A DEFENCE OF THE Reason's of the Counterpoison, for maintenance of the Eldership, against an answer made to them by Doctor Copequot, in a public Sermon at Paul's Cross, upon Psal. 84. 1584.  
Wherein also according to his demand is proved Syllogisticallie for the learned, and plainly for all men, the perpetuity of the Elders office in the Church.  
1586.   

To the Christian Reader.  
I Must (gentle & Christian Reader) declare two things for justifying of this treatise following. first, why it came not out before, then why it cometh out now. Before, the truth is, the author of the Counterpoison never could get the answers in writing as now I have got them. He saw notes of them taken by a Doctor of the civil Law, which (as he then said) made him rather think how to contemn them, then to answer them. So this was the cause the author let it alone. Since that time I myself have fallen upon the whole Sermon in writing: so that it seemeth it goeth from hand to hand amongst those who delight in it. It may be some perceive not the weakness of the answers. It may be, some believe the slanders and lies made in it, both against the cause and the persons. Wherefore to show the truth of the cause and her strength against all her enemies new or old, continued or relapsed, to clear the truth from old & new slanderers, I have made the Defence following. The Author of the Counterpoison I am sure will take it in good part. This Defence the Author of the Answer may confute if he can. Thou mayest judge of both, as Evidence of Reason shall lead thee. The Lord grant us first to understand his will, then to practise it.   

¶ That part of his sermon which concerned Discipline.  
BUT what is said of the Church of England? Truly that it is no Church but after a sort: and why? Because it lacked Discipline, for so say the Papists, that it is not the true Church, but secundum quid, after a manner. But what of this? This is but a slander given to the church by them, as a city can not stand without Walls, no more can a Church without Discipline, yet sayeth the holy Father Master Gualther, writing upon the Epistle to the Corinthians: For lack of Discipline, no man ought to departed from the Church. The same Father writing upon the Epistle unto the Galatians, which is applied to james King of Sicily, Ego, si quis Disciplinae formam interrogat, in omnibus gentibus eandem constitui non posse existimo. I do think that if any man do ask of the form of discipline, that the same cannot be appointed in all Countries and Nations through the world. In a Catechism printed here at London not long ago, the Scots Catechism, the question is asked, What may the Eldership do in the Church? The answer is made again, Admit unto the Sacraments, and exclude from them according to God his word. Now as concerning Priests, it is said that they are worthy of great praise, which do their office justly. And Saint Paul saith in his 5. Chap. 1. Timoth, The Elders that rule well, were worthy of double honour, especially they which labour in the word and doctrine, we say the place is understood of the Preachers of the word. Peter Verides and Nicholas Emingius in the 133. pa. of their book say, That such priests are worthy of double honour. There is one noted, that when he was about the same matter and business that there is spoken of, he affirmeth the Testament of Reams never came into his hands, and in deed I dare be bold to say, it did not, for he inteprreteth the place, that they Which labour are worthy of double honour: but he did not speak of any Ministers, save only them which preached the word sincerely. Therefore he speaketh and maketh difference between Preacher & Preacher. I say not by the authority of the Testament of Reams, but by the authority of holy Fathers or Prophets, which the Apostles do note. S. Augustine he asketh the question, Qui non bene p 〈…〉 sunt? but they, which do not labour in their calling Chrisostome saith, Bonus pastor vitam ponit pro ovibus: A good Pastor will lay down his life for his sheep. And again saith Cyprian, Boni & fideles dispensatores, duplici honore digni sunt. S Ambrose saith, Praesbiteri, & qui bene praesunt vita & doctrina, duplicem moerentur honorem à subiectis quibus praesunt: Presbyters, and they that do govern well, both in life and doctrine, do deserve double honour of those subihctes, whom they rule: so that here we may see, he doth understand the places of the preachers of the word of God. But they say, if we should so expound it, we should make the Apostle to go backward and not forward. Surely, nothing less: for this is the sense, that they which labour, are worthy of double honour: they which do not, are worthy of none. So that here we may see that the interpreter doth not expound this place after the Church of Rome or of Reams▪ but S. Ambrose, Chrisostome and Augustin. Here we see that the Apostle doth seem to make two kinds of miinsters: The one which were occupied in the word, but not well: & why should that seem strange to make two kinds of preachers or ministers? For my part I wish with all my heart that all that are placed in England, were better than myself, and that it were so through all Nations where the word of God is preached, and I pray to God, that the Gospel of jesus Christ were preached throughout the whole world. The Apostle saith, that in his time there were many which laboured not so much as he. I thank God (saith the Apostle) I laboured better than they all, yet they deserved honour: but not so much as he, because they laboured not so much as he, for God hath not given to every one the self same gift. Furthermore they define this word (labour) is spoken to all, as well that are able to do most, as those that are able to do least: Therefore the Apostle writing to the Thess. calleth them labourers, although there were some which were wicked amongst them. Furthermore, they add this distinction is dissolute, and clean void of true discipline, if they be but Ministers, and take not so great pains, yet they are worthy of honour, though not so great as the rest, but of the honour of Widows, and he speaketh of honour of Widows in Chap. 5. ver 1, 2. Honour the elder women as mothers, the younger as sisters. Honour Widows which are widows indeed. The Apostle saith, Rom. 12.6.7. Seeing then that when we have gift, etc. And again in Epist. 1. Cor. Cap. 12.28. God hath ordained some in Churches, as first▪ etc. Therefore they say, there must be presbyteries in the Church: but I do not allow of this their argument, as they had Elders in the Church then, so it must be now. For the learned Father M. Gualther saith, That there are certain which would erect a presbytery, they must prove they have the same gifts as the presbytery had then, prophesy, working of miracles, and other gifts written in 1. Cor. Cham 12. They that do these things are thought to trouble the order of the Church of God, and to bring in contention, the civil Magistrates went to get unto themselves ecclesiastical authority, but this turned into popish tyranny. There was a little book printed in the year of our Lord 1558. that is called The admonition of England and scotland, you shall find as much there. And if it do● please you again to look into the conclusions of that book, ye shall find that there is one which doth conclude heavier against England, then doth Doctor Sanders.   

The defence.  
THE whole which he speaketh of Discipline, consisteth in two points, The one against us: the other, A defence of himself. Where the one is not so false and frivoulouse, but the other is as vain and feeble. To begin, let us see how he maketh us charge the Church: then his Defence he maketh for it. He layeth to our charge, that we make the Church of England but a church secundum quid, after a sort.  
Where that he slandereth us in saying we slander the Church: we prove it by double witness, on our part our words and deeds: on his part, by his own allegation in this place. For our words, our preaching and writings have always witnessed, that we hold the Church for a true Church of Christ, from which no member may separate himself: although he must disallow the wants in her. We have always when subscription was urged, been ready to subscribe to the Article of her majesties authority, and to the substance of doctrine, in as large a manner as the Statut in that behalf required. This we have declared by protestation and by writing, not only to them, but to the most honourable Senate of her most Excellent majesties privy Counsel. We have by writing defended the cause of the Church and our Prince, as much as they, that we say no more. From our actions how many Demonstrations might be brought to approve our right judgement, reverend account, and sincere affection toward the Church of England▪  
Have we not (yea when we were unjustly against all law of God and man, deprived for not subscribing) adjoined ourselves to the Church in all the actions of the ministery of the word preached, of prayer, & of the Sacraments? Have we not by persuasions continued many in the bosom of the church? yea when through weakness, because of many abuses they would have departed. Have we sought redress by any other means than by humble supplication towards our superiors according to duty? Thus our actions approve us to the church. His accusation hath been heard, let us hear also his witness: which as we said, overthroweth his accusation. He maketh us to say, that as a city can not stand without walls, no more can a church without Discipline. We reply, there was never any that denied a city with out a wall, to be a city, an orched without defence, to be an orchard, a cornefielde without a hedge to be a cornefielde. Neither will any man forsake his city, cast away his corn, destroy his vineyard, for lack of a defence. 
Psal. 80.14 Nehe. 1.  Nevertheless the want of these things must be complained of in time. Behold how his own witness speaketh for us. We have seen how he feigneth us to charge the church, mark how well he defendeth her. What manner of defence doth he make? not with the Word, but with 2. sentences of M. Gualther. Is M. Gualther a more holy, learned, & ancient Father then Peter Martyr, Viret, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, and such other, Who by preaching, writing, & other good means, have maintained this cause? We acknowledge Gualther to be a shining star: but we make not his glory like unto the glory of God in all those men. Howbeit let the strength of his light shine out, and it shall not hurt us, but melt away his assertion as wax, and the Bishop's authority which he maintaineth as pitch. For want of Discipline (saith he in the first place) no man ought to depart from the Church: we confess it, allow it, subscribe unto it. What is the second voice? I think that the same form can not be appointed in all nations. Lo it is a thought, no demonstration. Will you allow his judgement in this M. Copquot? Dare you do it? Shall sweet and sour come out of your mouth in one sermon? Have you not twice or thrice in this sermon made Discipline a note of the Church, in these words: The notes of the Church are three, the first. The word of God truly preached. The second, The right administraetion of the Sacraments. The last, True Discipline. And having alleged Mat. 28.18.19. you say, By which place of Scripture, we may easily perceive, that these are the true tokens of the Church, where the word is preached, The Sacraments truly ministered, and where is true Discipline. Now, if Discipline be one note of the Church, shall it not be the same in all places as touching the substance, as is the doctrine? Shall there not be a certain form of it, as S. Paul saith, 
2. Tim. 1.  there is of the doctrine, your first mark? Again, how will these words of Matthew, Go teach all nations, baptizing them that believe, and teach them to observe all things, which I have commanded you, prove your Divisions? Is it not because all men must not only be taught and believe the doctrine, as the first and principal mark, nor only be baptised and use the Sacraments, which is the second, but also must be taught to observe all constitutions, for elections, abdications, for the essential difference of offices for the censures and spiritual corrections, which you call true Discipline, the third mark? How then, is not this commanded Discipline certain in nature and form? And is it not commanded to all that believe and are baptised? What then, shall M. gualter's sentence stand, & yours fall? After you have seen this disagreement of M. Gualther, with himself, behold how he disagreeth in this sentence with the Bishops and orders which you maintain. In his commentary on the 1. Cor. 5 where he hath the very words you allege: he saith, That the Ministers have no Discipline further than rebukes by word: That there must be no Ecclesiastical suspension from the Sacraments: No excommunication: Finally, there must be no Discipline but civil, at the appointment of the Magistrate, and that by civil persons. Will the Bishops allow this, that by the word of God Ecclesiastical governors have no authority to suspend, to excommunicate? Will our laws, will the Articles of the Convocation house, will the book of ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons stand with this? Thus Gualters breath poisoneth and choketh the Bishop's sweet and pure government. Thus far his accusation. His answer to our reasons follow. Where first I pray the Reader to consider well the question between us: which is one these word of S. Paul in 1. Tim. 5. The Elders which rule well, are worthy of double honour, especially those which labour in the word and doctrine. We say, this place mentioneth two sorts of Elders, one which do only govern in the Church: the other which also are occupied in the ministery of the word. He denieth this, and sayeth it mentioneth only two sorts of Preachers, some which preach well, and some which take greater pains in it than others. Thou seest the question between us (good Reader) wherein thou mayest thank Master Copquot (as we also do) for making his meaning plain without any fear. For it argueth a good courage, openly at Paul's cross to justle out the Archbishops interpretation, to bring in his own. 
Doctor Whitgift pag. 626.  The Archbishop understandeth it of two sorts of Ministers: some that are Ministers but preach not: some that preach and labour in the word and doctrine. Well did Master Copquot consider that it was far from the true meaning of the Apostle, which never would account an ignorant Minister, unsavoury salt, a blind watchman, a dumb Dog, and an Idol shepherd, worthy either of double honour, or the name to rule well. Well also did he consider that it was a small piece of government, to read a few prayers or part of the Liturgy, and to do all as he is prescribed. Upon good reason he left that corrupt meaning, I would he had as easily received the full and proper meaning of the holy Ghost. But let us come to the matter in hand: He thinketh himself injuried that he is charged to have learned his answer of the jesuits, which he had (he saith) from holy Fathers and Prophets. If you bring the interpretation of the Prophets for you, we will put our hand to our mouth and give glory to the truth and to you, although we must still acknowledge that we red it in the jesuits papers, before we heard it out of your mouth. But how is it that we hear a sound of Prophets, but find the sentences only of Fathers? Let us examine them notwithstanding, to see if they discharge you from being the jesuits scholar. The sentences which are alleged, make nothing for you, some are expressly against you. The first 2. are made to say, Such Priests are worthy of double honour as do rule well, admit they say it: but do they say this place maketh two sorts of Preachers, which is the question? Have you no other Fathers than these first? Yes, Augustin, Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrisostome, these are worth the hearing, let them speak. S. Augustin saith, They only non bene praesunt, which do not labour in their calling. Ergo, the place of the Apostle is to be understood of Preachers only not of governing Elders. I am not worthy for learning to bear Doctor Copquot books: yet I know the man whom he now seeketh to confute, would laugh at such a reason. For all that I will vouchsafe an answer. Augustine in giving no more for the interpretation of these words, which rule well, then that they do it which labour in their calling, doth apply it no more to Preachers only, then to Deacons, Kings, yea Shipmaisters, who all must labour well in their calling. Nay, by using so general words in interpreting the first part of the verse, he manifestly declareth, that he understood it was general to both sort of Elders, both teaching and unteaching, and so he might apply it to which soever sort of Elders he had occasion to speak of. The same answer may serve the words which he sayeth are Cyprian'S, who yet can not be found either so much as to allege that place, much less fully to interpret it. And if he think that Cyprian was such an enemy of unteaching Elders, let him read again his Epistles, and he shall find almost in every Epistle, that he is a great friend unto them. He will say peradventure, those Elders were preachers: we answer, it is not credible that in one Church there could be so many as he there nameth and painteth out, especially in the time of persecution. But to put the matter out of doubt, his own words are alleged, where he saith, 
Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 22  He with the Elders, Teachers, and Readers, gave the degree of a Teacher unto Optatus: Or if you will have the reading as it is newly cast in a popish mould, Quando cum praesbiteris doctioribus, lectores diligenter probaverimus, Optatum inter lectores doctorem audientium constituimus, when with the lharneder Elders we diligently tried the Readers, we made Optatus amongst the Readers a Teacher of those who hear, it shall make yet more against you: because here Elders are not only distinguished from Cyprian the Bishop of that particular church as from the Pastor, & from the teachers and readers, but also from some other unlearned Elders, who although for government they were apt men: yet were not so learned as either they were fit to read in the Church, or judge of those who could read and pronounce words and sentences according to their just measure, and proper grace. We have sifted Cyprian, let us look in to Chrisostome: He is made to say, A good Pastor layeth dewns his life for his sheep. He doth so say, but the 
(a) Num. 27 Acts 20  name of shepherd both in holy and profane write, is common to governors, both civil and ecclesiastical, as well as to Teachers. Further, if one do well mark the course of Chrisostomes' commentary in that place, he shall find him against you: 
Poimenes laon in the Poet.  because when he speaketh of the first part of the verse, he urgeth no necessity of doctrine: but coming to the second, he showeth that those kind of Elders which are occupied in the word, are most to be honoured, because they sustain great labour in teaching. His words are: Quid est autem bene praeesse? audi dicentem Christum: Pastor bonus animam ponit pro ovibus. Bene igitur praeesse, hoc est, nulli parcere illorum regiminis gratia: maximè inquit, qui laborant, in verbo & doctrina: ubi modo sunt qui dicunt sermone & doctrsna non opus est: & hos omnium maximè jubet honorari, causamque addit, dicens: Nullum enim laborem sustinent: that is, What is it to rule well? hear Christ speaking or telling it: A good shepherd layeth down his life for his sheep. Therefore to rule well, is this, to spur none, or nothing, for the sake of their government: especially (saith he) those which labour in the word and doctrine: where are they now which say, there is no need of the word and doctrine: and he commandeth that these be chiefly honoured, and showeth the cause, saying: because they sustain much labour. By all which is manifest, first that the first part of the vers. he understandeth only of government (for giving the full sense of it, he maketh it to be to spare none in respect of their government) & so maketh with us Elders which govern only: and Elders which also teach. secondly, seeing he doth by the second part confute those who said, there is no need of doctrine: he showeth that although some are to govern only, yet some which must have great honour, must teach also. Yea, if he had understood your sense of this place, he would have said upon the first part of the verse: All must teach well, therefore there is need of doctrine in every place: this argument could not have been left out, and had been more necessary, if he had seen that to be the meaning of the Apostle. lastly, in confuting by this reason their negligence, because they must labour in the word, and not with yours, because they must labour more than others: he showeth your interpretation never came in his mind. Thus three of his witnesses have done him much more harm then good. What sayeth the last? Ambrose sayeth, Presbyters i Elders, and those which govern well, both in life and doctrine, deserve double honour, of those who are under them. Is this to prove that Ambrose understandeth the place of Preachers only: when besides those which govern both in life & doctrine, he speaketh of Elders and ancients? If you will say that (and) doth not here couple divers things, but interpret only, what reason have you to prove it? Seeing he doth allege the text expressly as we do▪ What goeth before, what followeth after to prove it? Nay, in the last words he would then have said. They deserve double honour, of those whom they teach, but because he would make it general to both, he sayeth of those that are under them: which may have relation to both sorts of Elders. If Ambrose had misliked this office, or not counted it perpetual, you had had some reason to interpret Et (and) by these words that is: But seeing he calleth for it and complaineth for the decay of it, as we do: seeing he proveth it by the same places we do: his interpretation hath no colour to maintain itself. The first is manifest by his words on 1. Tim. 5. unde & Synagoga, & postea Ecclesia seniores habuit, quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia. Quod qua negligentia absoleverit, nescio, nisi fortè Doctorum desidia▪ aut magis superbia, dum soli volunt aliquid videri: that is, Whence also the Synagogue, and after the Church had Elders, without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church: which, by what negligence it is worn out of use, I know not, unless perhaps by the sloth of the Teachers, or rather their pride, whilst they alone will seem to be somewhat. The second is manifest by his interpretation of the 1. Cor. 12. which we allege (He hath set in his Church governors) of which words his whole interpretation (after he had spoken upon the former words of the Teachers) is: Sunt & gubernatores qui spiritualibus retinaculis, hominibus documento sunt: There are also governors which with spiritual bridles order men. Where, in saying, there are also, he showeth beside the teachers, there are also rulers: and such as rule with spiritual bridles, not with the civil sword. Thus the Fathers are heavy friends to this interpretation. It may be notwithstanding he can so confute our reason brought against his misinterpretation, as we must of force yield it into his hands. For trial sake therefore, we come to his answer. Wherein observe two faults which are general: than you may the better deal with the particular deceits of his answer. The one is, that he clean passeth by one principal reason, which is made against him, and it is this: If the Apostle had meant to have made two sorts of Preachers, he should have said, They which rule well in word and doctrine, are worthy of double honour, especially those which labour in it, or labour more th●n others: but the Apostle hath no words nor circumstance, to make the word & doctrine common to both. For by what law of interpretation, will you do it? Will you interpret, Ruling by teaching? government by doctrine? One divers thing by another? Is that to interpret, or to confound? another fault is, that he repeateth the fourth reason, but maketh no answer at all unto it. The cause peradventure is, for that it was concluded in a connexive syllogism, not a simple or categorical. I will therefore do so much for the author (or rather him) as turn it to his liking Thus: 

What soever is a common duty of all Elders that can not be assigned by the Apostle, as a proper cause of an especial honour in some sort of good Preachers.  
But Copiazein to take great pains in their office, etc. is a common duty to all Elders, 1. Thes. 5.12. Heb. 1● 17.  
Ergo, Copiazein to take great pains, can not be assigned of the Apostle as a cause of especial honour in some sort of preachers.   We will now expect his answer, although without cavil he can hardly answer it. Thus we have beheld the common virtues of his answer, let us look into the proper strength in the particulars. To the second reason his answer is, that is this interpretation, they do nothing less than make the Apostle go backward and not forward. For this is our meaning which we give (saith he) That they which labour, are worthy of double honour: they which do● not, are worthy of none. A sound answer, which is contrary to himself, and toucheth not the force of that objected against him. Show the first. It is manifest by that which after he saith: that this place is meant of such as preach well and of some that in preaching well, take more labour than other. Here he understandeth it of those which take any pains, and setteth them against those which take none So he maketh the highest degree of honour due to that which if it be not done, he saith, is worthy of no honour▪ How can that deserve or have an excellency of honour, which is common to all that may have any honour in their office? Besides this contradiction which is evident in his own words, he toucheth not the force of the objection. The objection is: Whatsoever sense maketh the Apostle, in the second member of the verse, give more to the part, then in the first to the whole, maketh him go backward nor forward in his word especially. But this sense of theirs maketh the Apostle give more to him that laboureth in preaching, which is but a part, then to him which doth it well, which is to do it with great pains, purity, wisdom, zeal, power, soundness, fitness, & many other things besides labour. Therefore this sense maketh him go backward not forward, in his word especially. This reason is plain. What saith the answer? Doth it distinguish? No. Doth it deny the first part? No. What then? It denieth the conclusion, against all rule of reason. Yet by what reason doth he deny it? By giving an interpretation, which doth not make, either two sorts of Elders, or of sincere preachers, but only two sorts of preachers, one good & worthy of honour, an other evil, which take no pains, worthy of no honour. So that this having no degrees of comparison (which are manifestly expressed in S. Paul's words) can not so much as resemble the sentence of the Apostle, much less interpret it. His meaning here peradventure is as after, that all that do it well, shall have double honour: but they especially, who take yet more pains in doing it well. This his meaning hath two fowl spots in it, as fair as he would make it. The first is against the rule of reason, because he beggeth the question: for to prove his denial of the conclusion of our reason, he bringeth this meaning of his, which is the question we dispute about. The second fault is against plain dealing in interpreting the scripture, & that in two respects: one is in interpreting ruling well, or being over others well, by preaching well. Which is to interpret the general by the especial. If he say, one may do so where there is a Trope or an unproper speech: he must first prove by evident reason out of his text, or other scripture, that there, is a Trope, else he seeketh a knot in a rush. Besides this, a figure can not stand here, because the Apostle doth specify the general, of being over others, into the special of being over also in doctrine: so that he can by no means enter here upon such an unproper speech, but must be content to read, ruling well, ruling well, not teaching well. After this strange interpreting, before this new coined meaning (carrying the very stamp of the jesuits) enter, he must (not without great blame if he look not to it) add to the words of the Apostle. For, all the force of his interpretation standeth upon an addition, to the words of the holy Ghost: which is, to make him say, he that taketh more great pains than they which preach well: All which words, more than others which do it well, are neither in the Apostle in express words, nor in any of like force to them, neither hath he, or can he With any Syllogism conclude it out of his words. If he can, let him show his cunning. The word Copiazein, which signifieth, to take great pains, will not here help him: For it doth not include a comparison with others. 
1. Thes. 5.12  For it is common to all Elders, much more good preachers. For the Apostle in making comparison, saith, en copois, in labours more abundant: and so by adding the word of comparison to it, showeth it is not contained in the very word itself. 
2. Cor. 11.23  In his answer to the third reason, where he made three sorts of Preachers, and even those that do it not well, worthy of some honour for defence: he saith, he seethe not why such as take pains, may not have an honour such as is dew to Widows: Wherein first he trifleth, fleeing from the matter in hand to another. For he should have proved that his interpretation gave not a single honour to some which did not preach well. Secondly, he is contrary to himself. Before he said, here were understood only two sorts of Preachers, good and evil: after he said, good and excellent: Now, three sorts are understood, single ones, such as may have the honour of Widows: double ones, such as may have double honour: and triple ones, which may especially have double honour. Wherefore (as the Author of the Counterpoison said before, so I say again, this is dallying, & not interpreting: And What soever he say, this Discipline of his, is dissolute. ●or if men preach well, they are worthy of double honour, which is more than the widows honour. if oteerwise they are worthy (as he said before) of none. His answer followeth to the last reason out of Roma. 12.6.7. Where the Elder for government only, is made a proper member of the church, differing in his proper action from the Teacher, Exhorter, Distributer: And out of the 1. Cor. 12. where God is said (besides all other ministries and gifts) to have ordained governors in his Church: whereunto he saith, he denieth the argument, there were such then, therefore there should be such now Because (as M. Gualther saith) We must first prove they have such gifts of prophesying, doing of miracles, and divers such like as are there mentioned. To all which we reply, first with thanks that he yieldeth to the truth, & granteth that such were ordained of god. In the second place we will prove they are perpetual, and then that it is unreasonable to demand of us, to prove that now they have such gifts as he speaketh of. We maintain out of these places, that they are perpetual. First, because they are members ordained of Christ, having actions for the profit of the whole body. For unless he can prove God hath repealed them, who shall cut them off from the body? Secondly, the Apostle in the 12. to the Rom. reckoneth up none but perpetual, as Teachers, Exhorters, Rulers, Distributers. Now, himself (I dare say) will acknowledge the gifts of doctrine, exhortation, ability to distribute, & govern, with the actions proceeding from them, to be perpetual, & still necessary If then the proper actions (as the Apostle there speaketh) of the members be perpetual, shall the members be momentary? Doth Christ now give doctrine, 
Ephe. 4.10. 1, Cor. 1●, 28  exhortation, government, and not Doctors, Feeders, and Governors? Or doth he give teachers for doctrine, and not governors for government? 
Mat. 28.19.  Further, if the Church daily need these for government, and seek orderly for them, and yet have them not: how is Christ present with his Church, to enable her to do all he commandeth? In the second place, doth not S. Paul say he hath set governors in his Church. How can any man set them out then? They will say, he saith, there also he hath set Apostles, which yet are not perpetual. It is true: there are mentioned also teachers and helpers which are perpetual. So this objection ministereth us occasion of a double reason: the one by equal comparison, as the teacher's office (whereof the gift & necessity is perpetual) for that cause remaineth, and the Church ought continually to call for men which are fit for it, because God hath set them in his Church. So for the Elders office, seeing their gifts of watchfulness, ability to admonish, and to advise and govern doth remain, the Church is continually to call men fit for the same office into it, because God hath set them in his Church. Further, as no authority of men could have removed the extraordinary, unless God had denied their extraordinary gifts and calling: so no man can remove these where the gifts remain, & an ordinary way of examination, & election doth remain for their calling. Thirdly, the Apostle writing unto Timoth. doth give as general a charge for this sort of Elders and their continuance, as for the other which are ●●aching: therefore if you can prove one perpetual▪ you may also prove the other to be so likewise. For the precepts for their honour, their reasonable immunity from accusations, their just rebuke, their careful ordination, are set down, as common to both sorts, though, as in the first of honour, so in the rest the teaching Elders are especially to be regarded. Lastly, they can find no commandment, reason, or other ground in the scripture, why the Pastor in his place should be perpetual, but we will bring the like for the Elder in his. One is more necessary, we grant, but not more perpetual than another: as the eye, or the tongue, or the hand is more necessary than the foot, the right ones more than the left, yet alike ordinary & perpetual. These are our reasons to prove them perpetual, which being set down for the unlearned more grossly, we will also set than down with some other in syllogisms, that he may the better deal with them, out of Rom. 12.  
No members of Christ's body having actions for the profit of the whole, may be thrust out or put to an end by any human authority. The Elders and Deacons are such members, Rom. 12.4 8. Ergo,  
All offices whose gifts and proper actions are ordinary and of perpetual use, they are perpetual. The offices of Elders & Deacons are such, as whose gifts of ability to govern, & distribute, & actions of distribution and government, are perpetual by their own grant. Ergo, They are offices perpetual Out of the 1. Cor. 12.28. No offices which God hath once set in his Church, may be put to an end by human authority. But the offices of Elders & Deacons, have been once set in the Church by God, Ergo, they may not be put to an end, and consequently are perpetual. Whatsoever offices have the same cause of continuance, are alike perpetual, though not alike excellent. The office of teachers, & of church governors & Deacons, have the same cause, as the ordinance of god, the continuance of their gifts, & of power of the church to call them, 1. Cor. 12 Rom. 12. Ergo, they are alike perpetual. Whatsoever have the like cause of ceasing and remaining, the cause of remaining being continued, they remain, as the cause being ceased, they cease. But the offices of Church governors & Deacons with the offices of Apostles, workers of miracles, have the like cause of ceasing & remaining, to Wit the will & ordinance of God in continuing the gifts, and the ordinary and mediate calling of the Church for the one, and his will in withholding the extraordinary gifts, and immediate calling of the other. Ergo, they do by the like cause remain that the other are taken away  
Whatsoever have the same general commandment, and rules of examination, traill, ordination, abdication, honour, repose, without special exemption for any: are alike perpetual. But the offices of teaching and unteaching Elders and of Deacons, have the same general commandment, etc. 1. Ti. 5.3, 10. 1. Tim. 5.17.18, etc. Ergo, they are alike perpetual.  
Whatsoever offices are necessary in every congregation for Discipline after the second private admonition: they are perpetual: otherwise the remedy Christ hath appointed for sinners, is not perpetual. But an assembly of Governors in express words of Christ, are necessary in every congregation for Discipline, after the second private admonition, Mat. 18.17. Ergo, such an assembly is perpetual.  
Whatsoever offices were ordained for ordinary and perpetual government of the Church under the law, & having continued from Moses to Christ, have as the other offices of teaching & exhorting, been newly increased and augmented by Christ to the Church under the Gospel: those are perpetual: because there can be no cause so great, found of altering offices of ordinary gifts and use since Christ, as was between Christ and Moses. But the office of governing Elders adjoined to Teachers and exhorters are such. Ergo, the assumption is proved by these places, levit. 4.13, 14, 15. (Where the Elders, as bearing the person and sins of the whole congregation, are distinguished from the Priest & the Magistrate.) jere. 19.1. Where the civil and ecclesiastical Elders are distinguished▪ 2. Chron. 19.8.11. Where for the matters of God, to the Priests and teaching Levites, are adjoined Elders, Hesr. 10.8. Where the counsel of the Elders for excommunication is joined, though (distinguished from it) with the counsel and decree of the Princes touching confiscation of goods. Nehem. 8.5.8. Where the Elders in governing the Assembly, are distinguished from the Priests and teaching Levites. For counsel they are adjoined even with the Prophets, 2. Reg. 6.32. Out of the new Testament the places are pregnant and many, Act. 4.5. & 6.12. & 5.21. Act. 13, 15. & 18.8. So that this proveth the ordinance and continuance of them from Moses to Christ. That Christ continued them and augmented them with gifts, as he did the offices of teaching and exhorting, the place of Mat. 18. Tell the assembly, and if he hear no● it, let him be a Heathen and publican, doth prove it: for by using express words, proper to that order of theirs, he doth manifestly establish it. The places which have proved them ordained in the Church, prove this point also. Lastly, themselves grant Christ ordained such, only they deny them to be perpetual.  
Now, if they demand human witness, what can they have more clear than that Ignatius, who (as they say, was S. Ihons' Scholar) writing to seven Churches, in every Epistle speaking only of such offices as were ordinary and perpetual, bishops, Elders and Deacons, doth say (as hath been alleged) that No Church can be without her Eldership. And lest any man should say, he meant teaching Elders. Let them mark that he defineth their office to be a Senate of Counsellors, and assistants to the Bishop in every Church: over which Bishop he acknowledgeth no Church-officer but Christ, without which Bishop it is not lawful to administer the Communion, Baptism, or perform any action in the Assembly. His words are these What is the Eldership, but a holy Senate, the Counsellors and assistants of the Bishop. And a little before: The Elders are as the Senate of God, and the hand and sinew of the Apostles of Christ, without these the elect Church is not, no Congregation of saints, without these, Epist. 2. ad Tralles. Here the office is defined, as consisting only in government. That in the Sacraments they might only assist the Bishop, and not administer them, or do any public action, is manifest by these words: It is not lawful with out a Bishop, either to Baptize, or to offer, or to prepare the offering, (in the Communion) or perfect the gift or distribution, but that which seemeth good to him, according to the good pleasure of God, that what soever you do, may be safe and sure. Ignat. Epist. 2. ad Smyrnaeos, and in the same Epistle, Therefore let all things be done of you, according to good order in Christ. Let the lay men be subject to the Deacons, 
●ute th●sian proscem ze 〈…〉 out d●chen epitilem.  the Deacons to the Elders, the Elders to the Bishop, the Bishop to Christ, as he to his Father In the time of Cyprian, they remained. Ambrose, when they were fallen away, doth complain of it, and doth make the cause of their falling away, not because they were not perpetual, nor yet because they might not continue, but the negligence and pride of the teachers.  
Now that we have proved that he required of the perpetuity of these offices: let us come to his reason, why he denieth them to be perpetual, which is, because we can not first prove the Elders to have such gifts of prophesying, doing miracles, etc. But we bid him prove first this strange and monstrous assertion: that it is necessary for us to prove it. Secondly, we will show him the vanity and detestable absurdities which follow this his demand. The vanity may appear by these reasons out of the text. The governors and the gift of government are as much distinguished from Prophets & doers of miracles, as they are from teachers: therefore to require such necessary for government more than doctrine, is to overthrow the purpose of the Apostle, which is to show how every office hath his several & proper gift. Secondly, if the use of such gifts as he speaketh of, be no part of government, what necessity is there of them in Elders as they are Elders? Thirdly, we demand of him, whether he require these gifts in all Elders or in some, & in whom he doth require them, whether he would have all those gifts to be in them or some only. If he require them in all, he must prove first that they were in all the Elders in the Apostles time, which he shall do ad graecas kalends, that is, never. If he require all those gifts in any, let him prove that any Elder was furnished with them all, which he shall never do. If some only, let him show which are necessary, and which not. And let him out of the scripture prove his saying, and we will yield. Thus we have seen the vanity of the demand, mark the absurdities following. First, that they make themselves wiser than the Apostle, who requireth no more in the duty of an Elder, then to be over the flock with diligence, Rom. 12.5.6. Secondly, they require more in the Elders than the Apostle required in a teaching Elder or a Bishop, when he giveth the rule of his examination, 1. Tim. 3. Thirdly they may by the same rule throw out teachers, seeing in this place the Apostle giveth such gifts no more to the Elders then to the teachers: especially this consequence is necessary, because the principal end of those gifts, being either to deliver doctrine, or give credit to it, is more necessary for the teacher than the gowernor.  
Fourtly, seeing they understand by Elders those who preach, and will have none governing only, it remaineth that by his reason we must first prove those gifts to remain in them, 
james 5.  ere we can prove such to remain. 
Mark 16.17 Act. 2.16, 17, 18, 19● Act. 21.8. 1. Cor. 14.26.34.  Lastly, seeing these gifts were common to private persons, yea to women, even to all sorts of believers, we must first prove (by their reason) these gifts to remain, ere we can prove there be any church or faithful men in the world. These are the detestable absurdities which follow upon this reason of theirs, whereby the answer to it is evident, that the Apostle setteth down there, both offices, as Apostles, Teachers, Prophets, Elders, Deacons, and also some gifts, which were common to all, as ornaments to confirm for a time, Christian Religion: Now, although these gifts are long since ceased, yet the offices may remain without them: especially the offices of teaching, exhorting, governing, which are for their use, & the gifts required in them, perpetual: every part of which answer hath been before confirmed in the particulars. Hitherto he hath laboured against the truth, to overthrow it: Now, fearing that all the instruments he had, would not throttle the cause, so as she should no more open her mouth: he seeketh to disguise her with a slander. Where we will first see what he bringeth: then we will maintain the contrary. The sum of that he objecteth is, they which stand for Discipline, are thought to bring in contention, and to undermine the power of the Magistrate. In this accusation first you must well observe, he doth not, nor dareth not say, it is so, but that it is thought so. To which it may be answered, that it is thought, that the other side seek to drive out the sufficient ministery, that they alone may reign, pill the people of her Majesty; abuse them & grind them, without having any of their filthiness discovered. It is thought of some also, that they make a way to Atheism, Popery, and all confusion, whilst they thrust our so many worthy and painful labourers out of the L. Vineyard, and bring in ignorant, ungodly, riotous, idle and covetous persons, in their steed. Nay, some of these are not only thought, but manifestly by experience in many places felt. Secondly, you may observe how the light of his conscience strove with his affections against the cause. His affection and desire was to disgrace the cause itself, as prejudicial to the peace of the Church and civil Magistrate. Now, When in his conscience he found he could deduct no such thing out of the matter of Discipline, he turneth from the matter to the persons, and saith, they are thought so to do. Why doth he not show who they be that so think of them, upon what grounds, by what signs and tokens, by what counsels, writings, examples or deeds they have given likelihood of it? If he can neither conclude any such matter out of the cause itself, nor prove any thing against the persons which seek it. How, Is it not the maintenance of a malicious slander? We have have hard what he saith: will he add no ground of it? Yes, An admonition to scotland, printed An. 1558. containeth conclusions as strange against the Estate, as D. Sanders (that traitors book) doth. What doth it? Doth it contain flat treason, that the Prince by any Ecclesiastical power may be deposed or resisted? That the Queens most Excellent Majesty is an heretic, or receiveth not Discipline, and therefore must be excommunicated, and after accounted no lawful Queen? Hath any favouring Discipline written these things, or the like? If he can not show any such thing, what is he but a Preacher of slanders at Paul's Cross? The book he speaketh of, to my knowledge, I have not seen: neither know where to have it. Yet I assure myself, he can bring forth no such conclusions from any which hath spoken or written for Discipline. But be it that some one man had written without ground or reason contrary to the scriptures, shall that or any man's abuse, blot out the credit which so many Churches in France, scotland, Germany, the low Countries, hath brought to it, as finding it holy, peaceable, and no small pillar, both of the peace of the Church and civil government? When we consider what inconveniences follow any matter, we must not consider what some (which hold the cause) would have, but what the cause of his own nature will infer. For, as the good meaning of a good man will not make a perilouss cause safe, so the ill meaning of a noughty man, will not make a safe and just cause dangerous. I marvel what cause may be found out to make Discipline hurtful to the common wealth: or what reason why the Magistrates authority and it, 
2. Chro. 19.11. jere. 19.1. Hes. 10.8. 2. Reg. 6. 1. Sam. 30.27 28, 29, 30. Acts 4.5. & 6, 12. & 5.21 Act. 23.14.15.16. & 25, 15.  should not dwell peaceably together. The Kings and Rulers of Israel found it not so: The Romans after them found it not so, they being Heathen, more curious to look into such matters than any: more jealous, more politic, most jealous over the jews of all others, because of the King which they looked for to come in worldly glory, could never yet find out any such suspicion. In all their times it was quietly practised. The Kings and Princes, both Protestant, which have allowed it, and popish (as in France) which have permitted it, they have found no such thing in it. For the second point▪ By what reason should the Magistrates authority be at such enmity with Discipline, or discipline with it? Is it because the Magistrate will or can do that, which the Elders do, or the Elders will or can do that which he doth? Will the Magistrate watch over particular flocks, admonish every sinner they find out, follow men by spiritual means, till they bring them to repentance? will they them selves execute the spiritual censures of suspension, excommunication, and such like? Is this his office, or can his conscience bear this burden? Doth the Elders meddle with any civil cause, or use any other means than which are spiritual? Shall they do things so closely, that all their acts may not be seen of the Magistrate, if he suspect any thing? Nay, must not all things they do, come to open knowledge, if they pass a private admonition? Will they bring no good to the common wealth: meet with no seeds of sedition? Shall they not be able to give notice of the dispositions of all men? Shall they not find out jesuits and all heretics, and bring them to light? Shall not the smalller vices and sometimes foul ones also, which the law now meddleth little with, by this means be cu●t off? In deed, than men's purses should not be picked, as they are now. Then so many Velvet coats should not be maintained by spiritual revenues. But I will speak no more of these matters. Only I conclude, seeing men have in the time of prosperity more need of admonition and wholesome Discipline: seeing the Eldership doth nothing which the Magistrate doth, nor can any way hurt him, but he may see it better ordered then in persecution: that as this order is necessary always, so especially in the time of peace. The Lord give us all to be of one mind, to see the truth, and practise it.