Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	ecclesiastical_a	king_n	2,997	5	4.1467	3	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A18081	The rest of the second replie of Thomas Cartvurihgt [sic]: agaynst Master Doctor Vuhitgifts second ansvuer, touching the Church discipline	Cartwright, Thomas, 1535-1603.	1577 (1577)	STC 4715; ESTC S107571	215,200	286

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 notwithstaÌ„ding 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 ChristiaÌ„ Prince and of a TyraÌ„ 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 theÌ„ Nether owght the D. more to charge me with this saying because Harding hath yt then I charge hym with his opinioÌ„ 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 senteÌ„ce in that matter for the which also he vuas to craue pardoÌ„ 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 vpoÌ„ 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

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 tvueÌ„tith 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 iudgmeÌ„t 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

streighter to look vnto As for that he bringeth of other ecclesiastical punishmentes which may be vsed beside those prescribed in the scripture it apperteineth to another questioÌ„ And so doeth Gualters testimony which is not onely idly but shamefully alledged in this cause especially considering that he doeth precisely coÌ„demn the exercise of any ciuil gouernment in ecclesiastical persons The two next diuisions are answered I know that corporal punishmentes be meanes to bring men to hear and if yow wil also to beleue the word but that it doeth so or at least so much when it is executed by the Minister as when it is executed by the Magistrate I denie euen as it is in excommunications and ecclesiastical censures when they are executed by those to whom they doe not appertain It foloweth not that because fear of ciuil punishment is profitable therefore yt is profitable in the Ministers hand nether for that it hindereth faith vuhen the Minister preaching in the pulpit hath the ciuil svuord in his hand there fore it hindreth when the Magistrate houldeth it in his hand For the profit of the fear of the sword dependeth vpon the blessing of god that giueth it efficacy which blessing is then giuen when the sword is drawen by him vnto whom it properly belongeth There are of iudgment that it is not conuenient that the same should teach scholers and chasten them with the rod but that some other rather should haue that charge wherwith I wil not medle but if the Scholemaster should haue beside the rod the sword also to take away the liues of their scholers or to send them to the iayl who seeth not the inconuenience that would rise thereof And yet the Scholemaster as he whose office is les ecclesiastical is much more capable of this power then is the Bishop That he supposeth me to affirm that the causes which they medle with as the Queenes maiesties Commissioners are ecclesiastical and that they may giue a iudicial sentence of them is a flat vntruth This onely I gaue to vnderstand which I yet affirm that the same causes may be boeth ciuil and ecclesiastical For in respect that inquisition is made to punish yt with corporal punishment it is ciuil the same is also ecclesiastical when it is examined to the end that the conscience may be towched with sens of the syn by the church censures The D. similitude is as I sayd manifestly iniurious to the Magistrate For if the execution of the lawes belong vnto the Bishop as the making of them doeth to the Magistrate it foloweth that as the one is the proper office of the Magistrate so the other is the proper of the Bishop And further that in that common wealth where the Magistrate may make the lawes him self alone there by his reason the Bishops may execute them alone As for his answer it is nothing but a demaunding of that in question That moses did the office of the Sacrificer is certain in that he sprinkled the blood vpon the altar and people which perteyned properly vnto the Priest likewise the same is confirmed by his ordeyning of Aharon and his sonnes to the priesthood which belongeth vnto the Priest in like maner That Moses after Aharon was made Priest prescribed Aharon what he should doe he did it from the mouth of the lord and that also as the Prophet of god and in a figure of the doctorship of our sauior Christ and not simply as the ciuil gouernour of the people For althowgh the ptieshood were taken from him yet he remained a Prophet vnto his dying day and therefore that exception is insufficient So is that also of them in whome he saith that boeth offices ciuil and ecclesiastical met For not to enquire how truly those examples are alledged especially of Nehemias of whome there is not a step of likelihood that he exercised boeth the offices it helpeth him no whit althowgh it were so as he alledgeth considering that such were extraordinarily raised vp of god and not by any established order or election of men Vvhich also is a peece of answer to that alledged after to this purpose of our Sauiour Christes whipping which was in ruinous and not in standing estates of the church Nether is this once to moue much les to ouerthow that which was before disputed For the question is what order the church is bound vnto not what lawes the lord is bound vnto likewise the question is not what ether may be doen or tolerated in the desolation and wast of the church but what owght to be doen in a church established and reformed and what that order is for establishment wherof euery man must employ him self according to his calling In Elies and Samuels tymes it appeareth that the church was in miserable estate boeth by the whole discours of the story and namely that there was a great dearth of the vuord of god But mark I pray yow this diuinity he would haue their examples which haue bene as he saith boeth Priestes and Princes yea and Captaynes also of the host serue to proue that Ministers may be Iustices of peace but not that they may be Princes or Captaines where as if those examples proue that a Minister may be chosen to bear ciuil office they proue especially that he may be chosen to bear that office which they bare from whom he fetcheth his profe For if that wherefore they may be chosen to other ciuil offices doe not agree vnto them the other which haue their ground from thence can much les agree Therefore if the D. be afraid to confes that thes examples proue that a Bishop may be a king or a Captain if he be chosen to yt he owght also to be afraid to confes that a bishop may be a Iustice of peace when he is chosen vnto it To that I say that these examples doe as vuel proue that the ciuil Magistrate may be a Bishop as that the Bishop may be a ciuil Magistrate he answereth that the ciuil office is accidental to the ministery and such as may be remoued from it but the ministery is not so vnto Princes onles they be ordinarily called then which what can be more confusedly spoken For if I should graunt that the Prince might be a Minister of the gospel and the Minister of the gospel a Prince why should not I besech yow the ministery be as accidental to the princehood as the princehood vnto the ministery Surely if it be not accidental to the princehood and yet such a thing as agreeth vnto it it must needes be essential that is that which can not be seuered from it withowt hurt of that estate Beside that in placing the difference of the respect of the Ministery to the princehood and of the princehood to the Ministery in that the Prince may not be a Minister withowt an ordinary calling yow giue to vnderstand that the Minister may bear ciuil office

answered and another of M. Beza which in that sens he pretendeth them are quite contrary one to another yt is therfore meruail if he can make of them one vniform and euen answer Now he hath ranged and roued almost in this whole disputation he must haue leau to run bak the way he came to see whether he hath let any of his peeces fal And first good reader he dasheth the in the face with two open vntruthes in the forehead of this chapter For the order of the church propounded by vs is vniform and standing as it is left vs in the word of god and not as he surmiseth varying according to the numbre of the churches Also for ceremonies variable by circunstance it is frankly confessed that they owght to be determyned of by aduise of the church Synod assembled especially of the flower and most sufficient of the ecclestical gouernours sent by consent of the rest if al as yt happeneth can not be coueniently there Secondly it is nether affirmed nor euer practised in any church where this order is or hath bene vsed that he that is chosen may not refuse yt So that if there be any that thinketh his honour stayned in being ioyned in counsail of church matters with poor men when there ether are not or are not enow of others he hath not to complain seing he is at his choise Albeit if any man should be so myneded to think skorn to hear the sentence of a poor man in that he is a poor maÌ„ let the same know that he reprocheth god that made hym poor And if he be lawfully appointed to this office theÌ„ he doeth not disdain the man but Christ hym self Therfore if he haue any fear of god before his eyes he wil from hence forth be ashamed to vse this for a reason Beside that he thus ouerthroweth the high court of Parliament where with the nobility are ioyned in consultation the commons of the Realm where also the estates being vnequal the voices notwithstanding are equal I omit how that if there were any inconuenience in this that the sentence of the Pastor and other not so rich or so noble should weigh down the sentence of that noble man he speaketh of yet him self hath deliuered vs of yt which telleth vs that the lord of the town or some other of countenance wil lead away the rest of the church how much more then shal he be able to lead away two or thre Thus he plaieth on boeth handes for there he pincheth at the nobility and here he pretendeth as if he were tender ouer their honour His third reason is answered before likewise his fourth his fift his sixt and a seueÌ„th As for the eight of partial affectioÌ„ and contentions which would ensue it is plentifully answered in the question of the church election For if these be friuolous reasons against those ecclehastical actions where the whole church hath interest much more are they against the assemblies of thre or fower onely and those of the choisest the ninth is also answered The tenth that it would be to great extremity to punish for one faut twise is a fals principle taken from the Pelagian herefy For the Magistrate may appoint fower kinde of punishmeÌ„tes for one faut if he think good to be executed at diuers tymes so that they altogither and ioyntly exceed not the quantity of the faut And by his reason the Magistrate shal be shut owt from his right of punishyng syn if it fal owt that the lord by some punishment laid vpon the offender preuent the Magistrates punishment especially when the punishment is in such sort that it may appear that yt was sent for that special faut for examples sake if of dronkennes he fal into some siknes na thus the lordes sword is wrung owt of his hand For nether may he punish those fautes which the Magistrate punished before and if he punish a man in this life he hath bound his handes for punishing him in the world to come For in deed the church discipline is the punishment or rather the correction of the lord in a far other kinde and to an other end then the ciuil punishment But I haue shewed that boeth these were practised amongest the people of god for one and the same faut And is not this in the Apostles to condemn the holy gost him self For if it be true which he saith when one had stollen or committed adultery it had not bene lawful for them to haue vsed the ecclesiastical censure least the offender being after apprehended and punished according to the lawes of the common wealth where he liued should thereby haue bene wronged Beside that the D. accuseth al our Bishops which for diuers causes punishable by the lawes of the Realm send forth their excommunications yea al the elder churches which did not leau to proceed in ecclesiastical censures against those whom the heathen Princes had iustly punished But hereof the reader may know further in M. Caluins institutions also in M. Bucer who praecisely coÌ„futeth them which say that the punishment by the ciuil Magistrate is sufficient His eleuenth that alterations are dangerous is vnworthy answer For when yt hath bene shewed that ceremonies otherwise in different owght when they breed offence to be changed how much more owght those to be chaÌ„ged which are shewed to be coÌ„trary to the institutioÌ„ of god And nether this nor the next clause in thys eleueÌ„th article nor diuers other allegatioÌ„s in this chapter haue so much as a countenaÌ„ce of reason vnles it be first graunted vnto the D. which is the principal questioÌ„ that is to fay that the Eldership of the church is not coÌ„maunded of the lord his two other reasons in this article are boeth often repeated and vtterly vntrue there hauing bene neuer any ChristiaÌ„ Prince that vsed the spiritual sword which onely is giueÌ„ to the Eldership nether any noble maÌ„ or gentilmaÌ„ which in our laÌ„d vseth this kinde of correction but onely the Bishop which vsurpeth yt and abuseth yt I omit his often iesting at the Pastor by calling him diuers tymes in contempt Master Pastor which the Angels them selues dare not doe when as him self can not deny but to haue a Pastor in euery coÌ„gregation is the ordinance of god If men wil not look to such disorders I dowt not but the lord wil lay to his hand The first reason to proue no certeyn kinde of church gouernmeÌ„t apointed is answered before likewise the second and third the fourth is a gros asking of that in question In the fift M. Caluins and M. Bezas first and last sentences are violently drawen from their meaning as hath bene shewed The middle sentence beareth no such argument as he would gather for there is no word that shutteth owt the necessity of the Eldership vnder a Christian Magistrate no or that maketh it so much

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 coÌ„tempt 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 coÌ„demn 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 vncleaÌ„nes 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 coÌ„teÌ„n 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 coÌ„tractes 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 theÌ„ 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 ceÌ„sures 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 seruaÌ„tes seruaÌ„tes 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 â–ª which how

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 hauiÌ„g 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 coÌ„mon 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 TestameÌ„t and the nue I refer the reader to that which I haue writteÌ„ sauing that the place of the Cronicles coÌ„meth after to be towched again In the churches after the Apostles and that vnder godly Princes the same differeÌ„ce hath bene diligeÌ„tly 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 commoÌ„ vueaelth Likewise that there is one cause of the Prouince and another of the church Yf he can not coÌ„ceiue how this should be he may be giueÌ„ to vnderstand it after this sort that a man may by excommunicatioÌ„ be sundred froÌ„ 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 commoÌ„ wealth are boeth holy that therfore the gouernment of the how 's is not distinguished from the gouernment of the coÌ„mon 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 discretioÌ„ but vsed onely his princely autority to put in executioÌ„ 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 ordinaÌ„ce pertayning vnto the high Priest and consequently to the ministery of the church And if it be by gods ordinance apparteyning vnto theÌ„ 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 xijmeÌ„ a Leuite is barely denied and nether the reason which I browght coÌ„futed nether any of his set down whereunto may be added the reason why the Leuites

not occupied in the church ministery were willingly taken for assistance in ciuil iudgmentes which is because they being better acquainted with the law of god then commonly the rest of the tribes were consequently better seen in the iudicials by which the common wealth of the Israelites was gouerned And that al the Leuites were not applied vnto the ministery may appear by the example of a Banaias the high Priests son high Constable or general of the host Before I come to the Ans arguments I desire the reader to obserue that althowgh he hath owt of the auncient writers borowed certein places to iust with those which I haue taken from thence yet owt of the holy scripture whereof he should haue made the base and foundation of his defence he hath browght nothing But let vs see them such as they are Eusebius saith he calleth Constantine as yt were a general Bishop That maketh no more to proue that the iudgment of ecclesiastical causes belonged vnto him then that he calleth hym a Doctor apointed of god to al nations proueth hym to haue bene a publik preacher of the word Rather as he was called a Doctor because that the doctrine taught by the Bishops was maynteyned by his autority not for that he taught him self so he is called the general Bishop for that he caused them to meet in Councel protected them when they were there kept them in peace maynteyned with his princely autority that which was godlyly decreed not for that he determined the matters hym self This may also appear in his epistle to the churches where willing to draw credit vnto the decrees of that Councel he doeth not say that they were his but the Bishops decrees And in deed yt might more iustly be concluded that he was a minister of the word by the one place then by the other that he made ecclesiastical lawes of his own autority considering that the place browght by him is delaied and laid in water by that he calleth him not a Bishop simply but as it vuere a Bishop where as the other place is not so And it is further to be obserued that the word Bishop is taken some tymes generally for any ouerseer and not onely for the church Minister In which respect Constantyne calleth him self a Bishop but putteth a manifest difference betwene his Bishoprik and theirs namely that the church officers were Bishops and ouerseers of thinges vuithin the church and he Bishop or ouerseer of those that vuere vuithovut the church whereby he clearly also establisheth the distinction of the church and common wealth vnder a Christian Prince Hether also may be referred that of Hillary which exhorteth Constans that he would prouide that the gouernours of his prouinces vnder hym should not praesume to take vpon them the iudgment of ecclesiastical causes where also the same autor further affirmeth that the common vuealth matters onely belonged vnto them Likewise that Ambrose saith That Palaces belong vnto the Emperour but the churches vnto the Minister and that he had autority of the commoÌ„ vualles of the city and not ouer holy thinges That of Constantyne and after of Iustinian making lawes touching godlines as against the worship of Images c. is idle considering that it is nothing but an execution of that which is commanded of god and withowt the compas of thinges which fal into the church is consultation For in thinges which he is assured of to be the vnuariable truth of god who douteth but that he not onely may but owght also to mayntein them with his autority Sauing that if there be a general dowt raised what is the law of god therein to the end that the the truth may haue better cours and that the conscience may be prouided for there is herein great caution to be vsed For least that which is godly should be doeÌ„ vngodlily that is to say ignorantly or doutfully and to the end that the autors of error being conuinced may doe les hurt and finally to the end that the punishmeÌ„t of the obstinate may be boeth more iust and les grudged at yt belongeth vnto the ciuil Magistrate to cal as did the godly Emperour CoÌ„stantine a councel of the ministery by whome as by gods interpreters the people may receiu a resolution warranted by substantial groundes owt of hys word Yet so far it is that we suspend vpon the Councels determination the putting in execution of such as he is assured to be the vnchangeable commaundementes of god that boeth before in and after the Councel yea and howsoeuer they determin we esteme that the Prince owght to procure by al godly and conuenient meanes that such lawes of god haue place at the least that the contrary be not suffered not so much as if it might be one onely hower That owt of the Chalcedon councel that the orders there made were by the Emperours autority because they cried long life vnto the Senate and Emperour is vnsufficient For althowgh it was vnmeet that in such graue meetinges there should be vsed such shoutinges as then appeared to haue bene the maner when they liked or misliked any thing which was more fit for stage playes then for such a graue company yet who seeth not that there was cause enowgh why thanckes should be giuen vnto the Emperour for his care his paynes and his charges in calling and confirming yt althowgh nether the iudgment were his nor apperteyned vnto him Now touching the places alledged by me in the first gros ouersight there is none seing there is not a word in that place which enforceth external buildinges For in steed of that which is turned buildinges the greek hath vuorkes or affaiers also for that of selling the buildinges there is no such thing in the greek nether as I think owght to be For the place which no dowt is corrupt in Eusebius may be restored owt of Theodoret that reporteth the same epistle Howbeit whether it be vnderstood of the owtward or inward buildinges I wil not striue and I rather think that it is of the owâ—ward then otherwise considering that that seemeth to be more simple To the second where the Emperour confesseth the Bishops matters not to pertayn to him he answereth that the Emperour of modesty refused the determination But what modesty is yt to say that which is vntrue or what modesty to affirm that yt belongeth not to hym which is by yow his office and committed to him of god especially vnto his subiectes For it might haue more colour if yow had said that it were modesty for a Bishop to say that to administer the word and sacramentes belong not to hym but vnto the Prince Beside that yf he would haue shewed forth modesty he would haue rather said that he was not worthy then to say that it vuas not lavuful for him to doe yt To that that the Emperour vuould not determin of Arius heresy but committed

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 â— 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 coÌ„mon 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 wheÌ„ce 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 coÌ„fessing 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 haÌ„ded 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 occasioÌ„ 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 theÌ„ be as it is already trw in theÌ„ that he vuhich embraceth much streyneth but a litle After he excepteth that by this reason a ChristiaÌ„ man should be coÌ„tinually 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

may meet now it foloweth not For althowgh they might meet before the holy gost by the mouth of the Apost made a seueral office of yt yet they might not so afterward when it was otherwise determined of by the mouth of god There were diuers kinde of mariages with consanguinitie as brother with sister aunt with nevew c lawful in the beginning â–ª which after that the lord had otherwise disposed of in the law were vnlawful As for that owt of Caluin and 2 Corinth 8 it is friuolous For it neuer perteined to the Deacons office to exhort for the contribution of the poor but was and is the Ministers of the word the Deacons office being to receiu and to distribute yt in that church where he is Deacon The causes also which he alledgeth of the casting of of that office and the busines which the Deaconship did draw in that church of Ierusalem are to trifle out the tyme considering that the decree of the Apostles towching the nue office was general for al places and not where there should be many poor or so many thowsand professors what a bouldnes is it also when the Scripture doeth plainly shew the cause of deliuering them selues from this office to haue bene that they should not leau their ministery and that they might be coÌ„tinually vpon it to reiect this cause and to set vp another which the scripture giueth no ynkling of That they ordeined others for because they should goe into the world is also nothing worth seing that in some of them it came not to pas diuers yeates after and in other some neuer as those which were determined there to remain when as notwithstanding al desired this releas Beside that he answereth nothing to the inequality of giftes betwene our Bishops and the Apostles nor considereth not that the Spiritual charge of our Bishop is ouer moe now then there were then in Ierusalem and that they were at that tyme twelu where he is but one had theyr church togither which he hath scartered I shewed that the Papists are not onely condemned for vuringing the ciuil autority ouut of Princes handes but simply for exercising it and there fore this first section is idle To that I alledged that it is as monstrous for the Bishop to goe from the pulpit vnto the place of ciuil iudgment as for my lord Maior to goe to the pulpit he answereth that it is not vncomely to goe from the pulpit to ciuil administration of iustice c which is a mere mockery of his reader For not daring to deny but it is vncomely for the lord Maior he answereth by affirming that in question For if he say it is not vncomely for the lord Maior to goe to the pulpit he runneth in to that which he saith I surmise of him where of notwitstanding I haue not a letter Albeit the truth is that he may aswel say the Magistrate may minister the Sacrament and preach which is the proper dwety of the Minister as to say the Minister of the word may sit in iudgment of ciuil causes which is the proper dwety of the Magistrat For look what difference the lord hath set betwene the office of the ciuil Magistrate and of the Minister the same must of necessity be betwene the office of the Minister and of the Magistrate as there is the self same distance betwene Athenes and Thebes vuhich is betuuene Thebes and Athenes and if there be a mile from the top of the hil to the foot it is as far from the foot to the top And althowgh yt abhorring the eyes and eares of al he is afraid here to affirm it comely that the lord Maior should preach and minister the sacramentes yet as a man whose iudgment wasteth not by litle and litle but is sodenly and at a clap taken away he shameth not a litle after to affirm that the Prince may preach and the Bishop exercise ciuil office if they be lawfully called therunto where if by lawful calling he vnderstand a wonderful and extraordinary from heauen he speaketh altogither from the cause our question being whether a Minister by calling of the Magistrat or a Magistrate by calling of the church may enter vpon eche others office And if he mean by lawful calling the ordinary calling then his answer is absurd For he falleth into that absurdity which the Papistes doe falsly surmise that we giue vnto our Princes power to minister the Sacramentes yea by his diuinitye which giueth the chois of the Bishops to the Prince alone and which maketh it lawful for one to offer him self to the ministery the king of the land may make him self Bishop withowt waiting for the church is consent Vpon that he alledgeth owt of M. Beza which wisheth some of the nobilitie to be of the Eldership compared with that which I affirm that the Eldership is an ecclesiastical office he concludeth that ether I must dissent from M. Beza or graunt that one person may at once bear ciuil and ecclesiastical office I answer that nether is necessary For whereas Lordships Baronryes and Erldomes are often ether by birth or giuen of the Prince as bare degrees of honour such being of the church Eldership doe not therfore bear boeth ciuil and ecclesiastical office considering that they haue no magistracy necessarily ioyned with them further then the same is particularly coÌ„mitted Albeit hauing the Heluetian confession I finde no epistle of M. Bezas so that ether he mistaketh the place or els hath some other edition then I could get Yf the gentry and nobility of the realm be as yow confes fitter to bear these offices then ecclesiastical persons there needed some great causes to haue bene shewed by yow why the fittest should not be taken otherwise the white of expedience that churchmen should bear them which yow threap of them that they see wil be so dim that boeth the Prince and they passing by it wil I hope put down as there calling serueth this vsurped power In the mean season it being so expedient a thing for the churche at yow pretend the church is litle behoulding to yow that doe not make this expedience to appear I said that if there fal a question to be decided by the vuord of god and vuherein the aduise of the Minister is needful that then his help ouught to be required The D. herevpon fathereth of me that the magistrate may determin no weighty matter withowt him as if there were no weighty matter wherein the Magistrat could know what is the wil of god withowt sending for the Minister so that it appeareth that there is no vntruth so open which finedeth not as in a coÌ„mon Inne lodging in the D. tong But els saith he wherfore are these wordes therfore forsooth that where yow and others might vnder colour of the knowledg which he hath in the word of god hould him the stirrup to clime into the ciuil gouernmentes it might appear that

wil giue it some honester name then my fancy To that I alledged that if the Auncientes should not be vnder a Christian Magistrate yt vuould folovu that the lord should haue les care of his church vnder a Christian then vnder an vnchristian Magistrate he answereth that the Christian Magistrate is in place of the Eldership but nether addeth reason him self nor once towcheth the reason which I browght namely that yt vuas neuer lavuful for the church in persecution to appoint any that should enter vpon any part of the ciuil Magistrates office This also could not be a sufficient recompence in matters pertayning to the soul health that for an Eldership in euery church they should receiue one Prince in a whole countrey For one Prince can not in the spiritual gouernment of the realm bring that to pas which the Eldership in euery church did before althowgh he should doe nothing but attend vpon that So that to make the Magistrates to succede into the office of the Elders and therein to doe al the duties appointed vnto the Eldership in tymes past is to charge the Magistrates with a thing vnpossible and such as must needes kyl their consciences Thus where the Christian magistrate is giuen of god to kepe the order which god hath set in his church yow bring him in as a breaker and changer of the order which god hath appointed by his holy Apostles But the godly Christian Magistrates may vnderstand that as nether our Sauior Christ nor any wise and wel instructed mynistery vnder him wil meddle with any order or form of common wealth lawfully instituted of them for the better gouernment of their people but leau them as they finde them So they owght to leau whole and vntowched that order which Christ hath placed in his church And as the An. saith truly otherwhere that Christ came not to ouerthrow ciuil gouernmentes euen so it is as true that god sendeth not kinges to ouerthrow church gouernment planted by Christ and his Apostles Yea so much more absurd is this later then the first by how much they owght to haue more firmity which were set by the lord him self then which were by men For what son of Adam shal presume to alter that order which the lord hym self from heauen hath set And euen so doeth the Apostle precisely speak of this office with others that god hath set it in the church Yf it be said that he set also Prophetes and workers of miracles which are now no more it is true they are now no more but why are they not Ys it because any man hath remoued them no verely but because the lord him self hath withdrawen them For if the lord had giuen euen vnto these dayes these giftes of healing and working of miracles c. I think there is no man so extremely impudent that would say that the ciuile Magistrate might abolish or put them down Beside that it is vntrue which he saith otherwhere that this office is placed amongest those which be temporal for euen that next before yt noteth the office of the Deacon which is perpetual As for that he crieth owt and so oft repeateth that by this meanes no more is giuen to the Christian Magistrate then to the Turk proceedeth onely of a famyn of reasons to answer which driueth him to this vnrulynes otherwise he can not tel how the establishment of this office should spoil the Prince of her autority S. Paul professeth of him self that he vurote the same that men red that is to say syncerely not pretending one thing and meaning another but al this ialousy pretended for the Prince against the Eldership is in deed for the Bishop So that albeit the name of the Magistrate be houlden owt to draw this cause into hatered yet the truth is that yt is to establish their own tyranny For as towching autority or preheminence there is nothing giuen to be doen by the Eldership ioyntly with the Pastor in one onely congregation al which and more to the Bishop him self alone doeth not vndertake to execute in a whole diocese or prouince Therfore if the exercise of this spiritual iurisdiction in the Eldership spoil the Magistrate of his autority then the Bishops are the chief in this robbery Vuhere he asketh how I shew owt of the scripture that those are the duties of the Elders which I haue assigned I answer that forasmuch as S. Paul appointeth them gouernours of the church togither with the teaching gouernours placing the difference onely in teaching and consequently in publik prayer and administration of sacramentes which are ioyned with yt or comprehended vnder yt that therfore the rest remain commoÌ„ betwene them to be doen as wel of these as of them That the place of S. Mathew is not to be vnderstanded onely of priuate offences I haue before declared your interpretation of tel the church that is publikly reproue those which admonished priuately repent not is euil nurtured breaking in withowt leau where mark good reader how easy it is for the D. to write answers which being pressed giueth him self this liberty that hauing no key to open the dore breaketh it open after this sort To interpret tel by reproue might haue some colour by that the general is some tyme put for the special but that tel the church should be reproue the offender hath a disease that al the tropes and figures which I haue red of are not able to cure And me thincketh that yow which accuse others for making the scripture a nose of wax if yow wil not put of your shoes at the least yow should wipe them a litle cleaner when yow enter into the lords Sanctuary That which foloweth is not a whit better For after he saith that by the church may be ment one onely so that he be in autority which is not vnlike vnto that which the papistes say that a man may appeal from the Councel vnto the Pope wherof some of the papistes them selues if he doe not repent shal sit in iudgment which leauing vnto the Pope the highest place in the church haue notwithstanding vpon this place preferred the iudgment of the Councel to the Popes But where I require some example of this monstruous speach vuherby one is said to be many one membre a body one alone a company the D. is domb where I shew further that if one onely should be vnderstood by the church that then the going from thre to one should not rise but fal not goe forvuard but bakvuard he answereth that to tel one which hath autority to correct the faut is more then to tel twenty as thowgh the complaint is made to the end he should be corrected and not that he should be admonished For as for correction other then by wordes it owght not to be awarded onles he refuse to hear the church so that here stil the proces is from the admonition which is by many to that

church is the foundatioÌ„ of the vuorld and therfore the common wealth builded vpon yt must be framed vnto yt he saith that yt is obscure c. But it is for waÌ„t of light in hym self for otherwise the thing is clear And to leau Salomons prouerb which Rabbi Leui Ben Gerson doeth so interpret and whereof in deed the sens may wel be that where the wicked are caried away with the tempest the iust not onely stand fast but be the cause why the world standeth I say to leau that S. Peter playnly confirmeth that the cause why this world endureth is for that the ful number of the elect is not yet gathered so that as sone as they are assembled by the ministery of the church there shal be forthwith an end of the world As for that he bringeth against this yt is vnworthy the rehersal for of the thre first he can conclude nothing and his last answer is no better For yt talketh of a change of that which is laid vpon the foundatioÌ„ wherunto the common wealth is likened and is that which I affirm but of changing the foundation wherunto the church is compared not a word the two next diuisions be answered Here he presseth that which he inferreth of the Admo â–ª that if the rule of moe in the church be better then of one because it is easier to turn one then a company from truth and equity it should therfore folow that the moe that gouern the better it should be which he hath now mended by putting for moe moe good men nothwithstaÌ„ding that this also is but sophistry For by the same form of reasoning it should folow that because two bittes of meat norish more theÌ„ one therfore the more a maÌ„ eateth the more he shal be norished he should therefore vnderstand that as there is in this gouernment a defect so there is an exces and betwene boeth a mean vuhich is to be houlden and that as the comodity of hauing the church iudgmentes handled by a company is to be sowght after so the inconuenience and confusion of assembling a great multitude for euery ecclesiastical case that may befal is to be avoided Beside that it is not enowgh that they which should gouern be good meÌ„ oneles they be of greater counsail and iudgment then the rest of the body of which sort when he wil not affourd vs any iust numbre he might wel haue spared this obiection Yf it were greatly to the matter it were easy to shew moe lavuful formes of common vuealths theÌ„ three Likewise that althowgh commoÌ„ wealthes haue their names of that which beareth the cheif sway yet that they are to their profit teÌ„pered and mixed one with another singularly the monarchy This is to be seen namely in our land where to the passing of diuers thinges the consent of the ParliameÌ„t is so required as that withowt yt those matters can not pas The next is already partly and partly commeth after to be answered Here he denieth most shamefully that he alledged Ambrose to proue that Seniors owght not to be vnder a Christian Prince For boeth the sentence immediatly going before and folowing after driue thereunto yea and that he affirmeth vpon confideÌ„ce of Ambrose saying onely for other proof he hath not It is therfore to great bouldnes that he asketh me why I gathered the tyme betwene Phillip and Ambrose Then he denieth that the Eldership florished in Constantines tyme but he is much to blame For the Centuries wherin he hath bene raking so often must needes haue tould hym that the same orders and functions of the church were in that tyme which were before And it is manifest that the churches were gouerned vnder hym as before by Bishops Elders and Deacons by that which is recited of an infinite number of Elders and Deacons vuhich came to the Councel of Nice vuith the 250 Bishops moreouer yt being before declared and in part confessed by him that this gouernment was before Constantines tyme if he be not able to shew that Constantin changed yt the same must be presumed After not denying but that it might be vnder some Christian Prince he saith that it is not the question whether it may be but whether it owght to be which how vntrue it is let the reader iudg of that I haue before noted To Ierom that saith that the Christian church hath her Eldership he answereth they were Ministers of the word and Sacramentes his reason because they were such as S. Paul speaketh of vnto Timothe maketh for vs which haue shewed that S. Paul speaketh there of Elders that gouern onely which may be better vnderstanded in that Ierom compareth them with the Eldership of the Iues which was as hath b appeared a seueral order from the Priestes and Scribes that interpreted the law and offered the sacrifices Duarenus also helpeth him not rather he maketh against him For in that he saith that the Canons succeded into the place of the Elders he declareth that the Canons are of another order then they were As when Ierome saith that the Bishops succeded vnto the Apostles he meaneth not that the Bishops are of the same degre and order of ministery with the Apostles the next I leau to the readers iudgment Vnto Ambrose he answereth yf he misliked the abrogating of this Seignory why did he not labour to restore yt That he misliked yt is manifest when he condemneth the Ministers of the vuord of negligence for suffering it to vuear ovut of the church or rather of pride vuhilest they onely vuould seme to be some vuhat he labored also in part to restore yt in that he reprehended the abolishing of yt whether he did further labour or no is not expressed the best is to be supposed which is that to his power he endeuored to set in that the want whereof he condemneth But Ambrose was no lord Bishop that he could doe in the church whatsoeuer he desired his extreme bouldnes in denying that ether he was abused or would haue abused other let the reader iudg of also in that he saith Ambrose maketh nothing for our cause to whose iudgmeÌ„t I also leau the next diuision Yf he denie that church officers which haÌ„dle church matters and vuatch ouer the sovules of meÌ„ be ecclesiastical officers then let hym deny also that two and two make fower But so gentilmen and handycraftes meÌ„ should be ecclesiastical persons why not if they be chosen thereto were S. Paul and Isay the Prophet no ecclesiastical persons because one was a Tentmaker the other of the kinges stok Nether occupations nor dignities haue any such mark of vncleannes or profanation that they may not be coupled with the church ministery when the ministery is such as togither with their professions they may also execute yt in which kinde is the Eldership of the church I omit that the D. hath here patched togither a sentence of M. Caluin before

the prebendes c. ovught to be called to a more lavuful vse namely to the fineding of Scholers Ministers and Poor And this is our meaning not that these goodes should be turned from the possession of the church to the filling of the bottomles sackes of their gredy appetites which yane after this pray and would therby to their perpetual shame purchase them selues a field of blud which thing althowgh we haue giuen playnly to vnderstand yet because we haue to doe with so importunat an aduersary that feareth not to charge vs with intent to gratifye such Cormorantes I thowght good in a word to protest yt As for the light account he maketh of those examples of the reformed churches which notwithstanding pretendeth to esteme so greatly of one or two of the auncient writers I leau to vtter what yt argueth oneles he were able to shew by the word of god that they did not wel The rest of this tractate which is a cartlode of vntruthes vttered partly in accusing me partly in maynteyning him self I wil not touch THAT EXCOMMVNICATION BELONGETH NOT TO THE Bishop alone Tractate ix and xviij according to the D. pag. 661. YT hauing bene shewed that in elections and depositions the Bishop can doe nothing withowt the aduise of the whole church nor in the common gouernmeÌ„t withowt assistance of the Eldership yt must folow that in excommunication which is one of the weightiest iudgmentes in the church this sole autoritie of the Bishop is vnlawful For as when in ciuil matters the iudgment is of life and death and as in the art of curing when consultation is taken of cutting or burning the bench is fuller and the assistance greater then when matters of les importance be debated euen so if it might be accorded to the Bishop to pas some other matters by him self yet it were not safe to coÌ„mit vnto him the iudgment of excommunication wherevpon I mervail why euen here also yow goe abowt to pek owt our eys For the light of this truth is such that some of the Papistes them selues are ashamed to look against yt as appeareth by Pigghius which seeking al maner of peintynges to hyde the filthines of Rome could finde no colour to disguise this with but is fayn partly to confes her nakednes in this behalf saiyng that it is not lavuful the Bishop of Rome onely excepted for any Bishop to excommunicate by him self alone So that althowgh the weightines of the cause might require a long treatis yet the plaines of it wil be content with a short First whether the word discipline may note the vuhole gouernment or onely the punishmentes as in a disputation of wwordes I wil not striue althowgh it be knowen that the word discipline is vsed in good autors for the whole maner of gouernment ether at home or in war. Secondly charged vuith coÌ„trarietie he answereth that to ascribe excommunicatioÌ„ to the Minister of the word and to the Bishop onely agree because the Bishop is a Minister of the word which might haue bene admitted if it had bene al one to be a Bishop and a Minister of the word But seing by the word Minister with vs is noted a diuers degree and meinteined by him it is but an escape Howbeit I am content he amend his speach if he had yet amended it and not rather vtterly marred al. For pretending that the Bishop onely hath by the word of god the excoÌ„munication committed vnto him he saith notwithstanding that the church if she wil may commit that autoritie vnto other giuig the church autority to make that common which the word of god hath made seueral Thus he enterfeereth at euery step almost cutting him self to pitifully The rest is answered so are the two next diuisions sauing that it appeareth that yow were somewhat hongry of a testimony of great reading which pres myne so sore that may be giuen to the veriest trewand that euer went on two legges which may in half an hower know the minde of twenty commentaries and requireth rather a man wel booked then ether wel red or wel learned To proue that the lord did not borow this form of gouernment of the Iues he assigneth one reason because he neuer appointed it vnto them which beside the vntruth that hath and shal further appear is contrary to that him self hath affirmed where he saith that al euen the least thinges vnder the law were commaunded So that oneles he wil denie that they had euer any Eldership or hauing it had it against the commaÌ„dement of god it must folow that they had it by the prescript of god Another reason is for that the Iues abused their Eldership then which there can be nothing more disagreing from the D. whole cours of defence which wil not haue so much as a peeld ceremony remoued for the abuse Vnto the reason I alledged why the word Councel in S. Mathew is taken for the Eldership of the church he answereth nothing wherunto ad that in other places of the new Testament where it is oft mentioned it is alwaies so taken The testimonies he citeth are partly to no purpose partly before confessed of me This is a wonderful bouldnes that yow dare say yea and glory in yt that S. Paul kept an other order of excommunication then our Sau. Christ commanded considering that he autoriseth his doeinges in the church of Corinth with this that he gaue that vuhich he receiued who also in this very particular case of the incestuous man alledgeth the autoritie of our Sauiour Christ. That owt of M. Caluin maketh against him manifestly For vpon the places boeth of S. Mathew and Paul he sheweth that the church hath interest in the excommunication onely he noteth that our Sa. Christ applied his form of speach to the estate of the church then which is nothing to our purpose After vpon confidence of M. Caluins autority onely he triumpheth vpon the interpretation I browght of the purging of leuain noting the thrusting ovut of the incestuous person which notwithstaÌ„ding is proued for as much as that vers is the conclusion of that before where by leuain caÌ„ not be denied but the incestuous person is noted vnles we wil say that the Apostle concluded another thing then that which he had before mentioned M Beza also comming after M. Caluin and not easely dissenting from him foloweth the same sens which I haue doen So that althowgh yow take your pleasure of me yet yow should not ride so hard vpon him But mark a litle how vnable your answers be to vphould such a confident insultation For where this here spoken by a borowed speach is playnly vttered yow are compelled to expouÌ„d these wordes of the Apostle take avuay the vuicked man amongest yovu that is shun his coÌ„pany which is not onely a wresting of words but also vnsitting to the coÌ„parisoÌ„ with the leuained bread which S. Paule vseth to

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 assistaÌ„ce 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 vnderstaÌ„d that this order which S. Paul prescribeth is vnderstaÌ„ded of that which is to be doen after excommunication For in such we must not tarry vntil two or three admonitioÌ„s 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 excoÌ„municated 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 wheÌ„ 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 vnderstaÌ„d 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 CouÌ„cel met for that matter or being assembled for other vpon the report of yt decreed of

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 theÌ„ 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 souÌ„d and coÌ„formable boeth to the holy scripture and practis of the elder and purer churches That the Canon of the couÌ„cel 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 auncieÌ„t decrees The Councels therfore giuing the Elders remedy at home and with in them selues the rash excommunication which the CouÌ„cel 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 theÌ„ 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 coÌ„trary 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 CaÌ„onistes 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 coÌ„prehendeth al those that are members of one church and childreÌ„ of one heauenly father In which noÌ„ber 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 strauÌ„gers from the church So that to say that Princes are not subiect vnto

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 theÌ„ 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 coÌ„uenieÌ„t 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 coÌ„sidering 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 coÌ„firmed 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 froÌ„ 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 theÌ„ wheÌ„ 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 SalomoÌ„ 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 theÌ„ selues to haue doeÌ„ 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 religioÌ„ 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

knowledg alow of hym as one which is able to wear his own apparel His second reason is that the Magistrate aloweth hym with condition of being obedient which is vtterly from the purpose For the question is not here what the Minister may lawfully obey but what the Magistrate may lawfully command and yt was set down that the Minister as also other subiectes might in some case vuith good coÌ„science obey that vuhich the Magistrate can not vuith so good a conscience coÌ„mand His third reason is that the Magistrate may be deceiued in hym whereunto I answered that he might then punish hym according as the faut requireth to the which he replieth not Lastly sayth he how sufficient soeuer he be he must be subiect to good orders wherein he beggeth that this seueral apparel is a good order which is the question Howbeit the Answ which in deliuering his reasons by tale oftentymes giueth but eleuen to the dosen hath giuen vs here at vnwares thirten For as for his former reasons yf yt had not bene in such a slippery place of the obedience vnto the Magistrate with the contrary whereof he so often and so vniustly chargeth vs I would not haue once vouchsafed to haue named them His reason that other wise men may alledg that they nede not to be prescribed in their apparel which he counteth not hath of al other the greatest colour and yet yt is answered before For althowgh there be which know how to wear their apparel as wel as the Ministers yet by calling there is none of whome yt owght to be so much presumed as of them yt being as yt was alledged vuithin the compas of their charge to teach the people to vuear theirs which charge of teaching the people belongeth to no other estate There being therefore so good reason why the Minister should be left vnto his honest liberty in this matter yt must needes seem hard that his estate should herein be inferior almoste nay altogither to al the orders and estates in the land For the Iudges Sergeantes and Aldermens seueral apparel is not for any thing I could euer learn so enioyned them but that they may some tymes and that in publik places vse the apparel which to them selues seemeth good And I would know of the Ans which maketh such adoe abowt this saying whether he thinketh that yf the Magistrate should appoiÌ„t the Minister a seueral and prescript diet from al other men he should not doe that with some iniury vnto the ministery And verely the case is not vnlike especially seing in S. Iohn Baptists ministery which the lord would haue discerned he would haue yt aswel discerned by a special diet as by a special apparel At the least this is certayn that if it be wel reasoned of hym that yt is coÌ„uenient to appoint the Ministers of the gospel a seueral apparel because Iohn Baptist had so yt is as good a reason that the Ministers should haue a seueral diet appointed theÌ„ because S. Iohn had so Now where yow note suttle dealing in that I pretend that by this restraint of apparel the Ministers discretion is mistrusted in wearing his gear where yt is commanded for a note of distinction yf yow meaÌ„ not that yt is onely to discern them from other yow say nothing against me For yt may be boeth for the one and the other respect yf yow mean onely yow speak against your self which affirm yt to be commanded for comelines and order And euen in the very next diuision for confirmatioÌ„ of your cause yow alledg this sentence owt of M. Caluin that Doctors should in grauity and modesty of apparel differ from the coÌ„mon sort so that yow seek by this seueral apparel to briÌ„g the Minister vnto a modesty in wearing his apparel For if the Ministers may be grauely and modestly apparelled wheÌ„ they wear not al one form of apparel yt is euident that yow are here clean owt of the furrow Furthermore yf yt were for distinction onely what nede so many markes abroad by the streates in the cap in the gown and in the typpet wheÌ„ as knowledg enowgh would be giueÌ„ by one why doe the Doctors of the ciuil law and sometyme also the Physicions wear the same attire finally wherefore are not the papistes driueÌ„ to the puttiÌ„g theÌ„ of with the like seuerity as the Ministers are driueÌ„ to the putting of theÌ„ on The honester sort of the cytisens of Rome whose proper ornameÌ„t was to wear a gouldeÌ„ ring and other markes of their dignity wheÌ„ they see euery raskal wear theÌ„ did cast theÌ„ aside what would they haue doen if they had sene their enemies wear theÌ„ Not that I for my part desire that the Priestes should as loÌ„g as thei remain in popery lese their cap and tippet vnles they lese their head and nek to but because I would shew that some thing els is sowght for theÌ„ a note of distinction And within the church would not the Priests gown suffise withowt the surplice His surplice withowt the cope his preaching and other ministerial function withowt them al For who can he be which doeth these thinges in the church but the Minister can there be a fayerer white to know hym from al the rest then these he that ether can not know or wil not acknowledg hym for a Minister by these markes yt is not safe that he should know hym by the other Here also yt is little to your credit that yow carp as an absurd speach because I sayd the Colledg vualles vvould haue tavught better logik Yf Tully herein be not a good Scholemaster yow might at the least haue giuen me leau to haue folowed Ierome which vseth this maner of speach as wel as Tully In the next diuision vnto two reasons whereby I shewed that there is not the like respect in the seueral apparel appointed to Iudges and Cytizens vuhich is in the Ministers beside petitions and repetitions he answereth nothing to the matter The next requireth no answer The first section is answered In the second towching Sycinius my reply that he vuas reprehended onely for to much exquisitenes in his apparel he can not moue His collection thereof that the ministers wore blak is first withowt the book then yf yt were true yet his conclusion that they were thereby knowen as by a proper note is nawght considering that as now so no dowt then others then Ministers wore blak Likewise vnto my reply that nether S. Iohn nor Cyprian liuing in the tyme of persecution vuere so vnaduised as by vuearing some notable apparel from the rest to betray them selues into the handes of their enemies he can not answer a word The truth whereof may better appear in that the Bishops to kepe them selues from knowledg of the persecutors were driueÌ„ sometymes to wear apparel which otherwise had bene absurd as Eusebius vuhich goeing abovut to ordeyn Elders c vuore a souldiars vuede And

this was also the cause no dowt why Iustin Martyr and Hermes after they were called to function in the church are said to haue continued their Philosophers apparel By how much more I mervaile at the D. inconstancy which page 275 citeth a sentence to proue that the chaÌ„ge of the apparel in the mynistery as wel as in other estates is not material He alledged also one of these examples to wit of Iustin wearing a Philosophers apparel after his receiuing to the ministery which he would neuer haue doen yf there had bene an vniform faschion of apparel appointed vnto the Ministers Vnles peraduenture he wil say that al the rest of the Ministers did wear Philosophers apparel as wel as he which is vntrue seing this is noted of them as of rare examples Vnto the particular reasons of Birrus because he could not answer he hath feyned a nw signification of a thyn plate contrary to the autority of the Calepine that proueth yt to be a garment of cours and heary cloth of no price His Dalmatica also yf yt were as he imagineth with wide sleeues maketh not a whit to proue yt a peculier garment Contrariwise the word signifiyng Slauonish declareth that yt was not proper to any degree of men but to the cuntrey ether because the cloth or faschion came from thens His reason that they were particular kinde of uestimentes because the names be expressed is to shameful as yf there were no other cause to name them whereas the naming of theÌ„ maketh to the certeinty of the story And further in Cyprians garmentes yt maketh to his commendation which in giuing his garmentes according to the quality of the persons vsed discretioÌ„ and declareth hym to haue bene of a present minde in the very point of death The particular reason of the cloke he hath let fallen flat yet is yt their reason whose names he pretendeth for other aswel as for this To that I replied of the white apparel in Chrisostomes tyme that he rather reprehendeth yt when he saith that â–ª their dignity is not in the vuearing thereof but in taking hede to their ministery he answereth that yt is spoken by comparison but that is onely said I graunt we sometymes speak in that meaning but that is nether the simplest nor vsualest kiÌ„de of speach To proue that the white apparel was with theÌ„ nothing els then a more honest apparel as blak with vs I alledged Salomon wherein his interpretation of innocency is not innocent as that which ouerturneth the whole sute of the text That of ioy wil not stand considering that that was mentioned before and the scripture vseth commonly to send the figuratiue speaches before rather then to place them after althowgh I graunt yt is a thing annexed with ioy But that yt is to be vnderstanded of the white apparel vsed in those partes yt is manifest by the oyl of the head which is ioyned in the same vers considering that yt ys knowen that the a vse thereof amongest the richer sort especially when they would recreate them selues was commoÌ„ where he excepteth that this custome might be changed betwene Salomons and Chrysostoms tyme he owght to haue shewed yt for such a custome once proued is stil presumed vntil the coÌ„trary appear Albeit in Tullies tyme many ages after Salomon yt appeareth that the Romanes which with the East empire translated a nomber of East fashions at bankets when men attire them selues more honestly vsed to wear a white garment But yt shal appear that this white garment had the same estimation in Ieroms tyme and therefore also in Chrisostoms Hether therefore pertayneth that page 282 of the white garment vsed in diuine seruice and alledged owt of Ierom where the D. being required to answer the reasons of the reply to the examiner by which yt is maynteyned that no special mark of apparel in the seruice of god is meaÌ„t saith he purposeth not at this tyme which in good english is as much to say as he can not For otherwise he must needes be in damages which arresting so violently and so infamously one that said nothing to hym in calling his proof a chiledish cauil now being called vpon putteth in no declaration against hym His pretence because I set not the repliers reasons down is vayn for he that toke the paynes to read his book to accuse hym should haue doen the same to haue conuinced hym especially seing yt was yet neuer answered But because he saith that the place which he cyteth owt of the councel of Carthage may be a sufficient confutation of al which is said of Ieroms places seing we haue no credit with hym let hym hear Erasmus which affirmeth that vuhite garmentes vuere in Ieroms tyme in great price and that the vuearing of them vuas for honors sake accorded vnto the Priestes but not vnto the Monkes sauing onely in deuine seruice Vuhereby yt is manifest that the white garmentes which Priestes did wear in the deuine seruice was as we say their holyday apparel and vsed of them as wel with owt the church as within So is yt also apparant that the place of the Carthage councel towching the Deacons white apparel ys nothing els but that the Deacon did in the church onely wear that apparel which the Bishops and Priestes as those which were more estemed did wear boeth within an withowt the church Nether is there any necessity that he should translate the wordes of the Councel in maner of a coÌ„mandement vnto the Deacon to wear a white garment feing the word may aswel be turned he may vuear as let hym wear and better also For considering that yt was as hath bene shewed graunted for honors sake yt is more agreable with the nature of honor to leau yt free then to driue hym to the wearing of yt whether he wil or no. whereupon likewise ensueth that there is not like cause in our countrey of wearing a white garment which was in theirs yt beiÌ„g stage like with vs which was graue and honorable with them As for IeroÌ„s place owt of Ezechiel the Ans doeth shamefully abuse his reader For he speaketh of the vse of the Iues vnder the law and not of vs which appeareth manifestly in that he opposeth that ceremony of the law vnto the maner of the AegiptioÌ„ Priests vuhich vuore boeth vuithin the church and vuithovut vuhereas the Priestes in the lavu did vuearonely vuithin the church This appeareth again in that which he addeth by and by that this vuhite apparel vuearing is fulfilled in the gospel vuhen vue put on Christ. For further reply herein I refer the reader partly vnto the answer vnto the Examiner which to take away the D. excuse I would haue gathered and set down yf I had had the book partly to the Bishop of Salisbury who sheweth owt of Augustin and Ierom vuith others that the Ministers nether vuere in tymes past nor ovught to haue bene discerned by any special

Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Text snippets containing the quad