gain the cause where there is so deep silence of reason and where owt of the scripture not so much as one sily reason is once pretended Therefore to cut his comb that he crow not so lowd hereafter he hath flatly betrayed his cause in that not able to alledg one reason owt of the word of god he placeth the strenght of this cause herein that against baptizing by lay men in the tyme of necessity we haue as he saith no scripture and he hath learned men for yt For first in that he can bring no reason owt of the word of god why a lay man or woman in tyme of necessity as he termeth yt may baptiz yt is manifest that he owght not to haue set yt down For this is a matter of doctrine and a matter of faith euen in that narrow signification that he taketh matters of faith this is none of the variable ceremonies which alter by the diuersity of tymes of countreis and of persons and therfore by his own rule here an argument of the autority of the scripture negatiuely is good so that here it is a good argument the scripture commaundeth not that lay men or wemen should baptiz therfore they may not baptiz Beside also that he doeth vs wrong in saying that it is auouched withowt proof It might haue contented him to haue said withowt good proof for proof there is whatsoeuer yt be where that which he affirmeth that the scripture doeth not forbid lay men to baptiz is an vntruth considering it forbiddeth that any should take honor to him self but he vuhich is called as vuas Aaron which senteÌ„ce doeth manifestly shut owt al priuate persons from this administration seing yt is a singular honor in the church of god As for that string which he continually runneth vpon that in tyme of necessity it may be admitted yt is but a plain asking of that in coÌ„trouersy For it being confessed that baptim is necessary wheÌ„ it may be administred according to the order which god hath ordeyned the state of the question is whether there be any such necessity of baptim as for the atteining thereof the order which god hath set in his church of administring it by a publik minister owght to be broken Of the same sort is his ofteÌ„ idle talk of the refusal neglect or contempt of baptim as thowgh there could be any of these in this case If he can shew that wemen or lay men owght to baptiz in such tymes and that god hath ordeyned that in defaut of a Minister they may lay to hand then let him talk his fil But that I am assured he can not the contrary rather may be seen that the lord hath condemned such rashnes as may appear by the examples of Saul and Vzziah For what greater apparance of necessity of sacrificing could there be then when Saul toke vpon him to sacrifice And how probable reasons in the iudgment of men doeth he bring to defend his fact as that the people would otherwise haue forsaken hym that the Philistins pressed hym that Samuel came not within the tyme appointed Likewise what greater apparance of necessity then when Vzziah stayed the ark otherwise like to haue fallen yet these necessityes notwithstaÌ„ding forasmuch as they toke vpon them that wherevnto they were not called they receiued the reward of their bouldnes whereas here there is as I haue said no danger so that the ordinary meaÌ„es be not neglected And verely it is al one as if he should say that if there be no magistrat at hand or none that wil doe his dutie in executing iustice against a murtherer that then a priuate man may take vpoÌ„ him to hang the murtherer Now where he propoundeth to proue two pointes the one that baptim by lay men is lawful the other that althowgh they were no fit nor lawful Ministers yet that the baptim is lawful to the end the reader may haue more light wherwith to iudg of these matters or euer I towch the second I wil rid his argumeÌ„tes of the former point for he hath confusedly blinded and meddled them boeth together His autorities here for the moste part are idly set down as those which I confessed before when I graunted the auncienty of this corruption But seing they are here I wil speak a word with them First owt of Ambrose vpon Ephes 4. is cited that al baptized If this make any thing to proue baptim by lay men it proueth not onely that they may baptiz in this pretended tyme of necessity and priuately but that they may daily aÌ„d publikly baptiz so that he by this meanes wil haue lay meÌ„ ordinary Ministers Then let the reader obserue how vnhonestly he dealeth with hym For in the same place it is conteyned how in the tyme wherein Ambrose liued it was not permitted vnto lay men nor vnto clerkes them selues which were an inferior order of church men to baptize so that this Autor maketh directly against him affirming that althowgh it were so then yet that it is no direction for vs now Augustin foloweth another of his witnesses in this cause whose iudgment is herein flat against hym For when he dowteth whether one baptized by a lay man ovught to be rebaptized it is manifest that he aloweth not that a lay maÌ„ should take vpon him to baptiz but onely standeth in dowt whether that baptim being so vnduly ministred owght to be counted for baptim Otherwise if he had houlden the ministery of a lay man lawful there had bene no place vnto his dowt whether the baptim be good or no. And therefore the D. durst not set down his wordes but caried them thrâ—e or fower diuisions further where they serue hym for the second point in controuersy Hys third witnes is Ierom ad Luciferianos which maketh not to proue what was lawful by the word of god but what was permitted then by the church There remayn therfore Tertull. and Zuinglius which doe affirm yt lawful to whom if the matter should be tried by autority he hath his own Ambrose and Augustin to encounter with Chrysostome also as him self citeth him which wil giue none leau to baptiz but a Priest Ad to these Cyprian who althowgh he erred in rebaptization yet proueth by substantial reasons of the vengeance of god against Chore Dathan Abiram and of the sonnes of Aaron that onely the ministers of the church may baptiz secluding thereby a lay man althowgh he be neuer so catholik I leau his Denys which is here ful for vs and come to the later writers where he hath beside M. Caluin before alledged Beza and Bullinger with others Beside that whatsoeuer or whosoeuer shal be alledged afterward to proue that the Sacramentes owght to be celebrated in a publik assembly serueth to bar al priuate persons and especially by the D. own confession wemen from this administration of Sacraments Now it may please the reader to turn ouer the
Epiphanius serue not his turn For nether is it said whether they medled with ciuil affaires before their bishoprik or in yt and if it were considering there is no approbation of their doeing but onely a bare telling that such a thing they did it can not help him For it is one thing to say they were commended for dexterity in such matters and another to say that they did it in dutie and wel euen as if the ciuil officer taking the pulpit and speaking fitly of a text a man might giue him the commendation of dexteritie in handling the text and withal condemn him for doeing it withowt calling Hether perteineth that which he alledgeth in another place of Letoius a Bishop which burned Monasteries but by what autority appeareth not beside that his act seemeth otherwise to haue no ground For if it had any good issw it was more by hap then by good konning The like and vpon like zeal was doen by one Audas a Persian Bishop that burnt an Idoles Temple which act gaue occasion of greuous persecution whereby may appear that Bishops went some tyme beyond their limites and did thinges permitted vnto them nether of god nor man. Of our age he citeth witnesses M. Cranmer Ridly Hoper and in another place Brentius for Brentius seing he hath no reason let him haue that credit which so smale a friend of sincerity deserueth especially against the consent of so many better then he for the other he maketh it not to appear that they were of that iudgment And of M. Hooper it is manifest that he did flatly condemn it which sheweth that the Bishops for the space of 400 yeares after the Apostles althovugh they vuere more able thē ours did meddle vuith no ciuil affaires where he sharply taūteth our Bishop which meddleth with boeth offices when one is more then he is able vuith al his diligence to discharge and impossible that he should doe boeth and that if the Magistrate vuil employ a Bishop in ciuil affaires he ovught to discharge him of his Ministery Yf M. Cranmer and Ridley did exercise boeth that is to be ascribed to the tyme wherein the Sun of the gospel being but lately risen in our climate al the cloudes which popery had ouercast our land with could not be so quikly put to flight Seing therefore the Ministers office is onely in thinges that pertayn to god which for a degree of excellency that they haue in promoting our saluation more then other the holy gost opposeth vnto the Princes and common wealth affaires seing also it is of greater weight then the strongest bak can bear of wider compas then the largest handes can faddam a soldiarfare that wil be onely attended vpon seing also it tendeth to the destruction of the body when one membre encrocheth vpon the office of another and that the ciuil Magistrate may by the same right invade the office of the Minister as he the office of the ciuil Magistrate seing further our Sauiour Christ hauing the spirit withowt measure refused as a thing vnmete for his ministery the office of a Iudg seing also the Apostles indued with such glorious giftes as are not now to be looked for gaue ouer the office of the Deaconship as that which they were not with the Ministery of the word able to exercise and seing for the burden thereof it was easier then the ciuil charge which the Bishops take vpō them and for the kinde of Ministery more agreable seing also the examples in the Scripture of thē which haue born boeth the charges are ether before this order was established of god or being sithens were extraordinary last of al seing this mingling of the estates is contrary to the practise of the elder church vttered boeth in Councels and fathers contrary also to the practise and iudgment of the godly learnedest of our tyme I conclude that it is vnlawful in an established estate of the church that a Minister of the church should bear ciuil office And thus much against the Ministers which haue one foot in the church and an other in the common wealth Now to the treatise of the Eldership for the cause before assigned THAT THE CHVRCH GOVERNMENT BY AN ELDERSHIP IN Euery congregation is by the ordinance of god and perpetual Tractat 8. and 7. according to the Doctor p. 626. THat which a Tully saith of an Oratour ful of wordes that he would make owtcries to get an appetite to drink may be feared somewhat otherwise in the D. who giueth suspition that he hath forced his pen to write not to get but to quench if it might be the thirst of honour And verely if this order of Eldership had not strenght to stand by our defence yet the vertw of it might easely appear in that yt so amazeth and astonieth the aduersary as if he had bene stricken with a thunderbolt from heauen so that beside a multitude of wordes wherwith by oppressing the reader he might make some shew of answer there wil be litle found that can of right chalendg a reply Howbeit to honor him with some answer leauing his disordered handling which I noted aswel for that his defence is fond as for that this is not the place to diduct that matter let vs see what he bringeth in this cause Against that I alledged owt of the Apostle The Elders vuhich rule vuel are vuorthy dubble honor especially vuhich labor in the vuord and doctrine to proue that there were Elders which assisted the teaching Ministers onely in the gouernment of the church he answereth first that the word Elder is the same commonly with Bishop or Pastor wherein partly he confuteth him self For if it be but commonly so taken and not alwaies then it may be taken otherwise in this place His first example likewise out of Peter 1. 5. is plain against him for thereby appeareth that Peter an Apostel and no Bishop is called Elder nether is there any word in that place wherby the exhortation to the Elders should not be applied as wel to the Elders which gouerned onely as to those which labored in the word also considering that the word of feeding respecteth not onely preaching but that gouernment also which is with owt preaching in which respect boeth in scripture and otherwise the ciuil Magistrate is said to feed And it is to great an ouersight to think that because al Bishops be Elders therefore al Elders are Bishops when as the name of Elder is common vnto al which haue gouernment of the church and most properly agreeth to those which haue the gouernment onely withowt further charge of teaching And the name is taken of the vsage vnder the law where they which had onely gouernment ether in church or common wealth were so called Secondly he saith that by those that gouerned and labored not in the word are vnderstanded those which ministred the sacramentes where to let pas that which hath and shal be after
this order is al one as yf he should say that Princes pertain no to the kingdome of heauen are none of the church haue no part with Christ c. Thus ys boeth Christ robbed of his honor which in cōtempt of his order as thowgh yt were to base for Princes to goe vnder is hym self contemned and Princes defrauded of a singuler ayd of saluation and way to draw them to repentance when they throwgh the common corruption fal into such diseases against which this medicin was prepared Hether belongeth the practise of the church in this and such kinde of censures toward the Emperoures Philip Theodosius and Anastasius on the one side and the godly Emperoures submission thereunto on the other which yf he vpon confidence of M. Gualters autority dare cōdemn of pride in them which exercised those censures or of foly in the Emperours that submitted them selues not to charge hym with Master Nowels autority which saith that the Prince ovught paciently to abide excommunication at the Bishops handes what wil he answer to the example of Mary Moses syster and kyng Vzzias which were subiect to the same law of vncleānes by reason of the leprosy aswel as any of the common people For that the separation commanded in respect thereof was not onely a ciuil policy to kepe the whole from the sik but that there was therein vsed a part of Ecclesiastical discipline yt may appear for that the Priest had the knowledg of the cause the shutting them owt and receiuing them in and for that Azarias the Priest of the lord with other his Assistantes remoued the kyng owt of the temple for the which he is commended in the scripture And if yt had bene onely a ciuil separation yet when the Princes could not be exempted from yt for fear of a corporal infecting of their subiectes how much les owght they to be exempted from that separation which is instituted against the spiritual contagion that which he obiecteth of the drawing this spiritual sword at euery light or no occasion at al thereby to deliuer the Prince from subiection thereto ys vayn for yf they abuse this power the Price needeth not onely to cōtēn yt but also may punish the abusers of yt So that in this respect there is les cause why the Prince should shake of this yoke of Christ then others considering that he hath better remedy against the abuse of yt then others That cōtractes of mariadg appertain not vnto the iudgment of church officers it is manifest considering that it is partly oeconomical and belonging to the right of the parentes partly ciuil in respect that it was in tymes past concluded before the Magistrate For as for the blessing in the church it is no part of the contract but a thing annexed vnto yt which appeareth in that vpon the bare contract before the blessing the parties althowgh not to haue company one with another be man and wife and for that the breaker of that contract is taken for an adulterer wherevpon it foloweth that the iudgment of diuors being meerly publik must be the ciuil magistrates alone For matters of willes it appeareth that they belong vnto the Magistrate considering that they are occupied in the commodities of this life and towch the distribution of goodes or landes As for the An. reason that the Bishop hauing best knowledg in those thinges may best iudg in them it is a hook to get al into their own handes But I deny first that they haue or can by their calling haue best knowledg in such thinges considering that there be diuerse thinges in them which require other knowledg then of the law of god And the case is rare when the question is whether a legacy a contract or a diuors be according to the law of god or no at least which requireth any deep knowledg to dissolue it And if al that which may fal into these matters were to be decided by the law of god yet to sit as iudg in them requireth not onely knowledg but also a calling which Bishops can not haue for the causes aboue alledged Therefore it is manifest that herein the Bishops are vsurpers whereof also the D. may read M. Nowels iudgment that vuhoredomes adulteries slaunders subtraction of tithes cases testamentary c. vuhich Bishops sometyme meddle vuith are no more spiritual then are murthers theftes oppressions and other iniuries Nether wil it help him that they exercise al maner of iurisdiction in the Princes right For first it hath bene shewed that they owght to exercise no ciuil iurisdiction althowgh it were committed vnto them Then how cometh it to pas that in right of their bishoprik withowt further commission from the Prince they take vpon them these iudgmentes of whoredome diuorces c euen as they found them in tyme of popery And as for excommunication and other censures ecclesiastical if they exercise them in the Magistrates right it foloweth that boeth the magistrate may much more exercise them him self and appoint other then ministers to doe thē boeth which as they be absurd so are they ouerthrowen by the D. him self which thinketh it vnlawful for Chauncelors to excommunicate for that as I suppose they be no ministers In the next where the Chauncelors are charged to excommunicate and absolue for money also one man for another c. he saith it is the faut of the man and not of the law which if it were true yet it argueth the Bishops vnsufferable carelesnes of godes glorie whose institution is thus shamefully profaned and neglect of duty towardes the Prince whose subiectes are thus pilled And here it is not to be omitted that where the ecclesiastical cēsures in reformed churches are exercised withowt a penny charge vnto any person our churches partly by reason of the Archbis and Bishops and partly the Archdeacons officers and their hangons which by this meanes liue in al brauery and iolytie of life are sore wrung So that they are therby much les able to contribute to the necessary charges ether of releeuing their poor minister or susteyning the subsidies laid vpon them for defence of the realm Therfore if the Archbishops and Archdeacons wil needes take more vpon them then them selues be able to beweld at the least let them pay their seruantes wages and not thus burden the church But thus the reader may see how vnworthely the Archbishops Bishops and Archdeacons deal with the church which not content them selues to vse tyranny ouer yt and to take vpon them of their priuate autority which belongeth vnto other with them haue also brought it into bondage vnder their seruantes and seruātes seruātes I mean Chauncelors Comissaries c. The next I pas by In the next where I shew that the office of Chorepiscopus alledged for defence of the Chauncelers office vuas far another thing he saith that he onely alledged yt to proue that Bishops had their deputies ▪ which how