The rest of the second reply of Thomas Cartvurihgt: against Master Doctor Whitgifts second answer, touching the Church discipline.  Isay lxij, vers. j For Zion's sake, I vuil not hold my tongue, and for jerusalems' sake. I vuil not rest: until the righteousness thereof break forth as the lihgt, and the salvation thereof be as a burning lamp. Ibid. vers. 6 & 7. You that are the Lords Remembrancers, keep not silence, and give him no rest: until he repair, and set up jerusalem the praise of the world. 
Imprinted M. D. LXXVII.   

TO THE READER.  
ACcording unto my promise, yovu have here the residvu of my reply, unto the Doctor's answer. Of the late appearing whereof, it vuil not be uneasy to conjecture: if both the distance whereby I am removed from yovu, and the alterations in the place where I remained, be remembered. In me verily, the cause was not: which more than a year ago, had brovught it in a manner, to the readiness which it was in, when it began to be printed▪  
But, considering the great enmity against the cavuse, with some displeasure against myself: some vuil (peradventure) say, that I have rather need to seek excuse, why I set it forth at all, then so late. To whom I vuould it vuere ansvuered, that for the cause it self: I never fear, lest it should come to often, into the field. For, althovugh throvugh the poverty of the defenders thereof, she come never so naked and unarmed: yet the lord hath set such a majesty in her countenance, that as with one of her eyes, she ravisheth into her love, those which are desirous of the trvuth in this behalf: so with the other, she so astonisheth her enemies, as if they were cast into a dead sleap: in such sort, that the stovutest of them, when they come to the fight, can not find their hands.  
Whom I admonish, and beseech also in god's behalf, that hovusoever they have hitherto, been overtaken by the adversary: they vuould novu at the last vuithdravu their foot, and those that have been Standard bearers herein, not only to retire themselves, but to blovu the retire also unto others. Let it be enovugh for them, to have stumbled at the truth, lest if they run themselves against it, in stead of thinking that they have to do with men and with vuordes, they meet with Chryst himself: at uhome (as at a rock) they shall vurake themselves miserably, upon whom also, if any come proudly, the same stone vuilfal, and break them all to fitters: to their both deepest, and 
Mat. 21. 44.  most remediless condemnation. For hovu gloriously soever men speak of the sun of god: yet they all (no dovut) 
● Pet. 2. 8  rush themselves upon him, that rush themselves upon his word. Let them therefore in time look unto it, that they give place unto the rock for the rok vuil give none to them: and assure themselves, that their heels vuil sooner ache with kicking against the prik, than it in receiving their broken and strenghtles resistance. Which, as in assurance of the trvuth maintained by us, I propound unto them: so, if in building upon this golden foundation of the church discipline, there hath escaped any stubble or hay of mine: I vuil (god vuilling) not forget the same admonition, to be a lavu unto myself, to bring the first fire, to consume it with.  
Novu when the truth, by this trial, getteth ground: the displeasure against myself, is no sufficient cause, to vuithdravu my hand, from this defence. For, when the compass of our love tovuards god, must be moten by the thread of our affection tovuards his truth: I see not, hovu I could persvuade myself, to have to the quantity of a grain of mustard seed, of trvu love tovuards him: if unto the trvuth labouring and travailing in this point, I should deny my simple help. And verily, it were a deintynes and dilicacy untolerable, if I should not afourd, the los of a little ease and commodity unto that, where unto my life it self, if it had been asked, vuas duu: if I should grudge, to duuel in another korner of the vuorld for that cavuse, for the which, I ovught to be ready, altogether to departed out of it: finally, if I should think much, to vuitnes with a little ink and paper that, which numbers, in other places, have already vuitnessed with their blood.  
Whereunto serveth, that it is not the lest part of my comfort, that in this vacation from the ministry: the lord hath not suffered me, to be altogether idle: but employed me if not in griffing and setting, which are the mastervuorkes, yet in hedging and ditching about the orchard of his church purchased with his most precious blood.  
Last of all, I assure myself, that the same cavuse which hath brovught this displeasure: is able (if need be) to set me in favour again. Whereof, I vuould little do but: if it might come to ansvuer before them, before whom, it hath been so unvuorthely accused. Alcibiades, when one lifted up his 
Euribiades.  staff, ready to smite him, if he vuould not hold his peace: trusting unto the vertvu of the truth, Smite (saith he) so 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that yovu hear. When therefore these human trvuthes, being propounded, notvuithstanding all oppositions, by reason of former praeiudices, in the end find favour, and have a resting place: hovu much more, the heavenly trvuth, sanctified and sealed by the blood of the sun of god, shall at the length have the gates opened unto her. I grant, there is greater resistance unto this holy trvuth, then unto other common and human: but he that is author and maintainer of all trvuth, dravueth a great deal deeper, when he shooteth forth this arrovu, then when he sendeth forth the other. And thus much for ansvuer to them, which, not misliking the cavuse, may for that either (in their judgement) I strive against the stream, or else for that I deprive myself of commodities, which I might othervuise enjoy: esteem my labour, out of season.  
Saving the table, where the greater letter is the Doctors: the variety of letters is the same, and to the same end, which it was in the former part of this book: where the reader may take his direction. Of whom, as before I craved prayer, for the lords assistance: so novu I desire, that thanks may be given unto him, for all that, wherein he shall understand it, to have been with me.   

AN ANSWER TO THE RESIDVE of the surmises: as they are comprehended, in the D. two tables.  

In the first Table.  
The eight, is ansvuered, 248, 249, 250, 251.  
The tenth is ansvuered, 173.  
The eleventh, 138, etc.  
The tuuelfth, 145, etc.  
The thirtinth, 191, 192, 193.  
The sixtinth is unvuorthy any answer: seeing it is manifest, that all those which have right to be baptezed, ovught to be holden of the visible church, or family of god, where of the question is: as it is further declared, by the examination of the D. censures.  
The seventinth is maintained, touching papists children, 142. And there is the same reason, of the children of the excommunicate, which remain obstinate.  
The eightinth is ansvuered, 64, 65.  
The ninetinth, 64, etc.  
The tuuentith, 164, 165, 166, 167. For ansvuer, unto the one and tuuentith: I refer myself partly to that I have ansvuered in the former part, partly to the examination of the D. censures.   

In the second Table.  
For the 38, and 39: I refer myself, to the examination of the D. censures.  
The 40, is ansvuered 132, and 219.  
The 41, is confessed.  
The 42, is ansvuered, 230.  
The 43, p. 67.  
The 44, p. 85.  
The 45, p. 85.  
The 46, p. 87.  
The 47, p. 90.  
The 48, p. 96.  
The 49, p. 157.  
The 50, in the former part.  
The 51, p. 262.    

Faults escaped.  
Page 18, line 30, read may as. pag. 255, line 32, read three first. pag. 26, l. 23 & 24, also pag. 27, l. 6. for the small, understand the great running letter. Correct the number of the leaf, which is marked beneath, with the letter N, immediately following the number 96.   

AGAINST CIVIL OFFICES, IN ECCLESIASTICAL PEOPLE: TRActate VII, and 23 according to the Doctor.  
HAving in the last Tractate of the former part, showed the unlawful dominion of certain of our church officers, over the whole church, and especially over their fellow Ministers: it seemeth good, to join this next thereunto. For thereby shall both better appear how unsufferable this disorder is, which overspreadeth both church and common wealth: and the government by the Eldership (the tractate whereof shall follow immediately) in it self just, shall by comparison with this church lordship, be more justified.  
That the most of the places quoted by the Admonit. 
Diuis●. pag. 749.  are used of vuriters of that excellency, with whom the D. is not vuorthy to be named the same day: hath, and further will appear. His exception, that by this, they are lifted up above god himself: is vain. For, beside that it is a kind of speech used of the best authors, to note a great inequality: he is less worth, than I prised him at, if he think that he is worthy to be named the same day that god himself is. For if he will so servilely cleau unto words: yet the question is, whether he be vuorthy, to be named, not (as he writeth) whether he may be named.  
The place of S. 
a LuK. 9 60. 61.  Luke, is understanded properly of the 
Diuis. 2. pag. 750.  Ministers of the word: and not of all Christians, which is manifest, for that our Saviour Christ biddeth him, that would have gone back for burial of his father, to preach the Kingdom of heaven, which he never commanded to all Christians: so that his meaning is of the calling unto the ministry, and not of the calling to eternal life. That such civil offices as he alloweth in ecclesiastical persons, are helps for them to do their duties, repeated 
a 752. D. 4. 757. 761. D. 5. 762. D. 7. 765. D. 3. 773. D. 15. 783.  seven times: is a demanding of that in question. For, where 
b 757. Diuis. 3. pa. 751.  after he saith, he hath declared it: he saith untruly, he hath only nakedly affirmed it: which how untrue it is, shall after also appear.  
My reply is that our Saviour Christ's vocation, vuas to be a Minister of the gospel, but he 
c LuK. 12. 24.  refused civil judgement because of his vocation: therefore he refused it, because he was a Minister of the gospel. whereupon also followeth, that Bishops being Ministers of the gospel: ought not to receive, any such power. See now how justly he complaineth, that I answer not to that he said, that Christ's refusal in the partition of the inheritans, pertaineth no more to Bishops then to Kings: no marvel also, if it require further answer, it was so well guarded: seeing his reason is, because the doings of Christ be a pattern for all Christians: than which, there can be nothing more absurd. For although all his doings, be instruction to all Christians: yet that they are a pattern to them all, draweth with it, that all may preach, that none may give judgement in civil causes, and a number more horrible confusions: it being also a false ground of popery, whereby they would establish the lenten fast, and other such corruptions.  
Where also he would give to understand, that our Sa. Christ did refuse this, not as a Minister of the gospel, but as Redeemer: he renteth a sunder things, which can not be separated. For one part of his redemership, standeth in that he was given of god unto us, for a teacher: so that, if he would have answered any thing in this kind, he must have said, that he refused to judge of civil causes, not as a Minister of the word, but as a Priest, or King, whereof also the last, he in part setteth down: saying he refused it, to declare that his Kingdom was not earthly, but heavenly: as if it were not as necessary, for him to refuse it in respect of his Doctorship, that he might declare likewise, that his doctrine was not of earthly things, but of heavenly: and consequently, as convenient in the same respect, for the Ministers to abstain from it. But the further confutation of this, the reader shall take from thence, 
d Tra. 6. p. 404.  where is showed, that our Sa. Christ, by his own example, calleth the apostles and, in them, all the Ministers of the word, from all pomp and dominion: and therefore from these civil offices, whereunto pomp and dominion are annexed.  
Then he answereth, that no man giveth the Bishop's authority to judge in matters of inheritans: whereas our Sa. Christ, refused it not, because he was no judge of that cause, but simply because he was no civil judge: 
a joh. 8. 1●  refusing upon the same ground, to give sentence of the harlot. The Ministers (for sooth) may not meddle with civil occupations, but with civil offices: and in civil offices, not with them of no countenance, as the jailer's office etc., but with those of estate: and amongst those of estate, not with matters of inheritance but with criminal causes. Thus, you take yourself licence, to say all things, and to show none. But to leave the rest unto an other place, let the D. show some reason, why the Minister should rather sit in judgement of criminal causes, then in pleas of inheritans: they both belong to the Magistrate alike, if he ought to accept one, being committed unto him by the Magistrate, why not also the other: especially, when as by criminal causes, (requiring more search and greater diligence than the other) there must needs be greater hindrance from his ministry. As for that he saith, those are to be decided by law, and have other judges appointed for them: the criminal causes are likewise. And if there were no other judges appointed for them: yet, whether there ought to be, is the question: so that the D. answer, is here an open demand of the question. Where also out of M. Caluin, he allegeth Barnard, that the Ministers power is in crimes: it is a shameful abusing, of both Calvin and Barnard. for they speak there of rebuking and punishing sin, by ecclesiastical censures: which is manifest, in that they convey the title of this power, to the Minister, 
b 4. li. Inst. 11. cap. 12. sect.  by the Keys delivered unto S. Peter. now the very word of Keys, especially with this addition, given unto S. Peter: telleth all men, that the power there spoken of, is spiritual, and not civil. And here the D. is directly against himself. For before, in this very division, saying that this judgement in civil causes is not incident, but added to the ministry: here he pretendeth out of Barnard, that civil judgement in criminal causes, is of the power and jurisdiction of the Ministers.  
And if it be true that he saith after, the pastor must use such discipline, as seemeth good to the Magistrate: when the Magistrate ordaineth civil discipline only, either that discipline must be incident to the pastorship, or else in such a time, there shall be a Pastor of god, which hath no discipline incident into his office: seeing the ecclesiastical discipline, which is taken (by his judgement) from him lawfully, is not incident: so that this idle distinction goeth flat to the ground. I call it idle, be cause it maketh nothing to the question: which is not, whether a Minister may bear civil office, in that respect that he is a Minister, but whether he may bear it at al. And of this sort also is, that our Bishops break not violently into these offices, but receive them of the Prince's gift: whereas our question is, whether he may receiu these offices when they be given: yet hath he used this distinction, at the lest, five times.  
After is added, that it is committed to them by the Magistrate, for fuller satisfying of their duty: if so, why should not all the Ministers alike have this power, to the end, that all might do their duties the better. Again, in saying that it is necessary for this time: you openly wrist this power, out of the Magistrates hand. For thereby it followeth, that the Magistrate of duty, ought to commit this unto them: and if he do not, he is guilty of god's wrath, in leaving undone, that which is necessary to be doen. you do also open injury to the holy ghost, which is thus supposed to have left that in the liberty of the Magistrate, which is necessary for the accomplishing of the ministry: whereas, if it had been necessary, there had been also nothing more easy, then to have given this general rule, that always under a Christian Magistrate, the Minister should be armed with civil authority. But this succour which you seek in the time, is Pigghius shift: as is also this whole cause, and the flower of your arguments. For he saith, As long as the church 
Pig lib. 5. hierarh ca 16.  vuas in persecution, all were obedient unto their Pastors, hovu simple or base so ever the Ministers were: but after that the church came to have prosperity, than it was needful, that Bishops should be magnifical also, to the end they might be more apt, to govern the magnifical Princes: and that otherwise his power and authority should not be sufficiently reverenced. To whom, as unto the D. it is easy to answer, that if Kings and Princes, being yet in deadly hatred against the gospel, were brought by the ministry of the word, unaccompanied with any such pomp or jurisdiction, to yield themselves unto the gospel, and to give due reverence unto the ministry: how much more now, being friends, will they be kept in duty and convenient estimation thereof, without this disguising of the ministry.  
That alleged out of Caluin, that every man must respect his own vocation etc. beside that it is drawn clean from the mind of the author, it is absurdly applied. For the application, affirmeth it meet for the vocatio of the Minister, that he should bear civil office: which is that in question. And where he saith, Caluin speaketh nothing against these civil offices in ecclesiastical persons, and after, that neither he nor any godly man, can disallow of it: he giveth suspicion that he hath sold himself to speak untruth, without all check of conscience. For Calvin showeth, that albeit the godly Princes, giving these offices to church men, had a good intent: yet, that they did evil provide thereby for the church, considering that by it was corrupted, or 
4. lib. Inst. 11. cap. 10. sect.  rather utterly brovught to no vught, all true and ancient sincerity, and that, the Bishops if they had had a spark of grace, vuould when they were offered such offices, have answered, that the armour of their vuarfare, is not carnal but spiritual. Here again also, he is out with himself. For in the end of his book, albeit the shifts he useth are to rough hewed: yet, when he cometh to Caluin, in this matter voided of all shift, he is constrained to reject his authority. If he have nothing against him, why doth he make so small account of him, as for nothing to cast him of: if he be against him, why doth he here deny it. And as I have alleged M. Caluin, and some others: so the learned know that a number more might be brought, to the making up of a book: but for him, beside the papists (as I am verily persuaded) scarce one so bold an enemy of the truth, as to commit this to writing.  
Against the plain meaning of the Apostle, opened in flat 
Diuis. 4. p. 752.  words, verses 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. of Rom. 12. here is nothing but your surely, and certain: which I will suffer to have that credit, it can get, against so manifest light. Your argument, is the same which I have said. The Bishop must govern with discipline, therefore with civil discipline: your answer that he must use discipline prescribed by the Magistrate, whether civil or ecclesiastical, is an ask of that in question.  
The answer to the place of 
a 2. Tim. c. 2. 4.  Timothy, that it is spoken of all 
Diuis. 6. p. ●54.  Christians indifferently merely faced out with the name of Caluin: is 
b Lib. 5. hie rarch. ca 6.  Pigghius answer, to the protestants. And it is confuted, in that S. Paul instructeth Timothy there, not as a simple Christian, but as a Minister of the gospel: in that also he borrowed this speech of the law, which 
c Num. 4. 3. & 8. 24. 25.  calleth the ministry a souldiarfare: thirdly in that the same Apostle in other 
d 1. Co. 9 7 Phili. 2. 25.  places giveth this title of souldiarship, and fellow souldiarship, to those of the ministry. Beside that it flatly condemneth Cyprian, as an abuser of the place: who by virtue hereof, forbiddeth a Minister an Executorship, which, by the D. either is not forbidden him, or else is forbidden to all Christians alike. And not only Cyprian is condemned, but 
e li. 1. officio cap. 38.  Ambrose and 
f upon Sophon. 1. ca  Jerome which use it, as the admonition: Beside 
g Bucer upon Eph. ca 4.  Bucer and other godly writers of our time, as appeareth by Pigghius answer. The reason whereby Pigghius and he, would show it understanded of all Christians alike, is this. All Christians be spiritual soldiers: S. Paul speaketh of spiritual soldiers: therefore he speaketh of all Christians: concluding affirmatively in the second figure, which is to open a fault. where you should understand, that although Christianity be a kind of spiritual warfare: yet, it followeth not, that every spiritual warfare, is Christianity. Your answer to Cyprian, whereby you would restrain his judgement to the Executorship, and not suffer it to have place in civil offices: is frivolous, and flatly against his words, which 
a Cyp. lib. 1. epist. 9  saith that it was decreed in a Council, that the Minister should only serve the altar, and the sacrifices, and give themselves to prayer. Your reason is as fond, that the executorship is more troublesome then to bear civil office, because sometime temporal men (as you call them) do refuse it: as if therewere not, which refused other civil offices, for the same cause. The reply to the next division, the reader may take, out of the 
b pag. 409. l. 31.  former part of my book.  
The exception out of the Coloss. that wives must obey their husbands 
Diuis. 8. p. 755.  in the lord: doth not hinder, but that the place to the 
c 1. Thess. 5. 12.  Thessa. may put a difference betvuene the civil and ecclesiastical government. For S. Paul (as the Hebrews do the preposition ●) useth the preposition (In) diversly. where therefore he willeth the Thessalonians to acknovulegd those, which were set over them in the lord, he meaneth, in things pertaining unto the lord: but when he willeth the vuives, to obey their husbands in the lord, he meaneth, that they should do it, no further than is agreeable unto the will of god: not that he would restrain their obedience, only to such things as pertain to the kingdom of heaven, as the words be taken in the other place.  
In saying, that althowgh the godly Magistrate ruleth in the lord over us, yet that this title is given by excellency 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  unto the ecclesiastical officers: I do not dally; it is the distinction of the doly Ghost himself. For, albeit they that handle common wealth matters, serve the lord, and do things tending to his glory: yet the scripture comparing both these governments together, giveth this title, as a note to discern the ecclesiastical officers from the civil, as appeareth in the 
d 2. Chron. 19 11.  Chronicles from whence (it is like) the Apostle took this manner of speech. The reason whereof is: for that civil governments are not so nighly, nor so immediately referred unto the glory of god, as are the ecclesiastical. Beside that this reproach is against M. Caluin, and Beza: who upon that place 
upon the 5. chap.  of the Thessaly. ground the same distinction. I grant, there be some things common to both the governments, as be also to things divers, yea contrary: but in confessing the civil government distinguished from the ecclesiastical, and yet affirming certain civil offices common to both, you speak without all sens. For, where that which should agreed, ought to be a third thing from the ecclesiastical and civil power: you make one of these two, to agreed to themselves.  
And although he still rubbeth upon this, that civil offices, such as he meaneth, are not only no hinderans, but a help for the Bishop to do his office: yet he can never be brought to express, what those offices be. For he feareth partly, that the confutation will be a great deal easier: partly lest, if he should prick high, he should draw his cause into the hatred of all, if he should fallow, he should not serve their appetite, to whom he would, peradventure, offer unto in this cause.  
It is in deed a good reason, as the course of this disputation 
Diuis. 9 pag. 755.  doth declare: they must exercise ecclesiastical discipline, therefore not civil: they must have the spiritual sword of corrections always in their hand, therefore not the civil: whiles they can hold, and bewield two sword at once: and whiles the two handed sword of the word of god, occupying both their hands, they have a third hand, for the civil.  
To the next I answer, as unto the seventh divis. As for 
Diuis. 10. pag. 756.  the answer which he asketh to his untrue surmise, of the Admonit. abbridging the Magistrate's authority, seeing it is so often, and of no not only cause, but not so much as occasion, as a thing unworthy once to look back for, I quietly pass by: albeit this untruth hath, and shall (god willing) after generally appear.  
To that I alleged, of the difficulty and multitude of duties, 
Cap. 2. Diuis. 1. p. 757  which the ministry of the word doth lay upon the Bishop, of one side, and of the vueaknes of man's nature, of the other, thereby to bind the Bishop from reaching out his hand to other functions: he saith, that this had had likelihood, if he should exercise a function, contrary to the ecclesiastical. Of this sort, are also these profess alleged 
a pag. 761. pag. 766. Diuis. 5. pag. 766.  other where: that they may exercise both jurisdictions, because they tend both to one end, that is to the maintenance of religion, reformation of manners, and punishment of sin. where the reader may see, that the distinction which he churmeth after so painfully, will not come. As if there were any lawful function, be it never so base, contrary to an other lawful function: seeing that good can not be contrary to good: neither are there any, which pertain not to the maintenance of religion. And the judgement of lands (which notwithstanding he confesseth unmeet for a Minister) pertaineth to reformation of manners, and punishment of sin: whilst that which is his, being given to every one, the wrong doers are punished. Likewise is also the Princis office: so that, if he may receiu all these callings, he may either exercise all the offices and occupations in the land, or at the lest more than himself dare avouch. But the proverb shall then be (as it is already) true in them: that he which embraceth much, straineth but a little. After he excepteth, that by this reason a Christian man should be continually in spiritual meditation, and never meddle with worldly affairs: which proceedeth of a great want. for aswell (although not so principally) pertaineth it to the duty of every Christian, to have to do with worldly affairs: as at times convenient, to be occupied in spiritual meditation. And as the reason which I brought, hath not so much as the lest seed of Anabaptism: so the D. answer, leadeth to plain monkery, whilst he placeth the whole duty of a Christian man in spiritual meditation. But, seeing you imagine the Bishops, to be men of so great burden, that beside their church ministry, they be able to carry the civil office: answer me, how cometh it to pass, that they commit part of their own and proper office, unto chancellors, Archdeacon's etc., except they have more to do than they can do themselves? what a confusion is it, to turn over to others, things which (they say) belong properly to their office: and to take offices, which they confess, are not incident to their calling.  
I alleged, that the Apostles of greater gifts, then can 
Diuis. 6. p. 758.  be hoped for of any, for accomplishment of the ministry of the word, gave over even that which they had received upon them, that is to say, the disposition of the church money, a thing merely ecclesiastical, and therefore that which might have been easilier joined with the ministry of the word, than a civil office. To this he answereth, the Apostles did both those charges before, and therefore that these offices may sometime meet: where, if he mean, they may meet now, it followeth not. For although they might meet, before the holy ghost, by the mouth of the Apost. made a several office of it: yet they might not so afterward, when it was otherwise determined of, by the mouth of god. There were divers kind of marriages, with consanguinity, as brother with sister, aunt with nevew etc. lawful in the beginning▪ which, after that the lord had otherwise disposed of in the law were unlawful.  
As for that out of Caluin, and 2 Corinth 8, it is frivolous. For it never pertained to the Deacons office, to exhort for the contribution of the poor: but was, and is the Ministers of the word: the Deacons office being, to receiu, and to distribute it, in that church where he is Deacon. The causes also which he allegeth, of the casting of of that office, and the business which the Deaconship did draw in that church of jerusalem, are to trifle out the time: considering, that the decree of the Apostles, touching the nue office, was general for all places, and not where there should be many poor, or so many thousand professors. what a boldness is it also, when the Scripture doth plainly show, the cause of delivering themselves from this office, to have been, that they should not leave their ministry and that they might be continually upon it: to reject this cause, and to set up another, which the scripture 
● Act. 6 2.  giveth no inkling of.  
That they ordained others, for because they should go into the world, is also nothing worth: seeing that in some of them, it came not to pass divers years after, and in other some, never: as those which were determined there to remain, when as notwithstanding, all desired this release. Beside that, he answereth nothing to the inequality of gifts, between our Bishops and the Apostles: nor considereth not, that the Spiritual charge of our Bishop, is over more now then there were then in jerusalem: and that they were at that time twelve, where he is but one: had their church together, which he hath scartered.  
I showed, that the Papists are not only condemned, 
Diuis. 3. pa● 759.  for vuringing the civil authority out of Prince's hands, but simply, for exercising it: and there fore this first section, is idle.  
To that I alleged, that it is as monstrous for the Bishop to go from the pulpit, unto the place of civil judgement, as for my lord Mayor to go to the pulpit: he answereth, that it is not uncomely to go from the pulpit to civil administration of justice etc., which is a mere mockery of his reader. For not daring to deny, but it is uncomely for the lord Maior: he answereth, by affirming that in question. For if he say, it is not uncomely for the lord Maior to go to the pulpit, he runneth in to that, which he saith I surmise of him: where of notwithstanding I have not a letter. Albeit the truth is, that he may aswell say, the Magistrate may minister the Sacrament and preach, which is the proper dwety of the Minister: as to say, the Minister of the word, may sit in judgement of civil causes, which is the proper dwety of the Magistrate. For, look what difference the lord hath set, between the office of the civil Magistrate, and of the Minister: the same must of necessity be between the office of the Minister, and of the Magistrate: as, there is the self same distance between Athenes and Thebes, which is between Thebes and Athenes: and if there be a mile, from the top of the hill to the foot, it is as far from the foot, to the top.  
And although, it abhorring the eyes and ears of all, he is afraid here to affirm it comely, that the lord Maior should preach and minister the sacraments: yet as a man whose judgement wasteth not by little and little, but is suddenly and at a clap taken away, he shameth not a little after to affirm, that the Prince may preach and the Bishop exercise civil 
pag. 768.  office, if they be lawfully called thereunto. where, if by lawful calling, he understand a wondered and extraordinary from heaven, he speaketh altogether from the cause, our question being whether a Minister by calling of the Magistrate, or a Magistrate by calling of the church, may enter upon each other's office. And if he mean by lawful calling, the ordinary calling then his answer is absurd. For he falleth into that absurdity, which the Papists do falsely surmise: that we give unto our Prince's power to minister the Sacraments. yea by his divinity, which giveth the choice of the Bishops to the 
pag. 135.  Prince alone, and which maketh it lawful for one to offer himself to the ministry: the king of the land may make himself 
pag. 48.  Bishop, without waiting for the church is consent.  
Upon that he allegeth out of M. Beza, which wisheth some of the nobility to be of the Eldership, compared with that which I affirm, that the Eldership is an ecclesiastical office: he concludeth, that either I must descent from M. Beza, or grant that one person may at once bear civil and ecclesiastical office. I answer, that neither is necessary. For, whereas Lordships, Baronryes' and Erldomes are often either by birth, or given of the Prince, as bore degrees of honour: such being of the church Eldership, do not therefore bear, both civil and ecclesiastical office: considering that they have no magistracy necessarily joined with them, further than the same is particularly committed. Albeit, having the Helvetian confession, I find no epistle of M. Bezas': so that, either he mistaketh the place, or else hath some other edition, than I could get.  
If the gentry and nobility of the realm, be (as you confess) fitter to bear these offices, then ecclesiastical persons: there needed some great causes, to have been showed by you, why the fittest should not be taken: otherwise the white of expedience, that churchmen should bear them, which you threap of them, that they see, will be so dim, that both the Prince, and they passing by it, will (I hope (put down (as there calling serveth) this usurped power. In the mean season, it being so expedient a thing for the church, at you pretend: the church is little beholding to you, that do not make this expedience to appear.  
I said that if there fall a question to be decided by the 
Diuis. 4. p. 760.  word of god, and wherein the advise of the Minister is needful: that then his help, owght to be required. The D. hereupon fathereth of me, that the magistrate may determine no weighty matter, without him: as if there were no weighty matter, wherein the Magistrate could know what is the will of god, without sending for the Minister: so that, it appeareth that there is no untruth so open, which findeth not (as in a common Inn) lodging in the D. tongue. But else (saith he) wherefore are these words? therefore, forsooth, that where you and others might, under colour of the knowledge which he hath in the word of god, hold him the stirrup, to climb into the civil governments: it might appear, that the common wealth might reap that commodity, without such jumbling of offices together, which cause I expressed. The place of 
Deut. 19 17. 18.  Deuteronomie, is faithfully alleged. That, before the lord, in divers places, signifieth before the Ark, it is well known: that it doth so here, first there is nothing against it, them the translation of vau by (and) rather than by (that is to say) is more used, albeit, whether it be or not, it maketh nothing to this matter. For, the weight of my allegation, lieth in this, that the handling of the matter, is appointed unto the judges, not unto the Priests: whereunto, beside his bore affirmation, he answereth nothing 
a Esra. 9 1.  Likewise is Esra faithfully alleged: and that out of Esr. 10. 4. 5. is nothing against it. For, although that matter of divorce pertained unto him, first, in respect that he should convince the people of their fault, secondly, in showing what was to be done in such a difficult case, where the Israelites had been so long married with strange we men forbidden, and begotten divers children of them, and thirdly in the ecclesiastical censure of separation from the congregation, there mentioned: yet to sit in judgement of them, or by civil punishment to drive those, which would not willingly, is not showed to pertain unto him.  
To the next division, wherein is showed that those 
Diuis. 5. pag. 761.  which had only the light of nature, yea and were great extollers of man's ability, did yet see in part the incommodity, of this clapping of many offices upon one man's back: is answered nothing, but that which is confuted 
a 1. Diu. pa. 757.  before. Of the uniformity of church government, partly hath been, and more shall, god willing, be said afterward.  
Here the D. hath not a word of answer, his reason why he 
Diuis. 6. p. 761.  will not answer, for that it is a matter of policy, and not of divinity, doth as it were, with one stroke of a pen, cross out almost his whole book: where he hangeth all these church matters of the circumstance of time, place, person, and of the form of the common wealth. Neither doth my reason, accuse the prince and the council which is, that if it were at liberty for Ministers, to execute that which pertaineth to the Magistrate, or the Magistrate to do that which belongeth to the Minister: yet, that the later, with us, ovught rather to be done, than the first: for that there is a greater vuant of sufficient church men, then of able common vuealth men. But as I altogether excuse none, from the highest to the lowest of us, which have continued this popish corruption so long: so I accuse especially you, and such as you are, which in steed of refusing them, and showing the unlawfulness of mingling them, gape after them, and are ready to proclaim war (as the 
b 3. Mich. 5.  Prophet saith) if you durst unless by hurling in some morsel one or other, your mouths were stopped. And it may be said of Princes, how godly soever other wise, which lift the Bishops into this honour, that is 
d Hilarius adversus Constant.  said of a wicked Emperor, which promoted them likewise: he honoured the Priests, that they should be no Bishops, that is, that they should be unable, to do the office of a Bishop.  
This worldly principality, entered not, as you pretend, 
Diuis. 7. 8. pag. 761.  into the ministry, with the Christian Magistrate, immediately after the time of persecution: but long after. For, it began first 
Socrat. 7. l. c. 7. etc. ●●  at Alexandria in Cyrils' time, and after entered into Rome. your answer also, to the canon attributed unto the Apostles, is vain, for the canon opposeth the attendance in his ecclesiastical ministry, unto worldly offices: beside, that your answer is otherwise to homely. For it is as much, as if you should answer, that the canon is understanded of all worldly offices: saving those which you defend.  
My reason out of the Calcedon Council is, for that it forbiddeth to take the charge of an Orphan, which requireth not so much attendance, as the civil offices, and which common charity, would otherwise lay upon him. Again, for that it 
Can. 7.  forbiddeth the Minister, to receive upon pain of excommunication, any secular honour: and therefore the office of a justice of peace, of a justice of Quorum, of having judgement of life and death which the D, I will not say craftily (for it is to manifest) but fearfully, passeth by, whereunto add 
4. Cō Carthag. ●. 20.  that decreed in another Council, that the Bishop should only attend unto prayer, reading, and preaching. where, so far it is, that it will suffer him to deal with civil offices: that it forbiddeth to meddle, with matters of his own household: which notwithstanding belong unto him. and therefore I do not allegd it, as that which I altogether allow: but to show how severe the ancient counsels have been in this point, whereof he would bear us down, that there is not a word. For otherwise, without some favourable interpretation, this canon in this point is out of rule.  
To the D. which will not have the Ministers work: in 
Chap. 3. ● Divis. pag. 763.  any handy craft occupation etc., but bear civil office: I replied, that it was as much as if he should say, that he vuould not be bound with iron, but with golden fetters etc. whereto he answereth, that I do but deride. Here, I leave it to the reader to consider, whether by this which he calleth derision, I have broken the head of his cause: so that, if it could, it would weep. As for that out of M. Bucer, there is no man doubteth of: but that one, and the same may do the office of a Minister, and of a Magistrate at once he affirmeth not: he doth the clean contrary, as I 
a In the end of my former book and in the former part of this. pag. 660.  have showed, and 
b In ratione canonic. examinat. 2. Divis. pa. 764.  further may be seen.  
M. Caluin doth not only inveigh against the papists, which enter forcibly upon the Magistrate's office: but against those also, that receive it being given. For his reasons 
c 4. li. inst. ●●. c. 9 sect.  that no man is able to sustain both those charges etc. are general. I grant, the D. allegeth not all the Papists reasons: yet this of the papists, is the same with his: yea in this point, with grief, I am compelled to see him further carried from the bounds of modesty, than they are. For they (as is alleged by M. Caluin) content themselves with this defence, that their ministry is not greatly hindered by it: but he dare say, that these offices are a furtherance to their ministry. which truly, without miracle will hardly be done, that a man having already a burden, as much as he is able to bear: should handle the matter so konningly, that he should not only be able to bear another as heavy almost as it, but to bear it also easilier.  
Hither pertaineth, that he hath afterward, where he affirmeth 
Diuis. 3. ca 4. p. 764.  that the necessity of studying the laws of the realm, maketh him fit for the ministry: that is to say in effect, maketh him have more leisure to study the laws of the kingdom of heaven, thereby to give the riper judgement in things pertaining thereto.  
And as this is strange, in the study of the laws of the realm: so it is yet more strange in the practice by executing the office of a civil judg. For tell me, I pray you, how the care you ought to have of the civil causes before you come to judgement, the time to be informed of them on both sides, the examining of witnesses, the consultation to what law, or to what branch of the law, the crime should be reduced: tell me (I say) how doth it make you fit to execute your ministry, then if you had bestowed that time, in study of the word of god? if you say, that by the knowlegd of these things, you may do your ministry the better: so may you by knowledge of the Potters, the Vuevers, the Carpenter's occupation, from which similitudes being taken, the doctrine is deeplier imprinted: as we see to have been done by the Prophets and Apostles. But as it is not meet, that because the knowledge of these things profiteth, that therefore Ministers may exercise these crafts: no more followeth it, that because the knowledge of civil judgements profiteth for the better doing of the ministry, therefore a Minister 
lib. 4. Inst. c 11. sect. 9  should exercise them. Now, if M. Caluin answering the Papists, which only say that the exercise of this civil povuer, did not much hinder their spiritual ministry, called their answer babbling: I leave it to you to consider, how sharply he would have censured this boldness of yours, if he had met with al.  
As touching that which I said, of bodily occupations fit unto the estate of a Minister, than these civil offices: it may appear, for that they are done without pomp or show, which accompanying the civil offices, have been showed to be unlawful for the estate of a Minister. and that glittering shows and pomp in the Ministers, are hindrances to their ministry, may further appear: by that S. Paul did 
1. Co. 2. 4. 5.  forbear from all stately wisdom and bravery of words, to this end that the virtue of the spirit of god in the simplicity of the ministry, might show itself more clearly. when therefore the eye seeing this pomp, is as well affected with it, as where the ear heareth it, and carrieth it to the mind as soon, and in the common people especially, sooner: by the same reason that the one, the other also must hinder the course of the gospel. Hereupon no doubt, Ambrose saith, that 
Ambr. lib. Epist. 5. Epist●l. 33.  vuorldly government is the vueaknning of the Priest: alluding unto the Apostles saying, that he was then strong when he was vueak.  
Further, when the mind is wearied, and that he unbending it, will give it rest for a time: it is more apt for him to exercise himself, either in planting or setting somewhat in garden or orchard by way of recreation, then in shooting as it were continually in it, in the end to break it, and to make it unprofitable either for the civil or ecclesiastical estate. And I marvel what steel the edges of their wits be of, which will not be turned, when they cut both so deep, and in so hard matters: whereas it is known, that men of counsel have found in the office of a justice of peace or Quorum, so much to do, that they have had scarce time enough, to do the office of a father of a household, in their private families. And it must take up so much more time in the Bishops, then in them: as they, for want of being nourished in the knowledge of the laws and customs of the realm, are more unready in such cases, than the nobility commonly is: unless they will sit upon the bench like idols, nodding rather to the pleasures of others, then upon any grounded knowledge, giving judgement themselves.  
His reason of the difference, that the Minister can not commit his power to whom he list, but that the Prince may: is (I fear me) an endeavour of to open flattery, at the lest it is to loosely spoken. For, although there be greater liberty, in the one, then in the other: yet, the Prince can not commit his power to whom he listeth, but is bound first to choose those which fear the lord, than those which are best able to execute it, to the glory of god and commodity of the subjects: and therefore not the Ministers, which have already as much as they can turn them to, when they do their most. Beside that he can not thus escape. For, if the Prince will accept the ministry, of the Bishop's hand: then his difference falleth to the ground, and then, by his saying, the Prince may well preach, as the Bishop bear civil office.  
As for his example of Samuel, which did Saules office in slaying Agag, when as Saul might not do Samueles in sacrificing: it maketh nothing for him. For, Samuel did it not by saul's authority, but by an extraordinary calling from god: so that if this example prove, that ecclesiastical persons may bear civil offices, it proveth that they may do it without any commandment of the Prince. I pass by, that it was not Samuels office to sacrifice, as the D. imagineth: he being not of the race of Aharon to whom only that appertained, but a simple 
1. Cron. 6. 20. 23.  Levite: so that where it is said that he sacrificed, either it must be understood that he procured the sacrifice to be made, or else that it was done by an extraordinary calling, contrary to the rule that the lord had given, of offering sacrifices  
To that I ask, why if the Minister be helped by exercising a civil office in his ovun person, the Magistrate should not be helped by exercising likevuise an ecclesiastical: he answereth, the Magistrate may do by corporal punishment, which the Minister can not do by ecclesiastical: so may the Minister do by ecclesiastic. which the Magistrate can not do by corporal. And this in deed is the ordinance of god, that every one should do that which properly belongeth unto him: and not that one, should do al. where he addeth, that the Magistrate may bridle the most unruliest, where the greatest censures of the church, few now a days do regard: verily it is no marvel, though they be contemned, being exercised as they are, by those to whom it appertaineth not, and for every trifling and three halfpenny matter: where if, being duly executed, they be contemned, the Magistrate beareth the sword, to punish that contempt. But the D. would have the Minister, have that sword in his hand: that beside the sentence of excommunication, he might have also the civil sword, whereby he might strike a further 
Rom. 13.  fear of himself into the people's hearts. In deed, thus is fear, which the Apostle most properly giveth unto the civil Magistrate because of the sword which he beareth, translated unto the Ministers: And thus it cometh to pass, that they having both civil, and ecclesiastical vengeance in their hands, make themselves more terrible unto the people, than the Magistrate himself, which hath but the civil sword only. whereby hath grown (and if it be not in time prevented) will grow contempt of Magistrates, and other inconveniences: wherewith Princes themselves having been before beaten, ought so much the straighter to look unto. As for that he bringeth, of other ecclesiastical punishments which may be used, beside those prescribed in the scripture: it appertaineth to another question. And so doth gualter's testimony, which is not only idly, but shamefully alleged, in this cause especially: considering that he doth precisely condemn the 
upon the 6 chap. 1. Co. Diuis. 2. p. 764.  exercise of any civil government in ecclesiastical persons. The two next divisions, are answered.  
I know that corporal punishments be means to bring men to hear. and (if you will also) to believe the word: but that it doth so, or at lest so much when it is executed by the Minister, as when it is executed by the Magistrate, I deny: even as it is in excommunications and ecclesiastical censures, when they are executed by those to whom they do not appertain.  
It followeth not, that because fear of civil punishment is profitable, therefore it is profitable in the Minister's hand: neither for that it hindereth faith when the Minister, preaching in the pulpit, hath the civil suuord in his hand, there fore it hindereth, when the Magistrate holdeth it in his hand. For the profit of the fear of the sword, dependeth upon the blessing of god, that giveth it efficacy: which blessing is then given, when the sword is drawn by him, unto whom it properly belongeth. There are of judgement, that it is not convenient, 
M. Ascham in his Schoolmaster.  that the same should teach scholars, and chasten them with the rod, but that some other rather should have that charge, wherewith I will not meddle: but if the Schoolmaster should have beside the rod, the sword also to take away the lives of their scholars, or to sand them to the jail, who seeth not the inconvenience that would rise thereof. And yet the Schoolmaster, as he whose office is less ecclesiastical: is much more capable of this power, then is the Bishop.  
That he supposeth me to affirm, that the causes which 
Diuis. 6. pa. 766.  they meddle with as the Queen's majesties Commissioners, are ecclesiastical, and that they may give a judicial sentence of them: is a flat untruth. This only I gave to understand, which I yet affirm, that the same causes may be both civil, and ecclesiastical. For in respect that inquisition is made, to punish it with corporal punishment, it is civil: the same is also ecclesiastical, when it is examined, to the end that the conscience may be touched with sens of the sin, by the church censures.  
The D. similitude is (as I said) manifestly injurious to 
Diuis. 7. p. 766.  the Magistrate. For if the execution of the laws belong unto the Bishop, as the making of them doth to the Magistrate: it followeth, that as the one is the proper office of the Magistrate, so the other is the proper of the Bishop. And further, that in that common wealth, where the Magistrate may make the laws himself alone: there, by his reason, the Bishops may execute them alone. As for his answer, it is nothing but a demanding of that in question.  
That moses did the office of the Sacrificer is certain: 
Diuis. 8 pa. 767. & 9 768.  in that he 
a Exo. 24. 6. 8.  sprinkled the blood upon the altar, and people, which pertained properly unto the Priest. likewise the same is confirmed by his 
b Ex. 29. 13.  ordaining of Aharon, and his sons, to the priesthood: which belongeth unto the Priest in like manner.  
That Moses (after Aharon was made Priest) prescribed Aharon what he should do: he did it from the mouth of the lord, and that also as the Prophet of god, and in a 
c Act. 7.  figure of the doctorship of our saviour Christ, and not simply as the civil governor of the people. For although the ptieshood, were taken from him: yet he remained a Prophet unto his dying day, and therefore that exception is insufficient. So is that also, of them, in whom he saith that both offices civil, and ecclesiastical met. For not to inquire how truly those examples are alleged, especially of Nehemias', of whom there is not a step of likelihood, that he exercised both the offices: it helpeth him no whit although it were so, as he allegeth: considering that such were extraordinarily raised up of god, and not by any established order or election of men. Which also is a piece of answer to that alleged after to this purpose of our Saviour Christ's whipping, which was in ruinous, and not in 
10. Divis. p. 768.  standing estates of the church.  
Neither is this once to move, much less to overthrow that which was before disputed. For the question is, what order the church is bound unto, not what laws the lord is bound unto: likewise the question is, not what either may be done, or tolerated in the desolation and waist of the church, but what ought to be done, in a church established and reformed: and what that order is, for establishment whereof, every man must employ himself, according to his calling. In Elies and Samuels times, it appeareth that the church was in miserable estate: both by the whole discourse of the story, and namely 
a 1. Sam. 3. 1.  that there was a great dearth of the word of god. But mark (I pray you) this divinity, he would have their examples which have been (as he saith) both Priests and Princes, yea and 
b pag. 262.  Captains also of the host, serve to prove that Ministers may be justices of peace, but not that, they may be Princes or Captains where as if those examples prove, that a Minister may be chosen to bear civil office, they prove especially, that he may be chosen to bear that office, which they bore, from whom he fetcheth his proof. For if that wherefore they may be chosen to other civil offices, do not agreed unto them: the other which have their ground from thence can much less agreed. Therefore, if the D. be afraid to confess, that these examples prove, that a Bishop may be a king or a Captain if he be chosen to it: he ought also to be afraid, to confess that a bishop may be a justice of peace, when he is chosen unto it.  
To that I say, that these examples do as vuel prove, that the civil Magistrate may be a Bishop, as that the Bishop may be a civil Magistrate: he answereth, that the civil office is accidental to the ministry, and such as may be removed from it, but the ministry is not so unto Princes, unless they be ordinarily called: than which, what can be more confusedly spoken. For, if I should grant, that the Prince might be a Minister of the gospel, and the Minister of the gospel a Prince: why should not (I beseech you) the ministry be as accidental to the princehood, as the princehood unto the ministry. Surely, if it be not accidental to the princehood, and yet such a thing as agreeth unto it: it must needs be essential, that is, that which can not be severed from it, without hurt of that estate. Beside that, in placing the difference of the respect of the Ministry, to the princehood, and of the princehood to the Ministry, in that the Prince may not be a Minister without an ordinary calling: you give to understand, that the Minister may bear civil office, without an ordinary calling. For if the Minister may not bear civil office, until he be ordinarily called: then here is yet no distinction made, between the respect of a Minister to a civil office, and the civil officer, to the Ministry. In the end you are compelled, to destroy your own distinction: affirming, that as a minister may join to his Ministry, a civil office, if he be called thereunto by the Prince, so the Prince may join to his office the function of the Minister, if he be called unto it by the Bishop. For so you must needs mean, seeing you make him the Stward of ecclesiastical officis: which absurdity before this birth of yours, I suppose was never heard of: and it is thorough out the whole discourse confuted. For, as for that you add, if they be lawfully called, it is to open folly: seeing the question is, whether there be any such election lawful.  
Here the D. is taken again, in his words. For if the 
Diuis. 10. p. 768.  example of our Saviour Christ's whipping, do prove that, a Minister may meddle with civil affairs: than it proveth, that he may not only sit in judgement of crimes, but also be the Torture himself, which he denieth. For our Saviour Christ, executed the punishment with his own hand.  
To that also I alleged, that the Ministers, by the examples of Paul and Peter, may be Fishers, and Tentmakers, if of the D. examples it may be concluded, that it is lawful for a Minister to bear civil office: he answereth, they may do so upon like occasion. The occasion of S. Paul's labouring with his hands was, partly that he 
2. Cor. 11. 12 1. Thessa. 5.  might not in that point be inferior to the falls. apostles, which took no stipend: partly to support the need, and poverty of the churches. There being now therefore Anabaptistes, which teach without wages and divers churches which are very poor: by the D. answer, it is convenient the Bishops should exercise some handicraft. which beside other inconveniences, is against that which himself hath truly said, that they are hindrances unto the ministry: considering that there be no such gifts now a days as the Apostles had, which were able to do more with one hand, than we with both. And if his answer were true, yet it is nothing to purpose. For, if by these examples he will conclude, that Ministers may ordinarily be called to the civil government: than it must also follow, that by these examples of S. Paul and Peter, the Ministers may ordinarily have occupations joined with their ministries. But if the Ministers may not exercise any handicraft, but in like cases as the Apostles did, and upon like callings: than it followeth also, that they may not exercise civil offices, but in like time, and upon like callings as those did, from whom he draweth his proofs. The rest is answered.  
Before the D. said, that the Ministers could not exercise any civil 
Diuis. 11. p. 769.  jurisdiction in time of persecution: here he saith, that Timothy, which 
Diuis. 7. p. 762.  lived in time of persecution, exercised civil jurisdiction. Thus, like a windshaken reed, he never standeth in one sentence. But (I pray you) note his reason, which is because mention is made of accusers and witnesses: as if they were not common to all kind of judgements. For where the thing is not manifest, there the trial must needs be either by confession, or witnesses: so that if there be an ecclesiastical judgement, there must needs be witnesses and accusers: otherwise the Minister in time of persecution, should take upon him civil jurisdiction, without the consent of the Magistrate, which is absurd, and being urged by me, is unanswered. yea the Housemother, which, upon accusation and witness of some of her children, chasteneth other some: should by the D. saying, break upon the office of the civil Magistrate.  
Upon diverse reasons brought to show, that S. Peter's kill Ananias and Saphyra with the word (which reason 
Diuis. 12. p. 770. Pigg. 5. lib. hierarch. cap. 2.  was ministered him out of Pigghius) proveth not that the Ministers may have their prisons: he answereth nothing, but taking up the carcase of his argument, in steed of burying of it, assayeth to blow life into it, after this sort. Peter punishing with death, did nothing repugnant to his vocation: therefore it is not repugnant, to the vocation of a Minister, to punish with temporal punishment: which followeth not. For as much as the vocation of a Minister now, is not the same which Peter'S was at that time: not only for that he was an Apostle, but also, for that without a particular motion of the spirit of god, it was unlawful for any, or for Peter himself to have done so.  
That brought to uphold this with, that that which Peter did by extraordinary power, the Ministry now may do by an ordinary: is a very cartrope, to pull in all confusion into the church and common wealth. For thus, of that Phinees a private man killed, and the Israelites borrowed, which they never meant to restore: if the Magistrate will licence men to do so, it shall be lawful by the D. rule. If he say, that those are things forbidden, but not this, that a Minister should bear civil office: it is nothing but an ask of that in controversy, whereupon he continually falleth. And where he saith, he speaketh of the fact of Peter, and not of the manner: even the fact of Peter, was to kill a man, without any under Minister. And therefore of this answer also, it followeth that the Magistrate may appoint the Bishops, to be the Tortures and hangmen: which the D. hath before denied. How cometh it also to pass, that he which 
a pag. 149.  before compared the politic laws of god, putting Idolaters and adulterers to death, in cruelty with the Turks laws: now maketh it a death matter, if a man, to conceal some part of his wealth, being judicially demanded thereof, do make a lie. For thus much he saith in effect: when he affirmeth, that it may now be done ordinarily, which Peter did then extraordinarily.  
Where I added, that the povuer which S. Peter used was ecclesiastical, and vuithal, my reason out of the 
b 1. Cor. 1●.  Apostle, who reckoneth that amongst the church gifts: leaving the reason, he opposeth the authority of M. Beza. whereas, if that had been any lawful kind of disputing: I could have alleged learned writers, that such punishments were done by virtue of that church office. But how could S. Peter, do that by right of the civil Magistracy: when as the civil Magistrate had no right, to punish that dissimulation, which was hid. Hitherto also refer, that the D. himself in his 
a pag. 769.  former book, affirmeth that their offence was against no ordinary law of the church, or common wealth. whereupon followeth, that there being no transgression against his laws, there could be no punishment due. M. Bezas' meaning is only, that as the lord, when there was no Christian Magistrate, did use corporal punishments, and those of death, against them which resisted the doctrine of the gospel: so the Christian Magistrate, should do the same: so that although his manner of speech be divers with that I propounded, yet his judgement is all one.  
Here Pantaleon and M. Bale, are rejected as insufficient 
Diuis. 13 p. 771.  to make report of Eugenius doings, which was so long before their time: and yet Erasmus is stoutly upholden, for reporting Titus to have been an Archbishop, albeit Titus was 600 years before Eugenius. But, if the D. can not show any that commanded, that the Bishops should have prisons before Eugenius: these writers shall be able easily, to maintain their credit against his boldness, of affirming and denying, what so ever he listeth.  
To that out of Possidonius, that those matters alleged 
Diuis. 14 p. ●71.  of the Bishop to be done of Augustin, could not be civil affairs, considering that he immediately opposeth them unto secular or worldly matters: beside words he answereth nothing. he opposeth other places out of Augustin, whereof the first out of his book of the works of monks, can not be understanded, as he would have it, of any judgement given by reason of civil authority. For that which he did, he affirmeth, that the Apostle 
1. Cor. 6.  commanded it should be done, by the most contemptible in the church: So that whiles he dare say, that the Apostle commanded, that the simplest in the church might bear civil office, when the Magistrate being an enemy would commit no authority unto him, this place is utterly from the purpose. Again, when Augustin saith, that the Apostle hath tied him so to do, and laid it upon him: if the D. will have, that a civil office is there understanded, it must follow, that the civil office is incident unto the office of the ministry, and can not be severed from it.  
The place out of his epistle 110, is to as small purpose. For, in that it appeareth there, that the Counsels decreed, that Augustin should cease from those business: it is manifest, that he dealt with them, not by any right of civil office. For what had the Council to do, to decree that he should not do that which the Magistrate had lawfully laid upon him: he ought to have sought the release of that, at the Magistrate's hand, and not at the Counsels. likewise, in that he obtaineth of the people, that these matters should be turned from him, upon Eradius, and that in an ecclesiastical assembly, where they met for choosing of one to succeed Augustin in the Bishoprik: it is manifest, that it was no civil office. Last of all, it is to be observed, that in both these places, Augustin complaineth of these matters as of hindrances unto his Ministry, as things which did more let the course of it, then if he had vurovught every day with his hands in some occupation: that he seeketh to be delivered from them at the Counsels and at the people's hands: whereas our D. saith, that they are not only no hindrances, but necessary helps to do the Ministry with, and not only seeketh not, that the Bishops may be discharged, but maketh cords, to bind these offices straighter to them. I have reported the truth, the Bishop's words are out of Clement, 
Diuis. 15. p. 772.  that it is not lawful for a Bishop to deal with both 
a In the defence of the Apolog. 5. part chap. 4. Diuis. 2. cap. 3. divis. 7. Diuis. 16 p. 773.  suuordes: likewise that he ovught to be removed that vuil supply the place both of a civil Magistrate, and of an ecclesiastical person. These words do not only condemn the pulling the sword out of Prince's hands, but all use of it in eccles. persons.  
I pray god, that the custom of shameful denials, do not so harden your forehead: that no point of truth how sharp soever, can pierce it. Howbeit I trust, whatsoever it please you to say, it is manifest to all that do not willingly close their eyes against the truth: that the scripture teacheth that Ministers, ought not to meddle with civil offices. That which you add out of Deut. 17, maketh nothing for you: for, they are there bidden to resort unto the Priest, as to the Interpreter of the law, when the question was difficult, and they knew not what to do. which is manifest, in that he distinguisheth there the Priest, from the judges: so that in such appeals, he placeth the Priests and Levites office, in teaching what is the will of god, and the judgis office in giving sentence accordingly: as appeareth yet more plainly in the same 
a vers. 11.  chapter.  
The same is to be answered, to that alleged out of Numbers 27. In which matter that the Priest was present, and called to consultation for the difficulty thereof, to know what was the will of god in that behalf, it is manifest, in that he being not able to resolve of the matter, Moses 
b vers. 5.  was fain to bring it to the lord: To let pas, that it was not Aharon which was taken into that consultation, but Eleazar: unless you will have Aharon decide controversies, after his death.  
The example of Melchisedec both king and Priest, is more absurdly alleged, than the other: not only because he was before the law, when this order of separating the priesthood 
Psal. 110. Heb. 5.  from the civil government, was not yet established, but because he had them both, that he might be a figure of our Saviour Christ: as the Apostle and Prophet do declare. You might much better have alleged Abraham, which was both a Priest, a Prophet, and a noble warrior: which notwithstanding, yourself do not permit unto the Bishop.  
As for the appeal, which Constantine granted, from the civil Magistrate unto the Bishops, likewise Theodostus and Carolus grant that men might choose the Bishop's judges of their controversies, if either party would: they were the wrists, wherewith the Prince's sceptres were wrung out of their hands, and (as I have before showed out of M. Caluin) all sincerity out of the churches. yea upon that very grant of Constantin, it is noted in the 
jacobus Grinzus.  margin, that it is repugnant both to the doctrine, and example of S. Paul And in deed by the first of these decrees, the Bishop's civil authority, is made equal with the Emperors. And by the other, it is at the pleasure of the people, whether all the civil Magistrates shall be Idols or not, having the bore name of the Magistrate, without doing any duty. For, if either of the parties, be affected towards the Bishop's judgement: the Magistrates may go lay them down to sleep. Neither doth it follow, that because the Emperors gave such liberty, or licentiousness rather, unto the church, or because some Bishops used it: that therefore, the practice of the church was such. For I have showed, that the godly councils forbade it: and that the godly fathers utterly misliked of it. And as I have alleged some, so it is not hard to allege 
a Tertul de leiunio. jer. in Soph 1. cap. Chrysost. 3. honul. in Act.  others, to the same effect.  
In his example of Dorotheus, his translation is faulty. For in steed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a civil honour, he hath turned it priesthood: as if it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the office also which Eusebius noteth he had, was to oversee the purple dies in tire: an office to advance the Ministry (I think) in the D. own judgement, very unfit. His examples of Philaeas and Epiphanius, serve not his turn. For neither is it said, whether they meddled with civil affairs before their bishopric, or in it: and if it were, considering there is no approbation of their doing, but only a bore telling that such a thing they did, it can not help him. For it is one thing to say, they were commended for dexterity in such matters: and another to say, that they did it in duty, and well. even as if the civil officer, taking the pulpit, and speaking fitly of a text, a man might give him the commendation of dexterity in handling the text, and withal, condemn him for doing it without 
pag. 341.  calling. Hither pertaineth that which he allegeth in another place, of Letoius a Bishop which burned Monasteries: but by what authority, appeareth not, beside that his act seemeth otherwise to have no ground. For if it had any good issw, it was more by hap then by good konning. The like and upon 
Theod. lib. 5. cap. 39  like zeal was done by one Audas a Persian Bishop, that burned an Idols Temple, which act gave occasion of grievous persecution: whereby may appear, that Bishops went some time beyond their limits, and did things permitted unto them, neither of god, nor man.  
Of our age he citeth witness M. Cranmer, Ridly, Hoper, and in another place Brentius. for Brentius, seeing he hath no reason, 
pag. 64.  let him have that credit, which so small a friend of sincerity deserveth, especially against the consent, of so many better than he: for the other, he maketh it not to appear, that they were of that judgement. And of M. Hooper, it is manifest that 
upon the eight commandment  he did flatly condemn it: which showeth that the Bishops for the space of 400 years after the Apostles, althovugh they were more able than ours, did meddle with no civil affairs. where he sharply taunteth our Bishop which meddleth with both offices, when one is more than he is able, with all his diligence, to discharge, and impossible that he should do both: and that if the Magistrate vuil employ a Bishop in civil affairs, he ovught to discharge him of his Ministry. If M. Cranmer and Ridley did exercise both, that is to be ascribed to the time: wherein the Sun of the gospel, being but lately risen in our climate, all the clouds which popery had overcast our land with, could not be so quickly put to flight.  
Seeing therefore the Ministers office, is only in things that pertain to god, which for a degree of excellency that they have in promoting our salvation, more than other, the holy ghost opposeth unto the Princes, and common wealth affairs: seeing also it is of greater weight, than the strongest back can bear, of wider compass, than the largest hands can faddam: a soldiarfare that will be only attended upon: seeing also it tendeth to the destruction of the body, when one member encroacheth upon the office of another: and that the civil Magistrate may by the same right invade the office of the Minister, as he the office of the civil Magistrate: seeing further our Saviour Christ, having the spirit without measure, refused as a thing unmeet for his ministry, the office of a judge: seeing also the Apostles endued with such glorious gifts, as are not now to be looked for, gave over the office of the Deaconship, as that which they were not, with the Ministry of the word, able to exercise: and seeing for the burden thereof, it was easier than the civil charge, which the Bishops take upon them, and for the kind of Ministry more agreeable: seeing also the examples in the Scripture, of them which have born both the charges, are either before this order was established of god, or being sithence, were extraordinary: last of all, seeing this mingling of the estates is contrary to the practice of the elder church uttered both in Counsels, and fathers, contrary also to the practice and judgement of the godly learnedest of our time: I conclude, that it is unlawful in an established estate of the church, that a Minister of the church should bear civil office. And thus much against the Ministers, which have one foot in the church, and an other in the common wealth. Now to the treatise of the Eldership, for the cause 
a In the beginning of this tract●te.  before assigned.   

THAT THE CHURCH GOVERNMENT BY AN ELDERSHIP IN Every congregation: is by the ordinance of god, and perpetual. Tractat 8. and 7. according to the Doctor p. 626.  
THat which ᵃ Tully saith of an Orator full 
Chap. 1. Diuis. 1. a In philip. of Antony.  of words, that he would make owtcries, to get an appetite to drink: may be feared somewhat otherwise in the D. who giveth suspicion, that he hath forced his pen to writ, not to get, but to quench (if it might be) the thirst of honour. And verily if this order of Eldership, had not strength to stand by our defence: yet the vertw of it might easily appear, in that it so amazeth, and astonieth the adversary, as if he had been stricken with a thunderbolt from heaven: so that beside a multitude of words, wherewith by oppressing the reader, he might make some show of answer, there will be little found, that can of right chalendg a reply. Howbeit, to honour him with some answer, leaving his disordered handling which I noted: aswell for that his defence is fond, as for that this is not the place to deduct that matter, let us see, what he bringeth in this cause.  
Against that I alleged out of the Apostle, The Elders 
1. Tim. 5. 17  which rule vuel, are vuorthy double honour, especially which labour in the word and doctrine, to prove that there were Elders, which assisted the teaching Ministers, only in the government of the church: he answereth first, that the word, Elder, is the same commonly with Bishop or Pastor: wherein partly he confuteth himself. For, if it be but commonly so taken, and not always: than it may be taken otherwise in this place. His first example likewise out of Peter 1. 5. is plain against him: for thereby appeareth, that Peter an apostle, and no Bishop, is called Elder. neither is there any word in that place, whereby the exhortation to the Elders should not be applied, as well to the Elders which governed only, as to those which laboured in the word also: considering that the word of feeding, respecteth not only preaching, but that government also which is with out preaching: in which respect both in scripture, and otherwise, the civil Magistrate is said to feed: And it is to great an oversight, to think that because all Bishops be Elders, therefore all Elders are Bishops: when as the name of Elder is common unto all, which have government of the church, and most properly agreeth to those, which have the government only, without further charge of teaching. And the name is taken, of the usage under the law: where they which had only government either in church or common wealth, were so called.  
Secondly he saith, that by those that governed, and laboured not in the word: are understanded, those, which ministered the sacraments. where to let pas that which hath, and shall be after (god willing) showed, that the same ought to be Ministers of the word and Sacraments: I would know of him, which hangeth so of the interpretation of men, why he hath here departed from the judgement of the learned and godly writers of our age, and forged an interpretation, which hath no approbation of any ancienty. For, as for that he saith of chrysostom, beside that it is untrue: if he had never so small a sound that way, he would have rung it so deep, that withal he would have turned Chrysostom's clapper. But observe, how unproperly he maketh the Apostle to speak, in giving the name of government unto that, wherein there is no government at al. For is it not (think you) a strong kind of government, and needeth it not a great gift of discretion and judgement, to power a little water upon the child's head, distribute a loaf of bread, carry the cup, and say, or read a sentence, all, as he is prescribed? when the Apostle, no where giveth this title of government unto the Deacons, in whom notwithstanding is required no common discretion, to know to whom, and how much is to be given: how much less would he give it to such, as have the only, and bore administration of the Sacraments.  
How should also S. Paul be made to agreed with himself, which went the nearest way to work, to ease the churches of charges: if he should have brought into it, such unprofitable burdens as is this order of Ministers of Sacraments, which the D. imagineth, especially seeing a Pastor was needful in every church, who being present at the Sacraments, might as commodiously Minister them, as be a receiver only. His reason, that the Apostle would otherwise have said, which laboured in the word and Sacraments, is weak: not only because it is usual unto the scripture, by the chief part to note the whole, but also, for that the Sacraments are contained under the word, and are a visible word, in which respect they are also said to have a voice. Neither doth he here 
a Exod 4. vers. 8.  make mention of praying, another of the Bishop's 
b Act. 6. 4.  duties: so that by your answer, we should have an other order in the church, of Sayers of prayers. Alike vain it is, that S. Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach, when he was called to both, although rather to the one, than to the other, as yourself some where have confessed. As for that you would conclude, that Pastors have no more bond to baptize in their churches, than S. Paud had, you might aswell have concluded, that all Pastors are apostles: considering, that he speaketh that in respect of his Apostleship, whereby he was bound to go from place to place, and not to tarry (as the pastor) in one place.  
The titles of Christ's Vicars, and of gods Prelates, do both agreed unto the Elders, which only govern. And although neither Ambrose nor Caluin make any mention of this Eldership upon ●. Timoth. 5. 19 yet how followeth it, that they meant no such Eldership in the place which I 
a Tim. 5. 17  alleged, this is but a strange conclusion. M Caluins place also Institut. chap. 8. sect. 72, is shamefully abused: for he saith, that those which teached were Elders. And where as the rule of the action, when the Eldership met, appertained unto the Ministers of the word: that they chose amongst them, one which governed the action. Now in steed that M. Caluin saith, that all the Ministers of the word, were called Elders: ●he An. maketh him to say, that all the Elders of the church, were Ministers of the word. where Caluin in the self same chapter doth expressly make two kind of Elders: one of those which Ministered the word, another of those which were only Censores of the manners of the church. This Jerome is (if I have not taken my note amiss) a bastard: and yet he hath nothing for him. For in that he saith that there was and order, which had the word, but laboured not: he is as favourable unto this Eldership, as unto his order of sacrament Ministers. The next division hath nothing, but that which cometh afterward to be handled.  
Against the place, that 
a Act. 14. 23  Paul and Barnabas ordained 
Divis 3 p●●. 628.  Elders by voices in every church, first he excepteth, that the plentith of preachers than was such, that every congregation where Paul and Barnabas had to do, might have more than one: which is said without either proof, or likelihood. the untruth whereof may easily appear, in that to the great cities, where there was greatest store: S. Paul was fain to sand Timothy and Titus for supplies, which otherwise he could so hardly spare. Then he saith, to ordain Elders through every church, is to ordain one Pastor in every one, which is no plain, but a figurative speech, and that doubly: both in that the general name of Elder, is put for the particular, and in that the plural number is put for the singular. Therefore unless he can work it out with good reasons, to prove that the governing Elders, can not here be understanded: the simple and plain sens, is to be praeferred. As for the place of Titus, it helpeth him not. For the apostle referring Titus to that order, which he had prescribed him: contenteth himself, to pursu the office of the teaching Elder, upon occasion of false teachers, which troubled the church.  
For that out of Caluin and Brentius, it may be said, that although S. Luke call them Elders, which were Bishops: yet he calleth them not so only. And of M. Caluin, it must needs be so understanded: seeing he avoucheth the place of Titus, 
Instit. 4. book 3. chap. sect. 8.  which the An. confesseth all one with the 14 acts, for the establishment of these governing Elders. But if the D. had read M. Nowel's catechism, so diligently as he would seem: 
a pag. 155.  this would not have been so strange to him. For where he showeth, that the Pastor ought not to excommunicate without the judgement of the church, and declareth that for that purpose there were in the well ordered churches certain Seniors chosen, and joined with the Pastor: he quoteth this very place, which the admonition doth. And I see not why, it may not be as well referred to the Elders, as to the Bishops: seeing S. Luke there setteth forth, how they set a full order in the church. And of that judgement, is the greek 
Oecumenius in 14. ctcto.  Scholiast, which affirmeth that those which folovued S. Paul and Barnabas, were vuorthy to be Bishops: and that they created of them Elders and Deacons also. In the next division, if the D. first answer be only considered, he might justly complain of me: but when he by and by, reasoneth against the admonition, for that it would prove Seniors out of that place of 14 Acts, all see that I have done him no wrong.  
To prove further, that both Pastors, and Elders which 
Diuis. 5. p. 630.  only govern, can not be understanded in that place of the Acts: he assigneth this reason, for that the holy ghost should use equivocations, or speak dowtfully: than which, there can be nothing more unsavoury. For it is a great oversight, that he can not put a difference, between a word that is general, and hath divers forms under it (of which sort this word Elder is) and between that which hath divers significations. Rather I may say, that for so much as S. Luke did not use, the particular word of Bishop, but the word Elder, which containeth both Bishop, and other Elders: that his meaning was, not that the Bishops only should be meant. And surely, when as the word Elder, doth so agreed to Bishops, that it doth much more properly (as hath been showed) agreed to the Seniors: it were hard to understand Bishops, and shut out Seniors, to whom that name doth most properly pertain: especially there being no circumstance in that place, whereby that should be of necessity tied to the Pastor only. Beside that those which have knowledge in the Hebrew tongue, know that the scripture useth some times 
a judg. 10. 4 judg. 15. 16.  equivocations, and yet nothing thereby derogated from the simplicity thereof: but (as it is 
b Aben Esra upon Gen.  observed) maketh sometime to the elegancy, and ornament of the speech.  
That the place to the 
c 1. Cor. 12. 28.  Corinth. can not be understanded 
Divis. 6. & 7. pag. 631.  of civil Magistrates, as the An. and 
d Dorman. 2. Tom. fol. 45.  Papists would have it, and therefore that it ought to be understood of ecclesiastical officers, I have 
e In the former part of this booK pag. 418.  showed: whereof also there is the same reason, in the place to the 
f Rom. 12. 8.  Romans. Neither can that out of M. Gualther, maintain any such opinion: seeing it was not lawful for the church, to appoint any ordinary Magistrate, to hear civil causes: neither needed any either go to them for judgement, or stand unto the judgement given, further than the parties listed, therefore that could not be any government, which was without authority. How true it is, that learned men expound the word governments, of civil and ecclesiastical, at the lest to the D. knowledge: the reader may thereby know, that Gualther which he chose to speak for them all, doth not affirm it. For in that he saith, there is now no need of them seeing there is a Christian Magistrate: he manifestly opposeth them to a Christian Magistrate. unless M. gualter's authority, may not be received in this question of discipline. For beside that his hand, is herein against the learned both old, and nue which I have either read or heard of, also against the practice approved in the churches of all ages, and amongst them against the practice also, used in ours: it shall appear, that the reasons drawn from him, are altogether insufficient.  
Then he saith, that by that word Governors, the Pastors may be understanded, because having spoken of the Doctor before, he mentioned not the Pastor: which is absurd, both because it should be a marvelous confusion, to have carried the Pastor so far from his fellows, which are the Ministers of the word, and reckoned up in the beginning: and for that, the Pastor is not severed from the Doctor in governing, but only in the kind of teaching. whereas he, by his answer, shutteth out the Doctor from the government of the church. Beside that howsoever I do make a Pastor, and a Doctor, divers: yet for as much as himself, maketh them all one, S. Paul placing the Doctor before, he ought to have been ashamed to say that S. Paul may mean this of the Pastor. That he addeth, that the place being doubtful, it can not serve to establish the Seniors, is dangerously spoken, and smelleth of popery: as if the scripture should loose her authority, because men agreed not of the understanding of it. although (I suppose) there are few places of scripture, wherein things are spoken of, so shortly: that have so full consent of learned interpreters of our time, as this place hath, for that signification of Seniors, which we use it for. And in deed, when the Apostle maketh it a distinct office, from the Ministers of the word, which notwithstanding have the government of the church: it must needs be an office occupied in government alone, otherwise it should not be severed, from their office.  
The same reason, is of the place to the Romans: against 
Rom. 12.  which, that which the D. bringeth out of Caluin, is nothing worth. For although the precept of bearing rule in diligence, may by proportion, be carried to all Magistrates, yea and to all crafts men, over their Apprentices: yet the words of the Apostle, are nevertheless understood properly of the Elders in question, as M. Caluin declareth both there, and 
a Instit. 4. booK 1●. chap. 1. sect.  other where. Likewise are M. Martyr etc. Bucer, idly cited of him. For seeing they both agreed, that these Elders are comprehended in that word: what either hurteth it us, or helpeth it him, that other beside them are understanded.  
If they preached some time, that was not by vertw of this office: and the place of Timothy alleged of M Beza, doth not prove it. Neither ought the An. to have alleged that interpretation, against this cause: seeing himself doth therein differ from M. Beza, as well as I, which by presidents in the word, hath before expounded the Bishop, as it is in deed and not as M. Beza, for a kind of Elder, differing both from the Pastor, and Doctor. But the An. is like that fellow that would have both his eyes put out, that his neighbour might lose one. For to the end he may do some scare to the truth, he bringeth even that which is the overthrow of his cause: namely M. Bezas judgement of an Eldership governing, beside the Ministers of the word, that is beside both Pastor and Doctor. And of this truth which we maintain out of this place unto Timothe, amongst others, we have M. 
a in lib. de rat. can. examine.  Bucers' most plain and most full testimony: which upon this sentence of S. Paul, flatly confirmeth that there were two kind of Elders: one, which together with the discipline, had the charge of the word and Sacraments, and another, which had charge of the discipline only. I confess there was some fault here, in ascribing words unto him, which he hath not: but it was an oversight only, not as he maketh it, with mind to forge.  
Here the An. repenteth him of his good deeds. For where 
Diuis. 8. p. 633.  he had accorded before, that there were such Elders, as are in question: now he saith, he meant them of Seniors, which be Ministers. whereupon it followeth, that it is not meet that there should be any Ministers at this time. For of the same Elders, which he granted to have been in times past: he affirmeth, it inconvenient that they should be now. And if he say (as he hath said) that they were only Ministers of Sacraments, first he giveth his reading Ministers the wipe, which by this judgement of his, are clean cut of, as utterly inconvenient for this tyme. Again, he affirmeth that the Seniors in times past, were such as exercised the jurisdiction, which the Magistrate doth now: in that he saith, that they can not now be without injury of the Magistrate. whereas if this office were, either a Ministry of the word, or Sacraments, it could not touch the office of the Magistrate: so that through the naughtiness of this cause, in his whole course of answer, he doth nothing, but as it were pave his way, with snares to entrap himself. And for answer to him, this may be more than sufficient.  
Howbeit for the reader's sake, although this Eldership is manifest in itself, of the words of the holy scripture: yet the same shall receive some confirmation of the practice of the churches after, which kept this order both in persecution and peace. This I will do, if I first in a word, note how this order of Eldership, was taken from the government of the people of god, before and under the law. it is therefore to be observed, that so soon as there is made mention, of any fixed form of church, which standing of divers households, were divided into particular assemblies: so soon is made mention, of this office of Elders. For Moses to let the 
Exo. 4. 29.  churches, and assemblies of the Israelites to understand his Embassage from god: assembled the Elders. which, that they were ecclesiastical officers, thereby may appear: for that under such a Tyrant, and such oppression as the Israelites were in, it is altogether unlike, that they had the benefit of Magistrates of their own. And if a man would say, that those Elders were the Taskmasters, which Pharaoh had set over the Israelites: beside divers unlikelihoodes thereof, it is flatly confuted, in that after the Israelites departure out of Egypt, before any nue creation of officers, this order of Elders is spoken of, and as church officers, 
a Exo. 17. 5.  taken to the administration of church matters.  
Another example hereof is, 
b 2. Reg. chap. 6. 32.  where Elizeus is said to have had the Elders in his house, to consult with: what time the king of Israel, sent a messenger to take of his head. The like is said, of other 
c jerem. 19 cap. 1. Ezech. 8. 1.  Prophets: which in that state they were in, were utterly unlike to have the civil governors to consult with. Likewise in Nehemia, there are mentioned certain, 
Nehem. 8. 5.  which as they are distinguished from the people, in that they are reckoned as assistants unto Esra, both on the right, and left hand: so be they also distinguished, from the teaching Levites, in that the Prophet, after he had spoken of these, speaketh of that sort of Levites, which had the 
vers. 8. 10.  teaching of the people. This is also strenghtned, by that the nue testament speaking of the ecclesiastical officers amongst the jews, joineth with the Scribes (which I have 
d In the former part of this booK pag. 443.  showed to note those, that had the handling of the word) the elders: which should have been without reason, if there 
a Acts 4. 5 & 6. 12. etc. Act 5. 21. b pag. 304.  had not been a kind of Elders, which had not the handling of the word. whereby it may appear, that it is wntrue, which the An. gathereth out of Caluins' words: that these Elders should have their beginning, after the jews return out of the captivity: whereas he only affirmeth, that there was a bench or (as some term it) a consistory of ecclesiastical offices appointed, after their return: but saith not (as he pretendeth) that they were then first of all appointed. Neither can M. Caluins' words, be drawn to that sens. For, if by these words of his (the Sanedrim were appointed after the jues' return) should be understood, that they were then first created, and not rather, that they were then restored: it must follow, that the Priests and other levitical teachers, which were a portion of that bench, had then their first institution. which sentence so absurd, and so full of ignorance of the state of the church: no man which hath a spark of equity, can ascribe unto M. Caluin. although if it were so, as he pretendeth, that these Elders did then begin: yet, that helpeth him nothing at al. For it should not have therefore, the les authority: considering that it were to be esteemed, that they took it not up of their own head, but by the authority of the Prophets of god, which lived then, and directed the stern of that government. And herein (howsoever the An. misconstrueth him) M. Caluin is 
upon the 18. of S. matthew.  flat: that this estate was lawful, and approved of god.  
Having thus spoken, of this order of Elders, in the Apostles times, and before: I will now return to that I promised, of the practice of the churches after the Apostles times, to see if this order of Elders can find any more favour of them, then of the Answerer. Amongst which, that of Tertullian, 
Tertu. Apolog. chap. 39  before alleged of me, is most clear. Neither can the D. escape with this, that the college was likely to be of Ministers of the word etc. considering that it is uncredible, that all the churches, whose defence Tertullian taketh upon him, and whose usage he describeth, had such a college. Then, that of Cyprian cometh to be considered, which noteth a piece of the office of these Elders, 
a Cyp. 4. booK. Epist. 5.  by dividing the communion bread into equal portions and carrying it (for the assistance of the Bishop) in little baskets or trays: where by placing their office in this assisting the Minister, he doth manifestly shut them out from the ministering of the Sacrament: especially seeing Cyprian in that place, noteth the honour of that office, to consist in that they had by reason of it, access to this assistance of the Pastor, in so great mysteries. which should have been fond put, if they might also by virtue of that office, themselves have ministered the Sacraments, as well as the Bishop: whereof also it cometh, that in another 
b 1. booK ep●. 9 Sportulantes fratres. Possid●●s in the life of Augustin.  place, he calleth them brethren, which had care of the basket.  
But touching the use of the African churches, until augustin's time, that one testimony is more than sufficient: whereby is affirmed, that Valerius Bishop of Hippo, did contrary to the custom of the African church, in that he committed the office of teaching unto Augustin, which was an Elder of that church, and that he was checked therefore of the Bishops: checked (I say) notwithstanding that Valerius is there declared, to have done it for support of his infirmity, because himself was not so apt to preach. And howsoever Possidonius, allow of Valerius fact: yet both the continuance of that order by the space of 400 years, and the judgement of other Bishop's round about, is without comparison of more weight: especially, when it appeareth by Possidonius writings, that (being a good simple man) he was neither of great learning, nor deep judgement. where also, it is to be observed, that as the discipline was best kept in those churches of Africa: so the doctrine remained purest in them: As may appear not only by the Counsels of Carthage, compared with other counsels of that time, but also by augustin's writings, compared with Jerome's, and other Doctors both greek and latin, in the same age.  
In other churches, where this discipline was not so diligently looked unto: there are notwithstanding marks, whereby we may know, that they went out of the way. As at Alexandria, where, although the Elders did teach: yet after Arrius was convicted of heresy, it was decreed, that the Elders should no more teach. by which 
Socrat. 5. booK chap. 22.  decree, they did, as it were, covertly confess: that they had received the reward of breaking the order of god, in permitting that the Elder, should teach in the church. For if it had been of the institution of an Elder, to preach: Neither Arrius, nor ten thousand more such heretic Elders, ought to have given cause of such a decree: seeing the institution of the lord ought not to be broken, for any abuse of men. Jerome (I grant) somewhere doth reprehend 
Ad Nepotian.  this, and some learned of our time after him, have esteemed the decree of Alexandria faulty herein. But that being considered, which I have alleged, there is no cause to condemn that decree, whether it were of the Nicen council, or of Athanasius and the Eldership of Alexandria. And what if Jerome himself, although an Elder of Rome, give testimony unto this cause: that is to say, that it belongeth not unto an Elder of the church, to minister the word, or Sacraments? Let his words be weighed, whereby he confesseth plainly, that neither Elder nor Deacon 
jerom contr● Lucifer.  had right, but upon the Bishop's commandment, so much as to baptize: which notvuithstanding (saith he) is licensed even to lay-men in time of necessity. Vnhereunto also, refer that, which Tertullian writeth, that it belonged unto the Bishop only to baptize: and that the Elder 
Tertul. lib. de Baptis.  and Deacon could not baptize, but upon the Bishop's licence.  
Now, if the Elders had no right to preach etc. by reason of their office, or as incident into it, if the Bishop only had right, and the other but by indulgence, or commandment: thus far we have both Tertul. and Jerome agreeing with us, that by the word of god and his institution, the Elder hath not to do with the word and Sacraments. And the same authors we have also, flatly contrary to the D. which holdeth (as appeareth by the discourse of his book) that all Elders and Deacons of the church, although not in government, yet touching the ministry of the word and sacraments, are equal, and have as much authority, as the Bishop himself. This difference only remaineth, between Jerome and us, whether this being not of god's institution, that an Elder may preach, or Minister the sacraments: it be lawful for any man, to give licence thereof. which boldness of removing and changing the bounds, which the lord, in the tarriers of his word hath limited: both is before, and shall afterward (god willing) be further handled.  
Last of all, for proof of these church Elders, which being occupied in the government, had nothing to do with the word: the testimony of Ambrose alleged in my former book, is so clear and open, that he which doth not give place unto it, must needs be thought as a bat, or an owl, or some other night bird, to delight in darkness. His saying is, that the Elders fell avuay by the ambition of the Doctors: 
Ambros. in 2. Timot. 5.  where by opposing the Elders to Doctors, which taught, he plainly declareth that they had not to do with the word. whereupon it is manifest, that both it was the use in the best reformed churches, certain hundredth years after the times of the Apostles, to have an Eldership which meddled not with the word, nor administration of Sacraments: and that they which wanted it, partly complained of the want, partly declining from this institution of god, corrected their error, at the lest, they kept this difference, that whereas the Bishop preached and ministered the Sacraments, in right of his office: the Elder did it not as a thing incident to his office, but only upon indulgence of the Bishop.  
Another point wherein the D. turneth his tongue is, that where he confessed before, that there was in every church Seniors: now he saith, in some only. And to salve this contradiction, with himself: he saith by every church, he meant, every chief city. Thus you speak, but by what rule, and according to whose language, when you expound every church, every chief city? as if their were no churches, but in chief cities. But thus must all their tongues be divided, which put them forth against the truth. Howbeit to come to that point, by what reason can you show, that the Apostles instituted a several Ministry for chief cities, which they did not for uplandish towns? what were this, but to bring in an inequality, amongst the churches: which yourself otherwhere, confess ought not to be. It is (I grant) meet for the furtherance of the gospel, that the chiefest cities, when all can not be served, should have the first, the sufficientest, and (according to their need) the greater numbered: but, that they should have a several Ministry ordained for them, into the fellowship whereof, the smalller churches may not be admitted, is without reason.  
Secondly, the gospel which containeth the doctrine and discipline, went not out of jerusalem, into the chief cities only: but into all the world. Thirdly, it hath been showed, that the epistle of S. Paul to Timothy, wherein mention is made of the entertainment of these Elders: was not a rule prescribed to churches in great cities only, but unto all churches wherosoever. Further, seeing the Elders are continually joined, with the Bishop: it being 
a In the former part. p. 514.  showed, that the lord ordained for every congregation a Bishop, it must follow, that he ordained for every congregation Elders. finally, for as much as the Apostles laboured, to bring the churches one with another to an uniformity, even in the smallest ceremonies: how can they be thought, to have made so uneven work, in the Ministry of the church.  
I let pas here the place in the Acts, before handled: where 
Act. 14.  it is said, that Elders were ordained in every church. Likewise, the necessity of them, aswell in other churches, as in churches in the city: which is after to be handled. Only I will note, what hath been the practice of the churches, in this point: whereby may appear, how the ancient fathers have understood this order. That Ignatius, which the An. 
Ad Tralli.  will have S. john's scholar affirmeth, that there is no church, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which can stand without her Eldership, or Counsel. This is manifest also by the Apology of Tertullian, wherein he defending the government of all the churches, not of those only in cities, and showing for that cause the order observed in them: maketh precise mention of this Senate of Elders, as hath been before alleged. The testimony of M. Bucer, is also manifest in this point: as it is alleged of me 
a In the former part. p. ●56.  before. Likewise of M. 
b upon the ●. to the Corinth. 12. chap.  Martyr, who affirming that certain of the people, were joined with the Pastor in the government of the church: assigneth the cause, for that the Pastor could not do all himself, thereby giving to understand, that the Eldership was as general, as the Pastor. For he doth not say, where the Pastor could not do all, there he had assistance of an Eldership: but because the Pastor could not do all etc.  
The only reason, which the An. hath against this, is: that there was not an Eldership amongst the jews, in every of their synaguoges. But (as his wont is) he doth only say so, proof he bringeth none. And as I for my part confess, that there cometh not to my mind, whereby I could precisely conclude it out of the old Testament: So I am assured, that he is not able to prove, that which he saith. But that which the D. affirmeth 
c p. 663.  otherwhere, that it was only at jerusalem: is utterly untrue. For josaphat at one time, set in judges in every vualled city throvughovut the kingdom of juda: which of 
2. Chro. ●9. 5. 8. 11.  what sort they were, namely, in part civil, in part ecclesiastical, appeareth by the judges placed in jerusalem. And to them men had recourse to, in matters of greater difficulty, according to the causes: if civil, to the civil, if ecclesiastical, to the ecclesiastical, judgement. where ought not to be forgotten, the numbered of cities in one only tribe (as it might be in york sheer) to the numbered of a hundredth and twelve: lest that the 
joshua ch. 15.  reader, should measure the numbered of their cities, with ours. So that where the Answ. saith, that there was but one Senate in all the twelve tribes: it is found that there were in one only tribe, at the lest, a hundredth ant twelve ecclesiastical Elderships. Whether it may be concluded out of the nue Testament, that every synagogue of the jews had this Eldership, considering that the policy of the church now, was in this point taken from the jues' church, I leave it to the reader to judge, of that which I have alleged. whereunto aideth the custom of the jews, unto this day: which in every of their synaguogues, have their Elders: Likewise Jerome's testimony, of which it may be certainly collected: that he esteemed that the jews had their Elders, in every synagogue. For, he 
a Ad Alg●siam quest. decim.  showeth that they chose of the vuisest in their company, for governors: which should asvuel admonish those that had any corporal pollution, to abstain from the assemblies, as to reprove the breakers of the ceremonies of the Sabbat. now, seeing there was the same use of these admonitions and reproofs as well in uplandish synaguoges, as in those which were planted in the cities: it followeth necessarily, that there were Elders aswell for them, as for the other. At the lest, the nue Testament in marking these Elders, 
MarK. 5. 2● Act. 13. 15. Act. 18. 8, 17.  which it calleth chief of the synagogue, in divers quarters: doth manifestly overthrow the D. which saith, that they were only at jerusalem. upon all which matter, appeareth how extremely bold you are in your affirmations: which beside these two before mentioned, say also, that the Eldership was not always, not not in persecution. wherein, not to enter a nue field, for every light word you cast forth: what reason (I pray you) can you assign, why sometimes there should be an Eldership under pecsecution, and other some times none: considering that you imagine this Eldership, to be in place of a Christian Magistrate. whereby, it must needs follow, that his seat being voided in time of persecution: it ought to be occupied by the Eldership, which you fancy, to be his Lieutenant. whether the D. pincheth the 
Chap. 2. diuis. 1. p. 633.  churches, where, with a Christian Magistrate, the Eldership still remaineth, which he here denieth: let the reader judge of his former book, 
b pag. 633. 639. 642. 656. 660.  where he affirmeth it injurious to the Magistrate, and full of confusion, also that it can not, nor ought not to be as in the Apostles times etc.▪ yea let him judge of this division. For after that he granteth to Princes, to commit their authority to the church if they list (than which there is nothing more untrue) he addeth whether it be well done, I will not determine. wherein I beseech you mark first, what contraries he speaketh. For he doth determine precisely, that civil Magistrates may commit their right and authority to these Elders, if they will: and yet, he will not determine whether it be well done or no. whereas if he would not have determined, of the one, he should have suspended his judgement, of the other: for thus he assureth them, they may do that, whereof he will make them no assurance, that it is well doen. Secondly, it is to be observed, that where the question was of the Bishops receiving of civil authority from the Prince, he maketh it not only lawful, but convenient, yea necessary that it should be derived from the Prince to the Bishop: but here towards the Eldership, he saith, it can not be practised, without intolerable contentions and extreme confusion. So that the Bishop, Archdeacon's, and Deans, which with us are the deepest churchministers, may exercise (if the Prince will commit it unto them) even the highest civil jurisdiction, and that to the singular advancement of the church: but these Elders, whose office in the church is not such, but that both they have, and may follow some civil trade of life, may not receive that power of the Magistrate which he untrwly affirmeth that they had in time of persecution, on less all, by and by, fall upon heaps. In one and the same church, the Bishop, the Dean, the Archdeacon, and for a need, some of the prebendaries, may have beside their ecclesiastical jurisdiction, civil authority: but these Elders, although they were but two in numbered, may in no wise use any. This difference verily, riseth not in the breadth of shoulders, whereby they are able to carry all this, and the Elders none: but upon the wideness of the throat, which as the grave, is never filled.  
Thirdly, it is to be observed, that the D. which for his own profit, stretcheth the power of the Prince beyond all bounds: here, as if he had to do with a cheverel sceptre, draweth it in. For he giveth more liberty herein, unto the Magistrates of small common wealths: then unto monarchs. For to them, he seemeth sometime to leave it at liberty, whether they will communicate their authority unto these Elders, or retain it with themselves: but unto kings and Princes, he will in no wise permit it. Wherein also, he is contrary to himself: which in another place saith, 
a pag. 764.  that the office of the civil Magistrate, may be committed unto whom soever it pleaseth him best to like of. If that be true, and this jurisdiction of the Elders were (as he untruly saith) belonging to the civil Magistrate: why might not the Prince, commit it unto these Elders? as for his reason, that so every parish should be a kingdom: 
Diuis. 12. p. 643. Divis. 2. & 3. pag 634.  it cometh to be answered, in another place.  
To that I alleged of the necessity of the Eldership, because the Pastor can not have his eye, in every corner of his parish etc. he answereth, an able Pastor, is able to do all required of a Pastor, which is no answer at al. For that is not the question, but this, whether he be able to do, whatsoever church government belongeth to the wealth of his church: which because he durst not affirm, or affirming it, had nothing to prove it, he slipped away after this sort. And now that he understandeth, that this reason is confirmed by M. Peter Martyr: I trust hereafter, he will give it some honester name, than my fancy.  
To that I alleged, that if the ancients should not be under a Christian Magistrate, it vuould folovu that the lord should have les care of his church under a Christian, then under an unchristian Magistrate: he answereth, that the Christian Magistrate is in place of the Eldership, but neither addeth reason himself, nor once toucheth the reason which I brought, namely that it vuas never lawful for the church in persecution, to appoint any that should enter upon any part of the civil Magistrates office. This also could not be a sufficient recompense, in matters pertaining to the soul health, that for an Eldership in every church, they should receive one Prince in a whole country. For one Prince, can not in the spiritual government of the realm bring that to pas, which the Eldership in every church did before: although he should do nothing, but attend upon that. So that to make the Magistrates to succeed into the office of the Elders, and therein to do all the duties appointed unto the Eldership in times past: is to charge the Magistrates with a thing unpossible, and such as must needs kill their consciences.  
Thus, where the Christian magistrate is given of god, to keep the order which god hath set in his church: you bring him in as a breaker and changer of the order, which god hath appointed by his holy Apostles. But the godly Christian Magistrates may understand, that as neither our Saviour Christ, nor any wise and well instructed ministry under him, will meddle with any order or form of common wealth lawfully instituted of them, for the better government of their people, but leave them as they find them: So they ought to leave whole and untouched, that order which Christ hath placed in his church. And as the An. saith truly otherwhere, that Christ came not to overthrow civil governments: even so it is 
p. 647.  as true, that god sendeth not kings to overthrow church government, planted by Christ and his Apostles. Yea so much more absurd is this later, than the first: by how much they ought to have more firmity, which were set by the lord himself, than which were by men. For what son of Adam shall presume to altar that order, which the lord himself from heaven hath set, And even so doth the Apostle precisely speak of this office with others, that 
a 1. Cor. 12. 28.  god hath set it in the church. If it be said, that he set also Prophets and workers of miracles, which are now no more: it is true, they are now no more, but why are they not? Is it, because any man hath removed them? no verily, but because the lord himself, hath withdrawn them. For if the lord had given even unto these days, these gifts of healing and working of miracles etc. I think there is no man so extremely impudent, that would say, that the civil Magistrate might abolish or put them down. Beside that, it is untrue which he saith 
b p. 659.  otherwhere, that this office is placed amongst those, which be temporal: for even that next before it, noteth the office of the Deacon, which is perpetual.  
As for that he crieth out and so often repeateth, that, by this means, no more is given to the Christian Magistrate, then to the Turk, proceedeth only of a famine of reasons to answer, which driveth him to this unruliness: otherwise, he can not tell how the establishment of this office, should spoil the 
2. Cor. 1. 13.  Prince of her authority. S. Paul professeth of himself, that he vurote the same, that men read, that is to say sincerely, not pretending one thing and meaning another: but all this jealousy, pretended for the Prince against the Eldership, is in deed for the Bishop. So that, albeit the name of the Magistrate be holden out, to draw this cause into hatred: yet the truth is, that it is to establish their own tyranny. For as touching authority or pre-eminence, there is nothing given, to be done by the Eldership jointly with the Pastor, in one only congregation: all which, and more to, the Bishop himself alone, doth not undertake to execute in a whole diocese or province. Therefore, if the exercise of this spiritual jurisdiction in the Eldership, spoil the Magistrate of his authority: then the Bishops, are the chief in this robbery.  
Where he asketh, how I show out of the scripture, that those are the duties of the Elders, which I have assigned. I answer, that forasmuch as S. Paul appointeth them governors of the church, together with the teaching governors, placing the difference 
1. Tim. 5. 17  only in teaching, and consequently in public prayer and administration of sacraments, which are joined with it, or comprehended under it: that therefore, the rest, remain common between them, to be done as well of these, as of them.  
That the place of S. Matthew, is not to be understanded 
Diuis. 4. p. 636. Math. 18.  only of private offences: I have 
a In the former part. p 66.  before declared. your interpretation of tell the church, that is publicly reprove those which, admonished privately, repent not: is evil nurtured, breaking in without leave. where mark (good reader) how easy it is for the D. to writ answers, which being pressed giveth himself this liberty: that having no key to open the door, breaketh it open after this sort. To interpret tell by reprove, might have some colour, by that the general is some time put for the special: but that tell the church, should be, reprove the offender, hath a disease, that all the tropes and figures which I have read of, are not able to cure. And me thinketh, that you which accuse others for making the scripture a nose of wax: if you will not put of your shoes, at the lest you should wipe them a little cleaner, when you enter into the lords Sanctuary. That which followeth, is not a whit better.  
For, after he saith that, by the church may be meant one only, so that he be in authority: which is not unlike unto that, which the papists say, that a man may appeal from the Council, unto 
Concil. Ton. 4. Basilienf. council.  the Pope. whereof, some of the papists themselves (if he do not repent) shall sit in judgement: which leaving unto the Pope the highest place in the church, have notwithstanding upon this place, preferred the judgement of the Council, to the Popes. But where I require some example of this monstrous speech, whereby one is said to be many, one member a body, one alone a company: the D. is dumb. where I show further, that if one only should be understood by the church, that then the going from three to one, should not rise but fall, not go forvuard but bakvuard: he answereth, that to tell one which hath authority to correct the fault, is more than to tell twenty: as although the complaint is made, to the end he should be corrected, and not that he should be admonished. For as for correction, other then by words, it ought not to be awarded, unless he refuse to hear the church: so that here still the process is, from the admonition which is by many, to that which is by one. And if the Pastor be he, that doth first privately admonish him, and afterward take two more: by his answer, the Pastor must from his own admonition in the presence of one or two more, take the matter to himself, and admonish himself alone.  
He having thus dallied with the holy scripture, after confesseth that by the word church, are understood many: but those out of chrysostom are (saith he) Prelates and Presidents: as although S. Paul, did not also call these Elders presidents, which is all one 
1. Tim. 5. 17  with Prelates. Then he addeth, that the place is understanded of the government under the law, not of any rule which our Saviour Christ gave, to govern his church under the gospel: even as where our S. Christ biddeth, to leave the gift before the Altar: which overthroweth his other interpretation. And again out of Musculus, that it was but unto the time of the Christian Magistrate: which overthroweth also this next before. But if this be either the law government, or the gospel government only, until the time of the Christian Magistrate: then to admonish privately him that offendeth, to take one or two, if he rest not in the admonition, be also of the same sort. For our Saviour Christ putteth them alike general, alike necessary, of like limitation of time: for he chayneth them one with another, by the link of his commandment, that if this way profit not, than the second must follow, and the third after that.  
Then also it followeth, that the means to bring sinners to repentance, served only for the time of the law, and unchristian Magistrates. For after that our Sau. Christ, had taught how the lord delighteth in the return of the sinner, and in the fyneding of the lost sheep: he propoundeth this, as a principal mean, whereby he will have that brought to pas. But, let the D. show, any light out of the word of god, whereby it may appear, that certain of these commandements are temporal, and certain perpetual, certain to serve for the time of the law, and an unchristian Magistrate: if not, than the commandment of Christ remaineth, whereof neither he, nor none other can show any countermandement. Beside that it is absurd, that it should be here declared, what order was used under the law, and not under the gospel: when our Sau. Christ instructeth his Apostles, how to behave themselves in the church, and speaketh of the 
math. 18. 18.  order, that should be in his church, in time to come.  
That also which he citeth out of mathews, is flat against him. For, although our Sau. Christ useth manner of speeches, drawn from the service of god, which, then in use, be not so now: yet the commandment he there giveth, under that kind of speech, is perpetual. And as, what soever is abrogated of that precept Matthew 5, is abrogated by the prescript word of god, which teacheth us, that offering of calves upon the altar, and other ceremonial laws are done away: So, if he will have this ordinance of god abrogated, he must show us some place of Scripture, where our Sau. Christ repealed it. what we ascribe unto the Christian Magistrate, shall appear afterward.  
To the place of 
a 1. Tim 6. ●3.  Timothe, requiring a necessary observation 
Diuis. 5 p. 637  of things comprised in that Epistle: he answereth first, that these Elders are not there comprised, nor their office. I have showed, that both they and their office be there: which is the same with the Bishops, that only excepted, which I have 
b In diuis. 3 of this chapter.  before noted. Further in the word 
c 1. Tim. 3. 8  Deacons (as it is well 
d In the booK of the discipline of England.  observed) the Apostle comprehendeth both the Elders, and those which had the alms to dispose: which may appear, in that, describing the qualities of the Deacons, he noteth there no special quality, of him that hath the order of the church is treasure, but those qualities only which are common as well to the Elder, as to him that disposed the church money.  
After, he saith that those words can not be extended, unto all the precepts, first because the office of widows should be then necessary: But he doth not consider, that S. Paul ordaineth them not simply, but upon condition. if he had instituted the Eldership with condition, if he had ordained that office, rather for the maintenance of the persons themselves, then for the service of the church, if he had left so small choice of those to this office, as to that, namely that none might be chosen but poor, none but destitute of all friends, none under the age of lx years: then he had said somewhat. And even now, the perpetuity of that commandment touching widows, remaineth in that sort it was given: that is upon condition. Then he saith, that so, Ministers which have such infirmities as Timothe, should of necessity drink wine. By wine, the Apostle meaneth, not only the blood of the grape, but strong drink also, and what soever might be apt against Timothy's infirmities: And so it is a plain commandement, not only to Timothe, but to all ministers in his case, that they should use such remedies against their diseases, whereby they might be more able, to do their Ministry. Neither is it less, a perpetual commandment, to all Ministers, because all countries have not wine: then the commandment of excommunication, because all countries have not such Publicans, 
Math. 18.  as were in jury, to make their pattern of excommunication by.  
Last of all, he bringeth chrysostom and Caluin, which refer those words unto Timothes office: which is to no purpose. For Timothe for his part (and in his place the Minister of the word) had to do in all those offices, as well to ordain, as to reprehend and punish them, if they did not their duty: so that, in commanding Timothe to execute his duty, according to the tenure of that Epistle, he doth plainly command the maintenance of this office. whether the word, without spot, be referred unto Timothe, or unto the commandment, I leave to the reader's judgement: So I do the next division. In the next also, beside Musculus and Gualters' judgement, there is nothing saving an extreme, either forgetfulness, or that which is worse: in saying that he remembreth not to have read any author, that maketh mention of this Eldership. For if he had never read the authors themselves: yet he could hardly forget that out of them: which 
a In the end of the booK.  I alleged to that purpose.  
To the first reason, proving that an Eldership is more 
Diuis. 8. p. 640.  needful novu, then in the Apostles times, for that the Pastors novu are not of that sufficiency to govern all alone, as they were then: he answereth, that there be not also so sufficient men to make an Eldership now, as there were then: which serveth, aswell to prove that we should have no Pastors at all, as that there should be no Eldership, to support the Pastor. But how absurd is it, that because they can not give so full and plentiful assistance now, as the Elders in times past, therefore they must give no assistance at al. So that whiles he will say, that none of the parish can do any thing in the government of the church, but the Pastor alone: he must needs confess, that, that wchich may be, ought to be for support of the Pastor. his other answer, is 
a In this chap. divis. 2. & 3 Diuis. 9 p. 641.  before confuted.  
Secondly it was alleged, that S. Paul, so loeth to lay any unnecessary charge, upon the church: yet enjoined this ministry unto the poor and persecuted churches. The strength of which reason lieth in this, that some contribution was necessary to their maintenance then: where as novu in time of peace, this ministry, may be without all charges unto the church. To this, in stead of answer, he frameth other arguments of his own, wherewith he dallieth, skowreth up his old stuf of widows, and the civil Magistrate, before answered, allegeth the poverty of some parishes, the unwillingness of other some to contribute: which is a mere trifling. For seeing, the poverty of the churches could not exempt them from this charge, when they were much poorer 
●. Tim. 5. , as appeareth by S. Paul, seeing also it may be now without the charge of the church, as appeareth by the practice of the churches, which are so governed in these days, where there is not a penny allowed to any Elder: either he ought to confute this, or blush to set down that for answer: yet he is not afraid 
b pag 657.  after to put it, for a reason against the Eldership. whereunto may be added, that the churches in persecution, neither those now, nor other in times past, could have such helps of houses or lands, appropriated to the fineding of their ministry, as the churches with us: but were driven to pay for all of their own purse. And not that only, but constrained to pay their tithes, or other exactions, to the Idolatrous priesthood, of that place where they abode: which we are freed 
Diuis. 10. p. 641.  from, under a Christian Magistrate.  
To the third reason, that the declining of a popular rule, or that of the best, hath not so easy redress under a Tyrant, as under a Christian magistrate: he saith, men in persecution are not desirous of honour etc. which (in a manner) is as much to say, as men in persecution, cease to be men, and is untrue, as appeareth both in the 
a Gal. 1. 17. Phili. 2. 21. joh. 3. 9  Apostles times, and after, as I have 
b In the former part of this booK p. 500  showed. Secondly, he answereth, that the governors them, were but during the pleasure of such as ppointed them, whereof he bringeth no proof at all, and is likewise untrue, considering, that they were chosen to remain so long in their office as they behaved themselves unblamably: or at the lest, until a certain term, before which they could not by any equity, but upon their fault, or their own desire, be put out. In the first of which two cases, they are somewhere now, as they were then and in the later, they may if it seem expedient, even now, as well as then: so that here is no difference at all, between those, and these times. Neither doth he consider, that the governors, being corrupt, the greatest part of the church, is commonly led away with them: In which case, the church is without remedy under persecution, when notwithstanding she hath an easy remedy, under a Christian Magistrate.  
Thirdly he saith, that, this granted, the argument followeth not: reason he showeth none, but open askinges of that in question. And whether it follow well, that for so much as there is les inconvenience, in the government of the Eldership under a Christian magistrate, then under a Tyrant: therefore it may be better under him, then under a Tyrant, let all the world judge. his owtcourses, as also his open untruth, that I confess the church government to be a monarchy, I pass by: I only said, that it is a monarchy, in respect of our Sau. Christ, which is nothing to that purpose, he allegeth it for.  
In the fourth, that the Elders could not then meet vuithovut 
Diuis. 11. p. 642.  danger, which they may do novu, and therefore, that the government by one only, as of the Bishop, had been (if ever, then most convenient: he answereth, that it was not so dangerous, which is contrary to all reason, and experience. Then he saith, the church must be subject to the civil magistrate: whereby (as appeareth both in this division and in the next) he meaneth nothing else, but that it ought to allow of that church government, which the Magistrate will appoint, although it be divers from the Apostles, which is a fat begging of that in question. his first and third answers also, towch not the cause at al.  
Where against his distinction, that this government of Elders 
Divis 12 p. 643.  may be in a City, but not in a Realm, I alleged, that it hath had place, by his ovun confession, in a whole Realm: he saith, that that is true, where every church is, as it were, within it self a common wealth, as in France and other persecuted churches. wherein he doth shameful injury, to all those churches of god, and to the Apostles themselves which used that order: in ascribing unto them, as although they made new common wealths, or lived not under the same form of civil government, were not obedient unto the same civil laws, and to the same Magistrates, which the idolaters them selves were. what one, either action, or property can you assign in an Eldership, under a kingdom, which should 'cause this rent: that there should be so many common wealths, and so many kingdoms, as there are Elderships? why also doth this Eldership make a greater rent, in a monarchy where one governeth: then in a common wealth, where many govern. If you think therefore, because a monarchy is greater, than a common wealth, whereby there must be more Elderships in the one, then in the other: beside that the argument is nawght, that also whereupon it is grounded, is untrue. For, there are common wealths, where many rule, greater than the monarchies, where one only governeth: as Rome in times past, Venys within our remembrance, and such like.  
Where I alleged also, that, by his reason, a monarchy should not be good in the common vuealth, because the government of one is good in a hovushould, etc. He answereth, that the authority of the Master of the howshould, derogateth not from the Princes, but the Eldership doth: which is his accustomed beggary. where, in deed, the authority of a Master of a howshould, approacheth nearer unto the kind of government of the Magistrate, as that which hath, corporal punishment annexed unto it: then the authority of the Eldership, which meddleth not that way.  
And because I am entered into that example, I would know of him, which will have other governments, fashioned to the form of government of the common wealth: whether in a common wealth, where many have equal authority, the magistrate may ordain, that the father of the household, shall not rule his own house alone, or be chief in it, but shall have his wife of like authority, or some of his servants quarter Master. If he be ashamed of this, than he seeth that the wall of all his defence, against the discipline of the church, aswell in this cause, as in divers other, pauncheth: so that it is not able to abide, the vueight of a fox. For thus, there is not only (as he objecteth) a several government in every Town: but in every private house. And if the Master of the household may, and ought to retain his authority without prejudice of the Magistrate: why may it not be so, in the government of the church.  
what will he further say, to the Schoolmaster, which he otherwhere affirmeth to be an Ecclesiastical officer: may there not be, either two in one School, under a Prince, or one in one School under a common wealth where many have like authority, whiles the common wealth be thereby mangled, and the magistrates authority impaired? But of this matter, I have also spoken 
a In the former part of this booK. pag. 604.  otherwhere. Howbeit, whereas the D. allowing of this Eldership in a common wealth, can not abide it in a monarchy: I will say this further, that if there were any danger to a common wealth, by this Eldership, it should be greater to the small common wealths, then to great monarchies: considering that they, should not be able, so well to repress the Eldership overreaching and going beyond their bounds. And if the Elders hips authority, belong unto the magistrate (as he saith): then by how much, these magistrates have less power, and fewer prerogatives over their peoples, than the monarchs over their subjects, by so much have they more need, than the other, to keep all in their own hand.  
Upon his own confession, that there be more disordered persons 
Diuis. 13. p. 643.  now, then in time of persecution: I concluded that there needeth so much more assistance, for the Pastor to find them out, to judge of the quality of the fault, and to correct them with censures of the church. Hereunto he answereth, that it is better done by the Magistrate, and by corporal punishment: which is 
a diuis. 2. an 3. of this chapter.  before answered, although it be unworthy answer, considering that albeit the bodily punishment, were more apt to reform things amiss: yet thereof followeth not, but that both the civil punishment, and ecclesiastical together, will do more than the civil punishment alone.  
I would also know, why the Pastor ought not, to carry, even private offences great or small, unto the Magistrate: if it be so, that this ecclesiastical authority, be escheated to him. As for that he allegeth out of Gualther, that men will not set a straw by the authority of the Eldership: it serveth aswell against the ecclesiastical censures of all Pastors, and of our Bishops, as against the Elders: and more against them, then against these. For somuch as, if they set not a straw by the Elders and Pastor together jointly, they will much less esteem the Pastors or Bishops alone. And if they set nothing by it, when it is countenanced by the civil magistrate: they will much more set them at nawght in persecution, when for the contempt of it, there is not only no corporal punishment, but a reward at the hands of the Tyrants. The bore names of suspensions and excommunications, strike a fear into the hearts of the people: which notwithstanding (through an horrible abuse of them, for every trifling money matter) are not to be feared: according to the 
b prou. 26. 2.  wise man's saying, acauseles curs, shall not come, but flieth avuay as the sparovu or suualovu.  
Seeing then these fray bugs, no more to be esteemed, as touching the conscience, or further than they empty the purse, than the braying of an Ass, strike such a fear: with what power, would the lord accompany them, when they be executed according to his institution. for further answer, the 
libr. de curanim.  reader may have recourse unto M. Bucer: who confuteth this very objection, of contempt of the churchis censures. And this voice tendeth, aswell to the subversion of all ecclesiastical censures, for ever hereafter: as to the utter condemning of that, which was used by the Apostles heretofore.  
although, if it be the ordinance of god, this is no reason against it: considering that the outrage of men, can not put the lord to silence, or make his ordinance to give place. In the next, where, upon his answer, I conclude, that either vue must have no Pastor at all (which is absurd,) or else an Eldership in as many places, as sufficient men may be gotten: he answereth nothing, beside repetitions, and demands of that in question.  
In the next, where is proved that the hardness or apparent impossibility may not be considered, when there is a commandment to do any thing: he letteth all that defence go to the ground, wherein notwithstanding he placed great force. Let him therefore strike out that objection, or if he move further debate herein, let him not be ashamed, to return back, and take his work before him. And for further answer thereunto, let him look 
a li. de curanim.  M. Bucer: who confuteth also this objection. where he excepteth, that it is not commanded, thereof let the reader judge, of that which hath been written. unless it 
b In the former part. p. 156.  hath been showed, that the example of the Apostles, and general practice of the churches under their government: even without a commandment, draweth a necessity.  
Then he saith, that if it were▪ yet it were but a temporal commandment, as the widows, the eating of blood, and washing of feet. Of the widows, hath been answered, the decree of the blood, was never a simple prohibition, after our Sau. Christ (whose blood that did 
a ●eu. 17. 11  shadow) had finished his oblation: but only to the support of the jues. So that even then, when that decree was made, the faithful, both of the jews or Gentiles, might have eat it: so they did it without offence of those which were weak. And if there were now any jew weak in faith, whom we should by eating of blood, drive from the gospel: I doubt not, but that until he be fully instructed of the liberty I have in Christ, I ought to use the same charitable support towards him. And this appeareth manifestly, both in 
b Act. 15. 21.  the same, and other places: where 
c 1. Cor. 6. 12. et 10. 25 Rom. 14. 14  S. Paul which gave out that decree to be kept, teacheth generally the free use of all meats, so it be without offence.  
As for the washing of feet, commanded unto the Apostles, it is nothing but a trope or borrowed speech: whereby our Sau. Christ willeth them, and, in them, us all, not for a time, but to the end of the world, that, for help one of an other, each should submit himself to other, even unto the doing of the basest offices. which may appear, in that he placeth 
d joh. 13. 17.  perfect blessedness in the obediens to that commandment: which he would never have done, in the washing of the feet: So that this commandment, might well be of them (as of us) fulfilled, without that particular action, of washing each another's feet.  
But here observe, I pray you, how dangerously you behave yourself, in respect of the common Adversary. 
e 1. Tract. 3. chap. 2. divis.  Before you have made us things necessary to observe, and that as of the Apostles authority, which were never written, but as you would make us believe, left by tradition: here, you bear us in hand of commandements (I know not how many) written, not necessary to be observed, but only to last, for a time. if unwritten traditions be perpetual, and written commandements be not: what wanteth to the utter banishment of all truth, and settling of all falsehood in the church of god. For as you may except against this, so may other against any commandment of the Apostles: whereas the authority of god in them, once being showed, either men ought to show some place, whereby that is called back, or else let it stand, in that authority it was first set in, of the lord.  
To that I alleged, that god is present in his church, 
Diuis. 16. p. 645. 1. Sam. 10.  with the riches of his spirit, in knovuledg, vuisdome, etc. and especially with those lavufully called unto office, confirming it by the example of Saul: he answereth, the church is sometime without good Pastor, or good governor, as in Elias time: which is untrue: for there were a 
a 1. King. 18. 13.  hundredth prophets, kept of one man alone. Then he saith, that it is Anabaptistical, upon a miraculous change, and that of one, to make a general rule: But it is his great fault, not to know, that the miracles wrought upon certain, have a general doctrine, and serve to the confirmation of our faith, in all our necessities. As the feeding of the people of god in the desert with man, etc. serveth to this: that although, the ordinary means of nourishment fail, 
Deut. 8. 3. Math. 4. 4.  yet that the lord will otherwise provide for us: the feeding of the people in the desert, by our Sau. Christ to this, that those which seek the kingdom of heaven, shall have all other things cast unto them.  
If I had given hope, of the assistance of god, in things taken in hand without a calling, or in a calling, without using the lawful means, which god putteth in our hands, than it had been Anabaptistical: but to assure the church of the assistance of god, in going about that, which I hold for commanded of him, when it assayeth all lawful means it can, is more skilful divinity, than you can stain with all the skill you have. I could have brought other examples of David, Solomon etc. but that one of Saul, was more pressing, the force whereof noted by me, you clean pass by.  
Neither hath the lord done this, in certain particular persons: but generally, in his whole church. For when he would make his tabernacle, which was a figure of the church, he commanded an exquisite workmanship in it. where, albeit there was nothing more gros and rude than the Israelites, as those which had been many years holden in vile slavery, occupied in clay and dirt, and all other kind of drudgery: yet the lord gave numbers of such dexterity, in working 
Ex. 31. 1. 6. and. 36. 1.  all kind of broidery, and rich works, as if they had been brought up in all liberal exercise, and nourished as Prince's children.  
Moreover, when as the lord furnished unto the church under the law, able men for this function, notwithstanding he used not that largesse toward it, which he doth now towards us: they are to injurious unto the grace of god, towards the church now, which, under pretence of want of able men, would drive this order out of it. In the city of Athenes (as Tertullian reporteth) children spoke, when they 
lib. de anima.  were but a month old: and shall we think, that in jerusalem, which the lord will have to be the beauty of the world, and which he hath set upon a stage, that in it he might, as it were, make a show of all his riches, shall we think (I say) that men of 30 and 40 years, shall be all such babes, that they shall not be able to give any judgement of the laws of that city, whereof they have been so long Burgesses. Ad also, that you, to give the Pastor a passport, to be away from his charge, say that there may be divers found in his absence, able to answer all the 
pag. 240.  doubts, that a dowtful and turmoiled conscience can minister: which verily although it be not the same, yet is a rarer gift, then is necessarily required, of an Elder of the church, such as we require.  
To that I alleged, that the common vuealth government, 
Diuis. 17. p. 646.  must be framed unto the church, and not the church government unto the common vuealth, as the hangings to the hovus, and not the house to the hangings: he answereth, as although I had meant, that the form, of the government must be changed, and made the same with the form of the church government: which is an open wresting of my words, seeing all know, that to be framed according to another thing, is not all one as to be made the same with it: whiles he that commandeth his hangings to be framed to his house, commandeth that his house and hangings should be made the same, or that the Master which biddeth his servant frame himself to him, biddeth him to give commandment for commandment, check for check, blow for blow.  
Therefore, my meaning could not be such, but it was as it is, which I also expounded in the example of the Prince, the principal part of the common wealth: that if there were any custom, prerogative, or pomp in the common vuealth, before the Prince joined himself to the church, contrary to the order of a church vuel established, that that should be corrected.  
And if I had had any such meaning, as he surmiseth, yet our common wealth could have received no such change by this: considering that I had both declared my liking of it, and showed how the form thereof, resembleth the form of the church government. whereby also appeareth, what a 
p. 180. of his booK.  shameful slander it is, which he surmiseth of me, that I would have Princes throw down their crowns, before the Seniors of the church etc. which I precisely prevented with plain words, because I know with whom I had to do. Albeit, that Princes should be excepted from ecclesiastical discipline, and namely from excommunication, as he here and 
a pag. 657.  otherwhere signifieth: I utterly mislike.  
Now he hath left the point of his slanderous speech in me, in his answer to my arguments, as a be which hath lost her sting: he is altogether unprofitable. For unto the similitude of the house and hangings, he saith, that it proveth it not: but reason he showeth none. unto that also, that the church vuas before the common vuealth, and therefore that it should serve the church, and not the church it: he saith, the argument followeth not, but he saith it only. whereas, if the church and common wealth were otherwise equal, which can not be, one only respecting the life to come, the other the commodities of this life: yet having this pre-eminence above it, that it was before it, it must needs be better than it, and consequently ought rather to be served of it, then to serve it. the 
a 1. Tim. 2. ●●.  Apostle also useth the same reason, to prove that the woman is subject to the man.  
To that I alleged, that the church is the foundation of the vuorld, and therefore the common wealth, builded upon it, must be framed unto it: he saith that it is obscure etc. But it is for want of light in himself, for otherwise, the thing is clear. And to leave Salomons proverb, which Rabbi Levi Ben Gerson 
Prou. 10. 25  doth so interpret, and whereof in deed the sens may well be, that where the wicked are carried away with the tempest, the just not only stand fast, but be the cause why the world standeth: I say to leave that, S. Peter plainly confirmeth, that the cause why this world endureth, is for that the full 
2. Pet. 3. 9  number of the elect is not yet gathered: so that, as soon as they are assembled by the ministry of the church, there shall be forthwith an end of the world. As for that he bringeth against this, it is unworthy the rehearsal: for of the three first, he can conclude nothing, and his last answer, is no better. For it talketh of a change of that, which is laid upon the foundation, whereunto the common wealth is likened, and is that which I affirm: but of changing the foundation, whereunto the church 
In the first division of this chap and diui. 4 Divi. 20. p. 650.  is compared, not a word. the two next divisions be answered.  
Here, he presseth that, which he inferreth of the Admo▪ that if the rule of more in the church, be better than of one, because it is easier to turn one than a company from truth and equity: it should therefore follow, that the more that govern, the better it should be, which he hath now mended, by putting for more, more good men, notwithstanding that this also is but sophistry. For by the same form of reasoning, it should follow, that because two bits of meat nourish more than one? therefore the more a man eateth, the more he shall be nourished. he should therefore understand, that as there is in this government a defect, so there is an excess, and between both a mean, which 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is to be holden. and that as the commodity of having the church judgements, handled by a company, is to be sought after: so the inconvenience and confusion, of assembling a great multitude for every ecclesiastical case that may befall, is to be avoided. Beside, that it is not enough, that they which should govern be good men: whiles they be of greater counsel and judgement than the rest of the body: of which sort, when he will not afford us any just numbered, he might well have spared this objection.  
If it were greatly to the matter, it were easy to show, 
Arist. Eth. 8. lib ca 10 Arist. Rhet. ad Theod. 1. lib.  more lawful forms of common vuealths than three. Likewise, that although common wealths have their names, of that which beareth the chief sway: yet that they are, to their profit, tempered and mixed one with another, singularly the monarchy. This is to be seen namely in our land, where to the passing of divers things: the consent of the Parliament is so required, as that without it, those matters can not pass. The next is 
a In the former part. pag 411. Divis 22. and 23. pag 651.  already partly, and partly cometh after to be answered.  
Here, he denieth most shamefully, that he alleged Ambrose, to prove, that Seniors ought not to be under a Christian Prince. For, both the sentence immediately going before and following after, drive thereunto: yea and that he affirmeth upon confidence of Ambrose saying only, for other proof he hath not. It is therefore to great boldness, that he asketh me, why I gathered the time between Philip and Ambrose,  
Then he denieth, that the Eldership flourished in Constantine's time: but he is much to blame. For the Centuries, wherein he hath been raking so often, must needs have told him: that the same orders and functions of the church, were in that time which were before. And it is manifest, that the churches were governed under him, as before, by Bishop's Elders and Deacons: by that which is recited of an infinite number 
Euseb. 2. li. de vita Constan.  of Elders and Deacons, which came to the Council of Nice, with the 250 Bishops. moreover, it being before declared, and in part confessed by him, that this government was before Constantine's time: if he be not able to show that Constantin changed it, the same must be presumed.  
After, not denying but that it might be under some Christian Prince, he saith, that it is not the question, whether it may be, but whether it ought to be: which, how untrue it is, let the reader judge of that I have 
a diuis. 1. p. 633. Divi. 24. p. 652. jer. 2. lib. in Is.  before noted.  
To jerom that saith, that the Christian church hath her Eldership, he answereth they were Ministers of the word and Sacraments: his reason, because they were such as S. Paul speaketh of unto Timothe, maketh for us, which have showed that S. Paul speaketh there of Elders, that govern only. which may be better understanded, in that jerom compareth them with the Eldership of the jews: which was, as hath ᵇ appeared, 
Diuis. 8. p. 633.  a several order from the Priests and Scribes, that interpreted the law, and offered the sacrifices. Duarenus also helpeth him not, rather he maketh against him. For, in that he saith, that the Canons succeeded into the place of the Elders: he declareth, that the Canons are of another order than they were. As when Jerome saith that the Bishops, succeeded unto the Apostles: he meaneth not, that the Bishops are of the same degree and order of ministry, with the Apostles. the next I leave to the reader's judgement.  
Unto Ambrose he answereth: if he misliked the abrogating 
Diuis. 26. p. 653.  of this signory, why did he not labour to restore it. That he misliked it, is manifest, when he condemneth the Ministers of the word of negligence, for suffering it to vuear out of the church: or rather of pride, whilst they only vuould seem to be some what. he laboured also in part to restore it, in that he reprehended the abolishing of it. whether he did further labour or not, is not expressed, the best is to be supposed: which is that, to his power, he endeavoured to set in that, the 
M. Bucerin lib. de rat. can. exam▪ allegeth this place of Ambrose to the same purpose vue do.  want whereof he condemneth: But Ambrose was no lord Bishop, that he could do in the church, whatsoever he desired. his extreme boldness in denying, that either he was abused, or would have abused other, let the reader judge of: also in that he saith, Ambrose maketh nothing for our cause, to whose judgement I also leave the next division.  
If he deny, that church officers which handle church matters, 
Diuis. 28. p. 654. Heb. 13. 17.  and vuatch over the sovules of men, be ecclesiastical officers: then let him deny also, that two and two make four. But so gentlemen and handicrafts men, should be ecclesiastical persons: why not? if they be chosen thereto. were S. Paul and Isay the Prophet no ecclesiastical persons: because one was a Tentmaker, the other of the kings stok. Neither occupations nor dignities have any such mark of uncleanness, or profanation, that they may not be coupled with the church ministry: when the ministry is such, as together with their professions, they may also execute it: in which kind is the Eldership of the church. I omit, that the D. hath here patched together a sentence of M. Caluin before answered, and another of M. Beza: 
1. Chap. 1. divis.  which, in that since he pretendeth them, are quite contrary one to another. it is therefore marvel, if he can make of them one uniform, and even answer.  
Now he hath ranged and roved, almost in this whole disputation: 
Chap. 3. p. 656.  he must have leave to run back the way he came, to see whether he hath let any of his pieces fall. And first, good reader, he dasheth the in the face, with two open untruths, in the forehead of this chapter. For the order of the church propounded by us, is uniform, and standing, as it is left us in the word of god: and not as he surmiseth, varying according to the numbered of the churches. Also for ceremonies variable by circumstance, it is frankly confessed: that they ought to be determined of, by advise of the church Synod, assembled especially of the flower and most sufficient of the ecclesiastical governors, sent by consent of the rest, if all (as it happeneth) can not be coveniently there.  
Secondly, it is neither affirmed, nor ever practised in any church where this order is, or hath been used: that he that is chosen may not refuse it. So that, if there be any that thinketh his honour stained, in being joined in counsel of church matters with poor men, when there either are not, or are not enough of others: he hath not to complain, seeing he is at his choice. Albeit, if any man should be so mined, to think scorn to hear the sentence of a poor man, in that he is a poor man: let the same know, that he 
a Pro. 17. 5.  reproacheth god that made him poor. And if he be lawfully appointed, to this office: them he doth not disdain the man, but 
b Mat. 18. 18  Christ himself. Therefore, if he have any fear of god before his eyes: he will from hence forth be ashamed to use this for a reason. Beside that, he thus overthroweth the high court of Parliament: where, with the nobility, are joined in consultation the commons of the Realm: where also the estates, being unequal, the voices notwithstanding are equal. I omit, how that if there were any inconvenience in this, that the sentence of the Pastor and other not so rich or so noble, should weigh down the sentence of that noble man he speaketh of: yet himself hath delivered us of it, which telleth us, that the lord of the town, or some other of countenance 
pag. 136.  will lead away the rest of the church: how much more then, shall he be able to lead away two or three? Thus he playeth on both hands: for there he pincheth at the nobility, and here he pretendeth, as if he were tender over their honour.  
His third reason is answered 
a Cham 2. diuis. 9  before: likewise his 
b Cha 2. divis. 3. & 17.  fourth: his 
c Cham 1. diuis. 6 & 7.  fift: his 
d Cham 2. diui. 2. and 3.  sixth, and ᵃ seventh. As for the eight, of partial affection and contentions which would ensue: it is plentifully answered, 
f In the former part of this booK. pag. 2 9 134. 147. 288. 227.  in the question of the church election. For if these be frivolous reasons against those ecclesiastical actions, where the whole church hath interest: much more are they, against the assemblies of three or four only, and those of the choicest. the 
e Cham 2. devis. 1.  ninth is also 
g Chap. 2. divis 13.  answered.  
The tenth, that it would be to great extremity to punish for one fault twice: is a falls principle, taken from the Pelagian herefy. For the Magistrate may appoint four kind of punishments, for one fault, if he think good, to be executed at divers times: so that they altogether and jointly, exceed not the quantity of the fault. And, by his reason, the Magistrate shall be shut out, from his right of punishing sin: if it fall out, that the lord by some punishment laid upon the offender, prevent the Magistrates punishment, especially when the punishment is in such sort, that it may appear that it was sent for that special fault: for example's sake, if of drunkenness, he fall into some sickness: nay, thus the lords sword, is wrung out of his hand. For neither may he punish those faults, which the Magistrate punished before: and if he punish a man in this life, he hath bound his hands, for punishing him in the world to come. For in deed the church discipline, is the punishment, or rather the correction of the lord: in a far other kind, and to an other end, than the civil punishment. But I have showed, that both these 
In the former part of this booK. pag. 3.  were practised amongst the people of god, for one and the same faut. And is not this, in the Apostles, to condemn the holy ghost himself? For if it be true, which he saith, when one had stolen, or committed adultery, it had not been lawful for them to have used the ecclesiastical censure, lest the offender being after apprehended, and punished according to the laws of the common wealth where he lived, should thereby have been wronged. Beside that, the D. accuseth all our Bishops, which for divers causes punishable by the laws of the Realm, sand forth their excommunications: yea all the elder churches, which did not leave to proceed in ecclesiastical censures against those, whom the heathen Princes had justly punished. But hereof the reader may know further in M. Caluins' 
a 4. booK. chap. 11. 5. 1. 2●. 4.  institutions: also in M. 
b lib. de cura animar.  Bucer, who precisely confuteth them which say, that the punishment by the civil Magistrate is sufficient.  
His eleventh, that alterations are dangerous: is unworthy answer. For when it hath been showed, that ceremonies otherwise in different, ought when they breed offence to be changed: how much more, ought those to be changed, which are showed to be contrary to the institution of god. And neither this, nor the next clause in this eleventh article, nor divers other allegations in this chapter, have so much as a countenance of reason: unless it be first granted unto the D. which is the principal question, that is to faith, that the Eldership of the church is not commanded of the lord. his two other reasons in this article, are both often repeated, and utterly untrue: there having been never any Christian Prince that used the spiritual sword, which only is given to the Eldership, neither any noble man or gentleman which in our land useth this kind of correction, but only the Bishop, which usurpeth it, and abuseth it. I omit his often jesting, at the Pastor, by calling him divers times in contempt, Master Pastor: which the Angels themselves dare not do: when as himself can not deny, but to have a Pastor in every congregation, is the ordinance of god. If men will not look to such disorders: I doubt not, but the lord will lay to his hand.  
The first reason, to prove no certain kind of church government 
Chap. 4. p. 658.  appointed, is answered 
a 1. Chap.  before: likewise the 
b 2. Cham diuis. 2. and 3  second and third: the fourth is a gros ask of that in question. In the fift M. Caluins' and M. Bezas' first and last sentences, are violently drawn from their meaning: as hath been 
c In the former part. of this booK p. 80. and. 134. etc.  showed. The middle sentence, beareth no such argument, as he would gather: for there is no word, that shutteth out the necessity of the Eldership under a Christian Magistrate: not, or that maketh it, so much as les necessary under a Christian Magistrate, then under persecution. For the word, especially, is restrained, unto the government which the Bishop had over the Elders: so that if there be any thing to be gathered of that, it is this, that the Bishop should not have so much pre-eminence over the Eldership, when there is a Christian Magistrate, as when there was not. And how doth not he blush, to allege men's sentences directly contrary to their judgements, plainly declared in this matter of the Eldership: which counteth it such a fault, to set one writer against another. I omit other places, out of M. 
d Epist. 11. 14. 20, 83.  Beza, where this cause is confirmed both generally in the unvariable government of the church, and particularly in this case of the Eldership. The reasons alleged of M. Musculus and Gualther have been answered. His sixth reason of giving no more here, to the Christian Magistrate, then to Nero: is but only said, the untruth whereof shall appear in place.  
Seeing therefore, the lord himself hath once set this government by Elders in the church, and that no man may displace, which he hath placed: seeing it is a supply of that in the church, which the most sufficient and most diligent ministry of the word, is not able to perform by it self alone: seeing the churches under the law, and in the Apostles times could not want this help: and seeing the antiquity which followed for divers hundred years, partly held the same, partly lamented the want of it, and partly left marks and footinges whereby, being lost, it might be recovered again: seeing further, the liberality of god towards the church is commended, in that for the greater safety of it, he would have many watchmen of one church. Lastly, seeing the apostle in the person of Timothe, chargeth most straightly all the Ministers of the word, with the keeping of this order, until the appearing of our Sa. Christ: let us conclude that the Eldership ordained for the government of the church only, is the perpetual and unchangeable decree of god, and therefore not only in common wealths where many, but also in Monarchies where one governeth, not only in time of persecution, but also in time of peace, to be retained.  
Again, forsomuch as the apostle ordained these Elders, church by church: forasmuch as giving a rule of the government of all, aswell of churches in the country, as in the City, he enjoined the preservation of this order: forasmuch also as the gospel, whereof this is a part, broke forth out of jerusalem into all places, not into cities only: and for that, the Pastor of an uplandish town, is no more able to do all that is to be done in his church, than the Pastors in the city: considering also that the churches, as daughters and coheirs of one father and mother, ought to enjoy like privileges: seeing further the Bishop to whom this Eldership is assistant, hath been showed to belong aswell to churches in the country, as in the city: finally, forasmuch as the use both of he churches under the law, and of those after the apostles times, lead us hereunto: it is likewise brought, to pass, that this Eldership ought to be in all churches, not in those only which are planted in great cities.  
Thus is also ended, the question of Cathedral churches: 
pag. 742.  whereof the D. hath made, a whole tractate. wherein there appeareth, scarce a step of this institution of god: of which, when he would brag of, and set the highest price, he hath valued twelve of the best of them at no more, than one poor halin Cambridg or Oxford, is able to yield. yea than they were at, Queen Mary's time: when there were commonly in every one some, which dissembling for fear, were notwithstabding able to confute all Papists & anabaptists, whereunto he can answer nothing. That the offices came, from the bottomless pit of hell: may partly appear by that which I have 
a In the former part p. 616.  alleged, partly in that the names of Prebendaries etc. are not to be found in any godly or pure writer, but in the dregs of the canon law. For further understanding of which disorders, I refer the reader to that which M. Caluin 
b Inst. 4. booK chap. 5. sect. 10. p. 746.  writeth of them: who peinteth them out in their colours. And where I showed, that to look for any good unto the church in the Pope's invention, is to look to be fed with the Cockatrice eggs, and to be clad with the spider's vueb: he answereth, that the Pope, as the Ethnics, may make good laws: which is untrue, in matters belonging to the church, especially in so great a matter, as the appointing of an office. I will not deny, but they may devise good laws for the commodity of this life: but it can not be showed, that ever the lords people fetched their laws to govern the church by, from the heathen, much less from the Pope, which is the head of the heathen.  
Therefore all may see, what a singular profit both the church and common wealth should have: if they were converted into Colleges, for the bringing up of scholars, which they would yield (as I think) in greater numbered, than both the universities do now, with furniture of professions in all good knowledge: where now, they serve but for the fatting up of a few, and those either unworthy to be nourished of the Alms of the church, or else whose presence is necessary in other places, and dutiful by reason of pastoral residence. wherein, as well against theirs, as against our university mens non residence: I refer the reader to the special tractate thereof. That they should serve for rewards, to those which have spent much time in getting learning: is but to foam at the mouth, that which is a shame once to conceive in the mind. considering that by reward, he understandeth not the honest and sufficient provision for his competent how should, and convenient hospitality for the poor, which is confessed most due: but meaneth some surplice beside this, which is 
a In the former part. Traclat 6. chap. 5.  before confuted. Neither is any good to be hoped from them, whom the excellency of this office before Angels and men, doth not content: to whom the fruit which they shall receive daily, in that by their ministry god is glorified, and men are saved, doth not satisfy: finally to whom the special crown of glory, which remaineth them in the life to come, with sufficient provision for this present life, doth not make the ministry savoury, unless it be also sauced, with these enticements of worldly wealth and dignity. So that this is rather a lure, to draw hirelings into the church: then an honest provocation, to call in faithful Pastors.  
Hereunto cometh the example of other churches, which have pulled them down, and converted them to other uses: which the D. partly denieth, partly maketh no great account of. That they were pulled down, the experience teacheth: at the lest, of as many as I have either seen, or could understand of. And it is namely recorded, of the 
b Bullin. upon 1. Cor. 14.  church of Zurik: yea of all of them, M. 
c li. Epist. p. 14.  Caluin teacheth that the prebends etc. ovught to be called to a more lawful use, namely to the fineding of Scholars, Ministers, and Poor. And this is our meaning: not that these goods should be turned from the possession of the church, to the filling of the bottomless sacks of their greedy appetites, which yane after this pray, and would thereby, to their perpetual shame, purchase themselves a field of blood. which thing, although we have given plainly to understand: yet because we have to do, with so importunate an adversary, that feareth not to charge us with intent to gratify such Cormorantes, I thought good in a word to protest it.  
As for the light account, he maketh of those examples of the reformed churches, which notwithstanding pretendeth to esteem so greatly, of one or two of the ancient writers: I leave to utter what it argueth, whiles he were able to show by the word of god, that they did not well. The rest of this tractate, which is a cartlode of untruths: uttered partly in accusing me, partly in maintaining himself, I will not touch.   

THAT EXCOMMUNICATION, BELONGETH NOT TO THE Bishop alone: Tractate ix. and xviij, according to the D. pag. 661.  
IT having been showed, that in elections and depositions, the Bishop can do nothing without the advise of the whole church, nor in the common government without assistance of the Eldership: it must follow, that in excommunication, which is one of the weightiest judgements in the church, this sole authority of the Bishop is unlawful. For as, when in civil matters, the judgement is of life and death, and as in the art of curing, when consultation is taken of cutting or burning, the bench is fuller, and the assistance greater, than when matters of les importance be debated: even so, if it might be accorded to the Bishop, to pass some other matters by himself, yet it were not safe to commit unto him the judgement of excommunication. whereupon I marvel, why even here also you go about, to pek out our eyes. For the light of this truth is such, that some of the Papists themselves, are ashamed to look against it: as appeareth by Pigghius, which seeking all manner of peintynges to hide the filthiness of Rome, could find no colour to disguise this with: but is fain, partly to confess her nakedness in this behalf: saying that it is not lawful (the Bishop of Rome only excepted) 
Piggh. hierarch 3. lib. 9 cap.  for any Bishop to excommunicate by himself alone. So that, although the weightiness of the cause, might require a long treatis: yet the plains of it, will be content with a short.  
First, whether the word discipline, may note the whole government, or only the punishments, as in a disputation of wwordes, I will not strive: although it be known, that the word discipline, is used in good authors, for the whole manner of government, either at home or in war. Secondly charged 
a 2. divis. 661  with contrariety, he answereth, that to ascribe excommunication to the Minister of the word, and to the Bishop only, agreed, because the Bishop is a Minister of the word: which might have been admitted, if it had been all one, to be a Bishop and a Minister of the word. But seeing by the word Minister, with us, is noted a divers degree, and meinteined by him: it is but an escape. Howbeit, I am content he amend his speech: if he had yet amended it, and not rather utterly marred al. For pretending that 
* 661. 662. et 673.  the Bishop only, hath by the word of god, the excommunication committed unto him, he saith notwithstanding that the church, if she will, may commit that authority unto other: givig the church authority, to make that common, which the word of god hath made several. Thus he enterfeereth at every step almost, cutting himself to pitifully. The rest is 
b In the former part p. 575.  answered: so are the 
c In the former Tract.  two next divisions, saving that it appeareth that you were somewhat hungry, of a testimony of great reading, which pres reins so sore: that may be given to the veriest trewand, that ever went on two legs, which may in half an hour know the mind of twenty commentaries, and requireth rather a man well booked, than either well read, or well learned.  
To prove, that the lord did not borrow this form of government 
Diuis. 5. p. 663.  of the jews, he assigneth one reason, because he never appointed it unto them: which beside the untruth, that hath and shall further appear, is contrary to that himself hath affirmed: where he saith, that all, even the lest things, under the law 
pag. 116.  were commanded. So that whiles he will deny, that they had ever any Eldership, or having it, had it against the commandment of god: it must follow, that they had it, by the prescript of god. Another reason is, for that the jews abused their Eldership: than which, there can be nothing more disagreeing from the D. whole course of defence, which will not have so much as a peeled ceremony removed, for the abuse.  
Unto the reason I alleged why the word Council, 
●hap. 5. 22.  in S. Matthew, is taken for the Eldership of the church: he answereth nothing. whereunto add, that in other places of the new Testament, where it is often 
a Act. 5. 2●. & 6. 12. & 23. 30.  mentioned: it is always so taken. The testimonies he citeth, are partly to no purpose, partly before confessed of me.  
This is a wondered boldness, that you dare say, yea 
Diuis. 6. p 664.  and glory in it, that S. Paul kept an other order of excommunication, than our Sau. Christ commanded: considering that he autoriseth 
1. Cor. 11. 28 1. Cor. 15. 1.  his doings in the church of Corinth, with this, that he gave that which he received, who also in this very particular case of the incestuous man, allegeth the authority 
2. Cor. 5. 4.  of our Saviour Christ. That out of M. Caluin, maketh against him manifestly. For upon the places both of S. Matthew and Paul, he showeth that the church hath interest in the excommunication: only he noteth, that our Sa. Christ applied his form of speech, to the estate of the church then, which is nothing to our purpose.  
After, upon confidence of M. Caluins' authority only, he triumpheth upon the interpretation I brought, of the purging of levain, noting the thrusting out of the incestuous person: which notwithstanding is proved, for as much as that vers, is the conclusion of that before, where, by levain can not be denied, but the incestuous person is noted: unless we will say, that the Apostle concluded another thing, then that which he had before mentioned. 
b upon the same place.  M Beza also, coming after M. Caluin, and not easily dissenting from him: followeth the same sens, which I have done: So that although you take your pleasure of me, yet you should not ride so hard upon him.  
But mark a little, how unable your answers be, to uphold such a confident insultation. For, where this here spoken by a borrowed speech, is plainly uttered: you are compelled to expound these words of the Apostle, take avuay the vuicked man amongst yovu, that is, shun his company: which is not only a wresting of words, but also unfitting to the comparison with the levained bread, which S. Paul useth to set forth excommunication by. For it was not enough for the Israelites not to touch or use any leavened bread, in the celebration of the Pasover: but they were bound to put it out of their 
Exod. 12. 15. 29. & 23. 18 & 34. 25.  hovuses, to provide that no leavened bread were found in their hovuses, and not to kill the Pasover, before they had rid their hovus of it.  
Like violence he useth, touching the receiving of the excommunicate. For where S. Paul useth the same word of forgiving, or as it is called, absolving, as well to note his own 
2. Cor. 2. 10  release, as the churchis, he will have, that the same word in the same vers, in one and the same cause, to be taken diversly: and that referred to S. Paul, it shall have the proper signification, to remit, but referred to the church, to signify the effects and signs of the remission, or absolution.  
Where I show, that S. Paul's declaration of his good vuil 
Diuis. 7. p. 665.  to excommunicate, could be no full excommunication, because that that notvuithstanding, the Minister and church (althovugh unjustly) might have received him to the communion of the Sacrament: he answereth, that he is yet excommunicate in heaven, which is a mere abusing of the reader, for I expressly prevented that. And it is most untrue, that it is enough to make the ecclesiastical censure of excommunication, that a man be bound in heaven: when as our 
a Math. 18. 17.  Sa. Christ noteth it, in that he is taken of the church, for a Publican and a Sinner, and in that, there is an actual secluding from the sacrament. For otherwise, as soon as such wickedness is committed, and withal so long as it is unrepented: the sinner is bound in heaven, and in right shut out from the communion of the Sacrament, although no man excommunicate him: which being alleged of me, is unanswered.  
To that I alleged, that S. Paul joineth the Corinth's 
Diuis. 8. p. 666. 1. Cor. 5. 4.  with him, in the excommunication: he answereth, that they are joined as lookers on or as witnesses, not as doers in that action. But who hath taught him, thus to play, with the word of god: when as S. Paul ascribeth the same cause, of the corporal assembly of the church for that action, which he doth unto that presence, wherewith he saith his spirit should be (after a sort) there. If therefore S. Paul's spirit were (after a sort and as it might) there, to look on, and to be witness only: then the church was also. else let him show us, with what words S. Paul declareth: that his spirit should be there for one thing, and the Corinthians for an other.  
But what a shameful defence this is, that one voice declareth: 
1. Cor. 5. 22.  whereby the Apostle giveth unto the church, the judgement of this matter. now, to judge, or to give sentence of malefactors: is more (I think) then to look on, or to be witness. And what that judgement is, is yet more clearly declared, by that which followeth, where the Apostle saith, that the lord 
vers. 23.  judgeth those that are none of the church: giving to understand, that they had only to use their censures upon those of the church, and that they should leave the infidels to the judgement of god. so that, if he say that the judgement of the church is nothing but a looking on etc. he must also expound these words, the lord judgeth the infidels, that is, the lord standeth by, and looketh on whilst some other punish than: whereto add, that the Apostle ascribeth to the church the same word of judging, which he taketh to himself. Likewise that the writer to the Hebrews, giveth to the church, that 
Heb. 12. 25.  they should provide, that no poisoned root remain amongst them: which although it be carried of some, from the person to the crime, yet it is certain, both by the place of 
a Deut. 29. 18.  Moses, from whom it was taken, and by the scope of the Apostle, that it is to be understood of the persons. For he exhorteth the church, first to give diligence, that there be no such amongst them: then, if there be, not to suffer them to remain, to the infection of other. which is yet also more manifest, because according to the custom of the scripture, that which he spoke before, by a metaphor or borrowed sp●●ch: he expoundeth in the next vers when he saith; let there be no whoremonger or profane person etc. Add further, that S. Jude, alluding unto the prophet Zachary, willeth the church in taking pity of some, to save others, as it were, out of the fire, by fearing them: which church, had no other means to strike any fear into persons, that were (through obstinacy in sin) as firebrands almost half burnt, but by ecclesiastical censure.  
To that I asked, why S. Paul chideth with the church, before he had signified, that he vuould have him excommunicate, if it belonged not unto the church: he answereth, because they did not complain of him, whereof there is not a letter to be gathered, in the holy Scripture. And what a mischief had it been, for the church to have had no remedy, for such a contagious disease at home: but must go seek for it, in another country, and languish all that time whilst the messengers went and came.  
I leave to those which have the books, to look with what faith he hath cited these authorities, seeing contrary to his wont, he maketh them not to speak: Beside that, they are alleged for defence of excommunication by the Bishop alone, out of them which are open enemies to that kind of excommunication, especially the later writers. I say, leaving that, I answer, that none of them (one excepted) is to purpose. For, albeit the 18 of math. be explained, by the other of Math. 16. and john 20: yet it followeth not therefore, that they be all one. And although in the 16 of matthew and john 20, together with the preaching, the excommunication were understood: yet the place of the 18 of S. Matthew, being of the authority of excommunication and not of the preaching, the difference doth still remain. Neither hurteth it, that every several Minister of the word, hath by these places authority to excommunicate: being understood of every one for his portion. which must needs, seeing in S. Math. 18 the church hath authority likewise: so that it can not ●e, that one several minister, can by those places chalendg the sole authority of excommunicating. That alleged of Musculus, wherein it is said, that he confoundeth these three places, is untrue: for he extendeth math. 18 to all Christians, restraining math. 16 to the Ministers.  
As for his reason to prove them all one, because they were all spoken to the Apostles, it is frivolous: seeing our Sa. Christ did not only instruct them of things belonging to their Ministry, but also of those that touched their private life, and of the duties of the whole church. Of the same sort is, that the same words are used in all three places. which is all one, as when the Prince ordaining, that one chest may be opened and shut by one only, one other not so, but by others with him: he should conclude, that all have power alike, because Keys with power to lok and unlok, be given to al. For this manifest difference, is in the manner of speech, considering that Math. 16, he speaketh of one in the singular number, in john 20, although he speak in the plural, yet he understandeth it distributively, that is, that every one of the Ministers binedeth and loseth by preaching. But in S. Math. 18, those words being added to authorize the churchis excommunication, which word church, is a noun collective: they can not be drawn, to the particular person of the Minister.  
Here also, it is to be observed: that the D. hath quite overthrown his difference, of the Bishop, and of another Minister, in the matter of excommunication. For if in S. Math. 16 and john 20, together with the preaching of the word, is understanded power to excommunicate: all Ministers of the word having by those places authority to preach, it must follow necessarily, that they all have power committed unto them to excommunicate. And so falleth, his whole cause: which is, that by the word of god, the Bishop only hath the right of excommunication.  
Where to that of S. Paul's excommunicating Alexander etc., I 
Divi. 10. p. 667.  answered, that one is said to do alone, that which he was moderator of, and wherein he had assistance: he answereth, that it is an imagined shift. But now he knoweth at lest, if he will not acknowledge it: that it standeth of unfallible 
a In the former part of this booK. pag. 196.  reason, and is confirmed with most grave authority of learned men. To that I answer, touching the place of Titus, that to avoid an heritik, is not to excommunicate him, but to trouble himself no more with him: he opposeth M. Caluins' authority, without any aid of reason. wherein, when I have showed the reason, which led me so to expound the place: let the reader do, as him thinketh good: remembering, that if he understand it of excommunication, yet it helpeth him not, the same answer serving, which was given to the place of Timothe.  
For so much then, as the Apostle willeth that the Minister should avoid him, as one utterly perverted: and notwithstanding willeth 
b 2. Thess. 3. 15.  otherwhere, that the excommunicate should be holden for a brother, until such time as it appeareth, how that medicine of excommunication will work with him: and for that also, it appertaineth unto the Minister especially, even then privately to call upon him, when he is excommunicate: it seemeth, that this can not be understanded of one to be excommunicated, but of a desperate enemy whom excommunication hath not cured, but rather is (through the poison in him) hardened. And hereof, I have the judgement of Ireneus: which saith, that the fact of S. john the Apostle, which would not go into the baths where Cerinthus the heritik was, nor once so much as speak unto him, was done according to this rule of S. Paul to Titus. 
Euseb.. li. 4. cap 14.  And if an heretic be taken in that sens, which the D. hath often taken him, in saying he mayor, but that he will be no heretic, that is to say for one that standeth stiff in his false opinion: then we must needs understand, that this order which S. Paul prescribeth, is understanded of that which is to be done after excommunication. For in such, we must not tarry, until two or three admonitions be given: but assoon as one showeth himself an heretic in that since, the sentence of excommunication lieth against him.  
But if the D. will needs have it understanded, of excommunication: it shall be the bane of his own cause, and a confirmation of that answer, which he so scornfully rejecteth. For S. Paul noting excommunication, by the avoiding of the person excommunicate: in commanding Titus to avoid him, doth not therefore command him alone. where as the D. will have these, and such like commandements: addressed unto Titus and Timothe alone. But either, the church is not here excluded, which you deny: or else it followeth, that the church may keep company with an heretic, and the Minister only forbidden so to do, which is absurd.  
In the next division, in steed of Basiles offices cited in the latin and English book, he hath set out a long sentence of Ambrose, but which maketh neither hot nor kould: it being granted, that it appertaineth to the Bishop, but denied, that it doth only. whether to take one man for an other, be so gros a faut, as to cite a book which never was: let all judge. you should rather have compared my fault, with yours in the next division saving one: which you pass by, as you do other without any confession. The next division, I leave unanswered.  
In the next, I confess I was deceived in the order of the story, which came thereupon, that Sozomene telleth that first, which was done after, and contrariwise: but my answer, that the Bishop's sole excommunicating, was but the publishing of the sentence, given by him and the church, standeth. Neither is it of any weight, that George would not be entreated, or that suit was made to him for absolution. For it is easily answered, that George had numbers of his faction, for the gaining of which, it behoved to win him first.  
The D. would with words bear us down, that Theodoret 
Diuis. 14. p. 670.  and Sozom. affirm Ambrose to have excommunicated the Emperor alone: which is but a facing, there being neither the word, alone, neither any words which countervail it. his reason, that Ambrose carried away all the commendation, is nothing worth: seeing it is known, that the chief beareth the name, as the general of the field or Captain, is often said to have won the field, when notwithstanding he used thereto, the valiancy of the soldiers. And to set aside the institution of god, it had been no commendation of Ambrosis courage, but a note of rashness and foolish hardiness: to have enterprised that of himself, against such a mighty Emperor, wherein he might have had the support of others. seeing thereby, not only the danger should have been less towards him: but also the fruit greater, towards the Emperor, whilst it should have had more authority, that was done by him with others, then by himself alone. 
Ambrose Epist. 38.  And when Ambrose saith precisely, that he should be more charged with displeasure, than the rest: he giveth to understand, that some of the displeasure would lie upon the necks of the other Bishops, which with him determined of that excommunication, although not so much as upon his, that should have the execution of it. whereby it is yet more apparent, that the place out of Ambrosis epistle touching the Synod, and of his answer to the Emperor, was cited faithfully, without falsifying. As for his answer, that the bishops lamented it only, it hath no likelihood, as it is 
a In te examination of the D. censures.  observed. Where he saith, that the Synod was assembled, before the slaughter, there appeareth no such thing: although the cause lieth not in that point. For it is all one to us, whether the Council met for that matter: or being assembled for other, upon the report of it, decreed of that censure.  
The confession of his fault before the congregation, and ask forgiveness of the church: was alleged to purpose. For what is it, to ask forgiveness, but to ask absolution of the church: and why should he ask to be absolved of the church, if the church had not bound him? That he saith, the penitentes do so with us: touching any demand of absolution of the church, I think it be untrue, wherein notwithstanding, I refer me unto the practice. but if it be, it is a very mockery, to crave absolution of it, when as, howsoever it is satisfied, the Bishop's absolution, right or wrong, must stand. In the first section of his next division, let the reader judge, how shameful his denialis, and in the fourth section, how miserable his defence is: the rest are answered.  
Here, as although Tertullian, had committed some high treason, 
Diuis. 16. p. 673.  the D. draweth him, and quartereth him, upon Rhenanus comment: whereas, although Rhenanus disjoin the sentences by putting his comment between that which I conjoined: yet he joineth them in exposition, as those which hung together. for Tertull. having before spoken, of the casting forth of the wicked out of the communion of the church: Rhenanus addeth, lest it should be thovught a confused company it is said, that there were certain Elders etc. it is to much boldness therefore for you to say, that it can not be gathered of this place, that these elders meddled with excommunication. If they meddled with other things (as you confess) much more with this: if the putting between of Rhenanus commentary, doth not hinder, that this sentence should be referred, unto things which are further from it: why should it hinder the referring of it, to excommunication, which goeth immediately before. And beside this open light of Tertullian'S words, you have M. Peter Martyr, that was no mangler nor corrupter of Tertullian: which upon this place, precisely affirmeth, that these Seniors had their government in 
upon the●. epist. to the Cor. cap. 5.  excommunication. your shift, that the Elders Tertullian speaketh of, were likely to be Ministers of the word and sacraments: is 
a In the 8. tract. diuis. 8.  answered.  
In that you say, this authority being admitted, the people is quite shut out, first you conclude negatively of authority, namely that they have nothing to do, because Tertullian doth not say they had. Then you fault again in not marking, that when Tertullian saith, that these were presidents or chief in the matter: he leaveth a signification, that other had to do in it, which followed with their sentence those, that with the ripeness of their judgement, went before the rest is 
b In this chap. 2. divis.  answered.  
If the excommunicate might not be received, without the 
Diuis. 17. p. 674.  people's request, much less without their consent: for men use not to make request, for that they consent not unto. As for that alleged, because Cyprian would have that absolution stand, 
Cyp. lib Epist. 3 epist. 8.  which was done by one, that therefore it is lawful for the Bishop alone to absolve: is to trifle. For so Cyprian, will have it stand, that in the mean season, he condemneth the doer of it. And the D. ought to understand, that it is one thing to prescribe what should be done: and another to support a thing which being commanded, is otherwise done than it ought: as hath been showed, in the baptim by heretics. Victor also being repentant, and having showed fruits thereof: it had been against right, to have thrust him out again. If he had not repented: it is certain, that Cyprian would have dealt with him afresh.  
Cyprian professeth, that he vuould never do any thing 
Epist. 10.  in his bishopric, without the counsel of the Elders, and consent of the people: and yet the D. can not see, how this should make against his sole excommunication. what stronger words, could there have been? If he vuould do nothing vuithovut them, how much less excommunicate, which is so weighty a judgement. As for that he expoundeth no matter, that is no doubtful matter: it is a shameful corruption. which appeareth, in that beside the counsel of the Elders, to resolve him of the doubt, if any were: he addeth also, the consent of the people. Also, for that the same case, wherein he protesteth he would have done nothing without the church: was a plain case, and whereof he was able to resolve, without the advise of other. Likewise that he saith, it was in Cyprians power to have done all himself alone, because he saith, he determined not to do so) is yet more ridiculous: as although David in saying he determined to 
Psalm. 119. vers. 57  keep the word of god, or any other, that he determineth to keep his promise, do thereby give to understand, that either the one needed not to keep the word of god, or the other his promise.  
The next 
a Cyp. Epi. 14.  place maketh the Elders and other church men, as vuel to have povuer in absolving, as the Bishop: yet the D. seeth not how that maketh against him, which would have the Bishop alone. but (saith he) the people is not there mentioned: as although that was not sufficiently showed in other places, and here left out, because they did not lay on their hands as the church officers. although in the later end of that epistle, he also threateneth the disordered persons: that if they go forvuard, they shall be made to ansvuer the matter before the people. But it appeareth (saith he) that it could not be done without the Bishop: even as it could not be done without those, whom Cyprian calleth clerks: beside that it is to great dalliance, seeing none denieth the Bishops an interest.  
The next place is wherein Cyprian saith, that for so much 
Cyp. Epist. 19  as absolution belonged unto all, meaing of those in his church, that he alone durst not do it. yet (saith he) in that they desire it at Cyprians hand: it argueth, that the manner was then for one to absolve. was it in deed, the manner to do that which was not lawful, even by your own confession: that is for one to loose that which many had bound? For they which desired absolution, know that they were excommunicate by many: if therefore upon that they desired absolution of one, it be well concluded that one was wont to absolve: it followeth, that they were wont to do that, which was unlawful, which is a slander of that time, and yet helpeth you not. But the reader may understand, that they came therefore to desire absolution of Cyprian: because it belonged unto him, to assemble the Seniors by whom the receiving was first handled, before it came to the church.  
And who knoweth not, that the grief of the penitent sinner, languishing and feinting with desire of being joined with the church again, doth even wring out petitions to be helped of them, which are not able alone to help: especially when as they (likely) thought, that the rest would be counseled by Cyprian. who seeth not also, that the sense of Cyprians answer to those afflicted persons, which would have been delivered before the time prescribed of their repentance: is to show himself moved with compassion of their sorrow, which he for his part was ready to help, if the other would thereto agreed. which may better appear by that 
2. lib. Epist. 3.  epistle, where the D. saith, he can find nothing of this matter: which notwithstanding is most pregnant. For Cyprian showeth there, how he travailed greatly with his church, to receive those which, having fallen avuay, repented them: declaring thereby, that it was not in him alone. In the end, although he hath used such boldness, as I am ashamed to give the proper name of: yet he feareth not to say, that I have abused the reader. which, let him understand (as touching three of the middle places) to be spoken as well against M. Caluin, as me: 
Inst. 4. lib. cap 11 s. 6.  who useth them, to condemn the sole excommunication of the Bishop.  
To the places out of Augustin, noting that he vuould 
Diuis. 18. p. 675.  have this discipline cease, if the more part be infected, whereby I gathered that he was of judgement, that the consent of the church was to be required: he answereth, that those sayings are to be understanded, not of any right they had of excommunication, but of the misliking of the fact, for which the Bishop doth excommunicate. But where hath he in Augustin that interpretation, more than I have that which I set down? I am well assured, that augustin's words, are as favourable to mine, as to his, and so much the more favourable, as the schism which he would have by this means avoided: riseth sooner, when one is excommunicate, of whom they have given the Bishop to understand, that they would not have him thrown out, then when no such judgement hath passed from them. For then the ungodly oppose themselves, not only because they would have the fault, wherewith they themselves be infected, unpunished: but also, because they will avow their own sentence. Neither did I propound that sentence, for augustin's words, as he surmiseth, but as that, which I gathered of them.  
As for the medicine which he pretendeth to give, that the people retain sins, when they separate themselves from the company of the excommunicate: it is given to him, that is not sick. For, although that may, by a borrowed speech, be so called, whereby the effect is put for the cause: yet that Augustin meant not that only, it is manifest in that he attributeth unto the church, helping of the Bishop, yea and the very word of accursing, which he useth for excommunicating: so that the D. hath corrupted the mind of Augustin. For Augustin putteth first of all, the churches helping of the Bishop in excommunicating, as one several thing, and then the avoiding of his company for another: which he expoundeth as all one. but if he will departed from the usual speech, he must show us some good authority: whereby it may appear, that we must needs wring augustin's words to that sens. which I am assured he can not do: especially when 
a Ad Demetrius triaden● 1. Epist.  Jerome who lived in the same age with Augustin, affirmeth that together with the Bishop, the Elders in other censures of the church, and the church it self, have, interest in the excommunication. whereupon may appear, that my interpretation of the places brought either before or now, touching the Bishop excommunicating, which is that he was the chief in the action, and had the publishing of the sentence, and not the whole right of excommunication: is sound, and conformable both to the holy scripture, and practice of the elder and purer churches.  
That the Canon of the council of Sardis, whereof the Answerer glorieth, is to be understanded not of the Bishop alone: one proof is, in the Elders joint government with the Bishop generally in all matters, which I have 
b In the former part p. 594. Arles 2. ca 30.  before set down. Another shall be, that another Council autoriseth, the suspension, which the Elders and Clerks decree against the Bishop: and that (as it saith) by authority of ancient decrees. The Counsels therefore, giving the Elders remedy at home, and with in themselves: the rash excommunication, which the Council ascribeth unto the Bishop, must needs be understood to have been done by advise of the Elders. For otherwise, if the Elders consented not unto it: they had by the ancient decrees, authority to deal with the Bishop themselves, without running either to Metropolitan, or other Bishop. if this answer like him not, let him (if he had rather) take that which M. 
c Inst. 4. li. 11. chap. s●●  Caluin giveth: that the Bishops, when they excommunicated of themselves alone, did it ambitiously, contrary to the decrees of the godly Counsels.  
As for that you be of judgement, that the Bishop may not excommunicate whom he listeth, without proof etc. and thereto cite a long sentence out of Augustin: it is well said, but wherefore serveth this well saying? do you think the church much beholding to you, for that which never any yet (the Popes Canonistes excepted which give him absolute power to throw out and take in whom he list) durst deny? here therefore, you run fairly, but out of the way altogether.  
If I of the other side, should herein set down the judgement of 
a Bucer contra Gropperum, & in 4. chap. to the Ephes. Item in lib. de rat. exa. can. & lib. de ani. cur.  Bucer 
b Martyr upon 1. Co. 5.  Martyr, 
c Zuing. in Ecclesiastes su●. Chap. 2. diuis. 2. page 679.  Zuinglius, and other godly writers of our age, against the sole excommunication by the Bishop: it would require a book, by itself. But as in a thing clear and plain, I will not weary the reader. The two next divisions, as mere and often repeated reproaches, I omit.  
In the next, he confesseth that chancellors etc. ought not to meddle with excommunication. The civil separation from traffic, etc. cited out of Gualther: is nothing but a roving. For we meddle not here, with civil punishment, except he peradventure be of his judgement, that the ecclesiastical discipline of excommunication, may be taken out of the church, and this civil separation put in place: if he be, let him speak out, that we may hear him.  
But because these kind of allegations be dangerous, and tend to the shaking of this institution of god: and for that allowing sometime of excommunication as of the institution of god, at other some times he insinuateth, that it should not be exercised, especially against the Prince, and nobility: leaving M. Gualther, I will take me to him. And to speak in a word of it, it is nothing but a mere mockery of the lord, and to offer himself, as a Bawd to all manner of sins in Princes. If all were delivered from this correction (as M. Gualther pretendeth) than it were good reason that the Prince should also: but to insinuat, that others being subject, only Princes should be exempted (I fear) cometh from a worse cause, then from simple error.  
For who could be ignorant, that our S. Christ speaketh 
Math. 18. 15  generally, when he saith, if thy brother etc. whereby he comprehendeth all those that are members of one church, and children of one heavenly father. In which number the scripture reckoneth the king: whilst in it he is both called a 
a Deut. 17. 15. 20.  brother, and calleth his subjects 
b 1. Cronic. 28. 2. 1. Cor. 5. 12. 12, 13.  brethren. or who could be ignorant, that S. Paul subjecteth all unto this order: saving those only, which are strangers from the church. So that to say, that Princes are not subject unto this order: is all one, as if he should say, that Princes pertain no to the kingdom of heaven, are none of the church, have no part with Christ etc. Thus is both Christ rob of his honour, which in contempt of his order (as although it were to base for Princes to go under) is himself contemned: and Princes defrauded of a singular 
c 1. Cor. 5. 5 2 Tim. 1. 20. 2. Cor. 7. 11.  aid of salvation, and way to draw them to repentance, when they (through the common corruption) fall into such diseases, against which this medicine was prepared.  
Hither belongeth the practice of the church in this, 
Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 34. Theod. 5. 18 Platina. ca Gelasius.  and such kind of censures, toward the Emperors Philip, Theodosius, and Anastasius on the one side, and the godly Emperors submission thereunto on the other, which if he (upon confidence of M. gualter's authority) dare condemn of pride in them which exercised those censures, or of folly in the Emperors that submitted themselves: not to charge him with Master Nowel's authority, which saith that the Prince ovught patiently to abide excommunication at 
Tom. 2. fol. 53. Numb. 12. 14. 15. 2. Cronicl. 26. 21.  the Bishop's hands, what will he answer to the example of Mary Moses sister and king Vzzias, which were subject to the same law of uncleanness by reason of the leprosy, aswell as any of the common people. For that the separation commanded in respect thereof, was not only a civil policy, to keep the whole from the sick, but that there was therein used, a part of Ecclesiastical discipline, it may appear, for that the Priest had the knowledge of the cause, the shutting them out, and receiving them in: and for that Azarias' the Priest of the lord, with other his Assistants, removed the king out of the temple, for the which he is commended in the scripture.  
And if it had been only a civil separation, yet when the Princes could not be exempted from it, for fear of a corporal infecting of their subjects: how much les ought they to be exempted from that separation, which is 
a 1. Co. 5. 6.  instituted against the spiritual contagion. that which he objecteth, of the drawing this spiritual sword, at every light or no occasion at all, thereby to deliver the Prince from subjection thereto: is vain. for if they abuse this power, the Price needeth not only to contenn it, but also may punish the abusers of it: So that in this respect, there is les cause, why the Prince should shake of this yoke of Christ, then others: considering, that he hath better remedy against the abuse of it, than others.  
That contracts of mariadg, appertain not unto the judgement 
Diuis. 3. pa. 680.  of church officers, it is manifest, considering that it is partly economical, and belonging to the right of the 
b 1. Co. 7. 38.  parents, partly civil, in respect that it was in times past concluded before the 
c Ruth 4. cha. 1. 2.  Magistrate. For as for the blessing in the church, it is no part of the contract, but a thing annexed unto it. which appeareth, in that upon the bore contract, before the blessing: the parties (although not to have company one with another) be 
d Math. 1. 20.  man and wife: and for that the breaker of that contract, is taken for an 
e Deut. 22. 23. 24.  adulterer. whereupon it followeth, that the judgement of divorce, being merely public, must be the civil magistrates alone. For matters of wills, it appeareth that they belong unto the Magistrate: considering that they are occupied in the commodities of this life, and towch the distribution of goods or lands.  
As for the An. reason, that the Bishop having best knowledge in those things, may best judge in them: it is a hook, to get all into their own hands. But I deny first, that they have, or can (by their calling) have best knowledge in such things: considering that there be diverse things in them, which require other knowledge, then of the law of god. And the case is rare, when the question is, whether a legacy, a contract, or a divorce be according to the law of god, or no: at lest which requireth any deep knowledge to dissolve it. And if all that which may fall into these matters, were to be decided by the law of god: yet to sit as judge in them, requireth not only knowledge, but also a calling, which Bishops can not have, for the causes above alleged. Therefore it is manifest: that herein the Bishops are usurpers, whereof also the D. may read, M. Nowel's judgement, that whoredoms, 
2. Tom. fol. 25.  adulteries, slanders, subtraction of tithes, cases testamentary etc. which Bishops sometime meddle with: are no more spiritual, then are murders, thefts, oppressions, and other injuries.  
Neither will it help him: that they exercise all manner of jurisdiction, in the Prince's right. For, first it hath been showed, that they ought to exercise no civil jurisdiction, although it were committed unto them. Then, how cometh it to pass, that in right of their bishopric, without further commission from the Prince: they take upon them these judgements of whoredom, divorces etc., even as they found them in time of popery. And as for excommunication, and other censures ecclesiastical, if they exercise them in the Magistrates right: it followeth that both the magistrate may much more exercise them himself, and appoint other than ministers to do than, both which, as they be absurd, so are they overthrown by the D. himself: which thinketh it unlawful for chancellors to excommunicate, for that (as I suppose) they be no ministers.  
In the next, where the chancellors are charged to excommunicate, and absolve for money, also one man for another etc. he saith, it is the fault of the man and not of the law. which if it were true, yet it argueth the Bishop's unsufferable carelessness of gods glory, whose institution is thus shamefully profaned: and neglect of duty towards the Prince, whose subjects are thus peeled. And here it is not to be omitted, that where the ecclesiastical censures in reformed churches, are exercised without a penny charge unto any person: our churches, partly by reason of the Archbis. and Bishops, and partly the Archdeacon's officers and their hangons, which by this means live in all bravery and jollity of life, are sore wrung: So that they are thereby much less able, to contribute to the necessary charges, either of relieving their poor minister, or sustaining the subsidies laid upon them, for defence of the realm. Therefore if the Archbishops and Archdeacon's will needs take more upon them, than themselves be able to bewield: at the lest, let them pay their servants wages, and not thus burden the church. But thus the reader may see, how unworthily the Archbishops, Bishops and Archdeacon's deal with the church, which not content themselves to use tyranny over it, and to take upon them of their private authority, which belongeth unto other with them, have also brought it into bondage under their servants, and servants servants, I mean chancellors, commissaries etc. The next I pass by.  
In the next, where I show that the office of Chorepiscopus 
Diuis. 6. p. 682.  alleged for defence of the chancellor's office, was far another thing: he saith, that he only alleged it to prove that Bishops had their deputies▪ which, how unhonest a shift it is, may appear: in that he maketh no difference, between the Chancellor and Chorepiscopus, but only in the name: saying, to contend for the name when the thing is certain, is a token of a contentious person.  
unless he had not so gained, that the Bishops had deputies: seeing I 
a In the first booK and in the former part of th● booK. p. 523.  showed, that both the nature of the word, and the authority of certain interpreters, lead to the signification aswell of a Bishop in the country towns, as of a deputy. it is untrue, that I have any where allowed an ordinary deputy, whereof the question is here: but contrary wise, have showed that there ought to be none, not only in the treatise of the Pastor's residence, but also in 
b Divi 2. p. 679.  this, whereunto the D. answereth nothing. But if it were granted, that they might have, such as I have showed to have been Chorepisc. yet what a strange conclusion is this, that they may aswell have chancellors: considering that he is now constrained to confess, the office of the one greatly different from the other. The rest is 
d in the former part of this booK p. 146. 229. and in this part diuis. 16. p. 645.  answered: so are the two 
c In the examination of the D. censures.  next.  
In the next, where he is charged for allowing as necessary the Archbishop's court of faculties etc., which he confesseth he knoweth not, what it meaneth. He saith, he brought better reason for it, then is brought against it. which is no defence of his rashness, whereby he affirmed, that which he confessed he knew not. His reason which he hath learned sithence is, that the queens 
p. 561.  prerogatives are defended there: As although the Archbishop were the fittest man to defend her prerogatives. Also, that it was set up, when the Pope was put down: in deed so it was, which is a good sign, that the Archbishop (saving profession of obedience to the king) was made Pope in his place. For hereupon it cometh, that he exerciseth untolerable and filthy merchandise: of which divers objected by the Adm. he partly confessed, 
561. 685.  and part through lothnes to confess and unability to answer, were passed by.  
That also, of not changing laws but upon strong reasons, which he other where repeateth: hath no place, where the question is, whether they be against the word of god or no. For here that worthy sentence hath place: if god command any thing 
August. in his 3. booK of confess. 8 chap.  against the manner or decree of whatsoever they be, if it were never done before, it ovught to be done, if it have been omitted, it ovught to be restored, if it were never before, it ovught to be instituted. If the D. allegation have place, it hath place in variable ceremonies: which notwithstanding (as hath been showed) the church hath changed, according as the circumstances have required, to the most of her commodity.  
Seeing therefore, our Sau. Christ commandeth, that the excommunication should be made by the church: seeing the Apostles his faithful interpreters, communicate the same power with it, in commanding it to thrust out impenitent sinners, to procure that both they may be saved, and others also kept from infection: seeing also the holy ghost, chideth the church, for that it had not used this power against the unrepentant: seeing he communicateth with it, the power of absolving those which were thrust out, when they declare their repentance: Last of all, seeing both the judgement, and general practice of the elder churches, and in a manner of those which are now, lead us hereunto: Of the other side, seeing the Bishop can not pass smaller matters, without the advise of the church: seeing by his sole excommunication, he hath brought the church to a miserable servitude, and that not to himself alone, but to his servants, chancellors, Officials, etc. seeing under colour hereof, he hath thrust his sickle into the Magistrate's office, suffered the glory of god to be trodden under foot, the queens subjects to be peeled: And finally, seeing that for his sole excommunication, there is not so much as one either approved example, or writer to be brought (some of the papists themselves being ashamed of it:) let us conclude, that the excommunication doth not belong unto the Bishop alone, but that by the ordinance of god, the church also here ought to have her interest.   

THE TENTH TRACT. OF THE OFFICE OF DEAcons: which containeth the D. xix, and xiv.  
HIs question, where the office of widows is restrained 
1. Divis. pa. 686.  to the poor which are sick, and strangers, I pass as impertinent: especially when he doth not assign any other, to whom their attendance belongeth. that the contrary doth appear, almost in express words: is but his accustomed boldness, of untrue speaking.  
Let us therefore come, to the Deacons: whose office is assigned, to be about the church money. The 
a Rom. 12. ●.  first proof hereof, received for answer, that it was but dalliance with the scripture: ●ith which time, although M. Caluin, Bucer, Martyr, and Beza, have been showed to have so expounded the place, yet his accusation is vnrepealed: whereby all these learned men, with many others stand charged still by him, as daliers with the scripture. But what, think you, doth he answer, to this whole college of godly learned men? he opposeth the exposition of certain fathers. who would have looked for this answer at his hand, in setting one writer against another, without a tittle of reason, words only excepted, which hath so bitingly, 
b page 65.  condemned it in other.  
These learned men, were not ignorant of those expositions: neither did they lightly departed, from the interpretation of the ancient writers. For whom also it may be answered, that in interpreting this place of private giving: they meant not, to shut out this office. And of M. Bullinger it is manifest, that 
c upon the 12. Rom.  he doth so allow of that, that he will have it understood properly of the Deaconship: so that you openly abuse his testimony herein. The cause why the ancient fathers followed this exposition, is known well enough to those which have been conversant in them, with any judgement: namely a desire they had, to draw all to the correction of manners straining often times their texts in hand, to draw them to the present use of their churches. by reason whereof, whether in steed of milk, they sometimes drw blood, I leave it to the judgement of the learned reader.  
But let us see, if this wrangling of his: can be convinced, of the place it self. where first it is manifest, that it is an explanation of that similitude which was drawn from the body: in which the Apostle showed, that as all the members have not one office, So in the church, every one hath not the same function. whereupon followeth, that if this distribution of money, which is a part of that explanation, should agreed to all the church alike, and should not be a several office: he should quite overthrow his purpose. For he should, show, things agreeing unto all alike: in steed that he should have showed, that some things be peculiar. If he reply, that he had showed those before, and that here he beginneth to show the things, which are common to all Christians alike: he is manifestly beaten down, by the order of the Apostle. For seeing both that which immediately goeth before this, and which followeth immediately after, be public offices: what extreme boldness would it be, to say that this in the midst, is but private. If he do give himself this licence, let him show example, of such an order.  
Further, the Apostle here maketh a partition: as it is manifest by the words and articles, which are instruments to part with. Now if he will have one member in this partition, bigger than all the rest, and to contain them all: he maketh the holy ghost (which is to be detested) an evil and an uneven parter. Hereupon it cometh, that when he speaketh of the duties, which belong to all alike: he beginneth with another 
a vers. 9  form of speech.  
Last of all, it is not to be omitted, that he useth the word of Distributor, rather than the word giver. For although it be taken sometime, for the giver, yet that is but by a trope: for somuch as the same is often the distributor, which is the giver: so that the proper signification being, to dispose that which was given of others, agreeth unto the Deacon, and not unto one which giveth of his own. His exceptions of Prophecy, and widows office 
a In the former part of this booK. p. 326. and in this later part diuis. 5. p. 637. Diuis. 4. p. 688. Rom. 12. 8.  be answered. In the next being convicted of his untruth, he falleth to jesting: albeit it be manifest, that the Adm. toucheth not only things in controversy, but sometime also, the breach of that which is established.  
To prove, that the Deacon ought not to meddle with the administration of the word and Sacraments, I alleged first, that the Apostle vuilling every one to keep himself in his bounds, boundeth the Deacons office in distributing of the church treasur, and by that separateth him, from those which have the dispensation of the word: whereas, if he should preach the word as the other, the Apostle should have made an evil partition, and pretended a separation where none is. His answer hereunto is, that it is no reason: but why it is not, he keepeth to himself.  
The second reason was, that for so much as the Apostles having such passing gifts, did find themselves unable to sustain both the ministries, of the word, and for the poor: that therefore there can be much les novu, any able to do them both together. His first exception whereunto, is frivolous, and 
b Tract. 7. diuis. 2 pa. 758.  before confuted: his other that they spent no great time in provision for their sermons, is untrue and openeth a gap to Anabaptism. For although their gifts were greater in those times, than now: yet they omitted not therefore, to study diligently which may appear, in that S. Paul is so 
c 2. Ti. 4. 13.  careful to have his parchmentes brought: in that S. Peter had 
d 2. Pet. 3. 16  read S. Paul's epistles so diligently: Likewise that the Prophets in times past which had extraordinary gifts, used great diligence in reading, as it may appear in Daniel. which, notwithstanding he was so wise, so expert in the tongues, and had so often and so wondered revelations: yet 
e Dan. 9  studied the prophecy of jeremy. And in a word, of them all, S. Peter pronounceth, that 
f 1. Pet. 1 10.  they took great pains in their prophecies: using words most strong, to set forth their great labour, in providing fo● that they taught.  
Neither was this of pleasure, and a thing which they might either do or leave undone, but a commandment: as it is to be seen in the example of Timothy, which had gifts so much the more excellent than the Deacons, as his office of evangelistship, was higher than the Deaconship. For he is 
a 2. Tim. 4. 13. 25.  bidden, to read, to meditate and to preach, joining one with another, and that not slightly but with attention, yea that 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he should duuel in them, or be as it were shut up and enclosed in them: thereby noting the great diligence that was to be bestowed, as well in reading and studying, as in preaching, And thus went the building of god singularly forward, when unto the gifts which came without their labour miraculously: they laboured also after either encreas of them, or getting of nue, by the ordinary means provided of god in that behalf.  
Again, S. Paul reckoning up, all the ministers of the word: 
Eph. 4.  the Deacon not being there, it followeth that he is no mininister of the word. And here the D. is plainly found, at strife with himself. For he confessing, that there is in that place, 
b 308.  a complete and perfect division of the ministries of the word, and withal that 
c 309.  the Deacon is not there contained: doth notwithstanding here, sing a clean contrary song.  
Moreover, it is diligently to be observed, that S. Paul in describing this office, requireth not that they should be able, 
1. Tim. 3. 8.  or apt to teach: which notwithstanding being (by the An. judgement) the chief point belonging unto him, should have been most absurdly left out. Lastly, if the Deacons office had been, together with the Stewardship of the church treasure, to have preached and administered the sacramenres: it must follow, that his office must have been a greater office, than the Pastors, as that which requireth greater gifts for executing both that which the pastor doth, and more to: which being absurd, that is also, whereof this followeth. That monster, which remaineth in this division: I will set upon, when I shall have run through that which pertaineth unto this matter, as it lieth in the 14 Tract. 
pag. 5●2.   
As I did not before deny, so now I confess him to have been Philip the Evangelist, and not Philip the Apostle, which is mentioned Acts the 8: and hold as before, that he preached by virtue of his evangelistship, and not by virtue of his Deaconship, which was then ceased, for that the church whereunto he served was scattered. Against which answer, his authority out of the Acts 21, to prove that he was still Deacon: is quite contrary, to himself. For it affirmeth of the time past, that he was, before Paul's arrival unto Caesarea, Deacon: not that he was so, when he arrived. For then the interpreters, would have turned the participle, which serveth both for the time past and present, according to the circumstance of the place, which is one of the seven, and not which was: So that, here we have the common consent of all interpreters, flatly against the D. namely, that Philip was not then Deacon when S. Paul came to Caesarea, but had been before.  
That of M. Gualther, maketh also against him: which placeth the Deacons office, in the disposing of the church treasure, and that they preached not, but in times of necessity. So that where M. Gualther permitteth preaching no more unto Deacons, than you do baptism unto women: you will have it, their standing office.  
The difference between a Priest and a Deacon, brought out of Augustin and Epiphanius, can by no means stand: considering that, that imposition of hands whereby gifts were extraordinarily given, which Philip abstained from, he did not abstain from, only as Deacon, but also as he was Evangelist: seeing that was a thing peculiar unto the Apostles, and a proper note, whereby the lord magnified their ministery, above all other ministries whatsoever. So that, it is no good reason to say, that Philip could not by laying on of his hands give the holy ghost, therefore he was a Deacon: considering that, neither Evangelists, nor Prophets themselves meddled with that kind of laying on of hands, which is there mentioned.  
And if Philip were then Deacon, he was Deacon of the church of jerusalem, whereunto he was chosen. But it is manifest, he was not Deacon there: considering that S. Luke after his departure from thence, and preaching in Samaria, and certain other places, bringeth him to Caesarea, where 
Acto. 8. 40. Act. 21. 8.  he leaveth him as a householder and towndweller. so that unless he dare say of Philip that he was a continual non resident: it can not be, that he was Deacon after his departure from jerusalem.  
But let us grant, that Philip was both a Deacon and Evangelist, which is notwithstanding absurd: seeing that the Apostles confessed themselves insufficient, to sustain that burden, together with their preaching ministry. I say let us grant that, yet forasmuch as he can not deny, but that it belongeth unto the office of an Evangelist to preach: how is he able to prove, that Philip preached rather by virtue of his Deaconship, than of his evangelistship. So that unless he be so bold, as to deny that Philip was there no Evangelist: he gaineth nothing, by all this travail. For otherwise, it followeth that Phillipes example, will not warrant the Deacons preaching: except he have, some other ministry of the word, joined with it.  
Therefore, let not him any more pretend, the authority of the godly writers: but confess, as the truth is, that this argument was ministered him out of Pigghius: who upon this 
Piggh. controvers. 11.  example of Philip, affirmeth (as he doth) that the Deacons may preach, even as the Priests do. As for Augustin, he goeth about (although not so aptly, as I have declared) rather to show, that the Deacons might not lay on their hands: then that it belonged, unto them to preach. which may appear, in that he doth not permit them to conceive the prayers, whereunto the people should answer: which notwithstanding is les, then to preach.  
I showed, that by the same reason, they are holden 
Diuis. 2. p. 583.  from the administration of the supper, they ovught also to be barred from that of baptism: considering that, it is not only a miserable rending in sunder of things which god hath joined, but also giveth occasion, or rather, being crept in, maintaineth a dangerous error: which is, that men esteem some holier thing to be in the sacrament of the holy supper, then in baptim. To this he answereth, that the reason of this difference is: because it is mentioned that Philip baptised, and not that he administered the supper. where, by the way, let the reader observe, that upon two particular examples, which he also untruly pretendeth, he would ground a doctrine, that the Deacons ought to preach, although he be able to show no rule, nor commandment for it: which notwithstanding he utterly condemneth in us, although it be showed, to have been done generally. Secondly, how he reasoneth negatively of authority, that it was not done, because it is not so written: yea which is more, that it ought not to be done, another thing also, which he reproacheth us with.  
Now, as for his answer, it is to frivolous. For, although it be a good reason in the direction of the church, to say, there is nothing wtitten touching it, therefore it is not to be admitted: yet in the practice of that which is prescribed to be done, it is an evil argument to say, it is not written, therefore it was not done: much more, that it may not be doen. For, when our Sau. Christ's acts, 
a joh. 20.  were not all written: is it any marvel, although all that Philip did, be not written? And by his reason, the Bishops ought not to administer the supper: considering that, in all the scripture it is not mentioned, that a Bishop ministered it.  
Neither, if Philip did not minister the supper: followeth it therefore, that he had not authority to administer it, aswell as baptism: except he think, that our Sa. Christ had not authority, aswell to administer baptism, which he did 
b joh. 4. 2.  not, as to administer the supper, which 
c Luk. 22. 19  he did.  
To that wherein I noted the disorder in our church, permitting to one that can not preach, the administration of the supper, and not to the Deacon (as they call him) which can preach: he answereth, that the one is called thereto, the other is not. where he must needs mean, that the one is lawfully called thereto, and the other lawfully shut therefrom: which is an ask, of that in question.  
My reply to his objection of Steuens oration, that it vuas no 
Diuis. 3. p. 584.  sermon, but a defence of himself against his accusations: is clear. For it appeareth, that the high Priest and Scribes 
Act. 6. 11. 15 & 7 1. 2.  etc. were there set in judgement, the false witnesses were set up against him, he was demanded whether the accusation were true, and upon that demand began his oration. now, let him show such a form of preaching, to have been used in any church.  
It is also unlike, that the high Priest and Scribes would permit him to preach: when as they had forbidden the Apostles before. but to give him leave to answer to his accusations, was needful for them: thereby to maintain that vizard of holiness, whereby they pretended an exact observation of the law, which was, that no man should be condemned unheard. And so, if he will have this a sermon, he shall yet gain nothing: considering that he had not this power by his ministry of Deaconship, but by commandment of the Council, that had power to require an account of that, which he had propounded in disputation, with those of the College of Libertines etc.  
His proof, that it was in the synagogue, is first without all warrant: there being not a word thereof, in the scripture. And yet being made in jerusalem, if it had been a sermon: it is liker, to have been in the temple. Neither, if it were in the synagogue, hath it any force to prove a sermon: unless he think, that every one which pleaded his cause in Paul's Consistory, in Queen Mary's time, made a sermon.  
That he also reprehended them sharply, is no other thing, than divers of the Martyrs of god have done with us, which, I think he will not say to have preached, by virtue of any ecclesiastical function. although I confess, that that is not to be lightly done, and without some especial direction, whereof the lord, in such times, doth furnish his: otherwise those that are private men, ought to content themselves, with a simple and plain defence of the truth.  
Neither is Paul's answer unto Tertullus accusation Act. 24, any sermon but a simple defence, addressed only to Felix as to his judge, uttered at the bar, as they speak, in a civil Court, and in a civil or common wealth cause, namely of sedition: and hath less of the nature of a sermon, than Steuens oration: yet, it is singularly profitable for instruction of our behaviour, in like cases. The lest part also of S. Peter's oration Act. 2, is spent in answer to the accusation of drunkenness: and that neither compelled, nor judicial, as was S. Steuens.  
I grant, a man may defend himself against false accusations in a sermon: but that is not, when he standeth judicially accused like a malefactor, as S. Steven did. whose whole oration, how apt a purgation it is (which he denieth): the reader may fetch from M. Caluin, upon that place: that I be not compelled, to lenghthen my book by so long translations. Against M. Beza (in quoting of whom, I failed) are opposed Gualther and the Centuries: of whose sentences, which is truer, let it be judged of the reasons on both sides. whether in the two next divisions, the Ans. shifteth his gros oversight, let the reader judge: especially, when as his pretence, that the Adm. assigned the deaconship, to be only in handling the church treasure, is untrue. For neither have they the word, only, nor any thing of that value: and it is manifest, that their drift was, only to shut out the Deacon from the administration of the word and sacraments. so that, in taking his words, in that since which he now would have them: in effect he confesseth, himself to have but trifled with the Admonition: changing the pricks, which they had set him to shoot at and roving after a mark of his own fineding. In the next, I alleged, that if the Deaconship were granted, a step to the ministry, yet thereof folovueth not that it is the ministry: but contrarivuise, that it is not, and therefore ovught not to do things pertaining to the ministers. To this he answereth, he concluded not so: which I confess, can not be forcibly won out of his words. But he saith, he might have so concluded: which is absurd, and all one as if he should say, that the foot of the stair is the same with the top, whether it, in ascending, leadeth. And how dare he say that he might have so reasoned: when as to the argument, which I drw from these words of his, he can answer nothing, how could he have hurt us, with this, which he suffereth to be driven so flat, upon the head of his own cause.  
Where afterward, to prove it no step to the ministry, I alleged, 
Diuis. 7. p. 587.  that the gifts are divers, and that one may vuel dispense the church treasure which, for vuant of utterance, should never be fit Minister: he answereth, that the Bishops and Deacons gifts, required 1. Timot. 3, do not much differ, which is a great untruth. For it is required of the one, that he should be both able to teach, and of long time in profession of the gospel, neither whereof, is required of the Deacon: when notwithstanding, the first only of them, maketh a greater difference, as touching the duty of preaching which is in question, then if he had made them to differ, in an hundredth other things. he addeth that they may be put by the ministry, for their lewd life: which is a mere misspending of the time, for so may the Clokkeper or the Sexton. Again, that Ambrose with other, expound it so: which is likewise, that being before confessed by me: especially, when other learned men, by his own confession, leaving their exposition, take this which I propounded.  
Further, that utterance sufficient for the distribution of the church money, is sufficient also for the ministry of the word: which must of necessity be his answer, if he speak to the purpose. And being so, it is to absurd: the confutation whereof (if it deserve any) may be fetched from that 
a In the former part of this booK. Tract. 5.  before handled. although, if that were true, the argument is not avoided: whiles he will also say, that there is as great knowledge and as deep judgement in the scriptures, required for the disposing of the church treasure, as for the preaching of the word. unto the other reason, which I brought against this, that the deaconship should be a step to the ministry, raised out of the same place: he answereth nothing.  
Here he abuseth the reader's patience again. For where 
Diuis. 8. p. ●88.  before, not able to show one testimony out of any ancient writing, that the Deacons had to do with the word and sacraments, I confessed notwithstanding frankly, that there were some: he hath here, set them down. whereunto, beside the answer before made, I add: that those cited out of Tertullian and jerom, be so far from helping him, that they make against him. For in that the Deacons could not meddle with the word or Sacraments, but upon the Bishop's licence: it argueth, that it belonged not unto their office: seeing it is absurd, that that which they were bound to do by reason of god's institution, should be hanged upon the Bishop's pleasure.  
Likewise, that out of M. Beza, is against him. For in saying, they supplied the Pastor's office: he giveth to understand, that it belonged properly unto Pastors, and was done by Deacons but in time of necessity. And so was, the Administration of the supper: which (
a 583.  saith he) he can not read in any author, to have been permitted to the Deacon. wherein, to let pass the Council of 
b 2. Con●. can. 15.  Arles and others, which licence this unto them, in absence of other: at the lest, did he not read M. Bezas' sentence, which he hath thrust into his own book, that they ministered the sacraments, not only the Sacrament of Baptim: although the places quoted 1. Corin. 1. 14. 15. and john 4. 2. prove no such thing, not not in the Ans. own judgement, as I think. For, will he say, that the twelve Apostles which baptised, were all Deacons? or that because S. Paul did not commonly baptise, those whom he converted, that therefore Deacons baptised them: as if there were neither Evangelists nor Pastors, to do it. Neither is it enough for him thus to trifle, except he use most vile reproaches against me: as although I strived, against a manifest truth. But that (even by M. Bezas' judgement) the administering of baptim, doth lawfully belong to the Minister alone, and not to the Deacon: the D. may see 
c Libel. de Quaest. in Sacr. quaest. 137. Tom. 2. 6. Concil. Constantinop. san. 16.  otherwhere.  
Now, unto the most certain grounds, of the word of god: let him hear, the testimonies of the ancient times. And first of the general Council, which maketh the Deacons Ministers of the poor, whom it calleth Ministers of tables and not of the holy things. Another Council decreed, 
Tom. 1. Cō. Vasense 2. Can. 4.  that in the Minister's sickness: the Deacon should read, the homilies of the fathers. whereby appeareth, that that Council, not so much as in the time of the Pastor's sickness, suffered them to preach the word, but to read homilies: thereby assigning also, the greatest honour in doing any thing which the Minister used to do in the church, in that he might read either the scriptures or homilies. Chrysostom saith, that the Deacons had need of great vuisdome: althovugh the preaching 
In act. ca 6  of the word be not committed unto them. And further showeth, that it is absurd, that they should do both the office of preaching, and caring for the poor: considering that they be not able, to do both thoroughly. yea, even immediately after that corrupt sentence, which the Ans. will needs father upon Ambrose: it is said, 
a In 4. cap. ad Ephes.  that in his time, the Deacons did not preach. Of this practice of the elder churches, we have M. 
b 5. Decade Serm. 3  Bullinger that giveth a plain testimony with us, that althovugh, the goods of the church increasing, there were beside the Deacons, Subdeacons' and Archdeacon's: yet that the Deacons remained still in their charge for the poor, and were not as yet mingled, with the Bishops or priests, and with the order of those which tavught.  
This being thus set, that which, for the strangeness, I called a monster: falleth flatly. for when it hath appeared, both by the word of god, and practice of the elder churches, that it be longeth not unto the office of the Deacon, to meddle with the ministry of the word and sacraments, if it be true, which the Ans. 
c 689.  saith, that provision for the poor by a Deacon, is not necessary under a Christian Prince: it must follow, that the office of Deaconship under a Christian Prince is unnecessary. which as it is absurd, so himself (I think) will not affirm it: if he do, it hath the same refutation, which the denial of the necessity of the office of Elders, hath had before.  
Nam although it were granted, which he would have, that the Deacons office were to minister the word and sacrament: yet this point of provision for the poor taken away, the Deacon is quite extinguished: considering that there should remain, no part of office, whereby the minister of the word, should be severed. if he say, that there should be difference, in that the one might minister the supper, and the other not: beside that I have showed how absurd that is, he can not so escape. for still the gifts are all one: considering that whosoever hath gifts of god to minister the word and Baptim, the same hath also gifts to enable him, to minister the supper. whereas seeing S. Paul separateth the offices by their gifts: it were against reason to 
Rom. 12. 8.  make them divers offices, which have the same gifts for their execution. Beside that, in taking away that which he is constrained to confess, to have been by god's institution, at the lest a part of this office: he is manifestly convicted, of changing and corrupting, if not of utter overthrowing the lords ordinance. Else, let him show us, what tittle of the scripture he hath: whereby it may appear, that the ministry of the word and baptism (which he surmiseth to belong unto it) should be perpetual, and the provision for the poor temporal. 
p. 69●.   
So also appeareth, that the contradiction is unanswered which was laid unto him: in that in the lati book saying it ought not to be taken away, in this and the other, he saith that this part is not necessary. for thus should it not be the office of a Deacon, instituted by the holy Apost. but another function, forged by D. whitgift. This assertion of his, being strange: his reason whereupon it is grounded, is yet further out of fashion. for he contenteth not himself, to say that men may devise as good away for the provision of the poor, as did the lord himself: whiles in this behalf, he set up the wisdom of men above the lords. For this doth he plainly in effect affirm, when he saith, that the poor may by other lawful and politic means, be better provided for: considering that it was the lords own order, established by the Apost. where, beside that his reason, is a demand of that in question, and that the untruth thereof, hath been 
a In the former part of this booK. and in the preface. Es. 7. 15. etc.  before noted: I will answer further out of Esra, where there is a notable story, touching a matter not much unlike. for after he had received of king Darius, both precious vessels and other gifts for gods service: being now in journey from Babylon unto jerusalem, and understanding, upon view of his company, that there were not of Priests and Levites a sufficient number, to whom he might commit this treasure: stayed there with 
Esra 8. 15.  his whole suit, until such time as he had recovered, a competent number of the church men. For that this was the cause 
Esra 8. 25.  of their sending for, appeareth by the yssu, of committing the treasure unto their custody.  
And albeit there might be some other use of them at jerusalem, beside this cariadg: yet that their presence was necessary in this respect, it is manifest, not only because otherwise he might have given order, that they should have comen after, without staying so great a company, for their sakes: but especially upon the words of Esra, which assigneth 
vers. 28.  the cause of their election unto that charge, to have been, for that the money and plate being consecrated to a holy use, it behoved them which were likewise consecrated, to have the custody of it.  
Now, if the Ans. should sit in judgement of this act of Esra, and judge by his Canon law, which he hath here set down: this godly learned Priest, hath already received the black stone or sentence of condemnation. For were there not as faithful, and as wise for that purpose in the company, as either the Priests or Levites were? were there not of the Princes, which for their skill in fight, and for the train which followed them, were more able to make head with the enemy, that should give the attempt to take them away: then were either the Priests or Levites? finally, is it not a mere superstition, to stand thus upon the difference of a tribe or family, with los of time, and expense of money, in so great a company?  
But the Priest, appealeth to that court, where the canon of the holy scripture, sitteth judg. which because it teacheth, that the safety and prosperous success of things, depend upon the blessing of god, and that that blessing is especially given, where things are done according to his institution: the same restoreth his righteousness again, and giveth him the white stone of absolution: for that the weaker, and more unlikely, having the calling of god thereunto, is more apt, than without that calling, the strongest Samson that can be got. So that, if in common reason, the Collectors were fit than the Deacons, which is untrue (considering that the same may be ecclesiastically ordained Deacons, which are Collectors) yet, forasmuch as it is the vnrepealed and unrevoked order of god, that the Deacon should do this: it ought to be preferred, to all the inventions of men, how fair and colourable soever they appear.  
But of the confutation of this, enough is said: especially, considering that beside the continual practice of the church, with the common consent of the learned both old and nue, M. Bucer hath laboured this point particularly, in the behalf of our church: which showeth, that this office 
Bucer de regno Christ● & in 4. ca ad Ephes.  must of necessity be restored, as it is described Act. the vi, if England vuil receive, the true discipline of Christ.  
Hereupon also, considering there be poor in every church: 
diuis. 5 page 690. In the former part of this booK Tract. 6. chap. 3. In this part Tract. 8.  the use of this office in every church, is manifest. For further confirmation of which point, the reader may have recourse to that I have proved before: that in every church, according to gods institution, there ought to be a Bishop: especially, when the Ans. himself will not deny, but the Bishop and Deacon should go together. Likewise, unto that which hath been said of the Eldership, in this behalf: considering that some of the reasons, are common to both. As for the first of his exceptions, that the Deacons of one city, may serve all the whole Diocese, it is to far out of square: considering that for one only church, and that within one city jerusalem, there were seven.  
His second, that in scripture it can not be showed, that Deacons were placed any where then in cities: is first to reason negatively of authority, not in the question whether it ought to be done or not, but whether it was done: which not we alone, but himself also condemneth. Secondly, if this be a reason to bar the churches, which are not in cities, because there are none specified but in great cities: them he shall by the same reason, bereave them of their Pastors: considering that there is never a small town, of which it is any more said, that it had a Pastor, then that it had a Deacon.  
Thirdly, he saith that the same can not be showed (whiles he be greatly deceived) in any ancient writer. wherein he giveth suspicion, that he took not his wares by tale, but in gros: otherwise, he might better have known what he hath suffered his 
a pag. 339.  book, to be stuffed with. For it hath examples of country churches, belonging to the church of Alexandria: which had both Elders and Deacons. And his own Ignatius, whom he will have john the Apostles scholar: affirmeth, that every church ovught 
Ad Philadelph.  to have this office of Deaconship.  
His comparison of this reason, there were Deacons at jerusalem, therefore in all churches, with this there be preachers in Cambridg, therefore in all England: is unaequal. For it was not nakedly so propounded, but warranted with reasons: in that the Apostles laboured after the comformity of the churches. so that the proof, that there was such an office in one, is proof, that there was in all: or at lest that there ought to have been, which is all one, to the matter in hand, his answer whereunto is before confuted. Therefore, the comparison had been 
In the former part 6. Tract. and 3. ca●. Tract. S. chap 2. Diuis. 9 p. 641.  juster with this: that the men in the city have two hands a piece, therefore they in the country have so to: and if any have not, that there is a fault. The next is answered, so is the next to it.  
To the reason I alleged, that the church may be at as small charges with a Deacon, as with a Collector, seeing that it may make of the Collector a Deacon: he maketh no answer, only he covereth himself, under colour of the admonit: which (ironically as I judge) saith that every parish, can not be at cost, to have both a Curate and a Deacon: considering, that it requireth, both a Pastor and a Deacon, in every congregation. although, to cut of occasion, about their meaning herein, I will not strive. The second chapter 
In the 8. Tract. diuis. 5. p. 637.  of this tractat, is answered before.  
Seeing then, the Apostle separateth the office of the Deacon, from the ministry of the word, making them divers members of one whole: and seeing that in the perfect division of the ministry of the word, he is not remembered: seeing also the Apostle describing his qualities, requireth not that he should be able to teach: Again, seeing that in executing his office towards the poor, together with the function of preaching, he should be charged with more, than the Apostles themselves could do, and had need of greater gifts, than the Pastor: last of all, seeing both by judgement, and practice of the purer churches, the Deacons have been either altogether shut out from preaching, or being permitted to preach, have done it upon a nue grace, over and above the calling, of a Deacon: I conclude, that the Deacon hath no calling of god to preach the word, and by the same reason, that he hath none to administer any Sacrament: which later conclusion shall further appear, in the next Tractat.   

THE ELEVENTH TRACTATE, AGAINST THE CORRVPTIons in doctrine, tovuching the holy Sacraments.  
The first chapter whereof is, against the sacrilege of private persons, and vuemen especially: in administering the holy Sacrament of Baptim, as it beginneth pag. 503 of the D. book.  
LEaving to the reader's judgement, upon the 
Diuis. 1.  reasons alleged, whether the meaning of the book be to admit baptism by Midwives, for as much (as I trust) there shall no such horrible profanation be suffered hereafter: let him observe how the An. because he hath once undertaken this cause (covertly as he dare) continueth the defence thereof. Iwis, of follies the shortest are best. it had been better for him, to have laid his hand upon his mouth: or rather in confessing of his fault, to have given god the glory. But let us see what he bringeth.  
To that which was alleged out of the place of S. Mathevu, 
Math. 28. ●9.  that it maketh as much against baptism by vuemen, as against there preaching: he answereth, that by that reason, Pastors may neither preach nor baptize, for that they are no Apostles: which followeth not. For the Pastor succeeding unto the Apostles, as touching preaching and baptizing in their proper churches: have by the same place authority to do both. For further answer whereto: I refer the reader, to that I have written 
a In the former part p. 369. line 30.  before. And I think, there is not so much as one of the godly writers, either old, or nue, which speaking of the ordinary ministry under the gospel, whether it be to establish or overthrow things pertaining to it: useth not the places, that were first spoken to the Apostles alone. As for M. 
a Inst. booK 4. chap. 25. sect. 22.  Caluin, he useth this place expressly, which the Adm. doth: to prove that women ought, at no hand, to baptize, but only the Ministers ordained to preach the gospel: the same doth M. 
b Quaest. de Sacram. quaest. 136.  Beza. yea the Ans. himself, to prove the Bishops saying to those he ordaineth 
c pag. 227.  allegeth these words, receiu the holy ghost: which notwithstanding were first said, by our Saviour Christ, unto the Apostles alone: so that the Ans. frowardness, is here untolerable. Neither is it any thing excused by Zuinglius. For, although baptism be not instituted here, which was instituted in the ministry of john Baptist, nor here be mentioned any circumstance: yet the minister of that institution, which is no circumstance, but a subordinate efficient cause, may well be appointed.  
For confirmation hereof, I alleged that the ministry of the word and Sacraments, joined of god together, ovught not to be pulled asunder: and therefore cited examples, wherein vue see observed continually, that the same were Ministers of both together. whereunto first he answereth generally, that examples prove not: which is 
d In the former part p. 155. etc.  before answered. Then unto the particular example of the Ark, he excepteth, first that if that were a sacrament, the Minister may make sacraments, for that Noah made it: as if it ought to be so strange, that the Minister ministerially and subordinately, according to the institution prescribed of god, should be said, to make the sacrament. For as it it often times said, that the Priests made the sacrifices: So, the Minister in using the water, 
Levit. 9 7. 22. et 14. 19▪ etc.  which was common before, unto that use, and after that sort, which Christ hath appointed, maketh it holy and Sacramental water. Neither ought it to be more strange unto him, that the minister should after this sort make the sacrament: then that he should 
e 1. Tim. 4●.  save his hearers, 
f Isay. 6●.  that he should harden their hearts, close up their eyes, stop up their ears, etc. all which things, the scripture ascribeth unto the minister.  
Secondly he saith, it had no promise of eternal life, nor was a seal of any promise: both which are untrue. For it confirmed Noah in the promise that god had given, that he should not be drowned, with the rest of the world. And as the promises, made of temporal blessings unto the fathers, extended them selves unto the everlasting: so the sacraments to confirm those promises, were sacraments to confirm them, in the hope of eternal life. This doth S. Peter confirm, which teacheth that the preservation of Noah in the Ark, was the same 
●. Epist. 3. 21  to him and his, which baptism is to us: to whom, the Ans. doth in this point, directly oppose himself.  
Thirdly, he addeth, that it was a figure of the church, and therefore no sacrament: which followeth not. For the bread and wine in the holy supper, are so a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: that they are nevertheless, Sacraments of the church represented thereby, in that, 
a 1. Cor. 10.  as many corns make one loaf, and many grapes one cup of wine: so many members, make one body of Christ, which is the church. Neither is the example of the miracles, unaptly alleged: for they be signs to confirm the word of god, as are the Sacraments. therefore whosoever can show, that Ministers of the word ought only to be Ministers of the signs, whereby it is confirmed: showeth, that they only must be Ministers, of the Sacraments.  
To prove, that the forbidding of them, from the ministering of the word, is their forbidding from the ministering of the Sacraments: I brought an argument of contraries, for that S. Paul being bidden to minister the word, as in things which go together, did without further commandment, minister the Sacraments: which was, belike, as a pill, that he could not well swallow, considering that he answereth nothing. And if this, be not a good argument, than there is no commandment in the scripture, to bar women from being public ministers of the Sacraments: for it is no where expressly forbidden them, to minister the sacraments, but only to minister the word. If therefore the godly learned, have judged them unmeet, to minister the sacraments, because the holy scripture hath disabled them, to minister the word: it followeth necessarily, that none may have power to minister the sacraments, which hath not also to minister the word. for otherwise, if those might publicly minister the sacraments, which can not do the word: women by reason of their sex, are not so shut out, but that they may have entrance into that ministry.  
Against this, and to prove, that there may be ministers of the sacraments and not of the word: he referreth me to his pag. 483, where are cited Chrysostom, Ambrose, Martyr and Caluin upon these words, Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach. For answer whereunto, first it must be understanded, that when S. Paul saith, that he was not sent to baptize: his meaning is not, that he had no manner of sending at all to baptize. For so should his own mouth condemn him: as one which had undertaken to do that, whereunto he was not sent: considering that he confesseth in the same place, that he baptised certain howshouldes. what is then his meaning? Verily even that, which he declareth by his practice: that he was rather sent to preach, then to baptize. And of such negatives by comparison, the Ans. could not be ignorant: seeing both he hath otherwhere made mention of them, and it is a thing which a young divine, and he that hath yet the pap in his mouth, may easily understand. As when it is said, receiu my discipline, 
Prou. 8. 10.  and not silver: Likewise that thy name shall be no more 
Genes. 32. us. 28.  called jacob, but Israel: that is to say rather discipline, than silver, rather Israel, than jacob.  
Now, seeing S. Paul did both preach and baptize, by authority of god, and virtue of his calling: all may see, that no man can conclude of this place, that one may be minister of the sacraments, and not of the word. if any thing can be concluded, it is: that some may be occupied in administering the word, more than in the sacraments. And this is also an answer to that alleged out of Zuinglius, touching Christ teaching and his disciples baptizing: considering that the disciples preached also although not so much as our Sau. Christ.  
Secondly, in so great numbers of men and women to be baptised, if to the end that the Apostles course of preaching should not be stayed, others had that charge to pour on the water, which were no Ministers of the word: that was in the beginning, before any ordinary ministry of Bishop was erected in the churches: and therefore nothing pertaining to our question, which in choir, what ought to be the ordinary and settled government of the church. For is it credible to a man of any judgement, that either the Apostle would commit, or these writers would say: that he committed the office of baptizing, unto those which were not Ministers of the word, passing by the Pastor himself.  
Albeit, where there was no Pastor to assist the Apostles: I see not, why the help that others, which were no ministers of the word, gave in that administration, should be properly called baptizing: no more than he which serveth the Pastor, either in carrying about the bread, or reaching the cup, can be said to have ministered the lords supper. So that, the Apostle S. Peter, having preached of the use of baptism, and pronounced the words of the institution: although he powered not the outward element of water with his own hand, might well be said, to have baptised them al. Beside that, nothing hindereth, why the words Act. 10 he commanded them to be baptised: may not be expounded, that he commanded water to be brought, wherewith they should be baptised.  
Howsoever it was, it could not be, as the D. saith very dangerously out of Ambrose: for that he would not vouchsafe to do it himself, other ministers being present: considering that the ministry of the holy sacraments, being of the same nature with the preaching of the word, is of greater excellency, than any man upon earth is worthy to handle. Beside that, seeing he alloweth of Ambrosis place to the Ephesians, which affirmeth that all men preached in the apostles times: he can receiu; no benefit of him in this place. For if all did preach, aswell as baptize: than it is true which I say, that none had the ministry of the sacraments, but he which had the ministry of the word withal: and untrue which he affirmeth out of Ambrose, that some were ministers of the word, which were not of the sacraments.  
Likewise is the testimony out of M. Beza (whereto I have 
In the Tractat of the Deacon.  answered before) flat against him in this cause: considering that his judgement is, that the Deacons did both preach, and administer the sacraments sometime. And as there is no harmony between him, and his autorityes: so is there none, between the sentences of his authors, which he hath mashed together. For where some say, all: other say, that Priests only baptised. where he saith Musculus doth allow, that some should minister the sacraments, which can not preach: it is very true, and further, that he would rather have it done by them, then by those that can preach. But his ground, is upon the misunderstanding of Act. the 6: whilst he took the ministering to tables, which is the provision for the poor, for the ministering of the lords supper. The foundation therefore of his assertion, being nought: the assertion it self, can have no place.  
The place of the 1. Timoth. 5. is 
a In the tractat of the presbytery.  answered: 
b In the former part p. 371. line 10  so is his question. To 
c diu. 3. and 4. pa. 506. 507.  return again therefore to his demand. where he asketh, what point of Anabaptism it is, that women may preach in the church, when there is no other that can, nor will? I answer, that it approacheth to that branch, whereby the anabaptists hold, that men may preach without an outward calling of the church: only, if they think it needful.  
Where I objected, his building upon examples, of a fevu particular persons, which alovueth not ours, althovugh they be grounded upon the general use of the churches in the apostles time: he answereth, that he buildeth no necessary rule, but only that it may be done upon like occasion. But this is but a vain shift. For those extraordinary acts which are commendable, were done either by express commandment, or by special direction of the spirit of god: the obedience whereunto, was not at their choice to do, or to leave undone. So that, if the Ans. will have these examples, to be the directors of baptism by midwives: they not only may, but ought to do it. And if there were any such case of necessity, as he untruly pretendeth, and that it might in such a case be ministered by women: it were absurd to leave it in the choice of the Midwife, whether she would minister it or no.  
But note (I beseech you) what horrible confusion, he bringeth into the world, by this saying. For if extraordinary examples do prove, that such things may be done in such cases: then may private men execute malefactors, because Phinees did so: and men may borrow and never pay, as did the Israelites. If he say, that he addeth upon like occasion and circumstance: it is true, but thereby he meaneth, if like need or necessity be. For if he mean as he ought, having a particular commandment of god by word, or a rare and extraordinary instinct by the spirit of god: his answer is nothing to purpose, considering that he will not (I think) say, that the Midwives have any of these two: and if they had, they do it not in respect of the former example, but only by reason of the extraordinary, either commandment, or motion.  
His example of the Samaritan woman john 4, is frivolous: that she should become a public preacher, which had not yet learned her catechism, nor was scarce out of her Christian A. B. C. where it is manifest, that she did nothing, which belongeth not to every one: that is, that we should exhort one another, to go where the knowledge of Christ is to be 
Isay 2. 3.  had: so that, she did only, as it were, towl the bell, to draw the Samaritans to our Sau. Christ, that he might preach unto them. Neither doth his other example, of the women Math. 28 which preached the resurrection, help him. For if that may be called a public ministry, it hath an express commandment of the lord, by the Angel. which commandment, as often 
Math. 28. 7  as Midwives can show, we will acknowledge their ministry lawful: otherwise the general commandment, which we are 
1. Cori. 14. 34. 1. Tim. 2. 11.  bound to follow, is direct against their preaching, which being showed of me, is unanswered by him. So that here he merely trifleth, often saying, that there is nothing against the baptism by women, and never answering the scriptures alleged, whereby it is generally forbidden them, to deal in these matters.  
To that I concluded of his words (women may preach, if there be no man that either can, or will) that vuemen by that means have his licence to preach in divers places: he answereth it needeth not, seeing the scriptures are read in all places. But that is but an escape: considering that although they have a reader, yet they have no preacher, reading not being preaching, as I have ᵃ showed. And who seeth not, that many with us, for 
In the for●mer part Tract. 5.  want of teaching, lie in horrible ignorance of the truth: so that, by his rule, this is the time, in which women may teach openly with us.  
But here again, he opposeth M. Caluin, which saith there is a 
Divi. 5. and 6. p. 507.  time wherein a woman may speak. If he mean in her own house, or otherwhere privately, I grant: if publicly in the church, upon an extraordinary calling, I grant that also: otherwise I can not grant it, for the reasons before, and after alleged. And that M. Caluin, had no such meaning as he pretendeth: 
Inst. 4. booK. chap 15 sect. 20.  appeareth, in that he will at no hand, admit baptism by women: to whom, although he oppose Zuinglius, yet he showeth not, nor (I think) is able to show, that he alloweth, of baptism by Midwives.  
The next division, which showeth that godly vuemen never took the ministry of the word, but by extraordinary calling from god, approved either by miracle, or some not able yssu, (saith he) is needles, as that whereunto he agreeth: which is not so. For hereby is condemned, the baptizing both by women, and other private persons whatsoever: as that which hath no such calling, and approbation of god. The next to it, showeth his poverty: which endeavouring to defend the baptism by women, was ignorant of the principal hold of that cause: and was needfully met with for their sakes, whom that might trouble.  
In he next, he would insinuate, that they may baptize in the house: for that S. Paul biddeth them teach in private places. where, if he had made his argument just, and to clasp well together: he should have concluded, that they ought to teach their household in private places, therefore they ought to baptiz in private places: and they ought to teach their families ordinarily, therefore they ought to baptize their families ordinarily. thus must the argument be cut out, according to his measure: and he may as well say, that a woman ought to do the same in the holy supper. But the knot is not yet loosed, my answer whereunto is, that if there were any private sacraments, as there is private teaching: I would accord unto him, that women having power to teach privately, might also minister the sacraments privately. But because that the holy sacraments are public, as is the preaching: his argument, hath no force. For in what place, will he lodge this argument: a woman may do a private act, therefore she may do a public. The division following, being evil severed of him from the next chapter, whereunto it belongeth: I leave, until I come unto that matter.  
Now, it may please the reader, to turn unto the 5 chapter pag. 516, which is also of this point in hand: touching the person, by whom this sacrament should be administered. where first mark (I pray you) a wily distinction, which in effect is, that he defendeth not baptism by women, but improveth the Adm. that disalloweth it: as although one could improve the one, and not defend the other. And unless he had brought the example of Sephora, to maintain baptism by women, it had been fond alleged: considering that the words of the Adm. are of the practice of the Apostles times, an exception against which, fetched from the time which was 1000 years before, might seem to come from him, whose wits were not at home: especially, when the question is, what was done, and not what ought to be done, as he himself now pretendeth.  
Secondly he saith, he will not contend with me in divers things in this division, for that he misliketh their error, which condemn infants that be not baptised, as much as I: which is not so. For he saith, that the lak of baptism, may seem to be a probable token and sign of reprobation, 
p. 524.  which is both untrue, and perilous: considering that not the want, but the contempt or neglect only of the holy Sacrament, can draw any, the lest appearance of the lords wrath. Neither is that either neglect, or contempt prejudicial to the infant, but to the parents only, whose fault that is. which notwithstanding, can be none, where they seek to their uttermost, that it may be baptised of the minister of the church, orderly, and conveniently: no more than it was prejudicial, either to the child, or parents under the law, when the infant died, before the eight day, which was the time appointed, for the administration of the Sacrament of circumcision. For as the eight day, was to them: so is a convenient, and orderly time, to us.  
It is therefore a shameful dealing, that he maketh us here to join with the anabaptists: which reject children from baptism, until they be able to make profession of their faith. whereas we confess it ought to be ministered, with all convenient speed: so it be by the minister, whom god hath ordained for the same purpose. In which accusation of Anabaptism, with us, he windeth up also (as it were in one bottom) the reformed churches: where it is not permitted, that the infant in any case should be baptised, but by the minister. withal, the reader may perceive, how idle he is, which translateth a great piece of M. Caluin: to prove that, which none denieth. whom also, he goeth about to oppose to himself, which is of the same 
a Inst. 4. booK chap. 15. sect. 20. Lib. epist. p▪ 179.  judgement with us, in this behalf: although, there be not so much as a tittle in the words he setteth down, bending that way.  
It may well stand, that this profanation came from the Gentiles, from Victor, and from the Papists: Victor borrowing it of the heathen, and the Papists of him. For both popery is like a bundle of corruptions, which being picked out of sundry times and places, it hath cocked up together: and the Pope is like a hog, which when he cometh into a garden, leaving the sweet flowers, taketh himself always to that, which is most filthy in all the place. otherwise, the D. might deny, any corruption almost, to be papistical: seeing they have few, whereof either paganism, or declining from Christianism, hath not been the first founder. 
Diuis. 3. pa. 517.   
To that I alleged, to prove the unlawfulness of the circumcision by Moses wife, for that she did it, in presence of her husband a Prophet, which is M. Caluins' reason: he opposeth 
Inst. 4. booK chap. 15 sect. 22.  the note of the bible printed at Geneva, that he could not do it, because he was sick, and that the Lord required it then. whether he was able or not, I will not strive: but that the lord required circumcision, if there were no ordinary minister for it, doth not appear. For, as it was an order of god, that the male child should be circumcised the eight day: so was it also his order, that he should be circumcised by a minister. Now, how can it be showed, by that the lord struck Moses, that he would therefore, have this ordinance changed: when as the sickness sent, was a correction for the breaking of one of his orders, and not a trumpet blown, to call them to the breach of the other.  
And what if (as it cometh to pass) the lord had, as it were, stricken Moses by sickness in the child, or that the child, being of discretion, had himself willingly wanted circumcision: ought the child therefore, by and by, with the present hazard of his life have been circumcised? no verily. But as this sickness, should have instructed both father and son, to repent them of the former negligence, and to purpose the amendment of it, when the child should be able to abide the wound: so the sickness of Moses, was for that end sent, that he should repent him of the former negligence and amend it, when it might be according to the order appointed.  
To that alleged, that she did it in a koler: he answerereth not. To that, that Moses recovery is no proof of the lavufulnes of it, considering that when things are measured by the event, the good are condemned, and the vuicked justified oftentimes: he answereth that the event often declareth the thing, which is but to waste wind. For if it do often otherwise: it can serve for no reason, or allowance of that circumcision. And if the judgement by the event, be to be taken, it is there, where the causes do not appear: but here the cause of circumcision, which is the institution of god, is able to try the matter. where also appeareth, how affamished he is, to find contrarieties in my book: in that he supposeth variance in this, that here, I call Moses a prophet, and in another place, say that the priesthood was taken from him, and given to Aharon: which is to foul an oversight. For both, there were Prophets, which were no Priests nor of the race of Priests: and the time of the deliverance over of the Priesthood unto Aharon, was long after the time, here spoken of. 
Dinis. 4. p. 518.   
Against that I affirm it a necessary point of the Sacrament, that it be ministered by a Minister, he maketh many owtcryes: but they be not these loud clamours, which can gain the cause, where there is so deep silence of reason: and where out of the scripture, not so much as one silly reason, is once pretended. Therefore, to cut his comb, that he crow not so loud hereafter: he hath flatly betrayed his cause, in that, not able to allege one reason out of the word of god, he placeth the strength of this cause herein, that against baptizing by lay men in the time of necessity, we have (as he saith) not scripture and he hath learned men for it. For first, in that he can bring no reason out of the word of god, why a lay man or woman in time of necessity (as he termeth it) may baptize: it is manifest, that he ought not to have set it down. For this is a matter of doctrine, and a matter of faith: even in that narrow signification, that he taketh matters of faith. this is none of the variable ceremonies, which altar by the diversity of times, of countries, and of persons: and therefore by his own rule, here an argument of the authority of the scripture negatively, is good: so that here it is a good argument, the scripture commandeth not that lay men or women should baptize, therefore they may not baptize.  
Beside also, that he doth us wrong, in saying, that it is avouched without proof. It might have contented him, to have said without good proof: for proof there is, whatsoever it be. where, that which he affirmeth, that the scripture doth not forbidden lay men to baptize, is an untruth: considering it forbiddeth that any should take honour to himself, but he which is called as was Aaron. which sentence doth manifestly shut 
Heb. 5. 4.  out, all private persons from this administration: seeing it is a singular honour, in the church of god. As for that string, which he continually runneth upon, that in time of necessity, it may be admitted: it is but a plain ask of that in controversy. For, it being confessed, that baptism is necessary, when it may be administered according to the order which god hath ordained: the state of the question is, whether there be any such necessity of baptism, as for the attaining thereof the order which god hath set in his church, of administering it by a public minister, ought to be broken. Of the same sort, is his often idle talk, of the refusal, neglect, or contempt of baptism: as although, there could be any of these, in this case. If he can show, that women, or lay men ought to baptiz in such times, and that god hath ordained, that in default of a Minister, they may lay to hand: then let him talk his fill.  
But that I am assured he can not, the contrary rather may be seen: that the lord hath condemned such rashness, as may appear by the examples of Saul and Vzziah. For what greater 
1. Sam. 13. 11  appearance of necessity of sacrificing, could there be: then when Saul took upon him, to sacrifice. And how probable reasons, in the judgement of men, doth he bring to defend his fact: as that the people would otherwise have forsaken him, that the Philistines pressed him, that Samuel, came not within the time appointed. Likewise what greater appearance of necessity: then when Vzziah stayed the ark, otherwise like to have fallen. yet (these necessities notwithstanding) 
2. Samu. 6. 6. 7.  forasmuch as they took upon them, that whereunto they were not called: they received, the reward of their boldness. whereas here there is (as I have said) no danger: so that the ordinary means be not neglected. And verily it is all one, as if he should say, that if there be no magistrate at hand, or none that will do his duty in executing justice against a murderer: that then a private man may take upon him, to hung the murderer.  
Now where he propoundeth, to prove two points, the one that baptism by lay men is lawful, the other, that although they were no fit nor lawful Ministers, yet that the baptism is lawful: to the end the reader may have more light wherewith to judge of these matters, or ever I towch the second, I will rid his arguments of the former point. for he hath confusedly blinded and meddled them both together.  
His authorities here, for the most part, are idly set down: as those which I confessed before, when I granted the ancienty of this corruption. But seeing they are here: I will speak a word with them. First out of Ambrose upon Ephes. 4. is cited, that all baptised. If this make any thing, to prove baptism by lay men: it proveth not only, that they may baptize in this pretended time of necessity, and privately, but that they may daily, and publicly baptize: so that he, by this means, will have lay men ordinary Ministers. Then, let the reader observe, how unhonestly he dealeth with him. For in the same place, it is contained, how in the time wherein Ambrose lived, it was not permitted unto lay men, nor unto clerks themselves, which were an inferior order of church men, to baptise: so that this Author maketh directly against him, affirming that although it were so then, yet that it is no direction for us now.  
Augustin followeth, another of his witnesses, in this cause: whose judgement is herein flat against him. For when he doubteth, whether one baptised by a lay man, ovught to be 
2. li. contrae litteras Parm. ca 13  rebaptized: it is manifest, that he alloweth not, that a lay man should take upon him to baptize, but only standeth in doubt, whether that baptism, being so unduly ministered, ought to be counted for baptism. Otherwise, if he had holden the ministry of a lay man lawful: there had been no place unto his doubt, whether the baptism be good or no. And therefore the D. durst not set down his words: but carried them thr●e or four divisions further, where they serve him, for the second point in controversy.  
His third witness, is jerom ad Luciferianos: which maketh not to prove, what was lawful by the word of god, but what was permitted then by the church. There remain therefore Tertull. and Zuinglius, which do affirm it lawful: to whom, if the matter should be tried by authority, he hath his own Ambrose, and Augustin to encounter with. chrysostom also, as himself 
a pag. 483.  citeth him: which will give none leave to baptize, but a Priest. Ad to these 
b Cypr. ad jubatanun.  Cyprian, who although he erred in rebaptisation, yet proveth by substantial reasons, 
c Nomb. 16. Levit. 10.  of the vengeance of god against Chore, Dathan, Abiram, and of the sons of Aaron: that only the ministers of the church, may baptize: secluding thereby a lay man, although he be never so catholic. I leave his Denys, which is here full for us, and come to the later writers: where he hath beside M. Caluin before alleged, 
d Beza in quaest. de sacr. quaest. ●37.  Beza, and 
e Bulling. 5. Decad. Ser. 8.  Bullinger with others. Beside that whatsoever, or whosoever shall be alleged afterward, to prove that the Sacraments ought to be celebrated in a public assembly, serveth to bar all private persons and especially (by the D. own confession) women, from this administration of Sacraments. 
f In the second part of the last Tractate and third chap.   
Now, it may please the reader, to turn over the leaf in his book page 521: where this question is yet pursued, and examples brought of lay men which preached in Origins tyme. where it is first to be noted, that the Ans. is contrary to himself: which page 139 and last section, denieth that any man may preach the word, not not so much as to show a proof of his ability, unless he be at the lest admitted into the ministry. If he have an admittance, to the ministry of the word: how is he a lay man? As for that he addeth, it was upon occasion: I would know what occasion there could be then, when the churches were builded, and an order set, why lay men should preach. Or why might not those Bishops, which gave lay men leave to preach, have ordained them ministers of the word: seeing the Bishop only (by his opinion) had then the ordaining of them. was it not as easy for them, to have made them Ministers of the word, and so to have kept the order of god: as to have sent them out in the quality of lay men, contrary to that order: so that, his drift seemeth to be to bring in all disorder and confusion, into the church of god.  
Then I answer, that although they were not duly chosen, yet were they not mere lay men: considering, that they, had an ecclesiastical calling, such as it was, even the Bishop's admission: unless he will have all the Ministers with us, lay men, which have only the same admision. The place was brought of me before, not that I approved it in all points, as I also noted: but to show in what estimation that election was had, which was made by the Bishop alone.  
Here, upon that I said, that baptism ministered by an heretical 
Diuis. 7. p. 521.  Minister, is good: he thinketh it to be rather good, when it is ministered of a lay man, that is a member of the church: which is a foul error. For an heretical Minister, so long as he is suffered to enjoy his ministry, and not deposed therefrom: is both a member of the church, and a Minister of god, although both and evil member, and an evil Minister. And, it is as much, as if he should say, that the execution of a malefactor by a private man, which is honest: is rather lawful, then by a public Magistrate, which is a briber. withal, let it be noted, that here the Ans. both contrary to the truth, and contrary to that himself professeth, hangeth the effect of the sacrament, upon the goodness or naughtiness of the Minister: in that, in this respect, he preferreth the sacrament ministered by a private man, being good, unto that which is ministered by an evil man, although he be a public Minister. The rest in this division: either hath had answer, or requireth none.  
It had been (as I said) a gros error: if M. Bucer had judged 
Divi 8. and 9 pag 522.  it meet, that women should baptize. And whether the Ans. would have had him so understood, or no: I leave to the reader's judgement, upon the discourse in both his books. Neither can it want, some scar of error: to allow of the title of private baptism. for, although it were convenient, that the child should be baptised in the house, when there is danger to bring it to the church: yet, forsomuch as that ought not to be without a convenient number of the faithful, and without the public Minister, the baptism is not (as also it can not be) private, but public. As for the reasons, they have been answered: and come to be answered further, in the treatise of administration of the sacraments, in private houses. How unworthy a thing it is, that he should charge us with private writings, which he keepeth in his study, leaving his public vuorkes: let the reader judge.  
I made mention, of other gros absurdities, of M. Bucers': lest the excellency of his learning and godliness, should carry the simpler sort to believe any thing, contrary to the truth. And if it be judged of the godly, that I might have spared that speech: it is a thing, wherein I will not stand against them, in mine own defence.  
Here, first he asketh, where Augustin disalloweth baptism by women. 
Diuis. 10 p. 523.  although these words of mine doth not alovu, be not so full: yet, in that, talking of this surmised case of necessity, he never cometh so low, as to the baptism by women, but stayeth in that which is ministered by lay men: it is manifest, that he disallowed the baptism by women. For otherwise, if he had thought, that women in that case might have baptised: it stowed him upon to have taught, that in default of a lay man, a woman might be taken: seeing that, in his judgement, the salvation of the child, stowed thereupon. when he doubteth also, whether it ovught to be ministered again, which 
Contra Epist. Parm. lib. 2. ca 13.  was ministered by a lay man: he could hardly leave any doubt, of the utter misliking of baptism by women. whereunto serveth, the practice of his times, which was (as hath been showed) in such cases: to run to the church, with their children. His other question, cometh to be answered afterward.  
Against the fourth Council of Carthage, which forbiddeth 
Diuis. 11. p. 523. Tom. prim. Can. 100  vuemen to baptize: he runneth for aid to Gratian, the common falsifier of the good canons, of whom I have 
a In the former part p. 285.  before spoken. although if the answer be true, which he frameth out of this forger, that she may not baptize in public: forsomuch as all baptism is to be ministered in public assembly, and that even then, when it is ministered in the house, it followeth that a woman may never baptize. And to the intent, the Ans. may know his error the better: let him repair unto M. 
a Decad. 5. ser. 8.  Bullinger, who citeth this canon, to condemn all manner of baptizing by women. Here also, let it be noted, that albeit the Answ. seeing such consent of the learned against baptism by women, dare not flatly meynteyn it: yet, where he findeth any thing to defend it by, although never so base, he forgetteth it not.  
To that alleged, that the breaking of the orders of god, 
Divis 12. and 13. p. 523  whereof one is, that the minister only should baptize, the other, that it be done publicly, confirmeth men greatly in that heresy, that all are damned, which are not baptised: he answereth nothing. Likewise, to that, that if a man could not be saved without baptism, yet vue might not therefore break the order of god, he answereth also nothing, but wandereth idly in talking of the necessity of baptism, which we confess, as hath been 
b In the 5. and 6. divisions of this chap.  before declared. Where, against his absurd saying, that the teaching of this kind of private baptism, implieth no more the tying of salvation unto the sacrament, then to teach that children should be baptised before they be able to answer for themselves, I replied that the baptism of young children, hath ground in the scripture, but baptism by lay men or vuemen hath none: he answereth, that this confirmeth his saying. wherein, the reproach of trifling, is to easy, to set forth his untolerable abusing of his reader. For to have answered, he ought to have taught, a rule out of the word of god, whereby it might have appeared: that a private person, may take upon him in this pretenced case of necessity, to do that which god hath not committed, but unto the Minister: so that here, it is manifest, that he had never a knee to bow unto the truth, 
Alces. Caesar li. 6. de bell. gall.  but was like that beast, which having never a joint in her leg, must rather break then bend.  
To that I alleged, of the continual, and almost general practice of the church: he answereth, that lay men from the beginning have been permitted to baptize: whereof let the reader judge. In the mean season, he is able to show no practice of baptism by women, but in the extreme ruins of the church: otherwise we should have been sure to have heard of it. Howbeit here he asketh hotly, what order of god is broken in private baptim: even the same which is broken in private preaching. So that whatsoever hath been 
a In the former part p. 72. etc.  before spoken of the church preaching, that it ought to be public and not private: serveth in like manner, for the holy Sacraments. The next division, must rest in the reader's judgement.  
Now remaineth the other point which is, whether baptism administered by one which is no Minister, although against the word (as it is contained in his pag 518 etc.) be yet available. the D. saith yea. his first reason is, that otherwise many should go under the name of Christians, which were never baptised: and so (saith he) I may prove myself to be no Christian. where I deny the argument, and withal desire the reader to take heed of the venom: which, he going about in other places to hide, broke out here at unawares. In an other 
b pag. 524.  place, he said that it is a probable sign of reprobation, if children die without baptism: but here he setteth down flat, that they be no Christians, which are not baptised. So that, the children of the faithful, by his doctrine, are not Christians, before they be baptised: and consequently condemned. whereas the truth is otherwise, that if he be not a Christian, before he come to receiu baptism: baptism can make him no Christian, which is only the seal of the grace of god before received. And what will he here say, to those in times passed of Thessalia, with whom the sacrament of baptism 
c Socra: 5. li. chap. 22.  was celebrated but once a year, namely at Easter: were all the children pagans all that while? what will he say to that time, wherein they received it not, but at their death: were they also all the time of their life pagans? I grant, both the customs nought: but in the mean season, he shall do the good Emperors, and other good men great injury, in saying that they were heathen, or no Christians.  
His second reason is, that there must be by this mean; some general rebaptisation: which is the flat reason of the anabaptists, and in deed plain Anabaptism, that for a doubt whether some be baptised or not, all should be rebaptized. For thus 
Zuing. lib. de baptis. Tractat 2.  they prove, that men must be rebaptized: because (say they) they are not assured, whether they were baptised or no: as it is reported of Zuinglius. But it is enough for me, which am assured of the favour of god in Christ jesus, the thing itself whereof baptism is the sacrament: that I know myself to have been born in that people, where the common use is to administer baptism by a public Minister, such as he was. So that, unless he can show assuredly, that I was not baptised by such a one: the want of baptism, shall not hurt me: seeing that I neither neglect it, nor contemn it.  
And if he could show, that I was not baptised: yet the case of rebaptisation is not so clear, as he maketh it. considering 
a Euseb. 7 lib. cap. 9  that Dyonisius the great and famous Bishop of Alexandria, when one came unto him, which swore that the baptism he received of the heretics, was nothing like the catholic baptism, but full of horrible blasphemies, and desired to be baptised of him, for that he was troubled in his conscience: said that ᵇ he durst not baptize him, adding that forsomuch as he had often said Amen unto the thanks giving in the church, and received the holy supper of the lord: that he should therevuiths content, and comfort himself. If the Ans. had but such an authority, uncontraried of other: he would quickly shape us out, a definitive sentence. howbeit, I stay not thereupon: only I bring it, that when such a case should befall, we come not unto this remedy, without enquiring into the matter, and that it be not done upon the D. bore word.  
Where I alleged that the Minister is of the substance of the sacrament, considering that it is a principal part of Christ's institution: he answereth, that the essential form, is to baptize in the name of the father, the Son and the holy ghost: which being kept, the Sacrament remaineth, by whomsoever, or howsoever it be ministered. This he fathereth of Augustin, and Zuinglius: whereas, neither of them goeth further than to the person, by whom it is ministered: so that he hath here falsified them. Beside that I have 
pag. 521. 523.  showed, that Augustin standeth in doubt, whether baptism by a lay man, be available or no. where, by all likelihood, he was out of doubt, that that which was ministered by a woman, whose unaptness herein is double to that of a lay man: was of none effect. he citeth also M. Caluin: but utterly to another purpose, than he meaneth. For where he showeth, that the goodness or evilness of the Minister maketh not, nor marreth not the sacrament: the D. pretendeth, as although it were not to be esteemed, whether he were a public minister or not, which is a mere abusing. For further answer, I refer the reader to that 
b In the examination of the D. censures.  already answered: so do I, for answer to that of Ministers which creep in without calling, unseasonably spoken of: likewise for the cavil of rebaptisation.  
Now, if the reader compare the answers of his together: he shall see, that the Ans. himself, hath clean overthrown his own grounds. And first of all this, that the being of the sacrament hangeth only hereof, if the form of words, I baptize the in the name of the father etc. be kept. For to prove that the being of the sacrament, dependeth not in any respect of the person which ministereth it: he allegeth first, that so we should be always in doubt, whether we be baptised: which maketh stronglier against this, that the being of baptism dependeth of the using of those words I baptize the in the name of the father etc. then against this that it dependeth upon a public Minister. for all may understand, that it is easier for a man to know, that he was in his infancy baptised of a public Minister: then to know, that the Minister then used these words, I baptize the in the name of the father etc.  
Another reason is, for that the force of the sacrament is not in the man, but in god himself, his spirit, and free effectual operation: and thereto abuseth 1. Corinth. 3. what is Paul etc. which is rather to prove, that the being of the sacrament dependeth not of the using of the words, I baptise the in the name of the father etc. forasmuch as S. Paul speaketh there, of the vocal ministry, whereof this is a part, wherein the D. himself placeth the being of the Sacrament. And in deed, the drift of his reason is, that there is no outward thing whatsoever, necessarily required in the being of the Sacrament: which is a shameful error.  
Howbeit, let it be, that the usage of these words, is the only essential form: what shall be the material cause? For there must be aswell a matter, whereof the sacrament must consist, as a form whereby it is: and as well is the material cause of the sacrament a substantial cause, as is the form. For even as a thing can not stand without the form: so can it not stand without the matter. Now when the one is as necessary, to the constitution of a thing, as the other: let him show me, why a fault in the form, or departing from the words, should more destroy the nature of the sacrament, than a default, or departure from the matter, which is the water. And verily for my part, I would rather judge him baptised, which is baptised into the name of Christ, without adding the father and holy ghost, when the element of water is added: then when the other words being duly kept, some other liquor is used.  
This also is declared by his own example of the ●ue baptised with sand: in that it was decreed, that he should have vuater povured on him. whereby appeareth, that it is untrue which he saith, that the sacrament always remaineth, what error soever be committed, when the form of words is retained. For there the words were kept, and yet the sacrament was not supposed, to be ministered. unless the example otherwise, in my poor judgement, be unsound: that a man having the words said at one time, and the Element powered at another, should be judged baptised. For it is as much, as if a man receiving the bread in the church at Easter, and the cup at the Nativity: should be therefore said, to have received the holy holy supper of the lord.  
Therefore, howsoever some learned and godly, give some liberty in the change of the Elements of the holy sacraments, yet I do not see, how that can stand: considering also that the 
● joel. 1. 9  prophet threatening a general dearth of corn, wine and oil, showeth, that the Priests should weep and lament, for that both the meat offering, and drink offering should ●eas. whereas, neither the offerings needed to have ceased, nor the Priests for that to have lamented: if they might for wine and oil have used water, or for the beasts of the land, taken the fishes of the sea, or other creeping things for their offerings.  
Having thus spoken of the matter, that it must necessarily be such as the institution of god hath prescribed: let us come to the Minister, which is a subordinat efficient cause. whom seeing I have also proved (whatsoever he say) to be instituted the only minister of the sacraments: let him show me, why the breach of the institution in the form should make the sacrament unavailable, and not the breach of this part. for if this be not also necessary, and of the being of the sacram: then when two go together, if one speak the words of the institution, although no man power on water, but god only by rain from heaven, it is baptism. And if it be baptism which is ministered of a child in sport (which thing M. Farel derideth as a mere toy) then if a mad man, with mind to hurt, do speak 
libr. Episto. Calu. p. 85.  those words in pouring water upon his head, which is not baptized, it shall be baptism also. further, if it be administered by him, which is by profession a Turk: it must, by his rule, be a good baptim. so we shall come to the dotage of the papists, which imagine that the Shepherd in the field consecrated their host; in saying certain words of the institution of the supper: which was the cause why, afterward, they would have them mumbled up in secret. These things being absurd, it is certain that the D. rule, that it is baptism by whomsoever it be ministered: is crooked. But when none can wash us from our sins but our S. Christ, and none can represent his person in that outward sacrament of the inward washing, but he whom our Sau. Christ himself hath appointed: if we will receiu the benefit of the holy seal of baptism, to assurance of our conscience, that we are washed from our sins, we must have the public minister. If it be said, that this is to tie men to straight to the outward means, and that for somuch as it is Christ that washeth from sins, there is les matter who be the Minister: I answer, that as our Sa. Christ's blood, being the spiritual matter of the sacrament, and that only wherewith we are purged, yet we may not therefore lak the water, which he hath ordained: so although he be he which alone washeth us from our sins, yet we may not therefore lak that outward minister, which he hath appointed.  
And if the will of a Prince, do make that only to be his seal, which he hath appointed for that purpose, so that although another either without or against his will be made, of the same matter and fashion, and in all things like it, yet the same is none of his seal: how much more ought the will of god, which is, that only those should minister the sacrament, which have a public calling thereunto, have that authority. And, as by the seal, which the Prince hath set apart to seal his grants with, when it is stolen, and set to by him that hath no authority, there groweth no assurance unto the party that hath it: so if it were possible to be the seal of god, which a woman should set to, yet for that she hath stolen it, and put it to, not only without, but contrary to the commandment of god: I see not, how any can take any assurance by reason thereof. If it be said, that the Prince's confirmation afterward, maketh even that stolen seal, which was set to, of force: I answer, that where it can be showed, that baptism by women is confirmed of god, there I will grant the like in it. hitherto may be referred, the pursuit of the former comparison. For as a private man, killing a murderer, hath himself murdered, and executed no justice, because he had no calling thereunto: even so, those which without all calling have taken in hand to baptise, have made a profane washing, and ministered no sacrament of the lord.  
That a distinction hath been kept in names of offices, when the offices themselves have not been distinguished, or at lest not so thorowghly as they ought: is an easy thing to show, if it were to great purpose. But it is enough for us, that the D. himself can not deny: but that baptism, which is ministered, by him which they call a Deacon with us, is ministered by a Minister of the word: so that there is here, no danger of rebaptisation.  
I alleged, that part of the institution (as that which 
Diuis. 5. p. 520.  tovucheth the vuordes of the holy Trinity) being observed, and not this, it is no more baptism, than the papists communion is the supper, where one piece taken, the other is left. whereto he answereth, that the cup is of the substance, because it is expressly commanded. So is this of the Minister also commanded: therefore by his own answer, of the substance of the sacrament. But (saith he) I can not show a commandment, that a Minister only shall celebrated the baptism, or else be no baptism: no more can he in so many words, that if the cup be not received, it is no supper. But if his proof be sufficient, because the lord hath commanded that it should be received: my proof is also, that have showed the same in the ministering of baptim: especially seeing the breach is not in the circumstance, but in the causes.  
He allegeth further, that circumcision ministered by such as were no Priests, was good: I grant, if it were done by those which were simple Levites, if it were done also by Prophets which were no Priests: But if he can show it good, done by those to whom it belonged not, than he saith some what.  
To that I brought out of S. 
a Rom. 10. ●5.  Paul, that he can not 
Divis 6. p. 520.  preach which is not sent: he answereth it is understanded of the extraordinary calling: as although it were not aswell required in ordinary callings, that one be sent, as in the extraordinary. For although, there be divers sorts of sendings: yet that the Minister be sent, is required of al. So that although S. Paul should there draw that disputation, unto the sending of the Apostles: yet the rule whereby he confirmeth the apostleship, is general. For a Pastor can no more preach now, in a particular congregation without a sending: then an Apostle could then, in all the world. The words I added, not not althovugh he spoke the vuordes of the scripture, be no such addition, as he surmiseth: seeing they are necessarily contained, in the Apostles sentence. For when himself denieth not, but that one which is not sent, may speak the words of scripture, and the Apostle saith, that the same can not preach: it followeth, that one not sent, although he speak the words of the scriptures, can not therefore be said to preach.  
He proceedeth further, saying that as it is the word of god which is preached by minister, or other: so is baptism true baptim, by whomsoever it be ministered. as if he had already gotten, either that whosoever speaketh the word preacheth it: or that it were already baptism, without the public minister, both which are in demand. Moreover, if he can prove, that the washing with the element, without any to apply it, is a sacrament, as the word is the word, although no man handle it, or speak of it: then I will grant, that which he saith. But if it be no Sacrament, but when it is brought into use, and the use be defined to be such as is said: than it is apparent, that there is a great difference, between the word and sacraments, in this respect.  
Last of all, as he, which taking one part of the words of the scripture, an leaving another that should go with it, propoundeth not the word of god, but his own idle fancy: even so, he that keepeth one principal part of the sacramten, leaving another behind, ministereth no sacrament of god, but a devise of his own head. Now, where he would draw this cause into hatred, in that there is (as he saith) not learned man of this judgement: although the reason be weak, and it unmeet, that the truth should be mistrusted, because she can find no suertishyp amongst men: yet, if that will help him, he hath M. Beza which doth precisely affirm, that the baptism 
Libel. ●e quaest. in Sacra. quaest. 139. etc.  which is ministered by a private man (much more by a vuoman) is utterly voided.  
Seeing then they only are bidden in the scripture to administer the Sacraments, which are bidden to preach the word, and that the public Ministers have only this charge of the word: and seeing that the administration of both these, are so linked together, that the denial of licence to do one, is a denial to do the other, as of the contrary part, licence to one is licence to the other: considering also, that to minister the Sacraments, is an honour in the church, which none can take unto him, but he which is called unto it as was Aaron: and further, forasmuch as the baptizing by private persons, and by women especially, confirmeth the dangerous error of the condemnation of young children, which die without baptism: Last of all, seeing we have the consent of the godly learned of all times, against the baptism by women▪ and of the reformed churches now, against the baptism by private men: we conclude, that the administration of this Sacrament by private persons, and especially by women, is merely both unlawful and voided.  
There remaineth another question, whether the infants of papists, are to be received to baptism. Of which, as of a thing more dowtful amongst the godly learned, because I wrote privately and more at large: when I came to the confutation of the D. book in that point, I passed by it, with mind to take afterward my reply thereunto, more commodiously from the discourse I wrote of it. howbeit, the truth is, until I came to the place of the printing, where I had not his book with me: I forgot it. If therefore in answering, I either pass by any weight of reason, or ascribe any thing to him otherwise then truth: I desire the readers gentle support herein, either until his next answer, or else unto another opportunity, when the arguments of both sides may be more fully debated. Unto the reason that I alleged out of 
a 1. Cor. 7. 14.  S. Paul (to my remembrance) he answereth nothing: but only opposeth M. Bezas' authority in his epistles, which if they had not come forth whilst his book was in making, it seemeth, that he had been utterly destitute of answer. His reason out of him, that the papists are to be compared with the Israelites, which fell away from the t●w religion, and not with the Idumeans: can not help him, whiles he first show, that the infants of those Apostatas were lawfully circumcised. For, if they were not circumcised by god's order and institution, but rather at the lust and pleasure of those which, being fallen away from the covenant, ceased not to put to the seal, as if they had been still within the covenant: it followeth that, in this respect, there is no more succour for the Papists in their resemblance with such Israelites, then when they are matched with the Idumeans or Ismaelites.   

THE II CHAPTER OF THIS TRACTATE: OF THE CORRUPTIONS in doctrine about the holy communion, beginning pag. 526. divis. seven. of the D. book.  
Amongst divers reasons brought, to prove that the whole body of the church, should (so much as may be) communicate ●n the holy supper together: he cavilleth ●t that alleged, out of S. Paul, saying that 
1. Cor. 11.  he blameth those, which did contentiously separate themselves: whereas, the Apostle under one kind, noteth all needless sundering of the members one from another, in that holy action. That out of S. Matthew 18 of two or three gathered in Christ's name: is answered. neither is it denied, but that two or three may communicate, if the other will not at all: only it is said, that where the other will, although not so often as is convenient, yet that in such a case, the three should (for the reasons alleged, whereunto he answereth nothing) tarry for the rest. 
a diu. 8. 530  his next division, is answered in the 9 division, which he taketh up before, by rending my book asunder, that he might seem able to say somewhat: which 
b in 9 diu.  answer of mine, upon how good ground it standeth, let the reader judge, his reply whereunto, is senseless. where also, his mervailing, that I say, the twelve vuere made Apostles after their first calling, argueth his want: considering that the ordaining of them, to be Ambassadors throughout the world, which is the vocation of their Apostleship, was not, until after the resurrection. That which deceiveth him, is, for that he considereth not, that it is the use of the scripture, in speaking of the beginnings of things, to term them by the names, which they had at the time of the writing, and not which they had, when that which they wrote, was done: as in the 
c Cenes. 10. 10. 25.  names of Babel, and Peleg, etc. the next, requireth no answer.  
In the next, he accordeth that by ecclesiastical censures, 
Diuis. 11. p. 531.  and civil punishments, the rest of the church should be brought to communicate, with the three: where he manifestly forsaketh the book, which leaveth it free, three seasons of the year only excepted. And the truth is, if it be convenient, that it should be celebrated oftener: it is also meet, that there should be punishments, for the breach of that 
Numh. ●.  conveniency. his exception, against the proof of excommunication, for want of doing this duty, that to cut out his soul from the people, signifieth to put to death, and not to excommunicate: uttereth his want, considering that the same commandment, 
Gen. 17. 14.  was given to Abraham in the government of his house, which was the church of god. And yet that no civil sword was put into his hand, is manifest: in that, being a private man in the common wealth he dwelled in, he had no power of life and death. But of this matter, he may learn further 
a In the booK of the discipline of England.  other where. His objections against the Adm. and my allegation of canons, ascribed to the Apostles: are 
b p. 170. Divis. 12. ●. 532.  answered.  
That the outward uncleanness under the law, may be easilier avoided, than the inward, which ought to keep us from the communion: being so generally spoken, is untrue, and refuted by me, in the case of procuring the funeral of our friends, to which we are bound: whereunto he answereth nothing. neither can the uncleanness of life, which is private, and not openly known, hinder any: whiles it be such, as men mean not to amend. That weakness of faith, ought to withdraw us from the communion, is a manifest untruth: it being instituted, for the strengthening of the weakness thereof. The examination of himself, is required, not only in the partaking of the communion, but also in hearing of the word of god: as whether he come with mind to be taught, and to follow, or whether he come of curiosity, or of custom, or to please men, and such like. As for corruption of judgement, want of instruction in the use of the sacrament, open offences, and all such disorder of life, as requireth separation by the church's censures: they fall not into this case, where is disputed, not for what causes men ought to be put from the holy communion, but for what causes they may withdraw themselves, when they be, by common and good policy of the church admitted. Therefore, all this is but an abusing of the time, which is brought against that which I said: that if, being of the church, and able to examine themselves, they be not fit for the hearing of the word, neither are they fit for the receiving of the communion. whereby also may appear, how unworthily, he doth now the second time: object contraryety with myself, so openly refuted, by express words.  
As for the reasons, which I alleged to confirm this sentence with, he once toucheth not: whereunto, I will add the judgement of the ancient writers: that he may learn to blush, which not contented to have reprehended it here, setteth it in the beginning of his book, as a dangerous point, and palpable error. 
a Hom. 3. in Ephes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Chrysostom writeth thus of the supper. hovu tariedst thovu behind? I am (thovu sayst) unvuorthy: then art thovu also unvuorthy, of the communication, which is in the prayers. The like sentence he hath, in another of his homilies, unto the people of Antioch. 
b li. 5. de Sacra. cap. 4.  Ambrose saith, he that is not fit to receiu the bread of the supper, daily: is not fit, once in a year. 
c Ep. 118. ad januar.  August. speaking of this matter, showeth that if the sins be not so great, that one should be excommunicated for them, that then a man ovught, not to separate himself, from the daily medicine of the lords body. whereunto add M. Bucer, which disallowing the communion which 
Bucer. in censur. Liturg. Anglic. c. 3.  is by the Minister and one other, and withal showing that the rest of the church, ought to be driven unto it: both allegeth, and alloweth that sentence of Chrysostom, before rehearsed. In the next division, of the cause of the superstitious fear of coming to the communion, let the reader judge of: considering that, of the evil beginnings of lenten fast, I have spoken before, and will not suffer the D. to start away, by moving of other questions.  
To this chapter belongeth, the rest of the 15 Tracta. where in the pag. 590 first division, for his saying, we read not that women received the supper: he pretendeth M. Caluin and Zuinglius: but they excuse not his rashness. For, although they have the same words, yet they match this cause, with others which are necessary, and which have certain proof out of the scripture, although not in express words: whereas, he matcheth it with those things which are (by his own confession) indifferent and not necessary, giving thereby to understand, that there is no better ground of the one, then of the other. which reason, being alleged to prove the occasion of triumph which he giveth here unto the Catabaptistes, and anabaptists: he answereth not. The three next divisions are answered.  
Next unto this followeth another unchangeable doctrine as it lieth pa. 603 of the D. book. where, although the Answ. dare not openly undertake the defence of driving of known papists unto the lords supper: yet, partly, in trifling with the proofs brought for the shutting of them out, partly casting in other matter of his own: privily, and as it were under the ground, he maintaineth his former rashness, of saying, that the Admo. were good patrons of the papists, for maintaining, that papists ought not to be thrust into the lords supper.  
There was alleged, that the scripture which forbiddeth 
1. Cor. 5. 11.  to have any familiarity with notorious offenders: doth much more forbidden that they should be received to the communion To this he answereth, out of M. Caluin: his marvelous unfaithful dealing wherein, hath been 
a In the former part p. 246. lin. 35.  before noted. I say marvelous, because there can be hardly any, of so small perceiverance as not to understand the difference, between the anabaptists which thereupon falsely gathered, that a man might not communicate, when any such open offender was admitted unto the communion: and between the Adm. which holdeth, that the papists ovught not to be admitted unto the lords supper, which is justly concluded of it. To that, alleged, that our Sau. Christ instituted his supper 
Diuis. 2 p. 604.  amongst his disciples, and those which were vuithin: he answereth first, that judas was present, yet not of the church, but without: which is a foul error. For, although in some signification, he were not of the church: yet he was both within, and as touching the outward calling (whereof our question is) of the church also. But unto this I have 
a In the former booK p. 168. lin. 16.  already answered. Secondly, he chargeth me with a guilty conscience: for that citing S. 
b 1. Co. 5. 12.  Paul, I neither quoted the Epistle, nor chapter: which how unworthy an accusation it is, let the reader judge. But if it be a good argument, that he hath a guilty conscience, which leaveth the testimony unquoted: let the face of his conscience be looked on, by the glass which I have set before him in an other 
c In the former part p. 605. l. 26.  place. How untrue it is, that no papist with us, is admitted to the communion, which he affirmeth: let the reader judge.  
To that I said, that papists not to be admitted unto 
Diuis. 3. p. 604.  the holy supper, ovught to be compelled to hear the word of god: he objecteth as contrary, that I had said before, that if they be not meet to receiu the communion, neither be they to hear the word, which is a mere misspending of time. For I added expressly, and that twice: As many as be of the church, from which I had before, shut out the papists.  
In that the Admo. vuil not have men come constreynedly to the holy Communion: they take not away the punishment, against those which ought to present themselves. And their saying hath an easier defence, than his 
d pag. 530.  otherwhere: that the book will not have men compelled, to come to the communion. For the punishment of such, is therefore taken: that afterward they may come in diligence, and good wil But if (notwithstanding that punishment) it be manifestly perceived, that they come with no affection, but constreynedly: then the Adm. would have such put by: which is their meaning, and a judgement agreeable to the word of god. to the rest in this chapter, I answer not.  
Hereunto add that of the examination of those, whose knowledge of the mystery of the gospel, is doubted of: as it standeth in his book page 592. which examination, he is not afraid to deny, to be necessary, or commanded by the word of god. his first reason is, because that in the Apostles times no such would offer themselves: which is a manifest untruth, as may be gathered of that I have 
a In the former part. p. 244. l. 16.  said, and by that the seed of the word of god, is 
b Mat. 13. 4  taken out of the heart of divers that profess the gospel, which notwithstanding, either through hypocrisy in desire to be counted to have the same knowledge with others, or insensibleness of not feeling their want, will offer themselves. And if there were none such then, yet forsomuch as, there be such amongst us: that answer is insufficient, considering that the scripture containeth remedy, not only against the corruptions in the time of the Apostles, but in all times.  
His second reason, that offering themselves so, it is their own only fault: is a craving of that in question. For that it is only their fault, and that the governors of the church have no commandment, to look to it: are the same in effect.  
His third reason, that if it had been so necessary, S. Paul, would have spoken of it here especially, is to fond: considering that the Apostle writeth only, either of such faults as were in that church, or of matters whereof his judgement was asked. That also out of M. Caluin, is merely idle. For it is one question, whether a private man, under colour of an unmeet person admitted to the supper, ought to withdraw himself: and another, whether such a one, should be admitted by the governors of the church. his answer maketh also as much to prove, that known whoremongers should not be driven to repentance, before they come to the communion, as known papists: considering, that it belongeth not to private men, to take in hand the correction of them, when they present themselves.  
Against that alleged, of the commandment to the Levites, 
Diuis. 3. p. 592. Cronicl. 2. 35. 6.  to prepare the people to the receiving of the Pasover, which was the same with them, that the holy supper is with us: he excepteth, and that confidently, and with reproaches, that it is abrogated. whose shameful dealing herein, let all the world judge of: considering that, by how much our sacrament is excellenter than theirs, by so much, ought there to be greater care and diligence in preparing the people thereto. But of this, more hath been said 
a In the former part p. 162. lin. 10. and 220. l. 28.  otherwhere. After he excepteth, that the text is, that they should prepare, not examine: which is frivolous, and prevented, in that I added, that examination is a part of preparation. So that he that commandeth the whole, must needs do the part: whereunto he answereth not, but affirmeth it manifest, that the Levites used no such examination. of which manifestnes, there is not a letter in the text. The contrary, by all likelihood, is to be intended: considering, that divers of the people, nue come out of ignorance and Idolatry, had need of particular trial. against which the marginal note maketh not: seeing exhortation may well stand with examination, and the nature of a note, is not to lay out things at large.  
That the papists may as well use this for auricular confession, is so placed, that it may be taken, that the jews used auricular confession, as a ceremony under the law, which is untrue: and so it is propounded, as if there were as good ground in the word of that, as of this: which beside the untruth, is overturned of his own words, confessing that 
b pag. 593.  examination may be: unless he will say, that auricular confession, may be likewise. 
c diu. 4. 593  his argument, which he renounceth, is as I have framed it: whereof let the reader judge, as also of the Admo. meaning.   

OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE, IN CAUSES ECclesiastical: Tract. the tuuelfth and tuuentith, according to the D. page 694.  
THere is a proper place, where the D. (if he had been able) should have showed, that I agreed in this cause, with the Papists: namely in the end of this treatise, where I show, how far I stand from them in this behalf. Howbeit having (beside untrue surmises) little or nothing at all to maintain himself with, he hath, to strike a prejudice into the mind of the reader, and to set (as it were) a bias of his judgement, to draw it unto his side, here in the forefront set up this untrue accusation: whereunto I will answer, when I come to that place. Now for better clearing of this matter, the distinction betvuene the church and common vuealth under a Christian Magistrate, denied by him: is to be confirmed.  
Wherein as touching the authority of the word of god, both out of the old Testament and the nue: I refer the reader, to that which I 
a In the 7. Tract diui. 8 p. 755.  have written. saving that the place of the Chronicles cometh after to be touched again. In the churches after the Apostles, and that under godly Princes: the same difference, hath been diligently observed, by the ecclesiastical writers. As when it is said, that the church and common vuealth, 
Socr. 5. li. in praefat. Soz. 3. libr. 26. cap.  not only suffer but flourish together: keeping this distinction, as well in the church is prosperity, as in her adversity. Also, 
b Euse. 3. li. de vita Constan.  that the hovuses of prayer, being restored to the church: other places were adjudged to the use of the common vueaelth. Likewise, 
c Aug. epist. 167. ad Apung.  that there is one cause of the Province: and another of the church.  
If he can not conceive, how this should be: he may be given to understand it, after this sort. that a man may, by excommunication, be sundered from the church: which forthwith loseth not of necessity, his Burgeship or freedom in the city, or common wealth. Likewise, that the civil Magistrate may, by banishment, cut of a man from being a member of the common wealth: whom the church can not by and by, cast out by excommunication. Again, when one is for his misbehaviour deprived of his privileges, both in the church and common wealth: albeit the church be, upon his repentance, bound to receiu him in again, as a member thereof: yet the common wealth, is at her liberty whether she will restore him or no. Finally infidels under a Christian Prince, may, until such time as they refuse instruction, be members of the common wealth: yet are they not therefore, members of the church. where, if the church and common wealth, were (as he saith) under a Christian Prince, all one: it should follow, that whosoever is a part of one, should needs be a part of the other: and contrariwise, whosoever is cut of from one, must be cut of from the other.  
His authority pretended against this distinction, out of Musculus, 
pag. 180. et 695.  that the Christian Magistrate is not profane: is to no use. For, not only the high dignity of the civil Magistrate, but the most basest handicrafts: are holy, when they are directed to the honour of god: but to conclude thereof, that they are not distinguished from ecclesiastical causes, is to much unadvisedness. For will he conclude, that for because the government of the house, and the government of the common wealth, are both holy: that therefore, the government of the house, is not distinguished, from the government of the common wealth: or will he say, because the company of a man with his wife in lawful matrimony is holy, that therefore it is a church matter?  
This distinction, of the church and common wealth, under 
2. Divis. pa. 697.  a Christian Prince, being so apparent in certain cases, there is no reason, why it should not be so, in the rest: which shall yet better appear, in this discourse: where, cometh first to be considered, what he answereth to the place of the Chronicles: where, upon that certain Priests and Levites, had 
2. Chro. 19 vers. 8. 11.  the handling of matters pertaining unto god, and certain others the matters pertaining unto the king: I concluded, that the church judgements ovught ordinarily to be handled, by the church officers. His answer hereunto is, that forsomuch as jehosaphat the king, by his authority committed both ecclesiastical, and civil causes: therefore he had power himself of both. whereunto I reply, that he committed not those ecclesiastical matters, unto the Priests and Levites, as those which he might have retained with himself, or as a thing in his own discretion: but used only his princely authority, to put in execution, that which the lord had commanded. For it is manifest, that the self same thing which jehosaphat did here, was commanded 
Deut. 17. 8. etc.  to be done, in the law. And if this prove, that the judgement of ecclesiastical causes pertaineth to the king, because he confirmed by his authority the ecclesiastical judges: it proveth also, that both the ordination of Ministers, and the preaching of the word, belong unto him: considering that this very king, is 
2. Chronicles 17. 7. 8. 9  said to have sent forth preachers into all jury.  
But let the reader observe, how he hath here utterly passed by the weight of my argument, which standeth in this, that the holy ghost maketh this partition, that some matters pertain to god, and others to the king: whereas, if the matters pertaining unto god, pertained also to the king, the partition should be faulty. Neither by matters pertaining unto the king, are understanded those which pertain unto his own person, or his family, but matters within the compass of his princely judgement: as appeareth, by the example of the cause of blood, which the scripture setteth down, 
vers. 10.  especially if this place be compared, with that of Deuteronomy, where this example is put particularly, and opposed to the judgement of 
a Deu. 17. 8  leprosy, which then belonged unto the priest.  
To the place in the 
b Heb. 5. 1.  Hehrues, that the high Priest is appointed, over things which appertain unto god: he answereth, that the Apostle declareth, that those things are to offer gifts etc. which is nothing worth. For, the proposition is general, whereupon the Apostle concludeth so much, as served for the present purpose: otherwise you may as well say, that it belonged not to the high Priest, to preach, because the Apostle mentioneth not that part of his office, in that place. Seeing then it is apparent, out of the Chronicles, that judgement in church matters pertaineth unto god: seeing likewise, it is evident out of this testimony of the Apostle, that the high Priest is set over those matters in gods behalf: it must needs follow, that the principality or direction of the judgement of them, is by gods ordinance pertaining unto the high Priest, and consequently to the ministry of the church. And if it be by god's ordinance, appertaining unto them: how can it be translated from them, unto the civil Magistrate?  
That which I said, of Levites used to the judgement of civil causes, for that they could not all be employed to the ministry, considering that, so there should have been almost for every xijmen a Levite: is barely denied, and neither the reason which I brought confuted, neither any of his set down. whereunto may be added the reason, why the Levites not occupied in the church ministry: were willingly taken, for assistance in civil judgements. which is, because they being better acquainted, with the law of god, then commonly the rest of the tribes: were consequently better seen in the judicials, by which the common wealth of the Israelites was governed. And that all the Levites, were not applied unto the ministry, may appear by the example of ᵃ Banaias, the high 
●. Reg. 4. 4.  Priests son, high Constable or general of the host.  
Before I come to the Ans. arguments, I desire the reader 
Diuis. 3. p. 698.  to observe, that although he hath out of the ancient writers, borrowed certain places, to just with those, which I have taken from thence: yet out of the holy scripture, whereof he should have made the base and foundation of his defence, he hath brought nothing. But let us see them such as they are. Eusebius (saith he) calleth Constantine, as it were a general Bishop. That maketh no more to prove, that the judgement of ecclesiastical causes, belonged unto him: then that he calleth him a Doctor, 
Euseb. 1. li. de vita Constan.  appointed of god to all nations, proveth him to have been a public preacher of the word. Rather, as he was called a Doctor, because that the doctrine taught by the Bishops, was maintained by his authority, not for that he taught him self: so he is called the general Bishop, for that he caused them to meet in Council, protected them when they were there, kept them in peace, maintained with his princely authority, that which was godlily decreed, not for that he determined the matters himself. This may also appear, in his epistle to the churches, where willing to draw credit unto the decrees of that Council, he doth not say that they were his, but the Bishop's decrees. And in deed it might more justly 
Euseb. 3. li. de vita Constan.  be concluded, that he was a minister of the word by the one place, then by the other, that he made ecclesiastical laws, of his own authority: considering, that the place brought by him, is delayed and laid in water, by that he calleth him not a Bishop simply, but as it were a Bishop: where as, the other place is not so.  
And it is further to be observed, that the word Bishop is taken some times generally, for any overseer: and not only for the church Minister. In which respect, Constantyne calleth himself a Bishop, but putteth a manifest difference, between his Bishoprik and theirs: namely, that the church officers were Bishops and overseers of things vuithin 
Euseb 4. li. de vita Constan.  the church, and he, Bishop or overseer of those that were without the church. whereby he clearly also establisheth, the distinction of the church and common wealth under a Christian Prince. Hither also may be referred, that of Hillary: which exhorteth Constans, that he would 
In lib. ad Constan.  provide, that the governors of his provinces under him, should not praesume to take upon them, the judgement of ecclesiastical causes: where also the same author further affirmeth, that the common vuealth matters only belonged unto them. Likewise that Ambrose saith: That Palaces belong unto the Emperor, but the churches 
Amb. lib. 5. Epist. 33.  unto the Minister: and that he had authority of the common vualles of the city, and not over holy things.  
That of Constantyne, and after of justinian, making laws touching godliness, as against the worship of Images etc. is idle, considering that it is nothing but an execution of that, which is commanded of god, and without the compass of things, which fall into the church is consultation. For in things, which he is assured of, to be the unvariable truth of god: who doubteth but that he not only may, but ought also to maintain them, with his authority. Saving that, if there be a general doubt raised, what is the law of god therein: to the end that the the truth may have better course, and that the conscience may be provided for, there is herein great caution to be used. For lest that which is godly, should be done ungodly, that is to say ignorantly or doubtfully, and to the end that the authors of error (being convinced) may do les hurt, and finally to the end that the punishment of the obstinate, may be both more just, and less grudged at: it belongeth unto the civil Magistrate, to call (as did the godly Emperor Constantine) a council of the ministry, by whom, as by gods interpreters, the people may receiu a resolution, warranted by substantial grounds out of his word.  
Yet so far it is, that we suspend upon the Counsels determination, the putting in execution of such as he is assured to be the unchangeable commandments of god: that both before, in, and after the Council, yea and howsoever they determine, we esteem that the Prince ought to procure by all godly and convenient means, that such laws of god have place: at the lest that the contrary be not suffered, not so much as (if it might be) one only hour.  
That out of the Chalcedon council, that the orders there made were by the emperors authority, because they cried long life unto the Senate and Emperor: is unsufficient. For, although it was unmeet, that in such grave meetings, there should be used such shoutings, as then appeared to have been the manner, when they liked or misliked any thing, which was more fit for stage plays, then for such a grave company: yet who seeth not, that there was cause enough, why thanks should be given unto the Emperor for his care, his pains, and his charges in calling and confirming it, although neither the judgement were his, nor appertained unto him.  
Now touching the places alleged by me, in the first, gros oversight there is none: seeing there is not a word in that place, which enforceth external buildings. For in steed of that which is turned buildings: the greek hath, vuorkes or affairs. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  also for that, of selling the buildings: there is no such thing in 
1 lib cap. 15  the greek, neither (as I think) ought to be. For the place, which (no doubt) is 
a for instead of that Euseb. hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should hau● been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  corrupt in Eusebius: may be restored out of Theodoret, that reporteth the same epistle. Howbeit whether it be understood of the outward, or inward buildings, I will not strive: and I rather think, that it is of the ow●ward, then otherwise: considering, that that seemeth to be more simple.  
To the second, where the 
b Soz●. 1. li. cap 17.  Emperor confesseth the Bishop's matters, not to pertain to him: he answereth, that the Emperor of modesty refused the determination. But what modesty is it, to say that which is untrue: or what modesty, to affirm that it belongeth not to him, which is (by you) his office, and committed to him of god, especially unto his subjects? For it might have more colour, if you had said, that it were modesty for a Bishop to say: that to administer the word and sacraments belong not to him, but unto the Prince. Beside that, if he would have showed forth modesty: he would have rather said, that he was not worthy, then to say that it vuas not lawful for him to do it.  
To that, that the Emperor vuould not determine of Arius heresy, but committed it to the Synod: he answereth, that it letteth not but that he had authority, saving that, thereby he showed his wisdom, in committing matters of doctrine to them, which are most fit to entreat of them. A strange kind of wisdom, to put over that which belonged unto his office, to them to whose office that did not belong: verily this is not the wisdom, which cometh from above. For although it be lawful for a Prince, to discharge part of his burden upon others, for the more commodity of his subjects: yet, if this belong unto him, as he is appointed of god the civil Magistrate, he can not put it unto any other, than unto a civil Magistrate, as I have 
a Tract. 7.  before showed.  
Here also, I would ask of him, how the Council of Nice was fit to judge of the matter, than the Emperor? was it by some singular case, or by reason of their office of being Bishops? If (as needs he must) he answer, that they are by calling and by office, fit to judge of such causes: how must not that pertain unto them, which are hereof, by calling, the fittest judges. For, although there be found sometimes, some civil governor which hath more skill to judge in church matters, than some Bishop, as also some Bishops to have more skill in common wealth matters, than some civil governor: yet notwithstanding, neither the one, nor the other hath this kunning, by any gift incident into his office which he exerciseth. So that, the Answerer, in reputing it, for wisdom in the Emperor, to commit these matters unto the Bishops, as unto the most able judges, maketh a deep wound in the wisdom of god, whilst he supposeth, that god hath committed that to be done by the Magistrate, whereof, by office, he is not the fittest doer: which is a voice, unworthy of a very sukling, much more, of a D. in divinity. And, that this is most properly belonging 
1. Tit.  unto a Bishop, it appeareth, in that the Apostle requireth, that he should be able to convince the gainsayers: which he never required of the civil Magistrate: and notwithstanding would have required it, if the decision of such causes, had appertained unto him. For the lord, calleth no man to any thing: of whom he requireth not gifts, meet to furnish his calling.  
Not unlike to this reason, is that in the 5. division page 701, which is: that for so much as the Ministers, are most able to decide of church matters, that therefore, the decision belongeth unto them. whereunto he answereth first, that it is Hardings reason, but showeth not, where it is to be found: where I alleging it, as his own reason, pointed him the place, whereunto he answereth not a word. Secondly, he saith, that it proveth only, that it is most convenient and necessary, that the ministers, while they be godly and learned, may have the deciding of matters in religion. Here, if the Answ. had not fumbled, and faultered in his speech: we had had him, if not altogether, yet very nigh consenting with us. therefore, let the reader note, that whereas he hath borrowed both his answers, and all his ancient authorities from the Bishop and M. Nowell, without confessing any (one only place out of the Bishop excepted:) in this answer, wherein the chief point of the question doth consist, he hath given them both the slip. For they both do flatly confess, that as long as the Ministers be godly and learned, it is necessary, 
Defence of the Apol. 6. part. ch. 11. diu. 11. and 12. ch. di. 4. M. Novuel. Tom. 2. pa. 35. 38. 34. 27.  they should decide these matters, that the Prince is commanded to have recourse unto them in dovutful matters, that it belongeth to the Bishop's office to decide of such causes: but that Christian Princes, have rather to do with these matters, then ignorant and vuicked Priests, and that in case of necessity (meaning when the ministry is wicked) the Prince ovught to provide for convenient remedy: the very self same thing, which we maintain, in saying, when there is no lawful ministry, that then the Prince ovught, to take order in these things.  
Now, because he dissenting from them, would yet seem to be at one, he also hath set down, that it is necessary: but how? mark I pray you, and you shall see that, in striving against a manifest truth, he become speechless. Forsooth it is necessary, that they may decide: he durst not say that it is necessary they should, but that they may decide. where in saying that it is necessary, he leaveth no choice: again, in saying that they may, he destroyeth the necessity, which he had before put, leaving it in the Princis power, whether they shall or no. Thus as the mous kleaving fast in the pitchbox, in one sentence: he affirmeth that a godly and learned ministry, must of necessity, and not of necessity, decide of these causes.  
That which he addeth, that the authority doth as well still remain in the Prince, when the Ministers decide, as when the judges determine of civil causes: is untrue. If, as he pretendeth, it were at the Princis choice, whether a godly ministry, should decide of them or not, than it were true he saith: but if it be true, which the Bishop and M. Nowell say, that it is necessary, that a godly ministry should decide of them, and that it belongeth to the the Bishop's office so to do: then the comparison, is most unequal. For the judgement of civil causes, doth so be long unto the Magistrate, that he is not bound by the law of god, to translate it unto other. Nay the law of god, will have, that Princes themselves (so far as they may, and are able) shall bear their dominion upon their own shoulders, and judge the causes of their subjects in their own persons: considering that the scripture calleth all princes, judges, and setteth every one a Throne, to judge the causes of his people. Now (to return back, where I left) followeth his answer to the Council of Constantinople: that it is to late a testimony, being other in the year 549 or 681. which might have place in this case, where the question is of the bishops jurisdiction, as that which in process of time did owtreach: were it not confirmed, by other testimonies of the former age. In the first of which Counsels, Menna the Patriarch being precedent, it is said that the decree of the bishops firm in it self, was confirmed by the Emperor. Now seeing the Bishops, had then this authority: how much more, by his own confession, had they the same, in the other which was later. And the same Constantine which the D. speaketh of, giveth more to the bishops, than we do: namely that he vuould compel none to the truth, whiles they concluded something.  
That it was said, that the Emperor confirmed the decrees of the Council, and not that the Emperor made the decrees: serveth also well for this purpose. For, if either he had made them, or they had been made under his name: they should have been said, to have been made by him: as decrees made by the Princis deputies, are said to be made by the Prince.  
That which he addeth, of the Emperor being moderator of the Council, beside that it proveth not his cause, considering that the Moderator had not all the authority: it is untrue, and contrary to the practice of Counsels in all times: whiles by moderatorship, he mean the appointing of the time of the Counsels assembly and dismission, the hovers of their sitting, the civil punishment of them which behave them selves tumultuously, or otherwise disorderly. If he do, it is that which we willingly grant: but, which maketh nothing for this purpose.  
To that alleged out of Ambrose, who refused to 
Diuis. 4. p. 700. Amb. li. Epist. 5. 32.  have a church matter before the Emperor Valentinian, first, he answereth that he was young: as although his tender years, could diminish his right: or that a Prince of 18 or 20 years old, had not as ample authority as one of 40. Secondly, that he was not baptised: which was not, for that he refused baptism, but because the manner than was not to baptize, before the hour of death was supposed to approach. For, the Arians themselves, do not pretend any enmity, or refusal of baptim. And howsoever some have alleged it, you might have been ashamed to allege it: which before, affirmed that 
pag. 146.  Ambrose was meet to be chosen Bishop, notwithstanding that he were not baptised.  
The last exception is, that he was an Arian heretic: so that no equal judgement, was to be hoped for at his hand. which is no sufficient answer: considering that Ambrose denieth the Emperor the determination of the cause, not for that he was a wicked Emperor, but because it was not read in scripture, nor heard of before, that any Emperor, (and therefore neither godly nor ungodly) was judge over a Bishop, in a cause of faith. which was not his judgement only, but the judgement of other Bishop's round about. Therefore, it is untru, that Ambrose stayed himself chief, of a privilege granted by Theodosius: not only, for that it was not lawful for Theodosius, to have passed the right of the civil Magistrate, to the Bishops: but because Ambrose fetched his defence, from the scripture and ancienter times, than was Theodosius privilege. Beside that, if Theodosius had granted that to the Bishops, which belonged unto him: his heir could be no more bound by his grant herein, than the committing of civil judgements unto them, should have hindered him to call them back again, into his own hand. So that, when Valentinian had declared, that he would have the hearing of the matter himself: that could not be, any just defence.  
Moreover, if it belong unto the civil Magistrate, to judge in causes ecclesiastical, no abuse or disorder of his, can deprive him of it, so long as he remaineth in the full estate of a Prince: no more than men can take away from him, the right of judgement in civil causes, and erect another court against his, because he perverteth judgement, either by gifts or favour. Therefore, if it be true that the D. holdeth, that this right belongeth to Cesar: Ambrose ought to have appeared, and to have waited, what the emperors judgement would have been. If it had been against the truth, then to have answered as the Apostles to the Council, that he vuould 
Act: 5.  rather obey god then man. This may yet better appear, for that if the Emperor had sent for Ambrose, and given him summons, to show what was his judgement, without pretending to be judge in the cause: Ambrose could not have refused it, although the Emperor would after have said, that he was an heretic. Last of all, this being objected 
part. 6. chap. 12. divis. ●.  by Harding, that there is the same right of a Christian Prince and of a Tyrant: is not denied of the Bishop of Sarisbury. For the ordinance of god is one: even as there is the same right of a heathen master, husband, and father, over a Christian servant, Son and wife, as if they were Christian. And it was an error, against which the Apostles laboured: that private men, might deny unto Princes and other their superiors, which did not their duties, things which, otherwise, were due unto them. Neither ought the D. more to charge me with this saying, because Harding hath it: then I charge him with his opinion, of the same kind in this behalf with Pigghius: who 
Hier. 5. lib. cap. 4.  teacheth, another right of a Christian, and of a profane Magistrate.  
The relation of Athanasius matter, to the Emperor: was (as 
Apolog. 2.  may appear) because the most part of the Bishops, were heretics, either Coluthans, Arians, or Miletians.  
That out of Augustin, demanding why the donatists made the Emperor judge, if it were not lawful for him to give sentence in a matter of Religion: was only to beaten them with their own rod, not that Augustin allowed their fact, in making the Emperor their judg. which is manifest in other places, where he doth precisely reprove them for it: and cast it in their teeth, that 
a August. in psal. contra partent Donat. and Epist. 68  they preferred the emperors judgement unto the Bishops: when, notwithstanding, the Emperor gave the same judgement which the Bishops did, and was, for his godliness, the perl of all Emperors. Wherein, it is also to be observed, that Augustin in another place saith, that the Emperor, 
b Epist. 166  not daring to judge of the Bishop's cause, committed it unto the Bishops: and that he did, not once but twice. Likewise, that he was driven by 
c Epist. 162  the Donatistes' importunity, which made no end of appealing unto him, to give sentence in that matter: for the which also, he was to crave pardon of the bishops. Hitherto maketh singularly, that Augustin putteth 
d Lively prim● contra literas Parmenian. ca 7.  a plain distinction between these judgements: saying of the Donatists, which of their private authority rushed upon the catholics, that it vuas neither by ecclesiastical lavu nor by the kings lavu: which were ridiculous, if (as the D. saith) the ecclesiastical laws, were also the king's laws.  
That out of Sozom. 4. lib. 16, ought not to have been alleged: considering that both the Emperor Constantius, which required to have the ending of the matter, and the most of the Bishops in the Council of Syrm, which agreed unto his request, were infected with Arianism. Likewise, that out of Socrates 5 book, cap. 10, is idle: seeing nothing is done there by Theodosius, which is not confessed to belong unto the Magistrate. The next is answered before.  
Where I pressed him with his own words, affirming that 
diuis. 6. pa. 702. etc. also the first diu. p. 694.  the church hath authority to make ceremonies: he answereth that he included the Prince, as chief governor of the church: which is not sufficient. For either the Prince alone, must be the church, or else one of his sentences, goeth to ground: either that which saith, that the church hath authority, or this affirming that the Prince hath all the authority, to make ceremonies.  
I alleged for further answer, against his shameful slanders of us, as if we were joined with the papists in this cause: as followeth. First, that the papists exempt their Priests from the punishment of the civil Magistrate: which vue do not. whereto he answereth, that Harding and Saunders do as much: which is utterly untrue. For by the words, he citeth out of Saunders, it appeareth, that he doth not subject them unto the Magistrate, in respect of their priesthood. Out of Harding, he neither citeth words, nor quoteth place: which his burning desire, of coupling us with the papists, would not have passed, if it could have been found.  
And that the reader, may better know his great unfaithfulness in so weighty a matter: let him take Hardings own words to the Bishop, which are these. 
a Apolo. 6. part cap. 9 diui. 1. & 2.  Yovu teach princes, to use violence against Priests, as thovugh their faults could not be redressed, by the Prelates of the clergy. And after, it is not convenient, that the king should call Priests before him, to his ovun seat of judgement. I assigned also another difference, that where the papists, vuil have the Prince execute whatsoever they conclude, be it good or bad: vue say, that if there be no lawful ministry, as in the ruinous decays of religion, that then the Prince ovught to set order. And if, when there is a lawful ministry, it shall agreed of any unlavuful thing: that the Prince ovught to stay it, and to drive them, to that which is lawful. This difference, although he could not deny, and although, by it, we are sundered from the papists, as far as he is from him that said, the king of Persia might do what he lusted: yet he continueth his former slander, that we shake hands with the papists: and feareth not still to say, that he seeth not wherein (in this article) we differ from them.  
But not able to deny this difference, he cavilleth at it: ask first, why the prince ought rather to determine of ecclesiastical causes when there is no lawful ministry, them when there is: forsooth because the Magistrate is bound to see, the service of god maintained in his dominion. which, when it can not be by the 
1. Tim. 2.  means, which god hath appointed ordinary, yet for as much as his bond still remaineth, the next is, that it be done as nearly unto that order as may be: until such time (which ought to be with all possible speed) as the standing, and set order, be established. I say, as near as may be unto the order prescribed of god, lest any should think, that because that order can not be precisely kept, he were by and by at liberty, to set up clean another order, which should seem best to him: neglecting, upon occasion of the unability of observing all, the observation of those things which may be observed. For herein ought to be followed, the example of the godly learned Priest Abimelech: which admitted David and his company, to the participation of the show bread, that was otherwise lawful for the Priests only to eat of. who, although (to keep charity which is the end of the law) he broke so much of the ceremony, as the present necessity did require: 
1. Sam. 21. 4●  yet he ceased not therefore, to be careful of the observation of the rest: as appeareth, in that he asked, whether they had abstained from the company of their vuives.  
Again, it is known, that the Priests and Prophets have extraordinarily meddled with civil affairs, in confused times: will he therefore say, that this power is ordinarily annexed unto the Bishop's office. The cases, I grant, are not altogether like: yet to his question, which supposeth that there is no cause, why the Magistrate should not judge of church matters, aswell when there is a lawful ministry, as when there is none: this may serve, for part of an answer.  
Moreover, as in sickness, there is another diet, then in health: so the church in her grievous disease, hath an other kind of government, then that which is ordinary, and used in a good constitution of her body. which thing, being said of the ruinous estate of the church, is to be understood also, of her beginnings and, as it were, infancy: where either there was no church before, or having been, it was razed from the foundations. If this content him not: let him answer me, why the Prince must of necessity, commit these matters to the ministry when it is learned and godly, rather than when it is otherwise: if, at the lest, he will now at the last, have this the meaning of this broken english. And of his answer, to this question, will easily rise an answer to his.  
But some sharper Adversary, might here have objected: that Moses, David, and Solomon, being Princes in the most flourishing estate of the church: did notwithstanding make church orders. whereunto I answer, that they did so, partly, for that they were not kings only and Princes, but also Prophets of god: partly, for that they had special and express direction thereto, from god by the prophet: whereby they did even those things in the church, which, without such special revelation, was not lawful, for the priests themselves to have done. And although, the truth of this answer, be apparent: yet, that it may have the more authority, especially with the D. that tasteth nothing without this sauce: he may understand, that it is M. Caluins' answer of Moses, and David, and that in this present cause now debated. 
Lib. epistol. Gal. pa. 46   
His other quarrel against this answer is, that if a lawful ministry determining some thing unlawful, will not be brought to that which is just, that then the Prince must have either that which they will, or no religion. As though, such a ministry were a lawful ministry, that is obstinate. or as if, this obstinacy being general or for the most part, the state is not here ruinous: so that the Prince may, after due means, assayed to bring them home, procure that other be put in their places. we hereby appeareth, that the remedy of this inconvenience, which (he saith) he can not see: was comprehended, in the first part of the second difference, between ours, and the Papists judgement.  
But, if for that, a lawful ministry is subject to error, or doth err in the decision of ecclesiastical causes, he think that it should not therefore handle these matters: he may as well take from them, the preaching of the word: considering that an error, may as well be found in the pulpit, as in the Council house. And look what remedy the Magistrate hath against a ministry, teaching falsely or inconveniently in the pulpit: the same hath he against it, determining so in Council.  
And, to make the partition wall, between the papists and us in this question, one cubit higher, that those which will not open their eyes to see it, may feel it, in not only stumbling, but running also their heads against it: I will add this much, that in ascribing unto the ministry, the decision of matters in controversy, and the making of church ceremonies: our meaning is not utterly to seclude the Magistrate. For, when 
a Ruff 1. li. cap. 3.  experience teacheth us, that often times a simple man, and, as the proverb saith, the Gardener hath spoken to good purpose, but 
b 2. Croni. 30. vers. 20. 4. and 34. vers. Act. 11. 2. 4. & 15. 22. & 21. 22.  especially when in the holy scripture, the old Testament and the nue: and thirdly, when in the 
c 1. Tom. council. in praef. ●. conci. Carthag. Ambrose Epist. lib. 532 Hither belongeth that which the bishop hath vuritten in defence of the Apology 6. part. chap. 3. diuis. 3.  ecclesiastical writers, it is found, that there have been of the people admitted unto these consultations: when further it is found, that they have had their consent there, and sometime also their speech: with far greater reason, may the Christian Magistrate, both be assistant, and have his voice in such assemblies.  
That then, which we give unto the ministry in such church consultations, which are not of the daily ministry, as Synods be: is both afore consultation, as we see to have been done in the 
a Act. 21. 18  scripture, to the end that the matter being digested, and as it were cut out, and prepared a forehand, it might be the better handled in a fuller assembly: as also the direction and moderation of that meeting, where these matters are defined and concluded of.  
But in the chief point, he is sure we agreed with the papists: even as the godly and learned writers, old and of our age, do agreed with them, and none otherwise. whereof two, the D. is himself constrained to confess: meaning (as I think) M. 
b Cal. Inst. 4. booK 11. cha. sect. 15. & 12. sect. 7.  Caluin and 
c Beza Epi. 8.  Beza. whether he do or not, so they are, as may appear. And how durst he say of those two, upon no ground, that in this article of the Magistrates authority, they differ nothing from the papists. For so he saith in effect, when he saith so of us: whom he is compelled to confess, to have their assistance in this cause. unless they are not (as he saith) alone: but have divers others bearing them company. Amongst whom, M. Bucer may seem to be worthy of the chief place: which affirmeth, that the magistrate ovught not to administer 
d Bucer lib. de cura anim.  the discipline of the church.  
So that, so far as we consent here with the papists, we do it, as in the article of the holy Trinity, where we have with warrant of the word of god, the approbation also of the best. we hold with them, things in common: in which respect, we are not afraid to confess, that we consent in some point, with the jews and Turks, or they rather with us. But you are found in divers places, in their private orcheyardes, gathering your fruit of trees, which their hands did first plant: and from thence you bring your stocks, which you would place in the lords vineyard. And even in this question, whom have you opposed unto these two: which you confess of our judgement. you pretend in deed, the Bishops of Sarisbury and winchester, with M. Nowell: but for two of them, I have showed, that they are in effect of the same judgement we are: assured I am, they are further from you then from us: of the third also (albeit I have not seen him (I persuade myself likewise.  
There remaineth only Musculus, whose saying if I should deny not to be charged upon us, but on the papists only, seeing we do not deny altogether as they do, that he hath authority to make church laws: you see we have hold, which you can not easily put us from. But because, when I confessed some of contrary judgement: I meant him, at the lest as one which (if he thought as we) did not sufficiently express it: let us grant you, this reed to ride upon, and to bear yourself up, in this great triumph. And let it be granted you, to make your fault seem so much the less: that you have one learned man, of the same judgement with you.  
That I have no other reasons then the papists, is untrue: at lest you show it not. And I may holily profess, and in the presence of god, that I went not to the papists for them: but in reading the scriptures, and the authors themselves, observed them. Neither could the papists abusing them, to the maintenance of their tyranny over Princes, and the whole church, affray me to use them, as I have: no more, than they affrayed M. Caluin and others, which have used of them in like manner.  
Of all which matter, the reader may understand, how unworthy owtcries they be, which he so often raiseth against us: that we give no more to a godly Christian magistrate, then to the Turk or Nero, with such like. For who will communicate the church matters, with Nero, open to him the necessity of holding a Council, desire his confirmation of the church orders, pray his aid in the maintaining them, call upon him aswell for making them, where the lawful ministry faileth, as for redress of the evil?  
It is true, the Turk and Nero, ought to do all these: even as they ought to do, whatsoever belongeth unto a godly Christian Prince: for the leaving of which undone (much more for doing the contrary) the wrath of the lord resteth upon them, and theirs. But for as much, as they profess enmity of the truth: as they must want both the honour in this world, and reward in the world to come, which the lord giveth unto a Christian magistrate: so the church must patiently bear, the want of these things under the one, which she enjoyeth under the other.  
To end this matter, seeing the church and common wealth, are distinguished aswell under a Christian Prince, as under an unchristian, and that thereof followeth the distinction one from another, not only of the lower, but also of the higher members, which are the governors in both the bodies: seeing also, the lord hath appointed the Ministers, to be over the matters pertaining to himself: seeing further, the ministry of the church is, by calling and gifts incident thereunto, the fittest judge of the church matters: last of all, seeing the ancient practice of the church, holdeth up her hand hereunto: I conclude, that as well in the decision of the doctrine, as in the choice of the variable ceremonies of the church, the principal authority belongeth unto the ministry. The rest of the sections in this tractate, as those which require no reply: I will not touch, but leave them to the reader's judgement.   

THE THIRTINTH AND LAST TRACTATE, AND NINTH WITH THE D. beginning page 474: of the inconvenience of the Ceremonies used in the church of England, divided into two parts: the first whereof, is of the general faults, the other, of the particular.  
THe doctrine and discipline of the church, 
The first chapter, of the first part that the church in indifferent ceremonies, owght▪ not to becomformed unto the popish synagogues.  as the weightiest things, ought especially to be looked unto: but the ceremonies also, as mint and common, ought not to be neglected. For, if honest matrons have regard, to the smallest part of the attire of their daughters, that it be neither sluttish, nor gawish, nor after the manner of harlots: much more, ought that care to be taken for the church of god, that by her comely and maidenlike apparel, she may content even the eyes of all, which love her spiritual chastity. And although the corruptions in them strike not straight to the heart: yet, as gentle poisons, they consume by little and little. which is rather, to be taken heed unto: for that the harm they do, is to the most part so insensible, that the church may seem to die hereon almost without any grief or sens of it, or go away, as it were, in a sleap. Hereupon, it cometh, that this part hath before been somewhat laboured in, and now also shall have her defence, but short: especially when as the Ans. beside a heap of words, open untruths, dissembling, and perverting my arguments, hath almost nothing worthy the answer.  
For even in this first division, what an open untruth is it, that it is one of our principles, not to be lawful to use the same ceremonies, which the papists did: when as I have both 
a pag. 256. diui. 2. and p. 272. diui. 1. p. 475.  before declared the contrary, and even here have expressly added, that they are not to be used, when, as good, or better may be established. what an abusing also is it, to affirm the mangling of the gospels and epistles to have been brought in to the church by godly and learned men: not a word of proof, being brought therefore, which afterward, he saith generally, of all the Ceremonies in question: beside the insufficiency of his answer otherwise, to prove them not Antichristian, which I have 
a Tract. 11. di. 6 p. 522.  before observed. what both untruth, and abusing the time is it, to reason against me, as although I had confessed all errors in our ceremonies taken away: when I name expressly, gros errors, and manifest impieties. Finally, how single so led an argument is it, that we may retain popish ceremonies, because we say the churches are reformed, and not transformed: seeing that, as transforming may be in part, or in whole, so may also reforming? and seeing that the 
b Ro. 12. 2.  scripture, noting the whole and total restoring of a man, setteth it forth as well by renewing, as by transforming. who can patiently, bestow his travail in such refuse, as this is?  
For the maintenance of this reason, that the Apostles 
di. 2. p. 474  in ceremonies conformed the Gentiles unto the jews, and not contrarivuise, the jews unto the Gentiles, and therefore, that the churches in the matter of ceremonies, should be instituted rather according to the pattern of the churches dressed up before them, then of the popish synagogue: I refer the reader, to that I have 
c In the former part p. 470.  already written. That the lord, forbade his people to do some things, which in them selves were lawful: is manifest in the 
d Levit. 19 19 27.  law. That he hath showed, that the Christians have conformed themselves unto Idolaters in their church ceremonies, with approbation either of the word, or of Augustin, is untrue: only he showed, that the use of things necessary, ought not to be taken away for the abuse: which he both often, and idly repeateth, as that which is confessed.  
Where I showed, that the lord being careful, to sever 
Diuis. 3. pa. 475.  his people by ceremonies from all strangers: vuas so especially, to sever them from the Egyptians and Cananeans amongst whom they lived, and amongst whom they vuent to live: he answereth, that the Egyptians neither worshipped, nor pretended the true god, but the papists do, which is 
a In the former part p. 184. etc.  before answered: that the Gentiles, had like ceremonies etc. which is also 
b In the former part p. 470.  answered: that having certain ceremonies common, with those from whom we differ wholly in substance of religion, we may much more have the same with the papists, from whom we differ but in certain substantial points. The one part whereof, is answered: the other (to take it in the best since a man can expound it) is untrue. For the Turks believe one god, and so do we: and therefore, we differ not in all substantial points, from them. And although popery holdeth divers things, better than they: yet the Turks hold some things, better than it.  
Where I affirm it, more safe for us to conform our indifferent ceremonies to the Turks, which are far of, then to the papists which are so near, he chargeth me, with divers reproaches, both here and otherwhere: but the reasons in this division, whereof one is, that the lord used the same vuisdome to vuardes his people, another, that there is greater fear of infection from those which are near, then from those which are further of, he toucheth not. As for his reason, that the Turk is a professed enemy unto Christ and his name, the Pope pretending the contrary: the first is not altogether, and in all respects, true. For the Turk, acknowledgeth our Saviour Christ a prophet, and giveth the true Christians more rest under him, than the papists do under them: Neither can the pretence of the name of Christ, when the effect is contrary, diminish the Pope's fault: seeing beside the enmity against Christ, the sin is rather increased by his hypocrisy. Howbeit, I will not here dispute, whether the Turks or papists are greater enemies: it is enough, that they are both fallen from Christ, the one by errors in the head points of his person, the other by errors in the head points of his office: in which respect, as both their ceremonies are to be avoided, so in that the papists are nearer us than the Turks, theirs are more to be avoided, than those of the Turks. That we do not in any kind of ceremonies, conform ourselves to the papists: requireth no confutation, as that for the proof whereof, the Ans. must put out the eyes, and stop the ears, of al. The rest, of the falls pretence of Christian liberty, is 
a pag. 256. 257. 258. also in the former part of this booK p. 403. lin. 29  before confuted.  

b Diu. 4. p. 476.  To that, that contraries are cured by contraries, and that as to establish Christ's doctrine and discipline, it is necessary to abolish the popish doctrine and government, so to heal the infection crept in by the popish order of service, it is meet that an other were put in place: he answereth, that as in doctrine and discipline, they have some good, so in ceremonies. wherein, he toucheth not the point of my reason. For the cause why, that good which is in Popery of the doctrine and discipline, can not be changed, is, for that they are perpetual commandments, in whose places, no other can come: but the ceremonies we speak of, are changeable, so that if either better, or but as good as they can be ordained, it is manifest, that for the cause assigned, those abused in popery, ought to give place. Again, whatsoever good they have, either in doctrine or in discipline: it is none of theirs, but the church is. Therefore by his answer, as no popish doctrine or discipline, is fit for the church of Christ: so are no ceremonies, brought in by popery. And in deed, when the ordinance of convenient church ceremonies, proceedeth of the light and knowledge of the word: there being such darkness and ignorance in Popery, it is marvel, if it could shape out one convenient ceremony for the church of Christ. The second section of this division, is not to the purpose.  
To that I alleged, of the vuay to bring a man from his 
diuis. 5. pa. 476.  vice, to carry him as far from it, as may be, which I made plain, by examples of reforming drunkenness and straightening of a crooked styk: he disputeth against me, as although I allowed that a man might run from one vice, for remedy against the other: which is an open untruth, and untolerable, seeing I added expressly, that I did not alovu it, but only that of two evils, it was the les: whereunto he could not answer. I omit that you bring in S. Paul Ro. 3, saying that which he hath not. The sentence is true, but you ought to make a difference, between that he saith, and that which is concluded of his saying: especially seeing you have (although untruly) twice charged me, with the like.  
To that of Tertullian, commending the Gentiles, which 
Diuis. 6. p. 477. Lib. de Idolatria.  vuould not vuittingly keep any of the feasts of the Christians, and of the other side, discommending the Christians, that kept the feasts of the Gentiles: he answereth, that they communicated with them, in their Idols: which is untrue, there being not a word cited here by himself, importing so much. For, to cease from labours the same days they did: was not simply unlawful. He chargeth them also, with feasting on the same days which they did, also with sending of nueyeares' gifts: were these not things, in themselves indifferent, and only condemned of Tertullian, because they were the ceremonies of profane nations? and doth he not see, how Tertullian maketh with us, in that he preferreth the use of the ceremonies of the jews which are abrogated (for that they were sometime authorized of god) to the ceremonies, which other profane nations, had taken up of their own brain. This also, may be understood, by the opposition he maketh, of the commendation of the Gentiles. for, seeing Tert. commendeth not the Gentiles, for that they worshipped not god with the Christians, but for that they would not admit the ceremonies, of a religion contrary to their own: to make the opposition answerable, we must needs say, that he rebuketh the Christians, for that they used the ceremonies of a religion, contrary to that they approved. For further knowledge, of Tertullian'S judgement herein: I refer the reader, to that 
a In the first booK and first Tractate. Diuis. 7. p. 478  before written.  
To that of 
b Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 17. Socra. lib. 1. cap. 9  Constantin, disalovuing for divers causes, that the Christians▪ hold hold the feast of Easter, at that time which the jews did: he saith, that the East parts kept it, as the jews: which is no answer seeing he showeth not, whether he allow of Constantine's judgement, or no. his second answer, that he meant, we should have nothing common with them, repugnant to Christian liberty: is untrue, seeing in itself, there was nothing more free, then whether a feast should be kept upon thursday, or sunday.  
His third reason, that if he had generally misliked their ceremonies, he would have abrogated them, cleaveth not together. In steed whereof, he should have said, if he had utterly misliked ceremonies, and not their ceremonies. For as for theirs, he abrogated them: not only in propounding another end, than they did, but also in disannulling a number of ceremonies, used in the keeping thereof. At the lest, this example teacheth, that if we will hold holidays and fishdays, with the papists: yet in detestation of their religion, and for avoiding of superstition, which hath crept into men's minds by them, we ought to change the days.  
His last answer, that as Constantyn changing the day, and keeping the feast, put a difference between the jews and Christians, so we greatly differ, from the papists in the ceremonies taken from them: is likewise insufficient. For although that the Christians, had kept the same day with the jews: yet their keeping of the Easter, should have differed from the jews keeping, as much as we differ now from the papists, in the ceremonies we have from them. But, they thought it not enough, to differ from the jews, in things merely unlawful: unless they were also severed from them, by a ceremony, which was in itself most indifferent.  
To that alleged out of the Counsels, that they vuould 
Diuis. 8. p. 478 Zaodicens. cap. 38. 2. Tom. Bracar can. 73. 74.  not have the Christians communicate in unleavened bread, because the jews did, nor dek their hovuses with green bovughes, because the pagans did so: he asketh, to what purpose they be alleged: you know full well, that these go to the heart of your cause. For, what can be in it self more indifferent, than these two, forbidden the Christians: for that they were used, of the enemies of the church. And being a reason, it must be general of all such as the church may well want: much more of those, in place whereof, it may have as good, or better. As for your often repeating, that the ceremonies in question are godly, comely & decent: it is your ouldwont, of denaunding the thing in question, and an undoubted argument of your extreme poverty. That I cited out of the Council of Braccaras is to be found in the council and Tome I alleged Can. 74. And the 73 can. which I cited, is generally against all ceremonies used by the pagans. for the two next sections, I refer the reader to that 
a In the examination of the D. censures.  already answered.  
And that this complaint of ours is just, in that we are thus constrained to be like unto the papists, in any their ceremonies, and that this cause only, ought to move them, to whom that belongeth, to do them away, forasmuch as they are their ceremonies: the reader may further see, in the 
b Apol. first part chap. 2. diui. 8.  Bishop of Sarisbury, which bringeth divers proofs thereof, directly against the D. and flatly for us.  
To this place belongeth, as that which is general, the reason of the offence, ᶜ before handled, whereunto page 288 
a In the former part of this booK p. 403.  he addeth, that those which are offended at this apparel, take an offence where it is not given: which is (as he meaneth an offence taken) nothing else, but a demand of that in question. And it deceiveth him, that he considereth not, that the Apostle teacheth that an offence is not only given, when an unlawful thing is done: but also, when a thing, in it self lawful, is done unlawfully: that is, out of time and place. Howbeit, it is 
pag. 277. et diuis. 6.  further said, that the offence may be taken away by preaching: but it, was also replied, that it is not so convenient, that the ministers, having so many necessary points to bestow their time in, should be driven to spend it, in giving warning of not abusing them, of which (although they were used at the best) there is no profit. whereunto, his answer (that the abuse of meats, and costly apparel for Princes etc. doth not take away the use) being of things, whereof there appeareth a manifest profit: is partly 
d In this chapter.  before, and further cometh to be answered, in the diduction of the particulars. The untruth also of his surmise, that I would hereby take away out of the church, the doctrine of indifferent things: is manifest. For, I spoke not of all ceremonies, but of such, as have been shamefully abused, and whereof there is no manifest profit: neither did I disallow the doctrine, against the abuse of them, seeing I added, that one sermon against their abuse, joined with their removing by them to whom that appertaineth, vuould do more good, than a thovusand without: as appeareth by the example of our Sau. Christ, which for 
a Math. 15. 2. 16. Marc. 7. 2. 14.  the better rooting out of error, refused the hurtful ceremonies, and taught the abuse of them together. And what wisdom is it, I pray you, that by continuance of the popish ceremonies, the church should receive a wound, to the end that afterward, by continual warning, it might receive a plaster: so that the inconvenience which I assigned, lieth in this, that the ministers by the continuance of them, should be driven to occupy a great deal more time, and with les fruit, then when they should be taken away: the confuting whereof, he is so far from, that he rather confirmeth my saying. For, if the taking away of these things from the eyes, doth not by and by root out the opinion out of the heart, when as doctrine is joined withal (as I set it down, and as in deed it ought to be:) then how much less, will the doctrine be able to pull it out of their hearts, when they be always before the eyes, and in use. This I made plain, by his example, which should set one to vuatch a child all day long, lest he should hurt himself with a knife: whereas, by taking avuay the knife quite from him, the danger is avoided, and the service of the man better employed: his answer whereunto, of a child which hath discretion, is no answer, when I meant of a little child which, by age, is not able to guide a knife. Of which sort, it is less marvel, if there be amongst us: seeing there appear to have been such, in the 
● Rom. 14. 1. Cor. 3. Heb. 5.  Apostles times. the rest in that division, is to no purpose.  
Hither appertaineth also, that in page 259 diuis. 5. of the surplice, that by using of these ceremonies the papists take occasion to blaspheme: saying that our religion can not stand by it self, unless it lean upon the staff of their ceremonies. whereunto his first answer, that they were before Antichrist: is 
● Tract. 11. Diuis. 6 p. 522.  before answered. His second, that they make no great account of them, is very untrue, even in the very surplice: seeing they have so many mysteries in it, as Durandus in his Rationali divinorum reckoneth up. which answer also of his, is Hardings shifted: confuted by the bishop, who 
a In the defence of the Apol. 3 part chap. 5. Diuis. 1.  showeth, by divers testimonies, what great holiness they put in these things. His third, that they know we could be well without them: is but an ask of that in controversy, and contrary to that themselves do speak. Also that we do not (but for obedience sake) much esteem them: but how shall they know that, when they may see greater severity used for the omitting of them, then for the lords own commandments. where also, it is to be noted, that although the wearing of the surplice and of the cap, were free by the laws of the church: yet the D. would not willingly, altogether part with them, although he would not so greatly esteem them. the rest there, often repeated: hath partly been, and partly cometh, to be answered.  
To that, that thus they conceiving hope of having the rest of their popery in the end, causeth them to be more frozen in their vuickednes: he answereth, that they have no cause so to hope, which is no answer. For not the cause, but the occasion also, ought to be taken away: where it may be so cheap, that is to say, without removing any thing, whereof we may not have either as good, or better in place. although, let the reader judge, whether they have 'cause given, to hope that the tail of popery yet remaining, they shall the easilier hale in the whole body after: considering also, that M. Bucer noteth, that where these things have been left, there 
upon the 18. of S. mathevu.  popery hath returned: but of the other part, in places which have been cleansed of these dregs, it hath not yet been seen, that it hath had any entrance. the rest, touching their hopping without their hope etc. neither letteth them in the mean season, through this hope, to die in their sins, nor is (if it come to pass) any gramercy unto this remnant of popish ceremonies, which do their best, to keep the memory of Egypt with us. 
Diuis. 6. p. 259.   
To prove the papists triumph and joy in these things, I alleged further, that there are none which make such clamours for these ceremonies, as the papists, and those which they suborn. He answereth, that they do so justly etc. all which dependeth of the demand, of that in question: albeit what meat, I beseech you, is it like to be, which a popish stomach, doth so greedily embrace? I deny not, but some of ours, may speak for them, through a good intention, they have to obey the Prince: but there be none so lickerous of them, as are the papists, nor none cry so loud for them, as they: which is that I meant, and uttered. the second section is ᵃ answered 
b In the former part p. 245. Divi. 7. pa. 260.  partly, and partly cometh to be answered after.  
It is there further alleged, against the incommodity of these ceremonies, that there be numbers which have Antichristianity in that detestation: that they can not without grief of mind behold them. The same persons, upon so easy an opening of the wicket, unto this trus of popish ceremonies: fear lest if the assault should be hot, they would set open the gates, to the bringing in of greater packs: whereunto his answer out of M. Caluin, is from the cause. For, let hardly his sentence strike upon them, which, for every light corruption in the church, will make a departure from it: yet their frowardness, shall never excuse the sluggisnes of them which labour not, as they may, to remove those imperfections, at which they have so miserably fallen. Your surmise, of transforming ourselves daily into a new shape, if we will please the people: is (to let the rest go) but a wandering from the matter. For I added, that such godly brethren, are not easily to be grieved: which they seem to be, when they are thus martyred in their minds, for ceremonies which (to speak the best of them) are unprofitable. Beside that your proof of this, that the people are always desirous of novelties, which is that man's nature is desirous of nwes: is to wide. For it taketh the prince, and other estates both in church, and common wealth by the head: as well, as the people.  
Hither is to be referred, that it is required, that the ceremonies should not only not offend, but also tend to edification: which being barely denied, by the Answerer, 
a In the former part p. 279. Tra. 1.  hath been declared, of me. Also, that many of these popish ceremonies, fault by reason of the pomp in them, where they should be agreeable, to the simplicity of the gospel of Christ crucified: which he likewise denieth, to be necessary, and might aswell deny, that the rest of the building should be conformable unto the foundation. But of this also there hath been spoken 
b Tract. 7. and ●.  before, in the matter of the church discipline: whereof there is (in this respect) one reason.  
Hither also belongeth, the eight division pag. 551. where first he allegeth, that in matters of order, the church is judgement is to be preferred, before a private man's: where, if he understand, that we must do so always, and generally, he differeth nothing herein, from the papistes. For why should we for matters of order, always hung our judgement upon the church is sleeve: rather than in matters of doctrine. The determination, of the goodness of them both, is fetched (as hath 
c In the former part and first Tr.  been showed) from the word of god: if therefore, the church is hand, may slip in the one, it may do so in the other. And if a private man, may sometime in a matter of doctrine wake, when the church sleepeth: he may do the same, in a matter of order. But if he understand, that the church is judgement, is to be preferred to a private man's, when hers is framed according to the word of god, and not his: it is in deed true, but then his reason is a mere dalliance, and an open demand of that in question: Beside that this judgement, is not the opinion of a private man, but of thousands, and of those amongst which, divers are in public charge and authority.  
Touching the next division, I know that god is the author of all truth, and consequently the holy ghost: but I resisted this, that all that speak it, speak it moved by the holy ghost, which seemed to me to be your meaning. And although, the knowledge of god which the wicked have, be his gift: yet the use of it, proceedeth not from the spirit of god, further than of his general working, whereby they live and are moved, and whereby the Devil himself knoweth the same. therefore, that which in this case, you durst not affirm of the devil: you ought not to have affirmed of the wicked, which are led by his spirit.  

THE SECOND CHAPTER: THAT the churches ovught to be conformed, to the example one of an other.  
unless to prove, that as the churches of 
Diu. 11. and 12. 13. pag. 480.  Christ, ovught to be most unlike the sinaguoges of Antichrist in their indifferent ceremonies, so they ovught to be most like one unto another: there were alleged, three reasons, one out of S. Paul tovuching the time of gathering 
1. Cor. 16. 1. 2.  for the poor, the second, of the comparison of the children and servants of noble men, going (for order and comeliness sake) in one livery, the third out of the great Nicene▪ Council, of the gesture in prayer: yet in his answer he feareth 
Can. 20.  not to say, that I speak wtthowt any warrant of god's word. as if S. Paul's authority were no word of god, with him: which, if I had abused, why did he not convince me. And when he is compelled to confess, that the unity in ceremonies is to be wished: I would know of him, why it is to be wished, if it be not, for that the word of god teacheth so? If it do teach so, and not by this place, why doth he not show some apt? but his cause falling here to the ground, for want of answer: he falleth to accusing, that I break unity. If he mean (as he ought) holy, it is that, which is in question. Also that we are cause why uniformity is not observed in our church: which is likewise, and 
a In my first booK. p. 288 lin. 37 etc. and p. 294. l. 1.  before answered.  
Then he asketh, to what churches, ours should conform it self: and why other reformed churches, should not aswell frame themselves, to ours. his reason, that we have as good grounds of our doings, as they: if it be (as it ought) understood of the ceremonies, is still the demand of that in question. But to leave to the judgement of the reader, upon the allegations, whether our ceremonies be as good as theirs: for further contenting his question, I answer, that if there be any ceremonies, which we have better than they, they ought to frame themselves to us: if they have better than we, than we ought to frame ourselves to them: if the ceremonies were alike commodious, the later churches should conform themselves to the first, as the younger daughters unto the elder. for as S. Paul, in the members, where all other things are equal, 
a Rom. 1● 5. 7.  noteth it for a mark of honour above the rest, that one is called before another to the gospel: so is it (for the same causes) amongst the churches. And in this respect, he pincheth the 
b 1. Cor. 14. 37.  Corinth's, that not being the first, which received the gospel: yet, they would have their several manners, from other churches. Moreover, where the ceremonies are alike commodious, the fewer ought to conform themselves unto the more. forasmuch therefore, as all the churches (so far as I know) of our confession in doctrine, agreed in the abrogation of divers things which we retain: our church ought, either to show that they have done evil, or else she is found to be in faut, that doth not conform herself, in that which she can not deny to be well abrogated. Neither doth this bring in any more popedom: than he which teacheth, that the younger daughter should reverence the elder, doth teach that the elder hath authority, to command the younger.  
That out of M. Caluin, and Gualther, only serveth, for filling. for we confess, that for indifferent ceremonies, neither the churches ought to fall out with themselves, nor any member sever himself from the church. But if (which he can not deny) this be the duty of the churches, to conform them selves one unto another: then there must be some to inform, and admonish them of this duty. Therefore to let pass the offences, which the superstition in them worketh, and to presuppose of them, as much indifferency in the use, as there is in there nature: yet, he hath here, manifestly condemned himself. For, confessing that the churches in ceremonies, ought to be like, as much as is possible: he endeavoureth notwithstanding with might and main, that they should not, unless all other will conform themselves to ours. In steed whereof, he ought to have confessed, at the lest, some imperfection of our church, in this behalf: and have addressed these admonitions of his, unto them which (for difference in ceremonies) make a departure from the church. Beside, that the froward spirits against which M. Caluin speaketh: were those that stuk in the ceremonial judaism, as the D. doth now in the ceremonial papism, and pressed them, as the unchangeable laws of god: which, he can not show to be done of us, in any indifferent ceremony. M. gualter's place, so far as it concerneth ceremonies, hath the same answer.   

THE THIRD CHAPTER, of the first part.  
AN other general fault of the service book, 
Diuis. 14. p. 482.  is assigned, in that it maintaineth an unpreaching ministry: partly in appointing so long time of prayers and reading, whereby the les time can be spent in preaching: but especially for that it requireth nothing to be done by the Minister, which a child of ten years old can not do as vuel, and as lavufully as that man, wherewith the book contenteth it self. Here, in the first point, he gropeth at none days: ask, whether this, or that be my meaning. which I plainly declared, in saying that the devil under colour of long prayer drove preaching out of the church: unto the which reason he answereth nothing, but asketh, whether we can spend an hour better, then in praying, and hearing the scripture read. whereunto, I answer that if with that hour, he allow an other for the sermon: the time will be longer, than the age of some, and infirmities of other some, can ordinarily well bear. whereunto also, if another hour, at the lest, be added. for the celebration of the holy communion: he may see, that either the preaching must be abridged, or not so due regard had of men's infirmities.  
Beside this, there is to be considered, the common infirmity: whereby, through such continuance, the powers of the mind standing so long bend, are dulled, and often also a most dangerous loathsomeness occasioned. Against which, our church (as others have done) should, by a godly policy, have provided: where, for this cause, the whole liturgy or service, is not ordinarily, above an hour and a half. Neither let any here object, the papists long service. For, beside that the rage of Idolaters, hath always been more set on fire in the falls worship, than the zeal of god's people in the true: it ought to be considered, that their prayer was more a lip-labour, than any exercise of the mind, and their churches rather stages to represent gay shows unto the eyes, pleasant sounds unto the ears, and sweet smells unto the nose, than any house for the children of god to meet in, about any earnest work: and also, that they had respite, between their Matins and Mas.  
In the second reason, he asketh whether a child of ten year old, may minister the sacraments etc. not for sooth, but yet as well as he, which can but barely read, if he have the same calling: which, being that which I affirmed, he is not able to move, with one word of reason. After, he supposeth of me, as if I had said, that the book maintaineth an unpreaching ministry, because a child can read it: adding, that so I may say of the Bible, because a child can read it also: which is to open an untruth. For my reason is, not because a child of ten years can read it: but because, it requireth nothing to be done by a Minister, which such a child can not do. And if the holy Bible (which is far from it) should permit, that one which can but read it, might be made a Minister, or required no more of him, then that he should be able to read it: then I might well say, that the Bible maintained an unpreaching ministry. If the order of the church, do not permit this: then the charge, lieth upon the Bishop's necks, which without any warrant, have so boldly enterprised, such a shameful act. part of the next division is answered, in 
a Tract. 10. chap. 1.  this part: the residue with the two next after it, in the 
b pag. 370. l. 15. etc.  former part of this book.   

THE FOURTH CHAPTER, of the first part.  
TO a third fault, assigned in that the fruit 
Divi. 18. 19 20. p. 485.  that might othervuise be taken of the service, is not received, by reason that the minister readeth some in the hither, some in the upper part of the chancel, as far from the people as the vual vuil let him go: he crieth out of impudence, corruption, and falsifying, for leaving out these words, except it shall be othervuise determined, by the Ordinary of the place. Alas, how should I be free, or what armour may be given me, against these untrue accusations: which could not, escape the here. For in the very next division, I expressly mention this exception, which he hath mangled and cut of from this division: belike, to the end, there might be place, to this surmise. But unto the reasons, that it reneweth the fashion of the levitical Priest, which vuithdrvu himself from the people, to talk with god alone: Also that if it be for the most edification, that some part of the service should be said in the body of the church, that then it is not so, when other some is said in the neither, some in the further end of the chancel, and other some in the further end of the same church: Again, that if it be expedient that he should have his face tovuards the people in reading of some, it is unmeet to have his bakturneds to them in other some: last of all, to the undecency in trudging from place to place: I say, to all these reasons, he answereth nothing worth the naming. But the sum of his defence, is: that the Bishop hath power to order it, to the most edification. wherein, how unlawful it is, that he alone should have the order hereof, is 
a In the former part Tract. 7.  before declared, and how dangerous it is, let the practice in this point be judge. For I am assuredly persuaded, that the tenth church in England: hath not all the service said in that place, where the whole church may best hear it: And withal note (as I said) what a shameful disorder, is committed, in a matter, so easily remedied.  
The place of S. Luke, is an unchangeable rule to teach: that 
1. Act. ●5.  all that which is done in the church, ought to be done where it may be best heard, for which cause I alleged it. his cavil of the place of the font, said of me to be at the church door, in steed, that I should have said, over against the church door: is unworthy the answer, especially considering that I spoke more favourably for the book, than he, which, by this answer, sendeth the minister for baptism beneath the church door. And so also, I leave to the judgement of the reader, what was the end of him that penned the book, in this behalf: seeing he could hardly be ignorant, that the places used customably in Popery, were not the aptest for the understanding of the hearers.  
And this, both separation of the Minister by Chancel, as Monckish, as also the often shifting of, the Minister's place, as a thing very absurd: M. 
b Bucer in Tract. de reforma●. Colleg. Item in Censur. liturg. Anglica recens Basil●ae edit. cap 1.  Bucer both generally in all places, and particularly in our church, doth condemn. Ambrose hath been answered. as for M. Caluin, he showeth, that although our slackness to believe, be evil, which is cause that one sweareth: yet that the oath is lawful, considering that the use of many things is pure, which proceed of an evil beginning. whereby, the reader may see, how shamefully he would abuse him. for the slackness of believing, which is the original of the oath, can never be pure: and the lawful oath, occasioned hereon, can never be but pure. So that, where M. Caluin referreth the pure use, unto a thing divers from the corrupt beginning, and simply good: the Ans. referreth it to the corcorrupt beginning itself. his cavil of my untrue dealing, for changing his word good, into not evil: is unworthy any answer.    

THE SECOND PART OF this Tractate.  

THE FIRST CHAPTER WHEREOF, being of holy days: is divided, into two parts.  

THE FIRST PART, OF THE FIrst chapter: of the ceremony of the Easter, Nativity, and Whitsun holy days.  
TTe Treatise of the general faults being 
Diuis. 1. pa. ●●8.  ended, I come to the particular: where, I pass, the eight first divisions, as those which have no matter, either worth, or requiring answer. Before I come to the ninth, which is of the prayers: I will dispatch the treatise of the holy days, as it lieth page 538, of the Doctor's book. To that of abrogating them, for the shameful abuse and superstition, crept into men's minds of them: he answereth, that things of necessary use, ought not for their abuse, to be abrogated. where, first he maketh a necessary use, in the church of things, which the scripture hath given no commandment of: Secondly, he condemneth in this point, the churches that use them not: and thirdly, destroyeth the liberty of placing or displacing them, which himself 
a pag. 541. ●ect. 2.  otherwhere ascribeth to the magistrate. His other answer, that they be means rather to withdraw from superstition, by reason of reading and preaching, divers times after repeated: is but an abusing of the time. For neither doth he answer any thing to my reply, which was, that preaching can not come to all, throvugh the scarcity of preachers, and that where it doth, the fruit is hindered, whilst the common sort attend rather to that which is done, than to that which is said: Neither can he make any sufficient reply to my 
a diui. 4 p. 540.  answer, which is, that that profit is vuithovut danger received othervuhere, and may be with us, without such solemnities of feasts, if, preaching and prayers being as they are, the rest of the day be employed, as other vuorking days. Against which, that which he excepteth page 546, that if these and other holy days were not, men should, for instruction of their families, be driven to spend twice or thrice in a week, half the day: is to simple. For they have the lords day, a great part whereof may be bestowed that way: and that which is needful for their further instruction, may be supplied of the howshoulders, whilst their families be in their daily occupation: as also, the lord in his 
b Deute. 60. vers. 7.  law, by reckoning up certain kinds, commandeth to be done, in all manner of our exercises. The next requireth no answer.  
That the keeping of Easter, vuas left free at the first: 
Diuis. 3. pa. 539.  will appear after, out of Socrates. That out of 
c lib. 5. cap. 22.  Eusebius: maketh against himself. For to let pas, the unlikelihood of the days of fast, which should go before, whereof there is not a word, neither in the old nor nue Testament: if it were a tradition of the Apostles, yet it was used of them, as a thing indifferent: considering that the same story witnesseth, that S. john the Apostle, together with the churches of Asia, did celebrated 
Euseb. 5. li. 24. 25.  the Easter, as the jews were wont, upon the xiv day of the month. Now, if S. john himself, which departed not from the authority of the scripture, did keep the jues' day: he gave sufficiently to understand, that our Easter hath no authority from the scriptures: for than he would have kept it also. Likewise, the Helvetian confession, leaving it at the liberty of the churches, as a thing indifferent: maketh against him, but against me it maketh not, which confess, that that day may be kept, and deny, that it is for our estate and time, so expedient. his answer to the incommodity of restraining our cogitations, to a fevu days, which should be extended to our whole life: is nothing worth. For although, no abuse of men, may take away gods institution: yet in abuse of things, which may be changed, and are indifferent, it is not so.  
His allegation, that the lord notwithstanding the liberty of working 
Diuis. 4. p. 541.  six days, made certain other holy days: is but an abusing of the reader, it being 
a In my former booK division. 6. p. 542.  prevented by me. And not content herewith, the very same judgement, which he here alloweth in himself: in me he flatly condemneth afterward. For where in his former book page 174, he confesseth that god gave liberty to labour six days: in this, he affirmeth, that by making certain feasts, whereof some fall upon these six working days, he hath taken away that liberty. I say not a jot more, in effect: yet my saying is nue, and his is old: I am overshot, and he hath hit the mark. His reason is, because I make god contrary to himself. But how I, more than he? oh have liberty of god to work six days, and to be restrained by him of that liberty: be as contrary, as any thing which I have set down. And of him, it is said also bluntly, without any caution: whereas, I showed the equity of god in this colour of contrariety. Against which, his exception, that it can not be showed in all the scripture, that god hath made any law against his own commandment: is untrue. For not to go far, was it not a law of god, that the jews were bound of necessity, to keep the Sabbats, and other solemn feasts? And, is it not now a law of god, that (at the lest) they are not so bound? His fear, that god should be thus contrary to himself, is causeless: no more, than the father is to be holden unconstant, which when his son cometh to man's estate, freeth him of the obedience unto his servant, under which he cast him in his tender years: or then the physician, which, according to the state of his patients body, prescribeth not 
Cal. 4.  only a divers, but a quite contrary diet. This is a catechism matter, whereat he could hardly have stumbled, if his eye had been simple: although, to say the truth, in this case in hand, there is no contrariety, but only exceptions out of a general law. which, that the church may do in likewise, as god the lawgiver himself, which he after maketh his proof: is to gros. For thereby, not only the question it self: but more also then is in question, is demanded.  
That those to whom the establishing of the ceremonies doth belong, may appoint that which is convenient for divine service, as often as the church may conveniently assemble, is agreed: and even in the matter of appointing whole holy days, in certain cases, it is also by me 
a pag. 54●.  confessed. But, that the Magistrate may call from, or compel to bodily labour, as shall be thought to him most convenient: is not measured, according to the cubit of the sanctuary: I mean, of the word of god. For, what if the Magistrate shall think it convenient, that men should labour, but one day in the week: what if he should think never a one: is the subjects obedience tied to this ordinance? If it be so, what shall then become of god's commandment: that 
b Genes. 3.  men shall eat their bread in sore travail? who shall provide for wife and children, with the rest of the family: for which notwithstanding 
c 1. Timo. 5.  whoso provideth not for, is vuors then an infidel. His reason, that this it no conscience matter, deceiveth him, whilst he always restraineth conscience matters, to inward things alone: whereas it extendeth it self as far, and to as many matters, as there is either commandment for, or prohibition against, in the word of god.  
And as this is unadvisedly put forth, so that which followeth, that the word of god doth not constrain the Magistrate, from turning carnal liberty to the spiritual service of god: is to fowl an oversight. For, thereby he accounteth bodily labour a carnal 
Tract. 7. p. 757.  liberty, which is an acceptable service unto god: as hath been alleged, where he fell at the very same stone. whereas, if bodily labour were carnal liberty: the church, and the Magistrate not only might, but were straightly bound to restrain it: yea utterly to abolish it.  
After he asketh, why the church may not aswell restrain from working any part of the day, as from the most part of it: which (saith he) I confess. where, first, my words taken at the largest, afford no further vacation from labours, than the time wherein the ordinary service may be celebrated: which is not, the most part of the day. Secondly, where he concludeth thereupon, that it may restrain us any part of the day: if that were admitted, what would follow? that therefore, it may restrain from labour the whole day? there is great odds: for, it is one thing to restrain any part of the day, and another, to restrain the whole day. Therefore, to have concluded any thing: for these words, any part of the day, you should have put, the whole day. Now if you ask me, why the church may not aswell restrain men from labour the whole day ordinarily (for in extraordinary cases it is confessed) as to restrain them so much time, as the divine service may be celebrated in: it is, but a faint question. For I would ask of you, whether, if it were lawul forth church to appoint two holy days every week: it were therefore lawful for her, to appoint six? And if you will have your reason trust up in few words, it is this: The church may do that, which is less, therefore it may do that which is more.  
Again, the divine service, wherefore the vacation is commanded, being ended: whereupon should the rest of the day be better employed, than in the daily vocations? you will answer, in private reading the word of god, and prayer. This, in deed, might have better colour, if the charge were as straight to drive men from playing, and dissoluteness often times, unto this exercise: at it is, to drive them from their work. Howbeit, here ought not to be forgotten, the wise man's counsel, 
Eccles. 7. 18.  that vue should not be to just: So that, as the greatest heap fall away from god, by profanes and contempt of his service, thorough the desire of following the world: even so of the contrary part, men both may, and have sometimes declined, whilst they esteemed that the cutting away of some piece from their necessary travail, could not be unacceptable unto the lord, so that the same were bestowed in the church exercises.  
And, although the wealth of some may well suffer, all these vacations from their daily callings, and more to: yet, in making the church ceremonies, respect must be had, what the common sort may do: even as it is in a musical consent, where the sweeter or finer voice is not always taken, but that which will best accord and fall in, with the rest of the Quire. As for those, to whom the lord hath given the means, to occupy themselves oftener, in private reading of the holy scripture, and prayer, if they have affection thereunto, they will likely do it, without this order: if they have none, they will abuse the rest, to fulfil their naughy desires: which might be in part restrained, by travail in their vocation. 
Diuis. 5. pa. 541.   
The reason, is like. For the authority is all one, to make it unlavuful to vuork when god hath made it lawful: and to make it lawful to labour, when god hath made it unlavuful. And therefore, even as the church can not command men, to labour the seventh day, wherein the lord hath commanded rest, but upon some good consideration: so can it not, but upon like considerations, restrain men from labour any of the six days: so that his answer, that the one is a commandment, the other a permission, is nothing worth. For, as the commandment of resting the seventh day, must, because of god's authority, abide in the nature of a commandment: so the permission to work the six days, warranted by the same authority, must abide in the nature of a permission. The third section, is beside the cause. For it is not in question, whether private men should be subject, unto such orders: but whether the church, should charge them with this yoke, or no.  
Of the liberty of the church in this matter, so it be upon conditions 
Diuis. 6. p. 542.  before specified, there is no question. Howbeit, the example out of Esther 9, of the two days which the ●ues instituted, in the remembrance of their deliverance: is no sufficient warrant, for these feasts in question. For first, as in other cases, so in this case of days: the estate of Christians under the gospel, ought not to be so ceremonious, as was theirs under the law. Secondly, that which was done there: was done, by a special direction of the spirit of god, either through the ministry of the Prophets which they had, or by some other extraordinary means, which is not to be followed of us. This may appear by another 
a Zach. 8.  place, where the jews changed their fasts into feasts: only by the mouth of the lord, through the ministry of the Prophet. For further proof whereof, first I take the 28 verse: where it appeareth, that this was an order to endure always, even as long as the other feasts days, which were instituted by the lord him self. So that, what abuses so ever were of that feast, yet as a perpetual decree of god, it ought to have remained. whereas our churches, can make no such decree, which may not, upon change of times and other circumstances, be altered. For the other proof hereof, I take the last verse. For the Prophet contenteth not himself with that, that he had rehearsed the decree, as he doth sometime the decree of profane kings: but addeth precisely, that as soon as ever the decree was made, it was registered in this book of Esther, which is one of the books of the canonical scripture: declaring thereby, in what esteem they had it. If it had been of no further authority, than our decrees, or then a canon of one of the counsels: it had been presumption, to have brought it into the library, of the holy ghost. The sum of my answer, is, that this decree was divine, and not ecclesiastical only. That which he addeth, of every private man's consent in these matters: is not to the question, and 
● In the former part of this book p. 226. lin. 35.  yet is ᵇ before answered.   

THE SECOND PART OF THIS chapter, of Saintes days.  
IF purgatory were propounded only as a 
Diuis. 1. pa. ●43.  thing indifferent, which a man might believe or not believe, and it were in our choice, whether we would pray for the dead or no: yet this liberty is nawght: wherefore, your answer, that purgatory is made necessary to salvation, is insufficient. But, as purgatory is unlawful, with what sauce soever you set it before us: so the keeping of Saintes days holy, can by no gloes be made good. your confounding therefore of Saintes days, with holy days, as if there were one case of them both: is no simple dealing.  
What force there is, in the name of saints days, to make 
Divi. 2. pa. 544.  men believe, that they are instituted to their honour: let the reader judge, of that which I 
a In the first booK. p. 61. sect. 3. & 4. and pa. 62. sect. 1. 2. also in the former part of this p. 408. lin. 37.  have written. How much more, do they confirm this: when both the corrupt custom, and doctrine, in popery, hath forestalled the people's minds with that opinion. whereunto his answer, that I might much better reason against the names of Sunday and Moneday: is untrue. For first, the use of such things, is not so free in ecclesiastical matters: as in civil affairs. Secondly, our people hath not been nuzzled up, in that filth of worshipping the Sun and Moon, as they have been of the saints: in so much as (the learned set apart) there are few, which know that there were ever any days, observed in the honour of the Sun or Moon. If they had been so nuzzled, who seeth not, but that it had been most convenient, for the rooting out of that Idolatry: to have made a change, of these names. Thirdly, it is known, that good men after the example of David 
Psal. 16.  (which would not once defile his lips with naming the Idols or Idolatrous things, except it were with detestation): both abstain from such names, as much as the common use will suffer, and desire the abolishment of them.  
To my reason, that as the lords holy days, are taken to be instituted to his honour, so the saints holy days may easily be thovught of the ruder sort, to be instituted to their honour: he answereth, that the lords holy days, are so called especially, because the scriptures concerning him, are then read: which is no answer. For, if his answer were true: yet, it confessing by the way, that they are taken in part, to be instituted to the lords honour, granteth forthwith, that there is occasion given to the ruder sort, to think that the Saints days are in part, instituted to their honour. As for his sentence out of Augustin, it is a mere abusing of the time: as if every thing instituted to the honour of god, were a sacrament, or that a thing done in remembrance of the lord, may not, or rather is not, done to his honour. And here, it is to be noted, that the D. is taken, in his own nets. For he defendeth the keeping holy, of these Saints days, as they were used in the elder churches, and as Jerome and Augustin mayntein them. Now, himself, hath for his defence alleged out of Jerome, 
pag. 546.  that these days are observed to the Martyrs: and out of Augustin, that in them we honour the memories of martyrs. Therefore his escape, that no man is so mad, as to think, that by these days we do any honour unto the Saints: is not only an open untruth, but directly contrary to that himself maintaineth.  
what ignorance is in the land, for want of teaching: I 
In the former part Tract. 5.  leave to the reader's judgement, of that which hath been said. To that I alleged, that although there were teaching, yet it were good, that these names should not help to unteach: he answereth not. Howbeit, he goeth further, ask whether for every particular man's ignorance or abusing of it: the churchis order, must be changed. He may well know, that if there be one man which abuseth it through ignorance, there are more than a thousand: and if there were but one only, yet, seeing that man is in danger to wreck himself at this rock, ought not the church rather to change this name, then to give occasion of destroying him, for whom Christ hath died? considering, that of naming those holy days, Saints days, there can be no fruit, or profit assigned.  
His exception against augustin's complaint, of the 
Diuis. 3. pa. 545. Augu. Epi. ad januar. ●9.  multitude of Ceremonies, that he speaketh not of holy days: is unworthy of answer, considering that he speaketh generally of all kind of ceremonies: likewise, that he saith he speaketh of unprofitable ceremonies. For, he disputeth simply against the multitude of Ceremonies under the gospel. whereas, if they had been but a few, and yet unprofitable, he would therefore, have condemned them. As for that he saith, that ours are profitable, and approved by the custom of the whole church: the first is an ask of that in question, the other is an untruth, as doth after appear. Now, whereas I said, that in this ceremony of holy days, vue exceed even the jews: he maketh his accounts so, that they (as he saith) had the greater numbered. But what Auditor will allow, these accounts of yours. First of all therefore, you must strike of the supposed holy day of judith, for the reason, showed in 
a In the former part p. 400.  another place: likewise, those of the Makabites, as those whereof there is no certainty: and both judith's, and the Makabites together, as those which, if ever they were holden, were holden many hundredth years after the giving of the law. For the which cause, the two days of Hesther, although they differ as far from the other, as heaven from earth: ought not to come, into this account.  
For this comparison, is not instituted between us, and any estate of the jews under the law: but with the ordinary estate, and with that which was given in mount Synay, by the ministry of Moses. For, that is both S. augustin's meaning, and it is a fowl wart in the church's face under the gospel: to be so ceremonious, as the ordinary estate of the church was under the law. There remain only, three feasts of the Pasover Whitsuntide and the Tabernacles: unto every one whereof, you ascribing seven, raise the sum of one and twenty holy days. But here also, you are foully over reckoned. For, the first only, and the last day, of every of those three sevens, were 
Levit. 23. vers. 7. 8. etc.  holy: in the rest, which were between them, although there were extraordinary sacrifices, yet men might, after divine service, follow their ordinary vocations. whiles therefore, you make a far other roll of the jewish holy days, than you have done hither toward: you see that my saying, that vue have more than double as many holidays as they, is mayntenable, and deserveth no such censure, as you give it.  
For any thing that I could ever learn, we are by the laws as much bound from labour upon the saints days, as upon the lords day: wherein, I report myself to that which may be known hereof: the rest is answered. In the next division, there is nothing but a manifest pillar of popery, with shameful outrage unto the holy ghost: in that he calleth the appeal to the scriptures and example of the Apostles, from certain customs of the churches, which were more than a hundredth years after Christ, an unlearned shift: which is 
a pag. 549.  before touched.  
In the next, the testimony of Socrates, is faithfully cited 
Socrat. 5. li. cap. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  of me. As for that he answereth, that by every one, he meaneth not every person, but every country or people, alleging to that purpose another place in the same chapter, where (saith he) is put every particular people: he is abused. For there is no more mention of people in that 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  place: then, in that which I alleged. Beside that, in saying that it was no law, but a custom, and that it was not penal to those which did not keep it: Socrates confirmeth the indifferency, which I affirmed, to have been in in the beginning.  
For the allowance of Saintes days, whereof the question 
Diuis. 6. p. 549.  is here, although he hath only M. Bullingers' testimony, which is retracted and condemned by M. Bullingers' own self: yet he marcheth forward still as boldly, as if he had a whole legion of learned men, of his side. what dealing this is, let the world judge. But they be (forsooth) his own words, which he hath alleged: so are these yours, Basil in his book of offices, yet, I suppose, you will be loath, that it should be now accounted your judgement, after you have corrected yourself. Here also, to the judgement of such a 
c Confess. Eccles. Tigur. & aliarum ●cc. cap. 24.  number of reformed churches which have condemned the keeping of these days as unlavuful: he not only answereth nothing, but walketh still in his old path of bold and untrue affirmation, that the custom of the whole church confirmeth them: as although 
pag. 545.  the reformed churches now, were no churches at al. And, that the reader may further know, his importunity in this behalf: he may understand that beside M. Bullingers' consent in general, with the rest of the churches: the disalowance of that particular church of Zurich, and consequently of him touching these Saints days, doth appear in a book 
Lavaterus de ritibus eccles. Tigu. cap. 8.  a part. And if the learned reader look, the later edition of M. Bullingers' commentary upon the Romans: he may, peradventure, find his former judgement, alleged by the D. corrected.  
Hitherto also, cometh Musculus judgement in particular: 
Muscu. common places upon the 4 commandment. Hoper upon the same commandment.  which affirmeth, that there can be no defence for the saints days, whatsoever be pretended: likewise M. ᵃ Hopers, which condemneth them, notwithstanding their grey hears, yea the very first institution of them, and that upon credit of that, which the D. calleth an unlearned shift: that is to say, by opposing the authority of the word of god, and the examples of the churches, governed by the Apostles and Prophets. In the next division, in Caluins' judgement, touching the three feasts dedicated to the lord, I will proceed no further: considering that it appeareth in his epistles, that he was not the cause of the abrogating them. As for the saints days, whereof only (in deed) the question is in this place: considering that which hath been alleged, I think the D. himself will make him no patron of. although, throwg● the multitude of our papists, the observation of these days, as of Easter etc. amongst us, vuould have inconveniences, which it should not have with them, where there are none, as I have also before observed. The rest in this chapter, is answered.    

THE SECOND CHAPTER, OF the second part of this Tractate: of the faults, touching prayers.  

THE FIRST PART, OF THE chapter: touching the faults, in the matter.  
TO maintain, that we should pray, to be delivered 
diuis. 9 pa. 492.  from all adversity, he falleth foully, and as it were upon all four: teaching with great confidence, that we pray for things, whereof we have no promise. For, seeing our prayers made without faith, be abominable, and no faith is able to be grounded, but upon the word of promise: it must needs follow, that the prayer conceived without promise, is likewise abominable. But then, saith he, we may not pray to be free from all sin: no more, in deed, we may in this life, because we must always pray, forgive us our sins. nor yet (saith he) pray against persecution, 
math. 6.  no neither, against all persecution, because it is contrary to that word, which saith that every one which vuil live godly in 
2. Tim. 3. 12.  Christ jesus, must suffer persecution. Hereunto, he abuseth S. john 14 13 whatsoever you ask, I will give: which, S. 
a 1. john 5. 14.  john himself soluteth, when he saith, that he heareth us in all, that vue ask according to his vuil, and that will, is in his word. Hither, he draweth the example of our Sau. Christ, which prayed to have the cup removed, that he know he should not obtain: which as he allegeth it, serveth to prove, that we ought to pray for that, which we are sure we shall not obtain: which is absurd, and not only to pray without, but also contrary to faith.  
Neither did our Sau. Christ, pray without promise. For as other the children of god, to whose condition he had humbled himself, have: so had he a promise of deliverance, so far as the glory of god, in the accomplishment of his vocation, would suffer. And I deny, that (at that time he made that prayer to his holy father) he knew he should not obtain. For although he know, that he should suffer, yet if I answer, that as touching his humanity, he know not the most infinite and extreme weight of sufferances, which god his heavenly father had measured unto him, or knowing them, had through the unspeakable force of the pangs which he then was in, forgotten them: I see not, how this answer may not be maintained, as a Christian and catholic answer. For our Sau. Christ, taking unto him, together with our nature, our infirmities: might, without all contagion of sin, both not know some things, and be subject to forgetfulness, of that which he know: not to the forgetfulness, which cometh of negligence, but which cometh of a sudden astonishment, and shaking of all the powers, both of body and mind. All forgetfulness, I grant, is the punishment of sin: but that all forgetfulness is sin, and upon all occasions, I think, the Answ. himself will not affirm. As for that, he wandereth in about the condition: it nothing excuseth, his error. For we ought not to desire, to be free from all adversity, if it be his will: considering, that he hath already declared his will therein: but only of this, or that adversity, whereof we know not, but upon the event, what is his good pleasure. He hath much other fog to this purpose, but not worth the naming.  
After, he citeth the 91 psalm, that no evil shall come to thee: where, he manifestly overthroweth, that he hath affirmed before. For, poverty and persecution are amongst those evils, of which himself saith, we have no promise to ground ourselves upon, when we pray against them. As for the place it self, it must not be understood, that the afflictions, shall not touch us. which is manifest, in that, assigning the manner of performance of 
vers. 15.  these promises, he saith, that the lord vuil be with him in his trouble, and deliver him: noting, that he shall be in trouble, which is contrary to that, that he shall be free from all trouble. So that, to accord the scripture, with it self, the meaning of of the promise must needs be: that he shall not be overlaid or oppressed, but contrarily, that the afflictions 
a Roma. 8.  shall serve (as the Apostle saith) to his good. Here therefore, a difference must be put between evil, and adversity: in such sort, that although the scripture do promise to deliver the faithful from all evil, yet it followeth not thereof, that it promiseth to deliver them from all affliction, or adversity: considering, that that is sometime good for them. His distinction, 
Psalm. 119. vers. 71.  is merely idle: the former part whereof, is only in question.  
Hither also, he will have referred, that which cometh 
b diuis. 16. p. 497.  after: touching the petition, deliver us from the evil. whereby, whether it were his meaning, to prove that we should pray ordinarily, and expressly against thunder: let the reader judge, considering, that that only is there in question. Let him judge also, whether, where he accuseth my unsincere dealing: I dealt not with him, most favourably. For his words there, 
c 494. l. 14.  being either without since, or else having a very dangerous sens: I passed by, not sticking in them, but raking that which I thought he meant. Now to prove, that all manner of adversity is noted in them, notwithstanding that by the word, evil, be understood the Devil: he allegeth, that some interpret it, that we desire to be delivered from all adversities, which the devil worketh against us in this world: which maketh clean against him, considering that diverse afflictions, are immediately sent of god, other some by the service of good Angels, others by officers whom god hath appointed to chasten us, for that wherein we offend, against the good order of the church, or common wealth. And, as for the later kind of these chastismentes, after the offence committed, and judgement accordingly given, we ought not to pray to god, to be delivered from them: considering, that that were to pray, that the course of the revealed justice of god, should be stayed▪ whereby he may see, that although the Devil be author of all evil: yet he is neither the first author of any adversity, nor so much as the instrument, of divers adversities.  
To maintain the prayer, that god would give us, that we 
Diuis. 10 p. 493.  dare not ask, he allegeth, that we must be humble, and acknowledge our unworthiness: as if, these could not stand with a boldness, of ask in the worthiness of jesus Christ, whatsoever we have need of. And, the very similitudes he useth, condemn him. For, what child, coming to his father for a bit of bread which he standeth in need of, useth to say: that he dare not, ask it. Likewise, of one friend towards 
LuKe 11.  anoher, which most amiable names, our Saviour Christ will have set before us, when we come to prayer: to engender in us, a reverent familiarity, with him. And the boldness, that the children of god ought to have, so much passeth that which we use, to any of our most dearest friends: as we are more assured of his love, then of theirs. After to help himself, in steed of that S. 
a LuKe 18. 13.  Luke saith, the Publican standing a far of, vuould not so much as lift up his eyes unto heaven: he bringeth him in saying, he durst not come nigh, nor lift up his eyes: where, beside his corruption, he gaineth nothing, unless he had showed, that he durst not open his mouth, to ask forgiveness of his sins. Of the contrary side, seeing he durst ask forgiveness of his sins, which is the greatest petition that a man can make: it is manifest, that there is nothing needful for us, which, in Christ, we may not be bold to ask.  
But here, he hath found out another hole, to creep into, that we should, forsooth, say we dare not ask, and yet ask: whereby, in steed of teaching true humility, he openeth a school to hypocrisy, which the lord detesteth. Not unlike unto the Popes canonists, which being in great pain how to accord the Pope's title of being Servant of all servants, with his title of being lord of all: amongst other answers set down this, that he doth it of a certain humility of mind, not in truth, or for that he is so in deed. Herein also his own example, utterly convinceth him. For the Publican, which, he saith, durst not lift up his eyes, did in deed not lift them up: so that if, by his example, we should say we dare ask nothing, we ought also to ask nothing. I leave his examples of the Pharisey and prodigal Son, as utterly vain and impertinent: I pass by also (as needles with us which profess the gospel) the testimonies of the scripture, where boldness to 
Rom. 5. 2 & 8. 15. Heb. 10. 19  go unto god, through jesus Christ, contrary to this not daring, is plainly taught: marveling, where the Answ. will stay, which setteth himself against this sentence propounded of me, that throvugh the vuorthynes of jesus Christ, there is nothing whereof vue have need, which vue may not dare to ask, of our heavenly father.  
His first section, is idle. In his second, to maintain the 
Diuis. 11. p. 495.  excess of craving earthly commodities, by a particular discourse of them, against my reason that there is but one petition in the lords prayer, tovuching the commodities and discommodities of this life: is alleged, that there is but one petition touching prayer for the forgiveness of sins, which is nothing to purpose. For although, there be but one precisely of that matter: yet there are six of that kind, that is touching the glory of god: where there is, but one only petition, of this kind. Against which distinction, of things pertaining to gods glory and to this life, his exception, that all things tend to his glory: is frivolous. For although, all things work to his glory, and our salvation: yet in respect, that one doth this of the own nature, the other accidentally, the one nearer, the other further of: both the divines do so commonly speak, and the ᵃ scripture it self vphouldeth this distinction. 
● Math. 6. ●.   
To maintain, that we may ordinarily pray against thunder and lightning in winter etc. he citeth the 11 of Ecclesiasticus of thinking of adversity in prosperity: which (if it were of weight to confirm a matter in controversy) yet is nothing else, but that one ought to provide himself of patience against that day, and not to promise' himself always, good days. Likewise, S. Matthew 24 where the jews are bidden to pray, that their flight be not in winter: which is of a certain, and determined calamity, and that of a whole nation: in which case, I confessed that there ought to be prayers. Further, that sundry perish suddenly by thunder: to which I answer after, that so they do by falls from 
pag. 497.  horse, and by infinite other ways. His reply whereunto, that these, which I speak of, come commonly by negligence: maketh for me, for so much as they are so much the more fearful. For considering that beside the bodily harm, they befall unto us, through our own sin of undiscretion: we ought the rather to pray against these, then against the other. To that I alleged, that these dangers are oftener than thunder: he answereth not. Howbeit he thinketh it most convenient, that we pray against these also: in generality and with condition, I grant, neither is this in question, but not piece by piece and ordinarily. The reason whereof, I assigned, that so there should be no end of begging earthly commodities: whereunto he answereth nothing. The same reason, I allege afterward pag. 536, against the particular thanks giving at the churching of women: whereunto he answereth, that there ought to be for this especially, because it is so dangerous and common: yet it is not so common as sickness, which, through disobedience, befalleth to men and women both, nor so dangerous, as a number of diseases out of which one doth not so likely escape, as women out of their travail: beside that the restoring of some to health, toucheth the church nearer oftentimes, than this. As for his ask after scripture, not able to answer the reasons, grounded upon the scripture: it is unworthy the answering. In the example of the Massilian heretics, that held that we should always pray: he doth but abuse the time, talking much, but not touching the point wherefore I alleged it. let us therefore return.  
I alleged, that the original of the Let any, brovught in 
Diu. 12 and 13 pag. 496  upon occasion of some general mortality, likevuise of certain confessions of the divinity of our Sau. Christ, upon occasion of the detestable heresy of Arius: ovught, tovuching the ordinary use of the church, to cease when those evils were appeased. whereunto he answereth, that we are still subject to these mischiefs: So were the elder churches, before those evils came, and all other churches now, as well as ours: yet, neither did the elder churches, then institute an extraordinary remedy before the mischief, neither do other churches now, continued it after recovery. And in deed herein, it is with the church of god, as with man's body: whereunto no wise physician, prescribeth an extraordinary diet, but upon some disease present, or apparently approaching: other wise, why are not there also extraordinary confessions, and litanies, against all other detestable heresies, and heavy judgements, which have been from the beginning of the world, unto this day.  
He answereth further, that so the psalm; made upon special occasion, should be now unprofitable, which is nothing so: for they have always the same profit, to be studied in, to be read, and preached upon, which other scriptures have: and this for advantage above the rest, that they are to be sung, as their name doth declare. But to make daily prayers of them hand over head, or otherwise then the present estate wherein we be, doth agreed with the matter contained in them: is an abusing of them. For how inconvenient is it, that our church, living under a godly Prince, should in stead of a prayer for it self: say a psalm, which complaineth of oppression by a Tyrant. Yea, when the estate of the churches should be such, as the psalm doth express: yet, considering that the prayers in the churches, ought to be framed to the understanding of the most simplest, and the psalms have manners of speeches, which the learned themselves, have enough to do to understand: it is manifest, that they are not the aptest forms, of public prayer. That of the repetition, of the articles of our belief, is alleged to no purpose. For, it is a short Sum of the whole Christian profession, directed against no particular heresy: but alike needful, at all times.  
To prove, that gloria patri etc. may be often repeated, at one meeting: he answereth, that a good thing can not be to often said. which, that I abide in the former similitude: is as much to say, that a man can not take to many purgations: And if it be so, as he saith, why is there any other thanks giving, than this. His reason, that it is a good thing, is not enough, so much as to bring it into the church, much less to 'cause it to be so often repeated: unless also it be so good, that nothing can be, for the time and place, better. Hither belongeth, that of 
a Mat. 6. 7.  vain repetitions, in the 
b pag. 804.  end of the book. where first with what face he denieth, that he understood his words, wickedly wrested of the Geneva translation cited by the admonition, let the reader judge of his words: wherein, rendering the reason of this charge, he saith, for the words of Christ, be not as they translate them, but etc. Then let him observe, that of divers reasons used by me, to establish that translation: he answereth not so much as one. To prove, that long prayers are not forbidden, which none denieth, also that the true translation is, that we should not babble much, which is in effect the same with that of Geneva, he bringeth divers autorityes: but, to prove, that our Sau. Christ meant to condemn, only repetitions without faith, or that he condemned not, when one thing is ordinarily often repeated in a small time, which be the points in question, neither the 4 first testimonies, nor the 2 section, have one word of. As for that out of M. Martyr, it proveth that multiplying of words without faith, is babbling: but not, that that only is babbling, which (to put us from this place of S. Matthew) ought to have been proved.  
Neither doth the example of our Sau. Christ, repeating the same words thrice: help him. For first it appeareth not, in how short space this was doen. Then, it is unmeet, of every example of prayer made in some especial estate, either of exceeding joy, or of exceeding affliction: to make a pattern, for the ordinary prayers of the church. For when this repetition, is engendered of a zeal, which by this joy, or affliction (as by more wood put under the furnaiss) is made hotter, then commonly it useth to be, in the best of the children of god: it is apparent, that where this strength of zeal is not, to sand forth these repetitions, and with a strong voice, to cause, as it were, this Echo: there (as hyperbolical) they can not but displease the lord. Therefore, the ordinary and usual prayers of the church, ought to be so conceived: as all the children of god, by that measure of zeal, which the lord commonly departeth unto them, may be able to follow with affection. If some member can, by reason of such particular schooling as is before spoken, overshoot this common mark: he hath his chamber at home alone, as our Sa. Christ had his garden here, where he may have further scope. But, that the prayer of all the church, should be framed unto his estate: is no more convenient, then, for that some one laboureth of the disease of the gout, all the whole church should have an ordinary prayer, to be delivered from that disease.  
The same 
a Divi. 14. p. 497.  reason is, of the thanks giving by magnificat, Benedictus, and nunc dimittis: which were made by occasion of certain particular benefits, no more to be used for ordinary prayers, than the ave Maria. whereunto he answereth, that that pertaineth to the virgin only: even so do certain things contained in these psalms, either agreed to certain particular persons only, or else are such as can not agreed to us. As to have seen our Sa. Christ with bodily eyes, to be called blessed of all generations, to have a son which should prepare the vuay to the son of god. And therefore, by his own answer, these verses, at the lest, are no more to be daily said of us, than the salutation of the virgin Mary. So that both for this cause, and the other before alleged of the psalms: it is not convenient, to make ordinary prayers of them. Neither doth the respect, that they contain the mystery of our redemption, serve to make them ordinary prayers: no more, then infinite other places of the scripture: it proveth rather, that they should be the ordinary texts, to preach on. The two next be 
b diui. 9 & 11. Diuis. 17. p. 498.  answered.  
To the default of the book assigned, for that there are no forms of thanks giving, for the release from those common calamities, from which vue have petitions to be delivered: although he can here answer nothing, yet, as his manner is, he blotteth paper. Howbeit, page 536 he goeth about to return this upon my head, because taxing the want of thanks giving here, do there find faut, with the solemn thanks giving at women's churching. whereunto I answer, that I do not simply require, a solemn and express thancksgiving for such benefits, but only upon a supposition, which is, that if it be expedient, that there should be express prayers, against so many of these earthly miseries: that then also, it is meet, that, upon the deliverance, there should be an express thanckesgiving. But whereas he saith, that thanks are then given, for encreas of gods people, and deliverance from sin: the first, is here out of time, as that which belongeth to baptism, and not to churching: neither is there any such thing contained in the book. The other, is spoken first dangerously to the simple reader, as that which, having no good sense, giveth also manifest suspicion, that either the company in marriage, or the bringing forth of children (both which are commendable) is sin. Then it is spoken slanderously, in respect of the book: which, having no such thing, is brought into suspicion of it. Here also, you should have learned to mend your speech, of our subjection unto sin. For, although the dangerous travail of women with child, be a testimony of sin, which we committed: yet it is not a testimony of subjection unto sin, in us which are sanctified: considering, that although, 
a Rom. 6.  sin duuel in our mortal bodies, yet it reigneth not over us, neither are we subjects unto it.   

THE TWO PART OF THE TWO chapter, of this Tractate: of the faults, in the form of our prayers.  
TO that against the prayers, shred into so 
Divi. 18. 19 and 20. pa. 499. etc.  many and small pieces, where, as in doctrine, so in prayers, regard ovught to be had not only to the matter, but also to the form: he answereth, that so the doctrine be the same, the form is left free, which is untrue. For it ought to be done without all 
a 1. Cor. 2. 1.  pomp, and owtward show: also to the 
b Heb. 5. 12. joh. 16. 4.  capacity and most advantage of the hearers memory: and that which toucheth this point chiefly, it ought to be done 
c 1. Cor. 14. 40.  comely and orderly: all which things, as they pertain to the form of preaching, so do they to the form of prayer.  
To this uncomeliness, set forth by similitude of a supplication, made unto an earthly Prince: he answereth, that the dealing with god herein, is far other then with men, except I will admit the popish reason of praying to saints, which is nothing worth. For both himself hath used this kind of reason 
d diuis. 20. p. 493.  before, and the 
e Malach. 1. 8. 14. Martyr upon the 1. of Sam. cha. 1.  Prophet, in the matter of sacrifices, doth use the same: Peter Martyr also useth the same in the case of prayer. where the word of god, hath determined the contrary, there this kind of reasoning, drawn from the usage of men, is shut out: but where the lord hath not prescribed the contrary, there it hath a place. Of which kind, is the matter of comeliness and decency: wherein we must have regard, to the comely usage, and conversation of men. upon which ground, we say, that it is comely, that the lords table should then only be spread, when the holy supper is to be ministered: and rather, with a fair cloth, then with a fowl. Also, that it is not against order, that many should sing together: but yet a disorder, that many should speak together.  
My answer, to the short prayers objected out of the Acts, that S. Luke setteth dovun only, the sum of the prayers, is manifest: seeing in sermons, as needful to be reported at large, as the prayers, he hath used the same shortness. although, touching those which are private prayers, for particular necessities, they ought to be no rules, in this point of public prayers. To that, that even those prayers, as they are set down, were continued, and not cut into pieces: he can answer nothing. whether the form of prayer, which we have in this point taken of the papists, be as good as that which I touched, and which is used of other reformed churches: let the reader judge. That all, or the most part of them, have allowed our order: is untrue, as may (if need were) be showed by records of the difference for it, in Queen mary's days. divers other roving sayings he hath, whereof that of our Saviour Christ's and the Apostles usual preaching without texts: hath no ground. That of their preaching, without prayer before, or after their sermons: is a shameful untruth. For, prayer being assigned, for a 
a Act. 6. 4.  piece of the duty of the ministry, although it had been never (as 
b joh. 17. 1. Act 2. 42. Act. 1. 24. Act. 20. 36.  sometime it is) expressed: yet it must of necessity be intended. whiles peradventure he will say, they prayed, as the papists, in the midst of their sermons: as if gods assistants were needles, for the first part of their preaching. That the Apostles, did not labour and study for their sermons: is another untruth, 
c In the tract of the Deacons.  before conf●ted.  
Beside the confusion and waist of time, in that the people 
Diuis. 21. p. 501.  rehears word for word after the Minister certain prayers, which they may as well do by consent and affection of mind: was alleged, that thereby is engendered an opinion, that the other prayers do not so much pertain unto them. whereto he answereth, that there is special cause, why they should be used, because they contain a general confession, which all Christians must, even with their voice, confess: as if the desiring of things which are necessary, and giving of thanks for benefits which we have received, were not both as general, and as necessary to all Christians, and a thing which concerned the glory of god, as much as the confession of our sins. If it be so, what cause can he assign: why the people, should with their voice pronounce one, and not the other.  
My reason, which is, that as in the public liturgy, the Minister is only the mouth of god, from him to the people, so he is the only mouth of the people, from them unto god: he corrupteth, leaving out only in one place, and taking it in the other, that the strength of the argument of payers, might the les appear. For answer whereunto, he is fain to take the answer, serving to the last reason, which is of the practice of the church in the 
a 1 Cor 14. 26.  Apostles time, 
b justin Apolog. pro Christ.  and after: and to apply it to this. wherein first he citeth Musculus, which thinketh it not unlikely, that the disciples repeated the hymn after our Sa. Christ, to whom I answer that there is no likelihood, that the disciples repeated the whole song after him: only, as the nature of some 
c Exod. 15. 1. 21. Psal 136. 1. 2. etc. Esdr. 3. 11.  hymns doth require, it may be, there was a common foot of the song, wherewith the disciples answered, unto our S. Christ singing first. And this (no doubt) is Musculus meaning. That out of Pliny, is nothing to purpose, it being confessed, that the whole church may sing psalms with the Minister: where also, his objection of dissent with myself in this point, is easily answered: namely, that the practice of the Apostolic church, having been such in the psalms, and not in the other prayers, is cause enough, why that which is convenient in one, is not so in the other. Beside that, there is no los of time, in singing the psalms: considering that the people sing, together with the Minister.  
Then he allegeth, Acts the 4: that, in praying, all the Apostles lifted up their voices. The greek is, they with one accord, lifted up a voice to god, not voices: so that, S. Luke noteth that there was but one voice amongst them all: which, because it was with consent, he doth aptly call the voice lifted up of them all, and wherewith they all prayed: even as he 
d Act. 6. 2.  after attributeth the exhortation made by one of them, touching the choice of Deacons, unto them al. Where, all must needs confess, that either one only spoke in the name of all: or (which god forbidden) there shall be ascribed unto the holy Apostles, either a chiledish folly, whilst twelve, one after another, propounded the same words at one time, and in one assembly, or else a barbarous confusion, whilst they spoke all at once. Here also, he greatly forgetteth himself. For setting down, that that part of prayer which consisted in confession, ought especially to be repeated after the Minister: his pretended examples, are of that part of prayer, which standeth in ask, and thanksgiving: so that, it seemeth by his proofs, that these should be especially repeated: at the lest, that they should be as well, as the confession.  
Against that alleged for us, of the practice of the church in justin's time, he answereth, that I left out, vue all rise and pray together, which is to fond: as although our church, prayed not with the minister, when it only attendeth unto the prayers, albeit it rehearseth them not after him. And, this form of church prayer, noted of justin, is noted also of Dionysius 
Euse. 7. lib. 9 cap.  Bishop of Alexandria: to consist, in that the people, attending to the prayers, sounded Amen together: which may be also an answer, to that of Basil. The practice cited out of chrysostom, ought not to be admitted: considering that in the same place he showeth, that as the Minister conceived one prayer for the people, so the people conceived another divers from it, for the Minister: which how unmeet it is, in the church of god, and publicly, hath been before declared.  
That I used that form in my sermons (for any thing that I know) I learned it of the book: which use, forsomuch as some years after, whilst I yet preached, I corrected in myself: it declareth, that I first misliked and condemned myself in that point, or ever I found fault with the book. The next division, I leave to the reader's judgement.  
To this treatise belongeth, that which cometh after, 
pag. 740.  of singing the psalms side by side, where he requireth proof of that I alleged, that it is not enovugh to pray with the heart, when a man may pray with the voice also: which is proved, by as many places, as we are bidden to sing unto the lord: and in that the lord will be served with all the strength we have: so that, where neither inconvenience of ecclesiastical policy, nor want of health, or such like hinder, there the lord contenteth not himself with the heart, one●es the voice be given also. And of this, the example of Anna, which himself bringeth against me, is a manifest proof: which wagged her lips, when, for grief, she could not speak out. His proof out of the Corinth's, as also whatsoever he hath in this division, of contrariety with myself: is a mere misspending of the time, considering that I both added expressly, that vue ovught to pray with the voice, where it may be, and had before declared, the inconvenience of doing so, in the other prayers.  
Where I showed, that this kind of singing ovught so much more to be suspected, for that the Devil hath gone about to get it authority, by deriving it, partly from Ignatius, partly from heaven: he answereth, that if it came from Ignatius, as Socrates saith, it is not the less to be esteemed: which is to induce 
Socra. 6. li. 8. cap.  the reader, to believe this fable, that the Angels were heard, to sing so from heaven. For Socrates saith, that Ignatius took it of them: so that in this fable, he had rather believe Socrates, whom 
a pag. 350.  before he accused of heresy, than 
b 2 lib. 24.  Theodoretus, whom he will not 
c pag. 415.  suffer, to have been ever touched with heresy. Hither pertaineth, that which is page 606, where under pretence of indifferent things, he seemeth to allow of Organs: which, beside the popish abuse, reneweth judaism, and hath now no thing pertaining to edification, one of the rules whereby indifferent ceremonies, should be squared.  
His defence of his profane proverb, matching mad men, women, and children together, out of S. Paul calling the men of Crete, liars: is a shameful profanation, of the scripture. For where, S. Paul set his mark, of one only I'll, he setteth his upon the whole, both sex of women, and age of children, through the world. And where S. Paul, did it by reason of his ministry towards them: he doth it, without. Last of all, where S. Paul did it truly: he doth it untruly.  
Unto the undecency, of the scraping at the name of jesus, 
pag. 744.  he answereth, that the same is in hawking: as if the case were like, the natural necessity requiring the one, and no necessity requiring the other. Neither is there any undecency in hawking, if (as it is meet) every man do it severally as his need moveth: and not, as somewhere it is done, altogether. That alleged of engendering a greater estimation of the Son of god, then of the father or holy ghost, in that his name is curtesied unto, and not the other: he derideth, but answer he can give none. Where the reason is manifest, especially with the simpler, which esteem that better, to which more honour is given: so that where this is not beaten down by continual teaching, it can bread no other opinion. And although preaching did abownd, yet the ceremonies ought to be conformable, and not contrary to the doctrine: beside the other inconvenience 
a p. 56 sect. 3. of my first booK pa. of his 278.  before noted. After he saith, it hath continued many hundred years: so hath popery. And, I believe, when he shall be driven to show the antiquitity, which he avoucheth, it will fall out, that he can fetch it from not other head, then from popery.  
For, as for that he allegeth, of the Christians which used it, because the jews, abiding other names of god, could not abide it, it is nothing so: considering that the jews, have that name in great honour, although they have not him so, to whom of right it belongeth. And in regard, that it was given to the son of god, they hated the name of Christ as much, and in some respect more: because, in sound, it is further of from their word, than the name of jesus. That especially this courtesy should be made at the name of jesus, when the Gospel is read, which containeth the glad tidings etc. is a foul oversight, the confutation whereof I have before noted: which 
In the former part pa. 320. lin. 23.  serveth also, against the standing rather at the gospel, then at the Epistle. That also, of subduing of all our spiritual enemies by Christ etc., is frivolous: seeing that both god the father, and the holy ghost have their work in our salvation (although after an other sort) as well as our Sa. Christ. How absurd he is, aswell in affirming that a Pastor may better have two benefices to preach at, than a Curate two cures to read at, as also in his reason thereof: let the reader judge.    

THE III CHAPTER, OF THE SEcond part of this treatise, of ministering the holy sacraments in private hovuses, beginning pag. 510 of the D. book.  
IT hath been showed, that the administration 
In the former part pa. 71. l. 36 etc.  of the word and Sacraments ought to be public: and that they cease not to be so even then, when, for the distress of persecution, the church is driven to hold her assembly in a private house. Here it remaineth only in question, whether it be convenient, that in the churchis peace: the sacraments, for sickness sake, should he ministered in private houses. Where, to that alleged out of S. Paul, that he opposeth the congregation, 
●. Cor. 11. 22  wherein the lords supper should be holden, unto a private hovus where men satisfy their hunger: he can answer nothing, but repeateth that out of Caluin, which he idly alleged before.  
I am content, that the reader judge, whether both those 
Diuis. 1. pa. 511. and diuis. 2. pa. 2.  absurdities which I laid upon him: follow of his rash answer. As for that he replieth, that our Sau. Christ's preaching, and S. john's baptizing openly, prove not, that the administering of the word and sacraments should be public, because examples prove not: it is 
a In the former part p. 155. lin. 28. etc.  answered: Beside that I have 
b p. 73. l. 19  showed, that it hath commandment. Another reason of his is, because our Sau. Christ preached in private family's. which is 
c p. 74. l. 11.  likewise answered. That out of Zuinglius that it is not necessary to baptize in the church, I grant: for the case may be such, that it may be baptised in the fields, but in a private house, in this case of sickness, where there be set and ordinary meetings in the church, I deny it convenient. If he mean by not necessary, that it is baptism, although it be not ministered in the ordinary assembly, I grant: if he mean, that it is not necessary to decency and good order: his own words, give me answer enough. For as the time maketh convenience, when it is ministered so soon as it may be commodiously, or inconvenience when it is differred longer: so doth the place.  
Albeit, S. Paul was a prisoner, yet the jailor being converted, 
Diuis. 3. p. 513.  would have accorded him, what place he had judged meetest for baptism: therefore that example, had been more apt than the other of Peter, although neither of them, make any thing for you. As for that out of Matthew 18, where two or three etc., to prove that two be enough to make a congregation, wherein baptism may be ministered: first, if it could come to pass, that there were but two persons in the whole church, one to baptize, the other to be baptised: I doubt, whether it were meet to stay the baptism, until we saw whether the lord would give further encreas. But, that it is convenient, that in our church, it should be ministered in the presence of two or three only: is a thing most unworthy, of the dignity of the holy Sacrament: when as, if the civil administration of judgement should be handled so cornerlike, it should worthily, be suspected.  
But what shall then be answered, to the place of S. Matthew? even this, that our Sau. Christ speaketh not there of the public administering of the word and Sacraments, but of the proceeding in the church discipline against offences, and of that part, which was done privately. For after he had taught how from the admonition by one, we ought to proceed unto that which is made by two or three, and so to the churchis: having before ratified the proceeding of the church, he autoriseth also by this word, the admonition which, with invocation of his name, was given by those two or three▪ promising that it shall not be in vain, but have effect that way, which god hath disposed of, whether it be to conversion of the party, or to further making him inexcusable. If it be asked, why then our saviour Christ did not also speak, of the ratifying of the first admonition by one: I answer, that he spoke of the effect of these two later admonitions, not that the other should he without fruit, but for the excellency of the effect of these, before that. Which was also therefore needful, to be made mention of, more than the first: for so much as otherwise, upon experience of the sinners hardness of heart, in rejection of the first admonition, he which gave it, with the other one or two appointed for that matter, through despair of his amendment, might be beaten back, from proceeding any further with him.  
To me acknowledging, that in the time of persecution, it may be in a private house, as may also the public preaching: he answereth, that the same may be done in this necessity, which he repeateth in his 6 division, where still he demandeth that in question. For it is in question, whether there is any such necessity of baptism, as for the ministering thereof, the common decent order should be broken. And verily, by these kind of speeches, he plainly condemneth those churches either of neglect, or contempt of the holy sacraments: which suffer none to be administered, but in the ordinary congregations. Here, I leave to the reader's judgement, whether by this extraordinary administration, there be more danger of confirming this error, that children can not be saved, if they die before they have received baptism: then the administering it only when the infants may be conveniently brought to the church, doth confirm the error of the anabaptists, which say that children may not be baptised, until they come to age: seeing that, by the daily practice of the church, in baptizing them, there can not rise, the lest suspicion of this later error.  
In saying, that I have neither scripture, reason, nor Doctor: he keepeth but his wont. For scripture, and reason, let the reader judge: for Doctor, I marvel what plainer testimony can be, then that I alleged out of Augustine, which noteth the use 
contra Litter. Parm. lib. 2. ca 13.  of the church to have been, to run to the church with their children, in danger of death: and that, when some had opinion, that their children could not be saved if they were not baptised. Verily, if there were ever any time when, in the peace of the church, baptism in private houses should have been used: it was then. I would also know of him, what 
Socr. lib. 7. cap. 4.  he will answer to that, which is noted of a Christian jew, desperately sick of the palsy: that was with his bed carried to the place of baptim? Where neither his grievous sickness, nor the inconvenience of the cariadg in his bed, could purchase him baptism in his private house: doth it not manifestly appear, how contrary the practice of the church was then, unto this which he would here maintain? what will he 
Euseb. li. 6. cap 43.  answer to this, that those which were baptised in their beds, were thereby made unapt to have any place amongst the Clergy (as they call them): doth it not leave a note of infamy in those, which had procured, that baptism should be ministered in private houses? For it can be, by no likelihood, understood of those, which, being carried in their beds, were baptised in the ordinary place of meeting. what 
just. in Novel const. 57  unto the emperors decree, which upon authority of the ancient laws, and of the Apostles: forbiddeth that the holy things, should be administered in any man's private house.  
Finally, what will he answer, to the practice of the purest and best reformed churches this day, in Savoy, Germany, France, and divers other: which administer the Sacraments, only in the ordinary meetings? How dare he say, that there is no Doctor of this judgement: when as whole churches old, and nue, and therefore their Pastors and Doctors, either all, or, at lest, the most part appear to have been of this judgement. 
a Martyr in Ep. Roma. cap. 6. Viretus 14. lib. de min▪ verbi & Sacram. Beza in his questions of the Sacraments quaest. 151  Some also of the learnedest of our days, have noted their judgement here of particularly: and to him that hath the commodity of books, it will not be hard to find others.  
To this defence, he hath added in division 7. page 515. that M. Caluin gathereth, john Baptist to have been circumcised in ●is father's house: which can not be, well concluded. For there is nothing spoken of S. Luke 1. chapter 58 verse etc. to have been done in the house: which is not done, in divers places with us and others, where the parent's friends come to the house, to accompany the child unto the church. As for the question of the name, beside that, it is sometime talked of in the house, when notwithstanding the child is appointed, to be carried to the church: it must be considered, that it was here necessarily moved with the mother, which kept the house, before they went to the synagogue: for that Zachary the father, to whom the naming of the child, by common order, doth belong, could not speak. And I would gladly know of him, what just cause there should be, to circumcise the child in the private house: except he will, without all ground, say that john Baptist was sick. which, if he do, it is easily refuted: for that, than the parents would have differred the circumcision, which could not be ministered, without present danger unto to the child. It appeareth therefore, that john Baptist, was carried unto the synagogue, to be circumcised: if he were not, yet for so much as he was circumcised at home, without any cause of necessity, either just, or pretended by him: this circumcision in the house, can not help him. It is 
lib. Epist. Cal. p. 228. and 321.  true, that M. Caluin doth not of necessity require a temple, neither do we: but first, he contenteth not himself (as the D) with a fevu vuitnesses, but will have some number of the faithful meet, to make a body of a church: secondly, he will 
lib. Epist. p. 94. p. 179.  have it done with a sermon: and thirdly, by him which is acknovuledged for Pastor. And all these, he will have necessarily. If the D. like of M. Caluins' judgement, in this matter, let him not spare: yea, he precisely misliked, that it should Be ministered in a private house, even in the time, of the supposed necessity.  
Now to return, where he affirmeth, that the church is election should, touching the choosers, as well vary by persecution, as the place of administering the word and Sacraments: it is fond. I confess it me●● that as the word and Sacraments, even so the election, made ●●enly in the time of peace, should in persecution, be made in secret. But because, he draweth me hither, he ought to understand, that this maketh against the election, by the bishop alone. For, as in persecution although the place be changed, yet the same person ought to administer the word and Sacraments, which did administer them in in peace, and in peace which did in persecution: so, although the place of the election change, yet, as touching the persons which choose, they ought to be the same, both in the time of peace, and persecution.  
To the cause I assigned, why our Sau. Christ held his holy 
Diu. 4. and 5 p. 514.  supper in a private house, that being joined with the passover, it might better appear, that it had an end, and that this is in place of it, which consideration can have no place with us: he answereth, that thereby appeareth that it is not of the substance, of the sacrament: which I confess, taking substance for that, without which it may be a sacrament, and so his answer is nothing to purpose. That upon occasion it may be ministered, in a private house: I grant, if that private house be the place for the church to meet in. Hereto also maketh, that the lord to keep the sacrifices in times past, in just estimation: would not permit, that the flesh should be eaten any where, then 
Deu. 12. 18.  in the place which god did choose for his service. Vue therefore, having Sacraments more excellent than they: ought by so much more to be careful, lest through administration of them in such obscure places, without any necessity, we draw them into contempt. The next is answered.  
Hitherto belong the 5 first divisions of the 6 chapter, page 526. to the first whereof, he can answer nothing: saving that he perverteth my words, which desire only that the antiquity of hovus Communions, be not prejudicial unto the truth: considering the like antiquity, in other abuses of th● supper. How the first and second division, make against his cause, is manifestly showed in the fift division: which (as his wont is) he rend in sunder, to find him talk. In which fift division, his answer, which supposeth it necessary to quiet troubled consciences, is insufficient. For, if it had been so necessary a thing to the quieting of their consciences: the Apostle S. 
a jam. cha. 5.  james (as it is well 
b Bulling. decad 5. Serm. 9  observed) speaking of the visitation of the sick, and of their comfort especially, vuould never have omitted that. And as for the consciences, they may be otherwise quieted, when they be taught not to think, that the working of assurance in their hearts, is so tied unto the sacraments, that, without them, the lord neither will nor can comfort them: but rather to consider, that, even as when the jews were deprived of the sacrament, of the Sanctuary, the lord promised that he himself would be for a Sanctuary 
Ezech. 11. vers. 16.  unto them, and supply the want thereof: even so, he will not be wanting unto them, which having a desire to be partakers of it, can not so conveniently be received thereunto: putting them also in remembrance, of the horrible abominations of private mass, which came first in, by occasion of these private communions, as they are called. Here let the reader take heed of an error, which the D. hath let fall: that we have remission of sins by communication unto this Sacrament. whereas, remission of sins, received by faith alone, and sealed up in baptism: must be had, before we come to the Communion.  
To the Council, which forbiddeth the communion 
Divis 4. p. 527. Laodic. ca 58.  in private hovuses: he answereth, that it meaneth usually, for that the use was such in some places, which is said without all proof, or likelihood of truth. whereby, for a shift, he sticketh not to slander whole ancient churches: notwithstanding that he pretendeth sometime, such reverence to one only man, as the reader before hath seen. Then he opposeth the Nicen Council, which is that I prevented in the 2 division, and in the fift showed, to make against him.  
After, follow M. Bucers and Martyrs notes, which if they we●e 
Diuis. 6. p. 528.  theirs, and had been for further assurance thereof, taught by them to look upon the Son: yet being the testimonies of men, how learned and godly soever, they are subject to examination. I will not deny, but they might be of that judgement: considering, that I see M. Caluin, to have been of the 
lib. Epist. p. 43.  same. which, I therefore let the reader understand, that he may be diligenter, in the examination of the reasons against it: and not to descend into our judgement, unless he be compelled by the matter it self. unless it is not ours alone, but, as he hath heard, of others: yea of divers reformed churches, where this is not admitted. putting him also in mind, of both M. Caluins and Martyrs judgements, in the matter of baptism: that it ought not to be in a private house, nor without a sermon: desiring him further to consider, whether certain reasons making against the one do not strike upon the other. And in deed, as (in my judgement) is is unmeet to administer either of the sacraments in private houses: so, that is yet less tolerable in the holy supper, which hath a special mark and representation of brotherly communion, more than baptism. Here, I pass by, as a thing political rather then pertaining to conscience; the scare that may come by these private communions: when the sickness (as often cometh to pass) is contagious. As for that of Musculus, it is idle: seeing his approbation of it, is not made to appear, and no man denieth, but they that used it in times past, did it for a good end.   

THE FOURTH CHAPTER, OF this Tractate: tovuching the ceremonies in Baptim, pag. 607 of the D. book.  
NOw follow the corruptions in the sacraments apart: and first of those in Baptim. where in maintenance of the questions, ministered to young infants which can not answer: he would make us believe, that the catholic writers, as it were the Gouldsmithes, were in doubt whether the Denis which he brought, were good money or no: whereas the contrariety in opinions, is between the Papists, and Protestants. His evidence to prove him legitimat, because these books be very ancient: implieth that a number of horrible abuses, are as ancient. And therefore in stead of saying, some falsehood might be thrust in: he should have said, some truth might be thrust in, to give credit to the rest: considering that the pureness of the tongue (which he wrote in) being set apart, there are few things, worthy either of S. Paul's Scholar, or of the Bishop of Athens. His defence, by the Bishop of Sarisbury, is 
a in the former part p. 466. l. 2.  answered. The not answering also of my reply, against Denis, under pretence of a flout: is 
b In the Epistle of the former part of this booK. Diuis. 2. p. 609.  before noted.  
To the reasons against Augustine's kind of speaking, he can answer nothing: only he mispendeth the time, in proving that baptism is the seal of faith, which none denieth: but that it is called faith (which he ought to have proved) he could not find a word. For that also, that Augustin maketh for the interrogatories ministered to infants: beside strong affirmations he can bring nothing. As for that alleged by me, it is most 
August. Epist. 23.  manifest in another place: where Augustin showeth it to have been the use, that the minister asked of the parents whether the child believed, they ansvuering that it did: so that, although this were an abuse, yet it is much different, from the manner which we have received from the papists, and more simple than it. In the next division, he answereth nothing to the purpose, nor in the next to it, saving only a vain cavil: for, whereas I meant the true faith, he flieth to that of Simon Magus, which was counterfeit. In the next, where it was alleged that all ovught to be done simply and plainly in the church, he can answer nothing: only, it may serve for a colourable cavil, that as the book will have the infant's promise by the godfathers, so (saith he) the Adm. will have infants, desire by their parents. For albeit the Adm. words, might have been warilier set: yet it is but a hawking after syllables, when their meaning is plain: that there ought to be no such strange, and unwonted kind of speeches, in the common service. I pass by 
a Musc. common places in treatise of baptim.  Musculus authority, flat far us: but M. 
b Bucer in Cens. Litu. Angli. cap. 12. & 14.  Bucers', wherewith the D. often presseth us so sore, must not be forgotten: which doth precisely find fault with our service book, herein.  
His second chapter requireth no answer. For as for his exception, that we allow of godfathers devised by the Pope, it is 
c Diuis. 3. p. 475. in the first booK.  answered: beside, that it was not, by his own account, devised by a Bishop of Rome which was Antichrist. The contrariety with myself, in that page 18, I denying, that the usage of a thing by the whole church, can give it such authority, as that it may not be abrogated, yet here allow of godfathers, as of an indifferent ceremony: considering that the churches have generally received it, is unworthy of answer. For there is great difference, in allowing the churchis authority absolutely, or without condition: and in reverencing her authority in an indifferent matter in it self, and, touching the use, profitable, when it is used accordingly: so that a blind man might see, how I might justly improve the first, and approve the last.  
In the there first divisions, of his second chapter pag. 614: there is no answer, worthy the reply. Where he would prefer crossing before milk in baptism, he doth it contrary to Tertullian'S authority, of whom only his reason dependeth, which will have them alike necessary. His reasons, that the milk endured not long, nor was general. beside, that they are popish reasons, are not proved, and may be in part confuted, in that it had not only place in Africa, but in the 
a ●●●om ●●●ra Lucifer.  west parts, not only in Tertullian'S, but also in Jerome's time: At the lest, the anointing in baptism, was as general, and of as long continuance, as the cros. For, being in Africa in Tertullian'S time, it spread it self into the 
b Bas. de sa 〈◊〉 spiritu 〈◊〉 28  east, and 
c Ambr. lib. de his qui 〈◊〉 cō●●●rantur.  west churches: with such continuance, as from them, it passed into the p●pish synagogues, aswell as crossing.  
To this defence may well be referred, that which he answereth pag. 275 unto my objection: that Sensors. Tapers holy bread etc., are even of the same coat that the surplice is of, and to be measured with the same pole. for if his answer there, which is, that the surplice is indifferent, but that these things be falsely accounted indifferent, be good: it will help to secure, his weakness here: and if it be showed nawght here, neither will it serve him there. Let him tell us therefore, why the surplice and the cross with their significations should be indifferent, and oil and tapers etc. with their interpretations, falsely counted indifferent. Here, we must believe him of his word, for reason, he hath none. Howbeit page 291, where he repeateth this again, he pretendeth this reason: that the one have an opinion of salvation and of worship annexed, all which (saith he) we remove from these orders: which, saving that it is against himself, is to no purpose. For, in the first part of his answer, he giveth to understand, that the papists shameful abuse of these things, is cause enough to make them now unindifferent, which is contrary to the whole course of his defence: and in the later part of his answer, he giveth to understand, that their oil, tapers, censors, holy bread, and holy water may be brought into our church: so that the opinion of salvation and worship, be, by a public and solemn protestation of the indifferency of them, removed. Who knoweth not also, that the abuse of the papists, hath been as great, and rather greater in the cross especially, by opinion of salvation and worship: then ever were, the tapers or sensors. whereupon it is manifest, that the D. herein, can make no more distinction or difference, between the cross and the surplice, with oil and tapers etc.: then he which chaulketh▪ (as they say) a white line, upon a white vual. Let us 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  therefore return.  
In the next division, to divers reasons against this ceremony in Baptim, both simply, and in respect of the present time, he answereth not a word: only, he passeth the time, in showing how the papists used it otherwise, than we do, which is not in question. In the next, to that alleged of the signification, making it more popish: he answereth, that the papists did not declare the signification, and that they were therefore dumb with them: as although their pulpits rung not oftentimes, of such unsavoury voices, or that a number of the simpler papists, know not this popish divinity. To that, that it bringeth in a nue vuord into the church: he answereth, that there is nothing against it in the word, which is untrue. For, although the ceremony of crossing, were convenient, yet to raise a doctrine of it, is unlawful: for as much, as it is not enough to teach the truth, unless it be truly taught, and that is, only out of the word of god. Now, let him show a word of god, that two lines laid crosswise: signifieth, that we should not be ashamed, of the passion or cross of Christ.  
Hitherto belongeth, that which he hath 291, touching the surplice: where it appeareth, that his defence in this cause, is spekled and of divers colours. For there, in the first section, he giveth plainly to understand, that he alloweth not, that a man should draw any such signification from the apparel, as the admonition doth, from sitting at the lords supper. Now, the signification it bringeth, of rest, and of a full finishing, throvugh Christ, of all the ceremonial lavu, and of a perfect redemption vurovught, that giveth rest for ever: is a holy doctrine, therefore it followeth, that he will not have, so much as an holy and an agreeable doctrine, unto the rest of the scriptures, fetched out of the wearing of the apparel: which is the same thing, which I affirm: namely, that it is not enough, that the thing signified, be according to the scripture, unless the signification it self, be raised and grounded of the scripture. So that hereby, he hath utterly overthrown himself: not only, in the signification of the apparel, but also in this of the cross, and that after, of the ring. For, by the same reason, that he misliketh all such signification, in the one: he must needs mislike it, in the other.  
I answer the supposed reason of M. Martyr, directly. For, ●eing it buildeth the wearing of a white surplice, upon that the Ministers are called angels: it must follow, that the same cause that moveth the scripture, to bring in the Angels clad in white, must be the lesson, that the Ministers have to learn of their white apparel: which, whether it be pureness, or glory, or both, it being a true representation in them, is (as I said) a lying sign in the Ministers, which are miserable and sinful men. Herein also, to that which I objected, that by the same reason the Ministers should vuear vuinges, because the Angels are so described, he can answer nothing: whereunto add, that hereof there is yet more cause. For the white apparel, which the Angels wore, was no signification of their office, but of their pure and glorious nature, wherein they were created, and wherein they still remain: whereas, the wings, shadow forth their office, which is, that they are swift messengers of god, in all things whereunto they are sent. Therefore, seeing this reason will have the comformity between the heavenvly spirits, and Ministers of the gospel, to stand in respect of their office: their wings, being a picture of their office, and not the whiteness of apparel: it followeth, that the conformity should be rather in the wings, then in the whiteness of apparel.  
To that which I alleged, against them which make it a civil matter, that by this signification it is made ecclesiastical: he opposeth, that a grave apparel, putteth us in mind of gravity. Y● doth so, and that is no civil, nor yet ecclesiastical, but a divine order, that, by how much a man hath obtained at the hand of god, such an estate or dignity as requireth such apparel: by so much, he is bound in the whole course of his life, by modesty and gravity, to show himself thankful: whereof, even his table, better furnished then other men's, ought likewise to put him in remembrance. And these things, have a perpetual convenience, which can not be changed. As for the several habits of degrees, and estates, I grant also, that those which be convenient, and as long as they be so: ought likewise to bring to remembrance, the duty which the estate whereof they are marks, doth require. And, if he could prove, that the surplice were a fit garment for a Minister: I would not deny, but that he ought generally, be thereby put in mind of his duty in that behalf. But, that men should run out into idle speculations, of the colour, or form: I can not agreed. For, no more than it is meet, that upon the eating of milk, sincerity and simplicity should be enjoined: no more ought there upon the white colour of the surplice, be raised any such signification of glory and pureness. In civil respect, and where the commodity of this life is only regarded, the use of significations is freer: as in Livery and season of a hows, by the ring, and of land by a clot or turft: but, where men are called to godliness of life by significations, there they neither ought to be without warrant of the word of god, nor yet can be civil. For a civil ceremony, doth bind us no further, then to the outward performance of that, whereunto the ceremony is used: which if we do, although it be with an evil mind, yet we can not civilly be charged.  
So long as the signification of the white in the surplice, is (as he supposeth) and aid to godliness, so long it is necessary and not indifferent: which is that which I said, and which he confuteth not. Likewise in saying, that they are supposed strong to vuork godliness, I meant not, that the virtue is in the garment, as if it could 'cause men to be godly: but I meant to ascribe unto you, that in so speaking of it, you match it with the word of god. For the word of god it self, through the perverseness of our nature: is not, without the working of gods holy spirit, strong enough, to work godliness in us. And so my argument, if white have strength to move to godliness, than that which is whiter hath more: is good. For, nothing hath power to move unto godliness, but that which god hath ordained for that purpose: and that which he hath ordained, hath of it self power to work that, whereunto he hath ordained it, if it light of a fit object, or matter to work upon. In what since, I call them Sacrament, which are instituted with such significations: I have before declared.  
That which I add there of our superstition, whilst vue vuil have no painted, nor graven, but vuoven images, agreeth also well, unto this matter of the cros. For, if to set up a wooden cross in the church, with commandment that in looking upon it, we should remember not to be ashamed of the cross of Christ, be a fault against the first table: the same reason is, of this cross of flesh: whereunto his answer, that those are against the express commandment of god, is 
a In the former part and first Tract.  before confuted, where is shwed, that they are as unlavuful, which may be gathered or concluded to be forbidden, as the things, which are expressly forbidden. And, here it hath been proved, that these significations upon such grounds, are not according to the word of god. Beside that, it may peradventure abuse him, that he taketh the word image, to reach no further then unto the portraiture of a man, or of some other living thing? whereas it comprehendeth all representations of men's devise, brought into the church, for doctors and teachers therein. The rest in this division, is not to purpose.  
Here, leaving the principal matter which is, that every 
Diuis. 6. p. 617.  ceremony which with an ovutvuard sign, had a doctrine annexed unto it, is, in a general signification, a sacrament, and that consequently they make a Sacrament of the cross: he taketh himself, to that I denied the foreskin in circumcision, to be an element: which is not worth the answering. For, I confessed circumcision, to have been gods holy sacrament: the question is, whether that Augustine did well define of a sacrament, in using the word Element, which is properly taken for the simple natures only▪ when as, the law of defining; requireth the propriety of words: considering also, that by his manner of speech, in calling wine, bread, or flesh, Elements, the common people are not instructed: so that, both in respect of the learned and unlearned, it seemeth; the definition might have been better assigned. Being charged, for rejecting M. Hoopers and Alascos' allegory as papistical, when he notvuithstanding allovueth of this: he answereth, that theirs is dumb, and not this, which is untrue: for they add both a more witty, and likely signification, 
a pag 599. and 132 of mine sect. 2.  before noted, whereof let the reader judge. why anointing with oil, which was sometime the lords ovun sacrament, and which hath a more ample signification, then that of the cross, should not asvuel be retained, as the cross, or rather why, the cross being displaced, it should not have place: he can answer nothing, but that it is the churchis liberty: which is strange, that she should have liberty to do that, whereof she can give no reason.  
To that, that vuodden crosses in high vuayes, are as lawful, 
Divis 7. pa. 619.  as those in the forehead, and in the church, he answereth, that they are durable and erected to be worshipped, which these be not: as although, there were no danger but in gros worshipping. although, here he forgetteth, that which he alleged out of M. Bucer, who giveth warning, that it be not received with superstition or servitude of the element: which were in vain, if (as he saith) there were no man so mad, as to imagine any such thing of it. That, of the small endurance, will not help. for, if there be danger of Idolatry, when it is long before our eyes, considering that that Idolatry hath her beginning in one momē●: it may as well have it in that moment, as in another. yea so much more likely, at this cross; than at that in the streets: as it is set in a higher place, even in the church, and not behind the door, but in the holy sacrament, as it were in the Ark, where the principal jewels of the church are laid up. Is the fire once kindled? iwis, our perverse nature hath matter enough, to make it flame. And, beside that the memory of it is renewed, at every baptism: by this example in the church, they may easily cross themselves at home, at the lest, the superstitious (which think that their crossings in the forehead and breast, is an armour of proof against all temptations of the Devil) take occasion hereon, to be confirmed in their superstition.  

THE SECOND PART, OF THIS chapter: of confirmation of children, and vuemens' churching.  
TO this chapter pertain, the confirmation of children, and women's churching: as things supposed, to be annexed to the baptism, and birth of children. In the first whereof, his first sect page 726, is no answer to me: which alleged it, both horribly abused, and not necessary. That it is ancienter, than the feigned decretal epistles, I yield unto: But to that alleged, that it hath no ground in scripture, he answereth nothing, wherein notwithstanding the question consisteth. That alleged of the imposition of hands, untruly fathered of the Apostles, he will have me prove: whereas, it being affirmed of him, ought to have been showed by him. That it was not in justin's time, may appear: in that, he describing the liturgy of the churches in his time, maketh no mention of it. That it was no tradition of the Apostles left, as Jerome (all his proof in this behalf) affirmeth: hath been 
a In the former part p. 34. lin. 25.  before declared. His exception of the abuse in laying on of hands, in ordaining Ministers, against that I brought that this ceremony confirmed an opinion conceived, that it is a sacrament: is idle. For, that being the ordinance of god, may not for any abuse be taken away: but this, being not, although it were in it self indifferent, for the offence sake, ought to be disannulled. Hither appertaineth that 
a pa. 787.  otherwhere, of M. Caluins' allowance hereof. where the reason I opposed out of him, that the gifts by laying on of hands ceasing, it also ovught to cease: is unanswered. I grant, he speaketh against the popish imposition of hands: but withal, in this point, he speaketh against ours, which pretendeth (as doth theirs) that the holy ghost is given by this imposition of hands, whereof there is no promise. And therefore, his defence that it is given by prayer, is not sufficient: considering, 
pag. 727.  that the book saith, by putting on of hands and prayers: so that, although M. Caluin should like of laying on of hands, yet he must needs mislike of ours, which presupposeth that the holy ghost is given, by the bishops laying on of hands. His answer, to the authority of so many reformed churches, is fond. For, that they meant to disallow confirmation simply, and not the popish only: may appear, in that they purged not the popish imposition of hands, but utterly cast it away: And when they say, they can vuant it without damage, they signify, that in the best sort, it is unprofitable.  
To that alleged, of the popish opinion, that it is better than baptism, confirmed in that, that our Bishop only may confirm, where every Minister may baptize: he answereth out of jerom and Bucer, that it is meet it should be done by the Bishop: which I grant, if it were meet at al. But that the Bishop which 
b in the former part p. 588. and 556.  Jerome and Bucer allow be not lord Bishops, but simple Pastors of one only church, or not of the twentieth part whereof our Bishops are, hath been before declared. The reason, of the inconvenience of bringing the children half a score mile's with charges, for that which (if it were needful) might be done by the Pastor at home, he answereth, by calling it chiledish: such is the compassion, he hath of the people's travail: and especially of the necessity of the poor, which are compelled thus, beside extraordinary charges, to lose two or three days work. That he thinketh it, not worthy once to be considered: belike is, because they go not, upon his legs, nor spend of his purse.  
There resteth the churching of women. where this title, 
pag. 534.  implying a banishment from the church is defended, b● the common people's usage of Christmas a popish name: as although this error of the people, ought to have been confirmed by the book, and not rather corrected: he might aswell answer, that the drawer of the book, might have called the holy Communion a mass, because the ignorant sort, do so. But unto this answer, hath been further replied 
a 2. part of the last Tract and 2. part of the chapter. diuis. 2.  before. Of two other points in that division, he talketh, but answereth not: the next requireth no answer: the next hath been answered: the next to it requireth none.  
To excuse his rashness, in permitting the vail, which is a church ceremony, to women's discretion, he saith▪ it is rather civil: the untruth whereof, is manifest, it being done of superstition, and opinion that it ought to be so, not for secure against the air, as he pretendeth: beside that, in saying rather civil, he privily confesseth, that there is some part of it ecclesiastical.    

THE FIFT CHAPTER: OF CEREmonies about the holy communion, in the residu of the D. xv. Tractate.  
IN eleven divisions whereof, to divers reasons of the great inconvenience of ministering it with wafer kakes, and in kneeling, there is nothing alleged worth the rehearsal: considering that it hath been showed that the churchis power in things indifferent is not absolute, to do what she thinketh good, but for the most edifying in regard of the persons and other circumstances: and considering, that against that we would have the sitting of our Sa. Christ called again, for remedy of the superstition, yea idolatry committed of some by kneeling: his instans of celebrating the communion in the night, is insufficient. For, that was upon a particular occasion, which is not in our church, nor hath no place in the ceremonies in controversy: seeing that (for the causes assigned of me) the celebrating of it in the night, was for that time necessary: which is also answer to that of unleavened bread used at the same time, whereunto he can answer nothing: Lastly considering that to show the inconveniences, and humbly to desire redress herein, in such sort, as for the abuses, we do not withdraw ourselves from the holy communion: is not (as he slanderously accuseth) to make any tumult. Therefore not to spend time, in confutation of his bore sayings, the contrary of certain whereof, are to be seen: as in a plain matter, I commit these unto the judgement of the reader.  
Only, let him observe that 
a Bucer. in cens. Litur. Anglica. cap. 5.  M. Bucer doth improve the kneeling at the communion: and in one word, all the gestures which the Papists used, in this imitation of the supper of the lord.  
For that in the 
b pag. 601.  17 division, touching this, whether it be meeter to say take ye, or take thou, to the reason, of the example of our Saviour Christ, he can not answer. To the reason, taken of the manner of preaching, he saith: that exhortation given in the second person singular, moveth most, which is not to the point of the question. For, it is not debated here, whether the Minister should speak to all at once, by thou, or by ye: but, whether it is meeter, that it should be once only spoken to all that communicate at one table, or rehearsed according to the number of persons that communicate. Beside that, a figurative speech, as this is, (when by the word thovu, are noted a great number:) is more fit for preaching and prophetical writing, then for the ordinary service. which ought to be most simple. I confess some difference, of the exhibiting of the benefits of Christ in the sacraments, and in the word: but how that difference should 'cause us to change the form used by our Sau. Christ which (knowing that difference best) did notwithstanding at once, speak to all at the table with him: I see not, nor he showeth not, nor, I am assured, can not. the rest in this chapter, requireth no answer: the two next chapters be answered.  
The 6 chapter, is of the ceremonies in the Solemnisation of marriage page 723. where for the maintenance of the ring, with the fond ceremonies thereof, and of the uncomely words of worshipping with the body, taken only from popery: there is likewise nothing worth answer, that of the devising of nws signs, to teach by, being before confuted.   

THE VII CHAPTER, OF THE second part of this Tractate: touching the ceremonies in burial, pag. 727.  
HOw needful my preface was, to prevent 
Diuis. 1. 2. diui. 728.  vuranglers, let the reader judge. Likewise of the reasons, the Adm. useth: which he is not afraid, not only to deny to be good, but to be any at al. How little Tertullian'S authority ought to prevail in establishing funeral prayers: hereof it may be known, not only, that he would thrust divers fond ceremonies upon the church, as necessary, but for that in another book, this oblation (as he termeth 
de Corona Mil●●is.  it) for the dead, he maketh of the like necessity, with those that are commanded in the scripture.  
Whether it mayntein, in the minds of the ignorant, 
Diuis. 3. p.▪ 729.  an opinion of praying for the dead, must be in the reader's judgement: putting him in mind, that, if notwithstanding the ordinary prayers so often read, there be some so ignorant, to think that Morning and Evening prayer, is nothing but the popish Matins and Even sung in English: how much more, will they judge the same of the funeral prayers, which are not so ordinary.  
That there were no such prayers in the Apostles time, is showed by a manifest reason of the scripture: which setting forth the smallest matters in Burial, vuould not have 
Act. 8.  holden back this, being so vueighty: by which circumstance, his exception of negative arguments in authority, being overthrown, he hath nothing to answer. And, beside that he is never able to prove, that all the churches used it: it is 
a In the former part p. 86. lin. 26.  before showed, what truth augustin's sentence is of, which would make all Apostolical, that is generally observed. That the Apostles example, ought here to have prevailed, is showed diuis. 6: which is, that if funeral sermons had been so fit, as is pretended, the Apostles vuould never have lost such an opportunity of preaching, whereunto he answereth not. Hither also serveth, that, forsomuch as there was no prescript form, of funeral prayers under the lavu: it is not meet, there should be any novu. which reason, beside an unmodest triumph, receiveth no more answer, than the other: where he ought to learn, that of all other, it is most effectual. First, for that a multitude of ceremonies, was more agreeable to the estate of the people of god under the law: than it is now, under the gospel. Then, for that, by how much more, they had not so clear sight of the resurrection of the dead, as we: by so much, they had more need of these things, than we.  
To that, that the Minister having othervuise necessary duties, as many as he can turn him to, hath notvuithstanding by this means, anew charge laid upon him: he answereth, it is no charge, but his duty to preach, and to pray, which is untrue. For, although it be his duty to do both, yet it is not his duty to do them then: if it be, than he must of necessity do it, neither can this ceremony be abolished; and so the Ministers in other reformed churches, which do it not, are thereby condemned. where he asketh, why he should not do this, aswell as his own business: verily, amongst other reasons, this also is one, that to the end he may have some time for his own business, the church ought not to charge him, with things which are not necessary.  
To that, that mourning apparel provoketh sometime immoderate 
Diuis. 4. p. 730.  sorovu: he answereth, that so we should not approach the bed, nor grave of the dead, which is insufficient. For it is one case, of things dutiful and commanded, or whereof we have great use: and another of those, which are not so. In the one, god's vocation, is warrant enough against all inconveniences: which is not so in those, which we take up of our selves. And it maketh against him. For, having, by reason of our vocation, means enough to strike the wound of sorrow so deep into us, as is needful: we ought not to seek others, of our own brain. The examples, whereby this was set forth, he answereth not. And hereof, the reader may see also: that profitable ceremonies in things indifferent, may be maintained, although this fall.  
As for that he saith, that Cyprian and Augustine do not so much condemn mourning apparel, as immoderate sorrow: if they condemn it at all, it is enough to convince his extreme boldness, in all ledging an antiquity for him, which maketh against him. But, if he would thereby insinuat, that they misliked not of this ceremony: these be their words, let men judge of his dealing. vue ovught not (saith Cyprian) to take black garments, 
Serm. 4. de mortal.  when the faithful, which are deceased, have received white apparel: neither must vue give occasion, that the heathen should justly blame us, that vue lament those as lost, which vue affirm to live. Concerning Augustine, he writeth thus. By what reason should vue die black garments, 
lib. 2. dec●●sol.  for the dead: whiles it be that vue vuould, in joining them with our lamentation, declare thereby, that the deceased were very infidels and miserable? These are my brethren unmeet, they be strange, they are unlavuful. And, if they were not unlavuful, yet they are undecent. As for the continuance of it, with any allowance, further than from the time of the heresy of the papists, which be not the church of god: he showeth not. The rest in this division, is not worth the naming.  
The first argument, against the inconvenience of funeral 
Diuis. 5. p. 733.  sermons: hath the same maintenance, with the first of the third division. To the next reason of the sudden, and consequently (for the most part) negligent preaching: he opposeth as a contrariety with myself, that I preferred a simple sermon made every day, to that which is made only once in a month, which is only to misspend the time. For, although I preferred it, to the other: yet I approved not, that one only Minister (except he have rare gifts) should preach every day. why he can not have sufficient warning, is manifest: if he refuse, he is thereby laden with displeasure of his parishioners, in that he doth not, as other, which is hurtful to his ordinary ministry.  
To the reason of acceptation of persons, in that sermons at the burial of the rich, neither be, nor are able to be made, at the burial of the poor: he answereth, that it is alone, as if the Minister not able to preach every day, should not therefore preach once a week. Which is untrue, considering that his ordinary ministry, is commanded of god, where this is but a devise of men, and considering that in the ordinary preaching, there is no acceptation of persons, whether it be done once, or often in a week: so that, although preaching, must be necessarily had, yet preaching at burials, is not meet, unless withal it be done without inconveniences. He denieth it also, to be acceptation of persons, holding forth the objection which I gave him: but the answer unto it, he toucheth not. Likewise, he saith, that there is sometimes more occasion to preach at the rich man's burial, then at the poors: but he saith it only, for proof he bringeth none.  
My argument, he answereth not, which is, that the cause 
Diuis. 7. p. 734.  why burial sermons were brovught in, of giving of famous men their commendation, was insufficient: considering, that the same was done, by the holy Prophets, most able and vuilling to do it by sermon, if it had been convenient. Likewise, to the infamous beginnings of these funeral sermons, from infidels, he saith nothing: only he abuseth the time, in opposing the authority, which I confessed. by which kind of reasoning, he may also bring in, 
a jerom. ad Eustochium de mort Paulae.  torches at noon days, 
b Ambro. de obitu. Theod. de fide resur. Diuis. 8. p. 735.  month, week, and year minds: which have the allowance of the same times, that these burial sermons have.  
The first sect. is answered, in the 3 division. My argument, which is that as other inventions of men, use to do, so these sermons have driven out, the necessary duty of particular comforting the parties, which are especially stricken by the death of their friends: he hath utterly perverted, turning my argument of effects, into that of contraries, as he did likewise both my arguments of the final and efficient causes, in the 7 division, which is but untrue dealing. The general sorrow of the church, in the death of a member, may be easily sustained, by the ordinary teachings: but, they that be specially wounded, ought to have a special plaster. wherein, that which he affirmeth of the exhortation given generally, to be as apt to comfort as when it is particularly applied: is both a manifest untruth, and directly contrary to himself: which 
pag. 601.  saith, None doubteth, but that a man is more moved, by that which is spoken to him particularly, than he is, with that spoken generally, aswell to other, as to himself. And hereby, it may appear, how inconvenient it is: to clog the minister with this voluntary charge of preaching at burials, which, beside his ordinary ministry, hath so necessary a duty cast upon him, in the death of his parishioners: whereunto, and also, the travail and care, toward the deceased, during his sickness.  
The first section is answered, in diui. 3. To that, of tying 
Divis 9 pa. 735.  hereby the meditation of death, which ovught to be continual, to one only time: he answereth, as you see, the reply whereunto is 
a In the chapter of feast days. Divi. 10. p. 736.  before. although, this reason, ought not to have been so hotly pursued: seeing that, although I wrote it, yet I professed, that I would not precisely subscribe it.  

b lib. Epist. p. 43.  M. Caluins' judgement of these sermons, doth now appear: which is, that he doth not greatly disallow them. His answer, against that I alleged, that they might be easilier born in other places, than with us, where there are such suuarmes of papists, and other ignorant which take occasion of falling thereby: is partly replied unto in the 3 division, and is further confuted, in that the doctrine against purgatory and trentals, may be as frutfully taught at other times, as it is in other churches, where we see singular fruit of such teaching. As for the morosity, he talketh of, it is 
c In the first chapter of this Tract.  before answered. unless the money for preaching, be given unasked: yet if it be received in that respect, the occasion of the papists slanderous speech, is not taken away. The next division, belongeth unto the reader's judgement: the next is 
d In the former part p. 361.  answered. Here, it is once to be noted, that he, not content to wrist my particular arguments, hath perverted this whole disputation. For, where my reasons do never conclude, the unlawfulness of these ceremonies of burial, but the inconvenience and inexpedience of them: he imagineth me concluding, that they may not be, and that it is unlawful to have them: which notwithstanding S. 
e 1. Cor. 6. 12.  Paul, doth precisely distinguish.   

THE EIGHT CHAPTER, OF the second part of this Treatise: of the surplice, and other apparel, taken from popery.  
AGainst their importunacy which may peradventure say, that I leapt the matter of apparel, through conscience of the weakness of our cause: it shall not be much out of the way, to run it over, that it may appear, both how little there is which hath not been answered, and how little weight it hath, which remaineth to be answered. The first divis. is 
a In the former part.  answered, so is the second: for further answer whereunto, I refer the reader to the 
b In the defence of the Apolo. 5. chapt. 1. diui. p. 385. sect. 3  Bishop of Salisburys book, where he shall perceive, how directly the D. is contrary unto him, in that point. As for the last section, it is answered in the first part of this tractate: saving, that he misconstrueth my words, in affirming me to say, that monuments of Idolatry may be used in the church, if some manifest profit do appear. Where as, my meaning is plain, that they ought to have no entrance into the church: not only, for that they are monuments of Idolatry, but because there appeareth, no manifest profit of them. For, although I will not enter, into that question: yet I can not see, how that which is properly a monument of Idolatry, can have any good use in the church. That, things ordained to good uses, and after converted to Idolatry, may be profitable, I grant: but, that a thing shall be profitable, in the church especially, whose nativity and first birth, was consecrated to an Idol, and which the first day it was invented, was applied unto Idolatry, I think, the Answ. is not able 
Diuis. 3. pa. 257.  to show. In the next, the first part of the first section, the reader hath to judge of: upon the reasons alleged, and upon the common experience. His question, is only to blot paper: being afterward precisely both moved, and 
c diuis. 6. p. 278.  answered by me.  
For proof, that some think the sacrament better administered with, then without a surplice: I alleged, as witnesses, them which say, I vuil not communicate, unless he vuear a surplice. whereunto he answereth, that it may come of just cause: when the Minister, by not wearing, showeth an example of disobedience. whereby, he first alloweth that men should abstain from the Communion, for want of a surplice: then, in part he giveth the execution of the laws, to private men, contrary to the law of god, and of the realm. Whereas, if the Minister did evil, in not taking a surplice, and would not give place to their admonition: it behoved them, to receive the sacraments, and hear the word at his hand, and after to complain of the disorder, to those to whom the correction belongeth.  
His reason, that none which are persuaded to communicate with us, think the sacrament better or worse for a surplice, for that they are dissuaded from greater things: is insufficient. For, there were jews, 
a 1. Cor. 8. Rom. 14.  which were brought from confidence in themselves, and in their own works, to seek for their salvation in Christ: which in a piece of a holy day, or a bit of flesh, which is far less, put great religion. Where the lord taketh a man by the hand, there he may leap over a wall: but where, to let us have experience of our own weakness, he reacheth not his hand: there, a little stone in the way is not without danger.  
But admit (saith he) they have a religion: yet because their error is as great, which think the sacraments polluted by this apparel, it is convenient, it should be used, and their errors confuted. This convenience, did S. Paul never know: if he had, he would undoubtedly have taught it, when the like question in meats, as this is in apparel, was moved in the church. For so, he had had an easy way, to have compounded between the jews and Gentiles, if he could have taught the Corinth's, which were so loath to be abridged of their liberty, that they might use it before the weak brother, so that they gave him instruction of the indifferency of it: whereas, the Apostle plainly forbiddeth to eat before him, as long as he remaineth in that weakness what other thing, is this therefore: then to set, the Apostle to school? The 2 section of the next division, is 
a In the former part Tract. the first.  answered: so are the 
b Ib. p. 403.  two other: likewise the 
c In the first part of this Tract. Diuis. 1 pa. 262.  three next: the next unto them belongeth only, unto the reader's judgement.  
The first section, hath nothing but words. His second, that Saul knew not Samuel to be a Prophet, for want of a mark in his apparel, but forsomuch as he was a rudesby in the common wealth, as Master Martyr saith: is to very little or no purpose.  
For he saith not, that Saul know not, what manner of apparel the Prophets wore: but only, that he know not Samuels particular person. Now, they may well stand both together, that Saul know the Seers particular apparel, if any were: and yet not know Samuels own person. where, he would get this out, of the which is description of Samuel, by a mantle: he may as well say, that it was a proper mark to the Ministers of the word, to be old: seeing the one as well as the other, is given as a mark, to set forth Samuel by: howsoever he, both absurdly, and without any assistance of reason, doth deny this. For, I would know of him, why she nameth him an old man, if it were not for this cause, that he might the easilier acknowledge him for Samuel: and, how could a mantle be a sufficient note of discretion of Samuel, from other Prophets, which were dead, when as himself saith, that all the Prophets wore the same kind of weed. Last of all, seeing Samuel was, as he 
d pag. 262.  allegeth, a Prophet, a Magistrate, and a Captain of the host: if he had had a peculiar kind of garment, why might it not as well be, the proper garment of the Prince, or Captain, as of the Minister.  
touching the proper apparel of those Prophets, which were extraordinarily raised up, whereof he maketh such large discourse: it was confessed, and the reason beaten upon his own head, where it cleaveth still. For, it was alleged, that they were notes of their extraordinary calling, and therefore unmeet for us, whose calling ovught to be ordinary: whereunto he answereth not. And, if he will have the Bishops now, conformed unto the prophets in their apparel: they must were common, course, homely, and vile cloth. For, so M. Caluin, from whom he pretendeth his help, describeth it. But, 
upon Zacha. 13.  where is Luther now become, which saith, that the dstiinction of the apparel, amongst the Ministers under the gospel, is not convenient. 
a pag. 150.  before, he could take Luther, and leave M. Caluin: here, in the same Prophet, the same chapter, and almost the same vers, he hath cast of Luther, and laid hold of M. Caluin: which notwithstanding maketh nothing for him. For, the doctrine which he gathereth, that the Ministers apparel, should be grave and sparing, without ruffling in their silks, and velvets: is that which we desire, and himself, with others whom he defendeth, fault in. Neither is his other place, out of M. Caluin, any thing to the purpose: for the anabaptists, condemn the use of armour, which is not only not forbidden, but also, in some case, commanded of god. Neither do we disallow, any of this apparel simply, as unlawful: but as inconvenient, and that not altogether, but to that use, whereunto it is (especially in these times and with these circumstances) applied.  
His plaster for all sores, of a negative argument, unto our reason, that the scripture maketh no mention, of any distinction of apparel, for the Minister of the gospel: as in other places, so here especially, it healeth not. For, there is not the lest thing, incident unto a Minister, as he is a Minister: but it is comprehended, in the word of god, else, let him give an instance, or one only example: whereof, also this may be a good witness, that S. john's apparel, which was several, is set forth so diligently, even unto the very girdle. And, seeing the Apostle entered, into mention of the Ministers apparel, when he 
b 1. Tim. chap. 3.  willeth it should be honest: if he had thought it needful, that he should have had a mark in it, to be known by, how easily could he have noted it: which was instructed by the holy ghost, of all things profitable, to advance the ministry of the gospel, How vain a thing than is it, that the D. would bear us in hand: that it is so profitable and so convenient, for their ministry. what also, that the Apostle, where need is, and comeliness doth require: contenteth not himself, to command in general that the apparel should be honest, but descendeth also to the very form of the apparel: as, when he commandeth, that vuemen should have a long garment, 
1. Tim. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  coming dovun to their foot. When therefore, the Apostle appointing this long garment for women, did leave it free unto Ministers, which fashion of long garment, of all other, seemeth to be most fittest for a Minister, and seemliest in all places: what can we think, but that he would have the Minister free, in this behalf.  
Where he taketh for granted by me, that some of the Apostles used a several apparel: he is to light handed, in taking that, which I never gave. For, when as in speaking of the Prophets, Apostles, and our Saviour Christ, I confess that some of them had a peculiar garment: it is manifest, upon my discourse, that I meant the Prophets only, which were extraordinarily raised. And so far I will grant, his conclusion: otherwise, if some only of the Apostles had a special garment, how could that be a mark of his ministry, when the rest of the Apostles, which were fellows in the same ministry, had not? And therefore, I marvel, how you dare pres S. john's thin plate upon his head: seeing that Eusebius, noteth that of him as a singular attire, from other the Apostles: whereas, if it had been a mark, of the ministry of his Apostleship, other Apostles, should have had the like. If it had been a mark of his Archbishoprik (whereunto, from the hall to the kitchen, you use sometime to promote him) than all the other supposed Archbishopes, did wear the same: which is, as far from Eusebius mind, as the other. So, your conclusion, that if some of the Apostles had a several apparel, therefore all the ministers may have such a note of their ministry, is to bad: it rather argueth, the clean contrary: that, for so much as the Apostles leaving nothing undone, which might make for the furtherance of their ministry, differed amongst themselves in the form of apparel, one wearing a leaf of his head, the rest wearing no such thing: that therefore, it pertaineth not to the furtherance of the ministry, that all should be enjoined, to wear one form of apparel.  
The reason, which I brought to prove, that Peter had no special apparel, whereby he could be discerned, to be one of the twelve: he utterly dissembleth. His two last shifts against it, are fond escapes. For the persecuting jews, would neither have spared candle, for remedy of the darkness in the night: nor have stood guessing, and suspecting, when as they might have had, a sufficient and a certain mark in his apparel, to know him by. In his first exception, that it may be, that he put of his uppermost garment: he bewrayeth his to great boldness, by running in the maz of his own head, without any thread of the word of god, to bring him out. For, when the Evangelist 
a MarK. 14. 52.  maketh express mention, of one of their infirmities, that to save himself, cast away his upper garment: he would, if there had been any such thing, have done the same of Peter.  
In his answer, of our Sau. Christ's garment: for one fault, he maketh two. For, he saith, that S. john would not have made mention of it, unless it had been a several apparel: which is a shameful saying, considering that it is manifest, that he noteth it to have had no seam, to show the occasion that the soldiers took, of casting lots for it. whereby, both David's 
joh. 29. 24.  prophecy of him, was fulfilled: and he the better known, to be the same, of whom the Prophet spoke. Again, this garment wherein the Answ. will have, the mark of our Saviour Christ's ministry, was his coat and under-garment: and therefore, not so fit to show forth his ministry, as he passed by the streets, considering that it was hidden by his cloak, or mantle, which he wore upon it. And, if our Saviour Christ, had the note of his ministry in his coat, then, although S. Peter (as he divineth) had put of his upper: yet, they might have known him, by his under garment, which was also a proper note of his ministry. Unless, he will peradventure say, that our Saviour Christ, wear the mark of his ministry upon his coat, and S. Peter his, upon his cloak: which in this boldness he is entered into peradventure he will not stik to do. Last of all, this judgement of our Sau. Christ's several apparel, like unto john Baptists: is contrary, to the 
a Matth. 11. 16. LuK. 7. 31.  Evangelists. which show, that he in his outward fashion of life, took another way then S. john Baptist: namely, for that where S. john chose a path, through which he separated himself, from the ordinary and accustomable trade of other men, our Sau. Christ followed the common and high way, that other went. which, being expressly mentioned of his diet, must by the same reason be understood of his apparel: considering that that was one of the two points, wherein S. john sought a singularity. The contrariety with myself, is before 
b In the former part Tract. 1. Diuis. 1. pa. 265.  answered: the next division, I pass by.  
Whether the Magistrate may command a several apparel, is another question from this, whether he may command the popish: considering, that he that getteth the first, hath not therefore won the second: whereunto, the D. beside words partly idle, of genus taken universaliter, partly both idle and fond, of Totum in modo etc., answereth not. But now, in stead of his former affirmation which was, that the Magistrate may appoint a several apparel: he hath set down that he may appoint any kind of apparel: As if these two, to appoint an apparel, and to appoint any apparel, were all one. In which dealing, let it be observed, that where in his first affirmation, he would have fain changed his question, of the popish apparel, for a better: now, to defend his wandering, he hath, for a cause which was not good before, gotten one which is a great deal worse: the nourishing whereof, will stand him in more, than did the other. So that, in stead of setting on a piece: he hath here made the rent, a great deal bigger. For, if the Magistrate may lawfully command the Ministers, any kind of apparel: he may command them to wear purple coloured garments, which being comely for ᶜ youth, should not be so for the Minister, that 
1 Arist. Rhe. 2. ad Theo.  beareth the person of an ancient. Likewise, he might command them to wear (as 
d Arist. polit. 2.  Hippodamas did) furred clotheses both vuinter, and summer: also a Soldiers weed, which M. Caluin (of whom he seeketh favour in this cause) ᵉ affirmeth to be against common sens: how much more, if he should command them, to wear a woman's habit. If you except, that these things be not comely: neither is that required (for any thing that I can see) by your defence but only, that he propound it, as a thing for comeliness and order's sake, without any conscience of religion. although, to answer, that these things are uncomely and unorderly, and that the surplice and cope etc. are comely and orderly: is only, a bore demand of that in question: Beside that, when any of these kinds of apparel should be established, by the superior powers, as orderly and comely: you teach us, that it belongeth not unto us, which are private, to judge whether it be otherwise, but to them alone.  
To that I said, that in the appointing of any several apparel unto the Ministers, there is some injury done to them: he maketh a noise, as if Hannibal were at the city gates: but if the proverb be true, that a deep vuater is commonly still, there is like to be no great depth of reason or knowledge, to maintain that with, which is born out with such owtcries. Whatsoever it be, let us sound it. His first answer is, that being chosen by the church, the Magistrate can not know, what kind of minister every parish hath: even as well, as when he is chosen by the Bishop: for, the Prince is agreed, to have the confirmation and allowance of the election by the church, aswell as of his. although, this is no answer to my reason, which was, that the Magistrate may vuel alovu of him, as for one which knovueth what apparel is meet for his estate, whom he alovueth, as an able man to govern his people, betvuene god and them: so that my reason is, of his alovuance, and his answer is, of his knowledge. And, if without any particular knowledge of him, he may allow of him as of a fit Minister: he may without the same knowledge, allow of him, as one which is able to wear his own apparel.  
His second reason is, that the Magistrate alloweth him, with condition of being obedient: which is utterly from the purpose. For, the question is not here, what the Minister may lawfully obey, but what the Magistrate may lawfully command: and it was set down, that the Minister, as also other subjects, might, in some case, with good conscience obey that, which the Magistrate can not with so good a conscience command. His third reason is, that the Magistrate may be deceived in him: whereunto I answered, that he might then punish him, according as the fault requireth, to the which he replieth not. Lastly (saith he) how sufficient soever he be, he must be subject to good orders. wherein, he beggeth, that this several apparel, is a good order, which is the question.  
Howbeit, the Answ. which in delivering his reasons by tale, oftentimes giveth but eleven to the dozen: hath given us here at unwares, thirten. For as for his former reasons, if it had not been, in such a slippery place of the obedience unto the Magistrate, with the contrary whereof, he so often and so unjustly chargeth us: I would not have once, vouchsafed to have named them. His reason, that other wise men may allege, that they need not to be prescribed in their apparel, which he counteth not: hath, of all other, the greatest colour, and yet it is answered before. For, although there be, which know how to wear their apparel, as well as the Ministers: yet by calling there is none, of whom it ought to be so much presumed, as of them: it being, as it was alleged, vuithin the 
a 1. Tim. 2. 9 1. Pet. 3. 3 Isay. 3. 16.  compass of their charge, to teach the people to vuear theirs: which charge of teaching the people, belongeth to no other estate. There being therefore, so good reason, why the Minister should be left unto his honest liberty, in this matter: it must needs seem hard, that his estate, should herein be inferior almost, nay altogether to all the orders and estates in the land. For, the judges, sergeants, and Alderman's several apparel, is not (for any thing I could ever learn) so enjoined them: but that they may some times, and that in public places, use the apparel, which to themselves seemeth good. And, I would know of the Ans. which maketh such ado about this saying: whether he thinketh, that if the Magistrate should appoint the Minister, a several and prescript diet from all other men, he should not do that, with some injury unto the ministry. And verily, the case is not unlike: especially, seeing in S. john Baptist's ministry, which the lord would have discerned, he would have it aswell discerned, by a special diet, as by a special apparel. At the lest, this is certain, that if it be well reasoned of him, that it is convenient, to appoint the Ministers of the gospel a several apparel, because john Baptist had so: it is as good a reason, that the Ministers, should have a several diet appointed them, because S. john had so.  
Now, where you note subtle dealing, in that I pretend, that by this restraint of apparel, the Minister's discretion is mistrusted in wearing his gear, where it is commanded for a note of distinction: if you mean not, that it is only to discern them from other, you say nothing against me. For it may be, both for the one, and the other respect. if you mean only, you speak against yourself: which affirm it to be commanded for comeliness and order. And, even 
p. 279. 287. etc.  in the very next division, for confirmation of your cause, you allege this sentence out of M. Caluin, that Doctors should in gravity and modesty of apparel, differ from the common sort: so that you seek by this several apparel, to bring the Minister, unto a modesty in wearing his apparel. For, if the Ministers may be gravely and modestly appareled, when they wear not all one form of apparel: it is evident, that you are here, clean out of the furrow. Furthermore, if it were for distinction only, what need so many marks abroad by the streets, in the cap, in the gown, and in the tippet: when as, knowledge enough would be given by one? why do the Doctors of the civil law, and (sometime also) the Physicians: wear the same attire? finally, wherefore are not the papists, driven to the putting them of: with the like severity, as the Ministers are driven to the putting of them on? The honester sort of the citizen's of Rome, 
Livius 9 li. ab urbe.  whose proper ornament was, to wear a golden ring, and other marks of their dignity, when they see every rascal wear them, did cast them aside: what would they have done, if they had seen their enemies wear them? Not that I, for my part, desire that the Priests should, as long as they remain in popery, lose their cap, and tippet, unless they lose their head and nek to: but because I would show, that some thing else is sought for, them a note of distinction. And, within the church, would not the Priest's gown suffice, without the surplice? His surplice, without the cope? his preaching and other ministerial function, without them all? For, who can he be, which doth these things in the church, but the Minister? can there be a fayerer white, to know him from all the rest, than these? he that, either can not know, or will not acknowledge him, for a Minister by these marks: it is not safe, that he should know him by the other. Here also, it is little to your credit, that you carp as an absurd speech: because I said, the College vualles, would have tavught better logik. If 
a Cicero li. 6. Epist familiar. jerom. Epi. de suspecto contubernio.  Tully, herein be not a good Schoolmaster: you might, at the lest, have given me leave to have followed Jerome, which useth this manner of speech, as well as Tully. In the next division, unto two reasons whereby I showed, that there is not the like respect in the several apparel, appointed to judges and Citizens, which is in the Ministers: beside petitions, and repetitions, he answereth nothing to the matter. The next, requireth no answer.  
The first section is 
b In the examination of D. whitgifts censures.  answered. In the second, touching 
The D. 4. c. Diuis. 1. pa. 269.  Sycinius, my reply that he was reprehended only, for to much exquisiteness in his apparel: he can not move. His collection thereof, that the ministers wore black, is first without the book: then, if it were true, yet his conclusion, that they were thereby known, as by a proper note, is nawght: considering, that as now, so (no doubt) then, others then Ministers wore black. Likewise, unto my reply, that neither S. john nor Cyprian, living in the time of persecution, were so unadvised, as by vuearing some notable apparel from the rest, to betray them selves into the hands of their enemies: he can not answer a word. The truth whereof may better appear, in that the Bishops, to keep themselves from knowledge of the persecutors: were driven sometimes to wear apparel, which otherwise had been absurd: as 
a lib. 7. Histor. Tripa. cap. 16.  Eusebius, which going about to ordain Elders etc., vuore a soldiers vuede. And this was also the cause (no doubt) why justin Martyr and Hermes, after they were called to function in the church: are said to have continued their Philosopher's apparel. By how much more, I marvel at the D. inconstancy: which page 275 citeth a sentence, to prove that the change of the apparel in the ministry, as well as in other estates, is not material. He alleged also one of these examples, to wit of justin wearing a Philosopher's apparel, after his receiving to the ministry: which he would never have done, if there had been an uniform fashion of apparel, appointed unto the Ministers. Unless, peradventure he will say, that all the rest of the Ministers, did wear Philosopher's apparel, as well as he: which is untrue, seeing this is noted of them, as of rare examples.  
Unto the particular reasons of Birrus, because he could not answer: he hath feigned a nws signification of a thine plate, contrary to the authority of the Calepine, that proveth it to be a garment of course and hairy cloth, of no price. His Dalmatica also, if it were, as he imagineth, with wide sleeves: maketh not a whit, to prove it a peculiar garment. Contrariwise, the word signifying Slauonish, declareth, that it was not proper to any degree of men, but to the country, either because the cloth, or fashion, came from thence. His reason, that they were particular kind of vestiments, because the names be expressed: is to shameful, as if there were no other cause, to name them: whereas, the naming of them, maketh to the certainty of the story. And further, in Cyprians garments, it maketh to his commendation: which, in giving his garments according to the quality of the persons, used discretion, and declareth him, to have been of a present mind, in the very point of death. The particular reason of the cloak, he hath let fallen flat: yet is it their reason, whose names he pretendeth, for other, aswell as for this.  
To that I replied, of the white apparel in Chrisostomes' time, that he rather reprehendeth it, when he saith, that▪ their dignity is not in the vuearing thereof, but in taking heed to their ministry: he answereth, that it is spoken by comparison, but that is only said. I grant, we sometimes speak in that meaning: but that is neither the simplest, nor usualest kind of speech. To prove that the white apparel was with them nothing else, than a more honest apparel, as black with us, I alleged Solomon: wherein, his interpretation of innocency, 
Eccles 9 8.  is not innocent: as that which overturneth, the whole suit of the text. That of joy, will not stand: considering that that was mentioned before, and the scripture useth commonly to sand the figurative speeches before, rather than to place them after: although, I grant, it is a thing annexed with joy. But, that it is to be understanded of the white apparel, used in those parts: it is manifest by the oil of the head, which is joined in the same vers, considering that it is known that the ᵃ use thereof amongst the richer sort, especially 
2 Sam. 12. 20. ●. Sam. 14. 2. LuK, 7. 46.  when they would recreate themselves, was common. where he excepteth, that this custom might be changed, between Salomons and chrysostom's time, he ought to have showed it: for, such a custom once proved, is still presumed, until the contrary appear. Albeit in Tully's 
b Cicero in vatin.  time, many ages after Solomon: it appeareth that the Romans, which, with the East empire, translated a number of East fashions, at banquets when men attire themselves more honestly, used to wear a white garment.  
But it shall appear, that this white garment, had the same estimation in jeroms time: and therefore also in Chrisostoms. Hither therefore pertaineth, that page 282, of the white garment, used in divine service, and alleged out of jerom: where, the D. being required to answer the reasons of the reply to the examiner, by which it is maintained, that no special mark of apparel in the service of god, is meant: saith, he purposeth not at this time, which, in good english, is as much to say, as he can not. For otherwise, he must needs be in damages, which arresting so violently and so infamously, one that said nothing to him, in calling his proof a chiledish cavil: now being called upon, putteth in no declaration against him. His pretence, because I set not the repliers reasons down, is vain: for, he that took the pains to read his book to accuse him, should have done the same to have convinced him: especially, seeing it was yet never answered. But, because he saith, that the place which he citeth out of the council of Carthage, may be a sufficient confutation of all, which is said of jeroms places: seeing we have no credit with him, let him hear Erasmus, which affirmeth, that white garments were 
In praefatione in jeronymum.  in jeroms time in great price, and that the vuearing of them was, for honours sake, accorded unto the Priests, but not unto the Monks, saving only in divine service. whereby, it is manifest, that the white garments, which Priests did wear in the divine service: was (as we say) their holiday apparel, and used of them as well with out the church, as within.  
So is it also apparent, that the place of the Carthage council, touching the Deacons white apparel: is nothing else, but that the Deacon did in the church only, wear that apparel, which the Bishops and Priests (as those which were more esteemed) did wear both within, an without the church. Neither is there any necessity, that he should translate the words of the Council, in manner of a commandment unto the Deacon, to wear a white garment: feing the word, may aswell be turned 
a inducatur.  he may vuear, as let him wear, and better also. For, considering that it was, as hath been showed, granted for honours sake: it is more agreeable with the nature of honour, to leave it free, then to drive him to the wearing of it, whether he will or no. whereupon, likewise ensueth, that there is not like cause in our country, of wearing a white garment, which was in theirs, it being stage like with us, which was grave and honourable with them.  
As for jerons' place out of Ezechiel, the Ans. doth shamefully abuse his reader. For, he speaketh of the use of the jews under the law, and not of us: which appeareth manifestly, in that he opposeth that ceremony of the law, unto the manner of the Aegiption Priests, which vuore both vuithin the church, and without, whereas the Priests in the lavu, did vuearonely within the church. This appeareth again, in that which he addeth by and by: that this white apparel vuearing is fulfilled in the gospel, when vue put on Christ. For further reply herein, I refer the reader partly, unto the answer unto the Examiner, which (to take away the D. excuse) I would have gathered, and set down, if I had had the book: partly, to the 
a In the defence of the Apol. part. 3. chap. 5. diuis. 1. pa. 386. section 4. etc.  Bishop of Salisbury, who showeth out of Augustin, and jerom, with others, that the Ministers neither were in times past, nor ovught to have been, discerned by any special note or mark in apparel. The next division, requireth no answer. In the next, to prove that Eustathius was deposed, for seeking a singularity in his apparel, not only from the ministers (as he would untruly insinuate) but from the common use of men: there can be scarce plainer words, than those which the D. setteth down. where, there is so great light, that the gloes upon the 30 distinction, which he allegeth: is compelled to say, that by the tenor of that Council; it is enough to use the apparel, which is accustomed in every country. The challenge there, which I made about Eustathius, as it was easy: so, I confess, it was causeless, and of my oversight. The two next, are answered.  
Caluins' sentence now, as Augustins before, touching the applying 
The D. 5. chapter. 3. D●u. 273.  of things to the honour of god which were abused to Idolatry: are only to pass the time, it being in things necessary, both confessed, and confirmed by us. His reply whereunto page 284 is, that although wood, gold, and oxen were necessary: yet, that those abused to Idolatry, were not▪ seeing other might be taken, which is untru. For, there is none of these things, which were not particularly commanded: so that they could not, without manifest breach of god's commandment, be changed. And if there had been, no such particular commandment: yet those which should have applied these abused things, to the use of the divine service, had had better ground for them in the general commandment, than he can show, to bring in the surplice and cope. For, the lord having once declared that he would be served in his temple, by the spices and kinds of these creatures of gold etc.: they might well know, that he could not lose his right, by any wrong that men could do. Therefore, he should have compared our cope and surplice, with the Idolatrous cope: whereunto, the lues are bidden to say, get the hence. wherein, although the Ans. say, 
Isay. 30.  that our cope is nothing of that nature: yet, he can show no reason why. And, as our cope and surplice, are well matched with that Idolatrous cope: so are the ox, gold etc., well matched, not with the surplice and cope, as he matched them, but with water, bread, and wine, which our Sau. Christ hath appointed, for the elements of the holy Sacraments. For, even as no abuse of these creatures, be it never so horrible, can put us from their use: so was it, of the gold etc. The sum is, that unless he show as good ground for the surplice and cope etc., as we can for this gold etc.: he loseth all his labour here, which was also alleged. That of churches, so often repeated, is 
a pag. 256. & 275.  answered: let us therefore return.  
augustin's misliking of these ceremonies, can not be 
August. Ser. 6. de verbis domin. in Matheum.  so wrong from us. For, granting that he doth in that sermon, dissuade the people, from coming unto that Idolatrous service: I answer, that he doth more than so. For, would Augustin have been so unadvised, as to have called the presence at Idolatrous service, a toy: which is the highest treason against the eternal god, and a matter of most fearful condemnation? Therefore, when he sayeth leave their toys: it is apparent, that he comprehended such like ceremonies as these, which are, even by those that use them, commonly called toys: and therefore, by augustin's counsel, to be left, that the papists, when they see so fevu use them, might also, in this behalf, be ashamed of their fevunes.  
Where I affirm, that I vuould be loath, either with him, or Augustin, to say that it is not lawful, to convert a thing abused in Idolatry, to a private use, as to make a shirt of a surplice etc. he taketh his pleasure of me. And, I would it were but of me alone, and that a piece of his insultation, reached 
1. Cor. 10. 25. &. August. ad Publicolam epist. 254.  not unto S. Paul: who teacheth precisely, that a man may eat in a private house, of the flesh that was offered unto Idols, which notwithstanding Augustin saith, a man may not, althovugh he should die for hunger. whose counsel, if it had been followed in julian the Apostatas time, when both the meats, and fountains, were abused to most horrible Idolatry: what a number, should have starved for hunger? Therefore, Theodoret's judgement in this point, is more catholic: 
Theodoret ●. lib. ca 15.  which approveth the use of those meats and waters, to the ordinary sustenance. Neither, was it well concluded of Augustine, which upon one particular commandment, of employing the spoil of jericho, to the use of god's service, concludeth, that it is not lawful, to emploi things consecrated to Idolatry, to private uses. For, after the lord had taken the first fruits of the spoil, gotten by battle, in the city of jericho: 
josu. 8. 2.  he biddeth the Israelites expressly, to take the spoil of Aye, without all exception: where, no doubt, there were rich Idols, as well as at jericho. My detestation, of such cormorants as hunt after the spoil of the church, I have before protested. The next division, is answered. Unto my reply in the next, the D. answereth nothing, to the purpose. The 
a In the first part of this Tract.  two next unto that, be likewise answered: so was the next, sufficiently 
b In the former part. Tract. 2.  answered in the first book, without any spice, of the inconvenience, which he talketh of.  
In the next, the first section, whether the admonitions were vuritten without knovuledg either of other, I said that which I thought: let the reader judge. As for his reasons, there is never a one that convinceth any communication between them: before their books were written, or printed almost. The rule which I cited out of Aristotle, hath that since which I alleged it for: which is to be showed, if this were the place. the other section, with the next division, requireth no answer: the next unto it, is answered. In the next, the An. showeth his to great boldness, that would make the reader believe, that the Adm. alloweth of a grey Amiss, as of a garment of dignity in the ministry: seeing they would have the Ministers knovuen, only by voice and doctrine, as himself affirmeth of them. The rest in that divis. requireth no answer.  
The first section is answered, the later is nothing but repetition: 
1. diu p. 28 Leuit. 13. 5●  in the middle, I confess, that for things infected with leprosy, which are commanded to be burned: I mistoke things consecrated to Idolatry. although, the analogy from the corporal leprosy, unto the spiritual: will strike fire enough, to consume these rags, touching the use of them in the church of god, as hath been well 
a In the book entitled a full and plain declaration of ecclesiastical discipline.  observed. The two next I pass.  
In the next, charged for saying, that M. Bucer, and Martyr, affirm that they edify: he pretendeth some thing out of M. Bucer, which may be drawn that way, but out of M. Martyr, he can find nothing. yet, doth he still countenance it out with words, although the answer unto them both; (if they had so said) followeth in the 4 next divisions.  
In the next division, he answereth nothing, for defence of his first proposition. For, it is manifest, that a lawful Magistrate may command an unlavuful thing, notwithstanding that he protest, that it is for order's sake only. For, as for that he addeth, without any suspicion of superstition, if it be understood, that the Magistrate doth not command it superstitiously, that doth not heal up the matter, seeing he may fault by other ways than by superstition: if he understand, that the subjects do not abuse it to superstition, it is that in question. But here, he is fallen again from himself. For 
b 279.  before, he answereth as although a church ceremony, might be comely, and not tend to edification: inasmuch, as to me objecting, that it ovught to tend to edification, he answereth, that it is sufficient, if it pertain to order and comeliness. Here, presuming comeliness, he concludeth thereof: that not only it tendeth to edification, but also that it edifieth. The rest, is an open ask of that in controversy: that only excepted, which is before answered.  
Against his reason, that the surplice edifieth, because those which wear it, edify: I alleged the Midvuives lie, whereunto he answereth nothing to the purpose: but that, which I gave him, which is not enough to maintain him, seeing he propounded generally, that those things edify, which are done by them which edify. And, what avantageth it him, to prove that this apparel may be worn, that the lie profited: when it ought not to have been done, if it might have saved all the world. The 
Rom. 3. 8.  similitude of stammering, is unanswered. For, seeing he is brought to that pinch, that he can here assign no other cause, why they edify, then because the Minister can not otherwise be admitted to preach: if there should be a Magistrate, which, in contempt of the gospel, should ordain that none should preach, but those which stammer: he seeth, that the similitude holdeth. If this example, be not grave and sad enough, to match with the cope, which hath been always esteemed, so fit for a player's garment: let him take the example in oil etc., propounded under the same conditions. The rest, is answered.  
In the next, to the reasons against his assertion, that the wearing of the surplice, maketh the wearers to agreed in other points of doctrine, and the not wearing to disagree: he partly answereth not, and the answer which he maketh, hangeth altogether of blind experience. I call it blind, because he can give no reason of it: and therefore, as that which hath no light to show it by, it must needs be unvisible. As for his untrue surmises, that we imagine a perfection, whereby we have no need of laws or Magistrate, they never fail him: as if it were not, amongst other, a singular use and profit of the Magistrate: to procure by laws and punishments, that those means, which god hath ordained to maintain godly unity with, be straightly observed, although he devise none of his own. The next division, is 
a In the chapter of the ceremonies of Baptim and in the former part of this booK. p. 92.  answered.  
In the next, being not able to carry his reason, they are signs of good things, therefore they are good, any further: he dischargeth it upon M. Bucer, which hath it not: also upon the common use of speech, which he also slandereth. For, we do not call it a good sign commonly: unless that, as the thing is good, so the sign to mark it out with, be agreeable. And, if he presume that here in the surplice, he openly beggeth the question: otherwise, what is he, that will say, that a wolves skin is a good sign of a lamb, because the lamb which is good, is clothed in it: although, his answer is nothing but a shift. For he considered not, what the thing is in common speech: but what it is in deed, and in reason. The example of the golden calf, was well alleged. For, it was to the Israelites, a sign of the true god, but a naughy, and a wicked sign: and so, if none but Ministers of the gospel, did wear the surplice: I would confess, that with us it were a sign of a Minister of the gospel, but yet an uncomely, and an inconvenient sign. And to the intent the reader may know, how unfaithfully the D. dealeth with him, in holding out M. Bucers authority for the surplice, and the rest of this popish apparel: he may understand, that 
a Bucer in censur. Liturg. Anglic.  he doth both for that it serveth to superstition in many, and for divers other causes, require that they should be taken avuay in our church. His first section, is to no purpose, of that which I touched him for. In the next, his answer that the abuse of the brazen serpent, could not be taken away, whiles the superstition it self were: is without all proof, and may be as well said, of this apparel. For, although no man worship the apparel, by falling down before it: yet he may have a damnable opinion of it, and as hard to be pulled out, as the other. Beside that, by how much the abuse of the serpent, was greater, then of this apparel: by so much, was the profit of the brazen serpent, if it had been called to the right use, without comparison greater, then of these ceremonies. And although the necessary and commanded use of the serpent, were but for the time, wherein it was a mean to heal those which were bitten: yet afterward, it had a notable use, of continuing the remembrance of gods vuonderful benefit towards that people, whereunto he answereth not: Else, I ask of him, why it was continued in the church so many hundred years, under so many both good kings, and godly Priests.  
His answer, to that objected of the love feasts: I receive, so far as concerneth the inconvenience of keeping them in that place, wherein the lords supper was celebrated. Howbeit, to that, that the church hath, for the abuse, utterly taken those feasts avuay, notvuithstanding that they were likely means to nourish love with: he answereth not. That those love feasts were borrowed of the Gentiles, is unlike: considering that S. Peter giveth sufficiently to understand, that they were used in the churches of the jews, which abhorred from the ceremonies 
2. Epist. chap. 2. 13.  of the Gentiles. For, writing unto the churches of the jews, he alludeth plainly unto that of S. Jude: where these feasts, are expressly named. It is much more probable, that they were taken from the imitation of the jews under the law: who 
Deuter. 14. 23. 29.  are bidden to feast before the lord in jerusalem. wherein, are commended unto them, as gests and partakers of the same blessing of god with them, strangers and widows, with other needy and destitute persons: which is manifest to have been, one of the ends of this love feast. The two first sections, are nothing but an ask of that in demand: especially having regard to this point, whether this apparel be convenient for the ministry or not, or whether, being inconvenient, it ought so to be declared, in which points this question lieth. As touching that point, whether the Minister should wear it, although it be inconvenient: the truth is, that I dare not be author to any, to forsake his pastoral charge for the inconvenience thereof: considering that this charge being an absolute commandment of the lord, ought not to be laid aside for a simple inconvenience or uncomeliness of a thing, which in the own nature is indifferent. The offence, in occasioning the weak to fall, and the wicked to be confirmed in their wickedness: is one of the foulest spots in the surplice, and which of all other can make it most detestable in the eyes of a godly Minister. And such it is in deed, that if it were balanced with any thing left free unto us of the lord, as in the choice of meats, and drinks: it would easily weigh it down. But, when it is laid in the skoles, with the preaching of the word of god, which is so necessary for him that is called thereunto, that a woe hangeth on his head, if he do not preach it: it is of les importance, then for the refusal of it, we should let go so necessary a duty.  
As for that which is uttered against the offence, it is as the 
In the former part pa. 403.  rest of this disputation, to show how inconveniently such things are established: not that they may not in any respect, be born with. And my reply to the place of the Corinth. 1. 8. against his answer, which saith that in things indifferent commanded by the Magistrate, we ought not to have such regard unto the offence of the weak: ought not to be drawn further, than I alleged it: that is, in applying ourselves to our brethren, so that we leave not undone that which the lord hath absolutely commanded. where that is not, both in use of these indifferent things, and abstaining from them: we are so straightly bound to have regard unto the weak brother, as no Magistrate is able to loose the knot of that bond. But, where offences can not otherwise be redeemed, them by leaving that undone, which the lord himself hath not left free unto us, but cast a yoke of necessary service upon us: there the case is otherwise. for if the Prince, upon declaration of the inconvenience of such ceremonies, and humble suit for the release of them, will loose nothing of the cord of this servitude: for my part, I see no better way, than with admonition of the weak that they be not offended, and prayer to god to strengthen them thereunto, to keep on the course of feeding the flok committed into him.  
This is, in few words, my simple judgement of the matter of this apparel and such like ceremonies, peradventure needful to be here propounded: not so much for their sakes, which mislike it (which I suppose for the most part to be of that judgement) as for them which are born in hand, that there is no other cause, why the Ministers have left their flocks, then for that they would not wear this apparel. Wherein, beside other matters of far greater weight, even in this case of ceremonies: the yoke which is laid upon their necks, is not only to use them, but to subscribe unto them, as unto good and convenient orders. where, it is not only not lawful to subscribe them, but requisite, that the Minister should, as occasion serveth, teach the incommodity of them. And although I can remember nothing in either of my books, contrary unto this judgement: yet if there be any thing that may be drawn against it, it is meet that it fall, that the truth may have the upperhand: unless a better judgement than this can be showed, which I will willingly learn at his feet, that can teach it. The next belongeth only to the reader's judgement: the last is 
a In the former part p. 391.  answered.   

THE IX CHAPTER, OF THE second part of this Treatis: of the name of Priest, page 721.  
THat it skilleth by what names things, especially 
In the first book pa. 61 sect. 3 & 4. & pag. 62. sect. 1. & 2. also in the former part of this booK, page 408. l. 37.  ecclesiastical, be called: I have ᵃ showed. To the unmeetnes of calling a Minister with us, Priest, considering that our translations of the bible have usually noted the sacrificing Priests by that name: he opposeth, the ancient writers, which used the word of Sacerdos and Presbyter for all one. But their abuse herein, may easily appear, in that, in this to great liberty of speech, they also used to call the holy supper of the lord, a sacrifice, and the Communion table, an altar: if he allow of one, he must also of the other. But if these kind of speeches, have given occasion of falling unto many: than it is manifest, that this defence is nawght. For, that they called the Ministers of the gospel, by the same word which is proper to sacrificers only, appeareth 
c page 411.  otherwhere. That the best of English writers in our days, use it, is more excusable, in that they do it of constraint: partly in translating the elder writers which spoke so, partly for that they had to do with adversaries which used that language: to whom, that it might be better understood which was written, they applied themselves. Of his want which he uttereth in this behalf page 785, let the reader judge.  
Thus, what matter soever is in controversy, either pertaining to the discipline or ceremonies of the church, is answered: in other by matters, it is enough once to have noted the D. insufficiency or other misbehaviour, and so to commit them to the reader's judgement.  
unless the learned know, what a colowrable defence I might bring out of the divers judgements of writers, for that I said the vuriter of the Apocalyps concealed his name: yet that I pass not my fault without confession, as the D. useth, I confess a fault, which I also amended in the second aedition. Likewise in that I charged him with leaving out some part of his book, albeit it may be true: yet touching the places which I meant, I perceive that there is sum injury done to him. For not finding them where I looked for them, and where they ought of most right to have been: I found them notwithstanding transported to other places.  
His answers in the end of the book, to the most plain and clear testimonies of the writers in our age, concerning the matters in controversy: I will not touch. For what remedy against him, which denieth that the snow is white: or what fear is there, of being deceived by him, which cometh in to the stage without a vizard? And verily, the son of those places is such, that it would not suffer him, to have so much as a little peinting to disguise himself with: insomuch, that I would desire the reader, upon the shameful boldness which he useth in that part, to esteem of his fidelity and trust, in the rest of his book. Beside that, for the most part, the same matters, by other sentences in the same writers: have been in this work confirmed.    

 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

   

A TABLE, WHEREBY IT IS NOT uneasy TO find, ANY OF the principal points, contained in this part of the booK.  

The seventh Tractate. page I  
Whether the Ministers of the word, whilst they be Ministers, may bear civil office: not whether they may do it in respect that they are ministers: or do it against the Magistrars will, as the Ans. pretendeth pag. 3, 4.  

Vue affirm that they ovught not: because  
THeir office is only in things pertaining to god, page 7, etc. In preaching and prayer page 7, 10.  
That Christ refused to be judge, in the cause of inheritance, and adultery, page 2, 3. whether refer that of the D. that criminal causes are not hereby forbidden ibid. & pag. 15, & 16. also that they may meddle with matters of estate, but not with occupations ibid. when as if either were convenient, the later were more tolerable page 17, & 18. Hither also refer, the contrary examples supposed of Samuel p. 18, of Moses, of that our Sau. Christ took the whip, with others p. 21, 22, 23, 24, of Peter p. 24, 25, 26, of Melchisedek 28, of Augustin 26, 27, of Dorotheus and Philaeas 29.  
That the Bishops, armed with both sword, make themselves more feared than the Magistrate p. 19, 20.  
The difficulty of the ministry, especially compared with the imbicility of our nature pag. 8, etc. whether refer, that the Bishops turn over to others, that which they say belong to them: taking upon them that, which they can not deny, not to be incident into their office p. 9  
That civil offices have pomp annexed, which is forbidden the ministers, page 3  
That this mingling of offices, began not with the Christian Magistrate, p. 15.  
That this mingling is not profitable, much less necessary, p. 4. Hither refer, that it is as profitable, and as necessary for the Magistrate, to be Minister, as for the Minister to be Magistrate, 19 Also that the ministers, have les need of this Civil authority, under a Christian, then under an un-christian prince, 4, 5.  
That the common wealth (if need be) may receive the help, which the minister can give that way, without this mingling of offices, 13.  
That it is as lawful for my lord Mayr, to take the pulpit, as for the Bishop to take his judgement seat, 11, 12. And that if either were to be permitted, with us (through the scarcity of good ministers) the first were more tolerable, than the later, 14.  
That those indwed only with the light of nature, have misliked the clapping of many offices upon one's back, 14.  
That the Apostles themselves, through a feeling of the weight of this ministry: gave over even the Deaconship, although an ecclesiastical office, 10, 11.  
That, for accomplishment of the ministry, we ought sometime leave undone, things otherwise commanded of god: much less take upon us, that whereof (by their confession) there is no commandment, 1.  
That it tendeth to the destruction of the body, when one member encroacheth upon the office of another, 6.  
That it is a soldier fare, that will be only attended upon, 6, etc.  
That it is contrary to the practice of the elder churches, uttered both in counsels, Chalcedon, 15. Carthage, 16. fathers, Tertullian, 29. Cyprian, 6, 7. Hilary, 14. chrysostom, 29. Ambrose, 6, 17. Jerome, 6. contrary also to the judgement, of the godly learnedest of our time, M. Bucer, 6, 16. Caluin, 5, 16, 17. Hooper, 30. jewel, 27. Gualther, 20. I●cobus Grinaeus, 28. and others, 6.    

The eighth tractate, page 32.  
The government of an Eldership is perpetual. because  

God hath instituted Elders in the church, which being shut from the administration of the word and Sacraments: have only to do with the government, 1. Timot. 5, 17. pag. 32, 33, 34. Item Act. 14, 23. pag. 35, 36, 37. To the strengthening of which places serveth: that the name of Elder, doth most● properly agreed unto those, which had the government only, pag. 33. Item 1. Cor. 12, 28. pag. 37, 38. Item Roman. 12, 8. page 38, 39 Lastly Math. 18, 17. page 51, 52, 53.  
That there be church matters, to be done in the government of the church, which the Pastor, is not able do do of himself, 49.  
That the Eldership, beginning as soon as there is mention of any assembly of the visible church, standing of divers families: was both before, and under the law, 40, 41▪  
That the Apostle will have it continued unto the world's end 54. whether refer, that objected of widows and wine pag. 54, 55: also of the blood, strangled, and washing of feet pag. 62. Likewise that the supposed danger of altering the estate of the church government, can here have no place pag. 71.  
That the chief offices of charity, can not be exercised without it 51, 52, 53.  
That the supposed impossibility, of getting able men to exercise this charge, can not hinder the restoring of this order 61, 62, 63, 64.  
That it is confirmed, by the use and custom of the elder churches, 41, 42. Also that degenerating, it retained notwithstanding certain marks, whereby we might come to the knowledge of it: partly open, in condemning the breach of this order, 42, correcting their error 43, complaining of the want of it 44: partly secret, whilst they confessed, that the administration of the word and Sacraments, belonged not unto the Elder, but by grace and permission of the Bishop, 43, 44.  
That it is confirmed by the judgement of the godly writers, both ancient as Tertullian 41, Cyprian 42, Ignatius 45, Ambrose 44, 68, Jerome 68, and of our age, as Bucer 39, 68, Caluin 35, 41, Martyr 46, Beza 72.  
That it ought to be, aswell in a kingdom, as in small common wealths 58, 59  
That if this church government, were dangerous to common wealths: it were more dangerous, to small common wealths, then unto kingdoms 59, 60.  
aswell under a Christian, as under an unchristian Magistrate pag. 49, etc. because  
The common wealths must be framed, unto the church, and not contrary wise p. 64, 65.  
The Magistrate can not displace, that the lord hath placed p. 50.  
Otherwise, it should be worse with the church, under a Christian, then under an unchristian Prince 49, 50.  
The punishing of one fault by two iurisditions, can not hinder this, 70, 71.  
The Elders, jointly with the Pastor, take not so much upon them, as the Bishop whom the Magistrate doth permit 51.  
That Princes ought no more to change the church government, than our Sa. Christ and his Apostles, changed the form of the common wealth government. 50.  
There is more use and commodity of the Eldership, under a Christian, then under an unchristian Magistrate 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61.  
That it was used under Constantine, a Christian Prince, p. 67.  
aswell in uplandish towns, as in great Cities, page 44. etc., because  
The Apostles did institute it, church by church, 45.  
That there is the same use of it here, aswell as there, 45, 46, 47.  
The gospel (whereof the discipline is a part) went out of jerusalem into uplandish towns, aswell as into cities, 25.  
S. Paul, enjoining this order unto Timothe, instructed him, aswell of the government of the churches in the country, as in the City 45.  
The Bishop being showed, to belong unto the churches in the country, aswell as unto those in the city: the Eldership, which is given for his assistance, must do the same 45.  
The Pastor there, can not do all by himself alone 49.  
Otherwise, there should be an inaequalite brought in amongst the churches, which the D. himself misliketh, 45.  
The Apostles, studying to conform the churches one to an other, in smalller matters: did it much more in this 45.  
The use of the elder churches, was such, 46, 47.  
Of the reformation of the prebends and Canons etc. which are a part of the ruins of this Eldership: and of the applying of their livings, to the erecting of Colleges 73, 74, 75, 76.    

The ninth Tractate pag. 77.  

Of excommunication, which is a separation from the company of the visible church: and not of the excommunication out of heaven only.  
Excommunication belongeth to the church. because,  
Our Sa. Christ instituted it to be done by the church, pag. 78, 79. whether refer that objected out of math. 16. and john 20, 82, 83. whereby notwithstanding the D. cause falleth 83.  
The Apostles and the holy writers of the scripture, communicate the same power with the church 79, 81, 82. whether refer that supposed of S. Paul's sole excommunicating of the incestuous Corinth, 80: likewise of Alexander 83, 84: also of Titus avoiding an heretic 84. further, that the church is joined with the Bishop, as a doer, not as a looker on, or witness only 81.  
The holy ghost chideth the church, for that it used not this power 82.  
That Prince's subjection unto this discipline of the church, hindereth not any more the excominunication by the church, then by the Bishop 92, 93, 94.  
The church hath power to absolve, 80.  
It belonged unto the church of Israel, to rid their houses of leaven, at the Pasover 79, 80.  
It was done by the elder churches, and with approbation of their Doctors: in Tertullian'S time 87, in Cyprians 87, 88, 89, 90: Likewise in Jerome's and augustin's times 90, 91: confirmed by the godly learned of our time, M. Zwinglius, 92. Caluin, 90, 91. Martyr, 92.  
Not therefore to the Bishop alone: especially  
When by his sole excommunication, he hath profaned the glory of god: brought the church to a miserable servitude, not to himself alone, but to his servants also, 95, 96. broken in to the Magistrates office, 94. peeled the princes subjects, 95, 96.  
When he may not pass smaller matters in the church, by himself alone, 77.  
When, for his sole excommunication, there is not so much as one approved example, or writer to be showed, 85, 86, 89, etc. some of the papists themselves, being ashamed of this sole authority of the Bishop, 77.    

Tractate the tenth, page 99  

The Deacons office, standeth in the care for the poor: and not in the administration of the word and baptism: because  
This office, is so instituted, Rom. 12, 8, 99, 100, 101.  
The Apostle, dividing the ministries of the word, maketh no mention of the Deacon, 102. Hither refer, the exceptions of Philip, 103, 104. and Steven, 106, 107.  
The Apostle, describing the qualities of the Deacon, maketh no mention of his aptness to teach, 102.  
If it were a step to the ministry: (as it is not 108,) thereof followeth, that it is not the ministry. 107.  
It is an opposite member, which, together with the ministry of the word, helpeth to divide one whole, 101.  
In doing both, he should have need of greater gifts, than the Apostles, or the pastor, 101, 102. whether refer, that the Apostles and other, endued with extraordinary gifts, laboured their sermons, 101, 102.  
By the same reason, they are barred from the administration of the supper: they ought to be likewise, from that of baptism, 104, 105.  
The judgement of the elder church, was such, 109, 110. whether refer, that where they meddled with either. the administration of the word or Sacraments: they did it by a nws commission, and not by virtue of the Deaconship, 109. Also of the godly learned of our age, M. Bucer, Caluin, Martyr, Beza, 99, 109, 113.  
The Deaconship, ought to be in every Church, 113, 114.  
Likewise under a Christian Magistrate, 100, 111, 112, 113.    

Tractate the eleventh, page 116.  

Of the corruptions in doctrine, about the holy Sacraments: the first chapter whereof, is against the sacrilege of private persons, women especially, in administering baptism: because,  
It confirmeth the error of the condemnation of them, which die without baptism, 133. when as the want of baptism, whiles it be with neglect or contemt, is not only no probable sign of condemnation, or cause why we are no Christians, but also is, in no respect praeiudicial: and where that neglect or contemt is (which can be none when it is with all convenient speed, brought to be baptised by the public minister, in the congregation) it returneth upon the parents only, 124, 125, 134, 135.  
It is voided, which is so ministered, 134. because (the washing from our sins, coming only from our Sa. Christ) to have confirmation of our faith by this sacrament, it is required that it be ministered by him, whom he hath set in his place, 138, 139. As the princes seal stolen, and set to, by one to whom it belongeth not, bringeth no security, etc. 139. whether refer, that it is more lawfully administered, by a minister which is an heretic, then by a private person, which is a catholic, 131. Also that not to have he rein choice, of him that administereth the sacrament: approacheth to the dotage of the papists, in the Shepherds consecration, 138. Hither refer, that the keeping of the words, I baptize the in the name, etc. are not only of the substance of baptism, 136, 137, 138. As he that propoundeth the word without vocation preacheth not, 141, 142. As he that taketh part of the words of the scripture, passing by another part: propoundeth not the scripture, but a devise of his own brain, 141. As the communication in bread, without the cup, is no supper of the lord, 140. As a private man which, kill a murderer, executeth no justice, but is himself a murderer, 139. As the seal, of the same matter and figure with the Princis, without his authority, is none of his, 139.  
God hath instituted, that those only should baptize, which have (that women can not) vocation to preach, 116, 117. Hither refer, the making of the Ark, 117, 118. Also of S. Paul, which, having commission to preach, as a thing annexed to preaching, administered baptism, 118, 119. further, that otherwise there should be no commandment in the scripture, to hinder, that women may not aswell be taken to the ordinary administration of the sacraments, as men, 118, 119. Hither also refer, that alleged of the women's preaching, 122, 123. of Paul's baptizing, and others at the commandment of Peter, without a calling, 119, 120, 121. Origins example, 130, 131.  
None may take honour unto himself, but he that is called as was Aron, 128.  
Not not so much as in private houses, although they may teach privately, 124.  
Nor in the time of the supposed necessity 128, 129, 130, 132. Hither refer, that of Sephora 126, 127  
The judgement of the godly learned both ancient and of our time: Council of Carthage 132, Cyprian, chrysostom 130, Caluin 117, Bullinger 133, Beza 130.  
Infants of both parents Papists, ought not to be baptised 142.  
The second chapter, of the corruptions, in the sacrament of the holy supper 144.  
Against the receiving by two or three with us 144, 145, 146.  
Known papists not to be admitted, much less comppelled to the supper, 147, 148.  
Examination of those, whose knowledge in the principal points of religion, is doubted of: is commanded in the scriptures 148, 149, 150.    

The tuuelfth Tractate page 151.  

The administration of the church matters, under a Christian Magistrate: doth ordinarily and principally, belong unto the church officers. because  
By the word of god, the matters pertaining unto god, are committed unto the Priests and Levites, the matters pertaining unto the common wealth, being committed to Civil persons, 152, 153, 154. Neither maketh it against this, that certain Levites handled common wealth matters 154: or that certain kings, determined of church matters 166  
The church governors are, by calling, the fittest to determinyn of them, 158, 159. whether refer, that the scripture requireth not of the civil magistrate, that he should be able, to convince an heretic.  
The church laws, are called the Bishops and not the emperors decrees, 155, 156.  
unless it belong unto the Magistrate, to make laws for a Christian common wealth: yet it followeth not thereof, that he may make laws for the church: the distinction of the church and common wealth remaining, even under a Christian magistrate, pa. 151, 152.  
although in confused times, yet not in well ordered, 165, 166.  
It is one thing, to make laws for the church, & another thing to put in execution the laws already made, whether divine or ecclesiastical: so that although the later belong unto the Magistrate, yet thereof followeth not, that the former doth so, 153, 156, 161.  
The danger of the Ministers erring, in the determination of these matters: letteth not this right of theirs 167.  
Nor that the papists, hold some point herein with us: from whom notwithstanding, even in this cause, we differ manifoldly, 164, 165, 166, 167.  
The learnedest and godliest, both old and nws, confirm it: Constantine the great 157, 163, Hillary, 155, 156, Ambrose, 156, 161, and other bishops of his time 162, Augustine, 163, Bucer, Caluin, Beza, 168, the Bishop of Salisbury, 159, 162, Nowell, 159, even the D. himself 164    

The thirtinth Tractate.  

Of the indifferent ceremonies: the fruit and necessity whereof is showed, 171.  
The former part whereof, is of the ceremonies in general.  
The first chapter of which former part is: that the church of Christ, ought not to be like in ceremonies, unto the synagogue of Antichrist. because  
The Apostles, conformed the Gentiles to the lwes, not contrariwise, 172  
The lord severed his people from profane nations, in things otherwise indifferent, 172  
Especially from those, with whose corruptions in religion they were entangled, and with whom they lived, and had occasion of conversation: in which respect, it is less danger for us, to be like, in this point, unto the Turks, them unto the Papists, 172, 173, 174.  
The conformity offendeth the papists, 177: namely in that they take occasion, of speaking evil of our religion, as if it it could not stand without the aid, of their ceremonies, 178, 179. Also, that thereby they conceive hope, of bringing in again, their other corruptions: whereby they harden themselves in their error: likewise, that they ascribe holiness to them, 79, 180. whether refer, that it is no sufficient exception, that the people be warned of the abuse, by preaching, 177, 178.  
It bringeth grief of mind, to many that are godly mined, and to the weaker sort, occasion of a most dangerous fall, 180.  
It aedifieth not, 180, 181.  
The popish ceremonies, have pomp annexed, 180, 181.  
Even as to establish the doctrine and discipline of the gospel, the Antichristian must be removed: so to remedy the infection, crept in by the ceremonies, they also ought to be removed, 174.  
The godly and learned, both old and of our time, confirm it: The council of Laodicea, of Braccara, 176, 177. Tertullian, 175. Constantine the great, 175, 176. The Bishop of Salesbury, 177. Neither is the decree of any church, of that authority, as to bind us, that, even in the matter of ceremonies, her judgement should not be examined, by the word of god.    

The second Chapter.  

Of the first part of this tractate: that the churches ought to be like one to another, in ceremonies, pag. 142.  
As the churches in the Apostles times, and after in the primitive church, 142.  
As the children and servants of noble men, go in one livery, 142.  
How this may be done, 142, 143.  
unless the churches, ought not to fall out about it, nor men make a departure from the church, for want hereof: yet the church (to the end she may correct it) ought to be told of her fault, in this behalf, p. 143, 144.    

The third chapter:  

That the service book, after a sort, maintaineth an unpreaching ministry, 184.  
Partly, through the length of prayers, 184, 185.  
But especially, in contenting it self, with a Minister which can do no more than a child of ten years old, 185. Or else, the Bishop is yet more guilty, which maketh such Ministers, without warrant, either of god or man, ib.    

The fourth chapter:  

That the fruit, that might be, is not received, p. 186,  
through the change of the place, and gestures of the minister, which hinder the understanding of the people: renws the levitical Priesthood: is uncomely: and, according to M. Bucer, both absurd and munkish page. 186, 187.  
That the order hereof, is dangerously left in the Bishop's discretion, 187.    

The second part,  

Of this Tractate: of the particular faults, in our ceremonies.    

The first part,  

Of the first chapter thereof: is of abrogating the feasts of the Nativity, Easter and whitsunday, pa. 188.  
For the superstition, crept into mens minds of them, especially, when they are not necessary, pa. 185: the superstition also, being not so well remedied by preaching only, 189.  
They restrain the benefits of Christ, unto the time, they are holden in, pa. 190.  
In appointing of holy days, regard must be had not only to the rich, which may, without their hindrance, abstain from labour: but unto the poorest, 192, 193.  
The church may appoint standing times, for the public service of god, and, upon extraordinary causes, whole holy days, yet not therefore ordinarily command such feasts, 191, 192.  
As ordinarily, it can not be ordained, that men should work the days, which god hath commanded to rest in: so ordinarily it should not be forbidden, to labour in those days, which god hath licenced to work in, 193.  
The elder church, left the feasts free, 189 198.    

The second part,  

Of the first chapter, against Saints days, pag. 194.