THE Regiment of the Church: AS IT IS agreeable WITH Scriptures, all Antiquities of the Fathers, and modern Writers, from the Apostles themselves, unto this present age.  I. Cor. 14. v. 40. v. 26. Let all things be done decently, and in order. Let all things be done to edification. I. Cor. II. v. 16. If any man just to be contentions, we have no such customs, nor the Churches of God. 
TC  
LONDON. Imprinted by T. C. for William Welby, and are to be sold at his Shop in Paul's Churchyard, at the Sign of the Grayhound. 1606.   

TO THE MOST REVEREND FAVORINA there, my very good Lord, Richard by God's holy ordinance the Lord Archbishop of England, grace and peace from God the father, and from our Lord jesus Christ.  
AS many things (most reverend father,) are both comely and profitable; so neither is there, neither can there be anything more necessary, in any well managed church or christian common weal, then godly uniformity and christian unity in pure Religion, the proper and peculiar worship of the everliving God. Which unity and uniform conformity for all that, not only the cruel and blood-thristie Papists in former times, but the Brownists also and the Martinists, (cursed broods untimely hatched, detested of God, and irksome to the world,) have of late days endeavoured with might & main, to disturb, & extinguish it, & to take it quite out of the way. For the speedy conversion, or else for the utter confusion, of which professed enemies of the godly unity and true christian peace of God's Zion, I deem them right happy, who can in any small measure concur by way of redress, and put to their helping hand. Against the former sect, I have published many books, challenging all English Jesuits, Seminaries, & jesuited Papists; yea provoking and adjuring them all jointly and severally, to frame some answer either to all or to some one of the said books. But will ye have the truth? their hearts fail them, their own consciences accuse them, they are at their wit's end, & know not in the world what to say or write. They will not answer, and why I pray you? because forsooth they cannot, but to their own shame and confusion everlasting. For if they could, they would undoubtedly answer me, so to save their own credit, and the life of their late harched Romish Religion. About three years ago, a railing jesuit, an odd swaggering Divine terming himself E. O. in his detection against Master D. Sutcliffe, and Master Willet, taketh notice of the books which I have published against them, and telleth his Readers, (if they may believe him,) that the confutation of my works is undertaken. But what followeth? (and the said confutation must be published, if it shall be thought expedient.) By which words with the circumstances annexed thereunto, we may easily understand three memorable points. First, that the Papists are mightily troubled, about the answering of my books. Secondly, that they can not tell in the world, how and in what sort to answer them. Thirdly, that they would have all their Popish Vassals to think, that they have already answered them; and that they are not published, because it is not thought a thing expedient to be done. But I pray thee, gentle Reader; who will believe these jesuits? what wise man will ever think that the jesuits have for the space of eight or nine years considered how to answer my books, and after the answer is undertaken, cannot tell if it be expedient to publish the same? for as the Philosopher can tell them, Vltimum in executione, debet primum esse in intention. That which is the last in execution, must be the first in intention. Yea, the very light of Nature and daily experience teacheth us; that in all our actions we must chiefly and principally respect the end, for the which we intend to do them. They dare not fight the combat valiantly, neither with the long sword, nor yet with the short. They dare not encounter me, and cast me their Gauntlet, No, no, Negry quidem, can be extorted from their pens. Against the latter sect, because they wholly descent from the Papists, and agree with our English Church, in the chiefest fundamental points of Doctrine, an other manner of method, and a different kind of proceeding, must be used against them. They exclaim with open mouths, and cry out against our English Church; flying from our companies, and detesting us, as profane, polluted, and forlorn people. They use Conventicles, Whisper, and meetings, in Woods, Fields, and odd corners. They bear the simple people in hand, that our Temples are profaned; our Doctrine corrupt, our Sacraments impure, our bishops Antichristian, and our kind of Church-government repugnant to that sacred form and order, which our LORD JESUS prescribed in his holy word. They say of themselves (but Laus propriioris sordescit,) that they are inspired of the holy Spirit, that they are sent from Heaven to reform our Church, and to direct it into all Truth. With which fair speeches, and sugared words, (alas for pity) they seduce the rude vulgar sort, steal away their hearts, and make them disobedient to higher powers. And while these good fellows, (the Brownists and Martinists,) seek to be reputed the only wisemen upon Earth, they neither know what they say, nor yet whereof they affirm; but do open a large window to all disloyalty and sedition every where, and give the Papists some comfort and hope, once to enjoy their long expected day. In regard hereof (most Reverend Father, and worthy Prelate,) myself (though the meanest of many thousands in this our English Church) have thought it operaepretium, to use my Pen in my plain and simple manner, for the unity and true peace of our English Zion. and for the manifestation of the lawful government thereof. I have in this present discourse (most honourable, constant, wise, and christian Patron, of the Church's liberty, power, freedom, & ancient prerogative, which the Brownists and foolish Martinists would turn upside down,) made evident demonstration of the lawful government of our Church. And that is done in such compendious manner, as neither the Reading can be thought tedious, nor the price of the book chargeable, with such perspicuity, as the most simple, (even very babes and children,) may with all facility understand the same with such sufficiency, as no Brownist, or Martinist, or other malicious adversary of our churches godly settled government whosoever, shall ever be able while the world endures: either with Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, or Ecclesiastical Histories, to gain say or with stand the same. I have succinctly and evidently, set down before the eyes of the indifferent Reader, that the monarchical governance of our English church, is both the best and the most laudable of all others. That there is & ever hath been in all former ages of the church, superiority of one church-minister above and over another, and that one may this day lawfully have jurisdiction over another. That Bishops, Archbishops, Primates, Metropolitains, & patriarchs, have ever been in the church: even from the Apostles themselves. That no church-laws, canons, ordinances, or constitutions Ecclesiastical whatsoever; either aught to be established, or can be of force, strength, power, or authority, without the lawful assent of the supreme civil magistrate. That the church hath power, freedom, & authority, to dispose of all indifferent things, to ordain ceremonies, and Ecclesiastical rites, to appoint, make, constitute, and establish laws, canons, ordinances, and constitutions whatsoever not repugnant to God's holy word, so that it be done for any one of these three ends, uz. For order, for comeliness, or for edification sake, that there is gravity, decency, modesty, and edification; as well in the apparel allotted for the Ministers and the ministery, as in the other ceremonies of our English Church. That the government of every particular Church may be altered and changed, as the circumstances of times, places, and persons shall require. That no charge is so tied to the practice of the Apostles, but for her necessity she may alter & change the same. Many other points of great moment, are handled in this compendious discourse. To which or to some part thereof, all that may be reduced with facility, whatsoever the adversaries have said or possibly can say, against the government of our English Church. The work such as it is, (most gracious Lord,) I humbly dedicate unto your grace, as well to give a signification of a thankful mind for all your grace's favours towards me, namely, for your great liberality in time of my sickness at my last being at London, as also for your graces most Christian zeal, singular care, & painful endeavours, employed for the good and quiet of the Church; both of late days, about the most profitable and necessary canons of Anno, 1604; and in former times, even ever since Church-government was first imposed upon you. For which holy vigilancy and godly care, though the Brownists, the Martinists, and other envious and malicious malcontents, do both think and speak hardly of your grace, yet are all that love the common good and peace of our English Church, bound in the highest degree to be thankful to your Grace for the same. The Almighty preserve your Grace, confirm your Godly zeal against the disturbers of the common peace, and give you a long and happy life upon Earth, (for his own glory, and the Godly government of his Church,) and life eternal in the world to come.  
Amen.  
Your Grace's most humble and most bounden, Thomas Bell.   

THE REGIMENT of the Church.  

CHAP. I. Of sundry kinds of government, with the nature, quality, and condition of the same.  
ARistotle, that worthy, learned, & famous Philosopher, showing plainly in a large political discourse, that there be three kinds of lawful Regiment, and three likewise of wicked Government, neither more nor fewer. The first lawful kind is called, Monarchia, a Monarchy, when 
Monarchia.  one alone doth rule & govern. The second is called, Aristocráteia, an aristocraty, when a few of 
Aristocruteia.  the best in the commonweal do govern it. The third is called Democratia, a Democraty; when many of the vulgar 
Democratia.  people do rule. For every state of the Church & common weal, doth either seek the public good thereof, or their own private gain and pleasure. If the common good be sought and intended, the government is godly; but if private 
Aristotel. Lib. 3. Polit Cap. 5. & Lib. 8 Ethic. Cap. 10.  gain or pleasure be either wholly or principally intended, the government is wicked. If the government be lawful, right, and godly; it is either by one, and called a Monarchy; or by some few of the best, and called an aristocraty; or by many, and called a Democraty. If the King or Monarch ruling alone, (as our most gracious Sovereign hath told us most learnedly in his Basilicondoron) shall by the making and execution of good laws, acknowledge himself 
Basilicon doron. Pag. 25.  ordained for the good of his people, and thereupon employ all his study, care, industry, and endeavours, to procure, establish, and maintain their welfare, and true christian peace, as their natural father, and kindly master; then is hea King indeed, and his government a true Monarchy. But if he study to frame the government of the common weal, to advance his private lucre, to satisfy his own singular contentment, and to serve his inordinate and sensual pleasure, he is then so far from being a king indeed, that he is become a flat tyrant, and his government changed into a plain tyranny. If few do govern well, being of the best and wisest, it is a lawful aristocraty: but if these few 
Tyrannis.  govern wickedly, seeking their own private, & not the common 
Oligarchia.  good, it is called an ungodly oligarchy. If many rule well, it is called a Democraty or popular state, but if they govern naughtily, it is termed a Timocratie, ochlocraty, or Anarchy. 
Timocratia Ochlocratia. Anarchia.  Where the gentle reader must seriously observe with me, that paucity and multitude, are not the essential differences of oligarchy and Timocratie: but wealth and poverty are the things indeed, which work the intrinsical distinction in these defects of policy. These kinds of Regiment may analogically in some proportion, be applied to the inferior magistrates under his most excellent majesty; viz. to the LLs. of the most honourable privy Council, the L. 
Analogice in suo genere.  Chancellor, the L. Treasurer, the justices of the Kings-Beneh & Common place, Barons of the Exchequer, justices of Peace, etc. & in sundry places and causes, to the commons of this Realm. Which observation if it be well remembered. will be a motive to put every one of them in mind of their place & calling, that they may use their government accordingly. This discourse is so clear and evident, as I decme it a thing altogether needless to use further proof therein. For all learned men, both Philosophers and Divines, do with uniform assent subscribe thereunto.  

Objection. 1.  
The Law of nature teacheth us, that we may love ourselves more than our neighbours. For which respect, God himself appointed man's own love to be the squire & rule, by which he must measure his love toward his neighbour. The king therefore is not bound to regard more the good of his subjects, than his own private commodity, and the contentation of his mind.   

The Answer.  
I answer with S. Austen, that kings must serve God two ways. First, as men: which thing is performed, by living 
August. epist. 50. ad Bonifa●.  godly, soberly, & justly. Secondly, as kings; which they may perform, by the making & execution of godly laws, for the honour and service of God principally: and secondarily, for the common good and peaceable government of their people. I say, (by the making & execution of godly laws,) because it is not enough for Kings to make godly laws, unless they procure the same to be duly executed. In the former respect, kings may love themselves more than their subjects; but in the latter, (viz. as they are kings,) they must have greater care to procure the welfare and good of their people, than the welfare and good of themselves. And the same may be said Analogically & proportionally, of all inferior magistrates. To which I must needs add, that the honour, wealth, and preservation of a king, is indeed the honour, wealth, peace, and good of his people. So that every way the kings own love is respected, and his own honour and good procured.   

Objection. 2.  
If the king, by his ungodly government, may become a tyrant, then may his subjects resist his proceedings, then may they depose him from his royal Diadem, Sceptre, and Regality.   

The Answer.  
I answer, that a kingdom may be possessed two ways; viz, by election, and by succession or descent of blood royal. They that are kings the first way (as the Emperor of the Romans, the king of Polonia, and if there be any others of like sort,) if they change their government into tyranny, and violate the laws, to which by covenant, oath, and promise, they stand obliged in their election; they (I say,) may be deposed by the same power & authority, by which they were invested into their throne. The reason hereof is evident; because the possession, right, and use of their regal authority, is not independent & absolute, but conditional and relative; and consequently, such a King degenerating from his oath and promise, standeth at the courtesy of his electors, concerning the interest, possession, and use of his prerogative royal. But they, who are Kings by descent and succession in blood royal, (as is our most wise, pious, learned, and religious Sovereign, who happily this day reigneth over us,) have an absolute and independent sovereignty over their subjects, which neither doth, nor ever did stand, in the courtesy, power, and pleasure of their people. For Kings by succession and descent in blood royal, are Kings Ipso facto, so soon as their ancestors are deceased, even before the act of their anointing and Coronation, as also before the oath; which usually they take for the godly administration of their kingdoms. Such ceremonies, though they be very comely and expedient for sundry respects, yet are they not any essential part of their princely 
Kings by succession, are Kings indeed, before their Coronation.  rights and royal prerogative, how necessary soever some esteem the same, deeming them no Kings without them. And consequently, their proceedings may not undutifully be resisted: much less may their authority begain said; and least of all may their sacred persons be deposed from their S●●pt●rs and prerogatives royal. No, no, not though they should degenerate and fall into tyranny, or flat Atheism and Aposta●●●. And yet I freely grant, that as the king is a●●●● his Bishops in respect of his royal Regiment, and hath power to correct and punish them; yea, even to depose and displace them, as King Solomon deposed Abiathar, if the cause so require: So semblably is the Bishop's power, 
1. Reg. 2. V. 27.  in respect of his Ministry, touching exhortation and rebuking, above the Princes. In regard whereof, the good Bishop Saint Ambrose is highly commended for his Godly zeal, and Christian courage, in reprehending the Emperor 〈…〉. But withal, this must ever be remembered, and most loyally 
Vide in fra, cap. 11. ●●●sp. ad ● ob●ect in 6. propos.  observed of all Bishops in Christ's Church; that the Prince (though full of notorious crimes) may never be shunned, neither of the people, nor yet of the Bishops: because he is appointed of God, to be their governor. Much less may the people for sake their obedience to his authority, because they must forsake their obedience to his vices. He may be shunned privately, and his vices detested generally: but loyal obedience and faithful service, may never be denied him Hec may be admonished by the Bishops in the court of Conscience, concerning his public offences: but he may never be judged in the court of their Consistory, touching his Royal power, and Princely prerogative. He may be reproved, if his faults be public and notorious; but his subjects may never depose him, because their authority stretcheth not so far. He hath no judge that can punish him, but the great judge of all, even the God of Heaven. Of which subject I have elsewhere disputed more at large. The general council of Constance (where was present that great 
In my motives, and golden balance. Conc. Constan. ses. 15.  learned Doctor, johannes Gerson, than chancellor of Paris,) condemned it for a notorious heresy, and him for an Heret que that held the same; viz. to hold and maintain it to be a thing lawful for the subjects to kill every Tyrant that 
Mark this well.  reigned tyrannically over them. Where we must observe & mark seriously, the word (every.) For the Council condemneth not the kill of those Tyrants, which reign tyrannically by violent intrusion and unlawful usurped possession; but the kill of those Princes (though reigning tyrannically and living most licentiously,) who were invested and ●thronized into their kingdoms, by lawful descent of blood royal, and ancient hereditary succession.    

CHAP. II. Of the chiefest and best kind of Government.  
ARistotle that famous Philosopher, having reckoned up the three former kinds of Government, adjoineth forthwith these golden words; Atque harum optima quidem est regnum, deterrima verò censuum potestas, And the best of these governments, is a Monarchy 
Aristot. Ethicor. lib. 8. cap. 10. lib. 3. polit. cap. ult.  or Kingdom, but the worst is a Democraty.  
The Israelites and people of the jews, were ever governed by a Monarchy; even from Adam unto Christ's most sacred Aduent. For first, the patriarchs had the rule and government. Secondly, Moses and josua were the leaders and governors of the people. Thirdly, Gedeon, jair, Samson, and others, did rule and judge the Israelites. Fourthly, Kings, Saul, David, Solomon, jehosaphat, Ezechias, joas, and others. Fiftly, Zorobabel and the Maccabees were governors. And this government continued, even from the Captivity until Christ.  
This kind of government to be the best, may easily be proved: as well by the manner of Man's creation, as by the natural propension given unto him. Touching the manner, we are all framed of one, not of many. The Protoplast Adam, of the earth; of him, Eve; of them twain, all the rest. hereupon Saint Chrysostome, (who for his great learning and Eloquence, was surnamed the golden mouthed Doctor,) concludeth a Monarchy or Kingdom, to be the best kind of Government upon earth. His words are these: Equidem si quanquam hoc sint pacto geniti, primus tamen statim hominum semine parentum procreatus adeo insanivit, tantam rixam, tantam invidiam Diaboltes seminavit; quid put as fecisset, si non ab eadem prorsus radice pullulasset genus h●marum? deinde, hunc imperare, illam subesse jussit; esse, n. inter aquales amulationem novit: itaque no●uit esse Democratiam, sed Regnum.  
For although they be thus be gotten, yet if he that was the first man produced by the seed of his parents, did so rage, and was so furious: and if the Devil also did raise up such contention and envy: what thinkest thou would he have done, if mankind had not issued out of the same ●oote? He therefore commanded the one to rule, the other to obey. For he knew, that emulation would arise among equals. He therefore would not have a Democraty, or popular state, but a Kingdom. Thus writeth this learned ●ather.  
Touching natural propension, which must needs be referred to God the author of Nature: it appeareth by it, that a Monarchy or rule of one, is most agreeable to nature itself. For first, in every house the Father of the family doth govern all the rest: the wife, the children, and the servants. Again, the greatest part of the whole world, a governed by kings. Thirdly, Monarchies and Kingdoms are far more ancient, than either Aristocraties, or Democraties. For proof hereof, the only testimony of she excellent Historiographer justinus may suffice. These are his words: Principio rerum, gentium nationumque impe●ium penes reges erant: quos ad fastigium huius maiestat is, non 
justinus hist. lib. 1. in intio.  ambitio popularis, sed spectata inter bonos moderatio prouehe●at.  
In the beginning of the world, the government of people and nations was under Kings: whom virtue, & not popular ambition, advanced to that high seat of Majesty. Fourthly, the creatures which are without reason, and have only sense, seem naturally to desire the government of one. The holy Fathers do so testify of them, and experience itself doth show it to be so. S Hierome hath these words; Nulla ars absque magistro discitur. Etiam muta animalia & ferarum greges, ductores sequuntur snos. 
Hier. ad Rusticum, t●m. ●. ●ol 22. B.  In apibus principes sunt. Grues unum sequuntur ordine literato. Imperator unus. judex unus provinciae. Roma, ut condita est, duos fratres simul habere reges non potuit, & parricidio dedicatur.  
No Art is learned without a master. Yea, even the dumb cattle, and slockes of wild beasts, do all follow their leaders. The Bees have their governors; & the very Cranes follow on in order, in form of a letter. There is one Emperor. There is one judge of a province. Rome was no sooner built, than it abhorred to have two kings at once to rule over it; so as without cruel murder, the dedication thereof was not accomplished. But what need is thereof further proof in this dispute? seeing it is evident to all that hold the Christian faith aright, that God omnipotent is the supreme Monarch in heaven and earth, and governeth by that kind of regiment, which is neither democratical, nor yet Aristocratical, but monarchical; and consequently, a monarchy must needs be the best kind of government. And whosoever can and list to read that holy, ancient, and learned father S. Cyprian, shall find this discourse so apparent, as he 
Cyprian deidolorum vanitate  can never stand long in doubt thereof. I therefore conclude, that whosoever shall deny a simple monarchy to be the best kind of government, must perforce fall unawares, into the error of the Marcionistes, of the manichees, and of the Ethnics. For if it be true, as it is most true, as all Christians must confess, that the world is ruled in the best manner and best kind of government by God that made it, it must follow of necessity, that neither a Democraty, nor yet an Aristocrat●e, is the best form of Regiment. For otherwise doubtless, there must be many makers of this world, and many Gods.   

CHAP. III. Of the kind of government, of the Church and common weal of England.  
NOw seeing it is true, (as is already proved,) that a Monarchy is the best kind of government, and that the Church and commonweal of England, is governed by a most wise, most learned, most vigilant, and most religious Monarch, God's saithful servant, and our gracious and most happy Sovereign, it followeth by a necessary consequence, that the kind of government used in the Church and commonweal of England, is the best and most laudable of all other. For (as our gracious sovereign 
Basilicon doron. Pag. 41. Chrysost in 13. Cap ad Roman. Cyprian. libr 1. epis. 3.  writeth most learnedly,) parity is an enemy to unity, and the mother of confusion. The self same saith S. Chrysostome, when he avoucheth degrees and superiority to have therefore been appointed, because equality engendereth strife and contention. The same saith S. Cyprian, when he affirmeth boldly, that heresy, or Schism did not rise of any other occasion, but only upon this, that there was not one Priest and one judge for the time, appointed in the Church in the stead of Christ, to whom the whole brotherhood should yield obedience. The same saith S. Hierome, when he avoucheth one to have been chosen among 
Hieron. ad Evagrium. 10. 3. Fol. 150. Chrysost. in 13. cap. ad Rom. col. 256.  the Bishops to rule over the rest, least every one according to his own fancy, should tear in pieces the church of Christ. Yea, a Monarchical government is so necessary every where, and in all sorts of creatures, that S. Chrysostome acknowledgeth it amongst the bruit beasts: in the Bees, Cranes, slockes of sheep, and Fishes of the Sea. And therefore after a long discourse, he concludeth in these words, Libertas ●. illa dissolu●a ac moderamine carens, ubique mala, confusionisque causa est. For dissolute liberty without government, is every where evil, and the cause of confusion. But because the excellency of English government, shall be proved by degrees throughout this whole discourse; thus much shall suffice for this place, because I endeavour to avoid tautology, and not to be tedious to the Reader.   

CHAP. FOUR Of the supreme government of the civil magistrate over all persons and all causes, within his Realms, territories, and dominions.  
OF this theme I have written more largely in other treatises, and therefore 
See the downfall of Popery, & the golden balance of trial.  I purpose now to speak no more thereof, than I deem convenient for the matter I have in hand. For which purpose it were enough to well effected Readers, to call to mind that the godly Kings as well in time of the law of Moses, as in the time of the new testament and law of grace, did manage all matters both of Church and Commonweal; and therefore 
jos. 1. 8. Numer. 27. Vers. 17. 2. par. 23. Vers. 11.  the civil magistrate was commanded to read the book of the whole law, as well of the first as of the second table, and to study the same night and day. Therefore was the civil magistrate commanded, to go out and in, before the people, and to lead them out and in, that the congregation of the Lord, be not as sheep which have no shepherd. Therefore was the book of the Law, delivered into the King's hands, at such time as he received the crown and was anointed. Musculus a great learned man, and famous writer, affirmeth resolutely; that the care of reforming and maintaning religion, doth more appertain to the civil magistrate, then to the Ministers of the Church. His express words are these; Moses Primus catholicus Israelis magistratus, personam 
Musculus de magistr. pag. 628. & P. 629. & P. 632. & infra, cap. prope ●inem, nota. jos. 5. cap.  gerens, non sacerdotis, quae Aaroni imposita fuit, sed superioris potestatis, similem regiae, omnem in populo dei religionem constituit, ipsique Aaroni, & levitarum ordini, facienda & vitanda praescripsit. In quo manifestè videmus, disponendae religionis curam, magis ad superiorem magistratum, quam ad sacerdotum ordinem pertinere. Sequitur; post mortem Mosis, cura religionis v●â cum magistratis, devolutae est non ad Eleazarum sacerdotem, sed ad Iehosuah filium Nun, de triba non Levi, sed Ephraim. Huic mandabat dominus, ut filios Israel secundò circumcideret. Frat autem circumcisio, signum faederis dei, omninò ad religionem pertinens. Sequitur; in persona Samuelis cohaesere quidèm & magistratus & sacerdotium, veram moderandae religionis curam sustinuit ille quoque, non ut sacerdos, sed ut magistratus, quo, tum non erat in Israele superior: ut magistratus indicabat Israelem, ac disponebat publica omnia, tam sacrae quam prophana; ut sacerdos sacrificabat, pro populo orabat, illumque docebat.  
Moses the first Catholic Magistrate in Israel, bearing the person not of a priest which was imposed upon Aaron, but of an higher power like unto a Kings, appointed order for all manner of Religion in the people of GOD, and prescribed to Aaron himself and to the order of the levites, both what they should do, and what they should avoid and leave undone. Wherein we see evidently, that the care of ordering Religion doth more pertain to the higher magistrate, then to the order of the Priests. After the death of Moses, the care of Religion, together with the Magistracy, was devolued not to Eleazar the Priest, but to josuah the son of Nun, who was not of the Tribe of Levi, but of Ephraim. To him God gave commandment, that he sho●●● circumcise the second time the children of Israel. But circumcision doubtless was the sign of God's covenant, which pertaineth wholly to religion. In the person of Samuel, there did cohere both the Magistracy & the Priesthood; but he received the charge of moderating religion, not as he was a Priest, but as he was a Magistrate, greater then whom there was none at that time in Israel. As a magistrate, he did judge Israel, and ordered all public affairs, as well sacred as profane, ecclesiastical as civil; but as a Priest, he offered sacrifice, prayed for the people, and taught them.  
Out of these words of this great learned writer, I note these golden lessons for the good of the well affected Reader. First, that Moses was a civil magistrate, having authority like unto a king. Secondly, that his power was greater, than was the authority of Aaron the high Priest. Thirdly, that Moses ordered all matters in religion, and not Aaron who was the high Priest. Fourthly, that he appointed to Aaron and to the whole order of the Levites, both what they should do, and what they should leave undone. Fiftly, that the charge & care of religion, doth appertain more nearly to the magistrate, then to the order of the Priests. Sixtly, that the magistrate hath the charge and care of ordering religion, inseparably annexed to his civil office, in that he is a magistrate.  
Seventhly, that a Bishop may have authority to deal in civil causes, as Samuel did. Eightly, that Samuel disposed all ecclesiastical affairs, not as he was Priest, but as he was 
Musculus, ubi supra. vide cundem authorem infra, cap. 11. in resp ad 2. object 6 proposition, & nota valde va●de, Psal. 2.  the civil Magistrate. All which observations, this learned writer proveth by the examples of many kings; of David, Solomon, Asa, josaphat, Ezechias, and others. And of King David, he addeth this most golden and memorable sentence; (David) quoniam sciebat hanc primam curam pertinere ad reges & magistratus, ut religio Deiritè disponatur, hortatus eos est ad id offi●ij. David because he knew this chief care to pertain to magistrates, to see religion rightly ordered, he exhorted them to that office, saying; Now o Kings understand, be learned, ye that judge the earth. Whosoever readeth this learned writer seriously throughout his whole discourse, can no longer stand doubtful of the truth of this question. 
Zanchius de Religione cap. 16. art. 9   
Zanchius a most learned writer, and a man of singular judgement, in that book which he left, for a testimony of his faith and Christian belief unto the world, and therefore the more to be regarded, hath these express words: Improbamus & illos, qui authoritatem in religione, necis tantum causa attribuunt magistratibus: dum illos negant authoritatem habere convocandi synodos, deliberandide religione, reformandiecclesias, & quae ad populorum salutem pertinent, e sacris literis statuends, aliudque eo esse nolunt, quam eorum quae ab episcopis definiuntur, exequntores.  
We reprove in like manner all those, who yield and give authority in religion unto Magistrates, only in Capital matters touching death, whilst they deny them authority to call Synods to consult of religion, to reform Churches, and to appoint out of God's word, the things that pertain to the salvation of their subjects: and will only have them to be the bare executors of those things, which the Bishops do decree.  
Thus writeth this learned Doctor, a man of as great a judgement, as any is in the christian world. Out of whose words I note first, that he condemneth many, who now adays think themselves very wise. Secondly, he avoweth that magistrates have authority to call Synods. Thirdly, that they have power to deliberate of religion. Fourthly, that they have authority to reform the ministers and church-affairs. Fiftly, that they have power to order those things, which pertaineth unto man's salvation.  
Master Martyr a very learned writer, discourseth at large, both of the authority of the minister and of the magistrate. He showeth most excellently, both how the minister 
Petrus Martyr, in lib. judic. cap. 19 Fol. 161.  ought to exhort and rebuke the magistrate, and how the magistrate ought to reform, govern, and punish the minister. Some part of his golden discourse I will briefly set down, referring the reader for the rest to the place quoted in the margin.  
Nihil est in toto mundo, ad quod verb● dei se non extendat, quocirca longè falluntur, qui clamitare solent; quid conscionator cum rep quid cum armis? quid cum pharmacopolis? quid cum cocis? at dicat etc. There is nothing in the whole world, to which the word of God doth not extend itself. Wherefore they are far deceived, that are wont to exclaim and say; What hath the Preacher to do with the Commonweal? what hath he to do with wars? what with the Apothecaries? what with cooks? but let these good fellows tell us, why the Minister of God's word, when he perceiveth God's law to be transgressed in these things, may not rebuke the same out of God's word? why he may not admonish the malefactors? why he may not exhort them to desist from sin? it is his part doubtless to reprove sinners; not with the sword, not with Pecuniary mulct, not with imprisonment, not with the sword, not with exile, but with the force & power of God's word. Then this learned man proceeds, and telleth us, that the civil Magistrate must see and provide, that the Bishops, Pastors, & Doctors of the Church, do teach God's word purely, rebuke sinners fatherly, and administer the Sacraments reverently. After this, he telleth his Reader, that kings have not charge only of the bodies of their subjects, but of their souls also. For, (saith this great learned Doctor,) we must not make princes swineheards and herdmen for keepers of cattle, who have care only of the bellies, flesh, and skins of their subjects; because kings must provide & see, that their subjects live virtuously and in the fear of God: yea, he saith further, that if the Ministers teach not aright, or do not administer the Sacraments orderly: them the Magistrate must reduce them into order, and see that they teach sincerely, and do not abuse the Sacraments, nor deliver them otherwise then Christ hath commanded. And if they live wickedly and disorderly, he must depose them from the ministery. Thus writeth this Doctor, and much more he hath to the like effect, but I study to be brief. 
Bucerus de regno Christi, lib. 2. cap. 1   
M. Bucer an other great learned Clerk, in that worthy work which he dedicated, to king Edward the 6. of happy memory, telleth him resolutely, that every soul is subject to his Empire, aswell the Bishops as the rest of the Clergy: and that therefore he must be the more vigilant, and careful, to reform them and their ministery. And M. Calvin 
Calvin. in Epist. ante Esaiam, ad Eliza. Angliae, Reginan.  in his Epistle to Queen Elizabeth of happy memory, ascribeth unto her the same prerogative, in causes Ecclesiastical: very earnestly exhorting her Majesty, in the bowels of Christ jesus, to be careful in purging the Church from superstition and popery. See the xj. Chapter in the sixth proposition, in the answer to the first Objection, and note it well.   

CHAP. V.  
Of the Degrees of Ministers, Bishops, Archbishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs, and of their Antiquity in the best and purest times of the Church.  

Paragraph first, of the degrees and superiority of one Minister over an other.  
SAint Austin that famons writer and 
Aug. vixit, A. D. 399.  strong pillar of Christ's Church, who lived above 1200. years ago, affirmeth resolutely and plainly unto S. Hierome being then an Elder or Presbyter of Christ's Church: that his authority and degree, was above S. Hieromes, because he was a Bishop. These are S. Augustine's own words: 
Augustin. Epist. 19 to. a p. 52.  Quanquam. n. secundum honorum vocabula, quae iam usus ecclesiae obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio maior sit, tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est: licet etiam a minore quolibet, non sit refugienda vel dedignanda correctio.  
For although according to the words of honour, which now are of force by the custom of Christ's Church, the degree & office of a Bishop is greater than the degree & office of a Priest or Elder: yet Austin is in many things inferior to Hierome, neither may the superior disdain to be rebuked of his inferior.  
Out of these words of S. Austin, I observe first, that to be a Bishop in S. Augustine's time, (at which time it cannot be denied, but the Church was in good state and order,) was an higher degree then to be a Priest or Elder. Secondly, that Bishops were in those days honourable, and called Lord Bishops; which I gather out of these words, (secundum honorum vocabula) according to the words of honour. Thirdly, that this superiority amongst Ministers had been a long time in the Church, even before S. Augustine's days, because Saint Austin saith, this superiority came by the custom of the Church.  
S. Hierome, who lived in S. Augustine's days, confirmeth S. Augustine's testimony touching the superiority of one minister over an other: these are his words: Nam & Alexandria à 
Hier. epist. ad evagr. tom. 3 fol. 150. B.  Marco evangelista usque ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos, presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum episcopum nominabant: quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat: aut diaconi eligant de se, quem industrium noverint, & archidiaconum vocent. quid. n●facit excepta ordinatione episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat? sequitur: presbyter & episcopus, aliud aetatis, aliud dignitatis est nomen. sequitur: quod Aaron, & filii eius, at que Levitae in templo suerunt, hoc sibi episcopi, & presbyteri, & diaconi vendicent in ecclesia.  
For at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas and Dionysius being both Bishops, the Priests did 
This was A. D. 6. 4. while S. Peter, S. Paul, and others were yet living.  always choose one among them, whom they placed in an higher degree, and called him Bishop: as if an host of men should make a General over them: or the Deacon choose one of themselves, whom they saw more vigilant, and should call him archdeacon. For what doth a Bishop saving the ordination, that a Priest doth not? Touching a Priest and Bishop, the one is the name of age, the other of dignity. That which Aaron, and his sons, and the Levites were in the temple, the same may the Bishops, and Priests, and Deacons challenge in the Church.  
Out of these words of this holy Father and learned writer, I note first, that a Bishop hath an higher degree in the Church, then hath a Priest or Elder. I note secondly, that this superiority among Ministers, hath ever been in the Church since the time of Saint Mark the Evangelist. Thirdly, that the name of a Bishop is the name of dignity & honour. Fourthly, that as Aaron had a degree above the Priests in the time of Moses, so have Bishops now a degree above the other Ministers or Elders. Fiftly, that a Bishop only ordaineth Ministers.  
Saint Chrisostome, who lived in Saint Austin's time, had very great superiority over Bishops; for he was not only Bishop of Constantinople, but also ruled many other Churches, both in Thracia, Pontus and Asia. These are the express words of Theodoretus in his history, concerning this matter: Atque hoc modo prospexit non illi solum civitati, 
Theodor. hist. eccls lib. 5. cap. 28.  verum etiam tot● Thratiae quae est in sex episcopatus divisa; & cunctae etiam Asiae quae undecim habet antistites. Ponticam praeterea ecclesiam, quae eundem habet episcoporum numerum quem Asia, eisdem legihus adornavit.  
And Chrysostome the Bishop of (Constantinople) did by this means not only provide for that city, but also, for all Thracia, which is divided into six Bishoptickes: as also for the whole Country of Asia, which hath in it eleven Bishops. He also ruled Pontus which hath the same number of Bishops with Asia, and beautified it with the same Laws.  
Out of these words of this holy Father, worthily surnamed the golded mouthed Doctor; I observe first, that he was the Archbishop of Constantinople. Secondly, that he had also jurisdiction archiepiscopal, over 28. Bishops; in Thracia, Asia, and Pontus. And that the Reader may fully know what jurisdiction this holy Father used over these Churches; two things must be remembered, which are set down in the place quoted in my Margin. The one, that he commanded the Priests to live after the Laws. The other, that he did captive them of their Priestly function, which did violate and transgress the laws. So than it is clear and evident, that there are degrees of superiority amongst Ministers; yea, that one Bishop hath jurisdiction over another: as S. Chrysostome being a Patriarch, had over 28. other Bishops.  
S. Ignatius, who was Bishop of Antioch, and S. john's disciple, and lived in the Apostles time, A. D. 97 showeth evidently, 
An, D. 9 7.  that in his time one Minister had rule over another, the Bishops over the Priests. For writing to the people of Smyrna in Asia, he hath these express words; Honorate Deum, ut authorem omnium & dominum, Episcopum autem tanquam principem sacerdotum, imaginem Des forentem; principatum quidem secundum deum, sacerdotium verò secundum Christum. Honour God as the author and Lord of all things, and a Bishop, as the Prince or chief of Priests, bearing the image of God; superiority according to God. Priesthood according to Christ. And in the same Epistle he reckoneth up several degrees: of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Lay-men. The same Ignatius, in that Epistle which he wrote to the Church of Trallis in Asia hath these words: Quid est. n. Episcopus, nisi omnem principatum & potestatem omnium illorum tenens, quemadmodum deceat hominem tenere imitationem des factum secundum virtuten. For what is a Bishop, but one that hath power and rule over them all, (he speaketh of Priests and Deacons,) as it becometh a man made according to virtue, to keep the imitation of God. Thus writeth this holy Father, who suffered a most cruel death for the testimony of jesus Christ: being cast out to wild beasts, to be torn of them in pieces for the truths-sake. 
Euseb lib. 3 cap. 30. Hier. in cattle script. eccles. tom 1. fol. 124. A. Augusti. ac haeresib ad quod-vult deum to. 6. haeres. 53.  Of these his Epistles and Martyrdom, S. Polycarpe, S. Hierome, and Eusebius Caesariensis, do all three yeede a most laudable and constant testimony; such as is able to penetrate any man's heart, that shall seriously peruse the same.  
S. Epiphanius, and S. Austin, do both of them enrol among heresies, this opinion of Aerius: that a Priest, or Pastor, was equal to a Bishop. Cum esset presbyter, inquit Augustinus, doluisse fertur, quod Episcopus non potuit ordinari. Sequitur: dicobat etiam, presbyterum ab Episcoponulla differentia debere discerni. Aerius saith S. Austin, being himself a Priest, is reported to have been very sorry, that he could not be made a Bishop. The same Aerius held also this opinion, that there was no difference betwixt a Priest and a Bishop. S. Epiphanius affirming that Aerius held the same 
Epiphan. cont. haeres. lib. 3. to. 1. haeres. 75. pag. 196.  error, confuteth it by many sound reasons, amongst which this is one: Dicere. n igsum Episcopum & Prosbyterum aequalem esse, quomodo erit possibile? Episcoporum. n. ordo patrum generator est: patres. n. generat ecclesia. Presbyterorum verò non potens generare patres, per lavacri regenerationem generat filios ecclesiae: non tamen patres aut doctores. For to say, that a Bishop and a Priest are equal, how is it possible? For the order of Bishops is the begetter of the Fathers: for that order begetteth Fathers to the Church. But the order of Priests is not of ability to beget the Fathers: but it begetteth sons to the Church by the regeneration of Baptism: yet not Fathers or Doctors. This ancient Father lived above 12. hundred years ago, at which time it was holden for a gross error generally, to say, affirm, or think, that 
A. D. 372.  a Priest was equal to a Bishop, in degree, dignity, or jurisdiction.  
This reason which S. Epiphanius maketh touching the begetting of Fathers to the Church, is invincible, and never can be answered. It is the very same in substance with that of S. Hieromes, which I have set down alreadly: viz. that a Bishop differeth from a Pastoral Elder, by the power of ordaining and making Ministers. And, to prove the superiority of a Bishop above a Priest, or Pastoral Elder: that which Saint Austin telleth us of Aerius, is a flat and evident demonstration. For Aerius being a Priest, sought by all means to be a Bishop, and was sorry that he could not attain and accomplish his desire. For grief whereof, he opposed himself against the prudent and godly settled order of the Church: affirming very desperately as Saint Epiphanius saith, that a Priest was every way equal to a Bishop. Now I pray you who knoweth not this to be true? that a wise man will never bes●●●e and busy himself, to attain that which he hath already: 
Let this p●int be well m●r●ed. 〈◊〉. 372. 〈◊〉 thousand and 〈◊〉 years. a●●●.  But 〈◊〉 it is▪ as you have heard already; that ●●erius being a Priest, 〈◊〉 under with might and main to be made a Bishop: Ergo it must needs be granted: that to be a Bishop was 〈…〉, a degree & dignity above a Priest. But to ●hat end should 〈…〉 point and question, which ●● is a position to constant, 〈…〉 generally received, in the days of S. Hierome, S. Aust●●e, S. Chrysostome, S. Epiphani●s, Eusebues, Policarpus & 〈◊〉, is I have already prove? 〈◊〉 Reader shall think better of modern writers, then of these ancient, holy, and learned Fathers: I am content for his better satisfaction, to allege the ●l●t testimonies and express words, of the best approved 
Calvin, in 2. s●r. 10.  writers in this last age. M. Caluine hath these express words. Quamvis. n● common sit omnibus verbi ministris idemque officium sunt tamen honoris gradus.  
For although there be one Office common to all the Ministers of the word, yet are there degrees of honour (among 
Calvin, in cap. 1. 〈…〉. vide cund●m ad 2 ga●●t. ●er. 9  them. Again, in another place he hath these words, Di●cimus quidem ex hoc loco, non eam fuisse tunc aequalitatem inter ecclesia ministers, quin v●us aitquis authoritate & consitio praeesset nihil tamen hoc ad tyranmcum & profanum collationum morem, qui in Papatis regnat. long. n. diversafuit apostolorum ratio.  
We learn by this place, that there was no such equality among the Ministers of the Church in those days, but that one was preferred before an other in counsel and authority. Yet this is nothing like to that tyrannical and profane custom of ruling in Popedom, which is fair different from the manner of the Apostles.   

The second Paragraph, of the artiquitie of Bishop, Archbishops, Primates, Metropolitans, and patriarchs, in the Christian Church of God.  
THe truth is, that the Church of Christ was sometime, both without the names & degrees, of Archbishops, Metropolitans, Primates, and Patra●ches; yet it did not long so continue, but was altered in the kind of government, even in the time of the Apostles. This affirmance S. Hierome maketh so manifest, that I cannot but wonder, how any without blushing do deny the same.  
These are S. Hieroms own words; Quod autem postea vni●●● electus est. qui caeteris praeponeretur, in 〈◊〉 remedium 
Hier. ad Euagrium. Tom. 3. Fol. 150.  factum est, ne unusquisque adse trabens Christi ecclesiam rumperet. Name & Alexandria a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam & Dionysium episcopos presbyteri semper unum ex●e electum, in excelsiors gradu collocatum, episcopum nomina●bant.  
But that afterward one was chosen to bear rule over the ●●est, it was done to avoid schism, lest every one should ●●●aw company to himself, and so break the unity of the Church. For at Alexandria from S. Mark the Evangelist unto the Bishops Hera●las & Dionysius, the priests or elders did ever close one among them, whom they placed in an jagher degree, and named him Bishop.  
The same Father in an other place, hath these express words. Idem est presbyter qui episcopus, & antequam diabeli 
Hier. in. 1. Cap ad T●tum.  i●stinctu studia in religiene sierent & diceretur in populis; ego sum Peuli ego Apolio, ego verò Cephae; communi presbytererum 〈◊〉 ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam verò unusquisque eos quo● baptizaverat, suos putabat esse non Christian toto orb accr●●um est, ut v●usde presbyteris euctus superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret, & s●●i●matum scmina tellere●tur.  
An Elder and a Bishop are all one, and before dissension by the devils procurement arose in the Church, and the people began to say, I am of Paul, I of Apolle, and I of Cophas; the churches were governed by the common consent of the Pastoral Elders, Ministers, or Priests. But after that every one did think those to be his, and not Christ's, whom he had baptised; it was decreed throughout the whole world, that one of the ministers or Priest should be chosen and set over the rest, to whom the whole care of the Church should appertain, that the seeds of schism might be taken away.  
Out of these plain aslertions of this holy, learned, and ancient father, I observe first, that in the very beginning of the primitive church, all the ministers were equal in degree, and did govern the church with a general & common consent. Secondly, that in very short time the devil raised up such dissension in the church, that it was thought meet to alter the kind of government, & to set one minister over the rest. Thirdly, that this was done to take away schism. Fourthly, that this alteration was made, even in the Apostles days, viz. when one said he held of Paul, an other, he held of Peter an other, he held of Apollo: at what time S. Mark the Evangelist, was made the Bishop of Alexandria. Fiftly, that this superiority among the ministers of the church, was decreed 
Jrenaus adVers. Heres. libr. 5. cap. 2. pag. 589.  by a settled law throughout the whole world. S. Irenaeus hath these words; Omnes. n. hij valaë posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus Apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias.  
For all these come far after Bishops, to whom the Apostles committed the charge of churches.  
Master Zuinglius a famous and zealous defender of the Gospel, is wholly consonant to these holy and ancient Fathers. 
Vide infra, cap. 10. in respon ad 2. object.  His words shall be set down at large, when I come to the ordering of Ministers.  
Saint Timothy and S. Titus, had superiority over all other Ministers, both at Ephesus, and at Creta; and consequently, they were made Archbishops by Saint Paul himself. This is constantly affirmed. both by Saint Crysostome. Theodoritus, Oecumenius, and many other famous writers. Saint Chrysostome hath these express words; unus ex Paul's socij● hic fuit vir probatus; neque●n profectò 
Chrysost. ad Titum, hom. 1 in initio.  ills integram insulam permisisset, neque ea quae aeerant praecepisset im●lenda & tam multorum episcoporum judicium commisisset, nisi multùmilli confideret.  
This worthy man was one of S. Paul's fellows; for doubtless, he would never have committed one whole Island unto him, neither have commanded things wanting to be accomplished, nor yet have committed the judgement of so many Bishops unto him, unless he had had great confidence in him. Thus writeth this holy, learned, and ancient father, touching the superiority of Titus.  
Of Timotheus the same father writeth thus; Quaeri mevitò 
Chrysost. ad Tim. 2. hom. 10. inprincip.  potest quomodo Timotheum adse vocet, cui ecclesiae gentisque totius crediderat gubernacula?  
It may worthily be demanded, how he calleth Timothy unto him, to whom he had committed the government of the Church and of the whole nation. Mark well these words, (gentis totius, of the whole nation;) and these words likewise, (integram insulam, the whole Island;) and these words withal, (Muitorum episcoporum judicium, the judgement of many Bishops.) For out of the said words it is clearly and evidently deduced, that both Timotheus and Titus were Archbishops in Saint Paul's time; the one having jurisdiction over all Asia, the other over all Creta, two great and large countries.  
Illyricus a very famous late writer, and a most worthy defender 
Illyricus in prefat. ad 1. ep. ad Tim.  of Christian truth, jumpeth with S. Chrysostome in his judgement and opinion. These are his express words; Harum autem tres priores scriptae ad duos praestantes doctores plurimarumque ecclesiarum episcopos. Timotheum & Titum, potissimùm informant episcopum aut superintendentem, & per cum etiam totam ecclesiam ab ipso gubernandam ac instru●ndam.  
But the three former of these written to two excellent Doctors and Bishops of many churches. Timotheus and Titus, do specially inform a Bishop or superintendant, and by him the whole Church also, which must be governed and instructed by him. Lo here, gentle Reader; Timothy and Titus were Arch bishops, that is to say, the Bishops of many Churches. I here let pass the words of Theodoretus, Oecumentus, and others, in regard of brevity.  
Saint Cyprian, that holy, learned, and ancient Father, who 
Cyprian libr. 4 epist. 8  lived above one thousand and three hundred years ago, was not only the Bishop of the famous city of Carthage; but he had also the government both of Numidia and of Mauritania, two goodly regions in Africa. So doth S. Cyprian himself write of himself, and therefore the story is of good credit.  
Many Counsels, (of Nice, Antioch, Carthage, Milevitane, Chaic●do●, and others) make mention of Archbishops, Metropolitans, 
Conc. Nicae. can. 6 concil. 3. carthag. can. 28. conc Antioch. can. 9 Calvin. libr. 4 institut. cap. 4 sect 4. 〈…〉.  Primate, and patriarchs. It shall suffice in regard of brevity, to relate only master Calnius testimony of the famous Council of Nice. These are master Calvin's express words, Quod autem singulae provinciae unum habebant inter episcopos archiepiscopum quod item in Nicaena synodo constituti sunt patriarchae quiessent ordine & dignitate archiepitscopis superiores; id ad a●s●iplinae conservationem pertinebat. Quanquam in hac disputatione praeteriri non potest, quod rarissimi erat usus. Ob hanc igitur causam potissimum iustituti sunt illi gradus, ut si quid in ecclesia qualibet incideret, quod non posset been a pa●cis expediri, ad synodum provincialem referretur Si●nagnitudo aut difficultas causae maiorc̄ quoque discussional 〈◊〉, ad●i●ebantur patriarchae vaa cum synodis, a qubu● esset provocatio, nisi ad vniversaie concilium, 〈◊〉 sic constitutam non ulli Hierarch●am vocarunt nomine (〈…〉) improprio ●erè 〈…〉 veteres episc●pos non aliam regendae ecelesiae formam volnisse fingere, ab ea quam deus verbo suo praescripsit.  
That every province had an Archbishop among their Bishops, and that the Council of Nice did appoint patriarchs, which should be in order and dignity above Archbishops, it was done for the preservation of discipline. Although in this discourse we may not forget that it was a thing of very rare use. For this cause therefore were those degrees especially appointed, that if any thing should happen in any particular church, which could not there be decided, the same might be referred to a general Synod. If the greatness or difficulty of the cause, required yet greater consultation; then were added patriarchs together with the Synods, from whom there could be no appeal, but only unto a General Council. This kind of government some called a Hierarchy, a name improper and not used in the Scriptures, as I think. For the holy Ghost would not have us to dream of any dominion or rule, when question is made of Church government. But omitting the name, if we consider the thing itself; we shall find, that these old Bishops would not frame any other kind of government in the Church, then that which God prescribed in his word.  
Thus writeth Master Calvin of the antiquity of degrees and superiority, amongst the Ministers of the Church. Which whosoever shall ponder seriously, (all partiality set apart, (together with the constitutions, testimony, and approbation of the most sacred and renowned general Council of Nice (which Council was ever to this day highly reverenced throughout the Christian world;) that man doubtless, cannot but approve and allow our Bishops and Archbishops with their names and authorities, this day established in the godly settled government of the Church of England, For first, Master Calvin granteth willingly, the truth itself plainly leading him thereunto,) that in the time of the famous Council of Nice, there were both Archbishops and patriarchs. Secondly, that that patriarchs were in order & dignity above the Archbishops; and consequently, that there was even then, (viz. above one thousand two hundred and forty years ago,) superiority Episcopal, archiepiscopal, and patriarchal, among the ministers of the Church, one minister having jurisdiction over and upon an other. More than which doubtless, our Bishops and Archbishops do not this day challenge, in our Church of noble England. Thirdly, that this superiority and dignity among Ministers, was ordained for the preservation of discipline in the Church: and consequently, that as it was then godly, convenient, and necessary for the Church, so is it this day, in our Church of England. Fourthly, that the kind of government by Archbishops and patriarchs. was agreeable to that form of government, which God prescribed in his word. This is a point of great moment, which may not be forgotten. To which I also add, (which the Reader must observe seriously with me,) that the Council of Nice telleth us plainly, that this superiority of one Minister above and over an other, (which the Brownists cannot endure,) was not then first appointed, but had been time out of mind by an ancient custom of the church, which the Council confirmed and established by her decree. But how do I prove it? doubtless, by the express words of the Council.  
For the Council in the sixth Cannon, hath these 
Conc. Nicae. can. 6.  words; Mos antiquus perduret. Let the old custom continue. And in the seventh cannon, it hath these words; Quoniam mos antiquus obtinuit, & vetusta traditio. Because 
Can. 7.  an old custom and ancient tradition hath prevailed, etc. Which old custom had been in the Church, even from Saint Mark the Evangelist, and from Saint Timothy and Saint Titus, as is already proved. And if any one will yet be obstinate, and deny that this old custom, whereof the holy, and ancient Council speaketh, began in the Apostles time; let that man or those persons which so shall say or affirm, name the time before the Nicene Council, when Archbishops and patriarchs first began. And if any man can this perform. I promise to be of his opinion. If otherwise, both reason and true humility would advise that 
This can never be performed, while the world endureth  man and those persons, who shall so say or think; to yield all due obedience to their superiors, and willingly to subscribe unto the truth. Which doubtless they will do, that heretofore have refused to embrace the ceremonies of our English Church; if this Text of the Gospel, be not truly verified in them; (for they loved the praise of men, more than the praise of God.) But how is this possible? I will unfold the case, Gentle 
joh. 12. Vers. 43.  Reader; protesting that I do it of charity, and for edification sake. The truth I will plainly and sincerely set down, concealing the party's name; because I love the man, and have regard unto his credit. Talking with a Preacher of mine acquaintance, (a man otherwise both godly, learned, and of singular gifts,) concerning the cannons of Anno. 1604. and the kind of government of this our English Church, when he seemed to me, to have nothing of moment to say against the same, he answered me thus: that he would neither lose his living, nor wear the surplice nor yet make the sign of the cross in the child's forehead. And when I demanded how that could be; he answered that he would keep one to do it, but not do it himself. When I replied, that he might as lawfully do 
This aught to be well pondered.  it himself, as procure an other to do it; he uttered these words.  
How can I do that, against which I have so often preached. I proceeded, and told him as a friend; that his refusal seemed to taste of the spirit of the proud Pharisee; and not of the humble Publican, etc. Well, I hope the party will be obedient. But certes, I thought afore; that all their proceedings had been of mere conscience, which now I perceive to be of pride in a great many of them, through which manner of dealing (I will not say hypocrisy) the simple sort become disobedient, and are deeply drowned in error; and our Church pitifully turmoiled, with schisms & dissension.  
The godly, learned, and zealous Patron of pure religion, master Bucer, deriveth the superiority of Archbishops even from the Apostles themselves. These are his express words; I am ex perpetua ecclesiarum observations, abipsis 
Bucerus deregno Christ's, libr. 2. cap. 12 in initio.  apostolis videmus, visum & hoc esse spiritu sancto, ut inter presbyteros, quibus ecclesiarum procuratio potissimùm est commissa, unus ecclesiarum & totius sacriministerij curam gerat singularen, eaque cura & solicitudine cunctis praeerat alij●. Qua de causa, episcopi nomen huiusmodi summis ecclesiarum cur atoribus est peculiaritèr attributum.  
Now we see by the perpetual observation of churches, even from the Apostles themselves; that it pleased the holy Ghost, that among the ministers to whom especially the government of the church is committed, one should have the chief care, both of the churches and the whole sacred ministry; & that he in that care and sollicitued, should be above all the rest; for which cause, the name of Bishop is peculiarly given to such chief governors of churches. Thus writeth master Bucer. Out of whose words I note first, that the superiority of Archbishops and bishops, proceedeth from the holy Ghost. Secondly, that this superiority was ever in the church, even from the Apostles. The same author hath in that same Chap. much more matter to the same effect. The famous doctor & zealous christian Hieronymie Zanchis 
Legatur caput integrum.  us, in the confession of his faith granteth freely, that there were Archbishops, Metropolitans, and patriarchs, before the Nicene Council. These are his words: Cum hanc cōs●riberem 
Zanchius de relig. p. 170.  fidei confessionem omnia ex bona conscientia scripsi; & sicut credias sic etiam isberè locutus sum, ut faciendum esse docent sacrae litera Fides autem mea nititur cum primis & simpl●citèr verbo Dei. Deinde nonnihil etiam communi totius veteris catholica Ecclesia consensu, si ille cum sacris literis non pugnet. Credo. n. qua a pijs patribus in nomine Domini congregatis, communi omnium consensu citra ullam sacrarum litorarum contradictionem, definita & receptafuerunt: ea etiam (quanquam haud eiusdem cum sacris literis authoritatis) a spiritu sancto esse. Hinc fit, ut quae sunt huinscemodi, ea ego improbare noc velim, nec audean bona conscientia, quid autem certius ex Historijs, ex concilijs, & ex omnium patrum scriptis quam illos ministrorum ordines, de quibus diximus, communi totius reipublicae christianae consensu, in ecclesia constitutos receptosque fuisse? Quis autem ego sum, qui quod tota ecclesia approbavit, improbem? sed neque omnes nostri temporis docti viri improbare ausi sunt: quip qui norunt & licuisse haec Ecclesiae, & ex pietate atque ad optimos fines pro electorum aedificatione, ea omnia fuisse profecta & ordinata.  
When I wort this Confession of my Faith, I wrote every thing with a good conscience; and as I believed, so I also freely spoke, as holy writ teacheth me to do. My belief is principally & simply, grounded upon God's word: then, somewhat also upon the common consent of the ancient Catholic Church, so it do not swarm from the holy Scriptures. For I bel●eue, that such things as that holy Fathers 
Vide infra, cap. 10. ex Zuinglio & notato valaè.  gathered together in God's name, have with common consent defined and received without any contradiction of the holy Scriptures: do proceed from the holy Ghost, though not of the same authority with the holy Scriptures. Hence comes it, that myself neither will, nor with safe conscience dare, reprove such kind of decrees. But what is more clear and evident, by Histories, by Counsels. and by the writings of all the Fathers, then that those orders of Ministers, (whereof we have spoken:) have been appointed & received in the Church, even with the common consent of the whole christian Common weal? And who am I, that I should reprove that, which the whole Church hath approved? yea, which all the learned men of our age, durst never reprove to this day? as who knew (right well) that both the Church might lawfully do these things, & also that they proceeded of piety, & that all things were ordained to very godly purposes, for edefication of Gods elect. Thus writeth this learned, godly, zealous, and judicious Father: who for his rare learning, profound knowledge, pure zeal, & great judgement, was inferior to none of his age in Christ's Church, if not superior to all. Out of whose words I observe many more excellent & worthy documents, for the help of the well affected Reader. First, that this godly learned man was fully resolved to die in that Faith, which he hear speaketh of. Secondly, that he published this his Confession of Faith, with a good conscience, constantly believing as he wrote. Thirdly, that his Faith was grounded upon the word of God. Fourthly, that the Decrees of the holy Fathers assembled in Christ's name, defined by the common consent of all, and not repugnant to the Scriptures, were not simply the Decrees of men, but also of the holy Ghost. Fiftly, that the Degrees of Ministers, and superiority of Bishop's Archbishops, Primates, and patriarchs, were approved and received by uniform and common consent, throughout the whole Church of Christ. Sixtly, that this great learned man neither durst, nor could with good conscience reprove the same. Seventhly, that the Church had authority to appoint, constitute & ordain, such degrees and superiority amongst the Ministers of the Church. Eightly, that such constitutions proceeded of piety, & were ordained for edisication of the Church. To the testimony of this grave writer, I deem it worth the labour, to add that which the same Doctor hath in another place. These are his words: Hoc ego ingenuè denuò profiteor, talem esse meam conscientiam, 
Zanch. de relig. pag. 250. Vide infra, cap. 7. & notato.  ut a veterum patrum sive dogmatibus, sive scripturarum interpraetationibus, non facilè, nisivel manifestis sacrarum literarum testimonijs, vel necessarijs consequentijs, apertisque demonstrationibus convictus atque coactus, discedere queam. Sic enim acquiescit mea conscientia, & in hac mentis quiet cupio etiammors.  
I again profess freely my conscience to be such, that I cannot easily depart, either from the Doctrines of the ancient Fathers, or from their interpretations of the holy Scriptures: unless I be convicted and compelled thereunto, either with the manifest testimonies of holy Writ, or with necessary consequences and manifest demonstrations. For so my conscience is at rest, and in this quiet of mind I desire to die. Out of which words, I note two things, both memorable and of great importance: wishing the gentle Reader, to mark them attentively. First, that the ancient Fathers have decreed according to the holy Scriptures, superiority, among Ministers in the Church, and the degrees of Bishops, Archbishops, Primates, Metropolitans, Suffragans, and patriarchs. Secondly, that this learned Doctor thinketh himself bound in conscience, to acknowledge, receive, and obey such decrees and constitutions of the holy Fathers: and therefore earnestly desireth to end his life in that belief.  
Nicolaus Hemingius affirmeth constantly, that the pure 
Hemingius in Enchiridio. Pag. 368.  church which followed the Apostles-time, ordained divers degrees of Ministers for the peaceable Regiment of the Church: as Metropolitans, Archbishops, & patriarchs.  

The 1. Objection.  
Ye know that the Lords of the Gentiles have domination 
Matth. 20. V. 25.  over them, and they that are great, exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your servant.   

The Answer.  
I answer, that these words of our Saviour Christ, do only condemn ambitious desire of rule and the tyrannical usage thereof: but not simply all superiority, and lawful authority of one above an other. I prove it first because Christ saith not, the Lords of the jews, but the Lords of the Gentiles bear rule over them. As if he had said: you may not have that tyrannical kind of government, which the gentiles used; nor such ambitious desire and sinister affection of rule, as was found among them. And therefore is it significantly said, (it shall not be so,) He saith not, it shall not be at all, but it shall not be so, as it was among the Gentiles. Secondly, because it is the frequent custom of the holy Scriptures, to forbid things simply without exception: when it doth in deeds and true meaning prohibit only the abuse and the inordinate desire and usage of the same. Call no man your father upon earth, (saith Christ 
Mat. 23. U. 9 10. 11.  for there is but one your Father, which is in heaven, B●● not called Doctors: for one is your Doctor, even Christ▪ But he that is the greatest among you, let him be your servant. So Christ forbiddeth to be careful for to morrow, 
Mat 6. v. 25. 28. 31. Prou. 6. v. 6. 7. 8. 2. Thess. cap. 3. 10.  to be careful for our life, for raiment, for meat, and for drink. And yet in true sense and meaning of holy written the moderate and honest care of such things is not forbidden, but only the inordinate and distrustful desire and can thereof. Nay, nay, the Scripture willeth the sluggard it learn of the Pismire, who having no guide, governor nor ruler, prepareth her meat in the Summer, and gathethereth her food in harvest. And the Apostle giveth commandment, that if any will not work, the same must no eat. Thirdly, because both old and late writers of be account, do expound this text of S. Matthew, against in ordinate and ambitious desire of ruling. S. Chrysostome th● 
Chysost in 20. Chap. Mat pag. 549.  golden mouthed Doctor, for his great learning and eloquence so surnamed, hath these words: It a gentium ●●n esse ostendit, prima quaeque appetere, tyrannica enim haec passi●●● & nonnunquam eximios etiam viros perturbat, quapropter ●● vehementiore castigatione indigent, acrius etiam ipse insurg● comparatione gentium, agrotantem ipsorum animum retinem It a horum quidèm invidian, illorum verò arrogantiam succidit qua magna voce dicens: nolite tanquam contempti commoveri: ●● qui primatum quaerunt, sibijpsis dedecori sunt, ignorantes hoc pacto in infirma detrudere.  
Thus he showeth it to be the manner of the Gentile to desire superiority. For this is a tyrannical passion, & doth often trouble excellent men. Wherefore seeing they have need of vehement castigation, he doth sharply reprove them: so bridling their sickly mind, by comparing them to the Gentiles. And by this means he taketh away envy from the one sort, and arrogant pride from the other: as if he should cry with a loud voice, be not troubled (with passions of pride,) as contemptible persons. For they that seek Primacy, do dishonour themselves: not knowing, that by this means they do abase themselves.  
Theophilactus hath the same sense and interpretation, which he uttereth almost in the very same words. Many 
Theophil. in 20. cap. mat.  other writers expound this text in the self same manner, neither can any one ancient father be alleged to the contrary sense and meaning.  
Fourthly, because the original word Catacurieuèin, doth plainly insinuate so much unto us. Aretius a very learned writer, & a great patron of pure Religion, hath these words: Catacurieuèin. Est dominari cum aliena tyrannide: 
Aretius' in 20. cap. mat.  Catexousiazein, in potestate violentèr tenere. The one Greek word is to bear rule tyrannically: so is the other Greek word, to have violent power over men. Erasmus, Musculus, and many other learned writers, are of the same opinion.  
Musculus hath these express words: Non est autem 
Musculus in cap. 23. Matth.  putandum, quod omninò prohibeat, ne quis vocetur inter Christianos pater aut Magister, aut Dominus; ut illicitum sit liberis, cum undè sunt gen●ti, vocare patrem: aut discipulis cum a quo instituuntur appellare Magistri aut praeceptoris vocabulo: vel servis, heros suos appellitare Dominos: cum & sacra Scriptura iubeat, ut filii honorent patres suos, & Apostolus admoneat servos, ut dominis suis obediant: & dominos ut aequi sint erga servos: & cum audisset in carcere a custode carceris vocari dominos se & Silam, non prohibuerit: verum it a vocari patrem & magistrum, ut vocabantur Scribae & Pharisaei, prohibetur hoc loco. Primùm, illi amabant vocari Rabbi: ergo affectus horum cognominum vetatur. Deinde, ita vocari rabbi volebant, ut ab ipsis prorsus penderet populus domini, nec ulla in re placitis ipsorum repugnaret: at hoc pacto vocari patrem & magistrum, nemini mortalium competit. Est enim unus verus pater tantùm deus, & unus veru● magister Christus, a cuius debemus pendere praeceptis ut non liceat nobis in alterius cuiuspiam tur are verba magistri. Sequitur; hec satis indicat, quomodo prohibuerit suos vocari rabbi & magistros; viz. ut dixi contradrim itus ambitum, dominandique libidinem ista sunt aicta. Alioqui dixisset; nemo inter vos sit reliquis maior. I am verò ubi dicit qui maximus est vestrum, erit vester minister, ostenait se non ita dixisse, vos omnes fratres estis, quòd per omnia volverit suos esse inter se aequales; sed ut ij qui reliquos ex donis dei excellebant, ad omnium ministerium seize demitserent.  
We may not think, that Christ doth altogether forbid, that no christian shall be called father, or master, or Lord; as if it were unlawful for children to call him father, that did beget them; or for Scholars to call him Master who teacheth them; or for Servants to call their masters Lords; seeing the holy Scripture commandeth children to honour their Parents, and the Apostle also willeth Servants to obey their Masters, and when he heard the keeper of the Prison call him, and Silas Masters he did not rebuke him for the same; but so to be called Father and Master, as the Scribes and pharisees were called, he utterly forbiddeth in this place. First, they greatly desired to be called Rabbi, and therefore the affection of such names is forbidden. Again, they wished so to be called Rabbi, that GOD'S people should wholly depend upon them, and in no respect deny or withstand their ordinances and Decrees. But to be called Father or Master in this sort and manner, agreeth to no mortal man.  
For there is one only true Father, which is GOD himself, and one only true Master, which is Christ, upon whose commandments we must so depend, that we may in no case swear to the words of any other man. here we are sufficiently taught, in what sense Christ for bad his Disciples to be called Rabbi, and Masters, viz. As I said, against the ambition of Primacy, and desire to rule, are these things spoken, (and not simply against Rule, Dominion, or Superiority.) For otherwise, he would have said; let none amongst you, be greater than the rest. But now, when he saith, he that is the greatest of you, shall be your Servant, he showeth himself not to have said, ye are all brethren, for that he would have them in all things to be equal among themselves, but that they who excelled others in the gifts of GOD, might humble themselves to the service of others. Thus writeth this great learned Father, out of whose golden words, we may gather evidently sundry necessary documents, for a resolute and full answer to the precedent objection. For first, he affirmeth constantly, that Christ doth not simply prohibit Christians to be called Rabbis or Masters, but so as the Scribes and pharisees desired to be called Masters. Secondly, he telleth us, that Paul and Silas were well pleased to be called Masters. Thirdly, he avoucheth roundly, that CHRIST did not forbid Dominion, Rule, and Superiority, but only ambition and greedy desire of bearing rule over others. Which his opinion, he proveth to be grounded upon Christ's own words. And doubtless, it is to be admired, that any Learned 
Infra cap. 12. sect. 4. ex Pe. Marty.  man will hold the contrary opinion. See Peter Martyrs opinion, and note it well. His express words shall be set down, when I come to speak of the church-discipline.  

The Reply.  
Master Calvin and many other learned writers, allege this Text against that superiority, which the late Bishops of Rome do challenge over other Ministers of the Church: which doubtless they could never truly do, if one Bishop or Minister may be superior to another.   

The Answer.  
I answer, that M. Calvin, and other learned men, do truly allege this Scripture, against the falsely challenged Primacy of the proud & arrogant Bishop of Rome. And yet for all that, it doth not prohibit the moderate and lawful superiority of one Minister over another: which is both necessary for the peaceable managing of the Church, and hath ever been used in the Church, as it is already proved. For the Bishop of Rome's superiority, is so far from being moderate and lawful: that it may truly be termed tyrannical, and plain diabolical. Because (as I have proved at large in other discourses,) he taketh upon him to depose kings, to translate kingdoms, and in most brutish and savage manner, to tyrannize over men's souls and consciences, Idque iure divino, as he beareth the world in hand.    

The 2. Objection.  
The names of Archbishops, Primates, and patriarchs, are proud names, disholy, profane, and not to be found in the holy Scriptures.   

The Answer.  
I answer: First, that though the names be not expressed in holy writ, yet is the thing itself sufficiently contained in the same, as is already proved.  
Secondly, that the very names are so far from being profane and disholy; that the most zealous Patrons of the Presbytery, do allow and approve the same for lawful and holy, and to have been ordained of the holy Fathers for a godly end and purpose. Master Calvin's opinion is already set down, in this present chapter. Yet for better satisfaction of the Reader, let him hear what the same author saith in an other place. These are his words; Quod duodecim unum habuerint inter se qui omnes regeret, nihil mirum. 
Calvin. libr. 4 intit. cap. 6 sect. 8.  Hoc. n. fert natura, hoc hominum ingenium postulat, ut in quovis caetu etiamsi aequales sint omnes potestate, unus tamen sit veluti moderator, in quem alij respiciant. Nulla est curia sine consul, nullus consessus indicum sine Praetore sen quaesitore, collegium nullum sine Praefecto, nulla sine magistro societas.  
That the twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest, it was no marvel. For nature requireth it, and the disposition of men will so have it, that in every company, though they be all equal in power, there be one as governor, by whom the rest may be directed. There is no Court without a Consul, no Senate without a Praetor, no College without a Precedent, no society without a master. Now it is evident, that neither Bishops nor Archbishops in our church of England, have greater authority, than master Calvin speaketh of in this place. For to say nothing of the dignity of Consuls and Praetors, which was very great among the Romans; the master of a College, (as every Scholar of Cambridge and Oxford can tell, (hath a perpetual office; he is chief governor of that society, and all the members thereof owe obedience unto him, as to their head; he hath authority to punish, and to see laws executed within his College, as Bishops, and Archbishops have in their dioceses & provinces. And most certain it is, that no Archbishop in England hath that authority in his province, which the Consul had in Rome. 
Beza in confess. cap. 7. Pag. 257.   
Master Beza confesseth, that antiquity used the names of Bishops and Archbishops, and willingly admitteth of them as holy names. These are his express words; Nam quod pastores temporis progressu distincti sunt in metropolitas, episcopos, & quos nunc vocant curatos id est, singulis paraecijs prafectos, id minime factum est respectu ministerij verbi; sed potum habita ecclesiasticae jurisdictionis ac disciplinae ratione. Itaque quod attinet ad verbi praedicandi munus, & sacramentorum administrationem nullum est inter archiepiscopos, episcopos, & curatos discrimen. Omnes. n. tenentur suos greges eodē●ibo pascere ide●que communi nomine postores & episcopi in scriptures passim vocantur. Quae verò istorum impudentia est sacra nomina usurpare, & propter ea apostolorum & verorum opiscoporum successionem iactare?  
For that in process of time, pastors were distinguished into Metropolitans, (or Archbishops,) Bishops, and Curates; it was not done in respect of the ministery of the word, but in regard of ecclesiastical iurisdictition and discipline. Therefore touching the office of Preaching and Ministration of the sacraments, there is no difference betwixt Archbishops, Bishops, and Curates. For they all are bound to feed their flocks with the same meat, and therefore are they called in the Scriptures by the common name of Pastors and Bishops. But how impudent are these men, which under colour of these holy names, glory in the succession of the Apostles and true Bishops? thus writeth master Beza, jumping, (as every child may see,) with that doctrine which I now defend. Yea, the same Beza affirmeth these degrees and names, to have been appointed by the ancient Church upon a very good zeal. These are his words in an other place; Neque verò nos ignoramus, quammulia sint a veteribu● constituta, de episcoporum, metropolitarun, & Patriarcharum sedibus idque optimo zelo, & definitis cuinsique 
Beza in confess cap. 5. Art. 29.  limitibus, certaque attributa authoritate. Neither are we ignorant, how many constitutions the old fathers have made concerning the seats of Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patris arches; and that upon a very godly zeal, assigning to every one his bounds and authority. Thus the Reader seeth, how Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Zanchius, and Hemingius, do hold the same opinion, which I now defend.  

The Reply.  
The Bishops, Archbishops, patriarchs, and such like, of which Beza, Calvin, the Council of Nice, and other counsels make mention, were not such as our Bishops in England, Prelates of the Garter, high Commissioners, justices of Peace, and Quorum.   

The Answer.  
I answer, First, that the same superiority of one minister over an other, was then in the old Archbishops, patriarchs, and such like, which is this day in ours here in this land, yea, greater by one degree at the least, because England never had a Patriarch in it. Secondly, that Archbishops, Primates, and Metropolitans, (which are all one in effect) had then the same jurisdiction in other countries, which 
See Hemingius in enchirid, Pag. 368 &. p. 372. &. p. 373. & infra. cap, 10. verba eius habentur. conc. Antioch. can. 9  our bishops have this day in England. That is to say, a superior charge and solicitude, of all Churches within their provinces. Which thing, (though it be already proved sufficiently to all well affected Readers,) may yet be further confirmed, with such a plain and manifest testimony of the ancient Council of Antioch, (which was holden above a thousand and two hundred years ago, as every child may behold the truth thereof. These are the words, Persingulas regiones episcopos convenit nosse, Metropolitanum episcopum sollicitudinem totius provincia gerere. Propter quod ad metropolim omnes undique, qui negotia videntur habere, concurrant. unde placuit eum & honore praece●lere, & nihil amplius praeter eum caeteros episcopos agere, secundum antiquam a patrio bus nostris regulam constitutam, nisi ea tantùm quae ad suam diocaesim pertinent possessionesque. It is meet that the Bishops of every country do know, that the Metropolitan hath the charge of the whole province. For which respect, all the Bishops round about him, which have any business, must have recourse unto that city, (where the Archbishop or metropolitan doth reside.) Wherefore we have decreed, according to the ancient Law of our Fathers, both that he shall excel in honour, and also that all the other Bishops shall do nothing at all without him, saving those things only, which appertain to their own diocese and possessions. Thus decreeth this ancient and famous Council, out of which doctrine, I observe these worthy lessons. First, that an Archbishop or Metropolitan had in old time, the charge of the whole province. And consequently, that our Archbishops and Metropolitans in the English church, have no new ministery, nor other authority; then was had and practised by the holy Fathers in ancient time, even in the primitive church. Secondly, that this authority of an Archbishop to rule a whole province, was not first constituted by this Council, (though it were of very great antiquity,) but was received by an ancient rule from their forefathers. Thirdly, that all the Bishops of the province, must be directed by the Metropolitan or Archbishop. Fourthly that the other Bishops could do nothing, without the authority of the Archbishop; such things only excepted, as pertained to their own diocese and possessions. Let thus much be granted to our Bishops, (which good reason will afford them,) and they will desire no more. But, because the testimony of the best Patrons of the presbytery, cannot but prevail much in this controversy, let us hear the verdicts, of the chiefest Doctors herein. Master Calvin's testimony is already known, touching the authority of Archbishops in foreign countries, but I will allege and set before the Readers eyes, his plain testimony for our Bishops here in England. These are his own words, in his Epistle to Archbishop Cranmer. Calvinus Cranmero 
Calvin. epist. 127.  Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, S. D. sequitur; summa est in te authoritas, quam non magis tibi honoris amplitudo conciliat, quam concepta pridèm de tua prudentia & integritate opinio. Calvin to Cranmere the Archbishop of Canterbury, sendeth salutations. The supreme and highest authority resteth in your self, which your great honour did not more procure, than the opinion lately conceived of your prudence and integrity. The same Calvin in his Epistle to Doctor Grindall the Bishop of London hath these words; Quod tamen curam popularium nostrorum qui in praecipua episcopatus tui urbe habitant, suscipere dignatus es, non solūm ut libertas illis daretur reginae beneficio dei purè invocandi, sed ut pastorem fidum hinc accerserent, nisi hac de causa me tibi obstrictum faterer, stullitiae & inhumaintatis essem damnandus. Yet that you have vouchsafed to take care of our vulgar countrymen, which reside in the chief city of your bishopric, not only that by the Queen's favour they might have freedom to serve God aright, but that also they might call from hence a faithful pastor; if I should not confess myself bound unto you herein, I might justly be condemned both of folly, and of nhumanitie.  
Out of these words, I observe these corollaries. Frst, that heecalleth the Bishop of Canterbury, Archbishop; and consequently, that he did not think the name, to be either antichristian, or unlawful. Secondly, that he did acknowledge the chiefest authority, to be in the Archbishop; and consequently, superiority to be among our ministers. Thirdly, that he granted one man to have the charge of many Churches; that is, the Bishop of London. For he saith (in the chief city of our Bishopric.) and that it may appear yet more evidently, that he granteth the charge of a whole province to one only Archbishop; I will allege some part of that his Epistle, which he addressed to the Potent 
Calvin. ad serens. regem Poloniae, epist. 190.  and mighty king of Polonia. Thus doth he write; Que admodum si hody illustrissimo Poloniae regno unus praeesset Archiepiscopus, non qui dominaretur in reliquos, velius ab illis ereptumsibi arrogaret; sed qui ordinis causa in synodis primum teneret locum, & sanctam inter collegas suos & fratres unitatem foveret. Even as if this day one Archbishop should be the precedent of the most honourable Kingdom of Polonia; not as one that should have dominion over the rest, or should challenge to himself the right taken from others; but as one who for order sake, should have the chief place in synods, and should preserve holy unity, among his sellowes and brethren. I he●e are the words of this great learned man who was the greatest and chiefest patron of their presbytery, & the first man in the world that set it abroach, and brought it into the Church. And yet doth he grant plainly, as much as our Bishops will require. For he granteth, (as we see,) that one Archbishop may have a superiority, over all other Bishops in the large kingdom of Polonia. The exception that he maketh, I willingly admit, and so will all our Bishops likewise do. As who neither do nor ever did, once make or give the least sign of any such superiority, over their fellows and loving brethren. No, no, no such thing can truly be imputed to them. For with us every minister in his Parish, and every Bishop in his Diocese; hath the charge of their own flocks and Parishes, to Preach the word, and to administer the Sacraments unto them, in as ample and large manner, as Master Calvin here requireth. Which his words immediately 
Calvin. ubi supra. epist. 190.  aforegoing do declare, being these. Vetus quidem ecclesia patriarchas instituit, & singulis etiam provineijs quosdam attribuit primatus, ut hoc concordiae vincu●o meliùs inter●e devincti manerent episcopi. The ancient Church did constipate patriarchs, and assigned for every province one prim●●e; that by this bond of concord, the Bishops might be more firmly united among themselves. Like as if one Archbishop should be the chieftain, of the whole Kingdom of Polonia; and so forth as is already said. Where we see, or may see, if we will; that Master Calvin acknowledgeth the same superiority, both in the ancient times of the Church, and more lately in the Archbishop of Polonia, which is this day given and allotted to the Archbishop of Canterbury, over the other Bishops and Ministers in England. Now, for answer to the other part of the objection, touching high Commissioners, justices of Peace and Quorum, I have reserved the next Chapter.      

CHAP. VI Of civil offices, in Ecclesiastical persons.  
THe authority in civil matters committed to the ministers of the Church, is not made a thing intrinsically incident to the 
Civil offices; are not in trinsecally incident to the ministry. Vide infra, cap. 11. ex. Musculo, propè finem cap. & nota valdè.  ministery, or as a part thereof, but it is committed to them by the Prince, (whom his subjects are not to limit what persons he shall use in counsel, or to whom he shall commit the execution of his laws,) and it is added to their ministery, as profitable and necessary for the present state and good of the Church. Which good to be procured by that means, rather than by any other employment beside; it may appear both by experience, and practise. By experience, for that we see those Kingdoms, Princes, and people, most blessed of God, where learned and godly Bishops have been received into the Prince's Counsel. By practise, because I have both heard and read, that master Calvin and master Beza were admitted to be counsellors of the seat at Geneva, being thought sit men for that place. Who doubtless would never have yielded thereunto, if they had thought it a thing either unlawful in itself, or incompatible to their function. No, no, it is neither ungodly, nor yet unseemly, for a Minister to come from the Pulpit, to the correction of vice, sin, and wickedness. But chose, it is so godly, so comely, and so necessary: that it ever hath been usual, both in the Law of nature, in the Law of Moses, and in the Law of grace: for First, in the law of nature, Melchisedech was both King and Priest. So reporteth holy Moses in his book of Genèsis, and Saint Paul to the Hebrews. And Saint Hierome 
In lege natura. Gen. 14. Hebr. 7. Hier. in trad. Hebr. in Genes. tom. 4. Folly 95.  telleth us, that all the eldest sons of the holy patriarchs, were both Kings and Priests. Aiunt hunc esse Sem filium Noah, & supputantes annos vitae ipsius, ostendunt eum ad Isaac usque vixisse, omnesque primogenitos Noah, donec sacerdotio fungeretur Aaron, fuisse pontifices.  
The Hebrews (saith Saint Hierome,) affirm this (Melchisadech) to be Sem the son of Noah, and reckoning the years of his life, they show us that he lived until Isaac: and that all the first begotten of Noah, until Aaron's Priesthood began, were Bishops. Yea, whosoever will deny, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, jacob, and others, did rule over those who were committed to their charge, as well in ecclesiastical 
In lege Mosis.  as civil causes, they may truly be said to know nothing in the scriptures.  
Secondly, in the Law of Moses, Moses himself was both the civil Magistrate and a Priest. For Moses 
Exod. 18. 13. Exod. 32. Vers. 27. Leuit. 8. Exod. 40. 1. Sam. 2. Vers. 11. &. Cap. 4 18. 1. Sam. 8. Act. 13. 21. 2. Paral. 19 Vers. 10.  judged the people from morning unto even. He put the Malefactors to death, who had committed Idolatry. He consecrated Aaron and his sons, and burned sweet incense on the golden Altar.  
Heli was both the high Priest, and judge of the people, for the space of 40 years together.  
Samuel likewise was both a Priest and judge over the people, for the space of 30. years together. The good king josaphat made the Priest's judges, both in ecclesiastical and civil causes. And after the captivity of the jews, the Maccabees, were rulers, aswell in civil as in ecclesiastical causes. Read the books of the Maccabees, josephus, & Egesippus. and this truth will soon appear. But what need many words, in a case so clear and evident? God himself made a general law, that the priests & the civil magistrate should iontly determine, judge and decide, all controversies. These are the express words of the Law; if there rise a matter too 
Deut. 17. v. 8. 9  hard for thee in judgement, between boold and blood, between plea and plea, between plague and plague, in the matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and go unto the place, which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come to the Priests of the Levites, & to the judge that shall be in those days, and ask, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgement. These words are so plain, as all interpretation may be thought needless.  
Thirdly, in the Gospel, and new Testament, we 
In lege gratiae.  have a plurality of examples in this behalf. S. Paul, when he made his abode at Corinthus, with Aquila, and Prescilla, whom Claudius the Emperor had driven from Rome: he 
Acts 18. v. 2. 3.  wrought with his hands, being of the same craft with them, and made tents as they did.  
S. Augustine, thought it a thing so lawful, for a Bishop to be judge in causes Ecclesiastical; that I wonder, how any man hearing or reading his own words, can any longer stand in doubt thereof. Thus doth he write: Quis 
August. de opere mon. cap. 29. tom. 1. Cor. 9 v. 7.  plantat vineam, & de fructu eius non edit? Quis pascit gregem, & de lact gregis non percipit? Tamen Dominum jesum, in cuius nomine securus haec dico, testem invoco super animam meam, quoniam quantum attinet ad meum commodum multo mallem per singulos dies certis horis, quantum in bene moderatis monasterijs constitutum est aliquid manibus operari, & caeteras horas habere ad legendum & orandum aut aliquid de divinis litteris agendum liberas; quam tumultuosissimas perplexitates causar unalienarum patide negotijs secularibus, vel iudicando dirimendis, vel interveniendo praecidendis; quibus nos molestijs idem affixit Apostolus, non utique suo, sed eius qui in eo loqu●batur arbitrio, quam tamen ipsum perpessum fuisse non legimus. Aliter. n. se habebat apostolatus eius discursus. Sequitur: quem tamen laborem non sine consolatione domini suscipimus prospe vitae aeternae, ut fructum seramus cum tolerantia, Servi n sumus cius Ecclesiae, & maxim infirmioribus membris, quanta libet in eodem corpore membra sumus. Omitto alias innumerabiles ecclesiasticas curas, quat for tasse nemo credit, nisi qui expertus est. Non ergo alligamui onera gravia, & humeris vestris imponimus, quae nos digito non attingimus: quandoquidem si officil nostri sarva ratione possemus, videt ille qui probat corda nostra, mallemus haec agere, quae ut agatis hortamur, quam ea quae non agere cogimur.  
Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? who seedeth a flock, and receiveth not of the milk of the flock? Yet I call the Lord jesus to witness upon my soul, in whose name I boldly utter these words: that touching mine own commodity, I had much rather every day to work some thing with mine hands, as it is appointed in well governed Monasteries, and to have the hours free, to read, and to pray, and to do some exercise in the holy Scriptures: then to suffer the tumultuous perplexities of other men's causes touching secular affairs, either in determining them by judging, or in cutting them off by entreating: to which molestations the Apostle hath tied us, not by his own judgement, but by his judgement who spoke in him; which troubles for all that himself did not undergo, because his course apostolical had an other respect. Which labour notwithstanding we endure with consolation in the Lord, for the hope of eternal life, that we may bring forth fruit with patience, for we are servants of the Church, and especially to the weaker members, how mean members so ever we are in the same body. I let pass innumerable other Ecclesiastical cares, which perhaps none will believe, but he that hath tried the same. We therefore do not bind grievous burdens together, and impose them on your shoulders, which we do not touch with our finger: seeing we had rather do those things which we exhort you to do, than which we ourselves are compelled to do; if we could so do with the discharge of our duty, as knoweth God the searcher of our hearts. Thus discourseth this holy, ancient, and most learned Father. Out of whose doctrine, I observe many golden, worthy, and very necessary documents, for the instruction of all indifferent Readers. First, that he dealt much in secular causes and affairs of the world. Secondly, that he had rather have wrought with his hands, and have done much bodily labour in the monastery; then to have been so tossed and turmoiled, in hearing and determining civil causes of his people. Thirdly, that he used sometimes to end matters by way of entreaty, as a friend: and sometime by absolute authority, as a judge. Let this point be well marked, because it is of great moment. Fourthly, that the Apostle had bound him so to deal in secular affairs. Fiftly, that the Apostle did not impose that secular charge upon him, by his own judgement and authority: but by the counsel and judgement of God himself, who spoke in him. Which charge he proveth out of the Apostles doctrine, in the place and chapter quoted in my Margin. Sixtly, that S. Austin did undergo the molestations of secular business, because he hoped thereby to attain eternal life. Seventhly, that he could not do his bounden duty, unless he were sometimes occupied in deciding civil causes. So far was this holy Father from their opinion, who more rashly then wisely, affirm it a damnable thing, and an Antichristian mark, for a Bishop to be a justice of Peace, or of Quorum: and yet cannot any learned writer be named, for the space of a thousand and two hundred years, who reputed not S. Austin for a very holy man, and a most grave & learned writer. Let all such persons therefore consider better of the matter, and either wilfully condemn that holy Father, and mighty pillar of Christ's Church; or else let them henceforth be more sparing of such savage loquacity, and approve the Christian and laudable offices of justice of Peace and Quorum, in the reverend Fathers, the Lord Bishops of the English Church. For Saint Anstin was both a Lord bishop, and as it were a justice of Peace, as is apparent by that which is already said, since the beginning of this discourse.  
The same Saint Augustine in the presence of Religian● and Martinianus, his fellow bishops, and Saturninus, Leporius, Barnabas, Fortunatianus, Ructicus, Lazarus, and Eradius 
Augustin 〈◊〉 Epist. 110.  Priests, declaring to the people what pains he had taken many years for them, being greatly occupied, molested, and troubled in their secular affairs, earnestly required of them for Christ's sake, that now in his old age they would be content, that he might commit some part of his secular care, unto one Eradius, a young man, but a virtuous Priest? to which request when the people had yielded, Saint Austin added these words; Ergo fratres, quicquid est quod ad me perferebatur, adillun perferatur, ubi necessariu● babuerit, consilium meum non negabo, auxilium absit, ut subtraham. Therefore brethren, whatsoever was wont to be brought to my hearing, let it henceforth come to him and when he shall have need, I will not deny my counsel God forbid, I should withdraw my help. By which words of this Holy father, it is most apparent to every child, that he was very much encumbered with secular business, both in the foorenoone and in the afternoon; and yet for all that, he durst not wholly withdraw himself: no not with the consent of the people: lest in so doing he should of fend God. And therefore he said; Absit, God forbid. Let the word (absit) be well remembered.  
Saint Epiphanus the Bishop of Salamina, a City of Cyprus, behaved himself so worthily and Christianly, while he was occupied in politic and civil affairs, that is short time he became famous among many Nations.  
Hermias Sozomenus in his Ecclesiastical History, writeth 
Sezom lib. 6.  of the said Father in these words: Nam cum in multit●dine 
cap. 32. Hist. eccles.  hominum, & in urbe ampla, eaque maritima, sacerdote fungeretur, ob praestantiam virtutis, qua etiam negotijs civili●● occupatus usus est, bre●i cum civibus, tum peregrinis cuius●●● nationis notus factus est; illis quidem, ut qui eum coram vidissent, eiusque piae vitae fecissent periculum: his autem, ut qui i●●● idem de eo narramibus fidem adiunxissent.  
For when he executed his priestly function in a most populous and large city, which was an haven town near unto the Sea; in a short space he was famous among all Nations, for his great virtues which he made use of, while he was busied with secular affairs. To the Citizens he became famous, because they knew him familiarly, and had made good trial of his holy life. To the Strangers, in that they believed the constant report of the Citizens. Lo, this ancient writer, holy Father, and learned Doctor, (who lived above one thousand two hundred years ago,) was either a justice of Peace, when he was the Bishop of Cyprus; or else had some other civil office, equivalent to the same.  
Dorotheus a virtuous and learned Priest of Antioch did serve the Emperor in civil affairs. Eusebins Caesariensis writeth of this ancient Priest (who lived more than one thousand three hundred years ago,) in these words; Dorotheum dignitate sacerdotali tum Autiochiae donatum, 
Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 26.  virum sanè disertum cognovimus. Hic in sacris literis exquisitè eruditus fuit; linguae hebraicae diligentèr navavit operam, adeò ut scripturas hebraicas scientèr posset intelligere. Erat honestis ac liberalibus parentibus prognatus, humanioris literaturae neutiquam expers; eunuchus reverànatus, uti illum imperator propter incredibilem eius naturam in suam familiam a sciverit & praefectura purpura tingendae, quae apud Tyrum est, honorificè donarit.  
We know Dorotheus a Priest of Antioch, an eloquent man in deed. He was very skilful in the holy Scriptures; he had profited so in the Hebrew tongue, that he could perfectly understand the Scriptures in Hebrew, he was descended of honest and liberal parents, not unseen in human literature. He was indeed an Ennuch borne, so that the Emperor ravished with his excellent nature, received him into his Court, and gave him an honourable charge to oversee his house, where his purple was died at Tyrus.  
Nicephorus Callistus in his Ecclesiastical History, telleth us of one Philaeas, a famous bishop and blessed 
Nicephor. lib. 7. cap. 9  Martyr; who (as he reporteth,) got great credit for his dexterity in deciding civil causes committed to his charge. But to let others pass, let us hear, what a famous late writer saith: who favoured the presbyterial Discipline, so far forth, as either by learning or safe conscience he could agree thereunto. These are his express words: 
Zanchius de religione, Page 176. Uide suprà cap 4 ex Mus●ulo, & notato. Et infrà cap. 11. ex eodem. & nota valdè resp ad. 2. obuct.  Interim non diffitemur episcopos, qui simul etiam principes sunt praeter authoritatem ecclesiasticam, sua etiam hebere iura politica seculare sque potestates, quemadmodum & reliqui habent principes: ius ●●perands secularia; ius gladij; nonnullos ius eligendi confirmandique reges & imperatores, aliaque politicae constituends & administrandi, subditosque sibi populos ad obedientiam sibi praestandam cogendi. Ac proinde jatemur politicis horum mandatis, quae sine transgressione legis divinae servari possunt, a subditis obtemperandum esse non solum propter timorem, sed etiam propter conscientiam.  
Nevertheless, we do not deny, that Bishops which are also Princes, may besides their authority ecclesiastical, have also political right and secular power, like as other Princes have: right to command secular matters; authority to use the sword; authority to choose and confirm Kings and Emperors, & to constitute and administrate, other civil affairs, as also to compel their subjects to yield obedience to them in that behalf. And therefore we grant, that their subjects must obey their civil commands, which may be kept without offence of God's law: and that not only for fear, but also for conscience sake.  
The same Zanchius in an other place hath these words: Quis autem illis omninò obediendum esse, quo iure, 
Zanch. ubi suprà, Pag. 274.  quaque iniuria principes suerint creates, ex testimonijs a me allao us non videat apertè demonstrari? cur. n. qui subdits sunt Moguntino, Colontensi, Trevirensi, principibus imperij simul & archiepiscopis, in rebus cum pietate christiana non pugnantibus non obtemperent? seditiosorum certè fuerit, non obtemperare. Quodsi istis, cur non etiam Romano ijsdem in rebus & candem ob causam, qui sub eius vivunt imperio? eadem. n. horum omnium est ratio.  
And who cannot see it evidently proved, by the examples which I have alleged, that they must be obeyed undoubtedly, whether they be by right, or no right created Princes. For why shall not subjects obey in things not against Christian piety, the Princes of the Empire being also Archbishops, of Moguntia, Colen, and Trevers? it is doubtless the properietie of seditious persons, not to yield obedience unto them. And if these must be obeyed, why not also the Bishop of Rome, in the same matters and for the same cause, of those that live within his Empire? for there is the like reason of them all. Thus writeth the famous and great learned Doctor Zanchius. Out of whose resolution, I observe these points, for the good of the gentle Reader.  
First, that Ecclesiastical and Civil jurisdiction are compatible, and may both be in one and the same subject at once.  
Secondly, that Bishops which are also Princes, may together with their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, have also secular power, and authority to use the sword, and such like.  
Thirdly, that the people within their dominions and liberties, are bound to obey them.  
Fourthly, that they must obey not only for fear, but even for consciencesake.  
Fiftly, that whosoever shall disobey such Bishops and Archbishops, do show themselves thereby to be seditious fellows. To which I add, that this doctrine of this great learned man, (who was a most zealous professor of Christ's Gospel) doth flatly confound, and even strike dead, pronouncing a sharp vae vobis to all such, as shall obstinately refuse to obey our Bishops and Archbyshops here in England. For whatsoever can be objected against our Bishops, why we shall not obey them: the same may be alleged against those Bishops, of which Zanchius speaketh in this place. Yea our Bishops, are as lawfully created Barons, and do this day as lawfully enjoy their temporal Baronries (for aught I know,) by the free donation of the Kings of this Realm of famous memory, as do the Bishops of Germany. I therefore conclude, from a good foundation surely laid, that Bishops and Archbishops, aswell concerning their names and titles, as their authority, jurisdiction, and superiority over other Ministers, are both lawful, necessary and agreeable to the practice of the Catholic Church in all Ages: and consequently, that none will or can deny the same, but such as are either wholly ignorant, in the ancient Counsels, holy Fathers, and ecclesiastical histories: 
Calvin in harmony. evangel. pag. 263.  or else maliciously bend to speak against their own knowledge, and wittingly and willingly to oppose themselves against the known truth. Yea, Master Calvin granteth freely, that he which is Lord of a Village or City, may exercise the office of teaching.   

CHAP. VII. Of the Church's authority, in things indifferent.  

The first aphorism, of things de facto altered in the Church.  
MAny things being in their own nature indifferent, have been changed in the Church by her authority, as the circumstances of times, places, and persons did require. First, our Lord jesus did celebrate the holy Communion and memorial 
Mat. 26. V. 20. Mar. 14 v. 23. Luc. 22 v. 19 I. cor. TWO 23. exod. 12. 18. numb. 28. 17. luc. 22. 14 mar. 14. 18. mat. 26 v. 20 john. 13. v. 14. 15.  of his sacred passion, in the evening after Supper. Yet the Church's custom this day is and ever was, to celebrate the same in the morning before Dinner. Secondly, Christ did celebrate the same, using unleavened bread therein, but the reformed Churches do this day use leavened bread without offence in so doing. Thirdly, Christ's Apostles received the blessed Eucharist fitting: but the custom of the Church hath ever been, to receive the same kneeling. And they that would seem to have most spiced consciences, will not stick to receive it standing or walking. Fourthly, Christ washed his Apostles feet, willing them to follow his example, and to wash one another's feet. Fiftly, the Apostles made a solemn Decree, 
Act. 15. v. 29.  affirming it to proceed from the holy Ghost, to abstain from blood, & that which is strangled. And yet the church many years ago, have wholly altered that holy ordinance and Apostolical constitution. Sixtly, Saint Paul, after he had willed the Corinthyans', and us in them, to be followers of him, even as he was of Christ, telleth them and us plainly, that every man praying or Prophesing having any thing on his head, dishonoureth his head. And yet at this day, 
Vide infrà, Cap. 14. membro. 7.  smalaccount is made thereof. This point will be made more plain, when I come to speak of the oath Ex officio.   

The second Aphorism, of things not expressed in the Scriptures, and yet decreed by the Church to be observed and kept.  
IN the church of the Hebrews, we read of many approved constitutions, for which there was no warrant in the written word. First, King Solomon appointed a solemn festivity, for the dedication of the Temple, which continued for 
1. Reg. 8. 2. par. 7.  the space of seven whole days. Secondly, Queen Hester and Mordicai appointed the jews to keep a solemn feast, for the remembrance of their happy deliverance from Hamans' cruelty. Thirdly, the Maccabees, judas and his brethren, ordained that the dedication of the Altar should be kept from year to year, by the space of 
Hest. cap. 3. and cap. 9 1. mach. 4. V. ●9.  eight days with mirth and gladness. Fourthly, in the days of Nehemiah the Captain, and of Ezra the Priest, the jews were appointed to keep the dedication of the wall at Jerusalem, with thanksgiving, and with songs, Cymbals, Viols, and haps. Concerning which dedication instituted 
Ez. 616. Ne. he. 12. v. 27.  by judas Machabaeus, Christ himself honoured it with his presence, and master Calvin affordeth it this explication. Ac si diceres, innovationes; quia templum quod pollutum fuerat, 
joan. 10. v. 22 Calvin. in 10 johan.  de integro consecratum fuit auspicijs judae Machabaei; ac tunc institutum fuit ut quotannis festus ac celebris esset dedicationis novae dies, ut dei gratiam quae finem Antiochi tyrannidi imposuerat, memoria repeterent. Tunc autem in templo Christus promo●e apparuit, ut in frequenti hominum conventu uberior esset praedicationis suae fructus▪ As if thou shouldest say, innovations; because the Temple which had been polluted, was consecrated a fresh by judas Machabaeus his authority, & then was it ordained, that there should be yearly a feast and a solemn day of the new dedication that they might remember God's grace and mercy, which had made an end of Antiochus his tyranny. At which time, Christ was present after his manner in the Temple, that in so great a concourse of people, his Preaching might have the better effect. Yea, master Calvin granteth that the jews instituted their Sanhedrim after 
Calvin sup. 18 mat.  their return from Captivity.  
This liberty the Church hath this day, as may appear by the freedom in altering the Saboth-day. For, as I have 
In my survey  proved at large, by the testimony not only of the ancient Fathers, but also of the best approved late writers, Philippus Melanction, Erasmus Roterodamus, johannes Calvinus, Petrus 
Vide infrà, cap. 10. ex Bucero.  Martyr, Pellicanus, Bullingerus, and Vrsinus, in my book of Survey; though it be constant & perpetual, to have one day in the week assigned for divine service, that being the moral part of the Sabaoth and unalterable; yet, whether this or that day ought to be appointed for that purpose, it is a thing that respects the time, and may be changed by the church. If any shall hold the contrary doctrine, he must perforce fall into flat judaism, & tie himself to the observance of days, months & years, against the Apostolic doctrine For to be tied of necessity to the time, is a flat jewish 
Gal. 4. v. 10.  superstition, & intrinsically ceremonial; as all the aforenamed learned men: do & will testify with me. yet I neither wish, nor deem it a thing convenient, to change the Lords day or Sabbath.   

The third aphorism of the rules which the Church must observe, in all her constitutions, ordinances, and decrees.  
THe first rule, which the Church must observe in her laws, decrees, & constitutions, is this; viz. That she prohibit nothing which God commandeth, neither command 
Regula.  any thing, which God prohibiteth. Ye shall 
Prima.  put nothing to the word which I command 
Deut. 4 2.  you, neither shall ye take aught therefrom. Take heed therefore, 
Deut. 5. 32.  that ye do as the Lord your God hath commanded you: turn not aside to the right hand, nor to the left. Let not this book of the law depart out of thy mouth, but meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe and 
jos. 1. 8.  do according to all that is written therein.  
The second rule is this; that the decrees and constitutions of the Church, be not made a part of God's worship, 
Regula. Secunda. Mat. 15. 9 Coloss. 2. V. 23.  nor holden as necessary unto salvation. For as our Saviour saith, they worship him in vain, who teach for Doctrines, the precepts of men. And therefore doth the Apostle condemn Ethelothrescêian all voluntary worship devised by man.  
The third rule is this; that the decrees and constitutions 
Regulatertia.  of the Church, be only made of things indifferent, and for one of these three ends; viz. either for edification, or for decency and comeliness, or for order sake, and peaceable government of the Church. Of these ends speaketh the Apostle, where he willeth all things to be done unto edifying, and to be done decently, and orderly. These three Aphorisms 
1. Cor. 14. v. 26. 40.  seriously observed, & duly pondered, all Ceremonies, Ordinances, Decrees, and Constitutions of our English Church, will find ready and sufficient approbation.   

The Demonstration.  
The corollary and illation deduced out of the precedent Aphorisms may be made clear and evident, by three invincible and irrefragable reasons. Whereof the first is taken, from the authority of the holy Scriptures; the second, from the practice of the Catholic Church. The third, from the uniform consent of best approved late Writers.   

The 1. reason drawn from the holy Scriptures.  
HOly Writ teacheth us, that the Church De facto hath 
Vide infrà, cap 14 membro, 2. in resp. ad 2 object. ex Zuinglio.  altered many things, which Christ himself did both institute, and put in practice. That the Church ordained and Decreed many things, whereof the Scripture maketh no mention. And that the Church may make decrees, Laws, ordinances, and constitutions, in all things Adiaphorois which are of their own nature indifferent; so the same tend to edification, comeliness, or peaceable government of the Church. This reason is proved, throughout, all the 
Vide infrà, ca 9 ex Calvino & Beza  precedent Aphorisms. And it will be more plain, when I come to speak of the election of ministers.   

The 2. reason, drawn from the practice of the ancient Church.  
IF the gentle Reader shall call to mind, what I have in this discourse already set down, out of the Decrees of 
Supra, cap. 4: 5. &. 6.  the ancient and holy Counsels; out of the holy Fathers, and best approved late Writers; he cannot rest doubtful, or stagger any longer in this behalf. Saint Austen writeth so gravely and so copiously of this matter, in many of his books extant in the world; as he is well able to satisfy every one, that will be persuaded with reason. In his Epistle to januarius, (to omit all other his manifold testimonies,) he telleth us, that that Catholic Church by her freedom and authority, hath instituted certain solemn feasts, of the passion, resurrection, ascension of Christ, 
Aug. in epist. ad januar. epist. 118. vide Calu. lib. 4. instit. cap. 10. §. 19  and descending of the holy Ghost, to be yearly observed throughout the Christian world. He addeth these most golden words; Nec disciplina ulla est in his melior gravi prudentique christiano, quam ut eo modo agat quo agere viderit ecclosiam ad quamcunque fortè devenerit. Quod. n. neque contra fidem, neque contra bonos mores iniungitur, indifferentèr est habendum et pro eorum inter quos vivitur societate servandum est.  
Neither can there be any better discipline in these matters for a grave and discrete christan, then to do so as he shall see that Church do, to which he hath occasion to come. For, that which is neither against faith, nor against good manners, may be indifferently observed for their society, amongst whom we do converse. In the same Epistle the same holy Father telleth us Saint Ambrose his judgement, 
August ubisuprà.  concerning the variety of fasting. These are his words; Come Roman venio, ieiuno sabbato, cum hic sum, non ieiuno: sic etiam tu, ad quam sortè ecclesiam veneris, eius morem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse scandalo, nec quenquam tibi. When I 
Vide suprà cap. 5. §. 2. ex zanchio, & nota valdè.  come to Rome (saith Saint Ambrose,) I fast on Saturday; when I am here at Milan, I do not fast. Even so must you do, when you come to any other Church, you must do after the manner of that Church, if you will neither scandalise others, nor have others to scandalise you. here is a most golden rule, how to behave ourselves in things indifferent. viz, to conform ourselves to the time, place, and persons, when, where, and with whom we do converse. If our brethren would seriously ponder, and duly weigh this golden advise of this holy Father, they would abandon all contention doubtless, about the sign of the Cross, the Surplice, and such like indifferent things; and for that duty which they owe unto the magistrate, whom they are bound to obey in all lawful things, even for conscience sake; they would conform themselves to his laws and 
Rom. 13.  their brethren, and not to scandalise the whole Church as they do.  
To this grave testimony of Saint Austen and Saint Ambrose, it shall suffice for the second reason, to add this memorable observation, viz. that our brethren, who labour so busily to enforce us violently, to receive their new discipline; are not able to make demonstration to us, either out of the Scriptures, or general Counsels, or the holy fathers, 
Vide Calvin. & nota val d. lib. 4. instit cap 2. §. 11.  or ecclesiastical histories; that any Church in the Christian world, from two hundred years before the famous Council of Nice, until master Calvin's days that is, for the space of a thousand four hundred years together to say nothing of former times, had either the same new 
2. Tim. 1. Vers. 6. vide Calvin. lib. 4. instit. cap. 3. §. 16.  discipline in practice, or any pastors made after their manner. Which if it cannot be done, they will (I doubt not) after mature delibration had therein, confess willingly and truly at least in their hearts; that in this Church of England, there is this day a lawful ministery, consisting of lawful Ministers and Bishops, according to the practice of the Church in all ages.   

The third reason, drawn from the uniform consent of best approved late writers.  
Master Calvin hath a very large and learned discourse 
Calu. libr. 4. instit. cap. 10. 5. 30. vide. Zanchium in compend. ipsissima. n. habet verba. pag. 641.  of this question, some part whereof shall suffice at this present. These are his words. Quia autem in externa disciplina & ceremonijs, non valuit sigillatim praescribere quid sequi debeamus, quod illud pendere a temporum conditione provideret, ne que iudicaret unam seculis omnibus formam convenire, confugere hic oportet ad generales quas dedit regulas, ut ad ea● exigantur quaecunque ad ordinem & decorum praecipi necessitas ecclefiae postulabit, Postremò quia ideo Nihil expressun trae● didit, quianec ad salutem haec necessaria sunt, en prc moribus uniuscuiusque gentis ac seculi vary accommodari debent ad ecclesiae aedificationem, prout ecclesiae utilit as requiret, tam usitatas mutare & abrogare, quam novas instituere conveniet, Fateor equidem, non temerè, nec subinae, nec levibus de causis, ad novationem esse decurrendum. Sed quid ●oceat vel aedificet, charit as optimè judicabit, quam si moderatricem esse patiemur, salva erunt omnia.  
But because in external discipline and ceremonies, he would not particularly prescribe what we ought to follow, 
Notato cap. 10. ex Bucero Zuinglie, Hemingio, nota valde.  because he foresaw that this depended upon the state and condition of the time, and did not deem one manner to be agreeable to all ages; here we must have recourse to his general rules given us, and make trial by them of what things soever, the necessrie of the Church shall require for order and comeliness. Lastly, because he therefore delivered nothing expressly, for that they are not necessary to salvation, but must be applied diversly to the benefit of the Church, as the manners of every nation do require, it shall therefore be convenient, as well to change and abolish the old ceremonies, as to institute new, as the good of the Church shall require. I confess freely that we must not use innovation, neither rashly, nor often, nor upon light occasions. But what shall be hurtful or profitable, charity shall best discern; which if we shall suffer to rule us, every thing shall be well.  
The same author in an other place, hath these words; 
Calvin. in. 1. cor. 11. v. 2.  Ego autem non nego, quin aliquae fuerint apostolorum traditiones non scriptae; sednon concedo fuisse doctrinae parts, nec de rebus ad salutem necessarijs. Quidigitur? quae pertinerent ad ordinem 
Vide infrà, cap. 10. per totum. & cap 14. ex Hieron. notetur loeus in membro. 4.  & poluiam. Scimus. n. unicuique ecclesiae liberum esse, politiae formam instituere sibi aptam & utilem quae dominus nihil certipraescripserit.  
But I deny not, that the Apostles delivered some traditions, which are not written. Yet I do not grant, that they were either parts of doctrine, or necessary to salvation What were they then? doubtless, such as pertained to policy and order For we know, that every Church hath her freedom and liberty, to institute and ordain such a kind of policy (& discipline) as shall be thought meet & profitable for the same; because our Lord prescribed no certain rule therein.  
The same author in an other place, hath these words; Altos 
Calvin in ar● gum ad gall.  omnes ritus illic non usitatos, non tantùm restuebant sed andactèr etiam damnabant. Talis morosit as deterrima est pestis, quum morem ecclesiae unius volumus prouniusrsali lege valere.  
They did not only refuse all other ceremonies not used 
Vide infr● cap. 9 & nota vaidè,  in that place, but did also malepertly condemn them. Such Morosity is a most noisome plague; when we will make the manner and discipline of one only Church, to be a general rule for all. Thus writeth this learned Doctor. Out of whose words I may truly gather so much, as will evidently make good the question I have in hand.  
For First, he telleth us plainly, that the holy Apostle did not set down any certain rule or law, concerning things indifferent.  
Secondly, that he lest that freedom and liberty to the Church, and that for this end and purpose; because forsooth; he foresaw in his wisdom, that such things depended upon the condition of times: and that one manner of discipline, was not convenient to all places and persons. Thirdly, that every Church may either change her old ceremonies, or institute new, as the necessity of the Church requireth. Fourthly, that charity is the best rule to follow herein: and that every thing is lawful, which is agreeable to the same. Which rule S. Augustine appointed before him, as I have proved already. Fiftly, that the Church hath received many unwritten traditions, concerning the discipline, order, and government of the Church. Sixtly, that it is free and lawful for every Church, to appoint, ordain and constitute, that kind of policy, discipline, & government, which is most sit & profitable for the same. And the reason hereof is yielded to be this; because our Lord jesus hath prescribed no settled law therein, but hath left all indifferent things to the liberty of his Church. Seventhly, that there can no greater plague come to the Church, then to tie all Churches to one kind of external government. Zanchius teacheth the self same doctrine, even in 
Zanch. ubi suprà.  the same words.  
Petrus Martyr, after he hath distributed traditions into three orders, showing one kind to be expressed in the Scriptures: an other plain repugnant to the same; the third neither contrary to the word of GOD, neither necessarily affixed unto it: addeth these express words: 
Martyr in 1. Cor. 1. 10.   
Sunt nonnullae traditiones, quas neutras appellare libuit, quod verbo deinec adversentur, nec illinecessariò cohaereant, inquibus mos ecclesiae gerendus est, tribus interposit is cautionibus. Primùm videndum est, ne obtrudantur, quasidei cultus & deculiar is quaedam sanctimonia; quandcquidem potius recipiendae sunt adordinum conservandum, & civilem ecclesiae commoditatem, 
Vide infrà, cap. 14. membr 2. & 3. per totum.  atque sacrarum actionum decorum: alioquin in sacris literis luculentèr habemus descripta, quaead sanctitatem & cullum dei conducunt Praeterea cavere oportet, ne quaesic traduntur, it a putemus necessaria, ut pro tempore amoveri non possint, Servetur ecclesiae suum ius de his medijs, ut quoadilla statuat, quicquid viderit magis adificationem credentium promovere. Consideretur demùm, saepiùs nimijs traditionibus & ceremonijs in immensum auct is populum Christi sic gravari, ut tantum non obruatur.  
There be some traditions, which may be termed ventrall or indifferent, for that they neither are against God's word, neither do they necessarily cohere with it. In which ceremonies, the Church's constitution must be obeyed, if three cautions do concur. First, that they be not obtruded, as God's worship, or peculiar holiness; but as pertaining to order and the civil commodity of the Church, and to comeliness in divine actions: otherwise all things are sufficiently comprised in the holy Scriptures, which pertain to holiness and god's worship. Secondly, we must beware, that they be not reputed so necessary, that they cannot be changed, as the time requireth. Let the Church keep her interest and liberty in these indifferent things, to appoint what shall be thought most necessary to the edifying of the faithful. Lastly, let it be well remembered, that the multitude of Ceremonies doth often so annoy the people, that they are almost undone therewith.  
M. Beza, hath these words: Quoniam multitudo plerumque & impirita est, & intractabilis, & maior pars saepè meliorem 
Beza, in conses. cap. 5. Art. 35.  vincit, ne in democratia quidem leguimè constituta omnia permissa sunt ●ffraeni vulgo; sed constituti sunt ex populi consensu certi magistratus, qui plebi prae●ant, & inconditam multitudinem regant. Quod sihaec prudentia in negotij● humanis requiritur, multò sanè magis opus est certa moderatione in iis rebus, in quibus homines prorsus caecutiunt, neque causa est, cur quisquam sani iudi●ij homo clamitet, nullum hic esse prudentiae locum, nisi hanc prudentiam de qua loquor, ostendat cum deiverbo pugnare, quod sanè non arbitror. Neque. n. simplicitèr spectandum quid sit ab Apostolis factum in politia ecclesiastica, quum diversissimae sint circumstantiae, ac proinde absque Cacozelia non possint omnia omnibus locis ac temporibus ad unam candenque formam revocari: sed potius spectandus est eorum finis & scopus invariabilis, & ea deligenda forma ac ratio rerum agendarum, quae rectè eò àeducat.  
Because the multitude is for the most part ignorant and intractable, and the greater part doth often times prevail against the better; all things are not even in a popular state lawfully appointed, committed to the unbridled multitude, but certain Magistrates are appointed by the people's consent, to guide, rule, and govern them. If this wisdom be required in worldly affairs, much more is a moderation to be had in those matters: in which men are altogether blinded. Neither is there any cause, why any man of sound judgement shall exclaim, that in such matters, there is no place for policy; except he can show this policy whereof I speak, to be repugnant to the word of GOD, which I am persuaded he can never do. For we must not simply look, what the Apostles did in ecclesiastical policy and Church-government, seeing there is so great variety of circumstances, that a man cannot without preposterous zeal, reduce all things in all places and times to one 
Vide Bezam, cap. 5. Art. 17.  and the same form in doing things, which leadeth the right way to the same. Thus writeth Master Beza, who hath many like periods to the like effect, which I omit in regard of brevity.  
Out of these words, I note first, that the Church is not so strictly bound to the practice of the Apostles, that she must always follow the same in these Adiaphorôis Secondly, that the Church in things indifferent, hath 
The authority of the Church is very great.  power to make any Laws, which are not repugnant to the word of God. Which point I would have the Reader to ponder seriously, because it is very emphatical and of great moment. Thirdly, that all Churches cannot have one and and the same kind of government, because the circumstances of times, places, and persons, will not suffer it. Fourthly, that the Church in all the laws and constitutions, must chiefly respect the peaceable government of the people.  
Hieronymus Zanchius is consonant to the other Doctors, while he writeth in this manner: De ritibus & ceremonijs in 
Zanch. de relig. Pag. 183.  ecclesia servandis, eadem pietas & eccle siarum aedificatio flagitat; ne nimis acritér, quasi pro aris & focis, ut dici solet, sit aimicati●, disceptetur, sed singulis ecclesijs l●beri relinquantur; quemadmodum ettam in veteri ecclesia factum fuisse, apud Socratem & alios ecclesiasticos scriptore● legimus. Quibus ae rebus in genere, probamus atque amplectimur utramque epistolam Augustini ad januarium. Haec. n. faciunt ad ecclesiae aedificationem.  
Touching Rites and Ceremonies to be observed in the Church, the same piety and edifying of the Church requireth, that we contend not too biterly, as if it were for matters of great moment: but that every Church have her liberty therein, as we read in Socrates and other ecclesiastical writers, that it was the old custom of the Church. Of which things in general, we allow and embrace both the Epistles which Austin wrote to januarius. For these things tend to the edification of the Church.  
The same Zanchius in an other place, hath these words: 
Zanch. de religi Pag. 169.  Interea tamen non improbamus patres, quodiuxta variam tum verbi dispensandi, tum regendae ecclesiae rationem varios quoque ordines ministrorum multiplicaverint; quando id eis liberum fuit, 
Vide eundem Zanchium in compend. Pag. 641. & pag. 636.  sicut & nobi●, & quando constat, id ab illis fuisse factum honestis de causis, ad ordinem ad decorum, & ad aedificationem ecclesiae, pro eo tempore pertinentibus.  
In the mean while we blame not the Fathers, that for the divers manner of dispensing the word and governing the Church, they have also multiplied divers orders of Ministers; because they had liberty so to do, as ourselves also have: and because it is evident, that they did that upon honest causes, which pertained at that time, to order comeliness, and edification of the Church. Thus writeth the most learned Doctor, Master Zanchius; who (if I be judge,) was a man of as rare learning and profound judgement, as ever was any in the Church. Out of whose words I of serve; First, that we should not move contention in the Church, for any rites and Ceremonies in the same. Secondly, that every Church hath her liberty therein, to appoint what is best for her own government. Thirdly, that the Church of old time, did use so to do. Fourthly, that Zanchius approveth S. Augustine's rule herein, as M. Calvin did before him. Fiftly, that it was lawful for the ancient Church to appoint sundry orders of ministers; and the church this day hath the same authority. Sixtly, that the causes and respects, for which the church may ordain and make laws in things indifferent, are either edification, order, or decency; as I have proved already at large.   

The Corollary of the Chapter.  
FIrst, the church may change Christ's own practice, and that in Rites and ceremonies pertaining to the holy Sacraments. Secondly, the church may appoint solemn feasts to be observed: as Solomon did institute the dedication of the Temple for seven days; Hester & Mordecai, 
Calvin. in 18. mat. notetur.  the festivity of their deliverance: Ezra and Nehemias, the dedication of the wall at jerusalem: judas and his brethren, the dedication of the Altar for eight days. Thirdly, the jews instituted their Sanhedrim, after their return from their captivity in Babylon. Fourthly, the church by S. Augustine's judgement may make any Laws, which are neither against faith nor good manners. Fiftly, the church (saith Master Calvin,) hath authority left her in things indifferent, either to make new laws, or to cassiere and change the old; so often as the necessity of the church doth so require. Sixtly, the church received many unwritten traditions, concerning order and government of the 
Calvin. in 1. cor. 11.  Church. Seventhly, the church, saith Zanchius, hath authority to constitute more orders of Ministers, when it is for the good of the Church. Eightly, the church may make any laws, which are not repugnant to God's word. So saith M. Beza, telling us plainly, that we must not so much respect what the Apostles did, as what the peace and good of the church requireth. Much other like matter, the same Beza, together with Calvin, Martyr, and Zanchius, have delivered unto us: as may appear by this present Chapter. I therefore conclude, that the authority, which this our our English church doth this day challenge unto her, in her ri●es, ceremonies, ordinances, laws, and constitutions, is grounded upon the holy Scriptures, the practice of the Catholic Church, and the best approved late writers. All objections, that possibly can be made against the laws and constitutions of our English Church, may be answered with all facility, by that which is plainly delivered in this 
Uide infra, cap 9  present Chapter, whosoever shall mark it well, will (I think,) be of mine opinion, see the ninth Chapter, and mark it.    

CHAP. VIII. Of things indifferent in particular.  

The first Aphorism, of Chruch-holy days.  
THe vulgar people for a great part, what through undiscreet zeal in some, and too-too rash preaching (Ne quid gramu● d●●a) in othersome, are so persuaded, or rather bewitched & blinded; that they 
Uide infra, cap. 14. membr. 7.  think they serve God better, (alas for pity) if they be quaffing in the Alehouse, or sleeping in their chambers, or gazing in the streets; then do their honest neighbours, in going to the church on holy days, there to join with the faithful in hearing divine service and godly prayers. They are not abashed to say for their unchristian excuse; that no power upon earth can appoint an holiday, and that it is great superstition to observe the same. But certes, none that are well studied or read, either in the holy ecclesiastical histories, or in general Counsels, or in the ancient Fathers, or in the best approved late writers, can ever without great blushing, avouch or defend that untimely hatched doctrine, and unsoundly conceived opinion.  
Queen Hester and godly Mordecai, appointed an holy 
Hest. 3. & 9  day; for the remembrance of God's great benefit toward them, in delivering them from Hamans' cruelty.  
King Solomon ordained a solemn festivity, for the space 
1. reg. 8. 2. par 7. 1. math. 4. see Chap 7. Aphor. 2.  of seven days: in the dedication of the Temple.  
The Maccabees instituted an holy feast, to be kept from year to year, for the space of eight days; for the dededication of the Altar. Which feast Christ vouchsafed to honour, with his corporal presence at Jerusalem.  
The jews instituted their new Sanhedrim Synedrion, or 
Calvin in 18. cap. mat. sect. 16. in confess. Helvet. Pag. 174.  Presbytery, after their return from their captimitie in Babylon, as master Calvin recordeth, in his Harmony upon Saint Matthew.  
The reformed churches in Helvetia, do right well allow the feasts or holy days: of the Nativity, resurrection, and such like.  
If I should endeavour myself to recount all that, which may easily be collected out of the ancient counsels, & the holy-fathers', for the approbation & allowance of holidays, after the custom at this day, & of ancient time used in this church of England: time would sooner fail me, than matter whereof to speak. I will in regard to brevity, content myself only with one or two testimonies of counsels, as also of the grave, holy, ancient, & most learned father, S. Austin: & then proceed to the testimony of late writers, because in this dispute, they whom it chiefly concerneth, either have not seen or read the counsels and the fathers, or else more rashly then wisely, contemn their degrees & judgements, and without all rhyme & reason prefer their own opinions before them. The council holden at Granado, or Elebertine, above 1200. years ago, (such is the antiquity of 
A. D. 325.  holidays in the Christian Church,) reputed the practice of the Church in former ages, to be of such force in that behalf; that they deemed them Heretics, that would not obediently yield unto the same. These are the express words of the Elebertine Council: Pravam institutionem emendari placuit, juxta authoritatem scripturarum; ut cuncti diem 
Concil. Elebert. can. 43.  Pentecostes celebremus. Quod qui non fecerit, quasi novam haresim induxisse notetur.  
We have decreed, that the depraved institution be amended, according to the Scriptures: that we may all keep the day of Penticost, (and the feast of Whitsonday.) Which who soever shall refuse to do; let him be noted as one that hath brought a new heresy into the Church. Thus writeth this holy Council, which for antiquity sake ought to be reverenced, seeing Popery long after that time had no footing in the Church. And yet (as we see by their Decrees) he was in those days to be holden for an heretic; that would appose himself against the Holidays, then observed by the Laws and ordinances of the Church. For, no Scripture prescribeth unto Christians, the observation of Pentecost, which we call Whitsuntide. For though the holy and ancient Council, speak of amending according to the Scriptures; yet is it not that Counsels meaning that the Scripture appointeth that festivity to be observed in the Christian Church: but that it is therefore according to the Scripture, because the Scripture in general terms, hath given authority to the Church, to make Laws in all such indifferent things. Let this point never be forgotten.  
The Council of Arles, of Antioch, and many others, 
Cone. Arel. Can. 1.  have made the like decrees.  
Saint Austin (whom for virtue, antiquity, and learning, 
Co Antioch. Dan. 1.  the whole world hath reverenced,) hath written so plainly and so effectually, for the Church's authority in making 
Vide Calvin. de. Aug. lib. 4 Instuit. cap 15. in fine.  Laws for Holidays; that his Epistles to januarius, may suffice all such, as can read them, and will be satisfied with reason. His words are already alleged, in the seventh Chapter, and third Aphorism. To which I am content for the better satisfaction of the Reader, to add the same holy Father's words elsewhere. Writing purposely of keeping holy days against Adimantus a Manichee, he hath these express words; Nam nos quoque & dominicum diem & pascha solennitèr celebramus, & quastibet alias 
August. contra Adimant. cap. 16. tom. 6  christianas dierum festivitates. Sea quia intelligimus quò pertineant, non tempora observamus, sed quae illis significantur temporibus. Haec anglicè redduntur postea.  
The same holy father in another place, hath these words; 
Aug. in prefat in epist. johannis. tom. 9  Meminit sanctitas vestra, evangelium secundum johannem ex ordine lectionum nos so●ere tractare. Sed quia nunc interposita est solennit as sanctorum dierum, quibus certas ex evangelio lectiones oportet in ecclesia recitars, quae ita sunt annuae ut aliae esse non possint; ordo ille quem susceperamus, necessitate paululum intermissus est non omissus.  
Your holiness remembreth, that we were wont to entreat upon the Gospel of S. john, according to the order of the lessons. But because at this time there is interposed the solemnity of Saint-days, upon which days certain lessons taken out of the Gospel must be read, which are so yearly done, that they cannot be changed; that order which we had taken in hand, is through necessity somewhat intermitted, but not omitted. For we also do solemnly 
Hac pracedunt latinè.  celebrate, both the Lords day, and Easter, and all other festival days of Christians. But because we understand, to what end they are referred, we do not observe times, but the things signified by the times.  
Out of these words, I observe first, that in S. Austin's time, the Church observed & kept many festival or Saints days. Secondly, that the Church did allot special portions and parts of the holy Scripture, to be read upon those Saints days. Thirdly, that the Church observed those days for signification; which is a point of great moment, 
Vide Aug. de civit. lib. 10. cap. 4.  and therefore aught to be well remembered.  
Mathias Flacius Illyricus, after he hath distributed the observation of times into four orders; natural, civil, ecclesiastical, and superstitious, he addeth these words; Ecclesiastica, 
Illyricus in. 4. cap. ad gall.  quae etiam decoro & bono ordini servit; quò facit quoque dies dominica, & tempora precipuarum historiarum, aut factorum Christi quae prosunt ad aedificationem rudium; ut rectiùs meminerint, quando sit dominus natus, passus, & quando in coelum ascenderit ae de singulis illis historijs suo tempore tanto commodius instituantur, quod valdè rudium memoriae prodest.  
The ecclesiastical is that, which served for comeliness and good order; as is also the Lords day, and other feasts, wherein we celebrate the memory of the chief histories 
Vide infra, cap. 14. membro. 2. per. totum.  or Acts of Christ, which be profitable for the instruction of the simple; that they may the better remember, when the Lord was borne, when he suffered, and when he ascended up into heaven, and be more fitly taught in due time, concerning every several history pertaining thereunto. In which place, the same learned Writer affirmeth, that observation only to be superstitious; when we put a necessity, worship, merit, or righteousness, in the observing of time.  
Out of these words I observe first, that the keeping of Saints-days in the Church, serveth for order and comeliness in the government of the Church. Secondly, that the observation of Saint-days, is very profitable for the instruction of the simple people. Which doctrine is agreeable to that, which Saint Austen delivered afore Illyricus was borne. Thirdly, that seeing we put neither necessity, nor worship, nor merit, nor righteousness, in the observation of holy days, our keeping of them, can no way be superstitious.  
The reformed Churches in Germany, in their Articles 
Confes. Augartic. 15. pag 6. In apolog. pag. 192.  which they exhibited to the Emperor, do allow the festivities of Saints and other holy days. And the famous Doctor Philippus Melanthon, in his Apology of the said Articles, hath these words. Item, ut ordo & politia ecclesiae doceat impersios, quid quo tempore gestum sit, hinc sunt feriae natalis paschatis: pentecostes, & similes, hoc est, quod Epiphanius ait, politiae causa institutas esse traditiones viz. ordinis causa, & ut ordo ul● aamoneat homines de historia, & beneficijs Christi. As also that order and policy in the Church may teach the ignorant, what things were done, and at what time: hence come holy days of the nativity, Easter, Pentecost, and the l●ke. Which is it, that Epiphanius saith; that traditions were ordained for policy sake, viz. for to keep order in the Church, and that that order might admonish the people, of the history and benefits of Christ. Behold here, how all Writers agree one with another: affirming uniformly, that holy days are lawfully ordained and kept in the Church: and that for signification sake, and instruction of the people. 
Bulling. de precept 4. dec. 2 serm. 4. & in epist. adrom. cap. 14.   
Master Budinger a famous Preacher of the Church of Tigwie, holdeth the self same opinion, both in his Decades, and in his commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans. Where he alloweth the keeping of the holy days and festivities, of the nativity, circumcision, and ascension; the feasts of the Virgin Marie, john Baptist, and many others.  
Master Zanchius is consonant to the former Writers, 
Zanch de relig. pag 182.  delivering his opinion in these words: Post diem domini●um non possum non probare illorum quoque dierum sanctifi●aitonem quibus momoria recurrit, celebrataque in veteri ecclesia fuit nativitatis D. N. I. C. circumcisionis, passionis, resurrectionis, ascentionis in coelum missionis speritus sancti in apostolos. Reliqui diebus prout quaeque ecclesia expedire indicaverit, sic etiam sacrum caetum convocet ad verbum, ad sacramenia, ad preces, ad collectas. Semper vero absit, omnis dierum superstitiosa observatio.  
Next after the Lord's day, I cannot but like and allow the sanctification of those days also, in which the ancient Church did celebrate the memory, of the nativity of our Lord jesus Christ, of the circumcision, passion, resurrection, ascension, and the coming down of the holy Ghost upon the Apostles. Upon all other days, as every Church shall think it expedient, so let them call together the congregation, to Sermons, Sacraments, prayers, and collections. But ever all superstitious observation, must be quite laid away.  
Out of these words of this zealous Christian, and most learned Father, (whose authority, if I had nothing else to say, would weigh deeply with mine own conscience,) I note first, that Zanchius doth highly reverence the constitution of the Church, concerning holidays. Secondly, that every Church hath free liberty to appoint such holidays, as are most convenient for themselves. Thirdly, that no 
Calvin. in. 4. cap. ad gall. in 2. cap. ad colos. inst. lib. 2. cap. 8. s. 34.  such constitution of days is unlawful, but that only which tendeth to superstition. And master Calvin himself agreeth unto Zanchius, in many places of his works.   

The second Aphorism, of kneeling at the holy Communion.  
THeir opinion, who hold it unlawful to receive the holy Communion, kneeling on their knees; seemeth to me so ridiculous, senseless, and void of all Christian modesty; that I deem it needless, to use many words for the confutation thereof. King Solomon the wisest King that 
3. Reg. 4. v. 29. 2. par. 6. Vers. 13. 1. reg, 8. v. 54. 2. par. 6. v. 13.  ever lived in the world, used to kneel upon his knees, and to stretch out his hands, when he offered up his prayers unto God. For thus saith holy Writ of him, in that behalf; When Solomon had made an end of praying all his prayer and supplication unto the Lord, he arose from before the Altar of the Lord, from kneeling on his knees, and stretching of his hands to heaven.  
Ezra when he prayed to the Lord, confessed his sins 
Ezra 9 10 V. 1. cap 9 v 5. dan 6. 10. mat. 26. v. 29. mar. 14. 32. luc. 22 41. act. 9 40 act. 20. v. 36. Act. 7. v. 60. ephes. 3. 14.  with tears, and feldown before the house of God, and prayed to God, upon his knees, and Daniel prayed upon his knees three times a day. Christ our saviour himself fell down on his face, when he prayed to his father. And Saint Luke saith, that when he was drawn aside from his Disciples, he kneeled down, and prayed. S. Peter prayed kneeling, after the example of Christ his Lord and master.  
Saint Steven, when the cursed jews gnashed their teeth against him, and ran violently upon him, and stoned him to death, fell to his prayers, and kneeled upon his knees. And Saint Paul bowed his knees unto God, when he prayed for the people, These testimonies drawn from the holy Scriptures, and from the very practice of Christ himself, and his faithful servants, were able to satisfy every well disposed mind; nevertheless, to take away all contention and wrangling, if it may be had and obtained of the adverse part; I am content to allege Master Calvin's opinion, whose authority with them may not be gainsaid or withstood. These are his express words; Hic testarioperae 
Calvin. lib. 4. instit. cap. 10. §. 30. See the seventh chapter pertotum.  praetium est, eas demum humanas constitutiones me probare, quae & dei authoritate sundatae & ex scriptura desumptae, adeoque prorsus divinae sint. Exemplum sit in geniculatione, quae fit dum solennes habentur precationes, quaeritur sitne humana traditio, quam repudiare vel negligere cuivis liceat. Dico sic esse humana, ut simul sit divina: a●i est quatenus pars est decori illius cuius cura & observatio nobis per apostolum commendatur; hominum 
1. Cor. 14. Verse 40.  autem, quitenus specialitèr designat, quod in genere fuerat iudicatum magis quam expositum.  
Here it is worth the labour to testify, that I do allow & approve those constitutions of men, which are derived from 
Vide infra, cap 14. memb. 2. per totum membr. 3. &. 7. & nota.  God's authority and the holy Scripture, and so are altogether become divine. Let us take example in kneeling, which is done in time of solemn prayers. The question is, if it be such a tradition of man, as every one may refuse and contemn the same, as he list. I answer, that it is so the tradition of man, as it is elso a tradition of God. It is of God, as it is a part of that comeliness, the care & conservation whereof is commended to us by the Apostle. But it is of man, in respect that it designeth out in specialty, that was generally insinuated, rather than expounded. Thus writeth M. Calvin, out of whose words I observe these golden Lessons. First, that all constitutions are divine, which are deduced and gathered out of the Scriptures. Secondly, that every ordinance of the Church, which pertaineth to comeliness, is a constitution divine. And consequently, that every Ceremony approved this day in the Church of England, is a divine tradition; and therefore must every one reverently & obediently receive 
Note well hi● doctrine.  the same, as the ordinance of Almighty God. If this doctrine of M. Calvins' were deeply in printed in every English subjects he●●●, there would not one English subject be so ●nd in the ●and, who would kick, sp●●●e, or once in utter, against the least ceremony in the English Church. For every child seeth; that by M. Calvins' doctrine every Ceremony pertaining to comeliness, Est de iure di●●●o, grounded upon the general rule of God's law. And consequently, he that will deny any ceremony in the English Church, 
A general groun●●er all our English ceremonies. out of M. Calvins' doctrine.  to be divine and not approved by God's word▪ must prove out of God's word which he will never do,) that the ceremony doth no way pertain to comeliness in the church. For, no wise man can think, that that is rather to be accounted comely or uncomely which a few younglings of late days have esteemed so; than that which was ever reputed so throughout the Christian world, of all learned men generally for 1000 years together. Nay, for one thousand four hundred years: that is, from S. Mark the Evangelist, until a thousand and some hundred years were expired, and if no one learned writer can be sound, for the space of so many hundred years, that will avouch any one Ceremony in the Church of England this day used, as kneeling, the sign of the Cross, the Surplice, and such like, to be an uncomely Ceremony; then doubtless, such ceremonies by Master Calvins' doctrine, are grounded upon God's word, and must be obeyed, & received accordingly. I wish the Reader to mark these words of Master Calvin: Dei est, quatenus pars est decori: It is of God, as it is a part of comeliness. I wish I say, the Reader to mark them well: because they are of great importance, and do prove them ●tter in controversy most evidently. To which former words of M. Calvin, let us now add the words, which follow immediately in the same place. Thus doth he write: Ab hoc uno ex●mplo estimar● licet quid de toto hoc ge● near sit sentiendum, By this one example (of kneeling,) we 
Calvin. lib 4 instit cap. 10. § 30.  may easily judge, what is to be thought of all other ceremonies. Lo, thus the case standeth; this ceremony the church hath ordained, judging it to pertain to comeliness: Ergo, it is of God. No answer can be made, or denial to use the some ceremonies: unless the party so refusing can prove 
Vide infra, cap. 14 & notato valde per totum.  for his excuse, that such a ceremony pertaineth not to comeliness, which can never be proved till the world's end. For all antiquity all Counsels, all Fathers, all Histories, are of the contrary opinion.   

The third Aphorism of the Surplice and other apparel of the Ministers.  
THat which is already said in the former Aphorism, is a sufficient demonstration of this question, to all well affected Readers. Yet I am content to add a word or two for the help of the simple vulgar sort.  
Saint john the Baptist did wear an unwonted kind of apparel, so to set forth his extraordinary ministery, and the rather to move the people to inquire of his office. And no sound reason can be yielded, why the same use can not this day 
Mat. 3. Verse. 4.  be made of the distinct kind of apparel in the Ministers of the Church.  
Samuel the Prophet had a distinct kind of apparel, from all the other people. For Saul was persuaded, that he 
1. Sam. 28.  whom the Witch had raised up, was Samuel the Prophet. Which opinion, Saul conceived only upon this ground, because the Witch named his attire. Yea, the Prophets were ever known from other men, by a distinct and peculiar kind of apparel. This to be so, the words of the Prophet 
Zach. 13. Vers. 4.  Zacharie will declare, which are these; in that day shall the Prophets be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive. The Gloss in the Geneva Bible, yieldeth us this exposition. They shall no more wear Prophet's apparel, to make their doctrine seem more holy.  
Master Calvin granteth freely, that the Prophets were distinguished from the people, by a peculiar kind of garment. 
Calvin. in zachar. cap. 13. 4.  These are his express words; Haec summa est, non reprehendi in pseudoprophetis vestem ipsam, quemadmodum quidam parùm consideratè arripiunt hunc locum, ut damnent & vestes oblongas, & qui●quid displicet eorum morositati.  
This is the sum, that this kind of garment was not reproved in the false Prophets, as some men do rashly wrest this place to condemn long gowns, and whatsoever else doth not please their way wardness.  
The same Master Calvin in an other place, hath these words - Sedex Z●charia apparet prophetas certa pally forma à 
Calvin in harmony. pag. 296.  reliquis fuisse distinctos. Nec verò ratione caruit, doctores it a vistiri: ut in eorum hal●tu plus gravitatis & modestiae, quam in vulgari, extarct. But by Zacharie it is apparent, that the Prophets were distinguished from the rest of the people, by a certain kind of cloak. And it was not without reason that the doctors were so attired, that in their habit there might be more granitie and modesty, then in the vulgar people. Out of this doctrine thus delivered by M. Calvin I observe these worthy documents First, that it is expedient, that the ministers be known by their apparel. 2. that they are wayward fellows, that speak against variety of garments, in the ministers and people. Thirdly, that there is gravity, & modesty, & consequently comeliness, in the apparel of Ministers. This is a point of great importance, it may not be 
Note this point well.  forgotten. It is of such moment, that it striketh dead, and can never be answered.  
S. Hieromie maketh this question plain and clear these 
Hieroni lib. advers. pclagiam fol. 124. tom. 3.  are his words; Quae sunt rogo inimicitiae contra deum, si tuni came hobutro mundiorem: si episcopus presbyter, & diaconus, & reliquies ord● eccusi●sticus, in administratione sacrificicrum candida vest processerint?  
What enmity (I pray you,) is there against God, if I do wear a more cleanly garment? if a Bishop, a Priest, or Deacon, and the rest of the Clergy, be attired with a white vesture, in time of divine service? Vide infra, ca 10. ex Bucero.  
Again in an other place, the same ancient, holy, and learned Father, hath these express words; Porrò religio divina 
Hier. in Ezechiel. cap 44. fol. 257. tom. 5. Vide Ambr. de ijsqui misterijs imetiantur, cap. 7. tom 4.  alterum habitum habet in ministerio, alterum in usu vitâque communi.  
Furthermore, divine religion hath one habit in the ministery, an other in common life and use thus writeth S. Hieromie: whose words in both the places, (if they be aptly joined together,) will make it evident to every indifferent Reader; that in S. Hieroms time which was above one thousand and two hundred years ago,) the Ministers of the Church did wear a Surplice. For, in the former place he affrmeth, that the Ministers of the Church did wear a white garment; and in the latter he saith, that they used one kind of garment in the time of God's divine service, an other in their common conversation.  
M. Bucer, that famous, godly, and learned writer, in his resolution to M. Hopper, concerning the wearing of garments in time of divine service and Sacraments, hath these 
Buterus de re vestiaria in sacris, in epist. ad johan. Hopperum.  express words: Constat dominum nostrum jesum Christum substantiam tantum ministerij, cum verbi tum sacramentorum suis verbis nobis praescripsisse, & caetera omnia quae ad decentem & utilem administrationem mysteriorum eius pertinent, ordinanda permisisse ecclesiae, Unde sacram laenam nos nec vesperi, nec in domo privata, nec discubendo, nec cum viris tantum celebramus. Sequitur; illa autem ae loco, ae tempore, de habitu corporis, ad sacram caenam vel cerebrandam vel sumendam; de admittendis & mulierculis ad sacrae caenae communionem; de modo precum atque ●ymnorum ad deum ita att●m de vesivis & aliis rebus ad externum decorum pertinentibus: non dubito deminum ecclesiae suae liberam fecisse potestatens statuendi de his rebus & ordinandi quae indicaverit quaelibet ecclesia apud suum populum maxime collatura, ad sustinendam & augendam reverentiam erga omnia domini sacra. Si itaque aliquae ecclesiae ex hac libertate christ's & ad hunc finem adificandae plebis Christi ministros suos vellent in sacris ministerijs aliquibus singularibus vestibus uti remota omni superstitione omni levitate, omnique etiam inter fratre: dissension, id est, abusu; tales cer●è ecclesias non video quis possit iure ob hanc rem condemnare vilius peccati, neaum communionis cum Antichristo Quid si ecclesia aliqua ●uro & sancto suorum consensu eum morem haberet, ut s●nguli etiam ad caenam sacram, sicut olim re●ens baptiza●i agebant, vest alba uterentur? eam, n. l●bertatem, si quis contendat nul● ecclesiae Christi esse permittendam, oportebit sanè faters unum ex his; aut nihil omnino circa caenam domini ordinandum ecclesiis esse concessum de quo non habeant expressum Christi mandatum quo pacto, condemnabuntur cunctae ecclesiae impiae audaciae. Nam omnes & tempus & locum, & habitum corporum in sacrae caenae celebratione observant, admittunt que ad sacrae communionem mulieres: de quibus omnibus rebus, non so●um ●u●●um habent domini mandatum, sed etiam contrarium exemp●●m. Dominius, n suam caenam celebravit vesperi non manè; in demo privata non publica, d●●umbens cum suis & sumpta caena paschait? non siant; & hanc solam sui communionem e●hibens; denique exclusis mulieribus, quas habuit tamen inter ●s cipu●as suas sanctissimas Aut fieri non posse, ut siut ecclesiae, quas domin●●● v●que omni liberet suspu tone & all usu bonarum ertaturarum suarum, ut puris per veram fidem in nomen eius sint omnes Dei ●onae creaturae, & usu significationis purae: quod qui dicat, is certe nagabit eo ipso Christum dominum esse omnibus hominibus eum quem se promisit futurum omnibus liber atorem ab omni immunditia. Aut posse impios abusu suo bonas dei creaturas per seita v●●tare, ut nemini pio ad ●●●m usum queant deseruire, quod aper●è adversatur testimonio spiritus sancts Rom. 14. 1. cor. 8. & 9 1. tim. 4. aut ceriè non li●ere Christianis res quastibet di ponere & ad admonendum creatoris sui, & nostri, etusque in not benefictorum atque nostrorum erga cum efficiorum; id quod pugnat cum eo quod spiritus sanctus passim docet de agnos●ēao & colendo deo in omnibus operibus suis, & faciendo omnia in nomine domini nostra jesu Christi ad gloriam Patris.  
It is avident, that our Lord jesus Christ hath prescribed to us in his word, the substance only of the ministery, both of the word, and of the Sacraments; and hath permitted his Church to order all other things, concerning the decent and profitable administration of his mysteries. Whereupon we celebrate the holy supper, neither at night, neither in private houses, neither sitting down at the Table, nor with men only, but touching the time, place, and habit of the body, either for celebrating or for receiving the Holy supper: touching the admission of women unto the Communion of the sacred Supper, and the manner of singing and praising God: touching apparel also, & other things pertaining to external comeliness: I doubt not, but our Lord hath given free power to his Church, to order and dispose of those things, as every Church shall judge it to be most profitable for her people, to support and increase reverence toward all the holy mysteries of God. If therefore any Churches, upon this liberty granted by Christ, and for this end of edifying Christ's people, would have their Ministers to use in time of the holy Mysteries, some special kind of apparel: all superstition, levity, & dissension or abuse being taken away: doubtless. I see not, how any man can justly condemn such a church of any sin in that behalf, much less of communion with Antichrist. What if any Church with a pure and holy consent of her children had such a custom, that every one should use a white vesture in time of the holy Supper, as the newly baptised aught in old to do? for, if any will contend, that that liberty may not be granted to Christ's Church, he must doubtless confess one of these: either that the Church hath no authority at all, to ordain any thing touching the Lord's Supper, whereof they have not the express commandment of Christ, and so all Churches shall be condemned of impious audacity, for all Churches observe in the celebration of the holy Supper, both the time and place, and the attire of the body, and do withal admit women to the holy Communion. Touching all the which, they have not only no commandment of the Lord, but have also a contrary example, for our Lord celebrated his Supper at night, not in the morning; in a private house, not in a public place; sitting at the table with his Apopostles, and eating the Paschall, not standing; and so exibited the holy Communion. Yea, the women were excluded, whom he reputed among his most holy servants. Either that it can not be, that there be any Churches, which our Lord doth so free from all suspicion and the abusing of his good creatures, that to the pure all the creatures of God be good through right faith in his name, and pure in the use of signification; which whosoever shall say, he doubtless must thereupon deny that Christ our Lord is the deliverer of all men from all uncleanness, as he promised to be. Either that the wicked can by their abuse so pollute the creatures of God, which are good of their own nature, that no godly man can use them to a godly end; which saying is evidently, against the testimony of the holy Ghost. Or certes, that Christians can not lawfully dispose of all creatures, to put them in mind of their maker, and of ourselves, and of his benefits toward us, and of our duties toward him: which maketh against that, which the holy Ghost teacheth every where, for the acknowledgement and worship of God in all his works, and for the doing of all things in the name of our Lord jesus Christ, to the glory of his father.  
Again, in an other place he writeth thus; Porrò, dicere 
Bucerus ubi supra.  has vestes per Antichristiabv●um sic esse contaminatas, ut nulli ecclesiae, quantumvis aliqua Christum suum & rerum ominium libertatem nosset et coleret, sint permittendae religio sanè mihi est, nec ullam video scripturam, qua possim ist●m bonae dei creaturae condemnationem tueri. Seqnitur: ritum aliquem Aaronicum esse, vel Antichristianum in nullis haeret dei creaturis, in nulla veso te, in nulla fioura, in nullo colore, aut ullo des opere; sed in animo & professione, bonis dei creaturis ad impias significationes abutentium.  
Furthermore, to say, that these garments and vestures are so polluted by the abuse of Antichrist, that they may be permitted to no Church, although such a Church did both worship Christ, and know the liberty of all things, it is to me doubtless a great scruple of conscience: neither do I know any Scripture, by which I may defend this condemnation of the good creature of God, that any rite becometh Aaronical or Antichristian, it is not grounded in any of God's creatures, in any vesture or garment, in any figure, in any colour, or in any work of God: but in the mind and profession of them, who abuse the good creatures of God to wicked significations.  
Thus writeth M. Bucer in this place, as he doth elsewher 
Vide Bucer. In 4 cap. ad Ephes.  to the same effect. Out of whose words, I observe,  
First, that Christ hath only prescribed in his word, the substance of his holy worship. Secondly, that he hath given power to his Church, to dispose and order all other things, which concern the decent and profitable government and administration of his holy Mysteries. Thirdly, that the Church may appoint her Ministers to wear special garments, even in the time of the holy ministery. Fourthly, that such garments may be ordained, for decency and for edification. Fiftly, that the use of such garments, cannot be condemned by any Text of Scripture: nor yet they justly accused of any sin, who appoint them to be worn, Sixtly, that no abuse of man, Antichrist, or the maister-divell of hell, can so pollute them, but they may this day be lawfully used of the faithful. Seventhly, that the Church may ordain ceremonies, for honest and godly significations.  
The ancient Council of Carthage, (which was holden 
Conc. Carthag. 4. ●. ●14.  about the same time, and at which S. Austin was present,) hath these express words; Vt diaconus tempore oblutionis tantum vel lectionis alba induatur. Let the Deacon wear a white garmen: only in the time of oblation and reading. Do, the Deacons did we are Albes, surplices, or white ves●ores, name them as ye list, so you agree in the thing itself) above a 1200. years ago: and that, in the time of divine service. At this council were present 214. Bishops, of which S. Augustin was one, and yet all these holy men, living in those days when no corruption of Religion had crept into the Church, affirm constantly with uniform consent, that it was the custom of the Church, to wear white garments in time of divine service.  
M. Beza, in his Epistle to certain Englishmen, demanding his opinion touching the wearing of caps and 
Beza in epist. 12 pag. 107. Vide cundem in confess. cap 5. art. 17. in fine.  garments, aswell in the common use as in the ministery and Church service, answered in these words: Respondemus, etsi ista nostro quidem judicio non recte revehuntur in ecclesiam, tamea quum non sint ex earum rerum genere, quae per se impie sunt, non videri nobis illas tanti momenti ut propterea vel pastors i●is de●crendum sit potius minislerium, quam ut vestes illas assumant vel gregibus omit endum publicum pablnum, potius quam ita veslitos pastores audiant.  
We answer, that albert as we think, these things are not well brought into the Church again; yet seeing they be not wicked or evil of themselves, and of their own nature, they seem not to us to be a matter of so great moment, that therefore either the Pastors should forsake the ministery, rather than wear them, or the sheep want their public forage, rather than hear their pastors so attired.  
The same Beza, in another Epistle to M. Grindal, than Bishop of London, being demanded, whether the Pastors ought rather to refuse the ministery then to wear caps & 
Beza in Epist. 8. pag. 85. Vide infrà, cap. 10. ex Bucero & Zuinglio & nota valdè.  surplice, this cautel being added, that they are not made for any holiness, Religion, or worship, but for order and policy, answereth in these words: Respondeo, minimè mihi videri deserendas ecclesias propter vestes aut pileos, aut aliquid eiusmodi verè medium, & indifferens.  
I answer, that in my opinion they ought not to forsake the Church for caps & garments, or for any like thing, which is indifferent of itself indeed. Thus writeth M. Beza, when his counsel and opinion was required, concerning the wearing of the surplice, and other Ceremonies in our English Church. Out of whose words, I note; First, that M. Beza did not fully understand the state of our Church: which I gather by the word, (Revehuntur) are brought into the Church again. Where indeed, if true information had been given, (let them look unto it, that report to foreign countries, so sinisterly of their Sovereign and native countries) he would have judged better of the case. Secondly, that the ministers ought not to refuse the ministery, nor to make such contention, for the wearing of that surplice, & such like things. Thirdly, that the cap, surplice, & the like ceremonies are things truly indifferent of their own natures & in themselves. Which point, if it be well marked, will make good 
Epist. 12. pag. 112. Vide infra, cap. 14. membr. 2. per totum. & membr. 3. & 7. notentur Ualde.  the use of all ceremonies in our English church. To conclude, M. Beza, in the end & closing up of his Epistle, exhorteth our English brethren to obey the Q. Majesty, & all the Bishops in the land. Idque ex animo, and that sincerely. Which counsel they neither followed then, nor yet do now follow the same; they seemed then willing, to reply upon his resolution. But no man can please them, that speaketh not Placentia, and as they shall appoint him to say and do.  
The Surples, Tippit, cap, and the like, are popish ceremonies, 
1. Objection.  and have been profaned by the papists, and therefore may not now be used.  
I answer both with S. Austin, and with M. Calvin to this in soluble so supposed objection; which indeed is 
The answer.  of no force at all, to move any man to disobey the laws of the Church. S. Austin writing to Publicola, who desired to be resolved in such kind of questions, hath these words; 
August ad publicol. Epist. 154. Pag. 453.  Cum templa, idola, luci, & si quid huiusmodi data potestate evertuntur, quamvis manifestum est cum id agimus, non ea nos honorare sed potius detestari: ideo tamen in usus nostros privatos duntaxat & proprios non debemus inde aliquid usurpare, ut appareat nos pietate ista descernere, non avaritia. Cum vero in usus communes, non proprios ac privatos, vel in honorem dei veri convertuntur, hoc de illis fit quod de ipsis hominibus cum ex sacrilegis 〈◊〉 impijs in veram religionem mutantur. Hoc deus intelligitur docuisse illis testimorijs quae ipse proposuisti cum de luco alicnorum deorum jussit ligna ad holocaustum adhiberi. Et de Hiericho, ut omne aurum, argentum, & aeramentum, inferretur 
judic. 6. ver. 25. 26. jos. 6. 24.  in the sauros Domini.  
When temples Idols, groves, and such like things, are by authority overthrown, although it be manifest, that when we do that, we honour them not, but detest them; yet for all that, we may not therefore convert them to our own private uses only and commodity, that it may appear that we destroy them for Religion-sake, and not for covetousness. But when they are not converted to our own private uses, but into common uses, or to the honour of the true god; then that is done in them, which is done and brought to pass in them, which is wrought in men themselves, when of idolaters and wicked persons they are changed into true religion. This God himself taught in those testimonies, which thou thyself hast used; when he commanded, that the wood of that grove which was dedicated to str●nge Gods, should be taken and used for his sac●●tices. And of Hiericho that all the gold, silver, and brass, should be brought into the treasury of the Lord.  
M. Calvin is of the same judgement, whole words are 
Calvin in 〈◊〉 cap 23. verse 24.  these; Neque. n. nobis hodiè religio est templa retinere quae polluta fuerunt ●delis, & accommodare in meliorem usum; quae nos non obstringit, quod propter consequentiam legi additum est. Fateor quidem, quaecunque ad superstitionem fovendam spectant, è medio tollendaesse; modò ne precise urgendo quod per se medium est, simus in nimio rigore superstitiosi.  
For we this day make no scrupulosity of conscience, to retain still those Churches which were polluted with Idols: and to apply them to a better use, because that which is added to the Law by way of consequence, doth not bind us. I grant willingly, that all those things which tend to the planting of superstition, aught to be taken away, so that by precise urging of that which is of itself indifferent, we be not in too much rigour superstitious. Thus writeth Master Calvin.  
Out of these words of these two great learned Fathers, I note these worthy lessons, First, that things superstitiously abused, may be applied to the honour and service of God. Secondly, that things which were superstitiously used, may after their application to a good and godly use, be resembled to those persons, who of Idolaters are become good Christians. Thirdly, that God himself hath taught this to be so, at two several times in two distinct subjects. First, when he commanded the wood of the groves, which had been dedicated to the false Gods, to be applied to his own use and sacrifice. Secondly, when he appointed, that the gold, silver, and brass, which had been profaned in Hiericho, should be brought into the treasury of the Lord. Fourthly, that our own practice doth approve the same to be lawfutl, while we retain Temples abused by the Papists. To which I add, the keeping still of Bells, Pulpits, Wine, strong drink, and good cheer. For all these have been, and this day are abused; not only by the Papists, but even by those who live among us, and profess themselves to be of us. And therefore, if we will reject the one sort for abuse, we must also reject all the rest for the same 
Vide infra, cap. 10 ex Bucero.  respect. Unless perhaps it be a sufficient answer, that our own conceits neither grounded upon authority nor reason, must teach us what to do in all respects.  

The Reply.  
Wine, strong Drink, Bells, Pulpits, and the like, are things of necessary use, so are not Tippets, Caps, and surplices. Therefore the case is not like.   

The Answer.  
I answer: first, that we may live without all those things, which in the preposition are holden for necessary. Secondly, that not only master Calvin and S. Austen speak indefinitely and generally of all things abused, but the Brownists and Martinists do in their refusal approve the same, viz. the things objected are not necessary, and therefore they meet in woods, fields, and odd corners. Thirdly, that if the superstitious use of a thing, do so change the nature of the same thing, that it can never be well used again, then doubtless must we perforce reject all things, which have once been profaned and superstitiously used. Neither will it or can it serve our turn to say, this is necessary, so is not that. For as the Apostle saith; Non sunt facienda mala, ut Jude 
Rom. 3. v. 8.  eveniat bonum. We must not do evil, that good may come thereupon. But if the thing before indifferent in it own nature, do still remain indifferent, notwithstanding the abuse, (as I have already proved it;) then may the lawful magistrate, and much more the Church with his authority 
Vide infra, cap 14. propofine.  and assent concurring, retain still some thing, & reject other some, as it shall seem most expedient, for the quiet and peaceable government of the Church. For the Church hath free liberty and power to dispose of all things, which are Adiaphora, indifferent of their own nature.   

The 2. Reply.  
It is against my conscience to wear a Surplice, to make the sign of the Cross in the child's forehead, and so forth. Ergo I may not do it.   

The Answer.  
True it is, that whosoever doth any thing against his conscience, sinneth, though the thing he doth, be otherwise lawful to be done. Wherefore his only remedy is this: either to reform his erroneous conscience, or else peaceably, to give place to the law, & not contentiously to withstand the law of his superiors, (to whom, under God he oweth obedience) and so to raise up schism & contention in the Church. But it is to be feared, that some pretend conscience, where only pride beareth the sway. Because forsooth, they have more rashly then wisely, Preached against the same ceremonies informer times?   

The 3. Reply.  
The reformed Churches in other countries, have abolished such Popish ceremonies. Why therefore should we keep them still in our Churches?   

The Answer.  
I answer; 1. that as some other Churches have rejected some ceremonies, which we still retain. O so have we rejected some ceremonies, which some other churches still retain. Secondly, that as other churches are not to be condemned for rejecting such ceremonies, seeing they be no essential parts of religion, so neither aught our Church to be evil censured for retaining them; being things indifferent in their own nature. Thirdly, that many things are convenient for some places, persons, and times, which for all that are very prejudicial, and nothing beseeming nor befitting other persons, times, and places; many things good for one common. weal, which are too too hurtful for an other; many things convenient for the government of one Church, which would quite destroy the state and policy of an other. Every Church therefore hath her freedom, power, and authority, in all things indifferent; to make constitute, and ordain such laws, as shall be thought most expedient for the good 
Vide infrà, cap. 10. ex. Bucero.  thereof. This assertion is proved at large in the Seventh Chapter, throughout all the Aphorisms thereof. To which place I referie the reader, for better satisfaction in this behalf.   

The 2. Objection.  
The graven Images of their Gods shall ye burn with 
Deut. 7. Vers. 25.  fire, and covet not the silver and gold that is in them, nor take it unto the, lest thou be snared therewith, for it is an abomination, before the Lord thy God.   

The Answer.  
I answer; first, with S. Austen in these words; Satis apparet, 
Aug. in ep. 154. pag. 453.  aut ipsos privatos usus in talibus esse prohibitos, aut ne sic inde aliquid inferatur in domum ut honoretur Tunc n. est abominatio & execratio, non cum talibus sacrilegijs honor apertissima destructione subvertitur. It appeareth sufficiently, that either private uses be forbidden in such things, or else that nothing should so be brought into thine house, that it be honoured. For than is it abomination and execration, not when together with the Idolatry, the honour is also evidently over thrown. Secondly, that this was a political Law, given only to the jews for a time; and consequently, that we Christians are not strictly bound to the same. The ignorance whereof, hath brought many into many gross errors. I therefore note here by the way, for the benefit of the well affected and thankful Reader, that the Law of Moses was threefold. viz. ceremonial, judicial, and moral; whereof the moral part doth this day only remain in force with us Christians, as which is indeed the very Law of nature, imprinted in every man's heart in his nativity, and so cannot be altered or changed. But the ceremonial part was ordained, to prefigure the ministery of Christ then to come; and the judicial part was semblably appointed, for the conservation of justice among the jews. And consequently, as they both pertained to that time and that people only, so were they both expired by the advent of our Lord jesus. This Saint Paul teacheth to be so; where he telleth us, that the Priesthood being translated, the Law must also of necessity have a change. Hence 
Hebr. 7. Vers. 12.  cometh it first, that where one could not by that Law, be condemned upon the testimony of one man, but of two at the least, he may this day be condemned lawfully upon one man's oath, where the Law of the Realm doth so appoint. Where I cannot but greatly admire them, who seem 
Deut. 19 Vers. 15.  to condemn such Laws, by virtue of the judicial Law of Moses. For the moral part only being now in force, the other can have no place. But the moral and natural 
Vide infra, cap. 15. & notato.  part, (mark well my words,) doth only require this, viz. that great care and circumspection be had in judgement, and that none be condemned unjustly. Touching the number of witnesses, the Law of nature is silent, and leaveth that point as arbitrary to the of man. Hence cometh it. Secondly, that blasphemers, adulterers, & such like malefactors, are this day suffered to live in many Christian kingdoms, and that thing is permitted, without any transgression of God's law in that behalf, For the Law of nature doth only require this, viz. that sin be so punished, as standeth best with the peaceable government of the commonweal. Touching the quantity and kind of punishment, it saith nothing at all. Hence cometh it. Thirdly, that the intailing of lands is lawful this day among Christians, although some have more audaciously then wisely, avouched the contrary in open Pulpit. It is therefore most prudently and right Christianly provided in the Cannos of Anno. 1604. that none shall be permitted to Preach without Licence. Hence cometh it. Fourthly, that the true owners may for good causes and considerations lawfully sell their lands and inheritance, and others lawfully buy the same, howsoever some without all testimony of Scriptures, Counsels, or Fathers, do peremptorily Preach against the same. I will for charity sake here conceal, what to my grief and the scandal of many, hath out of open Pulpit sounded in mine ears. Hence cometh it five, that Fathers may give their lands lawfully to any of their children; either to the youngest, or to any of the rest, or to the Church, Hospitals, kinstolkes, or mere strangers, so it be done for good respects, and godly considerations for the Law of nature requireth no more of Parents, concerning Goods, lands, and possessions, but this only thing; that they bring up all their children in true faith, holy fear, and humble obedience, and provide competently for their honest maintenance and sustentation. If any shall hold the contrary, he will give occasion to set all the land together by the ears, Hence cometh it Sixtly that sundry customs in this land; viz. where brethren inherit together as sisters at the common law, and the youngest son before the eldest, are not unlawful, the like may be said of many other points in the judicial Law, and to this present objection. For the natural part of this judicial Law, doth only require this of us: viz. that we keep ourselves from Idolatry, and from doing any honour or worship to the same. Master Calvin doth not dissent from this mine exposition, concerning the text alleged in the objection. These are his express words, Quamvis autem politicum hoc fuerit praeceptum, & tantum veters populo ad tempus datum, ex co tamen colligimus quám detestabilis sit idolatria, quae ipsa etiam 
Calvin, in. 7. deut. v. 25.  dei opera sua soeditate inficit. Although this were a political precept, and given only to the jews for a time, yet may we gather thereof, how detestable a thing Idolatry is, which with the filth thereof infecteth the very works of God. Lo, this precept was only given to the jewish people, and endured but for that time; and so, as it is judicial, it doth not this day touch us that be Christians at all.  
Master Musculus jumpeth with M. Calvin, for the truth of this question. These are his express words. Hactenus ostendimus abrogandam fuisse legem Mosaicam per adventum 
Musculus de legib. Pag. 140.  Christ's, & nova legis introductionem, iam consequentèr videndum est, quatenus sit abrogat? Sequitur quaernnt, an tota sit abrogata? respondemus; si totus Moses cessit Christo, utique tota illius lex cessit legi Christi. Hitherto we have showed, that the Law of Moses must be abrogated by Christ's advent, & by the introduction of the new law. Now we have to consider consequently, in what sort it is abrogated. The question is asked, if it be wholly abrogated, (or only in part?) we answer, that seeing Moses himself gave place wholly unto Christ, the Law doubtless of Moses must likewise give place wholly to the Law of Christ.   

The Reply.  
But master Calvin saith plainly, that Idolatry infecteth the very works of God with the filth thereof. Therefore things once applied to Popish superstition and Idolatry, can never thenceforth be lawfully used.   

The Answer.  
I have proved already, out of M. Calvin's own words; 
Supra, in 1. Object.  that we may use things lawfully, which have been abused to Idolatry; as Temples, Pulpits, and such like. Neither doth master Calvin say here, that such things are polluted in themselves; but that they are so called in respect of the people, so to terrify them the more from Idolatry. For these are his words immediately going afore; Respondendum est, anrum vel argentum impio abusu minimè fuisse vitiatum, sed quamvis omns macula in se careret, populi respectu fuisse poliutum. Talis suit animalium immundities; non quod in se qui●quam baberent inquinamenti, sed quoniam deus eorum esu inter dixerat. I answer, that the gold or money was not defiled with the impious abuse thereof; but albeit it was without all blemish in itself, yet in respect of the people it was polluted. Such was the uncleanness of the beasts (in the law;) not for that they had any pollution in themselves, but because God had forbidden to eat them. Lo, M. Calvin granteth freely, that they are still indifferent in their own nature, as they were afore.   

The 3. Objection.  
There is no order in them, but confusion, no comeliness, 
Vide infra, cap 8. per totum.  but deformity; no obedience, but flat contempt of God and his word.   

The Answer.  
I answer; first, that I have already proved sufficiently, that there is gravity, modesttie, and comeliness, in the apparel of our Ministers, and that as well in their common life, as in the time of their ministration. Secondly, that it is not every private man's part to define, decide, and appoint; what is order and comeliness in things in different, and the external government of the Church, but that pertaineth to them only, to whom God hath committed the managing of his house. Which point is likewise proved abundantly in the Chapters aforegoing.    

The 4. Aphorism, of ceremonies used id Wed. lock or marriage.  
IN the solemnisation of Matrimony, two things are much reproved; viz the Ring, and the simbolical signification. To the former I answer, that seeing Wedlock is a vassible civil contract, there is great reason, that it should be assured with some civil, permanent, and external sign. Hereupon the Church, (which hath authority to ordain ceremonies, as is already proved,) doth appoint a round Ring, as a ceremony best beseeming such a contract. For the Ring being round and without end in itself is very fit and meet to signify to the married couple; that they ought to be joined in the perpetual band of love, the one to the other.  
To the latter I answer semblahly, that S. Paul may as justly be reproved therein, as the Church of England. For 
Ephes. 5.  after he hath discoursed at large, of the high mystery of matrimony, assuming the husband and the wife to be one flesh; he forthwith addeth, that he speaketh of the great mystery between Christ and his Church. Which symbolical signification. ●s approved by Saint Austin, 
Ambr. in 5. cap ad Ephe, Vide Aug. tract. 9 in johan Pag. 58. tom 9  S. Chysostome S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, and many others. It shall suffice in this so clear a case to allege S. Ambrose his words for all the rest. Thus doth be write; Mysterij Sacramentum grand in unitate viri ac foeminae esse signifi●at, sed aliam causam quae non discordet a memorato mysterio flagitat, quam scit ad prosectum humani generis pertinere, hoc est ecclesiae & salvatoris: ut sicut relictis parentibus home uxori suae adhaerdt, it a & relicto omni errore ecclesia adhaereat & subijciatur capiti suo, quod est Christus.  
He signifieth, that there is a great mystery, in the unity of the wife and her husband. Neither doth he reveal this only, but he also requireth an other cause, which differeth not from the said mystery, which he knoweth to appertain to the profit of mankind; that is of the Church and of our Saviour. That as man forsaking his parents, 
Bucerus in censura minister. eccles. Zanchius us 5 cap. add ephes. pag. 416. Note well the next Aphorism, ex Bucero.  adhaereth to his wife, so the Church leaving all error, must adhaere and be subject to her head, which is Christ.  
M Bucer, approveth and highly commendeth every ceremony, which our church useth concerning holy wedlock.  
Hieronimus Zanchius a most zealous and learned writer, singeth the same song with Saint Ambrose. These are his words; Talis fuit eductio Evae ex latere Adae dormientis. Item, coniunctio Evae cum Adamo in matrimonium. Res in se fuit visibilis & sub sensum cadens, sed aliam occultam representabat, eductionem & creationem ecclesiae ex latere Christi in cruco mortui, & unionem ecclesiae cum Christo.  
Such was the eduction of Eve out of the side of Adam, when he was a sleep. So also was the conjunction of Eve with Adam, in the matrimonial contract, the thing in itself was visible and subject to our sense; but it did represent another secret thing, even the eduction and creation of the Church out of Christ's side being dead upon the Cross, and the union of the Church with Christ.   

The fifth Aphorism, of the Symbolical sign used in the confirmation of Children.  
IT is greatly disliked and highly reproved, that our Bishops do lay their hands upon children, to certify them by this sign of God's favour towards them. To which I answer, that the fact and usage of our Bishops in confirming children, is according to the practice of the church in all former ages; and therefore ought it not, either to be so lightly rejected, 
Eusebius lib. 6. Hist. cap. 35.  or so rashly condemned. S. Cornelius, writing to his brother Fabius, showeth evidently, how one Novatus being baptized in his bed, regarded not after his recovery the rest of the ceremonies, whereof he should have been partaker according to the rule of the Church; no, not so much as to be sealed or confirmed by the Bishop, & for that cause did he not receive the holy ghost. Now, this Cornelius lived above 
Cornelius vixit. An. 454.  1100. years ago, at what time the church was free from all heresies, errors, & superstition. And yet did the church even then use to confirm children, in the self same manner now used in our English Church.  
S. Augustin delivereth the custom of the Church in his time, in such golden & excellent words; as I verily think he is able to satisfy every one, that shall with a single eye and upright judgement, all partiality set apart, duly ponder the same. These are his words; Numquid modo quibus impenitur 
August. in Epist johannis tract. 6. tom. 9 Pag. 422.  manus ut accipiant spiritum sanctum, hoc expectatur, ut linguis loquantur? aut quando imposuimus manus istis infantibus, attendit unusquisque vestrum, utrum linguis loquerentur? & cum videre● eos linguis non loqui ita perversocorde aliquis vestrum fuit, ut diceret; non acceperunt isti spiritum sanctum; nansi accepissen●, linguis loquerentur qu●aamodum tunc factum est? si ergo per haec miracula non fiat modo testimonium praesentiae spiritus sancti unde fit, unde cognoscit quisque se accepisse spiritum sanctum? interroget cor suum, si deligit fratrem spiritus Deimanet in illo.  
Is it this day expected, that they speak with tongues, upon whom the Bishop hath laid his hands, that they should receive the holy Ghost? or when we imposed hands, upon Infants, did every one of you mark, if they spoke with tongues? and when he saw they spoke not with tongues, was then any of you so way wardly affected, as to say; they have not received the holy Ghost; for if they had, they would speak with tongues, as it came then to pass. If therefore we have not the testimony of the presence of the holy Ghost by miracles, how knoweth every one, that he hath received the holy Ghost? Let him dispute the matter with his own heart, and if he love his brother, the spirit of God abideth in him. Thus write these holy Fathers, 
Vide infra, cap. 14. memb. 2. in fine ex Zuinglio.  showing plainly unto us the practice of the Church in their days, and that the holy Ghost is given in confirmation; as also that the imposition of hands is a sign thereof in God's children, though not given in such miraculous manner, as in the Apostles-time.  
Saint Hieromie teacheth the self same doctrine, which Cornelius and Saint Austin have delivered. These are his words: Quod si hoc loco quaeris, quare in ecclesia baptizatus, 
Hierony adversus Lucifer. tom. 3. fcls. 63. B.  nisi per manus episcopi non accipiat spiritum sanctum, quem nos asserimus in vero baptismate tribui; disce hanc observationem ex ea authoritate descendere, quod post ascensum domini spiritus sanctus ad Apostolos descendit. Et multis in locis idem factitatum reperimus, ad honorem potius sacerdotij quam ad legis necessitatem.  
If thou here demand, why he that is baptised in the Church, receiveth not the holy Ghost but by the hands of the Bishop, which we say is given in true baptism; learn this observation to descend of that authority, because after our Lord's ascension, the holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles. And we find the same observed in many places, rather for the honour of Priesthood, then for necessity of the Law.  
M. Bucer, that great learned Doctor, is very consonant 
Bucerus in 4. cap. ad Ephes.  to the ancient fathers herein. These are his express words; Signum impositionis manuum etiam episcopi soli praebebant, & non absque ratione. Sive n. sit foedus domini baptizatis confirmandum; Sive reconciliandiij, qui gravius peccarunt; Sive ecclesijs ministri ordinandi; haec omnia ministeria maximè decent eos, quibus summa ecelesiarum cura demandata est.  
The sign also of imposition of hands, was given by 
Uide infra, cap. 10 & nota resp. ad 2. object.  the Bishops only, and that not without reason. For whether the baptised were to be confirmed with the covenant of the Lord: or they who had sinned grievously, were to be reconciled; or Ministers were to be ordained unto Churches: all these ministries do especially pertain unto them, to whom the chiefest charge of the Church is committed. Thus writeth learned Bucer, showing most evidently unto all indifferent Readers: that imposition of hands in the confirmation of children, was an ancient and laudable ceremony, and that it pertained only to the Bishops to administer the same, and that upon great reason. Let these words of M. Bucer, (& non absque ratione, and not without reason) be well marked, and never forgotten.  
M. Fulke, a late famous writer, (who was a great favourer 
Uide Ambros. de sacram. bibr. 3. cap. 2.  of the Presbytery, and of good credit with the chiefest Patrons thereof,) hath these express words: The ancient ceremony of imposition of hands, which is nothing else (as S. Austin saith,) but prayer over a man to be strengthened & confirmed by the holy Ghost, or to receive increase of the gifts of the holy Ghost, (as S. Ambrose saith,) we do not in any wise mislike, but use it ourselves. Lo, this godly, zealous, and learned writer granteth freely, that confirmation is an ancient and godly Ceremony: which to be so, he proveth out of S. Austin and S. Ambrose. Yea, he addeth the approbation of this Church of England reckoning himself for one of the number and members thereof. We do not (saith he,) in any wise mislike it, but use it ourselves. What then may we, or can we say or think, of the proud Brownists, sa●cie Barrowists, and arrogant Puritan●? Who, either through ignorance of the practice of the ancient Churches, and for want of knowledge in the ecclesiastical Histories and Counsels; or else (which is far worse,) upon a singular Philautia, and fond admiration of their own fancies and conceits; do most arrogantly and rashly censure and condemn all others, both old and modern writers, which will not embrace their fantastical imaginations, and receive the same as the decrees of the holy Ghost. Certes, I wonder, that they are not ashamed of themselves. For, it can with no reason be denied; that God by the hearty and earnest prayers of his Church, doth work those effects in those children which be his, whereof the impositions of hands is a sign.  

The Reply.  
The Church hath not authority to institute, either Sacraments, or sacramental signs.   

The Answer.  
I answer; First, that our Church doth neither ordain Sacraments, nor yet any sacramental signs; but doth only explain and declare the effect, purport, and true meaning 
Uide infrà cap. 14 & nota memb. 2. & 3. 2  of that sign, which the Apostles used in that behalf. Secondly, that the Church hath power to ordain Ceremonies in things indifferent, for edification, order, & comeliness; and consequently, to express and declare the same by fit significant words. Which thing I have proved at large in the seventh Chapter, by the unitorme testimony of S. Ambrose, whose words are these: Accepisti post haec vestimenta candida, ut esset indicium quod exueris in volucrum peccatorum indueris innocentiae casta velamina.  
Afterward thou didst receive a white vesture, to signify that thou art delivered from the snare of sin, and art clad with the vail of innocency. Bucerus, Zuinglius, and Homingius, do all 3. approve this custom of the Church. Master Bucer hath these words; Et hic admodùm commodus ritus esse videtur, si modo quid ista omnia significent, populo subinde explicetur. This also seemeth to be a very fit Rite, 
Bucerus in censura minist●cc●l.  so the people be sometime taught, what all these things do siginfie. Here he granteth, that Ceremonies may be appointed for signification sake. Let this be remembered well, and not forgotten.    

The sixth Aphorism, of the sign of the Cross, used in Baptism.  
IT is a thing so clear and evident by all ecclesiastical Histories, that the heathen objected to the Christians in reproach, that the God in whom they believed, was hanged on the Cross; as none but either too-too wilful, or too-too ignorant, will or can deny the same. In regard whereof the church in all ages, even in the Primitive and Apostolic time, so to nourish and keep among them the memory of their redemption wrought upon the Altar of the cross, & to make it known to jew Gentile, and all the world, that they were not ashamed of the true humility of their Saviour in that most ignominious kind of death, which he voluntary suffered for their sins; did institute, and ordain the comely and most christian usage of the sign of the Cross, & that all christians in their first ordinary and usual union with Christ by holy Baptism, should receive for that end and purpose, the sign of the Cross in their foreheads. Hereupon the holy Fathers of best approved antiquity, S. Cyprian. Saint Basill, S. Augustin, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome, and all the rest, make mention of the like usage of that most comely christian badge, every where in their most learned works. Yea, the most holy and best learned fathers, do prove the same use out of holy Scriptures. Saint Cyprian hath these express words; Omnem autem super quem signum scriptum est, 
Cyprian ad ad Demetrianum, 〈…〉.  ne tetigeritis. Quod autem sit hoc signum, & qua in part corporis positum, manifestat alio in loco Deus, dicens; transi per mediam Jerusalem, & notabis signum super frontes virorum qui ingemunt & maerent ob iniquitates, quae fiunt in medio ipsorum.  
Every one upon whom the sign of the Cross is made, shall be free and untouched. And what sign this is, and in what part of the body it is made, God showeth in another place, saying; Pass through the midst of Jerusalem, 
Ezech. 9 Verse 4. Exod. 13. verse 12. Uide cunden Cyprian. libr. 4. epist 6  & make a sign upon the foreheads of them that mourn, and cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. In which place, the same holy Father and Martyr of jesus Christ, proveth that sign to pertain to the future passion of Christ jesus, out of another place of holy writ. These are his words; Quod autem occiso agno praecedit in imagine, impletur in Christo secuta postmodum veritate.  
That which went before in figure, even the Lamb which was slain: is fulfilled in Christ, the verity that followed after the same.  
S. Austin, in the disputation betwixt the Synagogue and 
Augst. de altere. eccles. & synagogae. tom. 6. pag. 57  the Church, allegeth against the jews, this very Text of Ezechiel, for the confirmation of making the sign of the Cross in the foreheads of Christians. Vellem addiscere, ubi signum frontis acceperis, vel quis propheta signum istud quod dicis, hoc est, signum frontis signacuso sanctificationis inciderit. I would learn saith the Synagogue, where thou receivedst the sign of the forehead, or which of the Prophets maketh mention 
Ezech. 9 v. 4.  of that sign of which thou speakest, calling it the sign of sanctification in the forehead. To this question S. Austin answereth in the person of the Church, proving it out of the 9 of Ezechil as S. Cyprian had done afore him; as also out of the Revelation, in the 14. Chapter, he useth an excellent and large discourse against the Synagogue; to which for brevitie-sake, I refer the Reader.  
The same S Austin in an other place, hath these express 
August. in ps. 141. pag. 1125.  words; Insultet ille Christo crucifixo, videam ego in frontibus regum crucem Christi. Sequitur; usque adeo de cruce non erubesco, ut non in occulto loco habeam crucem Christi, sed in front portem.  
Let the Pagan deride Christ crucified, but let me behold his Cross in King's foreheads. I am so far from being ashamed of Christ's Cross, that I keep it not in a secret place, but do bear it in my forehead. Mark well, gentle Reader, this godly period of this ancient, blessed, and learned Father.  
S. Hierome in like manner proveth the lawful making of 
Hier. in cap. 9 Ezech. tom. 5.  the Cross in the foreheads of the Christians, out of the same words of the Prophet Ezechiel. Thus doth he write; Et ut ad nostra veniamus, antiquis hebraeorum literis quibus usque hodiè utuntur Samaritani, extrema Than litera crucis habet similitudinem, quae in Christianorum frontibus pingitur.  
And to come to our own, in the old Characters and Letters of the Hebrews, which the Samaritans use to this day; the last Letter which is Than, hath the image or similitude of the Cross, which is made in the foreheads of Christians.  
S. Beda likewise gathereth the same conclusion, out of divers 
Beda, in apo. calip. cap. 7.  places of the scripture. These are his words; Ad hoc. n. gentium confractum est imperium, ut signo fidei cui restiterant, facies sanctorum liberè notaretur. Sequitur; neque n. frustra in front pontificis nomen domini tetragrammaton scribebatur, visi quia hoc est signum in front fidelium. For in this sign the dominion of the Gentiles was overthrown, that the faces of Saints might be marked with the sign of Faith, which the Gentiles had resisted.  
Thus write the ancient and holy Fathers; out of whose words, I observe; First, that the making of the sign of the Cross in the foreheads of christians, is grounded upon the holy scripture. Secondly, that it was the custom of the Church, to use the sign of the cross in their days; that is to say, above 1315. years ago. To which I add, that the same usage was the custom of the church, in the time of Origen and of Tertullian; that is, almost 1400. years ago. And no marvel, seeing it was an Apostolical tradition. If any hold the contrary, let him name the time, and the Author; and if I cannot prove a further antiquity, I will be of his opinion. Thirdly, that those holy Fathers, (Saint Cyprian, Saint Austen, Saint Hierome. Saint Beda) did rejoice to bear the sign of the Cross in their foreheads. 
Master Bucer in censura granteth the use to be most ancient, and to be both comely and profitable.  And consequently, that a Christian needeth not be ashamed now adays, to bear the same badge in his forehead. If I should stand to recount the testimonies of the holy Fathers, for the confirmation of the lawful use and making of the sign of the Cross; I should both weary myself, and be tedious to the Reader. I will therefore conclude with the judgement of Master Zanchius, whose only verdict me thinks, should be sufficient in this behalf. These are his express words. Alia vero traditiones non sunt necessariò retinendae in ecclesijs, etsi vetustae & a patribus commemoratae; 
Zanchius in compendio, pag. 654.  ut quod christianum oportet signo crucis frontem munire, diebus veneris & sabbathi ieiunare. Nam etsi servari possent, si absque superstitione exercerentur, tamen conscientiam non obligant. Sequitur summa igitur & conclusio haec sit, eas traditiones, quae dei verbo conforms, & ad usum ecclesiae animosque hominum ad pietatem & verum dei cultum excitandos accommodatae sunt, 
Ibidem, pag. 657.  etiamnum retinendas & usurpandas esse, citra tamen superstitionem & opinionem meriti.  
The Church is not bound of necessity, to retain still. Other traditions, although they be ancient, and mentioned 
Vide infra, cap. 10. ex Bucero, Zuinglio, & Hemingio, propè finem capit is.  by the Fathers: as that a Christian must make the sign of the Cross in his forehead, and fast upon Friday and Saturday. For although these ceremonies and traditions might be still retained and kept, if that were done without superstition, yet for all that, they do not bind a man's conscience to keep them. Let this therefore be the sum and conclusion that such traditions as agree with the word of God, and serve for the Church's use, and to stir up men's minds to piety and the true worship of God, may this day b● still retained and used, so it be done without superstition and opinion of merit. This is the conclusion of the most learned Doctor, Master Zanchius, and I see no reason, why it should not be my conclusion also. And consequently, I do constantly affirm with him, that the sign of the Cross may this day be used lawfully; so it be not 
Vide tu Hemingium, in syntagm in. 4 lege decalog●, & notate.  joined with superstition, and opinion of merit. Let this be well observed; that Zanchius granteth freely, that the sign of the Cross may be made, and that even in the forehead. For, it is the very case now in question, and constantly affirmed by Zanchius; that it may be well used, though it may also be laid away. To which latter, both I and the Church of England do willingly agree 
Vide infra. cap. 10. ex Bucero, & nota valdè.  with him. But withal I say, that seeing it is a ceremony indifferent, and may lawfully be used; it is not in the power of a private subject, to appoint or command to lay it away; but peaceably, lovingly, and obediently, to admit and receive the same; knowing and ever 
Rome 13. Vers. 1  remembering, that in all things lawful, higher powers must be obeyed.    

CHAP. IX. Of the Election of Ministers.  
I Have proved already, that the church 
Supra, cap. 7.  hath authority to make decrees, laws, ordinances, and constitutions, in all things which are Adsaphora indifferent in their own nature, and tend to the peaceable government of the Church. for the church of God may safely admit, divers forms and orders whereby it may be governed; according to the diversity of the state thereof, and variable circumstances of times, places, and persons. The same liberty and freedom is granted to the Church, in the Election of her Ministers. This verity may easily be proved, by four reasons of great importance viz. By apostolical practice, decrees of ancient Counsels, the testimony of the holy Fathers; and the consent of best approved late Writers.  

The first Reason drawn from the practice of Christ and his Apostles.  
CHrist himself, as his holy Gospel teacheth us, did of 
Mat. 10. Verse. 1. Luke. 10. Verse. 1.  himself alone without the consent and voices of his people, both call and choose his Apostles. And in like manner, himself alone did call & choose his disciples, whom he sent abroad to Preach the Gospel, into every city and place, whither he himself should come. But most certain it is, that we are bound to imitate Christ's facts & deeds, before all other men's. For every his action, is and aught to be our instruction. For this cause doth the Apostle exhort the E: 
Ephes. 5. Uers. 1. 1. Cor. 11. 1.  phesians and in them all other Christians, to be followers of God, as dear children. And the same Apostle willeth us to be followers of him, even as he followed Christ.  
The Apostles themselves in their Elections of ministers, did not ever observe one and the same manner. For, in one 
Act. 1. 26.  place we read, that they presented two, Barsabas & Mathias whereof the one was chosen by Lot. In an other place, 
Act. 6. 3.  we find that this course was altered. For the people presented seven to the Apostles, who all were chosen without Lots, & upon whom the Apostles also laid on their hands. We read in an other place, that this form was like wise 
Act. 14. V. 23.  changed, and that the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, ordained ministers in every city, in which ordaination they neither observed casting of Lots, nor yet any presentment by the 
1. Tim. 5. 2. tom. 1. v. 6. Tit. 1. 5.  people. We find in an other place, that S. Paul Elected and ordained both Timothy and Titus, and gave them authority to ordain others. Hereupon I infer this evident conclusion, that there is no certain form prescribed for the Election of ministers, which is to be observed for ever in the Church, but that every Church is free to change the same, according to the circumstances of times, places, and persons. Which doctrine will better appear, when I shall come to the fourth Reason.   

The second Reason drawn from the Decrees of ancient counsels.  
THe Council of Laodicea, holden in the year of our 
Concil. Laodicen. can. 13.  Lord 370. hath these words, Non est permittendum turbis electionem eorum facere, qui sunt ad sacerdotium promovends. The people may not be permitted, to have the Election and choice of them, who are to be preferred, to the ministery of the Church.  
The Council of Cabilon hath these words. Si quis episcopus 
Council Cabilon. can. 10.  de quacunque civilate fuerit defunctus, non ab alio nisia comprev●ncialibus, clero, & civibus suis, alterius habeatur electio. Sin autem huius ordinatio irrita habeatur. If any Bishop shall die, of what city soever he be, let not an other be chosen by any other, save only by the Citizens, Clergy, and bishops of the same province, If it be done otherwise, 
Conc. autich. can. 19  the ordination shall be of no effect. The Council of Antioch teacheth the self same Doctrine.  
The council of Nice, after it hath pronounced the Election of the people to be void and of none effect, addeth 
Conc. 2. Nicen. can. 3. & nic. 1. can. 4.  these words. Oportet. n. eum qui est promo vendus ad episcopatum, ab episcopis eligi. For, he that shall be made a Bishop, must be chosen of the Bishops. And this second Council of Nice allegeth the first Council of Nice, upon which they ground this their Decree. This reason therefore is consonant to the former, that there is no certain prescript rule, for the Election of the Ministers of the Church.   

The third Reason drawn from the Testimony of the holy Fathers.  
SAint Hierome in his Epistle to Evagrius, hath these express words: Nam & Alexandria a Marco evangelista 
Hierom. ad Evagr. tom. 3. Fol. 150. A.  usque ad Heraclam & Dionisium episcopos, presbiteri semper unum ex so electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum, episcopum nominabant. For at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist until the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the pastoral 
Vide infra, cap. 14. memb. 2. & 3. per totum.  Elders did always choose one among them, whom they placed in an higher degree, and called him Bishop. Mark these words well. Saint Hierome saith here, that the Priests or Pastoral Elders did in Saint Marks time, (which was in the time of the Apostles,) choose one of themselves to be their Bishop. He maketh no mention at all, of any interest that the people had in that Election.  
He that can and list, may read in the Ecclesiastical Histories, that when Anxentius the Arian was deprived of the Bishopric of Milan, than Valentinianus the Emperor called the Bishops together, and willed them to place such a one in that Bishopric, as was fit for the place. Which motion of the Emperor did no sooner sound in the ears of the Bishops, but they forthwith humbly requested the Emperor, that he himself would choose one whom he thought most meet in that behalf. Yet the Emperor both gravely, prudently, and most Christianly answered, that it were much better for them to choose one, for that they were best able to judge and discern, of his meetness for that place. In the end, the good Emperor seeing the people tumultuously divided abo●t the Election, was content to interpose his authority, and to command Ambrose to be ordained Bishop there. These are the words of Theodoretus. Hac dissensione cognita Ambrosius urbis praefectus, 
Theodor. lib. 4. hist. cap. 6.  veritus ne qui ●novarum rerum molirentur prop●re ad ecclesiam contendit. Illi sed●tione compressa uno ore omnes postulant, uti Ambrose. qui adhuc sacris Baptismi m●sterijs non erat initiatus ipsi● designetur episcopus Quare audua, 〈◊〉 jubet illum egregium virum extemplo & initiari, & episcopum ordinari.  
So soon as this dissension was known. Ambrose the governor of the City, fearing lest they should 〈◊〉 some new tumult, cometh with speed unto t●e Church. The people beholding him made an end of their variance, and all with one assent desired, that Ambrose not as yet baptized with the holy Laver, might be designed their Bishop. Which when the Emperor heard, he commanded, that forthwith that worthy man should be baptized, and then created their Bishop. Thus writeth this ancient and learned father.  
Out of these words I observe first; that in the time of Theodoret, (who lived almost 1200. years ago) the people had voices in the Election of the Ministers of the Church. Secondly, that such usage of popular Election, was the cause of great tumults and sedition in the Church. Thirdly, that it was lawful for the Bishops, to have kept the authority and interest of Election in themselves. Fourthly, that the confirmation of Bishops, was then in the power of the Emperor. Fiftly, that it greatly skilleth not who do chose, so fit men be chosen for the places.  
Eusebius Caesariensis affirmeth constantly, that two 
Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 7. hist. eccles.  excellent Bishops in Palestine, Theoctistus Bishop of Caesarea, and Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem, did of themselves make the famous Doctor Origen Minister of the Church. Many like testimonies, are every where to be found in the history of the Church, but I study to be brief.   

The fourth Reason, drawn from the uniform consent of late Writers.  
Master Calvin, whose only testimony were sufficient in this dispute,) is so plain and resolute, that whosoever shall with judgement and indifferency peruse his Doctrine, cannot but yield unto mine opinion in this behalf. These are his express words; Est quidem & il●ud (fateor) optima ratione sancitum in Laodicens● consilio, ne turbis electio permittatur. Uix. n. unquam evenit, ut tot capita uno sensu rem aliquam benè 
Calvin inst. lib. 4. cap. 4 ●. 1●.  componant.  
This I confess, was with very great reason decreed in the council of Laodicea, that the Election should not be permitted to the common people. For it is very seldom or never seen, that so many heads can agree to conclude any matter well. Lo, this great learned man, (who was the greatest patron of the new discipline,) granteth freely and roundly, that the Church may change the manner of election, and consequently, that no one certain kind of election, is de iure divino, decreed by God's law to be perpetual.  
Again in an other place, the same Doctor hath these words; Verum in caeteris consentanea fuit ipsorum observatio; 
Calvin. inst. lib. 4. cap 4. §. 10.  cum Pauli descriptione. In eo autem quod tertio loco posuimus, quinam scz. ministros instituere debeant, non unum semper tenerunt ordinem. But in all the rest, their observation was agreeable to the description of the Apostle. And touching the third point, who ought to choose the Ministers, they did not always observe the same order. Lo, the manner of choosing 
Vide suprà, cap. 7 per totum.  the Ministers, was not the same in every place, but varied according to the circumstances of times and places, as seemed best to every Church.  
Master Beza is so plain in this controversy, (though he be deemed one of the chiefest patrons of the Presbytery) 
Beza in confession. cap. 5. art. 35. & art. 17. in fine.  that I think his words indifferently po●de●ed, will sufficiently confirm mine opinion, and the Doctrine I defend. These are his express words; Quoniam plerumque multitudo & imperita est & intractabilis, & mayor part saepe meliorem vincit, ne in democratia quidem legitimè constituta, omnia permissa sunt effrent vulgo; sed constituti sunt ex populi consensu certi magistratus qui plebi praeeant, & inconditam multitudinem regant. Quod sihaec prudetia in negotijs humanis requiritur, multo 
Vide infra, cap. 14. per tota, & notum valde, membr. 2. & 3.  sanè magis opus est certa moderatione in ijsrebus, in quibus ho-mines prorsus caecutiunt. Neque causa est, cur quisquam sani judicij homo clamitet nullis hic esse prudentiae locum, nisi hanc prudentiam de qua loquor, ostendat cum dei verbo pugnare, quod sanè non arbitror. Sequitur: neque. n. simplicitèr spectandum, quid sit ab apostolis factum in politia ecclesiastica. quum diversissimae sint circumstantiae, ac proinde absque Cacozelia non possint omnia omnibus locis ac temporibus ad unam eandemque formam revocari, sed potius spectandus est eorum finis & scopus invariabilis, & ea deligenda forma ac ratio rerum agendarum, quae rectaeo deducat.  
Because the multitude is for the most part ignorant and intractable, and the greater part doth often prevail against the better; there cannot be found even a popular state lawfully appointed, where all things are committed to the unruly multitude, but certain magistrates are appointed by the consent of the people to rule them. If this prudence must be had in human affairs, much more is a moderation required in those matters, wherein men are altogether blinded. Neither is there any cause why any man of sound judgement should exclaim, that in such a case there is no place for policy; unless he can show this policy whereof I speak, to be repugnant to the word of God, which I think he can never do. For we must not always look, what the Apostles did in Church government, seeing there is so great diversity of circumstances, that a man 
● Absque 〈…〉.  cannot without preposterous zeal reduce all things in all places and times, to one and the self same for the; but it is sufficient, if respect be had to their end and purpose, which 
Vide supra, cap. 7 aphor. 3. ●at. 3.  is not variable, and that manner and form in Church-matters be used, which leadeth directly thereunto. Thus writeth Master Beza.  
Out of this Doctrine, which master Beza hath freely delivered to our consideration, I observe these worthy documents; which I wish the gentle Reader, to keep always in his good remembrance. First, that the common people are ignorant and intractable, and so unfiit to bear any ●way in matters of great moment. Secondly, that in worldly matters the vn●uly multitude are ever governed by others in every well managed commonweal. Thirdly, that a greater care must be had in Church-government, and that the vulgar sort must have less dealing therein. Fourthly, that no wise man will or can deny, that the Church must use great policy in these affairs. Fiftly, that no private man may speak against the Church's policy, unless he can prove the same to be against the word of God. Sixtly, that the Church is not always bound to follow that in her policy and government, which the Apostles did practise in their time. Which six points, if we shall ponder them seriously; we can not but find our English church government, to be agreeable to Master Bezas 
Vide suprà cap. 7.  doctrine. Who, I verily think, if he were here and did behold the same, would with applause subscribe thereunto.  
M. Bullenger, a man of high esteem in Christ's church, hath these words; Quamobrem hinc efficitur, ecclesiam habere 
Bullenger. aaversus Anahapt. libr. 3. cap. 4.  potestatem & mandatum eligendi ministros. Hoc autem facere potest vel tota ecclesia vel fidi homines ab ecclesia ad hoc elects, prout commodius, utilius & ad pacem conscrvanaam aptius videtur, pro locorum, personarum & temporum ratione. Nam cuncta haec ad Pauli regulam dirigenda sunt ut omnia decentèr & ordine fiant. Sequitur● ita Paulus & Bernabas presbyteros seu ministros elegerunt in ecclesus Asiae. Et Titus in Creta, & Timotheus in Ephesi, ecclesiarum ministros ordinarunt. Habent aut●mi●●●uam potestatem, ex eo quod a tota ecclesia delecti sunt, quae ex verbo dei potestatem & mandatum habet eligendi ecclisiae ministros.  
Wherefore hence it cometh, that the Church hath power 
Vide cap. II. ex Musculo, & nota valdè  and commandment to choose Ministers. And this commission may be performed, either by the Church herself wholly or by some faithful persons chosen by the Church, to this end and purpose; as shall be thought more convenient, profitable, and sit for the peace of the Church, regard being had to the places, persons, and times. For all these things must be referred to Saint Paul's rule, that all things may be done decently and in order. So Paul and Bernabas, choose Ministers in the Churches of Asia. So Titus choose Ministers in Creta, and Timotheus choose pastoral Elders at Ephesus. And these persons have authority so to do, because the whole church hath chosen them there unto; which by God's word hath power and commission, to choose the ministers of the Church. Thus writeth this famous Doctor. Out of these words, I observe these golden Lessons. First, that the authority to choose and elect the ministers of the church, pertaineth unto the whole church. Secondly, that the church hath this liberty and power granted to her; either to choose them herself by general voices of all, or else to appoint some special persons for that end and purpose. Thirdly, that the manner of electing church-ministers may be changed, as the circumstances of times, persons, or places shall require. Fourthly, that this variety of election, is grounded upon God's word. Fiftly, that Paul, Bernabas, Titus, and Timotheus, did of themselves choose the ministers of the church; and consequently, that the manner of electing church-ministers this day used in the church of England, is agreeable to the word of God, and also to the Apostolic practice of the Primitive church. For our Bishops do not exercise any authority at all, save that only, which the whole church assembled in Parliament, did by uniform assent committed unto them.  

The first Objection.  
S. Cyprian telleth us, that the people have interest in the Election of Ministers, which was given them by divine 
Cypr. lib. 10 epist. 4.  authority. Ergo, it is not in man's power, to take away that freedom from them.   

The Answer.  
I answer; First, that S. Cyprian meaneth nothing else by divine authority, but divine examples; not any divine precept, commanding it so to be done, Uiz. that there are examples in the Scripture, by which we may learn, that the common people were present at the election of the Ministers, to give testimony to the church of their life and conversation; as witnesses of their honest behaviour, not as judges of the Election. This my answer is grounded upon S. Cyprians own words, which I prove sundry ways. 
Num. 20. 1. v. 2. 7. Act. 1. act. 6.  First, because he proveth his assertion only by examples; viz. For that Eleazar, Mathias, & the 7. Deacons, were chosen in the sight & presence of the people. Now we know, that examples only show what may be done; but they are not a law, which do or can command a thing of necessity to be done. Christ ministered the holy Eucharist after Supper, but we do it before dinner. The Apostles received it sitting but we take it kneeling. Christ ministered it in unleavened bread, but we in bread that is leavened.  
So we see a great disparity, betwixt examples and precepts. The former do instruct us, but not compel us; the 
Vide inferius, cap. 14. memb 2. & 3. & nota valdè. cap. totum.  latter do not only teach us, but they also command us. Again because S. Cyprian, hath these words; Quod & ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere, ut sacerdos plebe present sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus atque idoneus publico indicio ac testimonio comprobetur.  
Which thing we see descends from divine authority, that the Priest may be chosen when the people are present, in the eyes of them all; that he may be proved worthy, by public judgement and testimony. And a little after, he showeth more plainly the cause, why the people are present at elections. Et Episcopus deligatur plebe present, quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit. And that the Bishop may be chosen in the presence of the people, who know best what every man's life hath been. Thirdly, because S. Cyprian confesseth in that very place, that some Provinces had an other custom, whom he reproveth not.  
I answer secondly, that if the Antecedent be admitted, and we also grant the people's interest to be, De iure divino; yet can nothing be inferred thereupon, against the practice of the Church of England. The reason is evident, because nothing is done in our Churches of England, to which the people have not yielded their assent, as is already proved.   

The 2. Objection.  
The example of the Apostles, saith M. Calvin, is to us Vice praecepti. Ergo, we may not change, or depart from their practice in any wise.   

The Answer.  
I answer; first, that I have proved the contrary, both out of Master Calvin and M. Beza: yea, M Calvin himself granteth freely, that Christ's own practice may be changed: and that in a matter of greatest moment, even in the blessed Eucharist. These are his own words: Nihil a Christ's consilio ac voluntate alienum facere videri, qui non contemptu neque temeritate sed ipsa necessitate adacti, provino aliva in iis regionibus usitatae potionis genus usurparent. Hoc domini 
Calvin, epist. 25 apud Bezam. Pag. 167.  Calvini responsum, ut optima ratione nixum, & Christi consilio consentaneum, noster catus adeo comprobavit ut eos superstitiosè sacere censuerimus, qui a vini symbolo usque adeo penderent, ut alter Turrian caenae partem omittere mallent, quam Analogon aliud symbolum ita cogente necessitate, usurpare.  
M. Calvin (saith M. Beza,) answered to his brethren in America which have no wine, that they should not do contrary to Christ's will and meaning, who not upon contempt, but constrained with necessity, would use instead of wine, some other kind of drink usual in that country. Which counsel of M. Calvin our congregation did so well like, as grounded upon good reason, and agreeable to Christ's counsel, that we judged them to be superstitious, which did so depend upon the Symbol of wine, that they had rather omit the one part of the Supper, then to use upon necessity, an other Symbol proportionable unto wine. This was M. Calvins' opinion, in this important and most weighty affair.  
M. Beza likewise delivereth his judgement, in another subject of like moment. These are his express words;  
Secundi generis sunt ipsa signorum materia, & nonnullorum r●uum a domino institutorum forma; ut exempti gratia, panis & vinum sunt caenae signa ex Domini institutione. Ubi igitur panis aut vini, vel nullus est usus, vel nulla certo tempore copia, num caenae Domini nulla celebrabitur? Imò ritè celebrabitur, si quod panis aut vini vicem, vel ex usu communi vel pro temporis ratione supplet, panis aut vini loco adhibeatur. Haec. n. mens fuit Christi, quum panem ac vinum ad haec mysteria deligeret, ut propositis earum rerum signis quibus corpus nostrum alitur, veram alimoniam spiritualem velut ob oculos representaret. Itaque a Christi sententi a nihil aberrat, qui nullo prorsus novandi studio pro pane & vino substituat, quae etsi non parem, similem tamen alimonia analogiam habeant. Defy etiam aqua & tamen baptismus alicuius differri cum adificatione non possit, nec debeat; ego certè quovis alio liquore, non minus ritè quam aqua baptizarim.  
Of the second kind are the matter of the signs, and the form of certain Rites which our Lord ordained; as for examples sake, bread and wine, are the signs of the Supper, by our Lords own institution. Where therefore there is either no use at all of bread and wine, or else great want for a time, shall we celebrate no Supper of the Lord? Yea, it shall be celebrated aright, if that be taken in the place of bread and wine, which either by common use, or in regard of the time, is used in the stead of bread or wine. For this Christ intended, when he chose bread and wine for these mysteries; that by proposing before our eyes, the signs of those things with which our bodies is nourished, he might represent the true food of our souls. Therefore he swerveth not at all from Christ's meaning, who having no desire of innovation, useth in stead of bread and wine, those things, which though they have not equal, yet have they like proportion of nourishment with bread and wine. There wants also water, and yet Baptism neither aught nor can be differed with edification; myself doubtless would baptise in any other liquor, no less lawfully than I would in water. This is master Bezaes' judgement, even in the essential parts of the Sacraments.  
Out of this doctrine thus delivered by these two learned Doctors, M. Calvin, and M. Beza I observe these most important documents. First, that the authority of the church is so great, that it can alter the matter of the Sacraments, both of Baptism and the lords supper, if credit may be given to these great Doctor's doctrine  
Secondly, that the use of the Lords Supper and of Baptism is of such necessity, that this change may and aught to be admitted, rather than we be defrauded of the benefit thereof.  
Thirdly, that neither the practice of the Apostles, nor the examples of Christ, nor yet Christ's own institution: No, not in the matter of Sacraments, is of such force and moment; but that the church upon good and necessary cause, may alter and change the same. And consequently, it must needs be granted, neither can it with any colour of reason be denied; that the Church may change the manner of choosing her ministers, as necessary circumstances of times, places, and persons shall require. Especially, seeing there is neither example, commandment, or institution of Christ to the contrary.     

CHAP. X. Of the ordaining of Ministers, and the Ceremonies thereto appertaining.  
THat Bishops have and ever had authority, to make, order, and admit Ministers of the Church; it is so clear and evident, by the Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers and continual practice of the Church, that I cannot but admire their audacious temerity, that do oppugn the same. Mark well the answers, to all the Objections in this Chapter.  
Saint Paul chargeth. Bishop Timothy, not to lay his 
1. Tim. 5. V. 22. 2 tim. 1. 6. tit. 1. 5.  hands rashly on any man. And the same Saint Paul telleth us, that he left Bishop Titus at Creta, that he might order and make ministers in every town.  
Now, that Timothy and Titus ordained Ministers, it is clear by the Text itself. But two doubts remain; 
Vide suprá cap 5.  The one, whether Timothy and Titus had more authority than other common Ministers, or not. The other, whether they alone ordained Ministers or with the joint-authoritie of others.  
Touching the former, I have proved already by many testimonies, that both Titus and Timotheus were Archbishops, and had superiority over many other Bishops.  
I will hear adjoin the testimony of Hemingius, 
Hemingius in enchir. pag. 367. p. 372. p 367. p. 373.  whose words are these: Attamen Paulus gradu digns tatis & ordine Timotheo & Tito erat superior. Timotheus gradu & ordine excelluit reliquos Ephesmae urbis presbyteros. Et Titus Cretensihus praecrat. Sequitur, inter hos ministros agnoscit etiam ecclesia nostra gradus dignitatis & ordines, pro diversitate donorum, laborum magnitudine, ac v●cationum dignitate ac judicat barbaricum esse, de ecclesia hunc ordinem tollere velle. judicat caeteros Ministros suis episcopis oportere obtemperare in omnibus, quod ad adificationem ecclesiae faciunt, juxta verbum dei ac utilem ecclesiae oeconomium. judicat episcoposius habere in caeteros ministros ecclesiae non despoticum sed patrium.  
But Paul in deegree and order of dignity, was superior to Timothy and Titus. Timothy in degree and order, excelled all other Presbyters or Priests of Ephesus; and Titus was governor over the Cretions. Among these Ministers, our Church also acknowledgeth degrees of dignity, & orders, according to the diversity of gifts, labours, and calling: and deemeth him to be a plain rudes be, that once hath but a mind to take this order out of the Church. Our Church also judgeth, that all other Ministers must obey their Bishops, in all things which pertain to edification, according to the word of God, and the profitable dispensation of the Church. She judgeth that the Bishops have a sovereignty over all other Ministers of the Church; yet not despotical, but paternal.  
Touching the latter, the scripture is plain, that none 
Act. 1 act 6. act. 14 tit 1. 5. 2. tim. 1. 6.  but Bishops did ordain Church-ministers at any time. And these Fathers of the Church affirm constantly, that this was a special & known prerogative of Bishops; that they, and none but they, could order and make Ministers of the Church. S. Hierome hath these evident & express words; Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus, quod presbyter 
Hieron. epist. ad Evagr. tom 3. fol. 150 B.  non faciat? For what doth a Bishop, which a Priest doth not, the ordering of Ministers excepted? Lo in this one thing, doth a Bishop differ from Priests and inferior Ministers; because no other Minister, save only a Bishop, can ordain and make Ministers of the Church.  
Saint Epiphanius, (who lived above one thousand and two hundred years ago,) affirmeth plainly, that Bishops 
Epiph. cont. haer ab. 3. to 1. haer. 75. Pag. 296.  only make Priests, that is, begetteth fathers to the Church; and both he and Saint Austin enroled the contrary opinion among flat heresies, censuring all them for Heretics, that held or defended such absurdities.  
Saint Irenaeus, (who lived next to the Apostles, and 
Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap 3. libr. 5. cap. 2. pag. 589.  so could not be ignorant, what was the Church practise in their days,) maketh this my doctrine without question, and beyond all exception; that Bishops even in the Apostolic time, were different in degree from Priests, and did create and make Priests, but never were created of Priests.  
No, no: if Priests could make Priests: or if it were not an Apostolical tradition, that that charge doth appertain only to Bishops, (as it is this day laubably observed in the Church of England, then doubtless. Aerius could never have been censured for an Heretic. Add hereunto, that which I have already delivered, in the fist Chapter, in the first and second Paragraph; and thou shalt find this Doctrine, to be agreeable to the practice of Christ's church in all former ages. See Zanchius, and note well his words. Note well also the Answer to the second Objection. 
Supra, cap. 5. ●. 2.   

The first Objection.  
It appeareth by Saint Hierome in his Epistle to Evagrius, that one minister was made superior to an other, only by the ordinance of men.   

The Answer.  
I answer; First, that Saint Hierome calleth that man's ordinance, which was done by the Apostles immediately, for that they were men indeed, as we ourselves are. Secondly, that superiority of one Minister over and above an other, was in the Apostles time, and proceeded from authority apostolical. This is already proved. Thirdly, that a thing may be called de iure divine, a divine institution or ordinance, two ways. First, because it is of God immediately. Secondly, for that it is of them, who are so directed by God's holy spirit, that they cannot err. This phrase of speech, Saint Paul useth in these words, to the remnant I 
1. Cor. 7. Vers. 12:  speak, and not the Lord. Where we may not doubt, but all that Saint Paul spoke, was from the Lord, and that his ordinance was divine, and not mere human. And in this sense, the superiority of Bishops over other inferior Ministers of the Church, may be called De iure divine, or an ordinance divine. Saint Hierome calleth it an human ordinance, rather than Divine; because it was De iure divine only in genere, and mediately, and De iure humano in specie, and immediately.   

The second Objection  
In the primitive Church, there was neither Archbishop, Patriarch, nor Metropolitan, and yet no Church did or can excel the same, in government, beauty, or perfection,   

The Answer.  
I answer; First, that though in the very beginning of the primitive Church, there were no Archbishops, patriarchs, or Metropolitans; yet were such very shortly after, even in the time of the Apostles, as is already proved. Secondly, that though Archbishops, and Metropolitans were not expressly named, yet were they equivalently implied in the Apostles. Thirdly, that as the Church for a time wanted Archbishops and Bishops, so did it also want Deacons and unpriested Elders. And as the defect of the latter, did not argue the imperfection of the Church for that time; so neither did the want of the former, infer any such necessary consequence. Fourthly, that as the Church had authority, for the circumstances of times, places, and persons, to ordain Deacons, and unpriested Seniors, (if any such ever were,) so also had it then, and this day hath like authority to ordain Archbishops, and other Ministers 
Vide & nota Bullinger. supra cap. 9 p●●●ante object. I.  of the church, for the common good, unity, and peace of the same. Whosoever shall read attentively, Master Bullingers' words against the Anabaptists of his time, shall find and perceive very evidently, that he constantly defendeth this my opinion and doctrine.  
Master Bucer maketh this case most evident, whilst 
Bucerus in 4. cap ad 〈…〉 c. p 8. & 〈◊〉 val. ac.  he showeth the liberty, freedom, and authority of the Church, in these most pithy and golden words; At vero de ●aeteris signis quae in sacris adhibita sunt a veteri●●●, ve● hodi● adhibentur a multis, ut sunt ignis ad oxorcijmes & catechis, mos, & alba vestis baptizatorum, sacer panis qui dabatur catechumenis, & pleraque alia, sic sentio. Siquae ecclesiae essent, quae puram Christi tenerent doctrinam, & sinceram servarent disciplinem, hisque signis uterentur simpli●itèr & purè, absque omni superstitione vel levitate. precise ad pias admonitiones easquo probè ommbus intellectas; eas ecclesias non possem equidem propter signorum talem usum condemnare. Sequitur; hinc fit, ut homines sicut in privatis & publicis actionibus faciunt, ita utilitèr etiam pleraque signa adhibeant sacris ceremorijs. Iterum ibidem; signum impositionis manuum etiam episcopi soli prabebant, & non absque ratione. Sive. n sic faedus domini baptizatis confirmandum● sive reconciliandiij, qui grass viù● peccarunt; sive ecclesijs ministri ordinandi haec omnia ministeria maximè decent eos, quibus summa ecclesiarum cur a demandata est.  
Touching all other ceremonies, which were used of ancient time in the holy mysteries, or are this day in use with many; as fire to Exorcisms and Catechismos, the white garment of the Baptized, holy bread given to the Catechumenes, and many other things, my opinion is this, if there were any Churches, which retained pure doctrine and sincere discipline, and did use these signs and ceremonies simplely and purely, without all superstition or levity, precisely to godly admonitions well understood of all the people; I verily could not condemn those churches, for the use of such signs or ceremonies. Hence it cometh, that as men do in private and public actions, so also may they add many signs unto their holy ceremonies, and that not without profit. The sign also of imposition of hands, was given by Bishops only, and that 
Note well this point and doctrine, dels. vered by this great learned man.  not without reason. For whether the baptised were to be confirmed with the covenant of the Lord, or they, who had sinned grievously, were to be reconciled, or Ministers were to be ordained unto Churches, all these ministries do especially pertain unto them, to whom the chiefest charge of the church is committed.  
Out of these golden words of this great learned Doctor, and renowned Writer, I observe these worthy lessons. First, that in the ancient approved Churches were many ministries, with which inferior Ministers (then called Priests, as our Church this day useth the same names,) had not to do withal. Secondly, that only Bishops (who were superiors in degree,) could make, order, and consecrate Priests, and other inferior Ministers of the Church. Thirdly, that only Bishops, and not Priests, did confirm the baptised, by imposition of hands. Which thing our English Church doth this day lawdably observe, howsoever some mal-contents, more rashly then wisely impugn the same. Fourthly, that the Church hath authority to constitute symbols, signs and ceremonies, and to add them unto the holy mysteries. Fiftly, that we may not condemn those Churches, which for godly considerations without superstition, do use such signs and ceremonies, as were not known or heard of in the primitive Church. Oh that this doctrine were well marked, and remembered; for then doubtless all dissension would cease, and all mal-contents would yield obedience, to the godly settled Laws of our English Church.  
Master Zuinglius a very learned and famous Writer, and a most zealous professor of Christ's Gospel, is able to 
Zuinglius in eccles. pag. 48  satisfy all indifferent Readers. These are his express words: Simul & illud notari debet, quod apostolorum nomen deposuerunt, ut primùm uni alicui ecclesiae affixi, illius curam continuam habuerant, cum nimirum vel senecta impediti, vel morbis afflicti, peregrinationum molestijs & periculis amplius, sufficere non potuerunt. Tunc. n. non apostoli amplius, sed episcopi dicti sunt. Possumus autem huins rei exemplum, imo testem adducere D. jacobum, quem nos minorem ab atate dicimus. Hunc. n. Huronimus & omnes simul vetusti patres, Hierosolymitanorum episcopum nominant, non aliam ob causam, quam quod ea in urbe sedem fixam posuisset. Cum, n. antea, ut & reliqui apostoli, peregrinationibus deditus fidem ubique terrarum docuisset, tandem abipsis apostolis constitutus est, qui Hierosolymitanae ecclesiae curam, ceu diligens aliquis speculator, ageret: idem de johann evangelista & christi discipulo dicere possumus. cum. n. multis & varijs periculis obiectus apostolieam functionem longo tempore administravisset, tandem Ephesiorum episcopus factus, in ea urbe anno ab ascensione domini sexagesimo octavo è vivis excessit.  
This also must be marked, that they laid away the name of Apostles, so soon as they were tied to any one church, and had the continual charge thereof. To wit, when they being either hindered with old age, or afflicted with diseases, were no longer able to endure troubles and molestations of travail. For than they were no longer called Apostles, but Bishops. We may bring Saint james the younger, for an example, or rather for a witness of this matter. For Hierome and all the ancient Fathers, call him the Bishop of Jerusalem; and for no other cause, save only that he had placed himself in that city. For when in former times, he as the rest of the Apostles, being given to peregrination, had taught the faith every where, the Apostles made him, as a diligent watchman, the Bishop of Jerusalem. The same we may say of Saint john the Evangelist, and disciple of Christ. For when he being exposed to many dangers, had executed the apostolical function a long time, he was at length made the Bishop of Ephesus, and died 68, years after our Lord's ascension.  
Out of these words of this excellent discourse, I note first, that in the Apostles something was extraordinary and temporary, and something likewise ordinary and perpetual. This is an observation of great moment, well worthy to be engraven in Marble, with a Pen of Gold. Secondly, that the Apostles were some time Bishops, and that their function in that respect was perpetual. Thirdly, that so soon as they betook themselves to an ordinary calling, 
Note this point wel● for it is of great moment.  they ceased to be called Apostles, and were named Bishops. And this their ordinary calling, remaineth this day in the Church, and shall continue until the world's end. Hence cometh it, that all the holy Fathers affirm with uniform consent, that Bishops this day succeed the Apostles in their ordinarily calling.  
This grave Writer delivereth his opinion for ceremonies, 
Zuinglius in acclesiaste, pag. 20.  most plainly and prudently in these express words; jam obijciebant odiose nimis, salem, butyrum, salivam, lutum, & alia id genus, imo ipsas quoque orationes quae super infantibus fiunt, quod neque johannes, neque apostoli legerentur orationibus baptismo praeivisse. Ad quae sic respondimus, primùm ad ceremonias; Christum interim caecos quosdam visui restituisse mediantibus tactu aut luto, interim solo verbo (respice,) neque tamen eos minùs vidisse, qui tactu vel luto mediant aciem recepissent, quam qui solo verbo, at nihil morari nos externa ista, si ecclesia iubeat res●indi factumque est, ut protinus iuberet, non ignorantibus nobis qui verbo praesumus, iam inter exordia ecclesiae horum fuisse usum tametsi eis non tantum tribueretur, atque his nostris temporibus, undè & citrà negotium recidimus. Now they objected too odiously, Butter, Salt, spittle, Cley, and such; like, yea the very prayers made over infants, because neither john, nor the Apostles are read, to have prevented baptism with prayers. To which we answered, and first to the ceremonies, that Christ sometime cured the blind by touching and Clay, sometime by his word only, neither for all that did they see less, who received sight by Clay and touching, than they which saw by his only word: but we make no reckoning of these external things, if the church command them to be taken away, and we obeyed, as she appointed, albeit we ministers are not ignorant, that in the beginning of the church these ceremonies were used, though not in such sort as now adays, and therefore without contradiction we reject them.  
Out of this discourse we may learn sufficiently, how to behave ourselves touching ceremonies. viz. to use or refuse signs and ceremonies, as being things indifferent, as the church shall think it expedient and appoint to be done.  
Hemingius an other famous late writer, hath these words; Augustinus & Ambrose non offenduntur, ex coque aliae Remae, 
Hemingius in syntagm. in. 4. lege decalogi.  aliae Mediolani essent ceremoniae. Nam inter se iunguntur pij spiritis Christi, non humanis ceremonijs. Vt pios gubernatores ecclesiarum velim magno studio cavere, ne ceremoniae scandalo sint infirmis; it a privatos nolim quicquam mutare in ceremonijs, gravi authoritate a maioribus institutis & approbatis. Neque est, quod exactissima ratio singularum ceremoniarum inquiratur, modo non manifestam superstitionem & impietatem redoleant. Quidam offenduntur ceremonijs nostris, quas clamitant papisticas esse. Dicunt nos habere sacerdotes, altaria, vectes, candeloes, imagines, exorcismos, signationes crucis, planè papistico more. His ego respondeo, ecclesiam veram a falsae dictingunendam doctrina & cultu, non ceremonijs quae per se adiaphorae sunt. Neque. n ceremonias adiaphoras tanti momenti esse indicamus, ut propter illas schismata moveantur in ecclesia. Retineatur doctrinae sinceritas, retineatur purus dei cultus. Alia serviant partim tranquillitati, partim infirmitati hominum; & relinquamus prudentia quberuatorum, & de his rebus dispiciant.  
Austen and Ambrose are not offended, that Rome had one kind of ceremonies, and Milan an other. For the godly are linked together by the spirit of Christ, not by human ceremonies. As I wish the godly governors of Churches to be very circumspect, that ceremonies do not scandalise weaklings, so would I not have private persons to alter 
Vide suprá, cap. 9 per totum, & infrà, cap. 14  any thing in ceremonies, which our ancestors with grave authority have ordained & approved. Neither is there any cause, why we should require an exact reason of every ceremony, so that they imply not any manifest superstition and impiety. Some are offended with our ceremonies, crying out that they are papistical. They say, we have Priests, Altars, Vestures, Candles, Images, Exorcisms, Cross, even after the Popish manner. To these good fellows I answer, that the true Church is distinguished from the false, in doctrine and worship; but not in ceremonies, which are of their own nature things indifferent. For we think not ceremonies indifferent to be of such moment, 
Mark this learned, wise, and goaty counsel  that for them we may make a Schism in the Church. Let us retain the sincerity of Doctrine, and hold fast the pure worship of God. Let other things serve partly peace and tranquillity, partly the infirmity of men; and let us leave these things to the prudent consideration of our superiors, and let them dispose thereof.  
Out of these words of this great learned Writer, we may gather all things necessary, for the decision of all controversies about rites and ceremonies of the Church. For first, he telleth us, that the variety of ceremonies at Rome and Milan, did not offend Saint Austen and Saint Ambrose. Secondly, that private persons must be obedient to the laws of their superiors, and not to take upon them to alter those ceremonies, which higher powers have appointed. Thirdly, that we must not be curious, to demand reasons for every ceremony. Fourthly, that all ceremonies are tolerable, which contain not in them manifest superstition and impiety. Fiftly, that Copes, Vestments, Candles, Exorcisms, Cross, and such like, are not things of sufficient moment, to cause Schism and dissension in the Church; but that all such things must be left, and wholly referred, to the consideration of higher powers. And both Bucer and Zuinglius teacheth the same doctrine, as is already proved.   

The third Objection.  
Now the Church is troubled with Chancellors' Commissaries, Officials, and such like; for defence whereof, no reason can be yielded.   

The Answer.  
The antiquity of Chancellors and Officials, or of the Substitutes and Vicars of Bishops, (which is all one in the thing itself,) is such & of so great authority in God's church, that both old and late writers of best judgement, moderation, and learning, have acknowledged and approved the same. The ancient Council of Ancyran, (which was afore 
Conc. Ancyr. Can. 13.  the Nicen council, even almost 13. hundred years ago,) hath these express words: Vicarijs Episcoporum (quos graci corepiscopos vocant,) non licere vel presbyteros vel diaconos ordinare; sed nec presbyteris civitatis sine episcopi praecepto ampliùs aliquid imperare, nec sine authoritate literarum eius in unaquaque parochia aliquid agere.  
We decree (saith this council,) that it is not lawful for the Vicars or Substitutes of Bishops, (whom the greeks call fellow-bishops or coadjutors,) to order either Priests or Deacons; neither yet to be lawful to the Priests of the City, to command any thing else without the Bishop's authority, or without the authority of his letters, to do any thing in any parish. The ancient council of Neocaesarea, 
Conc. Neocae. can. 13. Con. Antioch. can. 8.  and the Council of Antioch, being likewise of great antiquity, do acknowledge and approve the said Vicars or Substitutes of Bishops.  
Hemingius agreeth with the Canons of the aforenamed counsels, delivering his opinion in these words: Hac potestate 
Hemingius in syntagm. de gubernat. eccles.  ecclesia ordinat ministros pro commodo suo, ut omnia ordinatè fiant ad instaurationem corporis Christi. Hinc ecclesia purior secuta tempora Apostolorum, alios patriarchas, alios episcopos, alios corepiscopos, alios pastors & catechistas instituit. Sequitur decori partes sunt duae. Prior, ut excitemur ad pietatem illis adminiculis. Posterior, ut modestia & gravitas in pietatis tractatione eluceat.  
By this power the Church ordereth Ministers for her own good, that all things may be done in order, for the instauration of the body of Christ. Hence the pure church, which followed after the days of the Apostles, appointed some to be patriarchs, some to be Bishops, some Coadjutors, Vicars, or fellow-bishops, othersome Pastors & Catechists. Comeliness, hath two parts; the first, that we may be drawn to piety by these helps; the other, that modesty and gravity may shine, in the ordinance of piety.  
Out of these words, I note first, that the Church may make and constitute diverse degrees of Ministers, for her own peace and for the building up of Christ's mystical body. Secondly, that patriarchs, Archbishops, and Substitutes or Suffragans of Bishops, and such like, were ordained even then, when the Church was in her purity. A most worthy observation, remember it well gentle Reader. Thirdly, that Ceremonies are some helps, to bring men unto piety.  
M. Bucer, M. Zanchius, and M. Calvin, the greatest Patrons of Presbytery, do all agree unto this my doctrine, acknowledging it for the doctrine of the best and purest Churches, next after the Apostles-dayes. In regard of brevity, I surcease from recital of their words.  

The Reply.  
The Church of Geneva, where M. Calvin was the chief in his time, hath neither patriarchs, nor Archbishops, nor Suffragans, or substitute vicar's.   

The Answer.  
I answer with M. Calvin himself, whose words are these; Talis morositas deterrima est pestis, quum morem ecclesiae 
Calvin in in arg in ep. ad gall.  unius volumus pro universali lege valere. Such morosity is a pestilent mischief, when we will have the manner of one Church, to be in place of an universal law. Yea, if M. Calvin, were this day living, he would not affirm the usage of Geneva, to be a fit pattern for the government of our English Church. Many Ceremonies and constitutions agree well to our Church, which were nothing convenient to some other. Hence cometh it, that the Church hath authority, as I have already proved,) to constitute, make, and publish, such Canons, Rules, and Ordinances, as tend to the common good and peaceable government thereof.    

The 4. Objection.  
The Bishops take upon them to give the holy Ghost, when they ridiculously make Ministers. For they say, Receive ye the holy Ghost.   

The Answer.  
I answer, that the manner of ordering Ministers used in our English Church, descended by tradition from the best, most ancient, and purest Churches. Which thing Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustin, Saint Hierome, and all the holy Fathers do constantly affirm with uniform assent. Neither doth the Bishop take upon him to give the holy Ghost, but humbly and reverently pronounceth Christ's words, according to the usual practice of all Churches in best approved times; thereby signifying unto the newly ordered Ministers, their principal charge and duty, and assuring them of the assistance of God's holy Spirit, if they labour in their calling as they ought to do. Which usage of our English Church, is consonant aswell to the practice of ancient Churches, as to the doctrine of Saint Paul himself to Timothy, when 
2. Tim 1. Uer. 6. Vide Calv. libr. 4 instit. cap. 3. in fine & notato.  he saith; Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, thou stir up the gift of GOD which is in thee, by the putting on of mine hands. For albeit all things necessary for our salvation, be contained in the Scriptures, either expressly, or by neceslarie consequence, yet are many other things very profitable for the external government of the Church, which are partly received by tradition from the Apostles, and partly added by the authority of the Church, as circumstances of times, places, and persons did require. Of this point of doctrine M. Zuinglius disputeth very learnedly, in a large 
Zuinglius part. 2. De baptismo, pag. 87.  discourse against the Anabaptists. His words are these; Apostolos baptizatos fuisse nusquamlegimus, nisi quod de duobus tantùm mentio fiat, johan. 1. Vbi tamen idem hoc non disertè expressum est, sed obscuriùs innuitur. Quod si ergo vestro more nihil eorum factum esse dicemus, quae scripturis sacris non continentur; iam & D. virginem Mariam, & ipsos quoque Apostolos, baptismi signo nunquam inauguratos fuisse fateri cogemur; quoa ab omni pietate & religione est quam alienissimum. Sequitur: caeterùm quòd ad dogmata fides spectat, & eas res quae fidem nostram & internum hominem informant perpetuò hoc ce● presenti antidoto utendum est, quod Deus non praecepit credere, ut credamus adsalutem necessarium non est. Cultum hunc non descripsit, nec iniunxit Dominus, ergo illi placere & acceptus 
Vide supra cap. 7. ex calvino, & nota.  esse non potest. Ceremoniarum autem ratio longè alia est. Nec enim dicere licebit, de ceremonijs istis in Scriptura nihil proditum est, ergo ceremonijs istis usi non sunt; quod ipsum in exemplo divae virgins & Apostolorum abundè satis demonstratum est.  
We read in no place of the holy Scripture, that the Apostles wear baptised; save only, that mention is made of two in S. john. Where for all that, the same is not plainly expressed, but obscurely insinuated. If therefore we shall follow your manner, and deny all things, which are not contained in the holy scriptures; then certes, we shall be compelled to grant, that neither the blessed Virgin Marie, nor the Apostles themselves were ever baptised; which doubtless is a strange assertion, and far from all piety and religion. But touching doctrines of Faith, and those things which inform our faith & the inward man, we must ever use this as a present preservative; what God hath not commanded us to believe, to believe that is not necessary to our salvation. Our Lord neither appointed, nor enjoined this kind of worship; therefore it can neither please, nor be acceptable to him. But touching ceremonies, the case is far different. For we may not say; there is no mention made of these Ceremonies in the Scripture, therefore the Apostles used them not; which thing is proved abundantly, by the example of the blessed Virgin, and of the Apostles. Out of this must excellent discourse, I observe these worthy documents. First, that all things necessary for our salvation, are comprised in the holy Scriptures. Secondly, that many other things necessary for Church-government, are received by tradition. Thirdly, that it is not a good Argument, to reason after this manner; there is no mention of these things in the Scriptures, therefore the Apostles used them not, or therefore they are not lawful. This doctrine is agreeable to Saint Augustine's rule, who 
August. in Epist. ad januar. 1. Cor. 11. 16.  calleth it insolent madness, to withstand and contradict that, which is received by the custom of the whole Church. Yea, it is consonant to S. Paul's practice, against the malapert sauciness of contentious persons.    

CHAP. XI. Of the Presbytery, and signory.  
SOme otherwise learned, do this day labour with might and main, to prove that our English church ought to be governed 
See the 12. chap. sect. 4. ex Bullingero, Gualtero, & aliis.  with a Presbytery; that is, with Pastors, Teachers, Laical unpriested Elders, and Deacons, These 4. (as they contend) are the lawful Governors of every particular congregation. Pastors and teachers, for procuring the advancement of the faith of the Church; Elders, for the censure of their conversation and life; and Deacons, for the comfort of the poor. That that the truth of this controversy, (of which many talk, but very few understand it aright,) may be laid open to the indifferent Reader, I have thought it good to proceed therein, by way of Propositions.  

The 1. Proposition.  
THat kind of government, which may be altered for the circumstances of times, places, and persons, is neither necessary nor perpetual. But the government by Pastors, Doctors, Elders, and Deacons, (if ever there were any such kind of government in the Christian world,) may be altered and changed; Ergo, it is neither necessary, nor perpetual. the Argument is in form, and the Proposition most clear & evident to every child. The difficulty or 
Supr● cap. 7. pertotum.  doubt (if there be any,) resteth in the assumption. But I have proved it at large, where I disputed of the Church's authority, in things indifferent. Yea, there was a time, even in the days of the Apostles, when the Church had no 
Act. 6. Acts 14. Vide infrà, cap. 12 sect. 4.  Deacons. There was also a time, even in the days of the same Apostles, when the Church had no unpriested or unpreaching Elders. Who so readeth seriously, the Acts of the Apostles and S. Paul's Epistles, can not be ignorant in this behalf.   

The 2. Proposition.  
CHrist did not translate the Sanhedrim, Synedrion, or Consistory of the jews, unto his Church in the new Testament. I prove it first, because both their less kind of Sanhedrim, and their great (as they did afterward divide it,) was only in one place for all the Realm; viz. First at Sylo, then at Jerusalem their chief city, until the worst and last alterations therein; but the seekers of the new English Presbytery, would have the like, (if not the very same,) to be erected in every congregation.  
Again in both Consistories of the jewish Sanhedrim, 
Vide infrà. ca 12. sect. 4.  aswell in the greater of the 70: as in the lesser of the 23. they were all either Priests, or Doctors of the Law, the King and the Peers of the Realm only excepted. Thirdly, 
●sa●. 10. v. 8.  than Sanhedrim had partly political partly ecclesiastical jurisdiction both together; but our Presbyters have only ecclesiastical, seeing (as they grant,) to be judges in civil places, is only the Office of the civil Magistrate.   

The 3. Proposition.  
THe English supposed Presbytery, is not compatible with a Christian Monarchy; but must perforce despoil 
Vide infrà, in sexta proposition in resp. ad 2. object.  her, and bereave her of her royal sovereignty. I prove it, because the said Presbytery challengeth unto herself, all authority in causes ecclesiastical; the supreme oversight of which causes, pertaineth to the civil Magistrate, as is already proved.   

The 4. Proposition.  
THE English desired Presbytery, is not grounded upon the word of God. I prove it, because the Scriptures alleged by the Patrons thereof, do conclude no such matter. The Texts are five in number, being all that any way seem to make for their purpose. The first is out of the Gospel, (tell the Church). To this Text I 
Matt 18. ver. 17. 1  answer in this manner; First, that we for the true meaning of this portion of Scripture, will give credit to Saint Chrysostome, and the rest of the ancient Fathers; The Church to which this complaint must be made, doth signify the Bishops and governors of the Church; who, according to all general Counsels, ancient Canons, and the continual practice of the Church; were ever to this day reputed, acknowledged, and taken for the Church representive. Secondly, that if we will be ruled by M. Calvins' censure; Christ doth not here say any thing of the church, 
Calvin in harmonia evang. 3.  of the New Testament, but alludeth to the order of the Church of the jews. Thirdly, that by the judgement of the grave and learned writer M. Bullinger, a great Patron of the Presbytery, Christ speaketh here of the whole congregation; and not to a few persons, of whom consisteth 
Calvin in harmonia Evang.  the supposed Presbytery. And this exposition is so agreeable to the Text, as none with right reason can deny the same. Yea this sense is indeed agreeable to the verdict of S. Chrysostome and of all the ancient Fathers, and to the continual practice of the Church in all ages. These are 
Bullingerus advers. Anabapt. lib. 3. cap. 4 Vide infrà, cap. 12. sect. 4. & no. ta valdè.  M. Bullingers' words; Quamobrem, hinc efficitur, ecclesiam habere potestatem & mandatum eligendiministros. Hoc autem facere potest, veltota ecclesia, vel fidi homines ab ecclesia, ad hoc electi, prout commodius, utilius, & ad pacem conservandam aptius videtur; prolocorum, personarum, & temporumratione. Nam cuncta haec ad Pauli regulam dirigenda sunt, ut omnia decentèr & ordine fiant. Wherefore, hence it cometh, that the Church hath power and commandment to choose her Ministers. And this may be performed, either by the whole Church, or by faithful men chosen of the Church for this end and purpose; as shall be thought more commodious, profitable, and fit for the conservation of peace; respect being had to places, persons, and times. For all these things must be reterred to Paul's rule, that all things be done decently and in order. And a little after, the same Writer hath these words: Habent autem istisuam potestatem exeo quod a tota ecclesia detecti sunt, quaeex verbo Deipotestatem & manda●n̄ habet eligendi ecclesiae ministros. But these men have their authority, for that the whole Church hath chosen them, which by God's word hath power and commandment, to choose the Ministers of the Church. Thus writeth this learned man.  
Out of whose words it is most apparent & clear, that all power is granted unto the whole Church, who to avoid confusion and for order sake, committeth her authority to certain chosen persons. Which persons are the Bishops and Prelates of the Church, say I, and all antiquity will confess the same with me. For neither Counsels, Fathers, nor ancient Canons, do make any mention of the late upstart presbytery.  
The Second text is fathered upon Saint Paul, where he saith; let him that ruleth, do it with diligence. The third 
Rom. 12. Vers. 8.  text is drawn from the same Apostle, where he telleth us, that God hath ordained in the Church, some Apostles, some Prophets, some teachers, some workers of miracles; 
1. cor. 12. Vers. 28.  after that, the gifts of healing, helpers, governors. To these two texts, which are of one and the same effect, for the establishing of the presbytery, I answer in this manner; First, that the Apostle in both places may be understood indifferently, either of civil governors and government only, or of ecclesiastical only, or of both jointly, & consequently, that the text cannot be racked so, that it must perforce be understood, of the unpriested Seniors of the Presbytery, especially, seeing it may as fitly, if not more truly, be understood of Kings. monarchs, and other civil christian Magistrates; to whom the chief care and oversight appertaineth, of all persons and causes within their kingdoms, territories, and dominions. Secondly, that the original Greek word (Cubernesejs) signifieth governments, not governors. So that thereupon cannot be inferred necessarily, any distinct governor from the aforenamed Apostles, prophets, and Doctors. For divers offices may be and often are, coincident in one and the same officer. And for this respect, when the Apostle cometh to the repetition 
Mark this point well.  of his former assertions, and should by order have mentioned the gift of governance; he passeth it over in silence, albeit he reckoneth up the other severally. Whereby he giveth us to understand, that he containeth the same, either in all, or in some one of the former offices or gifts. Thirdly, that none of the holy Fathers in their Commentaries, did ever gather out of these texts or the like, any unpreaching Seniors. Fourthly, that both master Calvin, master Bucer, and master Martyr, do extend these places to all kind of government. The fourth text is taken from the 
Ephes. 4.  Epistle to the Ephesians, which proveth nothing at all, because there is no mention made in that place of any governors, save only of Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors, and Doctors. None of which doubtless, can be their unpriested Elders.  
The fifth text is borrowed from Saint Paul to Timothy, 
●. Tim. 5.  where he saith, the Elders that rule well, are worthy of double honour: specially, they which labour in the word and Doctrine. This text I grant, hath some colour (though no truth) of that, which is in question. But I answer, that the Apostle understandeth by Elders, such as are ministers of the word, or else of the Sacraments. I prove it first, because Saint Hierome, Saint Chrysostome, and Saint Ambrose, yea and master Calvin himself, (where he speaketh purposely of Seniors,) do so understand the word (Elders.) Secondly, because the original Greek word (Coptôntes) 
Calvin. libr. 4 institut. cap 4. § 2.  which signifieth to labour painfully, doth argue a difference between Elders of the same calling, whereof some laboured more painfully than others did, the meaning of the Apostle is this, and no other: that laborious and painful Elders, are so much the more worthy to be graced with greater honours: by how much greater pains and troublesome turmoils, they undertake in their ministery. For by the word (labour,) Saint Paul understandeth no ordinary, vulgar, and mean exercise; but an extraordinary, vehement, and most painful labour; such as Timothy, Titus, Luke, Mark, and others, were well acquainted withal. Thirdly, because the Apostle, if he had meant that some Elders did neither preach, nor administer the Sacraments, would have added, which labour in the word and administration of the Sacraments, for it had been as easily said, as, which labour in the word and doctrine; but, because there were some, that laboured only in the word and doctrine, and other some likewise, who laboured in administering the Sacraments; he said (Coptôntes) which labour painfully, to distinguish them from such as laboured in the same kind and office, though not in so laborious and painful manner.   

The fifth proposition.  
THe constitution of the earnestly wished, and long expected English presbytery, doth overthrow itself, and can no way be defended. I prove it first, because diaconesses or widows are no less required in the holy scripture, then are Deacons; neither are the one 
1. Tim. 5.  more extraordinary or temporary, then are the other. And consequently, the frame or building of the presbytery is not perfect, seeing it consisteth only of these four; Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons. And to answer as some do, that there must be godly poor widows when they can be gotten, is not to the purpose. For if God's appointment and order may be altered in widows, because sit women cannot be gotten; even so may we excuse, the want of their ruling upriested Seniors, as also the want of their Preaching Ministers. For the necessity and want of sit persons, is equal in them all. I prove it. Secondly, because Pastors and Doctors or Teachers are not distinct officers, but are taken in holy Writ for one and the same. For Saint Paul having severed Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, 
Ephes. 4. Vers. 11.  addeth to them Pastors and Teachers by a conjunction copulative; which ho would not have done doubtless, if he had deemed them to be different orders. Saint Hierome is jump of mine opinion, and reasoneth 
Hier. in hunc locum.  after the self same manner. And Saint Austen being demanded of Peulimis, what difference was betwixt Pastor and Doctor, a pastor and a Teacher, answered 
Aug. apud Haymonem, in 4. cap. add ephes.  in this sort; viz. That they were all one, because he cannot be a pastor, who hath not Doctrine, wherewith he may feed the flock committed to his charge.  
Master Bullinger decideth the controversy in plain terms, writing in this manner; Nemo autem est, qui non videat hac vocabula invicem confundi & alterum accipi pro altero. Nam apostolus etiam propheta, doctor, evangelista, presbyter, atque episcopus est. Et episcopus evangelista & propheta est. Propheta doctor, presbyter, & evangelista. Proinde apostolus paulus, varijs hisce vocabulis varia illa dona significavit, qua dominus ecclesiae suae importijt ad salutem.  
Every man seeth, that these words are confounded, and that one of them is taken for an other. For an Apostle is also a Prophet, a Doctor, an Evangelist, a Priest, and a Bishop. And a Bishop is an Evangelist and a Prophet. A Prophet is a Doctor, an Elder, and an Evangelist. Therefore the Apostle Paul, by these divers names signifieth those divers gifts, which our Lord bestowed on his Church unto salvation. I therefore conclude, that the pillars whereupon the presbytery is builded, are sandy, rotten, and unsound; and consequently, that that building which is reared upon them, cannot but be unstable and ruinous.   

The sixth Proposition.  
THe new English presbytery, was not known or heard of in the Christian world, for the space of fifteen hundred years together at the least. This proposition is sufficiently proved, by this precedent discourse; if it be well marked from the beginning. Yea, my bare assertion is a good proof thereof; until the patrons of the contrary opinion, can and shall name the time and place, when and where such a presbytery was to be found.   

The seventh Proposition  
ALL Ministers created and made by the new presbytery, are mere lay-people, and cannot lawfully, either Preach God's word, or administer the sacraments. This is already proved. I will therefore salute our Brownists, Barrowists, and such like, as the learned and famous Writer Master Bullinger did the Anabaptists. His 
Bullinger. advers. Anabapt. libr. 3. cap. 7.  words are these; Quod si dicitis, vos instar apostolorum peculiarem vocationem habere, probate eam signis & miraculis, dono linguarum, doctrina apostolica, quemadmodum apostoli fecerunt. Hoc autem nunquam facietis, ideoque vocatio vestra nihili, imò pernitiosa est ecclesiae Christi.  
Now, if you say, you have a special and peculiar calling, as the Apostles had: then must you prove the same, by signs and miracles, by speaking divers languages, and by doctrine apostolical, as the Apostles did. 
Hier. adver. Lucifer. tom. 3. ferè in fine.   
Saint Hierome saith; Ecclesia non est, quae non babet sacerdotem. Where there is no priest or minister, there can be no Church.  

The first Objection  
That not Kings, monarchs, and other independent civil magistrates, have the supreme and highest authority in causes ecclesiastical, but that Bishops and Priests have that charge committed to them, as their proper and peculiar function, it may appear evidently to all indifferent readers, by the facts and proceedings of Bishops in the old testament. jeroboams hand dried up; Ozias was smitten with the leprosy, and thrust out of the Temple, king Saul deposed 
1. Reg. 13. 2. par. 26. 1. same 13. 2. reg. 11. 2. par. 19  from his kingdom, and all this befell upon these kings, because they took upon them, the supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical. Yea, jehoiada the Priest commanded to put Queen Athalia out of the ranges, and to execute the judgement of death upon her. And king jehosaphat affirmeth plainly, that Amariah was chief ruler in all matters of the Lord, as Zebadiah was the civil governor of all the king's affairs.   

The Answer.  
This objection containeth a question of great moment, and is very obscure, intricate, and difficult. Wherefore I admonish and advise the gentle Reader, to read my answer again, and again, and to ponder it seriously, before he give his judgement therein. My answer standeth thus, First, that jeroboams hand was dried up, and Saul deposed from his royal throne; not, for that they challenged a sovereignty above the Priests, and supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical; but, because they attempted arrogantly and presumptuously, to execute priestly function, in offering incense upon the Altar, burnt offerings, & peace offerings. Secondly, that Vzziah or Ozias was smitten with the leprosy, because he would needs burn incense to the Lord, which was the Priests proper function. Neither did the Priests for all that thrust him out of the Temple, but dutifully, (as it become them,) told him what was his duty, and that he had offended God; and therefore they willed him to surcease from his wicked enterprise, and to go forth of the sanctuary. Which was no other usage, then S. john the Baptist afforded Herode the Tetrarch; when he told him, it was not lawful for him, to have his brother's wife. Thirdly, 
Mat. 14. Vers. 4. 3  that the fact of jehosaphat, proveth evidently the King's supreme power over all his subjects, as well in causes ecclesiastical, as civil. The reason hereof is evident, because King jehosophat by virtue of his prerogative royal, placed both Amariah and Zebadiah in their several functions, and prescribed the limits of their jurisdictions. Neither will it help to say, that Amariah was ruler in the matters of the Lord, and Zebadiah in the King's affairs. For 
Suprá. cap. 4. note the whole chapter.  the meaning is not, that the King's affairs are not the matters of the Lord; seeing (as is already proved,) that the King at his inauguration, receiveth the whole book of the law, and charge to see Gods true worship and service every where maintained. But the true sense of the text is this, and no other, viz. that those things, which the King in his own person may execute, are precisely called the King's affairs; to distinguish them from his other affairs, which himself cannot put in execution. For, albeit in the preaching of the word & administration of the Sacraments, the chosen minister hath only the charge and authority to execute them; nevertheless, God's anointed Prince hath the supreme charge & sovereign authority, to command the execution thereof; as also to correct and to punish the Minister, for the neglect of his duty in that behalf. Of which point I have spoken sufficiently in my other books, and therefore deem it a thing needless now to stand long upon the same. Fourthly, touching the fact of jehoiada the Priest, I answer, that it can no way, prove the superiority of Priests over kings. For first, jehoiada was not a private man, but the high Priest in the common weal of the jews; whose office it was, to judge not ecclesiastical matters only, but also civil. For the jews had no other laws, but the holy scriptures. Secondly, jehoiada did nothing against Athalia of himself, but with the advise, assent, and help, of the Centurions and Peers of the Realm; all which were bound by the law of Deuteronomie, to defend the kingdom from strangers. Thirdly, 
Dent. 17. v. 15.  jehoiada was bound by the right of affinity; to defend king joas, and to establish him in his Kingdom. For his wife was the king's Aunt. Fourthly, God had assured by his infallible promise, the Kingdom to the family of David. Now Athalia was not of the stock and Progeny of David, but a stranger to the Kingdom. For her mother was a Sydonian, and her father an Israelite, more addicted to idolatry, than were the Gentiles. Besides this, the wicked pretenced Queen Athalia, had traitorously murdered and wholly extinguished, all the lawful royal blood, (the young child king joas only excepted, whom God contrary to her knowledge, had miraculously preserved,) and withal she had set up the worship of Baal. Wherefore, it was the parts of the Priests and Peers of the Kingdom, to protect the King, to defend his royal right, to suppress the usurped power of Athalia, and to deliver the King, his kingdom, and themselves, from the confused Ataxia Idolatry, & bloody tyranny, which she had brought upon them by her violent intrusion, and unjust usurpation of the royal right of joas, their Lawful King and undoubted sovereign. So then, albeit the ministery of feeding, of Preaching God's word, and of the administration of his Sacraments, pertain only to his ministers, neither may the mere civil magistrate in any wise intermeddle therewith; yet for all that, most true it is, that the provision for the food, the over sight that the children of God be duly fed, and that the ministers do exercise their functions in vigilant & dutiful manner, belongeth to the civil independent, and absolute princes. For this respect is it, that Kings and Queens 
Esa 49. Vers. 23.  have the names of nurses, not for that they nourish their children in civil matters only, but as in civil, so also in spiritual, that is to say, in lact verbi dei, in the milk of the word of God. For though the execution pertain to the ministers yet the provision, direction, appointment, care, and oversight, (which is the supreme government indeed,) belongeth only, solely, and wholly to the prince. For this cause is it, that King Ezechias highly renowned in holy Writ, 
2. par. 29. Vers. 5. 11. 15  though he were but young in years, did for all that in regard of his prerogative royal, and supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical, call the Priests and levites his sons, charging them to hear him, and to follow his direction, and commandment, for so are the words of the text. This notwithstanding, I grant freely and willingly, that ministers in the action of their ecclesiastical function & church-ministerie, are above all christians, above Queens, Kings, and monarchs, representing God unto them, teaching, admonishing, & rebuking them, even as all others: following the godly example therein, of S. john that Baptist. Yea if need so require and that the vices of the princes, kings, and monarchs, be notorious, & scandalous to the whole church, 
Mat. 14. Vers. 4.  the Bishops may denounce such potentates, to be enemies to the truth, adversaries to GOD, and no true members of the Church; but forlorn people, to be reputed as Ethnics & publicans, until they give true signs of unfeigned repentance. But withal, this must ever be remembered and most loyally observed, of all Bishops in Christ's Church; 
Mat. 18.  viz. that the prince, (though full of manifest vices, & most notorious crimes in the world,) may never be shunned, neither of the people, nor of the Bishops; seeing God hath appointed him to be their governor. Much less may the people forsake their obedience, to his sacred prerogative royal and supereminent authority. And least of all, (for it is most execrable, damnable, and plain diabolical,) may either the people alone, or the Bishops alone, or both jointly together, depose their undoubted sovereign, though a Tyrant, Heretic, or Apostata. For all loyal obedience 
Vide suprà, ca 4. & ca 1. in resp. ad 2. object.  and faithful service in all civil affairs, and whatsoever else is lawful, they must ever yield unto him. He may be admonished by the Ministers in the Court of conscience, concerning his public offences: but he may never be judged in the court of their Consistory, touching his power royal and princely prerogative, their power is only to admonish and rebuke him, and to pray to God to amend that is amiss. He hath no judge that can punish him, but the great judge of all, even the GOD of heaven. Note the answers to all the objections following, & mark them seriously.   

The 2. Objection.  
Great learned men do hold, that there were unpriested Seniors in the Primitive Church, who together with the Pastors did govern the Church. And the same is this day practised, in many reformed Churches.   

The Answer.  
I answer: First, that I do not condemn the practice of other reformed Churches, but teach plainly and Christianly, that every Church hath freedom, liberty, and authority, to make such canons, orders, ordinances, and constitutions, as shall be thought most meet, fit, and convenient, for the external government thereof. Which thing I have already proved; not only by the practice of the Church in all ages, but also by the uniform assent and constant verdict, of best approved Patrons of the reformed Churches in this age. Secondly, that those great Patrons of the reformed Churches, who deem unpriested Elders to be convenient for their particular precincts, free cities, and common weals, do for all that think an other government more fit for Christian Monarchies, and do highly commend the same. I might allege the joint testimonies, of M. Gualther, M. Hemingius, M. Bucer, and of many other famous late Writers; But in regard of brevity, only M. Musculus shall content me for the present. These are his express words; Principio, ut constituat ecclesiarum ministers, 
Musculus in locis, titul de magistr. Pag. 632.  ubi illi desiderantur, sive eligat eos ipse, five ab aliis jussu ipsim electos confirmet. Neque. n. convenit, ut praeter authoritatem potestatis publicae public a quisquam number a in ecclesia obeat. Dices; at secùs factunest in primis ecclesiis, in quibus a ministris ac plebe eligebantur ecclesiarum antistites. Respondeo; talis tum ecclesiarum erat status ut aliter non essent eligendi ministri, propterea quod Christiano magistratu destituebantur. Sirevocas temporum illorum mores, primùm conditiones ac statum quoque illorum revoca.  
First, it is the duty of the civil magistrate, to constitute the ministers of the church, where they be wanting; whether he choose them himself, or confirm those which others by appointment have chosen. For it is not meet, that any minister execute any function in the Church, without the authority of the public Magistrate. You will say; But it was otherwise in the Primitive Church, where the Ministers and the people did choose their Governors. I answer; the state of the Church was then such, that the Ministers of the Church could not be chosen otherwise, because than they were destitute of a Christian Magistrate. If thou wilt use the manners of that time, thou must first call again the condition and state of that time.  
Out of these words, I note many golden observations. First, that the civil Magistrate may appoint and elect the ministers of the Church. Secondly, that none can lawfully execute any Church-foundation, or be a Minister of the Church, without election, assent, authority, or confirmation of the civil magistrate. Thirdly, that the civil magistrate may either choose the ministers himself, or appoint others to do it. Fourthly, that the government of the church may be altered, according to the circumstances of times, places & persons. Fiftly, that the English long expected presbytery, can not stand with our English Christian Monarchy. For, she challengeth that as her proper office, which as Musculus truly saith,) doth properly pertain to the civil Christian Magistrate.  
I say thirdly, that it cannot be concluded out of the holy 
Tertiò principaliter.  Scriptures, that any annual unpriested Elders, had the rule of the Church with the Pastors and Bishops.  
I say fourthly, that for want of Christian Princes, laical Elders may be assumed to the Church-government, to help and assist the pastors. Yea, I further grant, that the said Elders may remain under a christian prince so it be with his assent, good pleasure, and moderation. But I constantly deny, that such kind of government must of necessity be had, in and under a Christian Monarchy.  

The first Reply.  
S. Ambrose writeth plainly, that the Synagogue, and after, 
Ambros. in prior. Epist. ad Timoth. cap. 5.  the Church had Seniors, without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church. The which saith he, by what negligence it was left of, I can not tell; except happily it were through the sloth, or rather the pride of some pastors, because they alone would seem to be somewhat.   

The Answer.  
I answer; first, that S. Ambrose did not think those Elders, of whom he speaketh, to be necessary for the government of the Church. I prove it, because he being a most learned, zealous, and godly Archbishop, would for his zeal and piety have laboured to restore them: and could for his great authority, have effected the same. Secondly, that Saint Ambrose speaketh of Elders in years, not of Elders in Office: that is, of wise, grave, and old men of great experience, whom the Bishops in former times took in counsel with them, as did also the ancient Synagogue. Our Churchwardens in this age, do in some sort resemble them.  
It something grieved holy Ambrose, that grave men, ancient in years, whom the Apostle would not have reproved roughly, did not remain in like esteem with the pastors of the Church, as they were of old. This is the true meaning and sense of S. Ambrose, concerning those Elders he speaketh of. I prove it out of S. Ambrose his own words, which are these: Nam apud omnes utique gentes, honorabilis est senectus. For among all nations old age is honoured. For which cause, both the Synagogue of old, and the Church afterward, had always certain old men, without whose advise nothing was done in the Church. Lo, he speaketh of honouring Elders and ancient men, in regard of their years. But he never meant to equalize them with those, who were Elders in calling, and governed the Churches under him. No, no: the blessed man Ambrose, that grave and holy Bishop of Milan, never dreamt or once conceived in mind, that any order of the ministery, set down by Christ's Apostles, was worn out of use in his time.   

The 2. Reply.  
S. Hierome who followed S. Ambrose immediately telleth us most plainly, that in his time the Presbytery or Eldership was in the Church.   

The Answer.  
I answer; first, that if we suppose your Presbytery to have been in Saint Hieroms time, and not in the days of Saint Ambrose; it will favour us, and wholly make against your helps. The reason is evident, because that which 
Note this well.  may be used at some time, and be wanting at other times, is not of necessity to be urged at all times; and this is all that we desire. Secondly, Saint Hierome speaketh of Priested Elders, and not of men in no degree of the ministery. 
Hier. in Esa. to. 5. lib. 2. cap. 3.  His words are these; Et nos habemus in ecclesia senatum nostrum, caetum Presbyterorum. And we have in the Church our Senate, a company of Elders or Priests. Lo, he speaketh of Priests, and of Colleges of Cathedral Churches. I prove it by two reasons; First, for that himself telleth us, in his words aforegoing; that he speaketh of those Elders, whose election Saint Paul describeth unto Timothy. Again, because it is unpossible, that those unpriested Elders should be in Saint Hieromes time, who were worn out in Saint Ambrose his time; because Saint Austin, S. Ambrose, and S. Hierome, were all at one and the same time.    

The 3. Objection.  
The long expected Presbytery, is no way prejudicial to the Christian Monarchy, but giveth to him so much as the Scripture alloweth.   

The Answer.  
M. Gualther, a zealous, virtuous, and learned Writer, of high esteem in the reformed Churches, showeth plainly unto the world, what right and authority the new presbytery 
Gualther. in I. cor. II.  ascribeth unto Princes. These are his words; The Donatists of our time ought to consider these things more diligently, which do over rashly condemn whole Cities, and Countries, where the word of God is preached, the sacraments rightly administered public prayer celebrated, the poor sufficiently provided for, and vices, by good and godly laws for bidden and punished. All these things they esteem as nothing, except there be a certain new magistracy appointed, which should have authority over Princes also. The same learned writer in another place, discourseth in this manner: There be sundry that will needs institute 
Gualther. in 1. Cor. ca 12.  Elders, or an ecclesiastical Senate, according to the example of the Primitive Church, which also should have authority over the Magistrates themselves, if at any time they did not their duty. But it behoveth them first, to show, that those their Seniors have this power, whereof Paul doth presently speak: which thing seeing it doth by no means appear, and yet they deliver unto Satan whom they will; they do like, as if some would go about to cleanse the leprous, raise the dead, and work other miracles, because these things were usually done in the primitive Church. The same learned Doctor in another place writeth thus: Their ambition is reproved, which go about to 
Gualther. in 1. Cor 14.  bring all Churches to the form of their discipline and government, & cry out that there is no discipline there, where all things are not agreeable to their traditions and orders. But these men receive a just reward of their arrogancy, when they that come from them to other countries, go beyond all men in fancinesse, & bring nothing from home, but a vain and intolerable contempt of all good men, neither can they abide to be corrected by any admonition of others.  
The zealous, godly, and learned Doctor Musculus, hath these express words. We think otherwise then they, 
Musculus in locis, de magistr. Pag. 631.  who deny to Christian Magistrates, authority to make ecclesiastical Laws. We boldly affirm, that all power of making authentical Laws, which bind the consciences of the subjects, whether they be civil or ecclesiastical: do neither pertain to the multitude of the faithful, nor to the Ministers of God's word, but properly to the Magistrate only, to whom more power is given over his subbiects. Whereupon they are called in the Scripture, Gods, who do execute the Magistracy: which name of honour, we do not read that it was given unto the Priests. The very reason and nature of governing can not suffer, that there be 2. authentic powers in one people, two divers law-making and dominions, unless it be by subordination; even as there is no place, for two heads in one body.  
The same Musculus in another place, hath these golden 
Vbi suprà, Pag. 630.  words: but we without dissimulation think thus. Like as the Christian Prince hath chief power & care in religion, so hath he also power to constitute and make ecclesiastical laws, & to reform abuses in religion. The very nature of making laws doth not suffer, that they command & make Laws, who have not power to defend the Laws, and to take punishment of the transgressors: and that the Magistrate should protect the laws, and punish the offenders, who shall not have power to make the laws, which he doth defend. But Certes, among men he that hath power to command, hath also power to take revenge. I know it appertaineth to the magistrate, to punish not only the transgressors of his own commandments, but also of Gods. But the case is altered, if the question be made of laws ecclesiastical, neither divulged by God immediately, neither yet by his Apostles, but by men within the ministery of the Church. Here doubtless it is not sit, that they which are of meaner authority, shall make Laws: and they who are of higher power, must see them kept. Men of meaner degree, may cause laws to be observed: but superiors only can make laws, whose authority compelleth to obey them, and who have power given them of God, to punish the disobedient. While therefore they ascribe the constitution and promulgation of ecclesiastical laws to those, whom they call governors of the church, (to wit, the presbytery,) and leave only to the magistrate, power to see them kept, and to punish the offenders: what other thing do they, but gives that to inferiors being subjects, which of right belongeth to higher powers; and taketh it away from superiors, to whom every soul must be subject. And so they perverting the ordinance of God make of subjects Lawemakers, and of Lawmakers subjects. Thus writeth this learned man.  
Out of these learned discourses of these two most learned and famous Writers, I note these worthy documents. First, that under most Christian Princes, where the Presbytery beareth no sway; the word of God is sound preached, the Sacraments rightly administered, public prayer duly celebrated, the poor sufficiently relieved, and vices sharply punished. Secondly, that all these things will not content the masters of the Presbytery, unless they may have Princes at their command. Thirdly, that if the Patrons of the Presbytery, will needs have all things after the manner of the Primitive Church; then must they cleanse the leprous, raise the dead, & work miracles as the Apostles did. Fourthly, that the authors of the Presbytery, are arrogant, contentious, froward, and saucy fellows. 
Bazilycon Doron. Pag 42.  To which the Doctrine of our gracious sovereign in his Bazilycon Doron, is right consonant; when he telleth us very gravely, (besides many other vices which he there reckoneth up,) that we shall never find with any Hicland, or border-theeves, greater ingratitude, and more lies and vile perjuries, then with this kind of people. Fiftly, that they deny unto Princes, authority to make ecclesiastical laws. Sixtly, that not the Presbytery, but the civil magistrates, kings, Emperors, monarchs, and other independent superiors, have power to make canons and ordinances ecclesiastical. Seventhly, that whiles they assign unto princes, only the execution of their Laws; they make of inferiors, superiors; and of subjects, Lawmakers: and so pervert the holy ordinance of God.   

The 4. Objection.  
The government of the church in the time of the Apostles, was the best & most perfect. Ergo, no reason why it should be changed.   

The Answer.  
I answer; First, that the Church in the Apostles time was most perfect indeed, concerning faith and doctrine absolutely; as also touching external government, if regard be duly had unto that time. Secondly, that there was not always in the Apostolical time, one and the same external government of the Church, as is already proved. Thirdly, that the external policy of the Church, may admit alteration and change without all prejudice of faith and conscience; according to the circumstances, of times, places, and persons. And consequently, that Christian Princes enjoy this day very lawfully and laudably, the chief care and supreme oversight thereof. Men of best account in the reformed Churches, do in plain terms approve and confirm this my doctrine. Master Calvin hath these words; Scimus autem politiam pro varietate temporum recipere, imò 
Calvin. in inst. lib. 4. cap. 7. §. 15.  exigere varias mutationes. We know that the policy (of the Church) receiveth, yea requireth divers alterations, according to the variety of time.  
Master Musculus, a man of great zeal, singular learning, 
Musculus in locis, pag. 633.  care and gifts, confirmeth Master Calvin's opinion in these words; The state of the Church was such at that time, that the ministers could not be chosen otherwise; because they then were without a Christian magistrate. If thou wilt call again the manners of those times, thou must first call again their state and condition. Again, in an other place 
Vbi suprà, pag. 631.  the same author writeth thus; I answer, that the Churches of God were at that time, destitute of a Godly and faithful magistrate. Wherefore all judgements between brethren & brethren, were then exercised by the Seniors in the ecclesiastical senate; as the custom also was in those christian churches, which the Apostles planted. But the condition is far otherwise in those Churches, which by the benefit of God have christian Princes and Magistrates, in whom resteth authority, power, lawmaking, and governance, not only in profane, but in holy things also. It is a most pestilent error, that some think no otherwise of the christian magistrate, then of a profane governance, whose power reacheth only to things profane. Haec ille.  
Master Beza hath these golden words, We must not 
Beza in confession. cap. 5. sect. 35.  simply look or regard, what the Apostles did in the government of the Church, seeing the circumstances are most divers and variable, and therefore without preposterous zeal, Cacozelia all things cannot in all places and times, be called to one and the same form or order, but rather the end and invariable purpose of them must be looked unto, and that manner and form of doing things must be chosen, which tendeth directly thereunto. Haec Beza.  
Out of these most excellent and golden discourses of these great learned men, who were very famous and highly renowned in the best reformed churches. I gather these memorable observations. First, that the Church is not fixed or tied, to any one settled kind of government, but may be changed in her governance, as the circumstances of times, places, and persons shall require. Secondly, that it is very fit and convenient, sometimes to alter the government of the church. Thirdly, that the church may not be governed now: as it was in those days, when there were no christian magistrates. Fourthly, that we must not respect so much what the Apostles did, as their intent and purpose, the scope and mark which they aimed at.     

CHAP. XII. Of the discipline of the Church.  

The first Section, of the multiplicity of Church-discipline.  
THe Authors, Patrons, and seekers of the new English presbytery, reckon up three parts of church-discipline; viz, 1. the election & abdication of ecclesiastical officers, 2. the excommunication of the stubborn, and absolution of the repentant. 3. the decision of all such matters, as rise up in the church, whether it be touching corrupt manners, or perverse doctrine. For answer whereunto, mark the next Section.   

The second Section, containing an answer unto the former.  
There is but one only kind of public church-discipline, which is called in the new testament, by the name of excommunication. I say (public,) because I grant private admonition and reprehension, to be a certain kind of private discipline. I say (church-discipline,) because I acknowledge also civil discipline. Discipline consisteth intrinsically, in the punishing and correcting of vice. It is one part of the church's policy, far different, from the election of ministers, and decision of controversies.   

The third Section of the essence, nature, and condition of church-discipline.  
The patrons of the English presbytery, do make it an essential part of the Gospel, so necessary to salvation, as no Church can be without it, but the truth is otherwise. I prove it first, because S. Paul giveth a singular commendation to the Church of Corinth; although it wanted at 
1. Cor. 1.  that time the Church-discipline, which is excommunication. 
1. cor. 5.  Secondly, because we may stay and continue in that Church, which is destitute of excommunication. Which 
Note well the next Section.  doubtless we could not do, if excommunication were a part of Christ's Gospel, and necessary unto salvation. For we must flee from that Church, which wanteth any thing necessary to salvation. This notwithstanding, many learned men, even of best account in the reformed, churches do think 
Bul adver. Anabapt. ●b. 6. cap.  it lawful to remain in those Churches, where excommunication is not in use. Master Bullinger writing against the Anabaptists, hath these words; This the Anabaptists urge, that there is no true Church acceptable unto God, where there is no excommunication. To whom we answer, that the Church of Corinth was a true Church, and so acknowledged of Paul, before there was any use of excommunication 
Gualther. in 1. cor. 5. v. 4.  in it. The same doctrine is taught uniformly, of master Calvin, master Gualther, and others. Thirdly, wheresoever the word of God is truly preached, and his Sacraments 
Calvin. lib. 4. instit. cap. 1. § 9 S. 10.  lawfully administered, there is Christ's Church undoubtedly. For these are the true marks, by which best learned Writers discern the Church of God. The case is evident enough, it is needless to spend much time about it. Vide sententiam Gualteri, in fine sectionis subsequentis.   

The fourth Section, of the persons that must excommunicate.  
Excommunication precisely and chiefly pertaineth to the Church; and secondly to those to whom the Church hath committed the execution thereof. I prove it by Christ's 
Mat. 10. V. 15. 16. 17 mat. 5. v. 29. 30.  own words in his holy Gospel, where he willeth his Disciples to tell the faults of their brethren, if they will not hear them unto the Church, that is to say, unto the whole congregation. And forthwith Christ addeth these words, Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye lose on earth, shall be loosed in 
Mat. 16. Vers. 19 john. 20. Vers. 23.  heaven. Again, in an other place, he giveth the same authority of binding and losing unto Peter alone, which he gave in the other place to all the Apostles jointly. Thirdly, in an other place he giveth power to remit & retain sins, unto his Disciples only & solely. Out of which three several commissions of our Lord jesus, I gather and conceive two general rules and settled laws. The one, that only 
The 1. rule.  the successors of Christ's Apostles and Disciples, have the keys of the kingdom of heaven; that is, of opening and shutting, of binding and losing, of remitting and retaining sins; as also the power of excommunication, touching the use and execution thereof. I say (touching the use and execution thereof,) because it is one thing, to execute excommunication, and the keys of heaven; an other thing, to commit the execution thereof to others. The other, that 
The 2. rule.  the whole Church hath authority, to commit the execution of the keys and of excommunication, to some special persons fit for that purpose; for comeliness and order sake, and for avoiding of confusion. This my resolution I 
Two things must be proved.  will prove to be grounded upon the doctrine of great learned men, highly renowned in the reformed Churches, two things I have to prove; first, that the whole Church hath power to commit the keys and excommunication, to some certain fit persons chosen for that end and purpose. Secondly, that only the Ministers of the word & Sacraments, can denounce the sentence and put the same in execution. Concerning the former, Master Bullinger hath a long and learned discourse, which is able to satisfy any indifferent Reader. These are his express words; caeterum video controversum inter quosdam nostri aevi homines, etc. But I perceive it is a controversy among certain men of our age, 
Bullinger. in 1 cor. 5. pag. 47.  who should have power to punish sin, and to execute the discipline of the Church; some ascribing it to the whole Church, other some to special men choose for that purpose. Doubtless, I cannot perceive, that they offend, who give this power to certain men choose for that end, without doubt, they do not offend against God's word. But they object, if he shall not hear you, tell it to the church. Now some choose men are not the church. But these men perceive not, that Christ & his Apo. used the figure Synecdoche. For Paul saith you being gathered with my spirit. And in the latter Epistle, he saith; it is sufficient to the same man, that he was rebuked 
2. Cor. 2. Verse. 6.  of many. If they will stand upon Christ's words (literally) we will see when they will bring the whole church together. But we speak, (say they,) of the particular Church. We therefore have the victory, who say that Christ used the figure Synecdoche. We grant, that this power is given to the whole Church, but we call the congregation of good men the Church. For it followeth forthwith, in the very words of our lord; where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the mids of them. Therefore, if Christ, as they grant, committed the ecclesiastical discipline to a particular church, & two or three, & much more eight or twelve, make a particular church: what letteth, that christ committed not the same to chosen men, who are consecrate to Christ's name? seeing the authority of ecclesiastical discipline, is more entire & renowned among chosen godly men, then among the confused vulgar sort, who as they lack judgement, so are they often carried away with affections. Haec Bullingerus.  
Master Gualther hath these words, potestatis christi meminit 
Gualther in 1. cor. 5. v, 4.  alludeut ad mat. 18. ne ille ecclesie sententiam contemneret et hoc jubet, quiatunc non erat alia tales coercendi, quando magistratus non erant christiani, ali● qui iste paenas dedisset secundum legem. Neque 
Leu. 20.  Pavius obstitisset, ut apparet ex Rome 13. quia vero durunerat, homines christianos Ethnicis obijcere, recurrit ad remedium quod christus dedit quoad iniurias privatas, mat. 18. sequitur potestas illa penes q●os erat? penes totam ecclesiam, quae tamen (ne confusio fieret) per delectos agebat ex senioribus. Sequitur; excommunicatio. n. non est ex necessarijs illis, sine quibus ecclesia non consistit.  
He made mention of the power of Christ alluding to his words in Matthew, lest he should contemn the sentence of the church. And he commandeth this to be done, because they had no other means at that time, to correct the disobedient, when there were no christian Magistrates. Otherwise this fellow, should have been punished according to the law. Neither would Paul have been against it, as appear by his doctrine to the Romans. But because it was a very hard case to send Christians to Ethnics, he hath recourse to that remedy, which Christ appointed for private injuries and in whom was that power? in the whole Church, which for all that, (to avoid confusion,) did execute the same by chosen seniors. For excommunication is none of those necessary things, without which the church cannot consist.  
The same Doctor in an other place, hath these express 
Gualther. in 1. cor. 12. hom. 104 in fine.  words; hody non, opus proprio sevatu ecclesiae. Agnoscamus beneficium dei, Esa. 49. vicissim hi aguoscant se quoque memmbra esse ecclesiae. Sequitur, nobis sufficiat habere pastors, scholas, magistratus pios, qui cuitum dei tueantur pauperes curent.  
We have this day no need at all of the senate of the church or presbytery. Let us acknowledge the goodness of God, and let them likewise acknowledge themselves, to be the members of the church. Let it suffice us, to have Pastors, Schools, godly Magistrates, that will defend the worship of God, and take care of the poor.  
Master Martyr delivereth the same doctrine in substance, 
Martyr in. 1. cor. 16 pag. 239.  in these express words; fatemur deinde, claves ecclesiae universae datas, caeterum ne confusio accidat; convenit, ut aliqui ex omnibus deligantur quiutantur clavibus, quarum usus in omnes redundet qui christo credunnt. Prepositos vero ecclesiarum habent des monet Paulus non semel, et christus non prohibuit, qui cum jussit ne magistri et Rabbi vocaremur, ambitionem repressit, voluitque, ut nemo nostrum haec affectaret. Sed non interdixit, quin habeamus in honore, et appellemus honorifice, quos dominus nobis praefecit: imo Paulus ad Timotheum scribit, se positum esse magistrum gentium. We likewise confess, that the keys 
1. Tim. 2. Uers. 7.  are given to the whole Church. But, to avoid confusion; it is meet, that some out of all be chosen, who may put the keys in use: whose use redoundeth to all that believe in Christ. Now, that we must have governors of Churches, Paul admonisheth more than once, & Christ did not forbid it; who, when he commanded us, not to be called Masters and Rabbis, repressed ambition, being desirous, that none of us should hunt after these things. But he never forbade us, to reverence and give honourable names to those whom our Lord hath placed over us. Yea, Paul writeth to Timothy, that himself was made the master of the gentiles.  
Master Musculus is consonant to the rest, whose express words are these; denique curabit ut plebs ipsa viros graves, 
Musculus in locis, de ministris ver. dei, Pag. 204.  timentes dei, ac boni testimonij deligant, quorum cura et vigilantia disciplina ecclesiae administretur, et si quid gravioris momenti accidat, ad ipsam ecclesiam referatur. Haec tamen omnia, quae ad indeterminatam potestatem referimus, ad illas tan tum pertinent ecclesias, quae christianum magistratum non habent, quales erant olim, priusquam principes christiani fierent.  
Finally, he shall provide that the people choose grave men, which fear God and have a good report, by whose care and painful labours the Church discipline may be executed, and if any thing of greater moment fall out, that the same be referred to the Church. Yet all these things, which we refer to the power undetermined, pertain to those Churches only, which have no Christian Magistrate, such as they were sometime, before there were Christian Princes.  
The same Doctor in an other place, hath these words; Hanc cuiusvis. Particularis ecclesiae potestatem, reprobos scilicet excommunicands, Romanus pontifex irritam reddidit, & e medio 
Musculus de eccles. pag. 311.  sustulit.  
This power of excommunication, which pertained to every particular Church, the bishop of Rome made frustrate, and took it quite away.  
Out of these most learned discourses of these grave Writer, I observe these memorable lessons for the benefit of the reader. First, that the power to excommunicate, is given to the whole Church. Secondly, that the Church hath power to commit the same to others, as it shall be thought meet for her good. Thirdly, that the Church for avoiding of confusion, did ever commit this jurisdiction, to some special persons fit for the same. Fourthly, that the common vulgar sort want judgement, and are often carried away with affections, and so are unfit persons to retain such jurisdiction in their hands. Fiftly, that excommunication is not any assential part of the Church. Sixtly, that the moderation and chief power of disposing and committing, resteth principally in the Christian Magistrate, where the church receiveth such a blessing. And thus much of the former part; viz. of the power of the whole Church. Let us proceed to the latter part; viz, to whom the church hath committed this power.  
Concerning this Latter member, it is to be holden for an undoubted truth, and most Catholic doctrine; that none save only lawful Ministers of God's word and Sacraments, can lawfully denounce the sentence of excommunication. For this cause was it, that when our Lord jesus gave this authority to his whole church; he gave it always 
Mat. 16. Mat: 18. john. 20.  in the name, either of all, or of some one of his Apostles. And for the same cause was it, that the Church hath ever since committed the same, unto her lawful Bishops and Ministers of the word. The practice of the Church is most clear and apparent, both by the counsels, and by the uniform verdict of the holy fathers.   

Ex concilijs.  
This case is most apparent by the old canons, comononly (for their antiquity) called the canons of the Apostles. There I find these express words; siquis presbyter, 
Can. 32. Apostol.  aut diaconus, ab episcopo suo segregetur, hunc non licere ab alio recipi, sed ab ipso quieum sequestraverat; nisi forsitan obierit apiscopus ipse, qui eum segregare cognoscitur,  
If any Priest or Deacon be excommunicated of his Bishop, it shall not be lawful for any other to receive him, but only the party who separated him; unless perchance the Bishop die, that did excommunicate him. By this canon it is evident, that none but the Bishop used to excommunicate, and yet the same Canon is confirmed, as very authentical, both by the council of Antioch, and by the 
Conc. nican. can. 5. conc. antioch. can. 6 Conc. Sardic. can. 16.  first council of Nice, celebrated in the time of Constantine the great.  
The ancient and famous council of Sardica, hath these words; Hoc quoque omnibus placeat, ut sive diaconus, sive presbyter, sive quis clericorum ab episcopo suo communione fuerit privatus, et ad alterum perrexerit episcopum, et scierit ille ad quem confugit, cum ab episcopo suo fuisse abiectum, non opertere ut ei communionem indulgeat.  
Let us all agree hereunto, that if a Deacon, or a Priest, or any of the Clergy be excommunicated of his own Bishop, and shall flee to an other Bishop, than he may not give him the communion, if he knew that his own Bishop did excommunicate him.  
The second council holden at Carthage, hath these words; 
Conc. Carthage. 2. can. 8.  Placet, ut si presbyter excommunicatut, aut correctus a suo episcopo, sacrificare praesumpserit, anathematizetur.  
We agree, that if a Priest being excommunicated, or punished by his own Bishop, shall presume to celebrate, accursed be that man. And the self same decree is to be read, 
Conc. carthage. 6. can. 10.  in the sixth council of Carthage.   

Ex Patribus.  
Saint Ambrose that grave, learned, and holy Bishop, did alone excommunicate the Emperor Theodosius.  
Theototus Bishop of Laodicea, did himself alone excommunicate two Apolli●aries, the father being a Priest, and 
Sozom libr. 6. cap. 25.  the son being a Reader. The cause thereof was this; viz. because they kept company with a profane Sophister Epiphanius, and heard his ungodly rhymes, which he had made in the honour of Bacchus.  
Alezander that godly and famous Bishop of Alexandria, did by himself alone excommunicate Arrtus, as both Sozomenus 
Sozom. L. 1. cap. 14. Nice phor. libr. 8. cap. 5.  and Nioephorus do contest in their stories. Nicephorus hath these express words; Alexander illum, et cum eo qui partes cius sequerentur, clericos omnes excommunie avit.  
Alexander did both excommunicate Arrius, and all the clerks that held his opinion. Yea this was a rule so received, and a practice so common in the ancient Churches; that when a controversy arose about the celebration of Easter. 
A. D. 183.  Victor that zealous Bishop of Rome about one thousand and four hundred years ago, would have excommunicated all the Bishops of Aus●; if Irenaeus the good Bishop of Lions, had not dissuaded him from that attempt.  

The first Objection.  
Saint Paul did not alone excommunicate the incestuous 
1. Cor. 5. v. 4.  Corinthian, but together with the whole congregation. For he saith, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit.   

The Answer.  
I answer, first, that though Christ gave the keys, and 
Mat. 16. Mat. 18. Mat. 28. joh. 20.  the power of remitting and retaining sins unto the whole Church: yet did he commit the use and execution of that power, unto his Apostles and their successors till the world's end. Secondly, that the Apostle himself alone did excommunicate the Corinthian, and required the presence of the people no otherwise, than the same is this day required in our English Churches, viz that the sentence be pronounced in the hearing of the congregation, that they may thereby avoid his company that is excommunicated, and be terrified from the like offence. I prove it, because Saint Paul's words are these; for I verily as absent in body, but present 
Vbi supr. Uers. 3.  in spirit, have determined already as though I were present. By which words it is most apparent, that the determination of the matter resteth only in himself, and not in the people. For otherwise, he could not have dicided the matter in their absence, and without their assent. And it is confirmed 
2. Tim. 4. Vers. 14. 15. 2. Tim. 2. 17.  to be thus, because he alone excommunicated Alexander the Copper Smith, and the same may be thought probably, of Hymeneus and Philetus.   

The second Objection.  
Theodosius confessed his fault before the congregation, and asked forgiveness of the same, and thereupon was absolved. And so it appeareth, that Ambrose alone did not excommunicate the Emperor.   

The Answer.  
It is the usual practice in our English Church, that no excommunicate person be received into the Church again, until he have made public confession, and asked pardon for his offence. And this notwithstanding, the Bishop alone doth excommunicate, as S. Ambrose did the Emperor.  

The Reply.  
You say, that the execution of excommunication, pertaineth only to the successors of the Apostles; & so consequently, it must pertain to all Ministers of God's holy Word and Sacraments; and not only to your lordly Bishops.   

The Answer.  
I answer; first, that no such consequence can be inferred upon my grant. For though I grant, and that truly, that none but Ministers of God's word and Sacraments, can lawfully denounce the sentence of excommunication; yet will it not follow thereupon, that I give the same power to every Minister in general. For it is one thing to say, that none but Ministers can do it; an other thing to affirm, that every Minister Promiscuè may do it. Secondly, that all Ministers have power habitual to excommunicate; but 
All ministers have habitual, but not actual power.  those Ministers only have actual power to do it, to whom the Church hath committed that jurisdiction. For seeing the Church hath all the power granted to her dispensation, she may give to this or that Minister more or less, as shall be thought convenient in her discretion.      

CHAP. XIII. Of Preaching and other things coincident.  

The first Section, of the vocation of Ministers, which cannot Preach.  
ALthough it were to be wished, that all Ministers of God's word and Sacraments, should be able to Preach, and to divide God's word aright unto the people, yet where and when sufficient men of that ability cannot be had, others of meaner talents and honest behaviour may not be rejected. And to hold that none may be ordered and admitted, to administer the Sacraments and to read the Scriptures and godly Prayers in the Church, for the comfort and edisication of the people, is not only against Christ's institution, but also against the usual practice of the church in all ages. Neither is it possible, to allege for the ground of the contrary opinion, either any sound reason out of holy Writ, or any one testimony of any of the holy fathers, or any canon out of any ancient council. The latter member, viz. that it is against the continual practice of the church, is as clear as the Sunneshning at noon day; & therefore I deem it a thing needless, to spend words in that behalf. The former member, viz. that it is against Christ's holy ordinance, I prove out of Christ's own words in his last supper, when he said to his Disciples; Hoc facitè in mei memoriam. Do this in my remembrance. 
Luke. 22. Vers. 19  By these words, as all the holy fathers and Doctors affirm constantly, Christ made his Apostles Priests or Ministers, giving them power and authority only to consecrate the blessed Sacrament of his body and blood, and to deliver the same unto his people. Neither could they lawfully, have either baptised, or preached, remitted, and retained sins, until they had received further authority so to do; which was not granted to them indeed, until Christ's glorious resurrection. Whereupon it followeth by a necessary and inevitable consequ●tion, which never can be answered; that the 
Mat. 28. V. 19 john. 20. V. 22.  Preaching of GOD'S word and the administration of his holy Sacraments, are not so inseparably united and linked together, but that the one may stand entire and perfect without the other. For Christ's will and holy ordinance is that only rule, by which and after which, all the actions, policy, and government of his Curch, must be measured, ordered, and disposed.  
And this reason ab authoritate legislatoris, is confirmed by an other argument drawn ab exemplo. Wedlock or Marriage instituted for a triple end; viz. for procreation of 
Gen. 1. 28. Gen. 2. 18. 1. Cor. 7. 2.  children, for the avoiding of fornication, and for mutual help and society, is perfect and lawful for the secondary ends, though the first cannot be achieved. For marriage is lawful in old women, quib, desinunt muliedria, which 
Gen. 18. 11.  are past the date of bearing children, as all learned men do grant. Ergo, the institution and ordering of Priests or Ministers for a triple end; viz. for Preaching of God's word 
Luke. 22. 19 Mat. 28. 19 Act. 13. 15. jac. 5. 14.  for administration of his holy Sacraments, and for reading of the holy Scriptures & godly prayers, for the comfort & edification of the congregation, is godly perfect, & lawful for the last & second ends, albeit the first cannot be attained.  
The same argument is further confirmed, by the testimony 
Confess helv sect. 11. cap. 18. pag. 38.  of the reformed churches in Helvetia; whose judgement I think, the patrons of the English desired presbytery, will not easily reject or condemn. Their express words are these; domnanius ministros ineptos, & non instructos donis pastori necessarijs. Interim agnos●omus quorundam in veteri ecclesia pastorum simplicitatem innocuam, plus aliquando profuisse ecclisiae, quam quorundam eruditionem variam, exquisitam, delicatamque sed paulo fastuo siorem. unde ne hody quidem reijcimus simplicitatem quorundam probam nec tamen omuino imperitam.  
We condemn unmeet Ministers, which are not endued with gifts necessary for a shepherd. Howbeit, we acknowledge, that the harmless simplicity of some shepherds in the old Church, did sometime more profit the Church, than the great, exquisite, and delicate, but a little to proud learning of some others. Wherefore we reject not now adays, the good simplicity of certain Ministers, so that they be not altogether ignorant. Lo, the great learned men, the masters and rulers of the reformed Churches in Helvetia, allow and approve as much as we desire. The cass is clear, it cannot be denied.  

The first Objection.  
Saint Paul commandeth expressly, that every Bishop 
1. Tim. 3. v. 2. 3. Tit. 1. v. 7. 8. 9  or pastor should be able to teach, and to convince the gainsayers; Ergo, no mortal man can dispense with unpreaching Ministers.   

The Answer.  
I answer; first, that if every pastor must of necessity be able to convince the gainsayers, so as otherwise he cannot be a lawful pastor; then doubtless must many of those, who are of high esteem with the favourrs of the presbytery, be utterly forsaken, and deposed from their ministry. Secondly, that hospitality is required in a Minister, even as is his preaching and aptness to convince. And yet many pastors are allowed within the presbytery, which for all that can keep no hospitality. Thirdly, that by Saint Paul's canons he is as unlawful a Pastor that is an angry Minister, as he that cannot Preach. For Saint Paul's words are as plain for the one, as they are for the other, me orgilon, not angry. But if all be unlawful Pastors, that be angry; how can we be assured to find any lawful 
Tit. 1. 7.  Pastors, either in the presbytery, or else where? Many other conditions doth Saint Paul require in pastors, which will hardly be found in the elders of the Presbytery. The true sense and meaning of Saint Paul's words is this, and no other; viz. that it is meet and convenient, that a Pastor of the Church have those qualities and conditions which he reckoneth; but withal he meaneth nothing less, then that he is no lawful Pastor, which wanteth some of the said conditions. Yea, the original Greek word, doth confirm this mine exposition. For, deioun ton Episcopon doth only signify unto us, that a Bishop or Priest should of congruity, and if it may be, have such conditions and qualities, as the Apostle reckoneth up to Titus and Timothy; not, that none can be true and lawful pastors of the Church, which 
1. Tim. 3. 2.  are not endued with all the aforenamed qualities. No, no, the latin word, (oportet,) and the Greek word, (dei) have no other sense and meaning; but that it behoveth, or that it is meet and convenient; not, that it must of necessity be so, or else no lawful ordination.   

The second Objection.  
Christ sent his Disciples forth to preach the kingdom of God, and to cure the sick. 
Luke. 9 2.    

The Answer.  
I answer, that this was a special charge given only to the Apostles, and that it proveth as well, that all Ministers must be curers of diseases, as Preachers and convincers of gainsayers.    

The second Section, of Preaching without licence and authority.  
The patrons of the Presbytery affirm those canons, ordinances, and constitutions, to be ungodly, wicked, and plain diabolical; which prohibit all Ministers to preach God's word, that are not lawfully licensed thereunto. And they cry out against the most reverend Fathers; because they put some to silence, whom they had licensed to preach in former times.  
But I answer to these unworthy complaints, and unchristian exclamations; first, that no man may take upon 
Rom. 10. 15. Hebr. 5 4.  him the ministery, but he only that is lawfully called thereunto. Secondly, that the Church, to whom this authority is granted, may place and displace, give licence to preach, and prohibit from preaching; as it shall be thought most convenient for the peaceable government thereof, and for edification of the people. For this cause did King Solomon Depose Abiathar the high Priest, and placed Sadock in his 
1. reg. 2. v. 27.  room. But doubtless, he that hath power to displace the Minister, which is a greater thing; hath power, a fortiori, to suspend the Minister from execution, or to prohibit him 
Vide sect. 4. ex council. Vasensi, et notato. Vide supra, cap. 12. sect. 4. ex. Musculo.  to Preach; seeing that is a thing, that requireth less authority. Again, if the Church had not power to displace, suspend, and prohibit Ministers from Preaching, as their demeanours, and circumstances of times, places, and persons shall require; then doubtless would the Church abound, with schisms, confusion, and all ataxia contrary to the Apostolic canon, which prescribeth all things to be done decently and in order. Yea, I protest unto the world, that I deem the prohibition of Preaching without licence, to be 
1. Cor. 14. v. 26, 40.  one of the most necessary and profitable Canons, that ever were ordained, constituted, and established, by this our English Church. For since every man took upon him to Preach at his own pleasure, and was permitted to do it when and where he would; lawful authority hath binso impugned, new-sangled conceits so usual, unsound doctrine so common, & the text itself either scantly touched or so rawly & unclerkly handled; that the auditors were as ignorant of the true meaning of the text in the end, as in the beginning of the sermon. Hereupon it followed of necessity, that some for want of skill, (who ever were most desirous to have the place,) some for disdain of superiority in their betters; and others upon licentious sauciness; did destroy more, and withdraw more people from liking of the Gospel in one moveth, then grave Preachers of great learning and rare gifts, were able to build up again in one whole year. I will not disclose all I know in this behalf, for that I have no pleasure therein. Only I wish, that all Preachers will hereafter study seriously how and what to Preach, before they take in hand that most excellent and heavenly exercise. And so I will conclude this section, with the grave censure of Master Musculus. His 
Musculus de ministris verbi dei, pag. 202.  words are these; Habent ministri Christi indeterminatam quandam potestatem, quam in iis rebus esse dicimus, de quibus nihiless expresso verbo determinatuna domin●; & tamen aliqua ratione ad hoc conducunt, ut ministerium ipsorum velcommodius, vel utilius impleatur.  
The ministers of Christ have a certain undetermined power, which consisteth in those things, of which our lord hath determined nothing expressly in his word; and yet the same things serve to this end, that their ministery may be either more commodiously, or more profitably accomplished. Lo, the Church hath power & freedom to order 
Vide supra. cap. 12. sect. 4. ex eodem.  those things, which our Lord hath not expreslely determined in his holy word. Now, it is most evident and apparent, to all that read the Scriptures, that our Lord hath not expressly appointed this minister, and that minister, when where, and in what habit he shall preach, and consequently, the disposition and ordering thereof, pertaineth to the governors of the Church.   

The third Section, of reading of Homilies in the Church.  
The reading of learned Homilies in the Church, pronounced by unpreaching Ministers, (so termed scornfully) are vehemently impugned, by the patrons of the long expected presbytery. To whom I answer; first, that father Lati●●r that blessed Martyr, compiled a whole book of godly and learned Sermons, (my self have seen the same) which he would never have done, if he had thought it a thing unlawful, to read or pronounce his Sermons in the Pulpit. The like may be said of Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose, and many others, whose Sermons are this day extant in print, in the greater part of Europe. Secondly, that the distinct reading, of one of the godly and learned sermons or homilies, setforth to be read in our English Churches, is able to edify, and no doubt doth edify the congregation more; then do many of their sermons, who inveigh most bitterly against unpreaching ministers. But these men are therefore enemies to reading, because they are carried away with a vain Philantia, and love nothing better, then to hear themselves talking. For which end they wander abroad many times, leaving their own charges either destitute, or only supplied by unpreaching Ministers, whom otherwise they condemn. And this they effect with desire, even in those places, where their presence is neither necessary, nor yet much desired. I speak not this, either in defence of unpreaching ministers, (for I wish with all my heart, that every church in England, were furnished with a godly learned preacher) or in dislike of their zeal, who endeavour themselves to preach often; so that be done with eutaxia, & obedience of higher powers, & with such reverence, ripeness, & due preparation, as appertaineth to that heavenvly exercise. Thirdly, that one of the homilies or sermons aforenamed, pronounced by an unpreaching minister, (as they odiously term him,) is intrinsically and formally a sermon, or a preaching, & consequently, that he is truly said to preach, who publicly and orderly pronounceth the same, I prove it, because to be uttered with a shrill or mean voice, with this or that gesture, upon the book or without the book, and other like circumstances, are all and every of them mere accidental and extrinsical to a Sermon, Whosoever shall hold the contrary opinion, must perforce admit gross absurdities, flat contradictions, and plain impossibilities. Fourthly, if an unlearned Minister shall receive a learned Sermon, learnedly & orderly penned by his learned friend, & shall ken the same without the book, and after the rehearsal of his text, shall pronounce the same distinctly and orderly in the Pulpit; all the learned that hear him, and know not the truth of the matter, will say, (and that truly) that he made a learned Sermon, although he were but calvus comatus, in rei veritate. And even so say I; that he preacheth in the Pulpit, who readeth Homilies penned to his hand. Howsoever that be; this is out of doubt; that many reading the Homilies do more edify the congregation, than many others that preach their own collections, (I will not say inventions and fancies,) and think themselves no fools. It is likewise out of doubt, that the same Ministers do preach Theologica, though not theolagicè; and consequently, that is accomplished by them, which is principally 
Aristotel. ethic lib. 2. cap. 4.  intended by their adversaries. Homilies be pith●e and sound, but Sermons are often unlearned and errors.   

The fourth Section, of reading of the Apocrypha in the Church.  
The patrons of the presbytery make most bitter exclamations, against the reading of the Apocryphal books in the Church, and they have prevailed so far with some of the simple sort and vulgar people, that they will not once vouchsafe to read or look upon those Bibles, which have the Apocrypha in them. To whom I hope in God so to answer, as shall be able to satisfy them, if they will be satisfied with reason. I Therefore say first, that the word apocryphos in the original Greek tongue, signifieth hid or secret; and thereupon certain books contained within the corpse of the holy Bible, and delivered to the primitive and ancient Churches succeeding, were called Apocrypha, for that they were not acknowledged of the Church to be canonical, that is to say, to be the canon or rule of faith, as the other Scriptures are. Secondly, that these Apocryphal books were ever in high esteem in the Church of God, as the holy writings of holy men; and were also thought meet to be read in the Churches, as containing sit and necessary matter, aswell for the knowledge of the histories, as for the instruction of Godly manners. This to be so, will be clear and evident to all those, that can and 〈◊〉 to peruse seriously, the ancient councils, the holy Fathers, 
junius doth think the Apocrypha to be very profitable to the churches.  and the histories of the church. Whereof I shall here in brief recount some s●we, for the help of the simple and thankful Reader. And hereby the way, the gentle Reader shall understand, that master junius a great learned man, and of high esteem in the reformed churches, hath published notes upon the Apocryphal books.  
Saint Hierome hath these express words: Si●utergo 
Hierom epist. ad Chromat. & Heliod de lib. Solomon.  judith & Tobyae, & Machabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sedinter Canonicas scripturas non recipit: sic & haec duo volumina legit ad aedificatitonem plebis, non ad authoritatem Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandum.  
As therefore the Church readeth the books of judith, and of Tobye, and of the Maccabees, but receiveth them not amongst the Canonical Scriptures: so doth it also read these two volumes for edification of the people, but not to confirm any Ecclesiastical doctrine.  
Saint Augustine is of the same opinion, and delivereth the matter in these express words: Hanc Scripturam quae 
August. contra 2. Gaudentij. epist. libr. 2 cap. 23. to. 7  appellatur Machabaeorum, non habent judaei sicut Legem, & Prophetas, & Psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis, dicens, oportebat imp●eri omnia quae scripta sunt in Lege, & Prophetis, & in Psalmis de me. Sed recepta est ab Ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrit legatur, vel audiatur, maxim propter illos Machabaeos, qui pro Dei Lege, sicut veri Martyrs, a persecutoribus tam indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt.  
The Scripture which is of the Maccabees, the jews repute not as they do the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord gave testimony, as to his witnesses, saying, It behoved all things to be fulfilled, which are written in the Law, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms of me: but the Church hath received it not without profit, if it be read or heard soberly: especially for those Maccabees, who for the Law of God, as true Martyrs, suffered of their persecutors so unworthy and horrible torments.  
Saint Cyprian, Saint Ambrose, and other Fathers, teach the same Doctrine; and the continual practice of the Church in all ages, doth yield a constant testimony thereunto.  
Now, seeing the Church of God hath thought it meet and profitable, to have the Apocryphal books read in the Church; and seeing withal, that Saint Austen Saint Hierome, and other holy Fathers, do commend the same, I see no reason, why a few young heads without grey beards, (whose authority is no way comparable with the practice of the Church neither their reading, experience, and judgement, to be equalized with the ancient & holy Fathers) should take upon them so rashly to control the Church of England, and to condemn her for following the practice of the Church in all ages. Let these men weigh well with themselves; what the holy, most reverend, and learned Father, Saint Austen saith, to this and the like questions. These are his express words; In his. n. rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura Divina, mos populi Dei, vel instituta maiorum pro lege tenenda sunt. For in those things, 
Augustin. ad Con●ulan. Episto. 86.  touching which the holy Scritpure hath left no certain rule; the custom of God's people, and the ordinances of our ancestors, must be holden for a law. Behold here (gentle Reader,) a most excellent rule indeed, given us by this holy Father and great learned Doctor. Which, if they, who this day impugn the government of our English Church, (the Prownists and their adherents I ever mean,) would duly ponder and regard; they would doubtless surcease to vex and disturb the peace of our Church, and receive the ordinances of their ancestors, with all reverence and humility. For the Church of England doth make a flat separation, in which it doth in plain and express terms, sever & divide the Canonical books from the Apocryphal; so as no simple Reader, can but perceive and understand the same. And it is not to the purpose, to object as some have done: that the Rubric in the book of common prayer, calleth the Apocryphal books holy Scripture. For first, when the Rubric saith (the rest of the holy Scripture,) it may be understood fitly, of the books Canonical following; especially, seeing it nameth not the Apocryphal expressly, but quoteth some of them afterwards. Secondly, the Apocrypha may truly and lawfully beecalled holy Scripture Analogicè, though 
Analogice non autem univocè.  not Univocè; that is to say, the writings of holy men, or books containing holy and good matter. And in this sense speaketh the Rubric, as I judge; and sundry of the holy Fathers, I am well assured, do so term the books Apocryphal. Howsoever the Rubric be expounded, or wrested, two things are apparent. Th' one, that the Rubric doth not call them Canonical scripture. Th' other, that the Church meaneth not to equalize them, with the Canonical books of holy writ. I prove it, because she hath plainly distinguished the one from the other, and preferred the authority of the Canonical. Neither will it serve their turn to say, as some have done; viz. That nothing may be read in the Church, but only the Canonical scriptures. For first, no text of holy writ doth so affirm; 
1.  and consequently, the Church hath power to determine thereof, as is already proved. secondly, the ancient 
2.  council of Uasco, (which was holden above one 
Cont. Uascense. can. 4.  thousand and one hundredth years ago,) decreed plainly in their public assembly, that the Deacons should read the Homilies made by the holy Fathers. These are the express words of the Council; Hoc etiam pro aedificatione omnium Ecclesiarum, & pro utilitate totius populi nobis placuit, ut non solum in Civitatibus, sedetiam in omnibus parochijs verbum faciendi daremus Presbyteris Potestatem: va, ut si presbyter aliqua infirmitate prohibente, per seipsum non potuerit praedicare, Sanctorum Patrum Homiliae a Diaconis recitentur.  
We have also decreed for the edification of all Churches, and for the good of all the people, that the Priests should be licensed to preach, and not in Cities only, but 
Behold here licence granted to preach.  also in every Parish Church; so that the Deacons may read the Homilies of the holy Fathers, if the Priest cannot preach himself, by reason of some infirmity. Thirdly, it is void of all reason, and far from all Christianity, to 
.3.  affirm it unlawful to read testimonials, made to signify the distress of our honest Neighbours; that thereby we may be stirred up, to relieve them more bountifully, Yea, (if it be true that some have written,) it is a law amongst them of the Presbytery, to have their orders for governing the Church, read publicly once every quarter. And I know Expropria scientia, that some of them, have done more. Well, nowadays every upstart youngling, that can rawely pronounce some Texts of the holy Bible (though he but meanly conceive the true sense,) will roundly take upon him (I warrant you) to revile our most Reverend Fathers, the archbishops & bishops, and to control the government of our Church, as if he had a Commission from Heaven to do it. If I should disclose, what myself have heard herein, and how I have been saluted sometimes, for speaking my mind in the defence of the Reverend Fathers, and of the Godly settled Laws of this Church of England: time would sooner fail me, than matter whereof to speak.    

CHAP. XIIII. Of certain extravagants very offensino to the Patrons of the Presbytery,  

The first member, of Christ's Baptism, and the circumstances thereof.  
IT is sharply reproved, that the book of common prayer, hath in it these words; that by the Baptism of his well-beloved Son, God did sanctify the flood jordane, and all other waters, 
In the first prayer of Baptism.  to the mystical washing away of sin. By these words, (say they) the Minister is caused to testify of God, that he hath done that which he never did. For answer hereunto, I say first, that I 
. I.  wonder at the temerarious audacity of these men, who presume to set abroach, Quie quid in buccam venerit. Truly saith th' Apostle of such qualified people; they would be Doctors of the Law, and yet understand not what they 
1. Tim. 1. 7.  speak, neither whereof they affirm. secondly, that if 
.2.  master Calvin say traielie, as he saith most truly in deed; 
Calvin. in arg. in Epist. ad Galaethat.  that it is a pestileut mischief, when the manner of one church, must be made a Law to all the rest. Then doubtless may I say truly; that it is a mere pestilent mischief, when the government of all the Churches in a whole Monarchy; must be squared and measured by the fancy and conceit of every private man. thirdly, that when our Saviour Christ was baptised in jordan, of his precursor Saint john: 
.3.  then did he sanctify all waters, for the mystical washing away 
Mat. 3. v. 13.  of sin. Neither is this mine opinion only, neither yet the Doctrine of the Church of England only; but it is the constant and uniform affirmance of the holy Fathers. Tertullianus, (whose rare learning Saint Cyprian admired, and therefore was daily conversant with his works,) giveth this censure of Christ's Baptism in jordan. Baptizato. n. Christo, idest sanctificante aquas in suo baptismate, omnis plenitudo 
Tertullianus advers. judaeos pa. 134.  spiritalium retro Charismatum in Christo cessavit. For when Christ was baptised, that is to say, when Christ sanctified the waters in his Baptism, than all the fullness of former spiritual gifts ceased in Christ.  
Saint Hylarie hath these words: Non ille necessitatem habuit abluendi sed per illum in aquis ablutionis nostrae erat sanctificanda purgatio. Sequitur. Atque ita & Prophetae testimonio 
Hylarius in mat. can. 2.  lavacro non eget, & exempli sui authoritate Humanae salutis Sacramenta consummate, hominem & assumptoine sactificans & lavacro.  
He stood in no need of washing; but in the waters of our washing, he was to sanctify our purgation. And so both by the testimony of the Prophet, he needeth no washing: and by the authority of his example, he doth consummate the Sacraments of Man's salvation, sanctifying Man both in his assumption, and in his washing.  
Saint Ambrose is consonant to the rest, and delivereth his mind in these words: Baptizatus est ergo Dominus, non mundaeri volens, sed mundare aquas, ut ablutae per carnem 
Ambros. in Luc. lib. 2. cap. 2.  Christi quae peccatum non cognovit, baptismatis ius haberent.  
Our Lord therefore was baptised, not desiring to be purged, but to cleanse the waters, that they being washed by the flesh of Christ, which knew no sin, might enjoy the right of baptism.  
Saint Hierome hath these words: Ipse Dominus noster jesus Christus. qui non tam mundatus est in lavacro, quam lavacro suo universas aquas mundavit, statim ut caput extulit de fluento spiritum sanctum accepit, non quod unquam sine spiritis 
Hieron. adver. Lucifer. tom. 3.  sancto fuerit, quip qui de spiritu sancto in carne natus est; sed ut illud nobis monstraretur verum esse baptisma, quo spiritus sanctus adveniat.  
Our Lord jesus Christ, who rather cleansed all waters by his washing, then received any cleansing, came no sooner out of the flood, but he received the Holy Ghost: not that he was any time without the Holy Ghost, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the flesh: but that we should understand that to be true baptism, in which the Holy ghost is given.  
Saint Bede, (who for his great virtue and rare learning was surnamed Venerablis, Venerable or Reverend,) hath 
Beda in Luc cap. 3.  these express words; Baptizatus est Dominus, non ipse aquis mundari, sed ipsas mundare cupiens aquas, quae ablutae per carnem eius peccati utique nesciam, Baptismi ius iuduerent, & quod tam innumera sub lege baptismata non poterant, contra pravaricationis malum vim regenerativa sanctificationis coni ciperent.  
Our Lord was baptised, not for desire to cleanse himself, but to cleanse the waters, that they being washed by his flesh which knew no sin, might put upon them the right of baptism, and receive the power of regenerative sanctification against the evil of prevarication, which all the washings under the Law could not perform. Thus write the holy Fathers. For the better understanding of whose words, three things must be seriously observed, touching the sanctification they speak of; viz. The time, the manner, and the end. The time when they were sanctified, the manner how they were sanctified, and the end for which they were sanctified.  
Concerning the time, we must know, that Christ instituted holy Baptism two ways. First, exemplarilie by fact; then expressly by word. Examplarilie, when he was baptised in jordan, about three years & a half afore his Passion, at what time he was about 30. years of age. 
Matt. 3. 13.  Expressly, after his Resurrection, about thirty days before his Ascension up into Heaven. At which time Christ gave commission to his Apostles, that they should teach 
Mat. 28. 19  and baptise all Nations.  
Concerning the manner, he did not instill any inherent sanctimony or holiness into the waters, but only did consecrate and depute them unto an holy end; viz. To be the fit and ordinary matter of holy baptism; like as God is said to have sanctified and blessed the seventh 
Gen. 2. 3. Exod. 20. 11.  day, not by putting any holy inherent quality into it, but by deputing and ordaining it to his own service and holy worship. Now, that he ordained exemplarilie both the water of jordan, and all others, to be the usual matter of the Sacrament of Baptism; it may appear by many circumstances of the Text, aswell for the matter of Baptism, as for the form and effect thereof. First, he determined water to be the matter of baptism, when he touched 
1.  it with his own most pure & holy flesh, and yielded to be baptized therewith. Secondly, he determined the form of Baptism, when in his Baptism the whole Trinity 
2.  appeared sensibly; for, the voice of the Father was heard from Heaven; the Son was present in our flesh 
Mat. 3. v. 13. 16. 17.  assumpted; and the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a Dove. And (as Saint Hylarie saith,) the effect of Baptism was declared, for that the Heavens were opened in the celebration thereof.  
Concerning the end, Baptism is affirmed of Christ himself, to be our second birth. In another place it is 
joh. 3. 5. Act. 22. v. 17. Tit. 3. 5. Rome 6. 4. Chrysosto. in cap. 3. mat. hom. 12. col. 114.  said to wash away our sins (Sacramentally.) In another place, it is called the laver of Regeneration, and Renovation of the Holy Ghost. And in another place, it is made the seal of our justification by faith, of remission of our sins, and sanctification in the Holy Ghost. To this effect writeth the golden mouthed Doctor Saint Chrysostome, in these golden words; Neque ideo solum, sed ut & tu disceres, quontam super te quoque cum Sacro font dilueris, Sanctus Spiritus veniat; iam vero non visibils specie, qua utique non egemus, cum nobis pro cunctis sola fides sufficiat. Nam signa non credentibus, sed incredulis dantur.  
Neither did the Dove appear only for that end, but that thou also mayst learn, that the Holy Ghost cometh upon thee, when thou art washed in the holy Font; but that appearance is not now adays in any visible shape, whereof we have no need, seeing sole faith sufficeth for all. For signs are not given to the faithful, but to the incredulous persons. These things well pondered: the objection against the book of Common prayer, will be to no purpose: unless perhaps it will be a caveat for the Author, (which I heartily wish,) to write and speak more circumspectly in time to come. For I verily am persuaded, that all things contained in the book of Common prayer, are agreeable to the holy Scriptures, & the practice of the Church in the purest times, and composed with such judgement, Piety, Learning, and Religion: that all the wisdom in the world, is not able justly to control the same. In so much, that I wonder, and greatly admire the audacious temerity of many: who being of small reading and learning, (and of no judgement and experience, if they be compared to those ancient, grave, Godly, wise, and learned fathers, that compiled the book of common prayer,) dare presume to condemn the same, with their bitter invectives, untimely censures, and unchristianlike Anathematizations. True it is, that Saint Hierome saith: Nec sibi blandiantur, si de Scripturarum capitulis videntur 
Hier. advers. Lucifer: tom 3 in sine.  sibi affirmare quod dicunt, cum & Diabolus de Scripturis aliqua sit locutus, & Scripturae non in legendo, sed in intelligendo consistunt.  
Neither must they slatter themselves, if they seem in their own conceits to prove so much as they say: seeing the Devil himself alleged Scripture (against our Lord jesus,) and the Scriptures do not consist in bare reading, but in true Sense and meaning. Would God this grave advise given by this holy, ancient, and learned Father, might be a precedent and constant rule in this doleful age, to all novices, superficial divines, and young students in Divinity, (who more rashly then Clerklie take upon them to control not only our most Reverend Fathers, the grave, wise, and learned Bishops, but even the whole Synod assembled in the Convocation house, yea and the King himself) to walk circumspectly, to live obediently, to think modestly of their own gifts, & not to esteem better of themselves and their judgements then there is cause: but to think that a learned Synod can see as far as they, and would as gladly go to Heaven as they: and consequently to ponder with themselves seriously, that it is a too too malepeart sauciness for young heads and superficial Divines of slender judgement, and less reading of the holy Fathers, ancient councils, and Ecclsiasticall histories; to censure and control not only the Godly settled Laws of our Christian Kingdom, but even of the continual practice of the Church in all ages. I myself am about three score years of age; I have endeavoured by Prayer and painful Study to attain good literature, ever since I was five years of age; I have lived, conversed, studied, & disputed in many famous Universities, aswell in England as in foreign Countries; I have employed my whole care, industry, and diligence, now for the space of thirty years and odd, to understand God's word aright, & to know what hath been the practise of Christ's church in all former ages: and for that end and purpose, I have for the space of thirty years and odd, provided all the ancient Fathers, councils, Histories Ecclesiastical, and chronographycal, so far forth as my ability was able to extend and reach; and that nothing should be wanting in this behalf, I have borrowed books where I could, and have also had recourse to the best Libraries, both in the Universities & else where; to the end I might gather notes out of such books, as I was not able to buy and provide. In which behalf, not myself only, but all such as reap any commodity by my painful labours, are more than a 
The L. Bish. of Cant. and the L. Bishop of Dur. have goodly Libraries.  little beholden to these most Reverend Fathers; john the late Archbyshoppe of Canterbury, Richard now the L: Archbyshoppe of Canterbury, and Tobye the L: Bysh. of Durham; who have for themselves & the good of others, most excellent, costly, and goodly Libraries: to which I have found free access, at all times when I desired. All this being performed I have very seriously weighed, pondered, and considered, what the Papists, Arrians, Macedonians, Eutychians, Nestorians, Donatists, Carpocratians, Ebionites, Tatians, Manichees, Brownists, and other Sectaries, do and can say for their opinions; and this notwithstanding, I find the Doctrine and the Godly settled Laws of this Church of England, (amongst which I place the late Canons of Anno. 1604.) to be consonant to God's word, & to the usual practice of the Church in all former ages. These things I utter in these terms, because I heartily wish to persuade all such as are careful of their salvation, to yield obedience to higher Powers, and not to be 
Rom. 13. 1. Pet. 2. 1. Sam. 15. v. 22.  carried away with the Sugared words of superficial Divines, but to learn that obedience is better than Sacrifice. I am now likely even by the course of Nature, shortly to forsake this world; and therefore I do not seek any preferment for my pains, (which I never to this day hunted after,) and much less do I seek to draw men into errrours, and so to make shipwreck of mine own Soul. No, no, my purpose, (God is my witness, is far otherwise; as who am persuaded so fully of the Doctrine which I deliver, that I am not afraid to end my life in the same.   

The second member, of certain Rites and Ceremonies used in Baptism.  
newfangled & oddly conceited persons, do scornfully inveigh against interrogatories ministered at Baptism; against Godfathers, Godmothers, Fonts, and otherlike Ceremonies, as things unknown in the time of the Apostles. To whom I answer in this manner; First, that many things are this day lawfully done in the Church, which were not in use in the Apostles time. This is already proved. 
1.  Secondly, that the custom of the Church, in things indifferent, is to be esteemed among Christians for a Law, This 
2.  is likewise proved. And let him that holdeth the contrary opinion, tell me by what law he can justify, that formal conjunction of men and women in holy wedlock, which is used not only in our Church of England, but also in purest reformed Churches every where. He shall never be able to allege any ground in that behalf, but the unwritten traditions of the Church. Of which traditions th' Apostle spoke, (as learned interpreters tell us) when 
Uide sup. ca 10. per totum, & ex Calus. cap. 7.  he said, he would set other things in order at his coming. Yea M. Calvin upon that Text admitteth unwritten Traditions, in things not necessary to Salvation. thirdly, that Saint Austen, Saint Ambrose, and other ancient Fathers, 
1. cor. 11. v. 34.  (who lived in the pure ages of the Church,) make mention of Godfathers, and Godmothers, and of the interrogatories which our Church useth in the Baptism of infants. Saint Austen being demanded, how they that being an infant to baptism, are bold to answer that he believeth, and so to all other demands, seeing they dare promise nothing of his behaviour when he cometh to man's state, answereth in these express words; Si. n. Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earumrerum quarum Sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex 
Aug in epist. ad Bonssac. ●p. 23. pag. 57 58.  hac autem similitudine, plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina 〈◊〉. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corpor●s Christi, corpus Christi est, Sacramentum sangumis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum Fidei, Fides 〈…〉 aliud credere, quam fidem habere. Ac 〈…〉 credere, qui fidei nondum habet 〈…〉 habere propter fidei Sacramen●●● 
Uide 〈…〉 pag. 31●.  〈…〉 propter conversionis sacrament●●, 〈…〉 Celebrationem pertinet Sacra 〈…〉 nondum fides illa quae 〈…〉 tamen ipsius fidei Sacra 〈…〉 facit. Nam si●ut credere respondetur, ita etiam 〈…〉, non 〈◊〉 annu●ndo, sed ipsu● rei 〈…〉. For if Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they be Sacraments, they were no Sacraments at all. And by reason of this similitude, they are often called by the names of the things themselves. As therefore after a certain manner of speaking the Sacrament of the body of Christ, and the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, are the body and blood of Christ; so the Sacrament of faith, is faith. Neither is it any other thing to Believe, then to have Faith. And therefore, when answer is made, that the infant believeth, which as yet hath not faith in deed; it is answered, that he believeth, for the Sacrament of faith: and that he doth convert himself to God, for the sacrament of conversion, because the answer itself, pertaineth to the Celebration of the Sacrament. Therefore, although that faith which consisteth in the will of the believers, doth not make the child faithful: yet doth the Sacrament of that Faith make him faithful. For even as it is answered that he doth believe, so is he also called faithful; not by signifying or granting the thing itself in his mind, but by receiving the sacrament of the thing. Thus writeth S. Austen, that ancient & learned Father, out of whose words I observe against rash heads, & young Divines, these most excellent instructions for the humble and Godly readers. First, that this holy & learned father, (whose virtue and learning all 
.1.  the Christian world hath hitherto honoured, and admired.) relieth & stayeth himself upon the practice of the Church, which now adays every proud Brownist, and unlearned Martinist, contemneth at his pleasure. Secondly, that it was the custom of the Church in S. Aust. time, (which custom he reverenced,) even as it is this day, in our Church of England, 
2.  to propound interrogatories to the sureties, or Godfathers & Godmothers in the behalf of the child: as also they did lawfully and truly answer and promise, as the manner is now in our Church, and that their answers were to be justified, by virtue of the Sacrament.  

The first Objection.  
The sureties which you call Godfathers and Godmothers, cannot perform that, which they promise in the name of the child. ergo it is a vain and ridiculous exercise.   

The Answer.  
I answer, that the sureties are well able to perform all that they promise, as who promise nothing absolutely, but with a condition usually understood in all such kind of promises; viz, if we live, if Gods will be so, to the utmost of our power and so forth. And so much may be gathered, out of the express words in the book of common prayer.   

The second Objection.  
Not the infants, but the Godfathers and Godmothers are baptised, and so rebaptisation is admitted. For not the child, but they say, I renounce the devil, that is my desire.   

The Answer.  
I answer; first, with the ancient father Areopagita, in 
Dionysius Areopag. de eccles. hierarchia prope finem.  these words, Non. n. hoc ait, ego pro puero abrenuncio, aut promitto, sed puer abrenuntiat & profitetur: id est, profiteor me huic puero suasurum, cum intelligere sacra per aetatem poterit, divinis meis institutionibus, ut & nuntium remittat adversarijs, atque ab eis deficiat, & profiteatur exolvatque divina promissa. Neither doth he say this, I renounce or promise for the child, but, the child renounceth and professeth, that is to say, I promise so to instruct the child, when he cometh to years of discretion, with my godly instructions and exhortations, he shall renounce all things adverse, & profess and perform those heavenly promises which he maketh.  
Secondly, mwith Saint Austen in these words: Miror sanè quod ita volveris, ut de his quae vary per diversa loca observantur, tibi aliqua conscriberem cum & non sit necessarium, & una 
August. ad jamar epist. 119.  in his saluberrima regula retinenda sit, ut quae non sunt contra fidem, neque contra bonos mores, & habent aliquid ad exhortationem vitae melioris, ubicunque institui videmus, velinstituta cognoscimus, non solum non improbemus, sed etiam laudando & imitando sectemur, si aliquorum infirmit as non ita impedit, ut amplius detrimentum sit.  
I marvel why you would have me write to you, touching those things which are diversely observed in divers places, seeing that it is not necessary, & that in these things we must hold this for a constant and sound rule, that what things soever are neither against faith, nor against good manners, and are some help to the furtherance of honest life, wheresoever we see such things to be ordained, we must be so far from reproving them, that we must praise & imitate the same; unless some weaklings be so scandalised, that hurt cometh thereupon.  
Thirdly, with the zealous and learned Writer master Zuinglius, in these express words, Hic vero singulis videre li● cet, quaenam sit contentiosi istius Satanae caliiditas, qui huiusmodi 
Zuingl. us Prrt. 2. debaptis. Fol. 87.  rixis propter externa quaedam institutis, papatui amplissimas fenestras denuò aperire voluit. In huiusmodi utique rebus Pauli Apostoli regula nobis obseruamda est. 1. cor. 14. sequitur, quorum usum & administrationem in nostro arbitrio & potestate sitam esse ait, sic tamen ne quid cum dei instituto pugnans committamus, & ne pacem publicam, cuius nobis praecipua cura esse debet, propter externa haec interturbare libeat. licet ergo vel hody quoque paedobaptismun (etiamsi hactenus in ecclesia usurpatus non esset,) de novo instituere si aliquod inde commodum, & pacis concordiaeque frustus inde promanaret.  
Here every man may see, what subtlety and crafty dealing contentious Satan useth, who goeth about by these dissensions in external matters, to make again a most ready way and passage, for Popery to enter into our gates. But in such matters doubtless, the Apostles rule must be observed. Whose use and administration he saith, is in our arbitrement and power: yet so, that we do nothing against God's ordinance, neither have any desire to trouble the public peace, whereof we must have an especial care, for these external matters. It is therefore this day lawful for us also, to institute and ordain a new the baptism of infants, (although it had not hither to been used in the church) if any commodity, or good success of peace and concord, might ensue thereupon.  
Out of these learned discourses of these grave and learned Writers, I observe these memorable rules for the benefit of the gentle Reader. First, that the ceremonies this day of our English Church, are the same that were used in the church in the purest times. 2, that in things which are neither against faith, nor against manners, the custom of the church must be a rule for us to follow. This is a most worthy lesson, a most excellent rule, and a most necessary observation. Thirdly, that the dissensions and schisms stirred up about external rites and ceremonies, proceed from the crafty and deceitful dealing of the devil. Fourthly, that the Church hath power to make and constitute any laws, which are not repugnant and contrary to the word of God. Fiftly, that our Church hath this day power to have instituted the Baptism of Infants, although it had not been used in former ages. And consequently, that it hath power a fortiori, to set down orders and laws for the apparel of Ministers, for surplesles, square Caps, interrogatories in baptism, and bowing of the knee at the name of jesus, for kneeling at the holy Communion, for giving thanks of women for their deliverance from the peril of childbirth, for prohibiting to Preach without licence, for Reading of Homilies, and the like. Which rules and observations, if they were well remembered, and duly observed, all schisms, 
〈…〉  dissension, whisperings, and mutinies, would wholly surcease in this Church of England.    

The third member of Deacons, and their office in the Church.  
In the book of orders, there is an office called the Deacon whose description is not to be found in God's book. namely consisting in helping the Priest in divine service, especially when he ministereth the holy Communion, in reading holy Scriptures & Homilies in the congregation, instructing the youth in the Catechism, in Baptizing and Preaching, if he be admitted thereunto by the Bishop. Thus Write the patrons of the Eldership, and earnestly wished Presbytery, to whom I answer in this manner. First, that if it were true which they say, (as it is not indeed;) yet would it not follow, that the office of a Deacon this day usual in the Church, should be a thing unlawful to be used. The reason is evident, because (as I have already proved,) the Church hath authority to constitute, make, and ordain, any laws ceremonies, canons, ordinances, and orders, 
Vide supra, Cap. 5.  which are for the good of the Church, and not against the word of God. for the better confirmation whereof, let us hear the verdict of master Zanchius, that most famous Writer. These are his express words: interea tamen non improbamus patres, quod juxta variantum verbi dispensandi, tum regendae 
Zanchius de relig. Pag. 169.  Ecclesiae rationem, varios quoque ordines ministrorum multiplicarint, quando id eis liberum fint, sicut & nobis, & quando constat, id ab illis fuisse factum honestis de causis, ad ordinem ad decorum & ad aedificationem ecclesiae pro eo tempore pertinentibus.  
Nevertheless, we do not discommend or reprove the 
add huc membrum precedens  fathers, because they did multiply and increase the orders of the ministers, according to the various manner of dispensing the word, and of governing the Church. Seeing that was in their liberty and power, as it is also in ours; And seeing also it is evident, that they did that for honest causes, for order, comeliness, and edification of the Church, as that time did require. Out of these golden words, I observe first, that the holy fathers in former ages did institute divers orders of Ministers: which orders though they be not found expressly in God's book, yet this great learned man dareth not disallow or reprove the same. But our young masters, (who for learning are unworthy to carry his books after him) dare condemn them roundly, and make havoc of the Laws of the ancient Church. Secondly, that the Church both then and now, had and still hath full power and authority, to constitute divers orders of Ministers in the Church. Let this observation be well marked; for it is of great importance, and no small moment. Thirdly, that such orders and constitutions, do pertain to the order, comeliness, and edification of the Church. Fourthly, that these things may be changed at the discretion of the Church, as the circumstances 
Nota membrum praecedens valde.  of the times, places, and persons do require.  
I answer secondly, that the office of Deacons is no otherwise this day in our English Churches, than it was of old in all Churches throughout the Christian world. I 
Conc. Nicen. can. 14. Conc. Carth. 4. Can. 37. justin. Apol. 2. in fine.  prove it, for that both ancient councils, of Nice, Carthage, and others, and also the holy fathers, do testify the same so copiously, as none but younglings of no reading, can be ignorant thereof.  
Thirdly, that Deacons in the Apostolic time and primitive Church, did not only serve the table, and minister to the poor, but also baptise and preach the Gospel. I prove it first, because there were Deacons at Ephesus, at Philippi, and in Crete; as may evidently be gathered of the Epistles, which were written to Timothy, Titus, and the 
ratio. 1.  Philippians. And for all that, there was in those places at that time such paucity of Christians, as there could be either small need or none at all, for Deacons to attend upon the tables. Secondly, because the solemnity of imposition of hands, used in the ordering and consecration of Deacons, doth argue a further and more excellent function, than the bare and sole ministery of the table. This was well observed by the great learned Doctor Illyricus, whose 
Illyricus, in 1. Tim. 3. 9  words are these; Hinc autem apparet eos non tantum ad dispensationem elemosynarum alimentorumque, sed etiam ad institutionem auditorum fuisse adhibitos, sicut & illi Act. 6. etiam simul docuerunt, non tantum aeconomiam administrarunt; sed nimirum munus illorum fuit tantum rudiores instituere, seu catechismum tradere, dum presbyteri omnibus sufficere laboribus nequeunt. Hence it is apparent, that the Deacons were ordained, not only to distribute alms and relief to the poor, but also to instruct and teach their auditors, as they also, of whom mention is made in the acts, were occupied in teaching, and not only in houshold-businesse. For their office was to instruct the ignorant, and to catechize, while the pastoral Elders could not undergo all the labours. Lo, Illyricus (who understood the Scriptures, as well as our Brownists and Martinists,) affirmeth plainly and constantly, that the office of Deacons, even in the Apostles time, was not only to attend on the poor, but also to instruct and Preach the Gospel.  
I prove it Thirdly, because Philippe the Deacon did not only attend the poor, but was also occupied in Baptizing and in Preaching. As also, for that Saint Steven another Deacon, made a long, learned, and most godly Sermon, unto the obstinate and stiffnecked jews; in which he proved at large, that he did serve and worship the everliving 
Act. 8. v. 35. 38. Act. 7. Vsque. v. 53.  God aright, even that God who chose the fathers afore Moses was borne, and before their Temple was built.  

The first Objection.  
Steven the Deacon did not preach at all, but only defended himself in a long Oration, against the wicked and slanderous accusations of the stiffnecked jews, which to do is lawful, not for Deacons only, but also for all other Christians.   

The Answer.  
I answer first, that Saint Steven answered in the way of Preaching for edification sake, not in the way of pleading for his own defence, albeit one may answer accusations in a Sermon. For first, he sharply reproved 
Cap. 7. 51. Cap 6. 9  them, terming them stiff necked, and of uncircumcised hearts and ears. Secondly, he was in the synagogue of the Libertines. Thirdly, the end and scope of his speech, was to prove the true and pure worship of God, neither to be affixed to the Temple, nor to any external ceremonies. All which being put together, it is clear that Saint Steven made a godly Sermon. This my answer is confirmed by 
Illyricus in 6. cap. act. v. 8.  the verdict of Illyricus, whose words are these, Videtur autem hic Stephanus egressus esse metas suae vocationis, qui magis apostoli, quam diaconi munus usurpaverit, docendo, disputando, & miracula edendo. Sed sic deus solet suam quandam viam libere ingredi spirando suo spiritu ubi vult.  
Steven seems here to have passed the limits of his calling, in using the function rather of an Apostle, then of a Deacon, teaching, disputing, and working miracles, But thus God will use his own ways, breathing with his spirit where he listeth.  
Again in another place, the same Illyricus hath these words: primum, est longa concto Stephani, usque ad 53. Versum. 
ibidem cap. 7. v 1. Aretius' in act. 7. Gual. in act. 6.  de●●de, est glortosum martyrium eiusdem. First, there is a long Sermon which Steven made, until the 53. Verse then followeth his glorious martyrdom. M. Aretius and M. Gualterus doth both of them affirm constantly, that Saint Steven used to preach usually. I answer secondly, that if it be true, (which the objection thereof supposeth,) that an Apology cannot consist with a true and godly Sermon: then will it follow of necessity, that Saint Paul did not Preach before Foelix the governor of jury, which to 
Act. 24. v. 10. etc.  hold, is against M. Calvin and all learned Writers. It will also follow thereupon, that Saint Peter did not Preach, when he answered to those that accused the Apostles of Drunkenness, before the jews, and all the strangers that 
Act. 2. v. 15.  did inhabit jerusalem.  
I answer thirdly, that the custom of the church is of 
3.  great authority, for the true sense & meaning of the doubtful texts of Scripture. By which custom it is evident, that Deacons did Baptize and preach in the primitive church: and that both Steven and Philip did the same, although they were but Deacons, Saint Hierome hath these words, 
Hieron. adu. Lucifer. tom. 3. fol. 3. c.  Non quidem abnuo hanc esse Ecclesiarum consuetudinem, ut ad eos qui longè in minoribus Vrbibus per Presbyteres & Diaconos baptizati sunt, Episcopus ad invocationem Sancti spiritus manum impositurus excurrat.  
I do not deny, that this is the custom of the church, that the Bishop should go to those, which in Villages a far of were baptised by the Priests and Deacons, and lay his hands upon them with invocation of the Holy Ghost. Lo, the custom of the church approved the baptism of Deacons, which shall be made more apparent, in answer to the next objection.   

The second Objection.  
Philip that baptised the Eunuch, was Philip th' Apostle, 
Act. 8. v. 35 38.  not Philip the Deacon: Besides, he was then an Evangelist, and so baptised & preached as an Evangelist, and not by virtue of his Deaconshippe.   

The answer.  
I answer: first, that this Philip, (whereof the controversy it made) was not an Apostle, but one of the seave Deacons. 
Act. 8. v. 1. 14. Act. 8. v. 1.  The reason hereof is evident, because all th' Apostles (as S. Luke writeth,) remained 〈◊〉 at jerusalem and consequently it must needs be Philip the Deacon, who was dispersed with the rest, and came to 〈◊〉, where he now preached and baptised. The words of the text are these, they were all scattered abroad through the Regions of judaea, and Samaria, except th' Apostles. Again; then came Philippe, 
Act. 8 v. 5. Act. ●. 14.  into the City of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. Again thus; Now, when the Apostles which were at jerusalem, heard say that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and john. By these several Texts, it is most apparent to all indifferent readers, that Philippe which baptised the Aethiopian, was none of the Apostles; but was that Deacon which came into Samaria, Philippe th' Apostle being still at jerusalem. But the Patrons of the Eldership, use to shuffle up Scriptures, they care not how, so they may seem to conclude their intent and purpose. Let us hear what Master Calvin saith, 
Calui. in. 21. Act. v. 7. 8.  whose words are these; Caesareae usos fuisse dicit hospitio Philippi, quem Euangelistam vocat, licet unus esset e septem Diaconis, ut visum est capite sexto. Diaconiam illam fuisse temporale 
Uide Bezan. in ●●ses. ca 5.  munu●, hinc conijcere promptum est; quod Philippo alioqui liberumnon fuisset, relicta jerosolimae Caesaream migrare. He telleth us, that they lodged with Philippe at Caesarea, whom he calleth Evangelist, although he were indeed one of the seven Deacons. Hence we may gather, that his Deaconshippe was but a temporary office; for otherwise he could not have left jerusalem, and have gone to Caesarea. Where I must needs wish the Reader to observe by the way, that seeing the office of Deacons was temporary and mutable; much more may the same be said of unpriested Elders, if anic such were in any age, place, or time.  
I answer secondly, that Philip which baptised the Aethiopian Eunuch, was not only once a Deacon, but still remained so: and that he was called an Evangelist, because he did evangelize, and preach the Gospel, In which sense e●●ry preacher may thus be truly called an Evangelist, as both M. Bullinger, & other learned writers grant. This to be so, the very express words of the text do prove it so plainly, that no denial can be made thereof. Thus writeth Saint Luke, Eiselthontes eye ton ●icon Philippou tou Euangelistou ontos 
Act. 21. v. 8.  ec ton hepta emeinamen par auto. Entering into the house of Philip th' Evangelist, being one of the seven, we abode with him. Lo, S. Luke speaketh not in the preterperfect tense, or preterplusperfect tense, who hath or had been one of the seven Deacons; but he saith in the present tense, who is even now one of the seven; For so the Original Greek word (ontoes), must needs be expressed, seeing it is a participle of the present time, or time even now being. And the holy Fathers together with the practice of the church, have ever so understood this text of Scripture.  
Saint Epiphanius delivereth his mind in these plain 
Epipha. li. 1. to. 2. haeres. 21. pag. 18.  terms; Omnes verò praeter ipsum susceperunt magnorum A. postolorum praesentians, & per impositionem manuum ipsorum acceperunt Spiritum sanctum. Nam quum Philippus Diaconus esset, non habebat potestatem imponendi manus, ut per hoc daret Spiritum sanctum.  
They all, he only excepted, received the presence of the mighty Apostles, and by imposition of their hands, they enjoyed the holy Ghost. For Philip being a Deacon only, had not power to impose hands, thereby to give the holy Ghost.  
S. Austen hath these express words; Iterum, multum distare inter Diaconum & sacerdotem liber approbat, quem dicimus 
August. in quaest. ●●xtim, quaest. 101. tom. 4 Hier. i'd docet adversus Lucifer. tom 3 fo. 63. B  actus Apostolorum. Cumn. ex Samaria credidissent, Philippo praedicanti Diacono ab Apostolis ordinato, miserunt, inquit, ad eos Petrum & joannem, ut venirent, & his qui creder●t darent spiritum sanctum, per manus impositionem. Again, the book which we call the Acts of the Apostles, proveth that a Deacon differeth much from a Priest. For when they of Samaria had believed the preaching of Philip the Deacon, ordained of th' Apostles; they sent (saith the book) Peter and john unto them, that they might give the holy Ghost, by imposition of hands, to those that did believe. Thus we see the judgement of S. Epiphanius and S. Austen, who both jointly affirm Philip to have been but a Deacon, and yet to have baptised and preached. Yea Master Gualther, Master Aretius, and the Magaeburgenses, do all constanthe 
Gualther, in 8. Act. Aret. in cap. 8. Act. Magdeb. cent. 1. lib. 2. ca 7. p. 508.  and uniformly contest the same truth, with the ancient Fathers and continual custom of the Church in all ages. They write plainly, that although Deacons were chiefly occupied about the dispensation of the church's goods! yet did they employ their labours so far forth as they might, in the other ministries of the church.    

The fourth member of Deacons promoted to Priesthood.  
The Church of England is charged to do against the word of God, while she useth to make one and the same person, first a Deacon, and afterward a Priest. To which calumny, I answer in brief in this manner. First, that it is not against the word of God, but very consonant and altogether 
1.  agreeable to the same. For no Scripture can be alleged, to prove that a Deacon may not become a Priest. Master Calvin affirmeth constantly, that Philippe was first a Deacon, and afterward an Evangelist, Priest, or 
Caluian cap. 21. Act.  pastoral elder. Secondly, that the church of England using the Deaconshippe, as a step or degree unto Priesthood, 
2.  doth nothing against the judgement of the ancient Fathers, but followeth the usual practice of the church in all ages. The reason hereof is, and ever was this; viz. that there might be some time of try all, of their behaviour in the Deaconshippe, before they were or could be admitted to the order of Priesthood. No Council, no Father, no history Ecclesiastical, no time, no place, no person, since the Apostolic age, can be named to the contrary. To the continual practice of the Church from age to age, th' Apostles words may sitly be applied, when he saith: the deacons that 
1. jon. 3. v. 13  have ministered well, get themselves a good degree. For sun 〈…〉 writer; of high esteem in the church, do 〈…〉 the word (Degree) a step unto the 〈…〉 or Priesthood. This notwithstanding, it is not of necessity, that every Deacon become a Priest, by any canon or constitution of the church. For his behaviour in the Deaconship may be such, that the church will deem him unmeet to be preferred unto Priesthood. And therefore I conclude with these words of S. Hierome, Et si scripturae 
Hieron. adv. Lucif. tom. 3. fol. 63 c.  authoritas non subesset, totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret. Name & multa alia quae per traditionem in Ecclesijs obseruantur, authoritatem sibi scriptae legis usurpaverunt.  
Although they were no authority in Holy Scripture; yet should the consent of all the Christian world, have the force and strength of a law in this behalf. For many other 
Uide supra, ca 7. per totum.  things, which the church observeth by tradition, are become equivalent to the written law. Lo, S. Hierome affirmeth boldly & constantly, as do also S. Augustine. M. Calvin, and others, (as I have already proved,) that the custom & tradition of the church must be in steed of a law unto Christians. Which ever is to be understood, in things not repugnant to the word of God, (or as M. Calvin. speaketh) 
Calvin in 1. cor. 11.  which are neither parts of doctrine, nor necessary to salvation.   

The fifth member, of the general confession made by private persons in the Church.  
The Patrons of the expected Eldership or Presbytery, exclaim against the book of common prayer; because it giveth liberty to the Laycall communicants, to make a general confession of their sins, before the congregation then present; as if thereby the Laical communicants, should presently become public ministers of the church. To these men I answer in this manner; first, that they seem to themselves to be the only wise men in the world, & to condemn all the rest of folly: For otherwise, they would not so roundly & peremptorily take upon themselves, and that without either Scripture, Council, or Father; nay, without all time or reason, to control & condemn the book of public prayer, (which I verily think to have been composed by the assistance of the Holy Ghost;) & consequently, to condemn all the ancient Bishops, (those glorious martyrs of our Lord jesus,) the most famous Bishop of Sarisburie, (the jewel of England in his time) the Bishops that now live, (who are both wise, virtuous, & learned,) & all the residue of the learned Clergy of this our English Church. Secondly, that by their gross assertion, joined with a most unchristian reprehension, the lowly Publican highly commended 
Luke. 18. v. 13.  in the Gospel, should be made a Minister of the Church, or have intruded him himself into the function of public ministery, when he knocked upon his breast, & said; O God be merciful to me a sinner. Thirdly, that by the same reason, the notorious sinners which were put to open penance in the primitive Church, and confessed their faults before the congregation. should be in the same predicament. fourthly, that public penitents this day, (who are for all that approved of the Patrons of the Presbytery,) should be caught in the same net. Fyftlie, that the same may be said of Women, singing Psalms in the Church, and that with more probability; who for all that are approved in so doing, not only in this Church of England, 
Augustin, ad januarim epist. 118.  but also in all other reformed churches wheresoever. I therefore conclude this member, with this Golden sentence of S. Austen; if any thing be observed universally of the whole church; than not to observe that, or to call it into question, is mere madness, and desperate folly.   

The sixth member, of praying to be delivered, from Lightning, Plague, and sudden death.  
It is scornfully objected against the prayers of the church, that when we pray to be delivered from plague, famine, and from other adversity, we pray without faith, because we have no promise to receive the things we pray 
1.  for. To whom I answer; First, that our Saviour Christ taught us so to pray, when he delivered to his Church the form of that prayer, which we should daily use; Being the most exact, and most perfect prayer, that ever was, or can 
Mat. 6. v. 13.  be made. Where the Notes of the Geneva Bible expound it, to be delivered from all adversity: And consequently, that we pray with saith, seeing Holy writ is our warrant for 
1. joh. 5. 14. Luke. 11. 9 Mat. 7. 7. joh. 16. 24. Apoe. 3. v. 20.  that we pray. Secondly, that we have promise to receive that we pray for, so far forth as standeth with God's glory and our soul's health. For Christ himself willeth us to ask, and we shall receive; to seek, and we shall find; to knock, and it shall be opened unto us. Yea, he standeth knocking at the door of our hearts, and if we will open the do●e to him, he will enter into the house of our hearts, and dwell with us, and give us all things necessary, both for our bodies, and for our souls. And to assure us thereof, Christ willeth us to believe that we shall have our 
Mar. 11. v. 24.  request, it shall be done unto us. And if any will reply, that many ask many things in prayer, and yet do not attain the same: to such I answer with Saint james, in these 
jac. 4. 3.  words; ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may lay the same out on your pleasures. Thirdly, that when our church prayeth to be delivered from all adversity, 
In Dom. Trioration. Gen. 22. v. 11.  she hath both the example and advise of most holy men. The holy Patriarch jacob, fearing to receive some bodily harm and adversity of his brother, prayed to God in this manner; (O God) I pray thee deliver me from the hand of my brother from the hand of Esau; for I fear him, lest he will come and sinite me, & the mother upon the children King David, fearing to receive bodily harm of his son Absalon, fled away from him, and prayed God to turn the counsel of Achitophel (who conspired with Absalon) into foolishness. The whole congregation prayed to 
2. Sam. 15. v. 31 psa. 20.  God, to prosper their King, when he went forth to battle against the Ammonites. And I deem them no good subjects, to our most gracious Sovereign King james, who will not pray to God unfeignedly, to defend him from all adversity; Neither yet those persons who refuse to pray with our church; for all happiness aswell corporal & temporary, as spiritual & Eternal, to our most virtuous Queen Anne, the noble Prince Henry, & all the rest 
Mat. 24. v. 02.  of that most Royal progeny. Yea, Christ himself forewarning his disciples, of external future adversity, willeth them to pray to be defended from the same. Pray saith Christ, that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. And besides the sixth petition of the Lords prayer (which teacheth us to pray) to be defended from all adversity, (as S. Cyprian, Ursinus, and Illyricus with many other learned writers expound it,) and besides the fourth 
Cyprian. in orat. dom. pag. 313.  petition also, which teacheth us to pray for all things needful for this life, (as the same writers tell us,) many examples of the new Testament do make it clear and evident, 
Vrsin. par. 4. pag. 422.  that Christ was well pleased with their prayers, who prayed for things to this life appertaining. The Ruler prayed for the life of his Daughter, & Christ performed his desire. 
Mat. 9 22. Mur. 10. v. 51 52. Mat. 9 30. Mat. 15. v. 22. 28.  Bartimaeus the son of Tymans desired to receive his sight, & obtained his request. Two blind men followed Christ, and requested to receive their sight, & he yielded to their petitions. A woman a Canaanite desired Christ to help her Daughter, who was miserably vexed with a Devil, & Christ cured her daughter presently. Many other like examples I might allege; but in steed thereof, this only golden sentence of S. Augustine shall suffice. Cum dicimus, libera nos a malo, nos admonemus cogitare nondum nos esse in eo bono, ubi 
August. epist. 121. pa. 403.  nullum patiemur malum. Et hoc quidem ultimum, quod in Dominica oratione positum est, tam late, tamque enidenter, & manifestè patet, ut homo Christianus in qualibet tribulatione constitutus, in hoc gemitus edat, in hoc lachrymas fundat, hinc exordiatur, in hoc immoretur, ad hoc terminet orationem.  
When we say, Deliver us from evil, we admonish ourselves to consider with ourselves, that we are not as yet in that good estate, where we shall suffer no evil. And this which is last placed in the Lord's Prayer, is extended so far, and so plainly, that a Christian man moved with any kind of tribulation may in this petition sigh, in this shed his tears, begin herein, continue herein, and end his prayer herein. Thus writeth this holy father. And now, where it is wont to be objected against the custom of our Church, that we know not that God will deliver us from all such adversity: as from lightning, thunder, fire, water, sudden death, and such like. I answer that we are not to command God, or to appoint him an hour, but to expect his good time, and to refer every part and parcel of our petitions, to his holy will and pleasure ever implied in all our prayers. And again, that if we must pray for nothing, but that only which we know God will grant, we shall seldom or never pray for any thing at all. No, we must not say to our neighbour riding towards London, God speed you well: nor to the sick persons, GOD help you, nor for the preservation of his Majesty, GOD save the King. How absurd these things are, every child can discern: and yet the patrons of the Presbytery condemn our Church, for Preaching to be defended from all adversity, upon such silly fancies and slender grounds.   

The seventh member, of the oath ex officio.  
It is thought a very heinous offence, that the Church doth sometime require an oath, whereby certain persons are constrained to accuse themselves. Which oath, because some do offer it by virtue of their place and charge committed to them, is by some malcontents ironically termed the oath ex officio. But I answer: first, that it is as usually ministered in the Civil affairs of the commonweal, as in the Ecclesiastical causes of the Church, whereof none can be ignorant, that have any notice of the ordinary practice, of his majesties honourable Counsel in the North of England. Which usage though of great antiquity, hath for all that ever been approved and deemed lawful, as well by the wisest and best learned of the church, as also of the commonweal of England, until these last and worst days, in which some few young Doctors of small reading, have audaciously taken upon them, to censure both our church and Kingdom in that behalf. 2. that it is no small sin for the inferior to disobey the Law of his superior in indifferent things (of which sort and order is every oath clad with circumstances to this case appertaining,) as it may evidently be proved, by the testimony of the best both old and modern Writers. It were enough for trial hereof, to call to mind what is already Written. But for better satisfaction of the friendly Reader, I am content to allege their testimonies, whose judgements the malcontents themselves will easily admit. Master Beza hath these express words; Res alioqui per se mediae 
Beza, in epist. 24. pag. 155. Vide supra, cap ●. & notate.  mutant quodammodo naturam, quum aliquo legitimo mandato vel praecipiuntur vel prohibentur, quia neque contra justum praeceptum omitti possunt, si praecipiantur, neque contra interdictum fieri, si prohibeantur. Sequitur, & si. n. conscientias propriè solus deus ligat, tamen quatenus vel magistratus qui dei minister est, judicat interest reip. ut quippiam alio qui per se licitum non fiat, vel ecclesia ordinis & decori, adeoque aedificationis rationem habens, leges aliquas de rebus medijs ritè conduit; eiusmodi leges pijs omnino sunt observandae, & eatenus conscientias ligant, ut nemo sciens & prudens rebellandi animo, possit absque peccato velfacere qua it a prohibentur, vel omittere quae praecipiuntur.  
Things otherwise of themselves indifferent, do after a sort change their nature, so soon as by any lawful precept, they are either commanded or prohibited, because they neither can be omitted against a just mandate, if they be commanded: neither yet be done against an interdict, when they are forbidden. For albeit God alone doth properly bind the conscience, yet for all that, when the Magistrate 
Behold order and comeliness do edify. Let this be well marked.  being God's minister, judgeth it expedient for the public weal, that a thing otherwise of itself lawful, be not done, or the Church having respect to order and comeliness, and consequently to edification, ordaineth laws touching things indifferent, than such Laws must be altogether observed of the godly, and they so far bind the consciences, that no man can wittingly and willingly with a rebellious mind, either do the things so forbidden, or omit the things so commanded, but he shall thereby become guilty of sin.  
Master Martyr hath these words; Quare haud nos latere 
Pet. Mart. in. 1. cor. 1. sol. 8. a.  oportet etc. Wherefore we must not be ignorant, that in the church there be three virtues of traditions. Some of them are evidently deduced and gathered out of the Scriptures. And touching this kind, all the faithful are bound to communicate together. Other some are wholly repugnant to the word of God, & they must be rejected, by what authority so ever they be obtruded. And there be a third sort of traditions, which we may call neutral or indifferent; because they are neither contrary to God's word, nor yet necessarily joined thereunto. In which last kind we must obey the church, three cautions being observed. First, that they be not obtruded as a part of God's worship, or peculiar holiness, but as pertaining to order, & the civil commodity of the church, & to comeliness in divine actions: for all things are contained sufficiently in the holy Scriptures, which pertain to God's worship and holiness. Secondly, that they be not reputed so necessary, but that they may be changed, if time so require. Let the church keep her interest in these indifferent things, to appoint what shall be thought most necessary and meet to edify the faithful. Last of all, let not God's people be burdened with too great a multitude of them. Thus writeth this learned man.  
The Churches in Helvetia in their confession of their faith, after a long discourse of rites and things indifferent, 
Confess Hell ●et. Pag. 211.  added these words; Semper vero ecclesiae in huiusmodiritibus, sicut medijs, usae sunt libertate, id quod nos quoque facimus. The Churches in such rites, as in things indifferent, have ever used their liberty, which liberty ourselves also challenge.  
The Churches in Svevia: in their confession have 
Confess. Svevica. Pag. 230.  these words; Tales multas sanè ecclesia hody iure observat, & pro occasione quoque condit novas, quas qui reiecerit, is non hominum, sed dei (cuius traditio est, quaecunqus utilis est,) auctoritatem contemnit. Many such traditions the Church this day observeth aright, and as occasion requireth, she appointeth and maketh new ones, which new orders whosoever shall reject, he contemneth the authority not of men, but of God.  
Out of these testimonies, of these famous, godly, zealous, and most learned writers, I observe these golden lessons. First, that things of their own nature indifferent, do after a sort change their nature, so soon as they be commanded to be done, or left undone, by the settled laws of the Church. Secondly, that they bind the consciences of all persons, subject to the Church's jurisdiction, so far and in such sort, that they cannot at any time, or in any place transgress the same without great sin, if such transgression be joined and annexed, either to scandal or contempt. Thirdly, that whosoever rejecteth such laws and ordinances of the Church, contemneth the authority of God, & not of men. Fourthly, that he sinneth grievously, who either doth the things which the Church prohibiteth, or omitteth the things which she commandeth to be done, so long as her commandments remain within the limits of things indifferent, which she appointeth for order, decency and the common good of the Church.  
I answer thirdly, that the Church hath authority to 
Tertio Principa●●ter.  impose every lawful ordinance and constitution, which she deemeth profitable for the Church, upon every person subject to her jurisdiction. This point is sufficiently proved already, both in this present Chapter, and in many others throughout this discourse. So that henceforth, one only thing remaineth for me to prove; viz. That to minister the oath ex officio, whereby one is bound to accuse himself is either a thing lawful of itself, or else Adiaphoron and a thing indifferent of it own nature. I attempt the proof. Every thing is either good of itself, as God the author and giver of all goodness, or evil of itself, as the blaspheming of God; or indifferent of it own nature, as gold, money, oil, wine, and such like. Now if the oath ex officio be good in itself, then doubtless, the Church may minister it to her subjects with out offence. None that hath sense or reason, will or can for shame deny the same. Again, if it be Adiaphoron, a thing of it own nature indifferent, than it is likewise in the power and liberty of the Church, to impose the same upon every member within her jurisdiction.  
This is so sufficiently proved, as no denial can be made thereof. It is therefore either evil of it own nature, or else doubtless it may not be withstood or gainsaid, that it is not ill of it own nature, I thus prove it, and I wish the reader to mark well my words. If it be evil, it is either evil simply and absolutely considered, as it is an oath: or else, as it is ministered to such a person. Not the former, because every magistrate may lawfully minister an oath, so often as due order of justice doth require.  
For as the Apostle saith, an oath for confirmation, is among men an end of all strife. Yea, God's name is confessed by true and lawful oaths. For as holy Moses 
Hebr. 6. Vers. 16.  saith, thou shall fear the Lord thy GOD, and serve him, and shall swear by his name. And the Prophet joremiah telleth us, that it is ever lawful to 
Deut. 6. Vers. 13.  swear for the advancement of GOD'S glory, and the profit of others, so these three conditions, justice, 
jere. 4 v. 2  judgement, and truth, be always annexed unto it viz. if we swear truly, reverently, and justly. Not the latter.  
First. for that it may be, and often is ministered to many without offence, as the adversaries of the same oath cannot but confess. But if it were evil of it own nature, it could never be lawfully done.  
Secondly, for that it is no sin at all, for a sinner to accuse himself of the sin he hath committed. But it is a singular virtue to confess our faults and offences, and the ready way to obtain favour at God's hands. This knew holy josua right well, when speaking by the spirit of God he 
1. joh. 1. v. 9  willed Achan to acknowledge his sin. My son saith he, I beseech ye give glory to the Lord God of Israel, & make 
jos. 7. 19  confession unto him, show me now what thou hast done, hide it not from me. Lo, to confess our secret sins to God's minister, is to glorify God and to honour his holy name. And therefore saith the note of the Geneva Bible, that God is glorified, when the truth is confessed. This knew Saint Matthew right well, when writing the Gospel of jesus Christ, and reckoning up the names of the Apostles, 
Mat. 10. Vers. 3.  he termeth himself Matthew the Publican. This knew S. Paul right well, when he left it written to all posterities, that he had been a blasphemer, a persecuter, and an oppresser. This Saint Austen, Saint Hierome, and many 
1. Tim. 1. Uers. 13.  other holy men knew right well, when they enrolled their peculiar sins in their own books, which they divulged to the view of the whole world.  
Thirdly, because the rule of charity doth teach the same. How prove I that? forsooth, because our adversaries herein will not refuse to accuse ours neighbours by testifying the truth against them, when occasion so requireth even upon their oaths. And consequently, seeing the true love of our 
Mat. 22. Vers. 39  selves is that rule, by which our love towards our neighbour must be squared, it followeth of necessity, that it is as lawful for us to accuse and testify against ourselves, as it is to accuse and testify against our neighbour. This reason can never be answered. And it will not serve to reply, that it is a cruel part to cause a man to accuse himself. For First, there is no more cruelty in ministering the oath, whereby the malefactor accuseth himself, than there is in giving sentence, against a fellow or a traitor to suffer death. The reason is evident, because the judge be haveth himself alike in both cases. viz. He in both cases playeth the part of Gods anointed and lawful minister. Secondly, it cometh not of the nature of the oath but, per accidens that the party sworn doth accuse himself. For, if he were innocent, as he is nocent; he could not be accused, by virtue of the oath. For, the oath is as free to commend him, as to condemn him, and as indifferent to acquit him, as to accuse him. If it were otherwise, all that take the oath, should be accused by virtue thereof. Which how false it is, all the Christian world can witness. Thirdly, it is a virtue justly to punish him, who unjustly hath done injury to others. Fourthly, it is a great sin in a magistrate, to omit that punishment which justly may be inflicted, to the harm & great danger either of the whole Church, or of many godly members in the same. Fiftly, the 
Mat. 5. Uers. 24.  oath doth only induce iurantem to that by way of justice, which he is bound to do by God's law of his own accord viz. to confess the injury he hath done, and to be recociled 
Rom. 13.  to his brother. Lastly, he sinneth grievously, whosonever 
Uers. 2. 5. 1. Pet. 2. 13.  refuseth to confess the truth, when his competent and lawful judge demandeth it iuridically at his hands. I therefore conclude that albeit the competent judge cannot lawfully and iuridically exact an oath, for the manifestation of sins secret and altogether unknown, (because such secret sins are reserved only and solely to the judgement of GOD,) yet when there goeth a common fame, or when there is a vehement suspicion, or semiplena probatio (as the Canons term it,) of such a fact committed by such a Person: then the judge may lawfully by juridical process, exact a corporal oath of every suspected person. In which case only (as I conceive it,) the oath ex officio is ministered, and in no other. In regard whereof, I would wish all inferiors to be more obedient and circumspect in future times, and not to be carried away headlong with audacious temerity, peremptorily to censure and condemn the Laws of their superiors, the true nature whereof, many of them do little understand. Let them remember, what the wise man saith, be not just overmuch, neither make thyself overwise. And 
Eccles. 7. Uers. 18. Rom. 12. Uers. 3.  as Saint Paul adviseth us, let no man presume to understand, above that which is meet to understand, but that he understand according to sobriety. Which holy counsel if it were pondered aright, and deeply fixed in all men's hearts, many too too forward young Divines, would more sparingly censure the laws of their superiors, and follow 
jac. 1. 19  Saint james his precept, in being swift to hear, and slow to speak.    

CHAP. XV. Of the punishing and pardoning of male factors.  
THe patrons of the new English long wished presbytery, are so sharp, forward, and rigorous, in the punishing of sin & sinners, that in effect they spoil all magistrates of their lawful authority, & make them guilty of sins more than a few. For they write resolutely (I will not say, audaciously,) that the civil magistrates cannot save the lives of any blasphemers, murderers, adulterers, and such like. Which how unsound a doctrine it is, I purpose in God to make it manifest, by way of conclusions.  

The first Conclusion.  
No Christian Magistrate is this day bound to observe, either the Ceremonial, or the judicial Law of Moses. I prove it briefly. The Law of Moses was Tripartite: 
Uide su. ca 8. aphoris. 3. in resp. ad 2. object.  Ceremonial, judicial, Moral. Of which three, the Moral part only is this day in force with Christians. The reason hereof is this; because it is in deed the very law of Nature, imprinted in every man's heart in his Nativity, and so cannot be altered. The judicial part was properly, and peculiarly appointed of God, for conservation of justice, among the jews, in the land of promise, the land of Canaan, the land of jewrie. The whole order of which government ceased long sithence: viz. Ever since the people of Israel were expelled out of judaea, & began to dwell amongst the Gentiles: living without Governors, without a King, without a Priest, and without a Law. The Ceremonial part was ordained, to prefigure Christ's future Priesthood; and therefore was it wholly abrogated, 
joh. 19 30. Rom. 10. 4. Luke. 24. Heb. 7. v. 12.  by Christ's most blessed and Sacred Advent. For Christ was the end of the Law; in whom were fulfilled as well the figures as the promises contained in the Law, and the Prophets. All which Saint Paul compriseth pithily, in these golden words. For, if the Priesthood be changed, then of necessity, the Law also must be changed. Yea, Christ himself seemed to insinuate no less, when he refused to condemn the adulteress to death, according to the judicial law of Moses; albeit the Scribes & Pharisees did even then urge him with the constitution of that Law. And S. Austen doth conclude no less out of Christ's words, if he be rightly understood. But, for the 
Aug ad Poll. de adult. coniugijs, tom. 6.  true sense and meaning of S. Austin's discourse, his two books written to Pollentin, must be well pondered & aptly matched together. For I stand not so much of Christ's freeing the adulteress, from the punishment of the judicial law of Moses; as of that other ground, upon which S. Austen stayeth himself. viz. That adultery doth not dissolve the bond of holy Wedlock. For albeit sundry late Writers, otherwise of great learning and rare gifts, do constantly teach (which some of our men have also put in practice) that when the husband is divorced from his wife, being an adulteress than he may lawfully marry an other: yet Saint Austen grounding his opinion, upon the words of Christ, & of S. Paul; concludeth constantly that whosoever shall marry another wife, during the life of his former wife divorced for adultery, doth himself commit adultery. Which (if it be true, which I leave to the judgement of the Church,) proveth evidently that the judicial law of Moses is not of source. These are S. Austin's words: Haec verba Apostoli tot●es repetita, toties inculcata, vera sunt, viva sunt, sana sunt, plana sunt. Nulltus viri posterioris mulier 
August. ad Pollen. lib. 2. ca 4. tom. 6.  uxor esse incipit, nisi prioris esse desiverit. Esse autem desinet prioris, simoriatur vir eius, non sifornicetur. These words of th' Apostle so often repeated, so often inculcated, are true, are quick, are sound, are plain. A woman beginneth not to be the wife of any later husband, unless she first cease to be the wife of the former. But she ceaseth to be the former husband's wife, if her husband die, not if he commit adultery.  
Hemingius a great learned man, and a zealous professor of the Gospel, hath these words; Est & lex judicialis, quae 
Heming in enchirid pag. 156.  cessant republica Mosis expira●nt: it a ut non necessario ullum hominem obliget in specie, nisi quaetenus portio cius aliqua, aut part est legis naturae, ut lex contraincoestas nuptias, Lev. 18. aut a Magistratu propomtur politico fine. There is also the judicial law, which expired with the commonwealth of Moses: so that it doth not bind any man of necessity, but so far only, as some portion of it, pertaineth to the law of Nature, as the law against incestuous marriages: or so much of it, as the ci●●le magistrate shall admit for policy.  
Saint Cyrill hath these words; Sacundum legem adulter cum 
Cyrilius in Leuit. ab 11. Lev. 20, 10 Deut. 22, v. 22.  adultera moriebatur, nec poterant dicere, poenitentiam petimus & venial deprecamur. Sequitur apud Christianos vero siadulterium fuerit admissum, nonest praeceptum, ut adulter. vel adultera corporal 〈◊〉 puniantur.  
In the Law, both the adulterer and the adulteress were punished by death; and they could not say, we are penitent, & desire pardon for our sins. But among Christians, there is no commandment to punish them with death.  
M Musculus that most zealous Christian, and great learned Doctor, hath these express words: Quaerunt, an tota sit abrogata? respondemus, si totus Moses cessit Christ, utique tota illius lex, cessit legi Christi. Sequitur: in lege sunt mandata, promissa, & figurae. Perveritatem Christi, cessarunt promissa & figurae. Mandata legis sunt moralia, iudicialia, coeremontalia. Caeremo●ialia cessasse, ex eo patet quod ipsum Sacerdotium legis, cuiannexae fuerunt caeremoniae, per sacerdotium Christi secundum or dinem Melchisedech est abrogatum, & iam olim re ipsa cessavit. judicialta quoque cessasse in eo declaratur, quod tota Israelis oeconomia qualem terrae promissae inhabitatio requirebat, ab eo tempore cessavit, quo exdulsi inter gentes, sine Rege, sine Ducibus, sive Sacerdote, & sine lege habitare coeperunt.  
They demand, if the whole Law be abrogated? we answer, if whole Moses gave place to Christ, then hath his whole law given place to the law of Christ. In the Law are commandments, promises, and figures. The commandments of the law are moral, judicial, ceremonial. That the ceremonials are ceasled, it is thereby evident; for that the Priesthood of the law, to which the ceremonies were annexed, is abrogated by the Priesthood of Christ, according to the order of Melchisedeth, & was long since expired. And that the judicials are also ceased, it is herein manifest; for that the whole order of the government of Israel, which was requisite unto the inhabiting of the land of promise, hath from that time ceased, when they being expelled, began to dwell among the Gentiles, without a King, without governors, without a Priest, & with out a law.  
Master Calvin hath a large and most learned discourse of this question, which is able to satisfy any indifferent 
Musculus in locus de legib. pag  Reader. Some small part thereof I will here set down, referring the Reader unto the place for the residue. Sunt qui recte compositam esse remp. negent, quae neglectis Mosis politicis, communibus gentium legibus regitur. Quae sententta 
Calvin. in instit. lib. 4. cap. 20. Sect. 14. 15. 16.  quam periculosa sit & turbulenta, videriut alij, mihi falsam esse ac stolidam, demonstrasse satis erit.  
There be some which deny that common weal to be well governed, which omitting the politic laws of Moses, is ruled by the common laws of the Gentles. The which opinion how dangerous & seditious it is, let others judge; it is enough for me to have showed it to be false and foolish.  
Out of these large and learned discourses, it is most apparent to all indifferent Readers; that the law of Moses is wholly expired, and that Christians of necessity are bound to no part thereof.   

The Second Conclusion.  
Although the law of Moses be wholly expired, so as of necessity Christians are not bound to the punishment therein prescribed against sin & sinners, yet is sin this day as odious in God's sight, as ever it was, and remaineth punishable by the law Moral, (which is the law of Nature) more fully explained in the Law of the New Testament; but the quantity & kind of punishment therein omitted, by reason of the mutability of times, places, and persons, is wholly referred to the discretion of the wise & Godly Magistrate. This conclusion containeth in it three parts: the expiration of the Mosaical law: God's wrath and indignation against sin, & the quantity & kind of punishing sin, which is committed to the Magistrate. The first part is sufficiently cleared, by the context of the former conclusion. The second part may be proved by many places of holy writ. For as th' Apostle saith: Tribulation & anguish shallbe upon the soul of every man, that doth evil: of the jew first, & also of the Grecian. Again, in another place, the wages of 
Rom. 2. 9 Rome 6. 23.  sin, is death. Again, therefore shall her plagues come at one day, death and sorrow, and famine, and she shall be burnt with fire; for that God which condemneth her, is a strong 
Apoc. 17. 8.  Lord. And Christ himself showeth his general hatred against sin, when he pronounceth life eternal to 
Mat. 25, v.  be prepared for the righteous, and everlasting pain for the wicked. The third and last part is proved two ways; affirmatively, and negatively. Of the former speaketh S. Paul, when he telleth us, That the Magistrate 
Rom. 13. v. 3  is not to be feared for good works, but for evil. Where he rendereth the reason thereof: uz. for that he is God's Minister, to take vengeance on him, that doth evil. Of the same speaketh Saint Peter, when he affirmeth the magistrate to be appointed of God, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them 
1. Pet. 2. v.  that do well. Touching the latter there is no part 
14.  in the whole corpse of the new testament, or of the old this day in force, which determineth either the quantity or kind of punishment, with the which male factors are to be punished. This negative assertion is proof sufficient, until some instance can be given for the affirmative. Again, as the Prophets contain nothing, but an explication of the Law; so the New Testament containeth nothing but a clear explication of the law and the Prophets. This I have elsewhere 
In the downfall of Popery.  proved at large, where he that listeth may read the same: for all the kinds of punishment expressed in the Mosaical Law were mere judicial, and are already expired, as is proved in the former conclusion. The law Moral, (which is the law of nature) teacheth us that 
Vide supra, cap. 8. aphor. 3 ob. 2.  sin ought to be punished; but for that no one kind of punishment, not quantity in punishing, can be meet and agreeable to all nations, all times, all places, and all persons; it leaveth the quantity and kind of punishment to be determined by the godly and prudent Magistrate, as shall be thought most fit and commodious for the peaceable government of the common weal, the circumstances of times, places and persons, ever duly considered this is evident, by the practice of 
Calvin. in. in st●t. lib. 4. cap. 20. secti. 16.  all nations; for (as M. Calvin writeth truly,) where God's law (the law of nature,) forbiddeth to steal, the ancient laws of the gentiles punished theft with double; others condemned thieves with exile and banishment; others adjudged them to be whipped; others to be put to death. False witness was punished in some places only with infamy, in other places with hanging. All laws do revenge murder with blood, but yet with divers kinds of death. In some places there are grievouser pains appointed for adulterers, in other places those that are more easy; yet we see, how they all by this diversity of punishment, tend to one and the same end. For they all with one consent, give sentence of punishment against those offences, which are condemned by the eternal law of god; to wit, murder, theft, adultery, false witness; but they agree not all; in the manner of the punishment: neithe truly is it necessary or expedient, that they should agree therein. Their is a country which should out of hand be destroyed with thieves and slaughter, if it did not with horrible example deal very sharply with murderers. There is also some time, which requireth the enlarging of the sharpness of punishment, and some people very prone to some certain sin, unless they be with great rigour kept in awe, he is then very evil affected and envieth the public commodity, that is offended with this diversity, which is most meet to retain the observation of the law of God. Thus writeth M. Calvin, adding much more to the like 
1.  effect; which I omit in regard of brevity, referring the 
Rom. 1. v. 31.  reader to the place; out of whose words I note first, that all nations who have (as S. Paul recordeth) the law of 
Rom. 2. v. 14.  nature engrafted in their hearts, did not agree in the kind of punishing sin, but used some one kind, some another. 
2.  Secondly, that theft, murder, false witness, adultery and such like, have not one and the same kind of punishment, in every people & nation. Thirdly, that addultery is punished in some places sharply, in other some 
3.  places more gently. Fourthly, that his diversity of the 
4.  kinds of punishment, is not only godly and lawful, but also expedient and necessary. And so, I conclude, that the law moral, (which only law is now in force) doth leave the quantity and kind of punishment, to be determined by the civil Magistrate.   

The third Conclusion.  
Emperors and Empresses, Kings and Queens, absolute Princes and independent Magistrates, may lawfully in certain causes, upon good and godly considerations, either tolerate sin unpunished, or pardon male factors. For the exact handling of this conclusion, (because it is a matter of great importance, & very necessary for many respects.) I deem it operapretium & agreeable to the time in which we live, to lay down some strong 
the first. foundation.  foundations in that behalf. First, this is a constant Axiom, approved by uniform assent of all learned divines Cess inte fine legis, cessat lex ipsa. When the final cause or end for which the law was made, ceaseth, then doth the law of necessity also cease. This foundation is grounded upon the holy scripture; where by the flat 
act. 15. v. 28. 29.  decree and settled law of the apostles, we are bound to abstain from blood & strangled meats. This notwithstanding, no man hath this day any scruple of conscience to eat the same; & yet hereof no other sound reason can be yielded, save only that the end for which that law was made, did long since cease. For even at that time was no precise necessity, to abstain from blood and strangled meats; But this law was only made, in respect of the state of that time; that the Gentiles and the jews might live more peaceably together, & there 
let this point be well marked.  by avoid all occasion of contention and quarrelling. And I therefore so soon as that end ceased, the law also ceased with it, and so we are this day freed from the same, yea, this Axiom is evident lumine naturali, even by the light of nature: for every law is made for some end, which end how often soever it may be accomplished without the law, so often the execution of the law is needless.  
Secondly, we must hold this for a constant foundation, 
The second foundation.  that albeit the civil Magistrate be commanded to punish malefactors, yet is neither the kind of punishment, nor the quantity thereof taxed by the law of God, but it still abideth indifferent, to be determined by the supreme civil Magistrate: (for as I have 
Uide praeced. conclus. Vide supr. cap. 8. aphor. 3. in resp. ad 2 obiectionem  already proved,) although there were special punishment prescribed in the judicial law of Moses, for transgressors of the Sabbath, for adulterers, for false witnesses, for murderers, thieves and such like, yet neither by the Law moral, nor by any Law in the New Testament, (to which laws only we Christians are this day bound,) is any such punishment determined, & therefore may the civil Magistrate, (if it so seem good unto him.) change the usual punishment of thieves, (which with us is to be hanged,) and cause them to be cast into the sea with millstones about their necks: and the same may be said, of the punishment for other malefactors.  
Thirdly, we must repute this for an undoubted foundation; uz. that the end, for which Gods Law appointeth 
The third foundation.  malefactors to be punished, is the public peace and good of the whole commonweal: for this is so evident by the course of the whole scripture, as it can neither with learning nor reason be denied. 
Deut. 19 20 1. Cor. 5. 13. 1. Tim. 5. 20 1. Cor. 8. 13. Mat 18, 6. The first correlarie.   
Out of these three foundations, thus firmly established, these two Corollaries, may evidently be inferred. First, that whensoever, any member of the common weal committeth any capital crime, for which he ought to die by the law, whose life for all that is more profitable to the weal public than his death; in such a case the Prince may pardon such a malefactor, & not thereby sin at all: which thing christian Princes seem to respect, when in the time of wars, they set such felons at liberty, as are able to do service in defence of the Realm. Secondly, that when any malefactor 
The second Corollary.  is so mighty, or so strongly seated, or otherwise so unfit to be dealt withal, that the Prince cannot without probable danger of his royal person, or great damage to the commonweal, punish the said malefactor; then in such a case, the prince may tolerate such a malefactor unpunished, and not thereby sin at all. These foundations and illations being once well understood and remembered, the conclusion (though of great moment,) cannot but be manifest and clear. Nevertheless, I will adjoin some sound reasons hereunto, for the better confirmation of the same.   

The first reason.  
It is a common and generally received Maxim, aswell of all Civilians as Divines; uz. Lex non obligat ultra intentionem legislatoris. The law doth not bind a man beyond the intention of the Lawmaker. Whereupon I infer first, that the civil magistrate may dispense 
1.  with his own Law. Secondly, that the Prince being 
2.  God's Minister, may tolerate or pardon malefactors, when, and so often as such toleration or pardoning tendeth to the common good of the publike-weale, the reason is evident, because the intention of God the supreme Lawmaker, was even that and none other, when he appointed his ministers to punish malefactors.  

The objection.  
The Prince pardoneth many times, when he little regardeth the common good; nay, when his pardoning doth great harm to the public weal, and Church of God.   

The Answer.  
I answer; first, that he hath received his authority to profit the Church and commonweal, and 
1.  not to do hurt unto the same. Secondly, that it is sufficient to satisfy the consciences of subjects, (who 
2.  have not to examine their Sovereign's secret affairs, and to inquire what causes he hath to deal thus, and so in matters of State) that the Prince may in some cases upon some causes, either tolerate sin unpunished, 
Mark this point well.  or pardon malefactors. If the case were otherwise, every subject might soon take occasion to rebel If the Prince abuse his authority, he must render an account to God for the same.    

The second Reason.  
Prodigality is a great sin, condemned aswell in Philosophy, as in Divinity; it neither will nor can be 
Christian Kings.  denied. It is the exceeding extreme of the virtue liberality. This notwithstanding all Christian Kings (for aught that I can learn) have ever tolerated the same unpunished at least in some degree; neither were they for such tolerations reproved at any time by any ancient approved writer, or learned Father whatsoever. Which doubtless is ●nd aught to be so reputed an argument of no small importance, For although Emporour, Kings and monarchs, may and do sin aswell as others of meaner calling; yet neither did they, neither ever can they live unreproved; if at any time they sin notoriously, either by stabilishing wicked laws publicly, or by suffering their subjects to make havoc o● God's laws dissolutely. For God can raise up children of stones to Abraham; and neither is he, nor ever 
Mat. 3. 9  will he be destitute of faithful courageous servants, who will constantly, and without all fear, reprove all such as contemn his holy laws. He hath watchmen on the walls of his jerusalem, who will cry out against sin 
Esa. 62. 6.  continually, and never keep silence day nor night. He is not without his Elias, that will stoutly reprove all wicked Achabs', He hath in store a Daniel, to condemn 
1. Reg. 18.  all naughty judges, and to acquit his faithful Susannes. He will find a Prophet to exclaim against 
Dan. 13. 16.  idolatry, and to teach every jeroboam his duty. He can and will provide an other john Baptist, to speak boldly 
1. Reg. 13. 2.  to all bloody Herod's. And yet in so many hundred years, such tolerations have never been reproved to my knowledge by any ancient Father, or other learned Writer. The reason hereof I take to be this; because if this sin were punished, there would rather hurt than benefit ensue thereupon.   

The third reason  
It is a general Maxim received not only in Divinity, but in Philosophy also; Ex duobus malis, minus eligendum. Of two evils the lesser is to be chosen, that is to say; when two evils concur, so that both cannot be avoided, but that necessarily the one must happen; than it is not onclie not sin, but godly Wisdom, and Christian Policy, to prevent, and avoid the greater evil, with permission and toleration of the less. For example sake; it is evil for a man to cut off his own arm or leg, if the thing be absolutely, and simply considered in itself, yet to cut it off lest the whole body putrefy or perish; is a very lawful act. Which thing all Christian Princes, & monarchs seem to respect, when they in sundry cases do tolerate sin unpunished. The blessed man Moses, so highly renowned in holy writ, pardoned great malefactors in the heinous crime of divorce, and this toleration he granted to avoid a greater evil; that is to say, lest the jews upon every light cause should poison those wives whom they did not love, for that such light divorcement was only permitted, but neither by God, not by Moses approved; I will demonstrate by these 
1.  important and insolluble reasons. First, because these are Christ's own words; Moses because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your 
Mat. 5. 31. Mat. 19 7.  wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Secondly, because the marriage was indeed after suchlight divource, 
2.  unlawful by the law. For thus writeth Saint Paul; know 
Deus. 24. v. 1  ye not Brethren (for I speak to them that know the Law) that 
Rom. 7. v. 1.  the law hath dominion over the man, as long as he liveth; for the woman 
2. 3.  which is in subjection to a man, is bound by the Law to the Man, while he liveth; but if the man be di ade, she is delivered from the law of the man: So than if while the man liveth, she take an other man, she shall be called an adulteress. Out of these words I note first, that marriage cannot be dissolved, during 
1.  the life of the former husband. I note secondly, that this was so even in Moses law; because Saint Paul saith 
2.  he speaketh to them that knew the law, I note thirdly, 
3.  that to be married after divorce for a light cause, during the life of the former husband is plain & flat adultery. I therefore conclude, that to tolerate sin unpunished upon good cause, is no sin at all. This mine assertion of divorcement is not only grounded upon the Scriptures, but also confirmed by the holy fathers, and best approved writers of this our age.   

The 4. Reason.  
We have many examples in the holy scriptures of blessed men that often pardoned Malefactors, & to this day were never reproved for the same. King David pardoned 
1. Sam. 25. v. 35. 2 Sam. 3. v. 6. 22. 28. 31. 2. Sam. 3. 1. Reg. 2. v. 8. 9 gen. 34.  wicked Nabal at the petition of his virtuous wife Abigal. The same king David pardoned Abner, who rebelled against him for the house of Saul. The self same king tolerated joab in his naughty dealings, albeit he was more than a little offended with his manners. The same king tolerated cursed Shemei, though he commanded his son Solomon to do execution on them both, after that himself was dead. The holy Patriarch jacob did not punish his sons Simcon and Levy with death, for their cruel murder done upon the Sechemites; though 
vided August. epist. 119.  he had plain regal and supreme authority over them S. Austen did very often entreat the emperors most earnestly and humbly, not only to pardon heretics, but also the Circumcellions most naughty people and cruel murderers. The blessed virgin Mary was found to be with child by the holy Ghost, before S. joseph & she came together. Whereupon joseph, because he was 
mat. 1. 19  a just man, and would not put her to open shame, was minded to put her away privily, thus reporteth holy writ. Out of which words I note first, that joseph knew the holy virgin to be with child. Secondly that 
1.  he knew himself not to be the father of the child. 
2.  Thirdly, that joseph knew no other, but that Mary his 
3.  wife was an adulteress. Fourthly, that he thought to have 
4.  put her a way secretly, so to keep her from shame & punishment. Fiftly, that joseph was even then deemed just, when the sought and thought to keep her from 
5.  shame; although in his judgement, she deserved death by the law. Yea, S. Paul himself made intercession to Philemon for his servant One simus, though he had been 
in epist. ad philem.  a vagabond and thevish fellow.  

The first objection.  
No inferior hath power to alter the law of his superior; and consequently, man cannot pardon or tolerate malefactors, whom god appointeth to be punished   

The answer  
I answer; first that precepts delivered to us in holy writ 
vide. D. Zanch in 4. cap. ad ep●es. Pag 338. et Martyr. in 2. lib. Samuel. cap. 3. pag. 200. Aquenatem. 2. 2. q. 3. art. 2. cap. Rom. 10. v 9 10. Mat. 7. 6.  are of two sorts. Some affirmative, other some negative. The negative bind us at all times every hour, and in every place; but the affirmative, though they be very apt to bind, yet do they not actually bind us, save then only, when the due circumstances of times, places, and persons occur, hereupon it cometh that it is never lawful to steal, never lawful to commit addultery, never lawful to bear false witness, neither at any time, nor in any place. the reason hereof is this, because these precepts be negative. This notwithstanding, it is sometime lawful to omit the precepts affirmative. For example it is necessary unto salvation, to make confession of our faith; and yet we do and may often omit the same, for that it is an affirmative precept. And therefore Christ willeth us not to give that which is holy to dogs; neither to cast our pearls before swine; least they tr●ad them under their feet, and turn again & all to rentus. But we are then bound to confess our faith when either it tendeth to the glory of God, or to the good of our neighbour; so that if such confession were not then made, either god should be dishonoured, or our neighbour scandalised. So it is God's commandment to give him thy cloak, that will sue the at the law, and take away thy caate; & yet mayest thou at sundry times 
Mat. 5. v. 40  for sundry respects, deny him both thy coat and thy cloak. So it is God's commandment to go with him miles twain, that will compel the to go one; and yet mayest thou sundry times deny lawfully, to 
Mat. 5. v. 41  go with him either more or less so it is God's commandment, never to turn away from him, that would 
Mat. 5 v. 42.  borrow money of the, or any other goods; and yet mayest thou sundry times for sundry respects, deny to lend either thy money or other things. All which and other the like have this only ground and foundation; uz. That they are precepts, affirmative, which neither bind at all times, nor yet in all places. For precepts affirmative, 
modus loquendi. Scholarum.  to use schoole-tearmes; obligant semper sed non ad semper.  
Secondly, that the civil magistrate had authority, to mitigate many punishments ordained for malefactors, 
Secundò. Principaliter.  even in the time of the old testament. For though he were appointed to punish them that used false weights and measures; yet was that punishment to be determined 
Deut. 25. v. 2. 3. 13. 14.  according to the quantity and quality of his trespass. The party that was worthy to be beaten, received many or few stripes, at the discretion of the magistrate. M. Calvin a most zealous patron of pure religion, hath 
Calvin. in leu. 18. v. 6. Pag. 345.  these express words; Impunè quidem ut liceat statui potest, sicut in arbitio Principis est panas remittere. Verum ut vitiosum non sit, quod vitiosum esse natura dictat, nullus legislator efficiet  
A law may be made, that he which doth it shall not be punished; even as it is in the prince's pleasure, to pardon and release the punishment. But that that be not sinful, which nature itself showeth to be sinful; no law maker can effect or bring to pass. Thus writeth this learned man, granting freely as we see; that the magistrate may sometime upon good causes, tolerate those sins unpunished, which gods law doth sharply reprove and speak against, where the reader must observe with me, that Master Calvin speaketh of the most notorious sins of incest; and consequently that he granteth power unto the magistrate, to pardon what Malefactors or sins, so ever: For though the magistrate can never make that to be no sin, which Gods law prounceth to be sin; yet (saith M. Calvin) the magistrate may make a law, that the same sin shall not be punished, Which doubtless is the self same doctrine, that I do teach for the present.  
Thirdly, that by the law of the New Testament, the Prince is only charged in general terms to punish 
Tertiò principaliter.  malefactors, and that for the common good of his faithful people, in regard whereof, he may lawfully cease from punishing them; when the common intended good of his subjects, either can not, or will not ensue thereupon. For if Kings should at all times punish all malefactors; the Church of God would often be deprived of most excellent and profitable members. For which respect our Saviour himself telleth us, that when the tars cannot be severed from the good corn, 
Mat. 13. v. 3●.  unless both be pulled up together; then may they tolerate the tars or weeds with the good corn, until the time of haruell. As if he had said: when the wicked cannot be punished, but with great damage to the godly; then may the Magistrate tolerate such malefactors 
Aug. ut ep. 110. tom. 2.  unpunished, and not thereby sin at all. Therefore saith the holy father S. Austen; that Christ's Church doth tolerate many things, which he neither doth nor can approve. And the same holy Father in a large and learned discourse against Parmenianus, showeth plainly unto the Reader; that the notorious sins must then be anathematized, when there is no danger of schism to enfue thereupon, not otherwise; lest that turn to the church's harm, which was intended for her good. Amongst many other godly sentences, (which for brevity I here omit, these are his express words. In hac velut angustia quaestionis, non aliquid nou●m aut insolitum dicam, sed quod santas observat ecclesiae, 
August. cont. epist. Parme. lib. 3. cap. 2. tom. 7.  ut cum quisque fratrum, id est, Christianorun intus in ecclesiae societate constitutorum, in aliquo tali peccato fuerit deprehensus, ut anathemate dignus habeatur, fiat hoc ubi periculum schismatis nullum est. Sequitur nam & ipse dominus cum servis volentibus zizania colligere, dixit, sinite utraque crescere usque ad messem, praemisit causam dicens, neforte cum vultis colligere zizania eradicetis, simul & triticum: Vbi satis osteudit, cum metus iste non subest, sed omnino de frumentorum certa stabilitate certa securitas manet, id est, quando ita cuiusque crimen notum est omnibus, & omnibus execrabile apparet, ut velnullos prorsus, vel non tales habeat defensores per quos possit schisma contingere, non dormi●t severitas disciplinae. Sequitur, cum vero idem morbus plurimos occupaucrit, nihil aliud bonis restat, quam dolour & gomitus.  
In this intricate question, I will say no new or strange thing, but even that which the soundness of the church observeth; that when any Christian, which in the society of the church, shallbe taken with any such offéce, as shall deserve an anathematization, the same be done where there is no peril of schism. For our Lord himself, when he said to those that would gather the tars, suffer them to grow until the harvest; premised the cause, saying, lest while ye desire to gather the tars, ye pluck up also the wheat. Where he showeth sufficiently; that when there is no such fear, but there abideth security enough of the stability of the corn, that is, when every man's crime is so apparent and execrable to all, that either it hath none at all, or no such patrons as are able to raise up a schism, then may not the severity of discipline be a sleep. But when many have the same disease, there resteth nothing for the godly, but sorrow and lamentation. Thus writeth this holy Father; Out of whose words we may gather evidently, that the magistrate may lawfully tolerate sin and sinners unpunished, when by their punishment more hurt then good would ensue to the Church. Which self same doctrine, King David full of the holy Ghost, delivered long afore him, when he uttered these words; Know ye not, ' that there is a Prince, and a great man fallen this day in Israel? and I am this day weak and newly anointed King, and these men the 
2. Sam. 3. v. 38. 39  sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me; the Lord reward the doer of evil, according to his wickedness. Loc, the blessed King spared two most cruel murderers, joab and Abishai his brother; and this he did only for this end, least by their punishment, greater hurt should have come unto his Kingdom.   

The 2. Objection.  
Achab the King of Israel was punished with death because he granted pardon to Benhadad King of Aram. 
1. Reg. 20. 1. Sam. 28. 1. Sam. 15.  So King Saul was deposed from his kingdom, for that he spared Agag king of the Amalekites.   

Answer.  
I answer; first, that Achab was precisely designed 
1.  by God himself, to do execution upon Benhadad. And so was also Saul appointed in precise terms, to put 
1. Reg. 20. 42. 1. Sam. 15. 3  King Agag to death. Secondly, that in the New Testament, Princes have no such special commandment, 
2.  but are only charged in general to punish malefactors. Thirdly, that they were extraordinary precepts, given 
3.  to these Kings extraordinarily, not to be done generally to all malefactors, but to two notorious persons in special; and consequently, that no general Law can be grounded thereupon. Fourthly, that affirmative precepts bind not in every season, but when the due 
4.  circumstances of time, place and persons, and the common good of the faithful, shall so require, as is already proved. For otherwise, I see not how Saint Paul can be excused, who made earnest suit to Philemon, to pardon 
In Epist. ad Philem.  his wicked servant Onesimus, who unjustly had gone away out of his service. And the like may be said of Saint Austin, who so ofien made intercession to the princes of Africa, to pardon the Donatists and Circumcellions; who did not only disturb religion, but also spoiled the Christians of their lawful goods. Yea, it was the usual custom of the jews, (as the holy gospel 
Luke 23. v. 17.  beareth record,) to see some one Prisoner at liberty every Easter; which custom is not reproved in 
Mat. 27. v. 15.  any place of holy writ. Fiftly, that it is a case so clear by Saint Paul, that male factors may sometime be pardoned, 
Mar. 15. 6.  as it is without all rhyme and reason to denic the same. For what can be a greater offence, than such fornication, as is not once named among the Gentiles; 
2. Cor. ●. v. 8. 9 10.  to wit, that one should have high father's wife. And yet when the party that did this horrible fact, seemed to give signs of true remorse; Then Saint Paul himself pardoned him, and willed the Corinthians to do the same. So did the Fathers of the Elebertine Council, pardon the usurers of the Laical sort; when they promised 
Conc. Elebcr, can. 20.  to surcease from usury, and to deal no longer therewith. And this Council was celebrated above one thousand and two hundred years ago. Yea, the most famous Council of Nice gave pardon to such malefactors, 
Conc. Nicen. can. 11.  as scarce deserved the same any way. I therefore conclude, that it is lawful for Kings, Emperors, and other independent Magistrates, to tolerate or pardon malefactors unpunished, when and so often as the same shall tend to the good of the common weal; wherein Subjects are to obey, and not peremptorily to judge, or curiously to examine, and inquire.  
Soli Deo gloria.     
FINIS.   

A TABLE CONTAIning the chief and principal matters of all the Chapters throughout this Discourse.  

Of the sundry kinds of government, Chapter, 1.  
Of the chief and best kind of government. cap. 2.  
Of the kind of government of the English church. cap. 3.  
Of the supreme authority of the Prince in all causes. cap. 4.  
Of the degrees of Ministers, and the antiquity thereof cap. 5  
Of civil offices in Ecclesiastical persons. cap. 6.  
Of the church's authority in things indifferent. cap. 7.  
Of things indifferent in particular; cap, surplice, etc. cap. 8  
Of the election of church-minister, cap. 9  
Of the ordering of ministers. cap. 10.  
Of the Presbytery. cap. 11.  
Of the church discipline. cap. 12.  
Of Preaching, and other things coincident. cap. 13.  
Of certain Extravagants; ceremonies in Baptism, &c: cap. 14.  
Of the punishing and pardoning malefactors. cap. 15.   
FINIS.