THE vvhole vvhich he speaketh of Discipline, consisteth in two pointes, The one against vs: the other, A defence of him selfe. Where the one is not so false and friuoulouse, but the other is as vayne and feeble. To begin, lett vs see howe he maketh vs charge the Church: then his Defence he maketh for it. Hee layeth to our charge, that we make the Church of Englande but a church secundum quid, after a sorte.

Where that he slaundereth vs in saying we slaū ­der the Church: we proue it by double witnes, on our part our wordes and deedes: on his part, by his owne allegation in this place. For our wordes, our preaching and writings haue alwayes witnes [...]ed, that we holde the Churche for a true Churche of Christ, from which no member may separate him selfe: although he must disallowe the wantes in her. We haue alwayes when subscription was vr­ged, bin readie to subscribe to the Article of her Maiesties authoritie, and to the substance of doc­trine, in as large a manner as the Statut in that be­halfe required. This wee haue declared by prote­station and by writing, not onely to them, but to the most honourable Senate of her most Excellent Maiesties priuie Counsell. Wee haue by writinge defended the cause of the Church and our Prince, as much as they, that we say no more. From our actions howe many Demonstrations might bee broght to approue our right judgement, reuerend account, and sincere affection toward the Church of Englande▪

[Page]Haue we not (yea when we were vniustly against all law of God and man, depriued for not subscri­bing) adioyned our selues to the Church in all the actions of the ministerie of the word preached, of prayer, & of the Sacraments? Haue we not by per­swasions continued many in the bosome of the church? yea whē through weaknes, because of ma­ny abuses they would haue departed. Haue wee sought redresse by any other meanes thē by hūble supplication towards our superiours according to dutie? Thus our actions approue vs to the church. His accusation hath bin heard, let vs heare also his witnes: which as we said, ouerthroweth his accusation. He maketh vs to say, that as a citie can not stande without walles, no more cā a church without Discipline. We replie, there was neuer any that denied a citie with out a wall, to be a citie, an orched without defēce, to be an orchard, a cornefielde without a hedge to be a cornefielde. Neither will any manne forsake his citie, cast away his corne, destroy his vineyard, for lacke of a defence. Psal. 80.14 Nehe. 1. Neuerthelesse the wante of these things must be cōplained of in time. Behold how his own witnes speaketh for vs. We haue seen how he faineth vs to charge the church, mark how wel he defendeth her. What maner of defence doth he make? not with the Word, but with 2. sentences of M. Gualter. Is M. Gualter a more holy, learned, & ancient Father then Peter Martir, Viret, Caluin, Beza, Bullinger, and such other, Who by preaching, wri­ting, & other good meanes, haue mainteined this cause? We acknoledge Gualter to be a shining starr: but we make not his glorie like vnto the glorie of God in all those men. Howbeit let the strength of his light shine out, and it shall not hurt vs, but melt away his assertion as waxe, and the Bishops autho­ritie which he maintaineth as pitche. For want of Discipline (saith he in the first place) no man ought [Page] to departe from the Churche: we confesse it, allowe it, subscribe vnto it. What is the secōd voyce? I thinke that the same forme can not be appointed in all nations. Lo it is a thought, no demonstration. Wil you allow his iudgement in this M. Copquot? Dare you doo it? Shall sweete and sower come out of your mouth in one sermon? Haue you not twise or thrise in this sermon made Discipline a note of the Churche, in these wordes: The notes of the Church are three, the first. The word of God truly preached. The second, The right administraetion of the Sacraments. The last, True Discipline. And hauing alleadged Mat. 28.18.19. you say, By whiche place of Scripture, we may easilie perceiue, that these are the true tokens of the Church, where the worde is preached, The Sacramentes truly ministred, and where is true Discipline. Now, if Discipline be one note of the Church, shal it not be the same in all places as touching the sub­stance, as is the doctrine? Shall there not be a cer­taine forme of it, as S. Paule saith, 2. Tim. 1. there is of the doctrine, your first marke? Againe, how wil these wordes of Matthew, Goe teache all nations, baptisinge them that beleeue, and teache them to obserue all thinges, which I haue commaunded you, proue your Diuisions? Is it not because all men must not onely be taught and beleeue the doctrine, as the first and principal marke, nor onely be baptized and vse the Sacra­ments, which is the secōd, but also must be taught to obserue all constitutions, for elections, abdications, for the essentiall difference of offices for the censures and spirituall corrections, which you call true Discipline, the thirde marke? Howe then, is not this commanded Discipline certaine in nature and forme? And is it not cōmanded to al that beleeue and are baptized? What thē, shall M. Gualters sentence stand, & yours fall? After you haue seene this disagrement of M. Gualter, with him selfe, beholde how he disagreeth in this sentence with the Bishops and orders which you maintaine. In his cōmentarie on the 1. Cor. 5 [Page] where he hath the verie wordes you alledge: hee saieth, That the Ministers haue no Discipline further then rebukes by worde: That there must be no Ecclesiasticall sus­pension from the Sacraments: No excommunication: Final­lie, there must be no Discipline but ciuill, at the appointe­ment af the Magistrate, and that by ciuill persons. Will the Bishops allowe this, that by the worde of God Ec­clesiasticall Gouuernours haue no authoritie to suspende, to excommunicate? Will our lawes, will the Articles of the Conuocation house, will the booke of ordayning Bishops, Priestes and Deacons stand with this? Thus Gualters breathe poysoneth and choketh the Bishops sweete and pure Gouuerne­ment. Thus farre his accusation. His answere to our reasons followe. Where firste I pray the Rea­der to consider well the question betweene vs: which is one these worde of S. Paule in 1. Tim. 5. The Elders which rule well, are worthy of double honour, es­pecially those which labour in the worde and doctrine. We say, this place mētioneth two sortes of Elders, one which doo onely gouerne in the Church: the other which also are occupied in the ministerie of the worde. He denieth this, and sayeth it mentio­neth onely two sortes of Preachers, some whiche preach well, and some which take greater paynes in it then others. Thou seest the question be­tweene vs (good Reader) wherein thou mayest thanke Maister Copquot (as we also doo) for ma­king his meaning playne without any feare. For it argueth a good courage, openly at Pawles crosse to iustle out the Arch-bishops interpretation, to bring in his owne. Doctor Whit­gift pag. 626. The Arch-bishop vnderstan­deth it of two sortes of Ministers: some that are Ministers but preache not: some that preache and labour in the worde and doctrine. Well did Mai­ster Copquot consider that it was farre from the [Page] true meaning of the Apostle, which neuer would account an ignorant Minister, vnsauerie salte, a blinde watchman, a dumme Dogge, and an Idoll shepheard, worthie either of double honor, or the name to rule well. Well also did he consider that it was a small piece of gouernement, to reade a fewe prayers or part of the Liturgie, and to doo all as he is prescribed. Vppon good reason he left that cor­rupt meaning, I would he had as easilie receyued the full and proper meaning of the holy Ghost. But let vs come to the matter in hande: Hee thin­keth him selfe iniuried that he is charged to haue learned his aunswere of the Iesuites, which he had (he saith) from holy Fathers and Prophetes. If you bringe the interpretatiō of the Prophetes for you, we will put our hande to our mouth and giue glorie to the trueth and to you, although we must still acknowledge that we redde it in the Iesuites papers, before we heard it out of your mouth. But how is it that we heare a sounde of Prophetes, but finde the sen­tences onely of Fathers? Lette vs examine them notwithstanding, to see if they discharge you from being the Iesuites scholler. The sentences which are alledged, make nothing for you, some are expreslie against you. The first 2. are made to say, Such Priestes are worthie of double honour as do rule well, admit they say it: but do they saye this place maketh two sortes of Preachers, whiche is the question? Haue you no other Fathers then these firste? Yes, Augustin, Ciprian, Ambrose, Chriso­stome, these are worth the hearing, let them speak. S. Augustin saith, They onely non bene praesunt, whi­che doo not labour in their calling. Ergo, the place of the Apostle is to be vnderstoode of Preachers only not of gouerning Elders. I am not worthy for learning to beare Doctor Copquot bookes: yet I [Page] know the man whom he now seeketh to confute, would laugh at suche a reason. For all that I will vouchsafe an answere. Augustine in giuing no more for the interpretation of these wordes, whiche rule well, then that they do it which labour in their cal­ling, doth applie it no more to Preachers onely, then to Deacons, Kinges, yea Shipmaisters, who all must labour well in their calling. Nay, by vsing so generall wordes in interpreting the first part of the verse, he manifestlie declareth, that hee vnder­stood it was general to both sorte of Elders, both teaching and vnteaching, and so he might applie it to which soeuer sorte of Elders he had occasion to speake of. The same answere may serue the words which he sayeth are Ciprians, who yet can not bee founde either so much as to alledge that place, much lesse fully to interprete it. And if he thinke that Ciprian was such an enemie of vnteaching El­ders, let him reade againe his Epistles, and he shall finde almost in euery Epistle, that hee is a great friende vnto them. He will say peraduenture, those Elders were preachers: we answer, it is not credible that in one Church there could be so many as hee there nameth and paynteth out, especially in the time of persecution. But to put the matter out of doubt, his owne wordes are alledged, where hee saith, Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 22 He with the Elders, Teachers, and Readers, gaue the degree of a Teacher vnto Optatus: Or if you will haue the reading as it is newly cast in a popish moulde, Quando cum praesbiteris doctioribus, lectores diligenter pro­bauerimus, Optatum inter lectores doctorem audientium constituimus, when with the lharneder Elders wee dili­gentlie tried the Readers, wee made Optatus amongst the Readers a Teacher of those who heare, it shall make yet more against you: because here Elders are not onely distinguished from Ciprian the Bishop of that particular church [...] as from the Pastor, & frō [Page] the teachers and readers, but also from some other vnlearned Elders, who although for gouernement they were apt men: yet were not so learned as ey­ther they were fitt to reade in the Church, or iudge of those who could reade and pronounce wordes and sentences according to their iust measure, and proper grace. We haue sifted Ciprian, let vs looke in to Chrisostome: He is made to say, A good Pastor layeth dewns his life for his sheepe. He doeth so saye, but the Num. 27 Actes 20name of shepheard both in holy and prophane write, is cōmon to gouernours, both ciuill and ec­clesiasticall, as well as to Teachers. Further, if one do wel marke the course of Chrisostomes cōmen­tarie in that place, he shall finde him against you: Poimenes laon in the Poet. because when he speaketh of the firste part of the verse, he vrgeth no necessitie of doctrine: but com­ming to the second, he sheweth that those kinde of Elders which are occupied in the worde, are most to be honored, because they susteine great labour in teaching. His wordes are: Quid est autem bene prae­esse? audi dicentem Christum: Pastor bonus animam ponit pro ouibus. Bene igitur praeesse, hoc est, nulli parcere illorum regiminis gratia: maximè inquit, qui laborant, in verbo & doctrina: vbi modo sunt qui dicunt sermone & doctrsna non opus est: & hos omnium maximè iubet honorari, causamque addit, dicens: Nullum enim laborē sustinent: that is, What is it to rule well? heare Christ speaking or telling it: A good shephearde layeth downe his lyfe for his sheepe. Therefore to rule well, is this, to spore none, or nothinge, for the sake of their gouernement: especially (sayth he) those which labour in the worde and doctrine: where are they nowe which saye, there is no neede of the worde and doctrine: and he comman­deth that these be chieflie honoured, and sheweth the cause, saying: because they susteyne much labour. By all whiche is manifest, first that the first part of the vers. he vnderstādeth onli of gouernement (for giuing the ful sēse of it, he maketh it to be to spare none in respect of their gouernment) & so maketh with vs Elders which [Page] gouerne onely: and Elders whiche also teache. Secondlie, seeing he doeth by the seconde parte confute those who sayde, there is no neede of do­ctrine: he sheweth that although some are to go­uerne onely, yet some which must haue great ho­nour, must teache also. Yea, if he had vnderstoode your sense of this place, he would haue saide vpon the first part of the verse: All must teache well, there­fore there is neede of doctrine in euerie place: this argument could not haue bin left out, and had bin more necessarie, if he had seene that to be the meaning of the Apostle. Lastlie, in confutinge by this reason their negligence, because they must labor in the worde, and not with yours, because they must labour more then others: he sheweth your interpretation ne­uer came in his minde. Thus three of his witnes­ses haue done him much more harme then good. What sayeth the last? Ambrose sayeth, Presbiters .i. Elders, and those whiche gouuerne well, both in life and doctrine, deserue double honour, of those who are vnder them. Is this to proue that Ambrose vn­derstandeth the place of Preachers only: when be­sides those which gouerne both in life & doctrine, he speaketh of Elders and Auncientes? If you wil say that ( and) doeth not here couple diuers thinges, but interpret only, what reason haue you to proue it? Seeing he doeth alledge the texte expressely as we doo▪ What goeth before, what followeth af­ter to proue it? Nay, in the last wordes he would then haue saide. They deserue double honour, of those whom they teache, but because hee woulde make it generall to both, hee sayeth of those that are vnder them: which may haue relation to both sortes of Elders. If Ambrose had misliked this of­fice, or not counted it perpetual, you had had some reason to interprete Et (and) by these words that is: [Page] But seeing he calleth for it and cōplaineth for the decay of it, as we doo: seeing he proueth it by the same places wee doo: his interpretation hath no coulor to mainteine it self. The first is manifest by his wordes on 1. Tim. 5. Vnde & Synagoga, & postea Ecclesia seniores habuit, quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia. Quod qua negligētia absoleuerit, nescio, nisi for­tè Doctorum desidia▪ aut magis superbia, dum soli volunt a­liquid videri: that is, Whence also the Synagogue, and af­ter the Church had Elders, without whose counsell nothinge was done in the Church: which, by what negligēce it is worne out of vse, I knowe not, vnlesse perhaps by the slothe of the Teachers, or rather their pride, whilest they alone will seeme to be somewhat. The second is manifest by his inter­pretation of the 1. Cor. 12. which we alledge ( Hee hath set in his Church gouernors) of which wordes his whole interpretation (after he had spoken vppon the former wordes of the Teachers) is: Sunt & gu­bernatores qui spiritualibus retinaculis, hominibus documēto sunt: There are also gouernors which with spirituall bridles order mē. Where, in saying, there are also, he sheweth besides the teachers, there are also rulers: and such as rule with spirituall bridles, not with the ciuill sworde. Thus the Fathers are heauie friendes to this interpretation. It may be notwithstanding he can so confute our reason brought against his mis­interpretatiō, as we must of force yeelde it into his handes. For triall sake therefore, we come to his answere. Wherein obserue two faultes whiche are generall: then you may the better deale with the particular deceites of his answere. The one is, that he cleane passeth by one principall reason, which is made against him, and it is this: If the Apostle had ment to haue made two sortes of Preachers, hee should haue saide, They which rule well in worde and do­ctrine, are worthie of double honor, especiallie those which la­bor in it, or labor more th [...]n others: but the Apostle hath no wordes nor circumstance, to make the word & [Page] doctrine cōmon to both. For by what law of in­terpretation, will you doo it? Will you interprete, Ruling by teaching? gouernement by doctrine? One diuers thing by another? Is that to interprete, or to con­founde? An other faulte is, that hee repeateth the fourth reason, but maketh no aunswere at all vnto it. The cause peraduenture is, for that it was con­cluded in a connexiue syllogisme, not a simple or [...]ategoricall. I will therefore doo so much for the author (or rather him) as turn it to his liking Thus:

• What soeuer is a common duetie of all Elders that can not be assigned by the Apostle, as a proper cause of an especiall honor in some sorte of good Preachers.
• But Copiazein to take great paynes in their of­fice, &c. is a common dutie to all Elders, 1. Thes. 5.12. Heb. 1 [...] 17.
• Ergo, Copiazein to take great paynes, can not be assigned of the Apostle as a cause of espe­ciall honor in some sorte of preachers.

We will nowe expect his answere, although with­out cauill he can hardly answere it. Thus we haue beheld the common vertues of his aunswere, let vs looke into the proper strength in the particulars. To the second reason his answere is, that is this in­terpretation, they doo nothing lesse then make the Apostle go backward and not forwarde. For this is our meaning which we giue (saith he) That they whiche labour, are worthie of double honour: they which do [...] not, are worthie of none. A sounde answere, which is contrarie to him selfe, and toucheth not the force of that obiected a­gainst him. Shewe the firste. It is manifest by that which after he saith: that this place is ment of suche as preache well and of some that in preaching well, take more labor then other. Here he vnderstādeth it of those which take any paynes, and setteth them against those whiche take none So he maketh the highest degree of honor due to that which if it be not done, he saith, is worthy of no honor ▪ How cā that deserue or haue an excelencie [Page] of honor, which is cōmon to all that may haue any honor in their office? Besides this cōtradictiō which is euident in his owne words, he toucheth not the force of the obiectiō. The obiectiō is: Whatsoeuer sense maketh the Apostle, in the second member of the verse, giue more to the part, then in the first to the whole, maketh him go backward nor forward in his word especially. But this sense of theirs ma­keth the Apostle giue more to him that laboreth in preaching, which is but a parte, then to him which doth it wel, which is to do it with great paynes, puritie, wisdom, zeale, power, soundnes, fitnes, & ma­ny other things besides labor. Therefore this sense maketh him goe backewarde not forwarde, in his worde especially. This reason is playne. What saith the answer? Doth it distinguish? No. Doth it denie the first part? No. What then? It denieth the conclu­sion, against all rule of reason. Yet by what reason doth he denie it? By giuing an interpretatiō, which doeth not make, either two sortes of Elders, or of sincere preachers, but only two sortes of preachers, one good & worthie of honor, an other euil, whi­che take no paynes, worthie of no honour. So that this hauing no degrees of comparison (which are manifestly expressed in S. Paules words) can not so much as resemble the sentēce of the Apostle, much lesse interpret it. His meaning here peraduenture is as after, that al that do it wel, shal haue double ho­nor: but they especially, who take yet more paines in doing it well. This his meaning hath two fowle spots in it, as faire as he would make it. The first is against the rule of reason, because he beggeth the question: for to proue his denial of the cōclusion of our reason, he bringeth this meaning of his, which is the question we dispute about. The second fault is against plaine dealing in interpreting the scrip­ture, & that in two respects: one is in interpreting ruling well, or being ouer others well, by preaching well. Which is to interprete the generall by the especiall. [Page] If he say, one may do so where there is a Trope or an vnproper speache: he must firste proue by eui­dent reason out of his text, or other scripture, that there, is a Trope, else he seeketh a knotte in a rushe. Besides this, a figure can not stande here, because the Apostle doth specifie the general, of being ouer others, into the speciall of being ouer also in do­ctrine: so that he can by no meanes enter here vpō such an vnproper speache, but must be content to reade, ruling wel, ruling wel, not teaching well. After this straunge interpreting, before this new coyned meaning (carying the very stampe of the Iesuites) enter, he must (not without great blame if he look not to it) adde to the wordes of the Apostle. For, all the force of his interpretation standeth vpon an addition, to the wordes of the holy Ghost: which is, to make him say, he that taketh more great paynes then they whiche preache well: All whiche wordes, more then others which doo it well, are neither in the A­postle in expresse wordes, nor in any of like force to them, neither hath he, or can he With any Syllo­gisme conclude it out of his wordes. If he can, let him shewe his cūning. The worde Copiazein, whi­che signifieth, to take great paynes, will not here helpe him: For it doeth not include a comparison with others. 1. Thes. 5.12 For it is common to all Elders, much more good preachers. For the Apostle in makinge cōparison, saith, en copois, in labors more aboūdant: and so by adding the worde of cōparison to it, sheweth it is not conteyned in the very word it self. 2. Cor. 11.23 In his answere to the thirde reason, where he made three sortes of Preachers, and euen those that doo it not wel, worthie of some honor for defence: he sayth, he seeth not why such as take paines, may not haue an honor such as is dew to Widowes: Wherin first he tri­fleth, fleeing frō the matter in hand to another. For he should haue proued that his interpretatiō gaue not a single honor to some whiche did not preache [Page] well. Secondly, he is contrarie to him selfe. Before he saide, here were vnderstood only two sortes of Preachers, good and euill: after he saide, good and excellent: Now, three sortes are vnderstood, single ones, such as may haue the honour of Widowes: double ones, such as may haue double honor: and treble ones, which may especially haue double ho­nor. Wherefore (as the Author of the Counterpoyson said before, so I say againe, this is dallying, & not interpreting: And What soeuer he saye, this Disci­pline of his, is dissolute. [...]or if men preache well, they are worthie of double honor, whiche is more then the Widdowes honour. if oteerwise they are worthie (as he saide before) of none. His answere followeth to the last reason out of Roma. 12.6.7. Where the Elder for gouernement onely, is made a proper member of the church, differing in his pro­per action from the Teacher, Exhorter, Distribu­ter: And out of the 1. Cor. 12. where God is saide (besides all other ministeries and giftes) to haue or­deyned gouernours in his Church: wherevnto he saieth, he denieth the argument, there were such then, therfore there should be such nowe Because (as M. Gualter saieth) We must first proue they haue such giftes of prophesying, do­ing of miracles, and diuers such like as are there mentioned. To all which we replie, first with thankes that hee yeeldeth to the trueth, & graunteth that such were ordeyned of god. In the second place we wil proue they are perpetuall, and then that it is vnreasona­ble to demande of vs, to proue that now they haue such giftes as he speaketh of. We mainteyne out of these places, that they are perpetuall. First, because they are members ordeyned of Christ, hauing actions for the profit of the whole body. For vnlesse he can proue God hath repealed them, who shall cutt them off from the body? Secondly, the Apostle in the 12. to the Rom. reckoneth vpp none but perpe­tuall, as Teachers, Exhorters, Rulers, Distributers. [Page] Nowe, him selfe (I dare say) will acknowledge the giftes of doctrine, exhortatiō, abilitie to distribute, & gouerne, with the actions proceeding from thē, to be perpetual, & still necessarie If thē the proper actions (as the Apostle there speaketh) of the members be perpetual, shal the members be momētarie? Doth Christ now giue doctrine, Ephe. 4.10. 1, Cor. 1 [...], 28 exhortation, go­uernement, and not Doctors, Feeders, and Gouer­nors? Or doeth he giue teachers for doctrine, and not gouernours for gouernement? Mat. 28.19. Further, if the Churche daily need these for gouernement, and seeke orderly for them, and yet haue them not: howe is Christ present with his Church, to inable her to doo all he commaundeth? In the seconde place, doeth not S. Paul say he hath set gouernors in his Church. Howe can any man set them out then? They will saye, hee saieth, there also hee hath sette Apostles, which yet are not perpetuall. It is true: there are mentioned also teachers and helpers whi­che are perpetuall. So this obiection ministreth vs occasion of a double reason: the one by equal com­parison, as the teachers office (whereof the gifte & necessitie is perpetuall) for that cause remayneth, and the Church ought continually to call for men which are fitt for it, because God hath set them in his Churche. So for the Elders office, seeing their giftes of watchfulnes, abilitie to admonishe, and to aduise and gouerne doeth remayne, the Church is continually to cal mē fit for the same office into it, because God hath set them in his Church. Further, as no authoritie of men could haue remoued the ex­traordinarie, vnlesse God had denied their extraor­dinarie giftes and calling: so no man can remoue these where the giftes remaine, & an ordinarie way of examination, & election doth remayne for their calling. Thirdly, the Apostle writing vnto Timoth. doth giue as general a charge for this sort of Elders and their continuance, as for the other whiche are [...]aching: therfore if you cā proue one perpetual▪ [Page] you may also proue the other to be so likewise. For the precepts for their honor, their reasonable immunitie from accusations, their iust rebuke, their care­full ordination, are set downe, as common to both sortes, though, as in the first of honor, so in the rest the teaching Elders are especially to bee regarded. Lastly, they can finde no cōmandement, reason, or other groūd in the scripture, why the Pastor in his place shuld be perpetual, but we will bring the like for the Elder in his. One is more necessarie, wee graunt, but not more perpetuall then another: as the eye, or the tongue, or the hand is more necessarie thē the foote, the right ones more then the left, yet alike ordinarie & perpetual. These are our rea­sons to proue thē perpetual, which being set down for the vnlearned more grosely, we will also set thē down with some other in syllogismes, that he may the better deale with them, out of Rom. 12.

No mēbers of Christes body hauing actions for 1 the profit of the whole, may be thrust out or put to an ende by any humane authoritie. The Elders and Deacons are such members, Rom. 12.4 8. Ergo,

Al offices whose giftes and proper actions are or­dinarie 2 and of perpetuall vse, they are perpetuall. The offices of Elders & Deacons ar such, as whose giftes of abilitie to gouerne, & distribut, & actions of distribution and gouernement, are perpetuall by 3 their owne graunt. Ergo, They are offices perpetual Out of the 1. Cor. 12.28. No offices whiche God hath once set in his Church, may be put to an ende by humane authoritie. But the offices of Elders & Deacons, haue bin once set in the Church by God, 4 Ergo, they may not bee putt to an ende, and con­sequently are perpetuall. Whatsoeuer offices haue the same cause of continuance, are alike perpetuall, though not alike excellent. The office of teachers, & of church gouernors & Deacons, haue the same cause, as the ordināce of god, the cōtinuāce of their gifts, & of power of the church to cal thē, 1. Cor. 12 Rō. 12. [Page] Ergo, they are alike perpetuall. Whatsoeuer haue the like cause of ceasing and remayninge, the cause of remayning being continued, they remayne, as the cause being ceased, they cease. But the offices of Church gouernors & Deacons with the offices of Apostles, workers of miracles, haue the like cause of ceasing & remaining, to Wit the wil & ordināce of God in continuing the giftes, and the ordinarie and mediat calling of the Church for the one, and his will in withholding the extraordinarie giftes, and immediat calling of the other. Ergo, they do by the like cause remaine that the other are takē away

5 Whatsoeuer haue the same general cōmādement, and rules of examination, traill, ordination, abdication, honor, reprose, without speciall exemptiō for any: are alike perpetual. But the offices of teaching and vnteaching Elders and of Deacons, haue the same generall commandement, &c. 1. Ti. 5.3, 10. 1. Tim. 5.17.18, &c. Ergo, they are alike perpetuall.

Whatsoeuer offices are necessarie in euerie cōgre­gation 6 for Discipline after the seconde priuate ad­monition: they are perpetuall: otherwise the remedie Christ hath appointed for sinners, is not perpe­tuall. But an assemblie of Gouernours in expresse wordes of Christ, are necessarie in euery cōgrega­tion for Discipline, after the seconde priuat admo­nition, Mat. 18.17. Ergo, such an assemblie is per­petuall.

Whatsoeuer offices were ordeined for ordinarie 7 and perpetuall gouernement of the Church vnder the lawe, & hauing continued frō Moses to Christ, haue as the other offices of teaching & exhorting, bin newly increased and augmented by Christe to the Church vnder the Gospell: those are perpetu­all: because there can be no cause so great, found of altering offices of ordinarie giftes and vse since Christ, as was betwene Christ and Moses. But the office of gouerning Elders adioyned to Teachers [Page] and exhorters are such. Ergo, the assumption is pro­ued by these places, Leuit. 4.13, 14, 15. (Where the Elders, as bearing the person and sins of the whole congregation, are distinguished from the Priest & the Magistrate.) Iere. 19.1. Where the ciuill and ec­clesiasticall Elders are distinguished▪ 2. Chron. 19.8.11. Where for the matters of God, to the Prie­stes and teaching Leuites, are adioyned Elders, Hesr. 10.8. Where the counsell of the Elders for ex­communication is ioyned, though (distinguished from it) with the counsell and decree of the Prin­ces touching confiscation of goods. Nehem. 8.5.8. Where the Elders in gouerning the Assemblie, are distinguished from the Priestes and teachinge Le­uites. For counsell they are adioyned euen with the Prophetes, 2. Reg. 6.32. Out of the newe Testa­ment the places are pregnant and many, Act. 4.5. & 6.12. & 5.21. Act. 13, 15. & 18.8. So that this proueth the ordinance and continuance of them from Moses to Christ. That Christ cōtinued them and augmented them with giftes, as he did the of­fices of teaching and exhortinge, the place of Mat. 18. Tell the assembly, and if he heare no [...] it, lette him bee a Heathen and publicane, doth proue it: for by vsing ex­presse wordes, proper to that order of theirs, hee doeth manifestly establishe it. The places whiche haue proued them ordeyned in the Church, proue this point also. Lastly, them selues graunt Christe ordeyned such, only they denie them to be perpe­tuall.

Nowe, if they demande humane witnes, what can they haue more cleare then that Ignatius, who (as they say, was S. Ihons Scoller) writing to seuen Churches, in euerie Epistle speaking only of such offices as were ordinarie and perpetuall, Bishopps, Elders and Deacons, doeth say (as hath bin alled­ged) that No Church can be without her Eldership. And least any man should say, he ment teaching Elders. [Page] Lette them marke that hee defineth their office to be a Senate of Counselers, and assistants to the Bishoppe in euery Church: ouer which Bishop he acknowledgeth no Church-officer but Christ, without which Bi­shop it is not lawfull to administer the Communi­on, Baptisme, or performe any action in the Assem­blie. His wordes are these· What is the Eldership, but a holy Senat, the Counsellers and assistantes of the Bishop. And a little before: The Elders are as the Senat of God, and the hande and sinewe of the Apostles of Christ, without these the elect Church is not, no Congregation of Saintes, without these, Epist. 2. ad Tralles. Here the office is de­fined, as consisting onely in gouernement. That in the Sacramentes they might only assist the Bishop, and not administer them, or doo any publike acti­on, is manifest by these wordes: It is not lawfull with out a Bishop, eyther to Baptize, or to offer, or to prepare the offring, (in the Communion) or perfect the gifte or distributi­on, but that which seemeth good to him, according to the good pleasure of God, that what soeuer you doo, may be safe and sure. Ignat. Epist. 2. ad Smyrnaeos, and in the same Epistle, Therefore let all things be done of you, according to good order in Christ. Let the laye men be subiect to the Dea­cons, [...]ute th [...]sian proscem ze [...] oute d [...]chen epitilem. the Deacons to the Elders, the Elders to the Bishop, the Bishop to Christ, as he to his Father In the time of Cy­prian, they remayned. Ambrose, when they were fal­len away, doeth complayne of it, and doeth make the cause of their falling awaye, not because they were not perpetual, nor yet because they might not continue, but the negligence and pride of the tea­chers.

Nowe that wee haue proued that hee requi­red of the perpetuitie of these offices: lett vs come to his reason, why he denieth them to be perpetu­all, whiche is, because wee can not firste proue the Elders to haue such giftes of prophecying, dooing miracles, &c. But wee bidde him proue firste this strange and monstrouse assertion: that it is neces­sarie [Page] for vs to proue it. Secondly, we will shew him the vanitie and detestable absurdities which folow this his demande. The vanitie may appeare by these reasons out of the text. The gouernours and the gift of gouernement are as much distinguished frō Prophetes & doers of miracles, as they are from teachers: therfore to require such necessarie for go­uernement more then doctrine, is to ouerthrowe the purpose of the Apostle, which is to shew howe euery office hath his seueral & proper gift. Second­ly, if the vse of such giftes as he speaketh of, be no part of gouernemēt, what necessitie is there of thē in Elders as they are Elders? Thirdly, we demaūd of him, whether he require these giftes in al Elders or in some, & in whom he doth require thē, whe­ther he would haue all those giftes to be in them or some only. If he require them in all, he must proue first that they were in al the Elders in the Apostles time, which he shall do ad graecas kalendas, that is, ne­uer. If he require all those giftes in any, let him proue that any Elder was furnished with them al, which he shal neuer do. If some only, let him shew whiche are necessarie, and which not. And let him out of the scripture proue his saying, and we will yeelde. Thus we haue seene the vanitie of the de­mande, marke the absurdities following. First, that they make themselues wiser then the Apostle, who requireth no more in the dutie of an Elder, then to be ouer the flocke with diligence, Rom. 12.5.6. Secondly, they require more in the Elders thē the Apostle re­quired in a teaching Elder or a Bishop, when he gi­ueth the rule of his examinatiō, 1. Tim. 3. Thirdly they may by the same rule throw out teachers, see­ing in this place the Apostle giueth such giftes no more to the Elders then to the teachers: especially this consequence is necessarie, because the princi­pall ende of those giftes, being eyther to deliuer doctrine, or giue credit to it, is more necessarie for the teacher then the gouuernor.

[Page]Fourtly, seeing they vnderstande by Elders those who preach, and will haue none gouerning only, it remaineth that by his reason we must first proue those giftes to remayne in them, Iames 5. eare we can proue such to remayne. Marke 16.17 Acte. 2.16, 17, 18, 19 [...] Act. 21.8. 1. Cor. 14.26.34. Lastly, seeinge these giftes were cōmon to priuate persons, yea to women, euen to all sortes of beleeuers, we must first proue (by their reason) these giftes to remaine, eare wee can proue there be any church or faithfull men in the world. These are the detestable absurdities which followe vpon this reason of theirs, wherby the answer to it is euidēt, that the Apostle setteth down there, both offices, as Apostles, Teachers, Prophetes, Elders, Deacons, and also some giftes, which were cōmon to all, as ornamentes to confirme for a time, Chri­stian Religion: Now, althogh these giftes are long since ceassed, yet the offices may remayne without them: especially the offices of teaching, exhorting, gouerning, which are for their vse, & the giftes re­quired in them, perpetual: euery part of which an­swere hath bin before cōfirmed in the particulars. Hitherto he hath labored against the trueth, to o­uerthrowe it: Nowe, fearing that all the instru­mentes he had, would not throttle the cause, so as she should no more open her mouth: hee seeketh to disguise her with a slaunder. Where we will first see what he bringeth: then we will mainteyne the contrarie. The summe of that he obiecteth is, they which stande for Discipline, are thought to bringe in contention, and to vndermine the power of the Magi [...]trate. In this accusation first you must well obserue, hee doeth not, nor dareth not say, it is so, but that it is thought so. To which it may be answered, that it is thought, that the other side seeke to driue out the sufficient ministerie, that they alone may reigne, pille the people af her Maiestie; abuse thē & grind them, without hauing any of their filthines disco­uered. It is thought of some also, that they make a [Page] way to Atheisme, Poperie, and all confusion, why­lest they thrust our so many worthie and paynfull laborers out of the L. Vineyard, and bring in ignorant, vngodly, riotouse, idle and couetous persons, in their steede. Nay, some of these are not onely thought, but manifestly by experience in manye places felt. Secondly, you may obserue howe the light of his conscience stroue with his affections a­gainst the cause. His affection and desire was to disgrace the cause it self, as preiudiciall to the peace of the Church and ciuill Magistrate. Now, When in his cōscience he found he could deduct no such thing out of the matter of Discipline, hee turneth from the matter to the persons, and sayth, they are thought so to do. Why doth he not shew who they be that so thinke of them, vpon what groundes, by what signes and tokens, by what counselles, wri­tings, examples or deedes they haue giuen likeli­hood of it? If hee can neither conclude any suche matter out of the cause it self, nor proue any thing against the persons which seeke it. How, Is it not the maintenance of a malitious slaunder? We haue haue harde what he sayth: will he adde no ground of it? Yes, An admonition to Scotlande, printed An. 1558. cōteineth cōclusions as straunge against the Estate, as D. Sanders (that traytors booke) doth. What doth it? Doeth it conteyne flat treason, that the Prince by any Ecclesiasticall power may be de­posed or resisted? That the Queens most Excellent Maiestie is an heretike, or receyueth not Disci­pline, and thetefore must be excommunicated, and after accounted no lawfull Queene? Hath any fa­uouring Discipline writtē these things, or the like? If he can not shewe any such thing, what is he but a Preacher of slaunders at Pawles Crosse? The booke he speaketh of, to my knowledge, I haue not seene: neyther knowe where to haue it. Yet I assure my selfe, he can bring foorth no suche con­clusions [Page] from any which hath spokē or written for Discipline. But be it that some one man had writ­ten without ground or reason contrarie to the scri­ptures, shal that or any mannes abuse, blot out the credit which so many Churches in France, Scotlande, Germanie, the lowe Countries, hath brought to it, as fin­ding it holy, peaceable, and no small pillar, both of the peace of the Church and ciuill gouernement? When we consider what inconueniences followe any matter, we must not consider what some (whi­che hold the cause) would haue, but what the cause of his owne nature will inferre. For, as the good meaning of a good man will not make a perilouss cause safe, so the ill meaning of a noughtie mā, will not make a safe and iust cause dangerouse. I mar­uaile what cause may be found out to make Disci­pline hurtfull to the common wealth: or what rea­son why the Magistrates authoritie and it, 2. Chro. 19.11. Iere. 19.1. Hes. 10.8. 2. Reg. 6. 1. Sam. 30.27 28, 29, 30. Actes 4.5. & 6, 12. & 5.21 Act. 23.14.15.16. & 25, 15. shoulde not dwell peaceably togither. The Kings and Ru­lers of Israel found it not so: The Romanes after them found it not so, they being Heathen, more curious to looke into suche matters then any: more ielouse, more politike, most ielouse ouer the Iewes of all others, because of the King which they loo­ked for to come in worldlie glorie, could neuer yet finde out any such suspition. In all their times it was quietly practised. The Kings and Princes, both Protestant, which haue allowed it, and popish (as in France) which haue permitted it, they haue founde no such thing in it. For the seconde point▪ By what reason should the Magistrats authoritie be at such enimitie with Discipline, or discipline with it? Is it because the Magistrat will or can doo that, which the Elders doe, or the Elders will or can doe that which he doth? Will the Magistrat watche o­uer particular flockes, admonishe euery sinner they finde out, followe menne by spirituall meanes, till they bring them to repentance? will they them selues [Page] execute the spirituall censures of suspentiō, ex­communication, and such like? Is this his office, or can his conscience beare this burthen? Doeth the Elders meddle with any ciuill cause, or vse anye o­her meanes then which are spirituall? Shall they doe things so closely, that al their actes may not be seene of the Magistrate, if he suspect any thinge? Nay, must not all thinges they doo, come to open knowledge, if they passe a priuate admonition? Will they bring no good to the common wealthe: meete with no seedes of sedition? Shall they not be able to giue notice of the dispositions of al men? Shall they not finde out Iesuites and all heretikes, and bring them to light? Shall not the smaler vices and sometimes foule ones also, whiche the lawe nowe meddleth little with, by this meanes bee cu [...]t off? In deede, then mens purses shoulde not bee picked, as they are nowe. Then so manye Veluet coates should not be maintayned by spiritual reue­newes. But I will speake no more of these matters. Only I conclude, seeing men haue in the tyme of prosperitie more neede of admonition and whol­some Discipline: seing the Eldership doth nothing which the Magistrat doeth, nor can any way hurte him, but he may see it better ordred then in persecution: that as this order is necessa­rie alwayes, so especially in the time of peace. The Lord giue vs all to be of one minde, to see the trueth, and practise it.