Caligula Nero Domitian and such tyrants it standeth with Paules doctrine that they may be punished for their offences For he disputeth onely of the lawful autoritie of the magistrates not of wicked magistrates which abuse their authoritie Neither according to Saint Paules doctrine are such Kings to be held for Magistrates Vt cunque negare non possunt aulici adulatoras carnificis functionem pariem esse muneris publici fortasse etiam regij vel ipsorum regum testimonio qui quoties aliquis è ministus publicis violatur se suamquè maiestatem corpus violari queruntur The flattering Courtiers cannot denie but that the office of the hangman doth belong to the King witnes the Kings themselues which when their Catchpoles and hangmen receiue any wrong doe complaine that their owne person is in them wronged and their princely Maiestie M. Quid tandeÌ„ e scripturis profers cur liceat tyrannos impunè occidere B. Primùm id affero quod quùm diserte praeceptum sit de scelere sceleratis à medio tollendis sinè vllâ exceptione gradus aut ordinis nusquà m tamen in saeris literis tyrannis magis quà m priuatis est cautum Hauing a generall commandement out of Gods word to put to death wicked men without respect of any degree or order in particular tyrants haue no more priuiledge then priuate men and therefore according to his word it is lawfull to kill tyrants Rationem excogitarunt Canonistae quá scelera plecterentur Papa tameÌ„ sacro sanctus inuiolatus haberetur Aliud enim Papa aliud illius hominis qui Papa esset ius existimabant c. Wee may distinguish betweene the Kings person and his office to punish him as he is a man offending setting a side his place and so not the King but the malefactor is chastised Nos contendimus idem ius reges habere in multitudinem quod illi in singulos e multitudine habent The people haue ioyntly the same authoritie ouer the King which the King hath ouer euery seuerall person among the people The French Consistorians write in this manner Subditi Vindiciae contra tyrannos non tenentur regibus obedire siquid aduersùs legem Dei imperent Subiects are not bound to obey Kings if they command any thing contrary to Gods word In which assertion first they Quest 1 make the subiects to be both the plaintiues and the Iudges betweene their King and themselues whether he hath commanded any thing against Gods word or no so that it shall be an easie matter for them at their pleasure to discharge theÌ„selues of all dutie and obedience to the King Secondly they deceiue the simple reader by a fallacie for the ambiguitie lyeth in these words Si quid aduersus legem dei imperant If they coÌ„mand any thing contrary to Gods word For the question is whether they meane onely in that particular thing which is against Gods word the King is not to be obeyed or else that in nothing he is to be obeyed because he hath commanded some one thing repugnant to the law of God In this last sense it is by them vnderstood as appeareth by the words following which are these Vassallus se Domino superiori iuramento diuincit sic Rex ex legis diuinae precepto se imperaturum iurat Vassallus deniquè nisi iusiurandum seruat feedum committit ipsoque iure se omni praerogatiuâ priuat Rex quoque si deum negligat c. ipso iure regnum committit èx facto plerumque amittit Duplex autem foedus in regum inaugurations legimus primum inter Deâ—m regem populum vt esset populus Dei populus secundum vero inter regem populum vt bene obtemperanti benè obtemperaretur The vassall is bound to his Lord by an oath and the King sweareth that hee will rule according to Gods word if the vassal keepeth not his oath he forfeiteth his estate so if the King breake his oath hee forfeiteth his Crowne There is a double couenant at a Kings Coronation the first betweene God on the one side and the King with the people on the other side that the people shall be Gods people the second betweene the King and the people that the people shall be faithfull subiects no longer then the King shal continue a good King Populus si regem non coercet culpâ tenebitur quià correi sunt Licet Isrà els si Rex legem Dei Ecclesiamne euertat resistere nèc id Vindicïae contra tyrannos modo verum nifecerit eiusdem criminis tonebitur eandem poenaÌ„ luet Resistat vero verbo si verbo oppugnabitur vi si vi arte inquà m marte quin et dolo bono si bono cùm nihilintersit vbi iustum belluÌ„ Qust 2 susceperis vtrum aperte pugues an èx insidijs It is lawfull for the people to resist the King which impugneth Gods law or his Church and vnles they doe resist him they shall be accessarie as he is principall and incurre the same punishment which is due vnto him If he deale by sword or word they must oppose themselues against him with the same weapons For as much as the warre which in that cause they doe wage against him is iust it maketh no matter whether they vse open warre and hostilitie or secret slight and politie Nemo rex nascitur nemo per se rex est nemo absqùe populo regnare Vindicâ—oe contra tyrannos potest populus per sè esse potest c. No man is borne to a kingdome no man is of himselfe à King no man can raigne but by the fauour of the people but the people are absolute Quest 3 of themselues the people is in time before the king therefore all Kings are ordained authorized by the people and in such kingdomes as are haereditarie the child may not succeed his Father vnles he haue the approbation of the people Quùm reges a populo constituantur vniuersus populus rege prior est c Seeing kings are appointed by the people the whole people is aboue the king his authoritie being deriued from them he is vnder them as Ioseph was vnder Putifer Daniel vnder Nabuchadnazer The king is but a seruaÌ„t to the coÌ„monwealth as a shipmaster to the honour of the ship Whatsoeuer accrueth to the king by wars or by his Exchequor he must be accountable for it to the people as a Merchants factour is to his Mr Let the people forsake their king he wil be a conteÌ„ptible person in the eyes of all men when they shall put him from his dominion ouer men he will be glad to be some paedanticall fellow and to vse his paedagogical authoritie ouer boyes As for our English Consistorians they haue these words T. C. lib 2. pag. 15. 7. T. C. lib. 2. pag. 165. Admonit 2. No ciuil Magistrate hath preheminence by ordinary authoritie to determine of Church causes
had his calling from his Father Moses from God Aaron from Moses the Apostles from our Sauiour Timothy Titus from S. Paul so we must consider in whom this authority resteth to call men to the ministery for none of these of whom I haue spoken had any consent of the people This custome of popular election is borrowed out of the Turkes Alcaron and not of the Bible It is saide to the congregation concerning the election of Deacons Looke ye out 7. men of honest conuersation c by which it is iustified which our law doth require that they vpon whom the Bishoppe Act. 6. shall lay hands must bring with them sufficient testimony of their worthinesse but in the words following it is said whom we may appoint to this businesse And afterward verse 6. when they were found out they set them before the Apostles and the Apostles prayed and laide hands vpon them but not the people as our Bishops assisted with other ministers without the helpe of the people ordeine ministers with vs. Therefore in their obiection out of the Acts where they alleage these English words When they had ordeined Elders by Act. 14. election in euery Church c they doe but deceiue themselues For the Greeke word is cheirotoneo of cheir an hand and teino porrigo extendo noteleno to reach or stretch forth or lay on not to eleuate or lift vp so cheirotoneia is not eleuation but imposition of hands in Eccesiasticall writers These words then cheirotonesantes eautois presbuterous is manuum impositione consecrantes sibi ipsiâ— presbyteros when by imposition of hands they had consecrated Elders or Ministers as Moses by imposition of hands conferred the holy Ghost vpon Iosua and sanctified him to be a Magistrate and our Deut. 24. Matt. 19. Sauiour in the Gospel by laying hands on the children blessed them And thâ—â— cheirotoneia is expressed more plainely by another Greeke word in the Acts of the Apostles concerning Act. 6. the consecration of Deacons to be epithesis ion cheiron imposition of hands where the text saith proseuxamenoi opâ—thecan autois tas cheiras when they had prayed they layed hands vpon them And Gualâ—er in his Commentary vpon that place of the Acts which before was alleaged when they had ordeined Elders by election in euery Citie after he hath iustified these popular elections vsed in the Church of Tigurie and dispraised our manner of ordination reuoketh himselfe and confesseth by the word cheirotonesantes magis verisimiliter hîc incelligi manuum impositionem non incerto populo rem tam seriam committendam that in that place imposition of hands is rather to be vnderstoode then any popular election and that a matter of so great importance as the ordination of Ministers is not to be committed to the rude and inconstant common people He commeth now to his ob Sol and obiecteth in our behalfe as we doe our selues commonly alleage that it cannot stand with the state of a Kingdome that there should be a popular gouernment of the Church And he answereth himselfe that it is not requisite that the gouernment of the Church should bee answerable to the gouernement of the Realme To which his answer I reply that if the gouernment of the Church be not answerable to the gouernment of the Realme then our assertion is true that this popular gouernment cannot stand with the state of a Kingdome because the King is by the people excluded out of the Church gouernment With vs Bishops are the Kings Lieutenants in Ecclesiasticall causes and all Ecclesiasticall Courts are the Kings Courts they be held immediately vnder the King his authority in causes Ecclesiasticall being subalternate and immediately subordinate vnto our Sauiour Christ Now for as much as they which hold with the lay Eldership and popular gouernment doe claime their authority immediately from God without the King they derogate from the Kings authority in Ecclesiasticall causes and in Church matters they hold him for no King Lastly whereas we obiect that popular gouernment with vs cannot be but tumultuous and hee answereth that no tumults can arise by their gouernment considering foure circumstances First that it is Gods ordinance Secondly that it is to be executed by no greater multitude then a parish Thirdly that the Church guides being seperated from the people determine the matter and prepare it onely the people consent with them Fourthly if any few be violent and vnruly the next Iustices are to keepe the peace among them It is but an answerlesse answer For first that popular gouernment is not Gods but mans ordinance as I haue shewed Secondly it is apparant that diuers parishes with vs be so populous that they consist of many thousands and are as large in compasse as some Diocesse in other places Thirdly for the guides of the Church priuately to agree vpon the matter and to vrge the people and constraine them by the authority of Iustices of peace to yeelde vnto that which they haue decreed is as much as to make it no popular election at all because then free consents are denied them and all authority resteth in the guides of the Church For if there be no tumult it is wholly in the power of the Church Magistrates to conclude and establish what they list and the people must agree to it if there be a tumult the Magistrates of the Church are to command the Iustices to execute what their selues would haue done so that the people are vsed but as ciphers and haue no liberty in themselues So this is as good as no election Of Lord Bishops and Ecclesiasticall persons exercising ciuill authoritie THe common obiection is that our Sauiour being the chiefe Bishop was not held for a Lord neither had hee any outward pompe or glory in this world To which I answer if so be they inferre this conclusion vpon that example therefore Bishops must not be Lords the weakenesse of that argument will appeare by the like for they may as well conclude against Kings that because our Sauiour being a King yet was no Lord had no pompe nor glorie-therefore Kings must not be Lords c. I could answer further Tit. 2. that he was a Lord and so the Apostle doth call him a great Lord and the head of the Church and the Prince of Eph. 4. 15. Apoc. 1. the kings of the earth and because he is head of the Church all Kings doe holde their Crownes vnder him That the world did not acknowledge him for a Lorde it was their blindnesse Hee came to be crucified and had the world knowne him non Dominum gloriae crucifixissent they had not crucified the Lord of glory And yet in his state of humility hee had an honourable retinew to attend vpon him to the number of eighty two his twelue Apostles and seuenty Disciples Matth. 1â— Luk. 10. Iudas was his treasurer or pursbearer he sent Philip to the market to buy bread he imployed his Disciples in such seruices
force tooke from them all power of life death not onely from the Priests but also from the whole nation 40. yeares before that time as Maister Beza hath well obserued it was not lawfull for them to put any man to death Thirdly if the Iewes had had all their authoritie in their Beza in annot maiorib in Ioh 18. hands without controlment yet it appeareth by the 28. verse of that chapter that the Priests at that time would not be present at that iudgement where seÌ„tence of death was to be pronounced because the feast of Easter was at hand and so doing they should haue made themselues vncleane and by a consequent disinabled themselues from executing their office at that solemnitie Thus you haue heard proued out of the holy Scriptures that among Gods people in that kingdome which was gouerned according to Gods own lawes euen then when it was reformed by godly kings there was no bench of Iustice for hearing and ending of ciuill causes vpon which Priests and Leuites did not sit as Iudges and Iustices Therefore I demand other sound reasons or places of Sctipture to proue why it should not so continue among vs which are also Gods people especially our Ecclesiasticall persons being more honourable vnder the Gospel then they were vnder the law I confesse that the Popes lawes haue decreed the contrarie but Lancelelot iustitut iuris can l 1. Tit 4. Concil Lat 31. partis 1. can 12. it is not fit that wee which are a reformed Church and haue long since abandoned the Popes authoritie should nowe forsake God and the examples of the holy Bible to followe the Pope and his Canons The Popes lawe saith Laici sunt quibus licet temporalia prssidere vxereâ—â— ducere causes agere intèr virum virum iudicare Clerici qui diuinis officijs mancipati sunt quos ab omni strepitu cessare conueuit Lay men are they to whom it is lawful to haue temporal possessions to marie wiues handle causes and controuersies in Law to iudge betweene man and man but as for Clergy men their state and condition is otherwise they are so deuoted and mancipated to the seruice of God that they must not intermeddle with such worldly troubles Some of our brethren giue this answerles answer that arguments drawen from the state of the Ministerie in the olde Testament to that which is vnder the Gospell doe not holde that we must not followe examples of the olde Testament in Church gouernment and that therefore the argument doth not followe that because Bishoppes in the olde Testament were Lords and of the Kings Counsell in the highest place and inferiour Ministers were ciuill Magistrates therefore vnder the Gospell it may be so although what should hinder they cannot shewe But that I may followe them in that course of disputation They say wee must not followe the examples of the olde Testament in Church gouernment and that therefore the argument doth not followe Bishops in the olde Testament were Lords and Kings Counsellers and inferiour Ministers were ciuill Magistrates therefore vnder the Gospel they must be so To whoÌ„ I alledge that by the like reason these arguments which Bishop Iuell and the learned men of the reformed churches haue vrged against the Popes authoritie and for the vpholding of Princes cannot follow when they conclude in this manner Solomon deposed Abiathar the Priest for committing high Treason and placed Sadoc in his roome therefore vnder the Gospell Christian Kings may punish their Ministers for high Treason Ezechias reformed the Church Iosias reade the Lawe before the Priestes in the house of the Lord and commanded Helchias the high Priest and the Priests of the second order to bring forth of the Temple all the vessells made for Baall put downe Idolls 1. Reg 2. 2. Reg 18. slewe the idolatrous Priestes therefore Christian Kings may put downe idolatrie and reforme the Church You see thereforefore the weakenes and great vnsufficiency of this answere Againe why doe the Lawes of Geneua punish adulterie with death after the example of the olde Testament and why doe our brethren which stand for the reformation labour that the same punishment may bee inflicted vpon adulterers with vs vrging vs with the authoritie of that Law if so be that they will holde that the Lawes of the old Testament may not preuaile vnder the Gospell In their simplicitie and want of iudgement they shape this answere as if it were the Trumpet to blowe downe Iericho Dauids sling to kill Golias Sampsons iawe-bone to slay a thousand Philistines that the ceremoniall Lawe is abolished whereas before I haue shewed thal this is not ceremoniall but politicall and that the Priesthood is abolished whereas onely that which is ceremonicall concerning the Priests office is abolished but that which is moral indureth to the end And againe a Minister of the Gospell may with more conueniencie be a ciuill Magistrate then the Priests vnder the Lawe because now the daily sacrifices the great number of feasts and solemnities the infinite number of ceremonies do cease which then procured vnto them a whole world of businesses in their Ministery by which they had lesse vacant time to heare ciuill causes then our Ministers haue vnder the Gospell The answer to the common obiection Luk 22 25. they that beare rule ouer them are called gracious Lords but ye shall not be so FOr the opening of this text these things are to be examined First whether our Sauiour spake these wordes to his Apostles onely or in the name of the Apostles to al Christians For albeit the Apostles onely were personally present and his apostrophe was vnto theÌ„ yet many circumstances do proue that these words doe coÌ„cerne al Christians For first we find else where another speech parallel vnto this The Scribes and Pharisies loue the chiefe places at feasts and to Mat 2. 3. haue the chiefe seates in the assemblies and greeting in the markets and to be called of men Rabbi Rabbi that is Lord Lord but be not yee called Rabbi for one is your Rabbi to wit Christ and all ye are brethren c. but he that is greatest among you let him be your seruant No man can iustly say this was spoken vnto Ecclesiasticall persons onely but also to lay men for so the text saith Then Iesus spake to the multitude and to his Disciples 2. In the same chapter it appeareth that our Sauiour did celebrate his last Supper immediately before he spake these wordes but that storie being set downe more plaine by the other Enangelist hee saide drinke you of this all Mat 26. which wordes were spoken onely to his Apostles and yet none but they of the Church of Rome will so conster them as if they were ment onely of Ecclesiasticall persons For euen as the Cuppe in the holy Communion did not appertaine onely vnto the Ministerie but also vnto the laitie so humilitie which is the Subiect of this speech is not
then that they did also giue ouer praying which is here mentioned in the imployment of the Apostles as well as preaching for then had they beene reprobates And that after they were called to be Deacons they did also preach and minister the sacraments it appeareth by the examples of Stephen and Philip which both preached Act. 7. Act. 8. 35. 38. 50. and baptised Neither can a man of sober iudgement conceiue such an idle opinion of the Apostles that they would haue admitted them to that office by that great solemnity of prayer and imposition of hands if they should haue beene estranged from the ministerie and wholly attended vpon tables and beene but gatherers of almes God which hath established kingdomes and ordained secular Princes to be supreame gouernours in Ecclesiasticall causes by his word cannot so much crosse his owne ordinance as to appoint in the same word such a consistory or state of ecclesiasticall gouernment as may not stand with the state of a kingdome As for the gouernment of Bishops vnder the King it hath alwaies vpheld the state of a kingdom and maintained the soueraigne authority of Princes as holding their Scepter and Crowne immediately from God and not from the people that they are not to be deposed nor censured by the people But contrariwise the Presbyterie and their fauourers both by their doctrine and also by practise make all Kings subiect to the people and by a consequent to the Consistorie to be punished and depriued by them because they are the Magistrates which are chosen by the people and for the people the authority of the people is executed by theÌ„ And for the better proofe of this assertioÌ„ I wil produce some writings of the presbyterians theÌ„selues The Scottish Consistorian hath these words following Populo Eucan de iure regni apùd Scotos iuâ—â— est vt imporiuÌ„ cui velit deferat It resteth in the hands of the people to set the Crown vpon whose head they please B. Nam nisi regem suffragijs electum habeamus vereor nè legitimum habituri simus M. Ego quoque idem islud vereor No man is a lawfull King but by election of the people Nam quem nes Venetorum 〈◊〉 vocamus is nihil aliud est qùám rex legitimus He whom we we call the Duke of Venice is nothing else but a lawfull King Leges igitùr hâc dè causâ inuentae sunt à populis regesque coacti non suâ â—n iudicijs licentiâ sed quod populus in se dedisset iure vti For this cause lawes are deùised by the people and Kings constrained not to vse their own liberty in the seate of Iustice but that whereunto the people hath restrained them Sit quando ita vis pâ—në◠populum vt leges serat perferat sint reges velut tabularioruÌ„ custodes The making of lawes is onely in the power of the people kings are but as it were keepers of the records Vides opinor quantam vno versu des principi licentiam nempè vt quod velit ipse dicet lex quod nolit non dicat Id si semèl recipiamus non proderit bonas leges condere quae principem bonum officij sui â—oneant malum circumscribant Immo vt dicaÌ„ apertiuÌ„â— nullas omninò leges habere praestaret quà m liberum latrocinium atquè etiam honoratuÌ„ sub legis praetextu tolerari M. Certè non modo potestâ—teÌ„ legum iubendaruÌ„ sed etià m eas interpretandi regiabstulist As kings may not be makers of lawes so they may not be trusted with the exposition of lawes for then it were all one as if no good lawes were made which may put a good Prince in mind of his duty compell an euil Prince to doe his dutie because they will wrest them to their owne purpose And so robberie shal not onely be free but also rewarded and honoured vnder the colour and pretence of lawe Concerning such Princes as behaue not themselues well in their gouernment Deo hominibus habendes inimicos eosqùe in luporum aliorumnè noxiorum animalium genere potiùs quà m hominum habendos putem quae qui alit sibi pernicieÌ„ alit alijs qui occidit non sibi modo sed publicè vniuersis prodest Interfectoribus autèm praemia decarni non ab vniuerso tantùm populo sed à smgulis quemadmodùm vulg ò fieri solet ijs qui lupos aut vrsas occiderunt They be enemies to God and man Wolues who so killeth them benefiteh the common wealth and is to be rewarded as he that killeth Wolues Bares and such harmful beasts And what is this lesse then which the conspirators of Rome do hold it meritorious to murther Princes Againe saith this Presbyterian Quemadmodùm in primis regibus vsquè ad Kennethum 3 qui primus regnum in suâ familiâ stabiliuit perspicuaÌ„ est quae fuerit potestas populi in regibus creandis in ordinem redigendis ità necesse est vt is aut populo inuito id fecerit aut à persuaso impetrauerit Perrò si ceëgit populum sibi parere populus quoquè vbi primum caeperit suis viribus confidere violentum illud imperium poterit excutere cùm à regibus populo recepta iura pronuncient natura clamet quicquid per vim fiat simili vi solui posse Si tu mecum ex conuentu agas quid causae est quin ego ex aduerso eas causas ponam cur pacta conuenta solui possint What power the people hath both in setting vp kings and ruling them after they be established Kennethus the third is an example which first established the kingdome in his own family If by violence he compelled the people to yeeld vnto it by the same violence they may free themselues againe if by their consent they may pretend cause enough to reuerse that whereunto they gaue consent And what is this but the doctrine of the Papists that faith with heretikes is not to be held To them which alledge that wee must pray for Princes though they be wicked and therefore not lift vp our Tim. 2. hands against them he answereth Nèc slatim si promalis principibus orandum est hinc allegare debemus corum vitia non esse punienda non magis quam latronum prò quibus etiam orare iubemur nec si bono principi parendum est ideò malo non est resistendum We are bound to pray for wicked Princes in such sort as for theeues we must pray for them both and punish them both Quod autem à d Caligulam Neronem Domitianum reliquos eius generis tyrannos attinet cur violats iuris diuini humani poenae non â—ebeant exigi nihil hic apùd Paulum habes qui de ipsâ magistratuum potestate non dè malis maâ—è potestatem eam gerentibus disserat Nec si ad Pauli regulam id genus tyrannorum examines omninò magistratus erunt As for
the Apostles in other places and so continued by succession from them vntill these daies vnlesse when their succession was interrupted by warres or schisme or persecution But to come to a Diocesan Lord Bishop ruling by his sole power which is indeed the chiefe matter now in question Such a Bishop saith hee seemeth not to haue beene established in Ambrose Ierom and Augustines time It may be it seemeth not so to Maister Iacob but it seemed so to Zozomene that Saint Ambrose himselfe did rule like a Lord Bishoppe Sozom. l. 7. ca. 24. by his sole authority when meeting the Emperour Theodosius as hee went to Church without any consent or consultation had with other Priests on a suddaine took him by the gowne in the sight of the people interdicted him both from the holy communion the Church for the offence he had committed and the Emperour obeyed his authority His wordes are these Imperator quum Mediolanum venisset ad Ecclesiam processit vt oraret Sed quùm ad ostium iam pernenisset occurrit et Ambrosius eius ciuitatis Episcopus apprehensâ illius purpû-â in praeâ—entiâ populi siste gradum inquit homini enim ob peccata prophano manus innoxio sanguine comaculatas habeÌ„ti faâ— non est antequaÌ„ poenitentiaÌ„ egerit vel sacrum ingredi solium vel ad diuinoruÌ„ mysteriorum communionem admitti Imperator libertatem sacerdotis admiratuâ— cogitationibus conscientiam accusantibus regressus est poenitentia compunctus The Emperour when he came to Millanie went towards the church to pray wheÌ„ he was but at the doore Ambrose the Bishop of that citie ran to him caught him by his purple robe in the presence of the people coÌ„manded him to stay there shewing that it was not permitted him hauing defiled his hands with innocent blood to goe into the Church nor to be partaker of the Sacrament before he had shewed himselfe penitent The Emperour meruailed at the great spirit of the Bishop his conscience pricked him vpon his remorse hee went backe and repented And afterward more plainly he saith Ambrosius Imperatorem insimulans vt consentaneum est ab Ecclesiâ arcuit à communione seclusit Ambrose laying to the Emperour his charge his crime which he committed as it did behooue him thrust him out of the Church secluded him from the communion In this Story that action is ascribed solely vnto the Bishop no mention is made of any other whose consent was required Though soone after we doubt not saith Maister Iacob it tooke place in the Church Therefore by his owne confession the office of Lord Bishop ruling by his sole authoritie is of great antiquitie and therefore to be preferred before the Eldership which is but a nouelty and neuer preuailed vntill our age and that but in some few Churches And that I may speake something for the iustification of Bishoppes ruling by their sole authority Timothy and Titus were such Bishops Maister Iacob replieth two manner of waies First he saith the Apostles did not ordeine Ministers nor censure offenders by their sole authority much lesse then Timothy and Titus which were inferiour to the Apostles For answer to his reply which consisteth of nothing but manifest vntruthes I do instance in S. Peter which by his sole authority censured Ananias Suphira when they lied to the holy Ghost smiting them with present death St. Paul which alone censured Elymas the sorcerer wheÌ„ he smote him Acts. 5. Act. 13. 11 with blindnes for seeking to peruert the deputy froÌ„ the faith And both these censures were then in the place of excommunicatioÌ„ Vide Bucerum dè clauibus 1. Cor. 16. 22. anathema marannatha Politiae Iudaicae c. 2. which is now the ordinarie censure of the church And besides that Saint Paule by his sole authoritie excommunicated in general all that loued not the Lord Iesus euen vnder the time of nature Henoch as Cornelius Berâ—ram writeth in his booke Printed at Geneua and allowed of by that church did alone anathema illud solenne suoe aetatis hominibus proponere quod extat Iudae ver 14 15. pronounce that solemne sentence of excommunication against the men of his time of which mention is made in S. Iude ver 14. 15. Behold the Lord commeth with thousands of his Saints to giue iudgement c. And so did Saint Ambrose by their examples And as for making Ministers our Bishops doe not conferre orders alone but assisted with other ministers which ioyne with them in prayer imposition of hands Yet still the chiefest authoritie resteth in Bishops as S. Paule writeth to Titus For this cause I left thee in Creete that thou shouldest ordaine Elders in euery citie And to Timothy Tit 1 5. lay hands sodainly on no man by which words it appeareth that ordination imposition of hands belong to the Bishops 1. Tit 5. 22. principally and to the inferiour Ministers but as assistants to the Bishop But that it belonged to the same men to censure offenders rule by their sole authoritie the places of Scripture doe make it so plaine that ir may not be denied Rebuke 1. Tim â— v. 1. 9. 11. 17. 19. 21. not an Elder but exhort him as a Father Let not a widdow be taken into the number vnder 60 yeares old Refuse the yonger widdowes The elders that rule wel let theÌ„ be had in doble honor Obserue these things without preferring one before another doe nothing partially Receiue no accusatioÌ„ against an elder but vnder 2. or 3 witnesses Secondly he saith that if these things were granted that Timothy Titus ruled by their sole anthoritie it would not follow that therefore our Bishops might do the like his reason is this For saith he they are not to be reckoned in the catalogue of Bishops neither were they properly called Bishops because they were not affixed to certaine places but often remoued to other churches as the Apostles did Which reason I refute by manifest text for as much as Timothy was affixed to Ephesus as his proper charge and so Titus to Creete as to his peculiar place witnesseth the Apostle I besougbt thee to abide still in Ephesus For this cause haue I left 1. Tim. 1. 3. Tit. 1. 5. thee in Creete that thou shouldest continue there to redresse the things that remaine But what then though they afterward remoued and were called to other places so are our Bishops also and priuate pastours oftentimes called from one congregation to another I cannot deny but the cannon Lawe hath determined that Bishops shal not remoue from one Bishopricke to another without some vrgent cause as when they are required by another Church their gifts beeing thought fitter for a greater charge and the lawe is grounded vpon the decrees of the first generall councell of Nice which so concludeth Episcopus Presbyter aut diaconus non aebet transferri ab vnâ ciuitate ad aâ—iam quia id est contrà regulas
as to him did appertaine as appeareth by the story of the Gospel But thus I prooue that Bishops ought to be Lords Our Sauiour being asked whether a man might put away his wife answereth negatiuely his argument of proofe being drawne from the law of nature saying Ab initio non fuit sic from the beginning it was not so Likewise the argument Mat. 19. followeth Bishops ought to be Lords and Ecclesiasticall persons to exercise ciuill authority quoniam ab initio fuit sic because froÌ„ the beginning it was so From Adam to Moses it was so from Moses to our Sauiour Christ the Apostles it was so with them it was so and from them it hath continued so vntill this time excepting onely the times of persecution when the course of the Gospel was interrupted and there was no setled state of a Church No meruaile though in time of persecution they were not held for Lords for then they were not allowed to be Citizens nor thought worthy to liue in a Common wealth The Pagan Emperours helde them for seditious persons troublers of the state and of all men most worthy of death Our question is not what then was of fact but what ought to haue beene of right It must not seeme strange that Saint Iohn or Saint Paul could not be in authority vnder Nero Domitian nor the godly Bishops vnder the ten persecutions sceing our Sauiour was not allowed any authority vnder Herod nor Pilat nor Augustus nor Tiberius No meruaile though Titus could not be held as a Lord in the Kingdome of Creete seeing that neither Iehoahaz being lawfully anoynted King of Iuda could not reigne 2. Reg. 25. 2. Rug. 24 as a King being taken captiue by Pharao nor Iehoiakim nor Sedechias being oppressed by Nebuchadnezer From Adam vnto Moses he that was the eldest of euery Gen. 1. 26 Gen. 2. 23 Gen. 4. 3. 4 familie was both the king and the priest ouer his own family among Gods people So Adam was a king because God gaue him absolute power ouer the whole world he was also a priest for hee offered sacrifice Caine and Abel brought to him their sacrifices that he might offer in their behalfe they are onely saide to haue offered as Asa the King and all the people are saide to haue offered when the Priest did offer in 2. Chr. 15 their behalfe Henoch seeing the children of God to fall daily from faith to infidelity which was the cause of the deluge published against them the sentence of excommunication saying The Lord commeth which is the most grieuous kinde of excoÌ„municatioÌ„ And S. Paul did borrow that form of him Iudae v. 14 where he writ Hee that loueth not the Lord Iesus let him be an athema marannatha cursed vntill the Lords comming And Moses 1. Cor. 16 did reckon vp so long a catalogue of all the eldest sonnes descended from Adam before the flood to this end that it Gen. 5. might appeare vnto whom from time to time the Lord committed the care of gouerning instructing the Church Noah a king was a preacher of righteousnesse one hundred and twenty yeares before the flood hee offered sacrifice after the flood That Iethro the father in law of Moses was both a 2. Pet. 2. 5 1. Pet. 2. 19 4. 16. Gen. 8. 20. Numb 3. 12. 12. 8. 16. 17. prince a priest likewise Iob in the land of Huz no learned man will deny And that none might offer sacrifices but the eldest and Princes of euery family it appeareth by the writings of Moses because God said he would take the tribe of Leui to be seperated for his seruice as a redemption of all the rest of the first borne of Israel In which words hee did but call to remembrance the time of nature wherein the eldest were all his that is they were consecrated for the offering of sacrifice vnto him When Melchisedech was King and Priest of Salem Ge. 14. 18 Abraham also was King and Priest ouer his own family It was saide of him Thou art a great Prince of God among vs Gen. 23. 6 Ge. 18. 19. Ge. 22. 10 Gen. 17. Ge. 26. 24 And he taught them Gods word he erected an altar and offered sacrifice To him first was committed the sacrament of circumcision and he circumcised his sonne Isaac Isaac his heire crected an altar and offered cacrifice for the exercise of his faith Iacob after him did the like taught purity of religion and how Idolls were to be abolished Ge. 35. 11. In the daies of Moses vnder the time of the law when priesthood was appropriated to one peculiar tribe of Leui and the Bishoprick to one certaine family Moses and Aaron both being priests Moses the yonger brother had the chiefe authority in ciuill businesses Aaron the elder in Ecclesiasticall causes but all supreame authority was committed to these two priests Moses and Aaron That Moses was a priest Exod. 24. 6. 7. 8. it is euident because all the whole tribe of Leui were then consecrated â—o holy priesthood whereof hee was one hee in particular offered sacrifice preached Gods word consecrated Exod. 40. Numb 20. Aaron to be an high priest and Eleazar in his place when he was dead consecrated the altar which none could doe without sacrilege but a priest Yet he was the supreame ciuil Magistrate And in his absence 40. daies he substituted Aaron the priest in his roome to heare ciuill causes and supply the place of a ciuill Magistrate Phinees the high priest Numb 25. was a Captaine in warre and busied himselfe with secular affaires and it pleased God so much that the priesthood was conferred not onely vpon him but also his posterity Samuel the Prophet who ministred before the Lord in a linnen Ephod was also the chiefe ciuil Magistrate and in his own person did ride his circuit as a Iudge euery yeare ouer all the 1. Sam 12. 18. 1. Sam. 7. 1. Sam. 8. land All the daies of the Iudges which was about two hundred ninety and nine yeares from the death of Iosua vnto Eli the priest there was no certaine supreame ciuill magistracie in any but in the high priests or Bishops among the people When the people desired a king of God they coÌ„sulted with Samuel in that secular busines After those 299. yeares of the Iudges Eli the Bishop reigned as supreame ciuill Magistrate 40. yeares so did Samuel after him the space of 40. yeares Afterward when Saule was by him annointed King yet Samuel ruled ioyntly with Saule so long as he liued and indeed bore the greatest sway in the realme because Saule had little more then the title of a King during the life of Samuel and was to doe nothing without allowance from him How the Clergie among Gods people busied themselues with the affaires of the temporalâ—ie and howe much they pleased God in so doing it appeareth by these examples Numb 31 6. 26. Numb
34. 17. Iosua 22. 13. Numb 26. 63. 64. 2. Chron 13. Iosua 6. 1. Pet 23. 4. Phinees the Sonne of Eleazar the Bishoppe was a Captaine against the Midianites and Eleazar his selfe ioyntly with Moses diuided the spoyles among the Souldiers Eleazar with Iosua diuided the land of promise among the Tribes Phineas the Bishop was sent Ambassador to proclaime warre against Gad Ruben and halfe Manasses Moses and Eleazar numbred the people in the plaine of Moab and Moses and Aaron in the wildernes of Sina The Priests and Leuites sounded their Trumpets and bid the battell in the warre of Abias against Ieroboam The Priests ouerthrewe the citie Iericho And the godly King Dauid setting the Kingdome in better order then it was before appointed 6000. Leuites to be Iudges and Magistrates ouer the people Likewise beyond Iordan towardes the West 1700. both to serue God in the place of Leuites and also to serue the King in ciuill offices pertaining to the common wealth and also 2700. he set ouer Ruben Gad and Manasses to heare and determine all causes both ecclesiasticall and ciuill concerning God in the Church and the King in the common wealth The Kings were annointed and confirmed in their kingdomes by the hands of the Bishops ecclesiasticall persons 1. Sam 10. 1. Sam 16. 1. Reg 1. So Samuel annointed Saule Dauid Sadoc annointed Solomon when Adoniah had proclaimed himselfe King by help of Abiathar the Priest Nathan the Prophet said to Dauid me thy seruant Sadoc the Priest haue they not called nor Benoiah the son of Ichoiada Then Dauid said Call me Sadoch the Priest and Nathan the Prophet and let them annoint and proclaime Solomon Ier 26. Exod 32. King Ieremy was condemned to death by the Priests and the Prophets The Leuites by the commandement of Moses slewe with the sword 3000. that committed idolatry It was commanded by God that when they went to warre Ex 32. Deut 20. Deut 21. 19. 1. Sam. 15 the Priests should go before them exhort them to be couragious and valiant That if there were inquisition after murther the Priests should come forth and by their word the cause should be tryed Samuel valiantly slewe Agag the King of the Amalakites whom Saule the King for foolish pittie could not find in his heart to smite Godly Iosephat in his reformation of the Church and common 2. Chron wealth appointed Iudges in euey citie throughout the land as it appeareth verse 5. And what kinde of men these Iudges were it appeareth in the 8. verse following In Ierusalem as also in other cities he appointed Iuges out of the Princes of euery family and the Priests and Leuites which were to heare both ciuil and Ecclesiastical causes and so doth Tremelius expound it according to the truth of the Hebrew text and at Ierusalem which was the chamber of the Kingdome there was established by him the highest bench of iustice vnto which as vnto the highest court it was lawfull to appeale from all inferiour Courts and Iudges euen as it is now with the Kings Bench and the high commission Court at London And among these Iudges who were to take place before other it is explaned in the 11. verse of that chapter namely in ecclesiasticall causes ecclesiasticall men in temporall causes temporal men but so that in euery ciuil court of Iustice there should be some Priests and Leuites in Commission Moreouer the Lord saith If there arise a matter too hard for thee in iudgement betweene blood and blood plea and plea plague Deut 17. 8. and plague in the matters of controuersie within thy gates then shalt thou arise and goe vnto the place which the Lord thy God shal choose and thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuites and to the Iudge that shal be in those dayes and aske and they shal shew thee the sentence of iudgement thou shalt doe according to the thing which they of that place which the Lord hath chosen shal shewe thee c. and that man which wil doe presumptuously not hearkening to the Priest which standeth before the Lord thy God to minister there and the Iudge that man shal dye and thou shalt take eway euill from Israel so all the people shal heare and feare and doe no more presumptuously As for Ezra the Priest he had authoritie from Artaxerxes the King of Persia to order all matters whatsoeuer spiritual Ezra 7. and temporall concerning the returne of the people out of captiuitie he ordered both the Princes and the people Priests and Leuites he appointed al the Iudges in the land that whosoeuer would not doe according to the Lawe of God and the Kings Lawe should haue iudgement without delay whether it were vnto death or banishment or confiscation of goods or imprisonment And there was by Ezra set down the whole Ezra 8. platforme of the ciuill estate of the common wealth Againe he gathered together the Princes and all the Clergy proclaimed a fast humbled them before God that hee would guide them in their iourney beeing ashamed to aske of Artaxerxes an Army of horsemen to helpe them because he had saide before that their trust was in God alone In the 10 Chapter hee causeth all as well temporall as spirituall to sweare that they would put away their strange wiues caused a proclamation to goe out through Iuda and Ierusalem to assemble in Ierusalem within three dayes in paine of confiscation of their goods How afterward the Maccabes being Gods seruants held both the Priesthood and the Kingdome among the Iewes being Gods people and that without impeachmenr the learned know very well and that they continued both high Priests and also Kings vntil the land was conquered by the Romans and the ciuill gouernment committed vnto the family of the Herods vntil the comming of our Sauiour Christ who translated both the kingdome and the Priesthood of right vnto himselfe And whereas some men doe obiect against these examples Ioh. 18. by me alledged for confirmation of spirituall mens authoritie in temporal causes among Gods people That when our Sauiour Christ was to bee arrayned they brought him from the high Priest to the iudgement seate of Pilate a temporall Iudge and saide to Pilate verse 31. It is not lawful for vs to put any man to death I answere first the Priest in particular did not say these wordes It is not lawfull for vs to put any man to death but the Iewes in generall not to the preiudice of Priests onely but of the whole nation of the Iewes Secondly they speake not these wordes as if the Iewes had of right from God no authoritie to put mē to death For Pilate himself doth confesse that they had right in themselues where he saith Take him and iudge him according to your owne lawe But these wordes are to be vnderstood that according to the Lawes of Herod a stranger and of the Romans which made them tributary and by
And no ciuil magistrate in Councels assemblies for Church causes can be chief moderatour Iudge or gouernour And no ciuil magistrate hath such authoritie as that without his consent it should not be lawful for Ecclesiasticall persons to make any Church orders or ceremonies For as much therfore as God hath established kingdomes but a presbytery and a kingdome cannot both stand together because one standing the other falleth They are enemies not onely to Gods ordinance but also to the state of Kings which goe about to establish this Eldership in a kingdome Of Diocesan Bishops MAister Iacob in his Booke of reformation obiecteth against the state of Bishops and Cathedrall Churches that of right there are no Diocesan but onely parochiall Bishops that the authoritie iurisdiction and rites of a Bishop are no other then belongeth to all parsons of parish Churches and consequently that euery parson is a Bishop That there is no visible Church ministeriall besides the parish Churches and that they as depending vpon no other nor subiect to any other nor parts or members of any other haue absolute authoritie and power as wel of gouernment as of teaching within themselues and so consequently there are no cathederal Churches And as one absurditie being granted a thousand will followe so vpon these proemises which without proofe he taketh for granted he inferreth these fiue conclusions to the slander of our state as absord as the proemises were That the case standing thus 1. Our Bishops be no Christians for saith he euery Christian is a pastour or one of the people of the people they denye themselues to be and pastours they are not 2. Being not lawfull Diocesan Bishops much lesse may they be Lord Bishops 3. Hauing no lawfull authoritie nor calling their selues they cannot conferre Ecclesiasticall orders and lay handes vpon others and so consequently our ministers by them ordered haue no lawefull ministerie 4. That by their meanes wee are defrauded of a mayne point of our ordinarie meanes of saluation which is the true Ecclesiesticall discipline 5. That in our state Christ is robbed and spoiled of some parts of his kingly and propheticall office his kingly office being to appoint vs and his prophetical office being to teach vs solely of himselfe the true Ecclesiasticall gouernmēt which our Bishops take from him and ascribe vnto men altering that discipline and gouernment which he alone as king hath appointed and as a Prophet hath taught in his holy word which cōclusions because they are inferred vpō false groūds the grounds being shaken the conclusions will fall of themselues Therefore let vs come to the examination of these grounds to shewe how weake and vnsufficient a foundation they be to build vpon He impugneth the Church state of Bishops first by shew of argument secondly by his own idle conceits vaine coniectures and imaginations He maketh shew of two arguments the first is this that the state of Bishops is a breach of the 2. commandement and by a consequent idolatrie For in this cōmandement Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image thou shalt not bow down to it nor worship it saith he are forbidden all meanes being humane inuentiōs wherby men would giue honour to the true God But one of these meanes of diuine worship being an humane inuention he saith to be the state of Bishops our Diocesan prouincial Churches vsing gouernment with the ministeries offices proper to them For answer to which argument I denie the MINOR proposition which consisteth of 2. parts meanes of diuine worship humane inuention And because he bringeth no proofe of his MINOR being the subiect of his disputation which all opponents ought to doe I will disproue it and each part of it And first Diocesan prouinciall Churches vsing gouernment and their ministeries which are of Archbishops Bishops were neuer intended by the founders of them nor vsed by the officers ministers of them nor held by the defendours maintainers of them nor conceiued by men of vnderstanding to be any meanes of diuine worship but of gouernment God can be and is worshipped without these and was worshipped as sincerely as now hee is when they were not but the Ecclesissticall state vnder a kingdome cannot be peaceably gouerned without these God is worshipped alike in Geneua and in England though this gouernment and these offices are not in Geneua which are in England And God is worshipped as sincerely and as fully and amplely in our parish Churches as in our cathederal churches and by ordinarie pastors as by Bishops so that their ministeries and high callings doe not afforde them any greater or other meanes to worship God then they had when they were first admitted to be priuate ministers But their places and high callings do strengthen and arme them with authoritie for the better gouerning of the churches which are committed to them wheras being but priuate ministers they had no such charge of gouernment These things therefore are not morall or doctrinall therefore belong not vnto worship but politicall and therefore belong vnto gouernment And according to the course of the holy Bible that which is politicall that which is morall being of sundrie natures are to be distinguished the one from the other God in his word established 3. lawes among his people one politicall which did bind the Iewes to the obseruation of it but it was not imposed vpon other nations that they should be bound to receiue it further then that it might stand with the peace and good of the state The other ceremoniall which was to abide in force till the cōming of our Sauiour and by his death to be abolished so that now ceremonies vnder the Gospell doe cease excepting those only which serue not for worship but decensie comlinesse and good order and so the primitiue Church did in the dayes of the Apostles and the Church of Geneua now doth deuise ceremonies witnes their owne Booke of Lawes and that all 1. Cor. 11. Churches may doe the like witnes Caluin Beza Vrsinus their owne Doctors The third morall which containeth rules of Gods worship which was from the beginning and must continue as a patterne of holines to the ende and bindeth all to the obseruation of it But this is no part of that lawe and all these three Lawes differ in nature one from the other Secondly that such Churches and Church offices are not humane inuentions I proue by euident demonstration For the first Church ministeriall that euer was had ordination from God which was the Church of the Iewes vnder Aaron and his successours and that Church was both Diocesan and prouinciall and also nationall hauing all rites and iurisdiction which a Diocesan or prouinciall or nationall church euer had or coulde haue Also vnder the Gospell Saint Paul by warrant from the holy Ghost appointed Timothy a prouinciall Bishop of Ephesus hauing many Bishops vnder him and Titus a nationall Bishop ouer all the kingdome of