A DEFENCE OF Church Government.  
Dedicated to the high Court of Parliament.  
WHEREIN, THE CHURCH Government established in England, is directly proved to be consonant to the word of God, and that subjects ought of duty to conform themselves to the state Ecclesiastical.  
Together with, A DEFENCE OF THE CROSS IN Baptism; as it is used in our Church, being not repugnant to the word: and by a consequent, the brethren which are silenced, aught to subscribe unto it, rather than to bury their Talents in the ground.  
By JOHN DOVE, Doctor of Divinity.  
AT LONDON, Printed by T. C. for Henry Rockit, and are to be sold by john hodget's in Paul's Church yard. 1606.   

THE CONTENTS OF THE first Book.  

Of conformity to the state Ecclesiastical.  
Of Eldership.  
Of Diocesan Bishops.  
Of Cathedral Churches.  
Of Lord Bishops, and ecclesiastical persons exercising civil authority.    

TO THE RIGHT Honourable, the Lords spiritual and temporal of the upper house, with the Knights and Burgesses of the lower house, assembled in the high Court of Parliament.   


Of conformity to the state Ecclesiastical.  
MAy it please the wisdom of this honourable assembly, to weigh our reasons, not only in the balance of man's wit, but also in the scales of the sancturarie, why this conformiture is required. The Apostle 
1. Cor. 1. 10.  beseeching us as brethren in the name of our Lord jesus Christ, that we all speak one thing, that there be no dissensions among us, that we be knit together in one mind and judgement: commendeth it unto us as a necessary rule of Ecclesiastical polity, for the better establishing of this consent in doctrine, the speedy cutting off of all jars and discensions, the fast knitting and uniting of minds and judgements: upon this ground and warrant other states have urged their Preachers to conform themselves to the State under which they lived. And seeing by this rule apostolical it cannot stand with the peace and good estate of any Church whatsoever, to permit such among them as are not of them, and to tolerate such in their ministery as are adversaries: to their laws and constitutions: much more than is conformity so grounded upon Scripture, and strengthened by example of other Churches, deemed by the godliest, and approved by the wisest, to be no less needful in this present schism and rent of the Church of England, then was pitch for the Ark of Noah floating upon the water, and mortar for the ruins of the Temple exposed to the injury of wind and weather, without which the one could not but presently sink, and the other not long continue.  
And, for as much as some few among us in their private opinions descent from us, not only godly polity teacheth, and Christian humility requireth, but also the Law of God which is of highest authority prescribeth and commandeth, that these few should submit themselves to the wisdom of the State, rather than the whole state should yield, and give place to the contradiction of those private spirits. When certain brethren at Antioch varied about circumscision, 
Act. 15. 1.  they were overswayed by the censure of the Council held at jerusalem to whom the hearing of such differences, and disciding of such coutroversies, did of right belong, but the sentence of the Council gave no way at all to those brethren. And Saint Paul having spoken of the ceremony devised by 
1. Cor. 11.  the Church, and used in his time, in prayer and prophesy, that men should be bare, and women covered: noteth them for contentious persons which oppose themselves against this ceremony, alleging: that it once being approved, and received into the Church, ought not to be called into question, vel to nomine, because the Church had received it, when he saith: If any man list to be contentious, we have no such custom among us, nor the Church of God.  
For the better enlarging of this point, that I may not instance in the Turkish Government, which suffereth no question to be moved against Ecclesiastical rises, but endeth all such controversies by the sword, neither yet in the Lutheran Church, which admitteth none to any place in the ministry without subscription and oath to the reformation of Angsburge; nor in the Church of Rome, which enjoineth their Clergy to maintain the doctrine concluded in the council of Trent: the Church of Geneva, whose laws 
See the laws of the book of Geneva. Chap. 1.  and government our brethren would impose upon us, as ●he only pattern of holiness, and example of a true Christian reformation, enjoineth all their Ministers before their admission, not only to make open protestation, that they do receive and maintain the doctrine approved in Geneva, but simply, and absolutely to swear, that they will keep the Ecclesiastical ordinances, which are passed and 
Chap. 2. in the form of their oath.  ordained by the small, great, and general councils of that City. By which law and practice of theirs, it is a clear case, that with them there is no respect of private men's opinions, no satisfaction to be yielded to particular persons, no conference or disputation granted with men of contrary judgements. But, it must be held pro concesso, for a conclusion or principle already proved, that all their ordinances are according to God's word, and of that undoubted truth, that they may not be argued, sifted, or controverted. 
Chap. 2.  Finally, if there arise any difference concerning doctrine, which hath not been already reconciled, it is enacted by their laws, that the Ministers shall be called to a conference; if then it cannot receive an end, the Magistrates shall interpose their authority, and so proceed to a final decision. And for the better strengthening of their proceed, it is further enacted, that all opposition against their ordinances, shall be held for an heinous crime, called by the title of rebellion against Ecclesiastical laws: & it is set down as punishable among the notorious crimes of heresy, schism, blasphemy, simony, bribery, perjury, and drunkenness, The punishment to be inflicted upon Ministers thus rebelling, is deposition from their ministry, and all contempt against Ecclesiastical orders, in what persons soever, after three admonitions, is censured by excommunication. Yet I desire that no sinister or uncharitable construction should be made hereof, as if a state should urge them which feel any the smallest check in their tender consciences with shipwreck of conscience, rashly to subscribe unto that which they do not approve, or for worldly respects, to allow of that whereof they cannot satisfy & well inform themselves. For albeit the state, which is well advised, hath sufficient warrant to impose, yet the bare authority of the state, is no warrant unto them to obey, which be not yet resolved, but stand in doubt, because they must build upon this ground of the Apostle, that be the thing in itself never so lawful, without faith, it is sin. But only I exhort them better to instruct and inform their weak consciences, which if they cannot, or will not do, the imputation of this schism must not be 
Rom. 14. 1. Cor. 10.  laid upon the state, which is well advised, but upon their weakness, which will not be persuaded when they are persuaded, which are men wedded to their own opinions, or that I may speak more mildly of them, which either cannot, or will not reform their judgements.  
But for the better satisfaction of our Christian brethren, we will not refuse to yield reasons of our government, albeit it hath been so long by law established: and for the justification of our state, we will by God's assistance, prove it in the chapters following, to stand with the laws of the holy Bible. As namely, that the state of Archbishops and Bishops, which hath continued among us ever since we first received the Gospel, had their institution from God himself, whereas parish Churches are man's invention: and the government of the Presbytery, is not only repugnant to the laws of the holy Scriptures, but also prejudicial to the state of a Kingdom.   

A defence of Church government established in England.  
Of Eldership.  
ALl would be in title as high as Aaron, all would be governors rather than private Ministers; but because the keys of the Church are not committed unto all which be of the ministery; therefore some of our brethren, being discontented with the present state, make it now a question, whether the Church of right, aught to be ordered by elders, as it is in Geneva, or by Diocesan Lord Bishops, as it is in England? I cannot deny but the government of the Church is committed to Elders in the new Testament, where the Apostle saith: The elders which rule well, are worthy of double honour, 
1. Tim. 5. 17.  especially they which labour in the word and doctrine. But, the disputation is between us and our brethren, which stand for the eldership; whether these elders were lay men of trades & worldly vocations, as they be now in Geneva, or preachers, & ecclesiastical persons? whether this Eldership was an annual, or a perpetual office? whether they ought, their year being ended, to relinquish that office, and so to return to their trades and occupations, as they do in Geneva, or else to continue the whole term of their lives? They allege for the establishing of their lay Presbytery, that because Saint Paul useth these words: especially they which labour in the word: therefore two sorts of Elders are there included, some learned and preaching Ministers, some unlearned, and therefore unpreaching and silent governors. Therefore, to come to the true construction of this text, and due understanding of the words, which may be consonant, and agreeable, both to the analogy of faith, and of that place: the doctrine of the Apostle includeth two things: a thesis, or general conclusion; and afterward a particular exposition of that thesis or general conclusion, by a kind of epanorthosis or revocation of himself by a restraint and limitation of that general doctrine, showing how far it is to be understood; as namely, that if they labour in the word and doctrine, they are worthy of double honour: but if they labour not in the word, he vouchsafeth them no double honour. So that out of these words, can be collected no such distinction as they do imagine, of preaching elders, and governing elders, which are no preachers, but of governing elders both of them preachers, one sort which laboureth in the word, the other which preacheth also, but laboureth not in preaching. For, it is one thing to be a preacher, and another thing to labour in preaching. And what it is to labour in preaching, he expoundeth in an other place, where he saith: I charge thee before God, and the Lord jesus Christ, which shall judge the quick and the dead, 
2 Tim. 4.  at his appearing, and in his Kingdom, preach the word, be instant, in season, and out of season. The Greek word is (copiontes) which is as much as to endure the heat and burden of the day, to take extraordinary pains in the ministry. But that the writings of the Apostles acknowledge, neither annual, nor lay elders, my reasons are these.  
Because eldership is a lawful ministry, therefore it is of God: but a man which is called of God unto the ministery, may not after the expiration of one year, or at his own pleasure, be discharged of that calling, or by any warrant from men play the jordan to start back again. For, that were with Demas to forsake Saint Paul's fellowship, and to 
Psal. 114. 2. Tim. 4. 1. Cor. 3. Luke 9 62  embrace this present world. This ministry is the Lords husbandry; that is, the Lords plough: and, having once laid their hands to this plough, if they look back, they make themselves unfit for the kingdom of God.  
God calleth no man, whom he furnisheth not with some talents, more or fewer, and these talents may not rust. But 
Matt. 25. Act. 8.  such lay elders have no talents at all committed unto them: And therefore I say unto them, as Saint Peter did to Simon Magus: They have no part nor fellowship in this business.  
The Church must be ordered accorcing to the precepts and examples of holy writ; but we have neither example for instance, that ever there was, nor precept out of God's book for warrant, that ever there may be any such lay eldership. But to the contrary, we abound in examples, and 
1. Pet. 5. john 2. Epist. 1. Act. 20.  have express commandments. Saint Peter a preacher, calleth himself an elder, and chargeth other elders to feed the flock. Saint john, a preacher, calleth himself an elder, in his epistle to the elect Lady. Saint Paul chargeth the elders of Ephesus, to feed the Church of God which he purchased 
Tit. 1.  with his blood. And to Titus, he giveth charge that he appoint over every City Elders, and he showeth that by such elders he meaneth Bishops, which must be able to exhort with wholesome doctrine, and to convince them which say against it.  
Deacons which be of an inferior calling in the Church, must not be lay men, but able to preach: much more than Elders which have an higher office, and as they be their selves consecrated by imposition of hands, so have their authority to lay their hands upon Deacons, and consecrate them. But concerning Deacons, the Apostles speak in this manner: Choose you out 7. men of honest report, full of the holy 
Act. 6.  Ghost, and wisdom, whom we may appoint to this business, and we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and the ministration of the word. In these words: full of wisdom: they mean not worldly, but heavenly wisdom, which is the knowledge of the Scriptures: but whosoever hath such fullness of knowledge and understanding of the Bible, is very able to preach. And where the Apostles say: we will give ourselves continually to prayer, & ministration of the word: it doth not follow that therefore the deacons being appointed to their office of Deaonship, did wholly neglect preaching, and the ministration of the word, no more, then that they did also give over praying, which is here mentioned in the employment of the Apostles, as well as preaching, (for then had they been reprobates.) And that after they were called to be Deacons, they did also preach, and minister the sacraments: it appeareth by the examples of Stephen, and Philip, which both preached, 
Act. 7. Act. 8. 35. 38. 50.  and baptized. Neither can a man of sober judgement conceive such an idle opinion of the Apostles, that they would have admitted them to that office, by that great solemnity of prayer and imposition of hands, if they should have been estranged from the ministery, and wholly attended upon tables, and been but gatherers of alms.  
God which hath established kingdoms, and ordained secular Princes to be supreme governors in Ecclesiastical causes, by his word, cannot so much cross his own ordinance, as to appoint in the same word, such a consistory, or state of ecclesiastical government, as may not stand with the state of a kingdom. As for the government of Bishops under the King, it hath always upheld the state of a kingdom, and maintained the sovereign authority of Princes, as holding their Sceptre and Crown immediately from God, and not from the people, that they are not to be deposed, nor censured by the people. But contrariwise, the Presbytery and their favourers, both by their doctrine, and also by practice, make all King's subject to the people, and by a consequent, to the Consistory to be punished and deprived by them, because they are the Magistrates which are chosen by the people, and for the people, & the authority of the people is executed by them. And for the better proof of this assertion, I will produce some writings of the presbyterians themselves. The Scottish Consistorian hath these words following: Populo 
Eucan: de iure regni apùd Scotos.  iu●● est, ut imporium cui velit deferat. It resteth in the hands of the people, to set the Crown upon whose head they please.  
B. Nam nisi regem suffragijs electum habeamus, vereor nè legitimum habituri simus. M. Ego quoque idem islud vereor. No man is a lawful King, but by election of the people.  
Name, & quem nes Venetorum 〈◊〉 vocamus, is nihil aliud est, qùám rex legitimus. He whom we we call the Duke of Venice, is nothing else, but a lawful King.  
Leges igitùr hâc dè causâ inventae sunt à populis, regesque coacti, non suâ ●n judicijs licentiâ, sed quod populus in se dedisset iure, uti. For this cause laws are deùised by the people, and Kings constrained, not to use their own liberty in the seat of justice, but that whereunto the people hath restrained them.  
Sat, quando ita vis, p●në● populum ut leges serat, & perferat, sint reges velut tabulariorum custodes. The making of laws is only in the power of the people, kings are but as it were keepers of the records.  
Vides opinor, quantam uno versu des principi licentiam: nempè, ut quod velit ipse, dicet lex, quod nolit non dicat. Id si semèl recipiamus, non proderit bonas leges condere, quae principem bonum officij sui ●oneant, malum circumscribant. Immo, ut dicam apertiū●, nullas omninò▪ leges habere praestaret, quàm liberum latrocinium, atquè etiam honoratum, sub legis praetextu tolerari. M. Certè, non modo potest●tem legum iubendarun, sed etiàm eas interpretandi, regiabstulist: As kings may not be makers of laws, so they may not be trusted with the exposition of laws, for than it were all one as if no good laws were made, which may put a good Prince in mind of his duty, & compel an evil Prince to do his duty, because they will wrest them to their own purpose. And so robbery shall not only be free, but also rewarded and honoured under the colour and pretence of law.  
Concerning such Princes as behave not themselves well in their government: Deo & hominibus habendes inimicos, eosqùe in luporum, aliorumnè noxiorum animalium genere, potiùs quàm hominum, habendos putem, quae qui alit, & sibi perniciem alit, & alijs & qui occidit, non sibi modo, sed publicè universis prodest. Interfectoribus autèm praemia decarni non ab universo tantùm populo, sed à smgulis: quemadmodùm vulg ò fieri solet ijs qui lupos aut ursas occiderunt. They be enemies to God and man: Wolves, who so killeth them, benefiteh the common wealth, and is to be rewarded as he that killeth Wolves, Bares, and such harmful beasts. And what is this less than which the conspirators of Rome do hold it meritorious to murder Princes.  
Again, saith this Presbyterian: Quemadmodùm in primis regibus usquè, ad Kennethum 3 qui primus regnum in suâ familiâ stabilivit, perspicuam est quae fuerit potestas populi in regibus creandis, & in ordinem redigendis: ità necesse est ut is aut populo invito id fecerit, aut à persuaso impetraverit. Perrò, si ceëgit populum sibi parere, populus quoquè ubi primum caeperit suis viribus confidere, violentum illud imperium poterit excutere, cùm à regibus & populo recepta iura pronuncient, & natura clamet, quicquid per vim fiat simili vi solui posse Si tu mecum ex conventu agas, quid causae est, quin ego ex adverso eas causas ponam, cur pacta & conventa solui possint? What power the people hath both in setting up kings, and ruling them after they be established, Kennethus the third, is an example, which first established the kingdom in his own family. If by violence he compelled the people to yield unto it, by the same violence they may free themselves again, if by their consent, they may pretend cause enough to reverse that whereunto they gave consent. And what is this but the doctrine of the Papists, that faith with heretics is not to be held?  
To them which allege that we must pray for Princes, though they be wicked, and therefore not lift up our 
Tim. 2.  hands against them; he answereth. Nèc slatim, si promalis principibus orandum est, hinc allegare debemus corum vitia non esse punienda: non magis quam latronum, prò quibus etiam orare iubemur, nec si bono principi parendum est, ideò malo non est resistendum. We are bound to pray for wicked Princes, in such sort as for thieves: we must pray for them both, and punish them both.  
Quod autem àd Caligulam, Neronem, Domitianum & reliquos eius generis tyrannos attinet: cur violats juris divini & humani poenae non ●ebeant exigi, nihil hic apùd Paulum habes, qui de ipsâ magistratuum potestate, non dè malis ma●è potestatem eam gerentibus disserat. Nec, si ad Pauli regulam id genus tyrannorum examines, omninò magistratus erunt. As for Caligula, Nero, Domitian, and such tyrants, it standeth with Paul's doctrine that they may be punished for their offences. For he disputeth only of the lawful authority of the magistrates not of wicked magistrates which abuse their authority. Neither according to Saint Paul's doctrine are such Kings to be held for Magistrates.  
 cunque negare non possunt: aulici adulatoras carnificis functionem pariem esse muneris publici, & fortasse etiam regij, vel ipsorum regum testimonio, qui quoties aliquis è ministus publicis violatur, se, suamquè maiestatem, & corpus violari queruntur. The flattering Courtiers cannot deny, but that the office of the hangman doth belong to the King, witness the Kings themselves, which when their Catchpoles, and hangmen receive any wrong, do complain that their own person is in them wronged, and their princely Majesty.  
M. Quid tandem e scriptures proffers cur liceat tyrannos impunè occidere? B. Primùm id affero, quod quùm diserte praeceptum sit de scelere, & sceleratis à medio tollendis, sinè ullâ exceptione gradus aut ordinis nusquàm tamen in saeris literis tyrannis magis quàm privatis est cautum. Having a general commandment out of God's word, to put to death wicked men, without respect of any degree or order in particular, tyrants have no more privilege then private men, and therefore, according to his word, it is lawful to kill tyrants.  
Rationem excogitarunt Canonistae quá & scelera plecterentur, & Papa tamen sacro sanctus & inviolatus haberetur. Aliud enim Papa, aliud illius hominis qui Papa esset, ius existimabant, etc. We may distinguish between the King's person and his office, to punish him as he is a man offending, setting a side his place, and so not the King, but the malefactor is chastised.  
Nos contendimus idem ius reges habere in multitudinem quod illi in singulos e multitudine habent. The people have jointly the same authority over the King, which the King hath over every several person among the people.  
The French Consistorians writ in this manner: Subditi 
Vindiciae contra tyrannos.  non tenentur regibus obedire, siquid adversùs legem Dei imperent. Subjects are not bound to obey Kings, if they command any thing contrary to God's word. In which assertion, first they Quest: 1 make the subjects to be both the plaintives, and the judges between their King and themselves, whether he hath commanded any thing against God's word or no? so that it shall be an easy matter for them at their pleasure to discharge themselves of all duty and obedience to the King. Secondly, they deceive the simple reader by a fallacy, for, the ambiguity lieth in these words: Si quid adversus legem dei imperant, If they command any thing contrary to God's word. For, the question is, whether they mean only in that particular thing which is against God's word, the King is not to be obeyed, or else, that in nothing he is to be obeyed, because he hath commanded some one thing repugnant to the law of God? In this last sense, it is by them understood, as appeareth by the words following, which are these: Vassallus se Domino superiori juramento divincit, sic & Rex, ex legis divinae precepto se imperaturum jurat. Vassallus deniquè nisi iusiurandum servat, feedum committit, ipsoque iure se omni praerogatiuâ private. Rex quoque si deum negligat etc. ipso iure regnum committit, & èx facto plerumque amittit. Duplex autem foedus in regum inaugurations legimus, primum inter De●m, & regem & populum, ut esset populus Dei populus, secundum vero inter regem & populum, ut bene obtemperanti benè obtemperaretur. The vassal is bound to his Lord by an oath, and the King sweareth that he will rule according to God's word: if the vassal keepeth not his oath, he forfeiteth his estate, so if the King break his oath, he forfeiteth his Crown. There is a double covenant at a King's Coronation, the first between God on the one side, and the King with the people on the other side, that the people shall be God's people: the second between the King and the people, that the people shall be faithful subjects no longer than the King shall continue a good King.  
Populus si regem non coercet, culpâ tenebitur, quià correi sunt. Licet Isràels si Rex legem Dei Ecclesiamne evertat, resistere: nèc id 
Vindicïae contra tyrannos  modo, verum nifecerit, eiusdem criminis tonebitur, & eandem poenam luet. Resistat vero verbo si verbo oppugnabitur, vi si vi, arte inquàm & mart, quin et dolo bono si bono, cùm nihilintersit ubi justum bellum Qust: 2 susceperis, utrum apart pugues an èx insidijs. It is lawful for the people to resist the King which impugneth God's law, or his Church, and unless they do resist him, they shall be accessary as he is principal, and incur the same punishment which is due unto him. If he deal by sword or word, they must oppose themselves against him with the same weapons. For as much as the war which in that cause they do wage against him is just, it maketh no matter whether they use open war and hostility, or secret slight and polity.  
Nemo rex nascitur, nemo per se rex est, nemo absqùe populo regnare 
Vindic●oe contra tyrannos,  potest, populus per sè esse potest, etc. No man is borne to a kingdom, no man is of himself a King, no man can reign but by the favour of the people, but the people are absolute Quest: 3 of themselves, the people is in time before the king, & therefore all Kings are ordained, & authorized by the people, and in such kingdoms as are hereditary, the child may not succeed his Father, unless he have the approbation of the people. Quùm reges a populo constituantur, universus populus rege prior est etc., Seeing kings are appointed by the people, the whole people is above the king, his authority being derived from them, he is under them as joseph was under Putifer, Daniel under Nabuchadnazer. The king is but a servant to the commonwealth as a shipmaster to the honour of the ship. Whatsoever accrueth to the king by wars, or by his Exchequer, he must be accountable for it to the people, as a Merchant's factor is to his. Mr: Let the people forsake their king, he will be a contemptible person in the eyes of all men, when they shall put him from his dominion over men, he will be glad to be some pedantical fellow, and to use his pedagogical authority over boys.  
As for our English Consistorians, they have these words: 
T. C. lib: 2. pag. 15. 7. T. C. lib. 2. pag. 165. Admonit: 2.  No civil Magistrate hath pre-eminence by ordinary authority to determine of Church causes. And, no civil magistrate in Counsels & assemblies for Church causes, can be chief moderator, judge, or governor. And, no civil magistrate hath such authority, as that without his consent it should not be lawful for Ecclesiastical persons to make any Church orders or ceremonies. For as much therefore as God hath established kingdoms, but a presbytery and a kingdom cannot both stand together, because one standing, the other falleth. They are enemies not only to God's ordinance, but also to the state of Kings, which go about to establish this Eldership in a kingdom.   

Of Diocesan Bishops.  
Master jacob, in his Book of reformation objecteth against the state of Bishops, and Cathedral Churches, that of right there are no Diocesan, but only parochial Bishops, that the authority, & jurisdiction, and rites of a Bishop, are no other than belongeth to all parsons of parish Churches, and consequently that every parson is a Bishop. That there is no visible Church ministerial, besides the parish Churches, and that they as depending upon no other, nor subject to any other, nor parts or members of any other, have absolute authority and power, as well of government as of teaching within themselves, and so consequently, there are no cathederal Churches. And, as one absurdity being granted, a thousand will follow, so upon these proemises, which without proof, he taketh for granted, he inferreth these five conclusions, to the slander of our state, as absord as the proemises were, That the case standing thus: 1. Our Bishops be no Christians, for (saith he) every Christian is a pastor, or one of the people, of the people they deny themselves to be, and pastors they are not, 2. Being not lawful Diocesan Bishops, much less may they be Lord Bishops. 3. Having no lawful authority, nor calling their selves, they cannot confer Ecclesiastical orders, and lay hands upon others, and so consequently our ministers by them ordered, have no lawful ministery. 4. That by their means we are defrauded of a main point of our ordinary means of salvation, which is the true Ecclesiastical discipline.  
5. That in our state Christ is rob and spoiled of some parts of his kingly and prophetical office, his kingly office being to appoint us, and his prophetical office, being to teach us solely of himself the true Ecclesiastical government, which our Bishops take from him, and ascribe unto men, altering that discipline and government, which he alone as king hath appointed, and as a Prophet hath taught in his holy word, which conclusions because they are inferred upon false, grounds, the grounds being shaken, the conclusions will fall of themselves. Therefore let us come to the examination of these grounds, to show how weak, and unsufficient a foundation they be to build upon.  
He impugneth the Church & state of Bishops, first by show of argument, secondly by his own idle conceits, vain conjectures, and imaginations. He maketh show of two arguments, the first is this; that the state of Bishops is a breach of the 2. commandment, and by a consequent, idolatry. For in this commandment: Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, thou shalt not bow down to it▪ nor worship it (saith he) are forbidden all means being human inventions, whereby men would give honour to the true God. But, one of these means of divine worship being an human invention, he saith, to be the state of Bishops, our Diocesan, & provincial Churches using government, with the ministries & offices proper to them. For answer to which argument, I deny the MINOR proposition, which consisteth of 2. parts, means of divine worship, & human invention. And because he bringeth no proof of his MINOR being the subject of his disputation, which all opponents ought to do, I will disprove it, and each part of it. And first, Diocesan & provincial Churches using government, and their ministries, which are of Archbishops, & Bishops, were never intended by the founders of them, nor used by the officers & ministers of them, nor held by the defenders, & maintainers of them, nor conceived by men of understanding, to be any means of divine worship but of government. God can be, and is worshipped, without these, and was worshipped as sincerely as now he is, when they were not, but the Ecclesiastical state under a kingdom cannot be peaceably governed without these. God is worshipped alike in Geneva and in England▪ though this government and these offices, are not in Geneva which are in England. And God is worshipped as sincerely, and as fully, and amplely in our parish Churches as in our cathederal churches, and by ordinary pastors, as by Bishops, so that their ministries and high callings do not afford them any greater or other means to worship God; then they had when they were first admitted to be private ministers. But their places, and high callings do strengthen and arm them with authority for the better governing of the churches which are committed to them, whereas being but private ministers, they had no such charge of government. These things therefore are not moral or doctrinal, & therefore belong not unto worship, but political, and therefore belong unto government. And according to the course of the holy Bible, that which is political & that which is moral, being of sundry natures, are to be distinguished the one from the other. God in his word established 3. laws among his people, one political, which did bind the jews to the observation of it, but, it was not imposed upon other nations that they should be bound to receive it, further than that it might stand with the peace, and good of the state. The other ceremonial which was to abide in force till the coming of our Saviour, and by his death to be abolished, so that now ceremonies under the Gospel do cease, excepting those only which serve, not for worship, but decency, comeliness, and good order, and so the primitive Church did in the days of the Apostles, and the Church of Geneva now doth devise ceremonies, witness their own Book of Laws, and that all 
1. Cor. 11.  Churches may do the like, witness Caluin, Beza, Vrsinus, their own Doctors. The third moral, which containeth rules of God's worship, which was from the beginning, and must continue as a pattern of holiness to the end, and bindeth all to the observation of it. But this is no part of that law, and all these three Laws differ in nature one from the other. Secondly, that such Churches, and Church offices, are not human inventions, I prove by evident demonstration. For, the first Church ministerial that ever was, had ordination from God, which was the Church of the jews under Aaron and his successors, and that Church was both Diocesan, and provincial, and also national, having all rites and jurisdiction which a Diocesan, or provincial, or national church ever had or could have. Also under the Gospel, Saint Paul by warrant from the holy Ghost, appointed Timothy a provincial Bishop of Ephesus, having many Bishops under him, and Titus a national Bishop over all the kingdom of Crete, having many Churches and Bishops under him, witness 
Tit. 1. 5.. 1 Tim. 1. 3 Eeseb. hist. l. 3. c. 4.  not only the Scriptures, but also Eusebius, his words being these: Timotheus sanè primus Ephesinae paraechiae, sicut & Titus Cretensium Ecclesiarum Episcopatum sortitus scribitur. Timothy was the first Bishop of the whole praecinct of Ephesus, in as ample manner as Titus of all the Churches of Crete. Thus have I freed our Church Government under Diocesan and Provincial Bishops, from that slanderous imputation of idolatry, seeing their institution is of God, and no way opposite to his commandment.  
In his second argument, he defineth that only to be a visible Church, which is endued with outward spiritual government. And so concludeth, that there can be no Diocesan or Provincial, or Nationall Church, nor by a consequent, any such Bishop, but only parish Churches, and by the like consequent, parish Bishops. The reason of this sequel, he produceth only this: Because, if there might be such Diocesan, or Provincial, or Nationall Churches ministerial, or endued with Church government, than also would it follow, that there might be a Catholic, or universal Church, visible ministerial; and so by a consequent, the Papists might lawfully enforce a Catholic government, and so establish the Papacy again.  
To the sequel of which sequel I answer, it is no good consequence, that; it being granted one may be a Bishop over one Diocese, Province, or Nation: therefore one may be a Bishop over the world. For first, one Bishop cannot govern the whole world, consisting of many Kingdoms, Oligarchies, and democratical states, and subject to several Princes, and temporal governors, as he can one Diocese, Province, or Nation, subject to one secular Prince. And secondly, we have no example of any universal Bishop that ever was since the beginning of the world, not the Pope himself, which challengeth that title, For the east part of the world, which is the Greek Church, was never yet subject unto him, neither could be induced to use the same rites, ceremonies, & liturgy which he useth. But of provincial and national Bishops, we have examples out of the Scriptures: the high Priests among the jews were so ordained of God, & that office not only ceremonial, but also political; which office, so far as it was political, might as well continue, and be executed in the same Temple by Saint james, the first Archbishop of jerusalem under the Gospel, as it was by the high Priests under the Law, that which was ceremonial being abolished, even as the observation of the Sabaoth, being partly ceremonial, & partly moral, the ceremony being out of date, that which is moral, doth abide. Our Saviour in the Gospel reform the Temple, but he did not pluck it down, to show that it 
joh. 2. 15.  might continue still being lawfully used.  
Having answered his arguments, we will come to his suppositions, and bare conjectures, which without show of argument, he bringeth in defence of his assertion. He distinguisheth Bishops into six sorts, two lawful, a parishional Bishop, or ordinary Pastor, and a Diocesan titular Bishop, who hath a bare title above others, but no Episcopal jurisdiction at all: these two sorts it pleaseth him to allow. A Diocesan ruling Bishop, which hath more power than Parsons of parish Churches, yet not sole power to rule in his Diocese, a Diocesan Lord Bishop' which ruleth by his sole authority, a Patriarch, and a Pope; which four sorts he condemneth as repugnant to the laws of the Scriptures. To speak therefore of the first, which is but a Parson of a parish; what example can he allege to prove, that ever there was, or place of Scripture to prove that there ought to be such a Bishop? His bare opinion without proof, can be no satisfaction to persuade others, howsoever in his own conceit, he may please himself. He allegeth, that all Bishops mentioned in the new Testament, and in the Ecclesiastical writers which were within 200. years after our Saviour Christ, were such Bishops. But that is his own assertion without proof, neither doth he instance in any author which doth affirm the same. To disprove him, besides that, neither parish Churches, nor parishes were erected or instituted until 260. years after our Saviour Christ, in the 
Platina dvitis pontiofi●um. Charion Monarch. 4.  days of Dionysius Bishop of Rome, and that they had their institution not from God, but from the Pope, whereas we have examples of Diocesan Churches out of God's word, as before I have proved: that all the Bishops mentioned in Ecclesiastical writers, within 200. years after our Saviour Christ, were not parish Bishops: we have for instance julian, the tenth Bishop of Alexandria, in the year of our Lord 181. which was Bishop of many Churches. For Eusebius 
Euseb. hist. l. ●. c. 9  writeth: Alexandrinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopatum accepit: he took upon him the Bishopric of the Churches of Alexandria. And again, Eusebius writeth of a Bishop which was set over many Bishops long before that time, in the days of Saint john the Evangelist, and by the appointment of St. john himself. His words are these: Post, mortuo tyranno quùm 
Easeb. hist. l. 3. c. ●0.  ex insu●â Pathmo Ephesum reversus esset, abijt etiam rogatus ad vicina gentium loca, ut partim constitueret Episcopos, partim totas Ecclesias componeret, partim clerum ex his quos spiritus sanctus indica●a●, sort deligeret. Quùm ergò ad civitatem quandam haud procul dissitam, cuivi etiam nomen nonnulli dicunt, venisset, verso ad cum vultu qui supèr cunctos Episcopos erat constitutus, adolescentem corpore valido, fancy eleganti, animoque feruenti conspicatus, hunc, inquit, tibi summo study, testibus Christo & Ecclesiâ commendo. When the Tyrant (meaning Domitian) was dead, he returned out of Pathmos to Ephesus, at the request of others, he visited the places bordering there upon, that he might ordain Bishops, constitute Churches, and elect clergy men by lots, whom the holy ghost had assigned. And coming to a City not far of, which by many other writers is expressy named, he cast his eye upon that Bishop which was set over all the rest, and committed to his tuition, a young Gentleman proper in body, and fair in face, youthful in courage, saying: I do earnestly commend unto you this young man, witnesses Christ and his Church.  
Such pregnant examples, all making against him, and none for him, that ye may know what motive hath induced him to write, that all Bishops within 200. years mentioned in Eusebius,, were but parish Bishops: surely he suffered himself willingly to be deceived by the fallacy, called, fallacia figurae dictionis. For, Eusebius (saith he) showeth that the Churches of most famous Cities, were but parishes only, as the parish of jerusalem, the parish of Ephesus, of Alexandria, 
Assert. 2. Euseb. hist. l. 3 c. 11. l. 3. c. 28. l. 2. c. 13. l. 4. c. 11. etc. 22.  Hierapolis, etc. But all the cunning resteth in the proof thereof, to show that Eusebius did call them parishes. Eusebius indeed writeth, that Celedion and Agrippa were Bishops in Alexandrinâ paraechia, and so that Dionysius in paraechia Corinthiorum Episcopatum tenuit. But can Master jacob be so simple, as to take that weak advantage of the word, and so to interpret that Latin word paraechia, parish in the English tongue? and to restrain that word in Eusebius, to as small limits and confines as a parish is with us, that all the Christians in it might meet together in one place to hear Divine service, as with us for the most part they do? though in some places they cannot do so. Can he think this a good argument, that the praecincts of their bishoprics, were called by this general name paraechiae, bounds, or borders, containing and including some set compass of ground and place; and this general name paraechia, may also include the small circuit of a parish, as well as a larger jurisdiction: therefore they were but parish Bishops? that the precincts of their bishoprics were no larger than the praecincts of a parish, and that their Episcopal authority, was no more than the jurisdiction of every private Pastor? In like sort may I as well conclude, that paraechia doth also signify a larger jurisdiction, so as it have confines, and a certain limitation, as a Diocese, a Province, a whole Kingdom: therefore that they were Diocesan, Provincial, and Nationall Bishops. It is well known that Alexandria contained many Churches, as appeareth by Eusebius, whom I have already cited, where he saith, that Inlian the tenth, had Alexandrinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopatum, 
Euseb lib. 5. hist. c. 9  the Bishopric of the Churches of Alexandria. And again, where we writeth: Primus post Marcum Apostolum & Euangelistam 
Eeseb. hist. l 4. ca 24.  Anianus paraechiae Alexandrinae administrationem suscepit: Anianus immediately succeeded Mark the Apostle and Evangelist, in the government of the paraechia of Alexandria. That this parechia was such a limitation as contained in it many Churches, it is manifest by the confession of Eusebius, where he hath these words: that Saint Mark did primuus Ecclesias Alexandriae constituere: first institute the Churches of 
Hist. l. 2. c. 16.  Alexandria. So then, if because of the word paraechia, Ananias Bishop of Alexandria, should be held only for a parish Bishop, by the like absurdity, Saint Mark, which was an Evangelist, and did first convert the Citizens of Alexandria, and instituted many Churches there, should not have authority over his own Churches, which his self instituted, but only pastoral authority over one of them, because he was Alexandrinae Ecclesiae administrator, governor of the Church of Alexandria: as Eusebius writeth. And, that being an Evangelist, and of higher authority, which founded many churches, should not be Bishop over as many as julian his successor, which was no Evangelist, nor founded none, and therefore was of less dignity and authority, because the argument must follow, being derived from the word in the singular number, he did Alexandrinam Ecclesiam administrare, govern the Church of Alexandria. And, what is the true grammatical signification of this Greek word (paroicia) of whom paraechia, the Latin is derived, no better witness than Scapula himself, which in his Lexicon writeth; That it signifieth any jurisdiction which is limited, or any Church, be it great or small, or many Churches. His words are these: (paroicia) incolam esse, item accolarum conventus, & accolatus, sacraqúe vicinia, prò Ecclesiâ usurpari dicitur Can: 18. Concilij Ancyrani.  
And, to speak of the Bishop without a Bishopric, whom he calleth Titular Diocesan, I would gladly have for instance, when, and where there was any such Bishop? For proof thereof, he allegeth nothing else, but his own doubtful conjecture, saying: Perhaps julian, the tenth Bishop of Alexandria, was the first of that sort. And again: It seemeth to me that this was jeroms meaning, that the first ruling Bishop was Diony sius, the thirteenth Bishop of Alexandria. And again, At Heracles it is probable there was a period of one sort of Bishops, and with Diony sius began another. That priority of order of one Bishop over a parish, seemeth to have continued from Marcus to julianus. And again, Nothing letteth us, but that we may think, etc. To which I answer: his bare & naked conjectures, and idle surmises, grounded upon no reason nor authority, or proof, but only upon: perhaps, it seemeth, it is probable, nothing letteth but that we may think, are no warrant to the state to disturb the peace, and discipline of our Church so long established, and to overthrow the government of Bishops, which hath continued among us since Christian religion was first planted, and the land converted to the faith. And therefore to him may fitly be applied, the saying of St. Paul: They would be Doctors of the law, and understand not what they 
1. Tim. 1. 7  speak, neither whereof they affirm. It is more safe to believe with the Church, that julian the 10. was not the first Bishop which had many Churches under him in title and name, but that all his nine predecessors, Marcus, Anianus, Albialus, Cerdon, Pius, lustus, and the rest, had the same pre-eminence which he had, and especially Saint Mark being an Evangelist, and the first converter of that people, and founder of those Churches. And that in other places, Bishops were set over many Churches before his time, because I have instanced out of Eusebius already in a Bishop in Saint john's days, which was suprà cunctes Episcopos constitutus, set over all the Bishops in that place. And it is far safer to believe the words of Eusebius: Alexandrinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopatum accepit, & suprà omnes Episcopos constitutus est, he was Bishop of the Churches of Alexandria, and, he was set over all the Bishops, to be understood of both title and jurisdiction, according to the interpretation, use, and practise of all Churches, and not of bare title, without jurisdiction, rather than to subscribe to Master jacob, his opinion, which hath nothing to ground upon, but his own opinion, which hath no better proof, then teste me ipso, witness my own self.  
And, not to pass over with silence those four sorts of Bishops whom he condemneth as unlawful. majority, saith he, of ruling Bishops in the Diocese, seemeth to have begun with Dionysius, the next successor after Heraclas. To which I answer as before. Quaedam videntur & non sunt, many things seem to be otherwise then they are: among which, this his supposition is one. Again, Quoedam videntur paucioribus & indoctioribus, quaedam pluribus & san oribus, that may seem so to the fewest, and unlearnedest, but to the most and soundest of judgement, it seemeth otherwise, that this majority of ruling in the Diocese, began in Alexandria, not with Dionysius which was the fourteenth, but with S. Mark which was the first Bishop of that place; and with the Apostles in other places: and so continued by succession from them, until these days, unless when their succession was interrupted by wars, or schism, or persecution.  
But to come to a Diocesan Lord Bishop, ruling by his sole power, which is indeed, the chief matter now in question. Such a Bishop, saith he, seemeth not to have been established in Ambrose, jerom, and Augustine's time. It may be it seemeth not so to Master jacob; but it seemed so to Zozomene, that Saint Ambrose himself did rule like a Lord Bishop 
Sozom. l. 7. ca 24.  by his sole authority, when meeting the Emperor Theodosius as he went to Church, without any consent or consultation had with other Priests, on a sudden took him by the gown in the sight of the people, interdicted him both from the holy communion & the Church, for the offence he had committed; and the Emperor obeyed his authority. His words are these: Imperator quum Mediolanum venisset, ad Ecclesiam processit ut oraret. Sed quùm ad ostium iam pernenisset, occurrit et Ambrose eius civitatis Episcopus: & apprehensâ illius purpû-â in prae●entiâ populi, siste gradum inquit, homini enim ob peccata prophano, & manus innoxio sanguine comaculatas habenti, fa● non est antequam poenitentiam egerit, vel sacrum ingredi solium vel ad divinorum mysteriorum communionem admitti. Imperator libertatem sacerdotis admiratu●, cogitationibus conscientiam accusantibus, regressus est poenitentia compunctus. The Emperor, when he came to Millanie, went towards the church to pray, when he was but at the door: Ambrose, the Bishop of that city, ran to him, caught him by his purple rob in the presence of the people, commanded him to stay there, showing that it was not permitted him, having defiled his hands with innocent blood, to go into the Church, nor to be partaker of the Sacrament, before he had showed himself penitent. The Emperor marveled at the great spirit of the Bishop, his conscience pricked him, upon his remorse, he went back and repent. And afterward, more plainly he saith: Ambrose Imperatorem insimulans, ut consentaneum est, ab Ecclesiâ arcuit, & à communione seclusit. Ambrose laying to the Emperor his charge his crime which he committed, as it did behove him, thrust him out of the Church, & secluded him from the communion. In this Story, that action is ascribed solely unto the Bishop: no mention is made of any other, whose consent was required. Though soon after we doubt not (saith Master jacob) it took place in the Church. Therefore, by his own confession, the office of Lord Bishop, ruling by his sole authority, is of great antiquity: and therefore to be preferred before the Eldership, which is but a novelty, and never prevailed until our age, and that but in some few Churches.  
And that I may speak something for the justification of Bishops, ruling by their sole authority, Timothy and Titus were such Bishops. Master jacob replieth two manner of ways. First he saith: the Apostles did not ordain Ministers, nor censure offenders by their sole authority, much less than Timothy and Titus, which were inferior to the Apostles. For answer to his reply, which consisteth of nothing but manifest untruths, I do instance in S. Peter, which by his sole authority, censured Ananias & Suphira, when they lied to the holy Ghost, smiting them with present death: & St. Paul, which alone censured Elymas the sorcerer, when he smote him 
Acts. 5. Act. 13. 11  with blindness, for seeking to pervert the deputy from the faith, And both these censures were then in the place of excommunication, 
Vide Bucerum dè clavibus. 1. Cor. 16. 22. anathema marannatha. Politiae judaicae. c. 2.  which is now the ordinary censure of the church. And besides that Saint Paul by his sole authority excommunicated in general, all that loved not the Lord jesus; even under the time of nature, Henoch as Cornelius Ber●ram writeth in his book Printed at Geneva, and allowed of by that church did alone: anathema illud solemn suoe aetatis hominibus proponere quod extat judae ver: 14 &. 15. pronounce that solemn sentence of excommunication against the men of his time, of which mention is made in S. Jude ver. 14. & 15. Behold the Lord cometh with thousands of his Saints to give judgement, etc. And so did Saint Ambrose, by their examples. And as for making Ministers, our Bishops do not confer orders alone, but assisted with other ministers which join with them in prayer & imposition of hands. Yet still the chiefest authority resteth in Bishops, as S. Paul writeth to Titus: For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every city. And to Timothy: 
Tit: 1 5.  lay hands suddenly on no man: by which words it appeareth that ordination, & imposition of hands belong to the Bishops 
1. Tit: 5. 22.  principally, and to the inferior Ministers but as assistants to the Bishop. But that it belonged to the same men to censure offenders, & rule by their sole authority, the places of Scripture do make it so plain, that it may not be denied. Rebuke 
1. Tim: ●. v. 1. 9 11. 17. 19 21.  not an Elder, but exhort him as a Father. Let not a widow be taken into the number under 60 years old. Refuse the younger widows. The elders that rule well, let them be had in double honour, Observe these things without preferring one before another, & do nothing partially Receive no accusation against an elder, but under 2. or 3 witnesses. Secondly, he saith: that if these things were granted, that Timothy & Titus ruled by their sole authority, it would not follow that therefore our Bishops might do the like: his reason is this: For, saith he, they are not to be reckoned in the catalogue of Bishops; neither were they properly called Bishops, because they were not affixed to certain places, but often removed to other churches as the Apostles did. Which reason I refute by manifest text, for as much as Timothy was affixed to Ephesus as his proper charge, and so Titus to Crete as to his peculiar place, witnesseth the Apostle.  
I besougbt thee to abide still in Ephesus. For this cause have I left 
1. Tim. 1. 3. Tit. 1. 5.  thee in Crete that thou shouldest continue there to redress the things that remain But what then, though they afterward removed, and were called to other places? so are our Bishops also, and private pastors, oftentimes called from one congregation to another. I cannot deny, but the cannon Law hath determined, that Bishops shall not remove from one Bishopric to another, without some urgent cause, as when they are required by another Church, their gifts being thought fit for a greater charge, and the law is grounded upon the decrees of the first general council of Nice, which so concludeth: Episcopus, Presbyter, aut diaconus, non aebet transferri ab unâ civitate ad a●iam, quia id est contrà regulas, & si transferatur, 
Concilij Niceni: 1. Can: 15. & 16.  mitti debet ad civitatem ubi primò ora●â●us fuit. It is against the Canons, that Bishops, Priests, Deacons, should be translated, and therefore, if any be so translated, let them be dismissed, and sent back to the places to which they were first appointed. And, Qui discedit ab Ecclesiâ sibi commissa, ad aliam, excommunicetur, & reverti cogatur. Who so removeth from one Church to another, let him be excommunicated, & forced to his first charge. But these are the ordinances of men, we find nothing in the word of God, why Bishops may not be translated, neither doth it follow that Timothy and Titus were not to be reckoned for Bishops, because they removed from one place to another.  
Last of all, Patriarchical Churches (saith he) began sometimes before the council of Nice. I answer, therefore they are of more credit than the Presbytery, which began but with Master Caluin. And as for that Council, it was in the pure age of the primitive Church, before corruption crept in, it was the first general council, and therefore of greater authority, called by the Emperor and not by the Pope, and therefore freest from suspicion, a Greek, and not a Latin Council, therefore more sincere. And whereas it seemeth to him, that patriarchical Bishops began but sometime before the Council of Nice, it seemeth to the Council itself, that they began long before, because the Canon itself speaketh in this manner: servetur antiqua consuetudo, ut Episcopus Alexandrinus habeat potestatem in Aegyptum, Pentapolin, Libiam, quià & Episcopo 
Concil: Nicen 1. Can. 6.  Romano parilis mos est, sie apud Antiochiam, & ceteras Ecclesias sua privilegia seruentur. Let the ancient custom be kept, that the Bishop of Alexandria have his jurisdiction over Egypt, Pentapolis and Libya, because the Bishop of Rome hath the like custom, so let the Church of Antiochia and other Churches keep their privileges. But if patriarchical churches be of such reverend antiquity, and allowed of by so venerable a council: that maketh much for the credit, and dignity of Diocesan churches, which are more ancient and of less jurisdiction, and not so subject to envy, and near unto Papacy, as the patriarchical churches are. It cannot be denied, but the Fathers which were present in that Council, were provincial, Diocesan, and patriarchical Bishops, ruling by their sole authority. And concerning the credit of that council, with the other three following, which were ecumenical, as that was; Gregory affirmeth that their doctrine and decrees were consonant to the writings of the 4. Evangelists, and no way to be impeached. And Master jacob his own Doctor, whom he 
Grëg: li. 1. epist 24. Pag. 31. Respons: ad 4. Campiani rationem.  calleth the reverend Master Whitaker, giveth as large a testimony of them, saying: Et nos illorum quatuor Conciliorum saluberimam fuisse authoritatem planissimè confitemur. Master jacob therefore, must either deny the authority of his own Doctor, and of this Council, which no learned man will do, or else subscribe to the state of Diocesan Bishops ruling by their sole authority, which hitherto he hath impugned.   

Of Cathedral Churches.  
IN defence of Cathedral Churches, we have to allege, 
Platima dè vitis Pontificum. Carion in ann●l: monar.  that till the time of Dionysius Pope of Rome, no other kind of Church ministerial was ever heard of from the beginning of the world. For, from Adam to Moses there was no Church ministerial at all. In Moses his time, a Tabernacle was erected by God's commandment, which stood in steed of a Church for all the land of judaea, and was to be carried up and down, until the days of Solomon. But Solomon erected 
Exed: 25. 40. Act: 7. 44 2. Sam: 7. 6. Act. 7, 47.  a Temple as a standing church at jerusalem, to be in the place of the Tabernacle. And until the time of the Gospel there was no other Church for God's people through the whole world. And that Church was more than Diocesan, or Provincial, for it was Nationall. After the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles, & all nations were converted, sundry churches ministerial were erected, according to the number of the Bishops, so that every Bishop had his Church after the imitation of the jews, which having but one Bishoprik, had also but one Church for that whole nation, until afterward human polity under Dionysius the Pope devised parish churches, and divided every Bishoprik into particular constant congregations, which were but members of the Diocesan and provincial Churches. But saith Master jacob, Although the jewish Church were national under one Bishop or high Priest according to God's ordinance, yet now under the Gospel, our Saviour Christ hath changed that form of government into parochial Churches, which are every one a particular congregation, and every particular congregation is a divided body by itself, and of itself a visible Church, and being absolute of itself, aught to use within itself proper Ecclesiastical government. So then two things rest to be proved by him, first that every particular congregation is a divided body of itself, and secondly, that every particular congregation is to use government of itself without reference unto any other above itself.  
The first he would prove by this argument. There was, saith he, but one Church at Corinth, because the Apostle saith: When the whole church is come together in one place, etc. And the same may be affirmed of Rome, Antioch, jerusalem, and the other 
1. Cor. 14. 23.  cities, therefore in every of these cities, though they were so populous, yet the believers were so few, that they all assembled in one place. Again saith he, Ignatius persuading the Church of Philadelphia to concord, writeth: I exhort you to use one faith, one preaching, one supper of the Lord, for there is 
Ignatius ad philad:  but (en thusiasterion pace te ecclesia) one communion Table to the whole church (HERE IN THIS CITY). For answer whereof I deny his argument, for a man may in the like manner write to the Citizens of London dwelling in Bow parish, when your whole Church is come together: and so to them which dwell in any other parish, though there be many other Churches in London, and they not divided bodies absolute of themselves, but all subordinate unto, and members of that Church which belongeth to the whole Diocese. And so I answer to Ignatius his words: every one of them have one communion Table, not every one collective, but distributive, not jointly, but severally. But whereunto Ignatius; his words, he addeth his own words (HERE IN THIS CITY) he dealeth not ingenuously. For these words which he allegeth out of Ignatius, as he allegeth them, do not import that that whole city should have but one Communion Table, and by a consequent but one church, but that the city might have many churches, and every church his proper Communion Table, as with us in this City. And again, that there were many churches in those cities which he named, even in the Apostles time, I have already proved, when I showed out of Eusebius that not only julian the 10. did Alexandrinarum, Ecclesiarum Episcopatum accipere, take upon him the government of the 
Euseb: hist: l. 5. cap. 9 l. 2. c. 16.  churches of Alexandria, but also that Saint Mark did, p●imus Ecclesias Alexandriae constituere, first institute many churches in Alexandria. And that the believers were not so few, as that they might be assembled in one congregation, it is evident by the story of the Acts of the Apostles, and because he nameth jerusalem, I will instance in jerusalem. It is written in the Acts, there were men at jerusalem that feared God, of every nation 
Act. 2. 5.  under heaven, which heard the Gospel preached in their own language▪ and concerning the multitude of these saith Master Beza, they are to be understood: Quicunqù●x●eri illo 
Beza in annotat: mai●rib in ●ilum locum.  tempore Hierosolymis ursabantur: adeò ut non modo exteros comprehendat, quisedes illic ut in urbe maximâ, & frequentissimâ posuerunt, sed eos quoqùe qui studiorum, & religionis discendae cansâ illic ad tempus commorabantur, quorum distributa fuisse collegia intelligimus ex ijs quae narrantur Cap, 6. verse 9 and 9 29. All strangers which at that time were resiant at jerusalem, that such a multitude comprehendeth not only the strangers which had dwellings there, being so great and populous a city, but also those which were students, and came thither as university men for learning sake, which were divided into Colleges as appeareth by the Act. Changed 6. 9 Where there arose certain of the Synagogue which are called Libertines, & Cyrenians, and of Alexandria, and of them of Silicia, & Asia, which disputed with Stephen, and Act ch: 9 29 where the Grecians disputed with Paul. And again (saith he) Oportuit tam amplam civitatem ad quam etiam undiqùe judaei tanqum ad communem Academiam suos erudiendes mittebant, in varios cae●us distribu●, quos apparet ex hoc loco pro nationum varietate fuisse distinctos, ut hedie Lutetiae multa collegia, etc. So spacious a city to whom the jews far and wide sent their sons as to a common university to be trained up, was of necessity divided into many Colleges, as it is now at Paris, according the diversity of the nations as out of this place it appeareth etc. Again, how did they all hear the Gospel preached in their own languages? Narrat Apostolus varij● linguis loqui coepisse, id est modò hác modò iliâ, non tamen confusè aut furiosê, sed prou● h●c vel ille in varias gentes inciderat, The Apostle showeth that they spoke diverse languages, not confusedly like mad men, but as this or that Apostle did happen upon this or that nation so he spoke to them in their own language. Therefore, at the very first there were diverse Preachers, and several congregations, speaking several languages, uncapable of hearing the word preached before them all at one time, as they which be but one church or congregation. And again, in the same chap: v 41. there were added to the church in one day about 3000. & ver. 47. the Lord added to the church from day to day. Yet Master jacob would have all these, being so many thousands, & so many nations, not of one language, but speaking diverse languages, to have been but one congregation. Neither were they first all one congregation, & then by reason of their great increase, as not able to assemble in one place, divided themselves into many congregations, upon the persecution of S. Stephen, as Mr. jacob affirmeth, but they were many churches at the first, as I have already proved, being several nations, and speaking several languages, and those many 
Act. 8. 1.  churches were scattered as it is written: A great persecution was raised against the cburch of jerusalem, & they were scattered abroad through the regions of judaea & Samaria. In which words the holy Ghost calleth jerusalem but one Church, which we have proved to have consisted of diverse congregations, & because all those congregations were but one church, therefore they could not be divided bodies absolute of themselves, etc. And, whereas Mr. jacob objecteth that these congregations so divided, were not to be called churches, because they were uncertain, and but occasional. I answer, that so were all other churches in time of persecution, even those churches which he mentioneth out of Ignatius, for as much as all the time of Ignatius there was persecution, & long after his time, & therefore they were but occasional, & uncertain. But this disproveth me not, but that I do rightly allege against him, that the believers in jerusalem were more than could be assembled in one congregation, & so in Alexandria, and other cities. Secondly, he goeth about to prove that every congregation is a divided body absolute in itself, because the Scriptures still speak of the churches as of one. There is one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, one 
Eph. 4, 4. 5.  faith, one baptism, etc. To which I answer, that these words are understood of Christ his universal church, which is indeed unica sponsa, unica columba, one Dove, one spouse, betrothed to one husband, one body knit and united to one head, which is jesus Christ, for one head cannot have many divided bodies. And therefore this argument maketh against himself. The whole church is but one, & therefore parish churches are but members of that one, and not divided bodies, for unitas non potest dividi, that which is but one cannot be divided.  
And that every parish, or particular congregation must use government within itself; he taketh upon him to prove by the words of our Saviour: If thy brother trespass against thee, 
Mat. 18. 17.  go tell him his fault between thee & him alone if he hear thee, thou hast won thy brother, if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every thing may be confirmed, if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church, if he refuse to hear the church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican. Out of these words (saith he) is proved that every ordinary congregation is a proper visible Church, and a visible Church is but one congregation, and every such Church is endued immediately from Christ with power absolute to govern within itself, and every member of the Church must have a sensible and visible use of the whole entirely together. In which words he ascribeth the Ecclesiastical government to the whole multitude of every parish. Further, he divideth this Church government into these two parts, to wit, excommunication and elections, so that every private man (be he never so unfit) should have his free voice and consent in all excommunications and elections. Eor answer whereof, I deny his argument. For, besides that, in the fift page of his book, he affirmeth that man cannot make a society to be a visible church, but Christ alone, and it is proved that all these parishes are the institution of men, which only have distinguished the bounds of Parishes, and that very unequally, making some too large, and some too small, and so he contradicteth himself: the multitude have not the keys of the Church committed unto them, but only the ministers, where our Saviour saith to Peter, in the behalf of the rest: Tibi dabo claves, to thee I will give the keys. And to the Apostles, whose sins ye remit, they are remitted: and whose sins ye retain, they are retained. And whereas there be two keys 
Mat: 16. 19 joh. 20. 23.  of the Church, the one of the word and the Sacraments, the other of government: the key of government witness Master Beza himself, is not given to all ministers, much less to the people, but only unto such ministers as be magistrates of the Church, as Timothy and Titus was. For saith he: Ecclesia interdum prò Senatu Ecclesiastico usurpatur ut infrà Cap: Mat: 18. verse 17. Dic Ecclesiae. This word Church, is sometimes taken for 
Beza in annotat: maior: in Mat: 16.  the senate or Consistory Ecclesiastical, as Mat: 18. 17. where our Saviour saith: Tell the Church. And his own Doctor Master Beza upon this place expoundeth these words: Tell the church, more at large in his notes upon that place, showing that Master jacobs' exposition is very absurd, and that such discipline as that the people's consent should be required in excommunications, is very far from the discipline received in Geneva. His words are these. Dic Ecclesiae, spectat ad forum Ecclesiasticum, quia versu proximo fit mentio ligandi & soluendi Haec potestas erat penes eos qui (archisunagogo●) vocantur Marci 5. 22. Et huius conscietudinis exemplum extat. john 9 22. & 12. 42. & 16. 2.  apud judaeos idem fuisse videatur paenaegenus (aposunagogon genesthai) atque apud Christianos excommunicari. Sed notandum est turpiter errare qui ex hoc confici volunt, dè singulis rebus referendum esse ad totius multitudinis caetum A●unt enim Ecclesiae nomen nusquam aliter accipi quod vel ex hoc ipso loco falsum esse counincitur. Nam certè, tanquàm aè Iodaeis haec dici apparet, saitem ex eò quod addit: sit tibi sicut Ethnicus & publicamus. Sed judicia de his rebus penes seniores fuisse apud judaeos, nec semper cogi consuevisse totum populi caetum, omnes illarum rerum scriptores testantur Et certè Christus nisi ad svorum temporum consuetudinem totum hunc sermonem accommodasset, quis eum loqu●ntem intellexisset? Quod si quis excipiat tyrannicam fuisse illam consuetudinem, ne id quidem vere dixerit quum Christus sic loqui non potuer●t, quin eum morem ut legitimum approbaret. These words: te● the Church, belong to the Ecclesiastical court, because in the 9 verse, mention is made of binding & losing. For this power belonged only unto them which Mark 5. 22. were called the Rulers of the Synagogs'. And we have example of this custom. john. 9 22. where the jews had ordained, that every one which confessed Christ should be excommunicated out of the Synagogue. And john 12. 42. Among the chief Rulers, many believed in him, but because of the pharisees, they durst not cofesse him, lest they should be cast out of the Synagogue: and joh. 16. 12. They shall excommunicate you, and cast you out of their Synagogues. And among the jews, to be cast cut of the Synagogue, was all one, as among the Christians to be excommunicated. And, it is to be noted, that they err filthity, which out of this place conclude: that in all matters of excommunication, the multitude must be consulted. And where ●● they object, that the name of the church is no where understord otherwise then for the multitude, their exposition is out of this place convicted to be false & erroneous. For our Saviour delivereth these laws of discipline to Christians, in the same manner as if he spoke to the jews because he saith: let him be to thee as an heathen & a Publican. But only the Magistrates among the jews, did exercise these iudgmennts without the consent & knowledge of the people, as all their writers do testify. And surely, unless our Saviour had applied his speech unto the custom of his times, no man could have understood what he meant by these words. And, if any shall object, that this custom was tyrannical and unlawful, he delivereth an untruth in so saying: because our Saviour could not have spoken to christians after this manner of the jews, unless he had approved this manner of excommunication among the jews, which was by the Magistrates, and not by the people, to have been also lawful, and to be used among christians. So far Theodorus Beza upon this place.  
And, as for popular election, which is the other part of government Ecclesiastical, to which he entituleth the whole multitude: let the case be put, that sometimes of fact, the people had a consent in the election of their Bishops, in time of persecution: and, when the church being not endowed with any lands or maintenance, they lived only by charity and devotion of the people: what proof hath he that it ought to be so? or that ever it was so in any settled estate? He saith it is plain, the people had their free election of their Bishops in the days of Ignatius; because in one epistle he writeth these words: Prepon esi umin es ecclesia theou cheirotonesai ton episcopon umon; which ignorantly he englisheth in this manner: It is meet for you, being the church of God, to choose by common consent your Bishop. First, it is well known, that when Ignatius lived, which was in the very infancy of the Church, there was neither any certain maintenance for the Ministers, nor any settled estate of a Church, but all lived upon the benevolence of the people. Secondly, this word Church, signifieth not the people, but the Ecclesiastical persons, as before I have showed you out of Mr. Beza. Thirdly, no learned man would have translated this word (cheirotoneo) to choose by common consent, as he hath translated it. For, the very grammatical signification of this word is, not to elect by suffrages, or voices, or lifting up of hands, as the people choose their Mairos, or Bailiffs, and civil officers; but consecration by imposition of hands, as all Ministers are to be consecrated, by the rule of the Scriptures. That the people should have any voice in elections; it is so strange a position as was never read of in the Scriptures. For, as no man 
Matth. 3. Exod 3. Exod. 4. Matth. 4. 1 Tim. 1. Tit. 1.  may enter into the ministery without a lawful calling, (for our Saviour had his calling from his Father, Moses from God, Aaron from Moses, the Apostles from our Saviour, Timothy & Titus, from S. Paul) so we must consider in whom this authority resteth, to call men to the ministry: for none of these of whom I have spoken, had any consent of the people. This custom of popular election is borrowed out of the Turks Koran, and not of the Bible. It is said to the congregation, concerning the election of Deacons; Look ye out 7. men of honest conversation, &c: by which it is justified which our law doth require, that they upon whom the Bishop 
Act. 6.  shall lay hands, must bring with them sufficient testimony of their worthiness: but in the words following it is said; whom we may appoint to this business. And afterward, verse 6. when they were found out, they set them before the Apostles, and the Apostles prayed, and laid hands upon them, but not the people, as our Bishops assisted with other ministers, without the help of the people, ordain ministers with us. Therefore in their objection out of the Acts, where they allege these English words; When they had ordained Elders by 
Act. 14.  election, in every Church, &c: they do but deceive themselves. For the Greek word is (cheirotoneo) of (cheir) an hand, and (teino) porrigo, extendo, noteleno, to reach, or stretch forth, or lay on, not to elevate or lift up; so (cheirotoneia) is not elevation, but imposition of hands, in Ecclesiastical writers. These words then: (cheirotonesantes eautois presbuterous) is, manuum impositione consecrantes sibi ipsi● presbyteros, when by imposition of hands, they had consecrated Elders, or Ministers, as Moses by imposition of hands, conferred the holy Ghost upon josua, and sanctified him to be a Magistrate: and our 
Deut. 24. Matt. 19  Saviour in the Gospel, by laying hands on the children, blessed them. And th●● (cheirotoneia) is expressed more plainly by another Greek word in the Acts of the Apostles, concerning 
Act. 6.  the consecration of Deacons, to be (epithesis ion cheiron) imposition of hands, where the text saith: (proseuxamenoi op●thecan autois tas cheiras) when they had prayed, they laid hands upon them. And Gual●er in his Commentary upon that place of the Acts, which before was alleged, when they had ordained Elders by election in every City, after he hath justified these popular elections used in the Church of Tigurie, and dispraised our manner of ordination, revoketh himself, and confesseth by the word (cheirotonesantes) magis verisimiliter hîc incelligi manuum impositionem, & non incerto populo rem tam seriam committendam: that in that place, imposition of hands is rather to be understood, than any popular election, and that a matter of so great importance as the ordination of Ministers, is not to be committed to the rude and inconstant common people.  
He cometh now to his ob & Sol: and objecteth in our behalf, as we do ourselves commonly allege; that it cannot stand with the state of a Kingdom, that there should be a popular government of the Church. And he answereth himself, that it is not requisite that the government of the Church should be answerable to the government of the Realm. To which his answer I reply, that if the government of the Church be not answerable to the government of the Realm, than our assertion is true, that this popular government cannot stand with the state of a Kingdom, because the King is by the people excluded out of the Church government. With us Bishops are the King's Lieutenants in Ecclesiastical causes, and all Ecclesiastical Courts are the King's Courts, they be held immediately under the King, his authority in causes Ecclesiastical, being subalternate, and immediately subordinate unto our Saviour Christ. Now for as much as they which hold with the lay Eldership, and popular government, do claim their authority immediately from God, without the King, they derogate from the King's authority in Ecclesiastical causes, and in Church matters they hold him for no King.  
Lastly, whereas we object, that popular government with us, cannot be but tumultuous: and he answereth, that no tumults can arise by their government, considering four circumstances. First, that it is God's ordinance. Secondly, that it is to be executed by no greater multitude than a parish. Thirdly, that the Church guides being separated from the people, determine the matter and prepare it, only the people consent with them. Fourthly, if any few be violent and unruly, the next justices are to keep the peace among them. It is but an answerless answer. For first, that popular government is not Gods, but man's ordinance, as I have showed. Secondly, it is apparent, that divers parishes with us be so populous, that they consist of many thousands, and are as large in compass, as some Diocese in other places. Thirdly, for the guides of the Church, privately to agree upon the matter, and to urge the people, and constrain them by the authority of justices of peace, to yield unto that which they have decreed, is as much as to make it no popular election at all, because then free consents are denied them, and all authority resteth in the guides of the Church. For, if there be no tumult, it is wholly in the power of the Church Magistrates, to conclude and establish what they list, and the people must agree to it: if there be a tumult, the Magistrates of the Church are to command the justices to execute what their selves would have done: so that the people are used but as ciphers, and have no liberty in themselves. So this is as good as no election.   

Of Lord Bishops, and Ecclesiastical persons, exercising civil authority.  
THe common objection is, that our Saviour being the chief Bishop, was not held for a Lord, neither had he any outward pomp or glory in this world. To which I answer: if so be they infer this conclusion upon that example therefore, Bishops must not be Lords: the weakness of that argument will appear by the like: for they may as well conclude against Kings; that because our Saviour being a King, yet was no Lord, had no pomp nor glorie-therefore Kings must not be Lords, etc. I could answer further, 
Tit. 2.  that he was a Lord, and so the Apostle doth call him a great Lord, and the head of the Church, and the Prince of 
Eph. 4. 15. Apoc. 1.  the kings of the earth: and because he is head of the Church, all Kings do hold their Crowns under him. That the world did not acknowledge him for a Lord, it was their blindness. He came to be crucified, and had the world known him, non Dominum gloriae crucifixissent, they had not crucified the Lord of glory. And yet in his state of humility, he had an honourable retinue to attend upon him, to the number of eighty two, his twelve Apostles, and seventy Disciples, 
Matth. 1●. Luk. 10.  judas was his treasurer or pursbearer, he sent Philip to the market to buy bread, he employed his Disciples in such services as to him did appertain, as appeareth by the story of the Gospel. But thus I prove that Bishops ought to be Lords: Our Saviour being asked whether a man might put away his wife? answereth negatively, his argument of proof being drawn from the law of nature, saying: Ab initio non fuit sic, from the beginning it was not so. Likewise the argument 
Mat. 19  followeth: Bishops ought to be Lords, and Ecclesiastical persons to exercise civil authority, quoniam ab initio fuit sic, because from the beginning it was so. From Adam to Moses it was so, from Moses to our Saviour Christ & the Apostles it was so, with them it was so, and from them it hath continued so until this time, excepting only the times of persecution, when the course of the Gospel was interrupted, and there was no settled state of a Church. No marvel though in time of persecution, they were not held for Lords, for than they were not allowed to be Citizens, nor thought worthy to live in a Common wealth. The Pagan Emperors held them for seditious persons, troublers of the state, and of all men most worthy of death. Our question is not what then was of fact, but what ought to have been of right. It must not seem strange that Saint john, or Saint Paul could not be in authority under Nero & Domitian, nor the godly Bishops under the ten persecutions, seeing our Saviour was not allowed any authority under Herod, nor Pilate, nor Augustus, nor Tiberius. No marvel though Titus could not be held as a Lord in the Kingdom of Crete, seeing that neither jehoahaz, being lawfully anointed King of juda, could not reign 
2. Reg. 25. 2. Rug. 24  as a King, being taken captive by Pharaoh, nor jehoiakim nor Sedechias, being oppressed by Nebuchadnezer.  
From Adam unto Moses, he that was the eldest of every 
Gen. 1. 26 Gen. 2. 23 Gen. 4. 3. 4  family, was both the king and the priest over his own family, among God's people. So Adam was a king, because God gave him absolute power over the whole world: he was also a priest, for he offered sacrifice: Cain and Abel brought to him their sacrifices, that he might offer in their behalf, they are only said to have offered, as Asa the King, and all the people are said to have offered, when the Priest did offer in 
2. Chr. 15  their behalf. Henoch seeing the children of God to fall daily from faith to infidelity, which was the cause of the deluge, published against them the sentence of excommunication, saying: The Lord cometh, which is the most grievous kind of excommunication. And S. Paul did borrow that form of him 
judae. v. 14  where he writ; He that loveth not the Lord jesus, let him be an athema marannatha, cursed until the Lords coming. And Moses 
1. Cor. 16  did reckon up so long a catalogue of all the eldest sons descended from Adam before the flood, to this end, that it 
Gen. 5.  might appear unto whom from time to time the Lord committed the care of governing & instructing the Church. Noah a king, was a preacher of righteousness one hundred and twenty years before the flood, he offered sacrifice after the flood. That jethro the father in law of Moses, was both a 
2. Pet. 2. 5 1. Pet. 2. 19 & 4. 16. Gen. 8. 20. Numb. 3. 12. 12. & 8. 16. 17.  prince & a priest: & likewise job, in the land of Huz, no learned man will deny. And that none might offer sacrifices, but the eldest and Princess of every family, it appeareth by the writings of Moses, because God said, he would take the tribe of Levi, to be separated for his service, as a redemption of all the rest of the first borne of Israel. In which words, he did but call to remembrance the time of nature, wherein the eldest were all his: that is, they were consecrated for the offering of sacrifice unto him. When Melchisedech was King and Priest of Salem, 
Goe 14. 18  Abraham also was King and Priest over his own family. It was said of him, Thou art a great Prince of God among us 
Gen. 23. 6 Goe 18. 19 Goe 22. 10 Gen. 17. Goe 26. 24  And he taught them God's word, he erected an altar, and offered sacrifice. To him first was committed the sacrament of circumcision, and he circumcised his son Isaac. Isaac his heir, erected an altar, and offered cacrifice for the exercise of his faith. jacob after him did the like, taught purity of religion, and how Idols were to be abolished. 
Goe 35. 11.   
In the days of Moses, under the time of the law, when priesthood was appropriated to one peculiar tribe of Levi, and the Bishopric to one certain family, Moses and Aaron both being priests, Moses the younger brother had the chief authority in civil businesses, Aaron the elder in Ecclesiastical causes: but all supreme authority was committed to these two priests, Moses and Aaron. That Moses was a priest, 
Exod. 24. 6. 7. 8.  it is evident, because all the whole tribe of Levi, were then consecrated ●o holy priesthood, whereof he was one, he in particular offered sacrifice, preached God's word, consecrated 
Exod. 40. Numb. 20.  Aaron to be an high priest, and Eleazar in his place when he was dead, consecrated the altar, which none could do without sacrilege but a priest. Yet he was the supreme civil Magistrate. And in his absence 40. days he substituted Aaron the priest in his room, to hear civil causes, and supply the place of a civil Magistrate. Phinees the high priest, 
Numb. 25.  was a Captain in war, and busied himself with secular affairs, and it pleased God so much, that the priesthood was conferred not only upon him, but also his posterity. Samuel the Prophet, who ministered before the Lord in a linen Ephod, was also the chief civil Magistrate, and in his own person did ride his circuit as a judge every year over all the 
1. Sam▪ 12. 18. 1. Sam. 7. 1. Sam. 8.  land. All the days of the judges, which was about two hundred ninety and nine years from the death of josua, unto Eli the priest, there was no certain supreme civil magistracy in any, but in the high priests or Bishops, among the people. When the people desired a king of God, they consulted with Samuel in that secular business. After those 299. years of the judges, Eli the Bishop reigned as supreme civil Magistrate 40. years: so did Samuel after him the space of 40. years. Afterward, when Saul was by him anointed King, yet Samuel ruled jointly with Saul so long as he lived, and indeed, bore the greatest sway in the realm, because Saul had little more than the title of a King, during the life of Samuel, and was to do nothing without allowance from him.  
How the Clergy among God's people busied themselves with the affairs of the temporalty, and how much they pleased God in so doing, it appeareth by these examples. 
Numb. 31 6. 26. Numb: 34. 17. josua. 22. 13. Numb: 26. 63. 64. 2. Chron: 13. josua, 6. 1. Pet: 23. 4.  Phinees the Son of Eleazar the Bishop, was a Captain against the Midianites, and Eleazar his self, jointly with Moses divided the spoils among the Soldiers, Eleazar with josua divided the land of promise among the Tribes, Phineas the Bishop was sent Ambassador to proclaim war against Gad, Reuben, and half Manasses, Moses and Eleazar numbered the people in the plain of Moab, and Moses, and Aaron in the wilderness of Sina. The Priests and Levites sounded their Trumpets, and bid the battle in the war of Abias' against jeroboam. The Priests overthrew the city jericho. And the godly King David setting the Kingdom in better order than it was before, appointed 6000. Levites to be judges and Magistrates over the people. Likewise, beyond jordan towards the West, 1700. both to serve God in the place of Levites, and also to serve the King in civil offices pertaining to the common wealth, and also 2700. he set over Reuben, Gad, and Manasses to hear and determine all causes, both ecclesiastical and civil, concerning God in the Church, and the King in the common wealth.  
The Kings were anointed, and confirmed in their kingdoms, by the hands of the Bishops, & ecclesiastical persons. 
1. Sam: 10. 1. Sam: 16. 1. Reg: 1.  So Samuel anointed Saul & David, Sadoc anointed Solomon, when Adoniah had proclaimed himself King, by help of Abiathar the Priest: Nathan the Prophet said to David: me thy servant, & Sadoc the Priest, have they not called, nor Benoiah the son of Ichoiada. Then David said: Call me Sadoch the Priest, and Nathan the Prophet and let them anoint and proclaim Solomon 
Ier: 26. Exod: 32.  King. jeremy was condemned to death by the Priests and the Prophets. The Levites by the commandment of Moses slew with the sword 3000. that committed idolatry.  
It was commanded by God, that when they went to war, 
Ex: 32. Deut: 20. Deut: 21. 19 1. Sam. 15  the Priests should go before them & exhort them to be courageous and valiant. That if there were inquisition after murder, the Priests should come forth, and by their word the cause should be tried. Samuel valiantly slew Agag the King of the Amalakites, whom Saul the King for foolish pity could not find in his heart to smite.  
Godly josephat in his reformation of the Church and common 
2. Chron:  wealth, appointed judges in euey city throughout the land, as it appeareth, verse 5. And what kind of men these judges were, it appeareth in the 8. verse following. In jerusalem, as also in other cities, he appointed judges out of the Princes of every family, and the Priests and Levites which were to hear both civil and Ecclesiastical causes, (and so doth Tremelius expound it according to the truth of the Hebrew text) and at jerusalem which was the chamber of the Kingdom, there was established by him the highest bench of justice, unto which, as unto the highest court, it was lawful to appeal from all inferior Courts and judges, even as it is now with the King's Bench, and the high commission Court at London. And among these judges who were to take place before other, it is explained in the 11. verse of that chapter, namely, in ecclesiastical causes, ecclesiastical men: in temporal causes, temporal men: but so that in every civil court of justice there should be some Priests and Levites in Commission.  
Moreover the Lord saith: If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement, between blood, and blood: plea, and plea: plague, 
Deut: 17. 8.  and plague: in the matters of controversy within thy gates, then shalt thou arise, and go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, and thou shalt come to the Priests of the Levites, and to the judge that shall be in those days, and ask, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgement; & thou shalt do according to the thing which they of that place (which the Lord hath chosen) shall show thee, etc. and that man which will do presumptuously, not hearkening to the Priest which standeth before the Lord thy God to minister there, and the judge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take eway evil from Israel, so all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.  
As for Ezra the Priest, he had authority from Artaxerxes the King of Persia, to order all matters whatsoever, spiritual, 
Ezra. 7.  and temporal: concerning the return of the people out of captivity, he ordered both the Princes and the people, Priests and Levites, he appointed all the judges in the land, that whosoever would not do according to the Law of God, and the King's Law, should have judgement without delay, whether it were unto death, or banishment, or confiscation of goods, or imprisonment. And there was by Ezra set down the whole 
Ezra. 8.  platform of the civil estate of the common wealth. Again, he gathered together the Princes, and all the Clergy, proclaimed a fast, humbled them before God, that he would guide them in their journey, being ashamed to ask of Artaxerxes an Army of horsemen to help them, because he had said before, that their trust was in God alone. In the 10, Chapter he causeth all, as well temporal as spiritual, to swear that they would put away their strange wives, caused a proclamation to go out through juda and jerusalem, to assemble in jerusalem within three days in pain of confiscation of their goods.  
How afterward the Maccabes, being God's servants, held both the Priesthood and the Kingdom among the jews being God's people, and that without impeachmenr, the learned know very well, and that they continued both high Priests and also Kings until the land was conquered by the Romans, and the civil government committed unto the family of the Herod's, until the coming of our Saviour Christ, who translated both the kingdom and the Priesthood of right unto himself.  
And, whereas some men do object against these examples 
joh. 18.  by me alleged for confirmation of spiritual men's authority in temporal causes among God's people; That when our Saviour Christ was to be arraigned, they brought him from the high Priest, to the judgement seat of Pilate a temporal judge, and said to Pilate, verse 31. It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. I answer, first the Priest in particular did not say these words: It is not lawful for us to put any man to death, but the jews in general, not to the prejudice of Priests only but of the whole nation of the jews. Secondly, they speak not these words, as if the jews had of right from God no authority to put men to death. For Pilate himself doth confess, that they had right in themselves, where he saith: Take him, and judge him according to your own law. But these words are to be understood, that according to the Laws of Herod a stranger, and of the Romans which made them tributary, and by force took from them all power of life & death, not only from the Priests, but also from the whole nation, 40. years before that time, as Master Beza hath well observed, it was not lawful for them to put any man to death. Thirdly, if the jews had had all their authority in their 
Beza in annot: maiorib: in Ioh: 18.  hands without controlment, yet it appeareth by the 28. verse of that chapter, that the Priests at that time would not be present at that judgement where sentence of death was to be pronounced, because the feast of Easter was at hand, and so doing they should have made themselves unclean, and by a consequent disenabled themselves from executing their office at that solemnity.  
Thus you have heard proved out of the holy Scriptures, that among God's people, in that kingdom which was governed according to Gods own laws, even then when it was reform by godly kings, there was no bench of justice for hearing and ending of civil causes, upon which Priests and Levites did not sit as judges and justices. Therefore I demand other sound reasons, or places of Sctipture, to prove why it should not so continue among us which are also God's people, especially our Ecclesiastical persons being more honourable under the Gospel, than they were under the law? I confess that the Pope's laws have decreed the contrary, but 
Lancelelot iustitut: juris can: l 1. Tit: 4. Concil: Lat: 31. partis 1. can: 12.  it is not fit that we which are a reformed Church, and have long since abandoned the Pope's authority, should now forsake God, and the examples of the holy Bible to follow the Pope and his Canons. The Pope's law saith: Laici sunt quibus licet temporalia prssidere, vxere●● ducere, causes agere, intèr virum & virum judicare, Clerici qui divinis officijs mancipati sunt, & quos ab omni strepitu cessare convevit. Lay men are they to whom it is lawful to have temporal possessions, to marry wives, handle causes and controversies in Law, to judge between man, and man: but as for Clergy men, their state and condition is otherwise, they are so devoted and mancipated to the service of God, that they must not intermeddle with such worldly troubles. Some of our brethren give this answerles answer: that arguments drawn from the state of the ministery in the old Testament, to that which is under the Gospel, do not hold, that we must not follow examples of the old Testament in Church government, and that therefore the argument doth not follow, that because Bishops in the old Testament were Lords, and of the King's Counsel in the highest place, and inferior Ministers were civil Magistrates, therefore under the Gospel it may be so, although what should hinder, they cannot show. But that I may follow them in that course of disputation: They say we must not follow the examples of the old Testament in Church government, and that therefore the argument doth not follow: Bishops in the old Testament were Lords, and Kings Counsellors, and inferior Ministers were civil Magistrates, therefore under the Gospel they must be so. To whom I allege, that by the like reason, these arguments which Bishop jewel, and the learned men of the reformed churches have urged against the Pope's authority, and for the upholding of Princes cannot follow, when they conclude in this manner: Solomon deposed Abiathar the Priest for committing high Treason, and placed Sadoc in his room, therefore under the Gospel Christian Kings may punish their Ministers for high Treason: Ezechias reform the Church, josias read the Law before the Priests in the house of the Lord, and commanded Helchias the high Priest, and the Priests of the second order, to bring forth of the Temple all the vessels made for Baal, put down Idols, 
1. Reg: 2. 2. Reg: 18.  slew the idolatrous Priests; therefore Christian Kings may put down idolatry, and reform the Church: You see thereforefore the weakness, and great unsufficiency of this answer.  
Again, why do the Laws of Geneva punish adultery with death after the example of the old Testament, and why do our brethren, which stand for the reformation, labour that the same punishment may be inflicted upon adulterers with us, urging us with the authority of that Law, if so be that they will hold that the Laws of the old Testament may not prevail under the Gospel? In their simplicity and want of judgement, they shape this answer, as if it were the Trumpet to blow down jericho, David's sling to kill Goliath, Sampsons' jawbone to slay a thousand Philistines, that the ceremonial Law is abolished, whereas before I have showed, thal this is not ceremonial, but political, and that the Priesthood is abolished, whereas only that which is ceremonicall, concerning the Priest's office is abolished, but that which is moral endureth to the end. And again, a Minister of the Gospel may with more conveniency be a civil Magistrate, than the Priests under the Law, because now the daily sacrifices, the great number of feasts, and solemnities, the infinite number of ceremonies do cease, which then procured unto them a whole world of businesses in their Ministry▪ by which they had less vacant time to hear civil causes, than our Ministers have under the Gospel.   

The answer to the common objection, Luk: 22, 25. they that bear rule over them, are called gracious Lords, but ye shall not be so.  
FOr the opening of this text, these things are to be examined? First, whether our Saviour spoke these words to his  
Apostles only, or in the name of the Apostles to all Christians? For albeit the Apostles only were personally present, and his apostrophe was unto them, yet many circumstances do prove that these words do concern all Christians. For, first we find else where another speech parallel unto this: The Scribes and pharisees love the chief places at feasts, and to 
Mat: 2. 3.  have the chief seats in the assemblies, and greeting in the markets, and to be called of men: Rabbi, Rabbi: that is, Lord, Lord: but be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Rabbi, to wit, Christ, and all ye are brethren, etc. but he that is greatest among you, let him be your servant. No man can justly say, this was spoken unto Ecclesiastical persons only, but also to lay men, for so the text saith: Then jesus spoke to the multitude, and to his Disciples. 2. In the same chapter it appeareth, that our Saviour did celebrate his last Supper immediately before he spoke these words, but that story being set down more plain by the other Enangelist, he said: drink you of this all, 
Mat: 26.  which words were spoken only to his Apostles, and yet, none but they of the Church of Rome will so construe them, as if they were meant only of Ecclesiastical persons. For, even as the Cup in the holy Communion, did not appertain only unto the ministery, but also unto the laity; so humility, which is the Subject of this speech, is not commended only to the Apostles, but to all men. So that, if the title of Lord belong not to the Apostles, neither doth it belong unto  other, because these words do indifferently concern all.  
The second question is, whether in these words of our Saviour any mention is made concerning the title of Lord, or no? Surely whosoever shall say that the title of Lord is here forbidden, he hath as little judgement in the Greek tongue, as the man in the Gospel, which was not able to discern men from trees. For the Greek which is authentical, because it was written by the holy Ghost, hath no such words as gracious Lords, but evergetai bountiful, or benefactors, or doers of good: they which bare rule over them are called well doers, but ye shall not be so. There cannot be one place of Scripture alleged between the first of Genesis, and the last of The apocalypse, to prove that God's Ministers may not be called Lords, but some places may be alleged to prove that they are Lords. Our Saviour his self doth accept of that titile 
Ioh: 3▪ 2.  of Lord given him by Nicod●mus, when he called him Rabbi, that is, my Lord. For Rabbi, as Pagnin showeth in his Lexicon, signifieth: Magistrum; honorabilem, inclytum, ob multiplices quibus po●let dignitates, a Master, an honourable 
joh. 13. 13.  person, a man that is eminent by reason of his manifold dignities, and places of honour which he holdeth. And in another place he saith, the name Kurios' Lord, doth of right belong unto him, Vmeis phoneite me o didascales, caio Kurios, cai calos legete, eimigar. You call me Doctor, and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am. Furthermore, Saint Paul and Silas accepted of the same ●itle of Curios Lord, when it was given them by the keeper of the prison, when he fell down before them, and said: Kur●oi Lords, what must I do to be saved? to whom they 
Act. 16. 30  answered: believe in the Lord jesus, and thou shalt be saved. And a greater title than Lord is given to God's Ministers in his own word, they are called Gods. For that of the Prophet: 
Psal. 82. 6. Ioh: 10. 33.  God standeth in the assembly of Gods, and I have said ye are Gods, meaning of Princes and judges, our Saviour his self expoundeth of Ministers. For, when the jews said to him: For thy good work we stone thee not: but for blasphemy, and that thou being a man, makest thyself God. jesus answered them: Is it not written in your Law, I said ye are Gods? if he call them Gods unto whom the word of God is given, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said: I am the Son of God? You see how in the whole course of the Scripture the Minister and the Magistrate go together, both of them are Gods anointed, both called Gods, because they represent the person of God upon earth: both Lords, because they be the deputies and Lieutenants of him that is the Lord of Lords: to the civil Magistrate is especially committed the temporal sword, to the Minister the dispensation of the word. And you see here the reason plainly expressed, why our Saviour calleth Ministers Gods, because unto them the word of God was given, and the same word which was committed to the ministers under the law, is committed more abundantly to the ministers of the Gospel, and must continue with them to the worlds end. The king is called Poimen, shepherd, so is the minister, & in the original tongues, pascere, & 
Psal: 2.  regere, to feed and to govern is all one And that the English translation is corrupt, where it hath; ye shall not be called gracious Lords: it appeareth, not only by the original, but also by the analogy of faith: because according to faith, Bishops may be Lords, as I have showed, and then much more gracious Lords: for else they were graceless Lords. For this word grace, according to the Scriptures, is taken actively for the love and favour of the superior, which he vouchsafeth the inferior. So the Apostle saith: By the grace of God, I am 
1. Cor. 15. Luk. 1. Luk 2. Luk. 4. Rom. 3. Tit. 3. Eph. 4. 1. Tim. 4.  that I am: or else passively, for any good parts & gifts in the inferior, by which he is respected of his superior. So the Virgin Mary was full of grace, the child jesus grew in grace: they all marveled at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth, we are freely justified through his grace; if of grace, than not of works; we are saved by grace through faith. To every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Do not neglect the grace which is conferred on thee by imposition of hands. Let every man 
1. Pet 4. Eph. 2.  as he hath received grace, minister the same one to another.  
Thirdly, that we may come to the true exposition of these words: There arose a controversy among them, who should seem to be the greatest, etc. In which story, are two things to be observed: their example of ambition, which did strive for superiority, and our Saviour, his doctrine of humility, teaching, that such ambition is found among the Gentiles, and ought not to be among Christians. The Kings of the Nations, saith he, reign over them: that is, over the Nations which are under them, and that by oppression, as Saint chrysostom, and Musculus have ezpounded it, not according to justice, as God's word willeth them to do, but after their own sensual lusts and fleshly desires, and they are called (evergetai) doers of good, as the Ptolomes' King of Egypt, two of them did sername their own selves, albeit they were not doers of good, but of evil, and oppressors of their subject Concerning the application of this to christians, he saith you shall not be called so: that is, you shall not reign as kings, but govern as subjects, not tyrannically, but justly, you shall not be called doers of good, but (cacoergoi) evil doers, and malefactors, although ye do good, as the Apostle speaketh; We are reviled, and yet we bless, we are persecuted, and we suffer, 
1. Cor. 4. 12. 13. Act. 10. 38  we are evil spoken of, and we pray. It is your duty to do good, as it is said of our Saviour (dielthen evergeton) he went about doing good: yet you shall not have the due praise of your well doing, as our Saviour himself was called Belzebub, a glutton, a drunkard, john the Baptist an hypocrite, all the Apostles seditious men, &c: notwithstanding they were all doers of good. So then, in this place is not forbidden honour and authority, but ambitious seeking of it, as when they strove, and unjust using of it, as the Kings of the Nations did: as when he saith; The Scribes and pharisees love the chiefest places, &c: and to be called Rabb, &c: Master Beza upon that 
Mat. 23. 8 In annot. maioribus.  text, saith; The title of Rabbi, was given to such as were Doctors in the Chaldaean universities, as also which in judaea by imposition of hands, were declared to be the wise men of the land, as also it was a title given to those noble and wise men which were counsellors to King David. And saith he; When our Saviour forbiddeth them: be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Doctor, to wit, Christ, &c: Ne vocemini, id est, nè ambiatis, neque enim vetat Christus ne suum honorem exhibeamus magistratus, vel doctoribus, sed ambitionem damnat, ut declarat August: ser: deverbis Domini ex Matthaei. 11. Be not you called Rabbi: that is, do not you ambitiously seek after that title; for otherwise our Saviour doth not forbid us to give due honour to the Magistrate and Doctor, but only he forbiddeth the ambitious seeking after such honour, as appeareth by Saint Augustine, his exposition. One is our Doctor, that is, the chief pastor, the fountain of all knowledge, according to that of the Prophet: And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord. Call 
Esa. 54. 13  no man your father: that is, nourish no man in his ambition, which glorieth in such titles, respicit enim judaeorum consuetudinem, apud quos non modo Aboth, id est patres, sed & Abothenu, id est patres nostri, salutabantur Rabbini: he hath reference to the custom of the jews, among whom the Rabbins would not be contented to be called fathers, but our fathers. Ye are brethren, that is, beat down the pride of them which exalt themselves above their brethren. For otherwise it is lawful to call them fathers which are fathers. So the King of Israel called Elisaeus his father: and Saint Paul will have an elder to 
2. Reg. 6. 21.. 1 Tim. 5. 1. Cor. 4. 15.  be rebuked as a father, and he calleth himself a father of them whom he hath instructed in the word. As for the Apostles, they did not exercise civil jurisdiction, according to form of human laws, as Magistrates in Courts of justice use to do, partly because they being to travel through the world, had no certain abiding place, and partly because judges and justices are subordinate unto Kings & Princes, and have their commission from them, as our Saviour speaketh: Quis me constituit judicem? who hath appointed me to be a judge over you? But all Kings & Princes were at that time 
Luk. 12. 14  infidels, and therefore would not call them to such offices, which if they had been called unto, they might lawfully have executed. And yet it may be justified, that Saint Peter executed civil justice upon Saphira, when he pronounced sentence of death against her, saying: Behold, the feet of them 
Act. 5. 9  which have buried thy husband, are at the door, and shall carry thee out: and Saint Paul upon Elymas, when he pronounced sentence 
Act. 13.  of deprivation of his sight, saying: Thou shalt be blind, and not see the Sun for a season: although outward form of proceeding was wanting; like to that example of David a King which said of the man which brought tidings of saul's 
2. Sam. 1. 15. 1. Sam. 19 33.  death, without any further process or course of law: Go, fall upon him; and he smote him that he died: and of Samuel which took Agag, & he wed him in pieces: and of joiada the priest, which when Athalia the Queen in the Temple cried; treason, treason, without any judicial examination, or kind 
2. Reg. 11. 15.  of proceeding, commanded the Captains immediately to carry her out and kill her.  
And that these things may not seem strange, the Apostle Saint Paul, and the Prophet Esay foretold so much. For the 
2. Cor. 3. 6  Apostle writeth in this manner: He hath made us able Ministers of the new Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. If then the ministration of death, written with letters, and engraven in stone was glorious, so that the children of Israel were not able to behold Moses his face, for the glory of his countenance, which glory is done away, how shall not the ministration of the spirit be more glorious? For, if the ministry of condemnation was glorious, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory: for if that which should be abolished was glorious, much more shall that which remaineth be glorious. In which words are to be observed two things: the antithesis or contrariety, between the Ministers of both the Testaments, and then the correspondency and agreement between them both: that is, wherein they consent, & wherein they descent. They disagree in these points, the letter and the spirit, death and life, condemnation and righteousness, that which was to be abolished, and that which is to abide until the end of the world: and yet both agree in glory, but the spirit excelleth the letter, life death, righteousness, condemnation, that which is that which is not. Therefore the ministery of the Gospel by an argument, a minori ad maius, is also glorious, and by so much more glorious than the ministery of the law, by how much it is more excellent than the law. The question is now, what is meant by glory? And because men may be resolved of that point, the text itself doth make it plain, it was outward. The children of Israel could not behold Moses his face, for the glory of his countenance. After he had talked with God, the skin of his face shone so bright, 
Exod. 34. Exod. 33. Matth. 17  that they were afraid to come near him. And that showeth what is meant by the glory of God which Moses desired to see, when answer was made, he should see his back parts only, but not his face. And it is showed by example, how our glorified bodies shall look after the resurrection, when the face of our Saviour being transfigured, did shine like the Sun. The Lord said to Moses: Thou shalt make holy garments for thy 
Exod. ●8.  brother Aaron, glorius & beautiful, of gold, blue silk, purple, etc. The holiness of his garments consisted in this, that they were consecrated to an holy use, they were for the priest to wear in his ministration, the glory of them is specified to be the outward beauty, that they were of glod, silk, purple, etc. Solomon in his glory was not like a lily in the field, but wherein 
Mat 6.  Solomon's glory consisted, no man is ignorant: that is, in his outward pomp, riches, service, honourable retinue, the adifice of his Temple, the world did admire him. So it is plain, that the priesthood of Israel, the glory of it consisted in the riches of the Temple, the large possessions of the Levites, their authority and worldly reputation, the high Priest being next in place of honour unto the king. But how the ministry of the Gospel should exceed them in glory; the Prophets have foretold, and especialle Esay, where he saith: 
Esa. 60.  Thine heart shall be astonished, and enlarged, because the multude of the Sea shall be converted unto thee, and the riches of the Gentiles shall come unto thee, the multitude of Camel's shall cover thee, the Dromedaries of Midian and of Ephah, they of Sheba shall bring gold and incense, and show forth the praise of the Lord, etc. Surely the Isles shall wait for me, and the Ships of Tha●sis, as at the beginning, that they may bring thy sons from far, and their silver, and their gold with them to the name of the Lord, and to the holy one of Israel, because he hath glorified thee. The sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their Kings shall minister unto thee, etc. The Nation of the Kingdom that will not serve thee, shall perish, and those Nations shall be utterly destroyed, the glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir, the elm, the box, to beautify the place of my sanctuary, for I will glorify the place of my feet. The sons of them that afflicted thee, shall come and bow unto thee, all they that despised thee, shall fall down at the souls of thy feet, &c: Thou shalt suck the milk of the Gentiles, thou shalt suck the breasts of Kings, etc.  
That the Reader may be yet better satisfied. Flacius jilyricus 
In clavi scripturae.  divideth glory to be two fold, the one of God, the other of men: and as for the glory of God, it cannot be understood in this place, but of men only; because he speaketh only of the glory of the Ministers of the old and new Testaments, which were only men. Again, he divideth the glory of men, either into that which is eternal in heaven, or temporal upon the earth: but the latter only is understood, because it is the glory of the ministry, which ministry is temporal, and must cease after this life, even as also then faith and hope must cease, only love must endure. Thirdly, he divideth this temporal glory of men, into gloriam fame 
1. Cor. 13  & bonitatis rei; the glory of words, and of matter and substance, the glory of words or fame, which consisteth in the fame and good report of other men, which is chief in them which do glorify us, and not in ourselves which are glorified and magnified, but the glory which is not in words, but substance, which indeed is the cause why men do praise and magnify us, is our riches, honour, authority, all outward ornaments, which stir up the outward senses, and men's affections, to admiration of our persons, places, and calling, is only to be understood in this place, as appeareth by these reasons. First, the glory of fame is defined by Illyricus, and also by Melancthon, in his common places, to be: Approbatio conscientiae nostrae rectè iudicantis, & al●crum rectè iudicantium: The testimony of a good conscience, approving us that we have walked sincerely, and the report of other men, consenting in judgement with us, that we have so walked. But in that sense, we cannot be more glorious than Aaron and Moses, and the Priests of the old Testament, because they were men of as holy life as we, and walked every way as sincerely in their calling, as we do in our vocation, and were as pleasing to God, and as well approved of God's people as we be. Secondly, it were unworthy of the Majesty of the holy Ghost, to play the so phister in this place, and to use equivocation of the word glory, as if by their glory and ours, he did not understand one and the same thing: for than it were no just comparison. For the things which be compared together, must agree in that thing in which they be compared: therefore, being compared in glory, they must agree in the same glory; only they must differ secundum magis & minus, being compared not in the positive, but in the comparative degree, one must be more glorious than another. So then, the glory of one being outward in pomp and state, the glory of the other must also be so, but in a greater measure.  
Thirdly, if some men should be so ignorant as to say, that the glory of our ministry consisteth in this, that it is the ministry of the spirit, of life, of righteousness, and of that which must remain. I answer; that cannot be, for then the glory of the ministry of the old Testament, should consist in letters, death, condemnation, &c: but that is disproved by the text itself, which showeth that these things were the subject of that ministry, but the glory consisted in the brightness of Moses his face: therefore I say; spirit, life, righteousness, are the subject of our ministry, and not the glory of it: & the cause why it ought to be so much the more glorious than the old priesthood was. Fourthly, if we consider the scope and drift of Saint Paul in that place, it was to magnify himself, and credit his calling, that so it might not be brought into contempt, as poor and beggarly, which were inglorious. For, saith thee: Do we begin to praise ourselves? Need we as some other, an epistle of commendation? He answereth: that he needeth not to commend himself, he needeth not man's commendation to credit his ministry, for as much as his calling is of sufficient credit of itself, and his own person credited by it three manner of ways. First, by the Corinthians themselves, to whom he did minister. Secondly, by that which was inward in his ministry, as spirit, life, righteousness. Thirdly, by that which was outward, and apparent to the eye, and that was glory.  
Now, lest any man should object out of Saint chrysostom, Theophilactus, Aquinas, and others, that in their interpretation of that place of Saint Paul, they affirm that the glory of his ministry, was no such glory as was visible and subject to outward senses. I confess that when Saint Paul wrote that epistle, it was not so of fact, although it was so of right. It could not be then outwardly glorious, by reason of the present persecution, the ministry of the Gospel being not established by Princes. Therefore the Apostle spoke not so much of the glory which then was, as of that which in the peace and prosperity of the Church, should afterward be, when the world was converted. For his words are these: P●s o●ch● mallon e diaconia tou pneumatos estai en doxe? how shall not the ministration of the spirit be more glorious? where he speaketh in the future tense, as of a thing in due time to be performed, and not present. And therefore, where he speaketh in the present tense in the next verse; polo mallon perisseu●i e diaconia tes dicaiosunes en doxe; much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory, as it is a figure called enalloge temporis, where one tense is used for another, as it appeared by the event (which is the best interpreter of all prophecies) when the riches, authority, and outward pomp of the Church was increased. And yet it cannot be said, that the ministry of the Gospel was without outward glory, in the extremest poverty of the Church, for as much as the Apostles at jerusalem had all the riches of the Church laid at their feet, and at their own disposition; and when worldly promotion was most of all wanting, they had the gift of working miracles, which was a greater glory and countenance to their ministry, than any Kings or earthly means could give unto them. St. Peter, his shadow was more glorious and more honoured then the body and person of any Prince. Saint Paul's napkins and handkerchiefs, and such like rags which came from his body, 
Act. 5. Act. 93.  were of more account than the purple robes, and gold and silver of earthly Kings. And this gift of working miracles, continued as the portion and inhaeritance of Christ his Ministers, until they obtained peace, and so were endued with worldly possessions, and honours, which were to countenance their ministery in the place of miracles which did cease. So that still the ministry of the Gospel was outwardly glorious and honourable, not vile, abject, or contemptible. The Lord of his mercy continue the state of it unto his own glory, to the world's end.  
Amen.   

AN ANSWER TO THE TREAtise of the Cross in Baptism, contracted into this Syllogism.  

" No human ordinance becoming an idol, may lawfully" be used in the service of God.  
" But the sign of the Cross being an human ordinance," is become an idol.  
" Therefore The sign of the Cross may not be lawfully used in the service of God.     

OF THE SIGN of the Cross in Baptism.  
FOr as much as we be no plaintives, but defendants, neither doth it belong unto us, as opponents to object, or allege any arguments for proof of that truth which is already established, but only, as respondents to answer such objections, as are brought by our adversaries to overthrow that hold whereof we are possessed: we will therefore, so far as by the Laws of disputations we are bound, make answer to all points in particular, as they are urged against us. And therefore, first of all we will examine the title of the book which is contracted into this Syllogism.  

" No human ordinance becoming an idol, may lawfully" be used in the service of God.  
" But the sign of the Cross being an human ordinance," is become an idol.  
" Therefore The sign of the Cross may not be lawfully used in the service of God.   
Because this Syllogism is intended to be in the first figure, we wish the author had explained his meaning, in what mood it is concluded? because, as it is set down in these English words, it is uncertain whether it be in CELARENT or in FERLO, in one of them it must be, for else it is no lawful Syllogism. If it be in CELARENT, than the MINOR must be understood to be universal affirmative, and then, these words: The sign of the Cross being an human ordinance is become an idol, are equivalent to these: Every sign of the Cross is an human ordinance, and every sign of the Cross is become an idol. Which, if it be so understood, than the MINOR is to be denied as untrue. For, the visible and permanent sign of the Cross, which appeared to Constantine the great, by which he was converted to the Christian faith, 
Euseb: dè vitâ Const: lib: 1. cap: 22.  was neither an human ordinance, because it was the work of God, and not of men, it appeared in heaven, and not on earth, neither was it an idol, because it was neither worshipped, nor showed to that end that it should be worshipped (the Author his self in his Treatise saith, nothing is an idol, unless it be worshipped) neither was the invisible and transient sign 
Ezech: 9 4.  of the Cross in the prophesy of Ezechiel any human ordinance because God commanded it, nor any idol, because it was not worshipped. Only it was a mark of them which were ordained to salvation, and it was to be signed in their foreheads by the Priest in the Surplice, or linen Ephod, resembling the blood of the paschal Lamb which was sprinkled 
Exod: 1●. 7.  upon the door cheeks in Egypt by the Angel, which was to pass over the houses so marked, and to save them from death which were in the houses so marked. And that in Saint john's revelation was but a resemblance of them both, where the elect had the seal of the living God in their foreheads. This 
Apoc: 7. 4.  sign in Ezechiel, was the sign of the Cross, because it was the Hebrew character, AV, which letter as it is now printed in the Alphabet, resembleth the Gallows, or instrument of execution of thieves and murderers. But, as Saint Hierom showeth: when this prophesy was first written, the jews having 
Hierom: in Ezech: 9  then the same letters which the Samaritans had, according as they were devised by Moses, the Hebrew T A V was of the same form which the Greek AV is of at this day, which is such a Cross in form, as that which was,, ara mundi, the Altar of the world, upon which our Saviour Christ was crucified. And that afterward it was changed into this ordinary form of Gallows by Ezra, after the captivity, which altered all the letters in the Alphabet into this form which is now used in all Hebrew impressions, that the letters of the believing jews might differ from the letters of the unbelieving Samaritans. The sign of the cross in the foreheads of the elect was as especial in the days of Ezechiel, as the mark of the living God in their foreheads, in Saint john's revelation, & the sprinkling of the dore-cheekes in the days of Moses, and did outwardly show that none could escape death, which had not interiùs expressam fidem crucis & mortis Christi, quiqùe exteriùs Cerisium intrepidè profiteretur, an inward impression in their hearts, of the Cross and death of our Saviour Christ, and made an outward constant profession of the same to the view of the world, to sh●w that they were not ashamed of their crucified Lord jesus, nor afeard to drink of his cup, and be baptized with his baptism, which was calix amaritudinis, and baptismus sanguinis, and 
Math. 20. 23.  crucis, the cup of bitterness, and baptism of blood and martyrdom, of the Cross & tribulation. Now, the Christians in the infancy of the Church, did sign themselves with this TAV or sign of the Cross, in eâ part ubi est signum pudoris ut non puderet eos crucifixi, as Saint Augustine witnesseth, in their 
De verbis apostoli Ser: 8. De catherudibus. cap: 20.  very foreheads, to testify their profession, in imitation of the examples of the holy Scriptures which I have recited, as the same Saint Augustine witnesseth, and that before popery had crept into the Church, witness Tertullian, which lived within two hundred years after our Saviour. And in the imitation of these examples, the sign of the cross is continued among us, to be signed upon the foreheads of them which are baptised, and that without any worship or divine honour done unto i●, therefore it is no idol.  
But if this Syllogism be in FERIO, as according to the rules of Logic it ought to be, because it is an indefinite proposition in matter contingent, then is the MINOR particular, and likewise the conclusion, and then it is all one, as if he had said: Some sign of the Cross is an human ordinance, and some sign of the Cross is become an idol, therefore some sign of the Cross is not to be used in God's service. And then we grant both the proposition & the conclusion, as no disadvantage unto us, because he concludeth nothing against us. For our sign is neither that which man hath devised, neither that which is worshipped (the Author his self doth confess in his Treatise, that we do not worship the Cross in Baptism, nor any way make an idol of it). Neither can any particular conclusion overthrow a general point of doctrine, as if because one Cross is so, therefore all Crosses should be so. A general is not to be concluded by a particular, but a particular by a general. Syllogizari non est ex particulari.  
Having answered the matter which is contingent, and the quantity which is indefinite, it followeth that we examine the form of this syllogism, and lay open the manifold defects of it, to show how indeed it is no true syllogism, but a fallacy, which that we may the better effect, we must first scan every word in order, as they be placed in the Syllogism.  
First of all therefore, where he saith: No human ordinance being become an idol may be used in God's service. Iwould know then whether a divine ordinance being become an idol may be used in God's service? If it may, than the bread in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is God's ordinance being hallowed by the Priest, elevated upon the Altar in the Mass, adored by the people, being put in the pix, and reserved, may be afterward broken by the hands of the Minister, and delivered to the people in the celebration of the Sacrament of the Lords Table. I hope, to that question he will answer negatively, therefore this caution which he putteth in, to wit, No human ordinance, is but superfluous, and might as well have been left out of the syllogism. Nay, he might as well have said: No divine ordinance becoming an idol, may be retained in the Church, much 
john 3. 14. Numb: 21 9 2. Reg: 18. 4●  less used in divine service.  
For the brazen serpent being God's ordinance, and ordained to be a most lively type and figure of our Saviour Christ, when they burnt incense unto it, was defaced by Ezechias, and for so doing he was commended, to have done uprightly in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his Father David had done. And yet, I say, the idol being removed, God's ordinance ought still to stand. The bread which is consecrated, elevated, and adored in the Mass, is unfit to be taken and eaten in the Lord's Supper, and yet bread is still to be used in that Supper without such elevation, and adoration. And as for the brazen Serpent, here is the difference between that and this: Had the people ceased to burn incense unto it, yet being broken and defaced, no other like to that was to be erectect, for as much as that was but a temporal ordinance of God for that present time, when they were stung with fiery Serpents in the Wilderness, serving for that use to heal them when they looked upon it, which virtue of healing afterward ceased, but, had Serpents still stung them, and the sight of a brazen Serpent served still for healing of such wounds, a new brazen serpent which was never worshipped, might have been made in the place of it which was defaced.  
Secondly, I would know also, whether an human ordinance being no idol may be used in God's service? To that Master jacob answereth negatively, in his Book of reformation, likewise, the Author of the Treatise of divine worship, therefore this clause: becoming an idol, was but idle, and might very well have been spared, and it standeth but in the place of a ciphre, or rather an idol itself, because, as the Apostle writeth: idoium nihil est, 
1. Cor: 84.  an idol is nothing, and this also standeth for nothing. Let the framer therefore of this syllogism speak whether he meaneth: in sensu diviso, because it is an human ordinance? or because it is an idol? or else, because joined both together in sensu coniuncto, it is both an human ordinance and an idol, it is unfit for God's service? If he make it a sufficient reason why the sign of the Cross should be crossed out of the s; eruice Book, Vel eo nomine, because it was an human ordinance, than he might have spared to make mention of an idol, if he mean eò nomine, because it was an idol, then might he have spared to speak of human ordinance, as words idly put in. Frustra fit per plura quod aequè benè fieri potest pèr pauciora. If ye mean an human ordinance might have been used, so it were not become an idol, or an idol, had it not been an human ordinance, or otherwise, if he meant none of them both, than these two were not well joined together in this syllogism. But, as for our sign of the Cross, with which we sign infants in Baptism, we do not in so doing imitate the examples of men, but the holy Scripture, and so deny it to be an human ordinance, we adore it not outwardly with the body, nor inwardly in our minds, and therefore we deny it to be an idol (for still I build upon that ground of the Author of this syllogism, that nothing is an idol unless it be worshipped) therefore, no worship, no idol. And therefore notwithstanding this syllogism, nothing hindereth but that it may be used in the Sacrament of Baptism, which is a part of GOD'S service.  
Thirdly, the argument doth not follow, that because the bread which is adored by the Papists, is become an idol, therefore the bread which is not adored by us is an idol, because the Sun and Moon were as Gods to the heathens which worshipped them, therefore they are Gods to us which vouchsafe them no worship, because gedeon's Ephod was an idol to them which worshipped it, being hung up in 
Iud: 8. 27.  Ophra, therefore that Ephod which the Priest did wear in Solomon's Temple and not worship, was an Idol in jerusalem, because the altars which were erected for sacrifice in the high places, & that upon which jereboam offered incense, were monuments 
1. Reg: 13. 1. josua 22. 10.  of idolatry, therefore the altar which the two tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasses, erected to be a witness between themselves and the other tribes, upon which no sacrifice nor incense was offered, nor intended to be offered, should also be held for a monument of idolatry, because the name of jesus was abused and vainly taken by the conjurers, it might not be lawfully used by the Apostles: so the argument 
Act: 19 13.  doth not follow, that because the sign of the Cross is an idol to the Papists which worship it, therefore it should be an idol to us which worship it not. The Author his self, as before I have showed, saith nothing is an idol but quatenù● it is worshipped: and again, he freeth us from the crime of idolatry, saying that our Church ascribeth no worship unto it, therefore he doth not justly call it by the name of an idol; and apply it unto us. Their abuse cannot disannul our lawful use, and whatsoever may by them be abused, may by us be lawfully used, therefore their superstition cannot make a nullity of our sincere and true devotion. As the Cross hath been abused, so hath God's Temple been profaned in the days of Ezechiel, and in the days of our Saviour Christ, yet 
Ezechi: 8: Ioh: 2.  neither of them would have the Temple to be suppressed. Masses have been said in all our Churches, shall we therefore be as the Brownists which refuse to come to Church to hear our dinine service? They are the same Churches numero, the Cross is not, therefore the argument followeth á maiori ad mious, the Churches may be as well removed as the Cross.  
Fourthly, the sign of the Cross he saith: is become an idol, therefore he denieth it to have been originally an idol as the golden colfe was which was erected in Horeb, and because 
Ex: 32. 4.  he denieth it to have been originally an idol, he must needs overthrow that first ground which he laid in his MINOR proposition, where he affirmed that it was an human ordinance. For the Author of the book of reformation alleging the authority of Vrsinus in his exposition 
Master jacob.  upon the second commandment, and the Author of the treatise of divine worship, affirm that all human institutions in the Church are idolatry, because they impugn the second Commandment of the first Table, and that the word of God is so perfect and all-sufficient of itself, that man may ordain nothing in the Church, but all additions of men are idolatry. I conclude therefore, out of their own words, that if it be become an idol, it was no human ordinance, and if it were an human ordinance, it could not become an idol, because it was an idol ab initio, from the first institution of it. And therefore, because he saith, it is become an idol, he must grant, that it was God ordinance. And so I deny not but the holiest creatures in the world may become idols by man's worshipping them. For so is the bread in the sacrament, so is the beginning of S. john's Gospel, In principio erat verbum; being hung about children's necks, with certain charms of sorcery to keep them from stumbling, become an idol. And the 18. verse of the 50. Psalm: When thou sawest a thief, thou didst run with him: being used with other circumstances by conjurations to find out stolen goods, which is to ascribe divine power to these creatures. But, for as much as originally, the use of the Cross was lawful, we do retain it in our Church as originally it was used: and therefore we may justify the use of it.  
Fiftly therefore, whereas he saith: that which is an idol may not be used in God's service: it maketh nothing against us which have proved the Cross to be no idol. Therefore, that I may lay open the manifold imperfections of this kind of argumentation, to show that it is no lawful syllogism, but a flat paralogism, in it I will discover four fallacies. And that I may not be like them, which as it is in the proverb, will spell law, and construe logic, I must be forced to use such terms as belong to the Logicians, which cannot be well expressed in English, that I may observe the laws of schools. Out of the premises which before I have observed. First, there is fallacia à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, quia in conclusione falso id tribuitur rei simplicitèr consideratae, quod in praemissis tributum fuit aliquâ conditione, seu determinatione & circumstantiâ, as Abetzon speaketh: In the conclusion, the sign of the Cross is condemned as simply unlawful, being simply considered without any respect of worship, which in the premises is not understood but upon circumstances, and conditions of divine worship to be ascribed unto it.  
Secendly, it is a paralogism, called ignoratio Elenchi, the ignorance of that fallacy, quià non est idem respectus, res non intelligitur ad idem secundum idem similiter & eodem tempore: there is not one and the self same respect, but divers, the thing is not alike, but diversly understood, it is not referred to one and the same things, according to the same, after the same manner, and at the same time, but all these circumstances are different one from another.  
Thirdly, it is fallacia non causae pro cau●â, such a fallacy wherein that is taken for a cause, which is no cause: the abuse of them which worship it, is here alleged for a cause why it may not be lawfully used among us, which their abuse is no cause at al.  
Fourthly, it is fallacia accidentis, a fallacy by reason of the accident which is included in that which belongeth only unto the substance, and aught to be understood without any such accident. For he draweth his argument from the event, which was merely accidental unto the Cross, unto the nature of the Cross itself, as idolum fit, ergo verè idolum est. It is among some used as an idol, therefore properly, and originally the thing itself is an idol. They do à praeteritis accidentibus aut eventis ad praesentiam rei argumentari; draw their arguments from the accidental events which are passed, unto the thing as among us it is now used: as for example, because the sign of the Cross was worshipped in the time of ignorance and superstition among Papists, that therefore it is now worshipped among the Protestants, after the reformation of the Church.  
To leave the title of the book, and come to the tract itself. For proof of the MAYOR, he allegeth Saint john's authority, Babes, keep yourselves from idols: as if that were a 
john. 5. 21  good argument; we must keep ourselves from idolis, therefore we may not make the sign of the Cross in Baptism: which before I have showed to be no idol, which is but petitio principij, a begging of the question. But for explanationof this text of Saint john, he undertaketh two things: first, to set down the definition of an idol: and secondly, to limit us how far we are to keep ourselves from idols, and therein he presseth us with the authority of learned Zanche, when his self refuseth not only to stand to the authority of learned Caluin,, and learned Beza, and learned Peter Martyr, but renounceth all other human authorities, which are by us alleged against him, saying; he will stand to no authorities, but to the canonical Scriptures.  
But to come to the definition of an idol, he defineth it to be, A quicquid praetèr Deum divino honore colitur, a whatsoever ye will besides God, if it be worshipped with divine worship. And he that will define an idol to be à quicquid, will not refuse to say à quidlibet, whatsoever his own idle brain shall apprehend. He might rather have said with the Apostle, it is à nihil, then à quicquid, a new nothing, rather than every thing, Scimus quià idolum nihil est in mundo, saith St. Paul, 
1. Cor. 8. 4  we know that an idol is nothing in the world. For though in matter it be somewhat, as wood, or stone, &c: yet in form it is nothing, because it representeth that which is not, as were the idols of Mercury, lupiter, and such like. And therein it differeth from an image, which representeth that which is comprehended within the universality or nature of things, as the Schoolmen call it, as the image of a man, of a lion, and such like. But, because it pleaseth him to confound idols and images, which in nature do differ: yet for as much as they serve for one purpose in this place, and the worship of either of them is a breach of the second commandment, we will be contented to comprehend them both in one definition. And for as much as every definition must consist of à Genus, and that which is loco differentiae, at the least, I marvel that he doth call it à quicquid, and so make it à transcenaent, as if it were in no praeaicament. For in that God saith: Thou shalt not make sculptile aut simulacrum; any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing, &c: thou shalt not bow down to it nor worship 
Exod. 20.  it: by these words it is plain, that it is in the predicament or action, and out of it may be gathered this definition; that it is the workmanship of a man's hand, whether carved, painted, molten, or fashioned howsoever by the art of man, whether in the air, as the sign of the Cross transient, or otherwise, as the Cross of wood which is permanent, representing some substance or figment, to which we ascribe divine power, & by a consequent, we give divine honour. And whereas the author replieth, that then the worship of Angels, souls of just men, and invisible spirits, were no idolatry. I answer, that such worship is a breach of the first commandment; Non habebis Deos alienos coram me: thou shalt it have no other Gods besides me: as also the worshipping of the Sun and Moon, which are the workmanship of God, and not of men.  
As for the second, where he saith: we must keep ourselves both à cultu & ab vs● idoli, from the worship of the idol, & also from any other use of it, in so much that we must not retain it among us: his own self doth clear us that we do not colere, worship it. And as for the use of it, which he saith; may be either civil, as for story, Prince's banners, coignes, or else religious, it is an idle distinction, for it is repugnant to the nature and definition of an idol, that it should be civil. Idols are made for divine worship, and for no other use: therefore for Ecclesiastical and religious uses only, and being not so used, they are no idols, as the author his self confesseth. If he 
Pag. 11.  mean by the use of idols, the bare retaining of them in the Church without any worship, as in many Churches of the Lutherans, where the images, which he calleth idols, do stand in the Temples for ornaments only: It is easily answered, we removed them out of our Churches, and defaced them long since. But he saith; that by religious use of idols, he meaneth: when any thing of men's devise being worshipped as an idol, is used in the worship of God. For answer whereof, we use no such thing in our service: the Cross which we use in Baptism, is not worshipped at all.  
Yet, saith he: this point is farther strengthened by the commandment, which forbiddeth not only to worship, but also to make an image ad cultum, or for religious use. In which words, he should do well to see his own weakness, or rather folly. I do not deny, but as it is unlawful to worship it, so it is unlawful to make it ad cultum, that another should worship it, as Demetrius the siluer-smith and his fellows did, which 
Act. 19  made shrines and images for Diana, her Temple. But, whereas he saith: it is forbidden to make any similitude ad cultum, or for religious use; if he make these English words, for religious use, to be an interpretation of these Latin words, ad cultum; as if they were but the same thing: he erreth, because there be other religious uses besides worship: but, if he understand them disiunctively, as they ought to be taken; that is, signifying divers things, than he falcifieth the second commandment, which saith only; thou shalt not make it to bow down to it, nor worship it: but maketh no mention of other uses; neither expressly, nor by way of implication; for them God should be contrary to himself, which after this commandment was given; yet commanded images to be made for religious uses, as the brazen Serpent, and the images which were in Slomons' Temple, and ihe Cherubins upon the mercy seat: so that these words; religious uses, are an addition of his own unto God's word. And, whereas he saith; all occasions and means leading to idolatry, are forbidden. I answer; the Cross in Baptism is no leading to idolatry; for as much as our doctrine concerning the use of it, is clearly set down; that we put no confidence in it, & our use of it is according to our doctrine: if he use it otherwise, it is his fault, & not ours. Our doctrine and practice is as plain to the contrary, as that of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasses, concerning the altar which they erected, their doctrine explaining their intent, & their use of it being consonant to their doctrine, removed all scruples & jealousy out of the minds of their brethren, which before were offended, and so concerning that point they were well satisfied, as also our brethren would be concerning this controversy, were they as charitably minded towards us, being Christians, as the jews were towards their brethren being jews. Therefore, where he saith: we offend against St. john's precept, warning us to keep ourselves from idols; because we do use an idol in the service of God. I answer as before, it is petitio principij. a begging of the question: for I have showed, how it is no idol, and he is greatly destitute of a medius terminus, to prove that conclusion which he undertook to prove. If we grant all Crosses which are worshipped, to be idols: it cannot follow, that our Cross in Baptism which is not worshipped, is an idol, no more than this: that because all altars, erected for sacrifice in places prohibited of God▪ were abomination, therefore the altar of which before I spoke, being not ercted for that end, was also abominable. Neither doth he so fitly allege for his purpose, that our Church of England in the Homily against peril of idolatry, justifieth the removing of images out of churches, which were set up by Papists to be worshipped, and are worshipped, to prove that by the same reason, the Cross in Baptism allowed by Protestants; should be also abrogated, which neither was appointed for worship▪ nor yet worshipped. Neither is that place of Saint Augustine alleged against images 
August. in Psal. 113.  which have eyes, ears, noses, which do valere ad curuandum infaelicem animum, deprave the mind of man, which is very apt to be deluded and carried away, and also are an object to the eye, very dangerous to entice and allure to idolatry: fitly applied by him to the sign of the Cross, not visible, not permanent, and of which, none of these things may be verified, which are incident to the images which have eyes, ears, and noses. And for our part, we do as much abhor such, both images and image-makers, as this author doth, or as ever Epiphanius and Tertullian did, whom he citeth, how unproperly soever.  
And to answer the conclusion, which so idly he inferreth upon these authorities: That, if godly fathers were so vehement against erecting images of Christ and Saints, even at that time, before any worship was given unto them: much more would they withstand it now, after men have made idols of them: and therefore he condemneth us for enduring the idol of the Cross (as he calleth it) in the service and sacraments of God, and contrary to David's doctrine, keeping an honourable memory of that which the Prophet Esay willeth us to abandon. I say, it is no marvel though they were so vehement against erecting 
Psal. 16. Esa 50, 22  of images in Churches, for we are as vehement in that cause as they were, and it behoved them at that time to be vehement, considering that the whole world than was given to idolatry, and in every city the Pagans had their Temples, and as they worshipped idols in their paganism, so they were prone to worship images after their conversion to the Christian religion. And seeing they which were not converted, were ready to offer sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas 
Act. 14. 13  then alive: no doubt but they would have worshipped their images when they were dead. But all this is unfitly applied unto the sign of the Cross in Baptism.  

To come to the MINOR, in which he endeavoureth to prove that the Cross is an idol.  
HE writeth for a marginal note in capital letters, THE PROOF OF THE MINOR: because in his own conceit it is already proved. But for the proof of it, he only allegeth the authority of Bellarmine, Potiformus, Hart, Costerus, Aquinas, being Papists, which hold that the sign of the Cross is to be worshipped with divine worship, and ascribe to it divine power. And grant all this to be true, that the Papists worship the Cross, & ascribe so much to it. I answer as before, it toucheth not our sign of the Cross in Baptism, which ascribe no such thing unto it. Therefore nothing is here alleged by him for the confirmation of the MINOR, which is not already by us answered and refuted sufficiently, in the confutation of the MAYOR.  
The author now cometh to his Ob: & Sol: and in our behalf objecteth, that our Cross is neque numero neque usu, the same Cross which was among the Papists, neither yet used among us as it was used among them The validity of this objection in our behalf, we show to be of as great validity on our side, as it was for the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasses on their side, which being challenged by their brethren for suspicion of idolatry when they erected an altar, which as it was not numero, so they answered it was not usu, such an altar as they suspected it to be: which answer contented the jews, & might as well satisfy our brethren, if they were as charitable.  
But let us examine the answer he maketh to this objection. When (saith he) God commanded his people to break down the images of the heathen, and to extinguish the very name of them, they could not have performed that charge, if they had burnt all the idols of Canaan, and made others new of the same form, though to another use not idolatrous: so cannot we discharge our duties, if having defaced the Popish idols, we erect them new in our Church, though not to worship; because it cannot be without breach of the commandment: Babes, keep yourselves from idols. So far disputeth the maker of the syllogism, in our behalf. But, because it may be verified of us, which was said of the blind man who received his sight; aetatem habet, prò se respondeat, we are old enough to answer for ourselves; we will answer our own selves for ourselves, we crave no help of our adversary, but we will show the unsufficiency of this answer two manner of ways. First, he hath digressed from his matter, because the subject of this disputation is an human ordinance become an idol, whereas he instanceth in human ordinances which are not become idols, but which originally were idols, and erected by infidels to this end, that they should be worshipped: for that was to the imitation of the heathen people, & this is not so. And, according to this kind of disputation, he might as well impose a necessity upon us, of suppressing all our parish Churches, as the Brownists do; because they were not only the Pope's ordinance, but also ordained for the celebration of the Mass, and so employed from their first erection, until this late reformation of the Church. For, according to God's commandment, not only the idols their selves were to be put down, but also the altars, groves, and high places, where the idolatry was committed, and the Priests which did offer the sacrifices, all they being abominable as the idol itself. Secondly, in that he taketh it pro concesso, as a thing granted, that the Cross is an idol, it is but a begging of the question, as before I have showed; because it is not yet proved, that the sign of the cross is an idol among us: neither doth it follow, that if with the Papists it were so; therefore with us it is so, no more then because their bread in the sacrament is an idol, therefore ours is also an idol. That only numero which is worshipped is an idol; for the author confesseth, where there is no worship there can be no idol.  
That we may proceed farther. For as much as the sign of the Cross, like the bread in the Lord's Supper, in the beginning was free from superstition, & the abuse of it which grew after, is removed by us, why may not the one continue among us as well as the other without any such slanderous imputation of idolatry? His answer is; because one is an human ordinance, and the other divine, as the brazen serpent which being an human ardinance when it was abused, was defaced by Ezechias. To which we reply, that neither the sign of the Cross is an human ordinance, as before we have showed, neither might an human ordinance be used though not an idol, by his own doctrine, neither an idol, though at the first it were a divine ordinance, neither was that brazen serpent an human ordinance, as by the text it appeareth: For the Lord said to Moses, make thee a serpent, and set it up for a sign, that as many as are bitten may look upon it, and live; So Moses made a serpent 
Numb: 21. 8.  of Brass, etc. And, whereas he allegeth out of Tertullian: horum si legem postules scripturarum, nullam invenies, that we have no warrant out of the Scripture; it is to be understood that according to Tertullian we have no express commandment out of holy writ to use the sign of the Cross particularly in baptism, and therefore we hold it as a thing indifferent, whether it be used or omitted, yet we have an example of signing with the sign of the cross out of Ezechiel as I have alleged, to show that man is not the first deviser of it, but that man followeth god's example: so then albeit we have not legem aut praecaptum, a law or commandment to impose upon us the use of the cross, yet we have an example to show that God was the first author of it. And again, authoritas in negativis non valet, it followeth not that because the Scriptures make no mention of Melchisedech his father, therefore he had no father: or because the Scriptures commend joseph for a just man, and make no mention of his sins, that therefore he had no sins as Rodolphus Agricola in his Topics observeth out of S. Augustin. All things necessary to salvation, are expressly set down in the holy Scriptures, but this is a matter indifferent, & no way concerning the state of our salvation.  
Now he cometh with his coleworts twice sodden, & repeateth that which he hath so often said before: that the cross is become an idol, and therefore not fit to be used in the service of jehova, which because it is but a tautalogy, or repetition of the same thing, I refer this objection to the answer made before. And farther, to press us with more unthruthes, he allegeth that it is retained among us with opinion very superstitious and erroneous, because in our 30. Canon ecclesiastical, we read these words: That the child is dedicated by it, to the service of him that died upon the cross, which (he saith) is to equal the ordinance of man, with the ordinance of God, to ascribe that unto the Cross which is due unto Baptism, such an absurdity, as no water can cleanse it. To which I answer: that which cannot be washed away by water, may be avoided by distinction. There are two sorts of dedication to the service of him that died upon the Cross, one active, the other significative, action is due to Baptism, but signification after the act is ended, is ascribed to the sign of the Cross, because the ministration of Baptism dedicateth them, and the signing of the Cross signifieth, that they are already dedicated unto that service, but there is the difference between the work itself, and the declaration or testifying of the work after it is finished, when Baptism being ended, we make a solemn declaration of it unto the people. Farther, this syllogiser saith: we use not the sign of the Cross as Augustine, Cyprian, and chrysostom did, which used it to consecrate the elements, and not to cross the children, but referred that to the bishops confirmation, as if we were necessarily tied to follow their example, or as, if because they did that, we might not do this, or as if because they did that, therefore they did not this: or as if the sign of the Cross were not as effectual to living children which are members of the body of Christ, as to dead elements to whom the merits of the Cross & sufferings of Christ do no way appertain: or as if it were not as lawful for the minister to use the cross in baptism, as it was for the Bishop to use it in confirmation, or the sign were less effectual in the one then in the other. But, let us examine his proofs by which he confirmeth his assertion, that the Fathers used not the cross in baptism. First he saith by way of anticipation, that this place of Tertullian: The flesh is washed, that the soul may be purged: the 
De resurrestione caruis.  flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated: the flesh is signed, that the soul may be guarded, may as well be referred to confirmation as to Baptism. And, I retort it again upon him, that it may be as indifferently understood, of baptism as of confirmation. But saith he: the father's describing the form of baptism did make no mention of it in baptism. To which I answer, 
Martyr in defence: ad Antoninus Tertul: de Baptismo, et coronâ mil●tis.  that the Cross is no part of the form or essence of baptism, but only the word and the element, neither is it used until the sacrament be finished, and therefore no marvel though describing the form of baptism they made no mention of the Cross, therefore this negative argument cannot overthrow the use of the Cross. And yet, that the Fathers did use to sign them with the Cross which were baptised, it is evident by their own words: for Tertullian saith in these general 
Dè coronâ cap: 3.  terms: ad omnem progressum atquè promotum, ad omnem aditum atqùe exitum, ad vest●tum, ad calciatum, ad lavacra, ad meusas, ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quaecunque nos conversatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo terimus, that in his time, at their doings out & come in, when they put on their clothes, their shoes. when they wash or eat, or light the candle, at their lying down, or sitting up, whatsoever they do, they sign their foreheads with the sign of the Cross. And Cyrillus Hierosolymit saith: Non pudeat igitur nos crucifixum confiteri, 
Cyrillus  sed in front confidentèr signaculum crucis digitis imprimatur, & in alijs omnibus crux fiat. That we may not be ashamed to confess Christ crucified, we sign our foreheads confidently, and in all other actions we make the Cross. And S. jeron saith: 
Heiron: Epist: 22.  Ad omnem actum & progressuus manus crucem pingit, whatsoever we do we make a Cross. The conclusion followeth out of their assertions, that if in their days, in all actions the cross was used and the foreheads signed, than a Cross was made upon their foreheads which were baptized.  
As for our signing with the Cross, we do it after Baptism is finished, to show that we add nothing to God's institution, & that we think so honourably of that ordinance, that it needeth no addition, to clear ourselves of that injust imputation which is laid upon us, of adding unto it. And therefore, whereas he allegeth that the praying and crossing are one continual action of the administration of the Sacrament, and that by ourselves the Cross is called signum crucis in Baptismo, the sign of the Cross in Baptism. I answer: Baptism is taken two manner of ways, for the sacrament itself, simply and barely considered in its own nature & essence, consisting only of the element and word, and as in the holy Scriptures it is set down & commended unto us, & so Signum crucis est extrà the sign of the Cross is no part of baptism, nor any addition unto it: or else it is taken, Prò sacrame●●● v●â cùm singulis baptismum conconitantibus, for the action, together with all solennities which man hath appointed for the celebrity of the action, & so, not only the Cross, but also the prayers which are used, and preaching, which are not commanded by the Scripture, are extra baptismum, no part of baptism, and yet may be called preces lectae in baptismo, prayers which are read in baptism, and so concio habi●a in baptismo, a Sermon made at Baptism, so crux in baptismo the Cross in Baptism, though neither of them are held for any part of Baptism, and therefore by them no violence is offered to the divine ordinance.  
We conclude, This signing with the sign of the Cross, hath been commended to us from antiquity of the primitive Church, to show that it is not a novelty of 60. years old, as this syllogiser hath objected, neither do we allege antiquity as though we did ground upon bare antiquity without reason, but we allege antiquity against the novelty of them which slander us, showing that antiquity in points of Religion is to be preferred before novelty. And, to his reply which asketh why we do not also give unto them which are baptized, milk & honey? why we do not use the sign of the Cross with opinion of virtue and efficacy as the ancient Fathers did? and ascribe that unto it which antiquity did? I answer: the argument doth not follow that, because we do colliger● vuas, gather grapes: therefore we may not caverespinas, take heed of being pricked with thorns, 
1. Thes. 5. 21.  but we must first by the Apostles rule omnia probare prove all things, & then quoth benumb ●ct tenere retain that which is good. And if there be any which think baptism unavailable without the cross, insomuch as that they rebaptize when the cross is omitted, as this syllogism maker allegeth, the fault is in their superstition, and not in our religion, which teach the contrary by our canons, and punish such offenders by our laws.  
FINIS.