other persecuted churches wherein he doeth shameful iniury to al those churches of god and to the Apostles them selues which vsed that order in ascribing vnto them as thowgh they made new common wealthes or liued not vnder the same form of ciuil gouernment were not obedient vnto the same ciuil lawes and to the same Magistrates which the Idolatres them selues were what one ether action or property can yow assign in an Eldership vnder a kingdome which should cause this rent that there should be so many common wealthes and so many kingdomes as there are Elderships why also doeth this Eldership make a greater rent in a monarchy where one gouerneth then in a common wealth where many gouern If yow think therfore because a monarchy is greater then a common wealth wherby there must be moe Elderships in the one then in the other beside that the argument is nawght that also wherevpon it is grounded is vntrue For there are common wealthes where many rule greater then the monarchies where one onely gouerneth as Rome in tymes past Venys within our remembrāce and such like Vuhere I alledged also that by his reason a monarchy should not be good in the common vuealth because the gouernment of one is good in a hovushould c. He answereth that the autority of the Master of the howshould derogateth not from the Princes but the Eldership doeth which is his accustomed beggery where in deed the autority of a Master of a howshould approcheth nerer vnto the kinde of gouernment of the Magistrate as that which hath corporal punishment annexed vnto yt then the autority of the Eldership which meddleth not that way And because I am entred into that example I would know of hym which wil haue other gouernmentes fashioned to the form of gouernment of the common wealth whether in a common wealth where many haue equal autority the magistrate may ordeyn that the father of the houshould shal not rule his own how 's alone or be cheif in yt but shal haue his wife of like autority or some of his seruantes quarter Master If he be ashamed of this then he seeth that the wal of al his defence against the discipline of the