The defense of the aunsvvere to the Admonition against the replie of T.C. By Iohn VVhitgift Doctor of Diuinitie. In the beginning are added these. 4. tables. 1 Of dangerous doctrines in the replie. 2 Of falsifications and vntruthes. 3 Of matters handled at large. 4 A table generall.

¶ Whether Christ forbiddeth rule and supe∣rioritie vnto the Ministers. Tractat. 1. (Book 1)

The true interpretation of the twentith of Mathew. &c, Reges gentium. &c.

Chap. 1. The fyrst Diuision.

Ansvvereto the Admonition. Pag. 13. Sect. 3.

TO proue that they whose authoritie is forbidden by Christe, wil* 1.1 haue their stroke without their fellowe seruauntes. &c. is quo∣ted,* 1.2 Math. 20. Math. 23. Marke. 10. Luke. 22. In the. 20. Math. it is thus written: Yeknovve that the Lordes of the Gentiles haue domination o∣uer them. &c. In the. 23. of Mathew, Be ye not called Rabbi, for one is your doctour or teacher, to vvit, Christe. The places in Marke and Luke be al one with that in the 20. of Mathew. The conclusion that is gathered of these places is very darke and generali: they shoulde haue declared who they be that haue this authoritie forbidden, and what the authoritie is. Touching these places aileaged in the. 20. of Mathew. 10. of Marke. 22. of Luke, Musculus and dyuers other learned men thinke, that they extend not onely to the Apostles, and menne of the Clergie, as wee call them, but to all Christians, of what state so euer they be. And it is the common opiuion of al wryters, that these woordes of Christ doe not condemne superiori∣tie, Lordeshippe, or any suche lyke authoritie, but the ambitious

desyre of the same, and the tyrannicall vsage thereof.

T. C. Page. 10. Sect. 2. &. 3.

To come therfore vnto the matter out of the places of the. 20. of Mathewe, and the. 22. of Luke, where our Sauiour Christe, vppon occasion of the mordinate request of the sonnes of zebede, putteth a difference betweene* 1.3 the ciuill and ecclesiasticall function, he placeth the distinc∣tion of them in two poyntes, whereof the one is, in theyr office, the other is in theyr names and titles.

The distinction of the office, he noteth, in these wordes, the kyngs of the Gentiles haue dominion ouer them, and the Princes exercise authoritie ouer them, but it shall not be so with you. Wherevpon the argument may be thus gathered, that wherin the Ciuill magistrate is se∣uered from the Ecclesiasticall officer, dothe not agree to one minister ouer an other. But the (a) 1.4 ciuil magistrate is seuered from the Ecclesiastical officer by bearing (b) 1.5 dominion. Therfore bearyng dominion doth not agrec to one minister ouer an other.

Page. II Sect. 1. &. 2.

Touching their names and titles, he putteth a difference in these wordes: And they are cal∣led Gratious Lordes, but it shall not be so vvith you. And so the argument may be framed as be∣fore, that forasmuche as they are seuered in titles, and that to the Ciuill minister doth agree the title of gracious Lordes, therefore to the Ecclesiasticall minister the same dothe not agree. For as it is fitte, that they whose offices carrie an outewarde maiestie and pompe, shoulde haue na∣mes agreeable to their magnificence, so is it meete, that those that God hathe remoued from that pompe and outwarde shewe, shoulde lykewyse bee remoued from suche swellyng and loftye titles, as doe not agree with the simplicitie of the ministerie whiche they exercise. And where∣as it myghte seeme somewhat vniust, that he that hath the greater giftes, shoulde not be prefer∣red to those whiche haue lesse, our sauiour Christe sheweth that the matter is farre otherwyse. For by how muche euery man dothe excell his fellowe in the gifts of the holye Ghost, by so mu∣che more he ought to employe himselfe to the benefyte of others: so that in a maner he shoulde become (as it were) theyr seruaunt to doo them good, whiche although it be in parte, common to the ciuill magistrate, with the minister of the worde, yet he dothe neuer lette downe hymself so lowe, nor giueth his seruice eyther to the Churche or common wealth, but that he dothe and ought in that seruice to retayne that dignitie and countenaunce, with the markes and notes ther∣of, whiche his Princely estate dothe require.

In the ende he propoundeth hymselfe for example, in whome he setteth before theyr eyes a perfecte paterne of the ministe〈1 line〉〈1 line〉. For seeyng he beeyng Lorde, tooke vpon hym to be a seruant, and beyng Emperour and kyng of heauen and earth, was content to want all the glorie & shewe of the worlde (his ministerie so requiryng) it shoulde be great shame for them whiche were his disciples, chosen out for the ministerie, not to content themselues, but to aspire vnto suche offices and dignities, as they dreamed of.

Io. Whitgifte.

You saye that Christ in that place putteth a difference, betweene the Ciuill and Eccle∣siasticall functions, and that in two poyntes, in theyr office, and in their names and titles: the distinction of the office (you saye) he noteth in these wordes. The Kings of the Gentiles. &c. of their names and titles these: And they are called gratious Lordes, &c. Wherevpon you conclude, as though all were cocke sure.

But I pray you tell me, whervpon do you gather that Christ maketh any such distinction here, eyther of offices, or titles? In déede he woulde haue a difference bothe betwixte the authoritie of his Disciples and other Christians, and the dominion of Heathenishe Princes: and also betwixt theyr affections in desiryng the same: and therefore dothe he expressely saye, The kings of the Gentiles. &c. If he had ment any suche distinction of offices or titles, as you woulde make vs beléeue, he would haue sayde, The Kings and Princes of the Iewes, &c. or rather Kings and Princes, without a∣ny* 1.6 further addition: but séeing that he sayth the Kings and Princes of the Gentiles, it is manyfest, that he forbiddeth not onely to his Disciples, but to all Christians such tyrannicall kynd of gouernment as the Gentiles vsed, and that ambitious desyre and affection of the same whiche ruled in them. For Chryste vseth to call backe those that bée his from errours and corrupt affections, by the example of the Gen∣tiles, as he doth in the. 6. of Mathew from too much carefulnesse for meate & drink, & such lyke. Nam omnia ista gentes exquirunt, For after all these things do the Gentils seeke:

where he dothe not forbidde them to séeke for meate, drynke, and clothing, but to séeke for it too carefully, and with mistrust of Gods prouidence, as the Gentiles did. In lyke maner here he forbiddeth not gouernment, either in the ciuil or Ecclesiasti∣call state: but he forbiddeth suche gouernment as the Gentils vsed, and such corrupt affections as they had in desiring the same.

Touchying your argument, I saye it hath two faultes. Fyrst, it is a fallaci∣on,* 1.7 à petitione principij, for you take it as graunted, that the Ciuill Magistrate is seuered from the Ecclesiasticall officer, by bearyng dominion, whyche I will not simplye graunte vnto you, for that is partely oure question. Secondly, your minor is ambiguous,* 1.8 and therfore in that respect, your argumente may be also placed in the fallacion of ae∣quiuocation, for the worde Dominion, may haue diuers significations: It may signi∣fye suche dominion as Christe speaketh of in this place, that is, rule with oppres∣sion. It maye also signifie the absolute authoritie of a Prince, suche as is men∣tioned. 1. Samuell. 8. Thyrdely, it maye signifie any peculiar office of superio∣ritie and gouernment vnder the Prince, at the appoyntment of the Prince, as the* 1.9 authoritie of a Iudge, Iustice. Maior. &c. Laste of all, it may signifye any iuris∣diction or kynde of gouernment. If you take it in eyther of the two fyrst significati∣ons, your minor is true: if in either of the two latter significations, it is false. For wée graunte, that there is greate difference betwixte the dominion of Kings and Princes, and betwixte the Jurisdiction and authoritie of Bishoppes. Kings haue power ouer lyfe and goodes. &c. so haue not Bishops. Kings haue authoritiie in al causes, and ouer all persons withintheir dominions, without any limitation: if Bi∣shops haue any suche dominion, especially in Ciuill causes, it is not in the respects they be Bishops, but it is from the Prince, and limited vnto them.

Touching theyr names and titles (you saye) he putteth a difference in these woordes, and they are called gracious Lordes, but it shall not be so with you. &c. The woordes of the twentith of Mathewe bée these: And they that are greate, exercise authoritie o∣uer them. In the. 10. of Marke, the same woordes be vsed. In the. 22. of Luke, the Gréeke woorde is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, benefici vocantur, they are called bountifull, or beneficiall, whyche I sée not howe you can by anye meanes applye to your pur∣pose: For Mathewe and Marke referre thys clause, It shall not bee so among you, not to anye name, but to the ambition and tyrannicall kynde of domini∣on, whyche our Sauioure Christe there reproueth, as it is moste manyfeste. And therefore thys place of Luke, muste also bée expounded by them. Neither is this woorde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of any suche imperiousnesse, that Chryste shoulde forbyd* 1.10 hys Disciples the name. M. Caluine in his Commentaries interpretyng these woordes of Saincte Luke sayeth thus: As touchyng the woordes: where Mathewe hath, that kings exercise authoritie ouer them, in Luke wee reade, that they are called bountyfull, in the same sense: as though he shoulde saye, Kings haue plenty of all thyngs, and are very ryche, so that they maye bee bountyfull and liberall: And a little after he sayeth, that they doe appetere laudem munificentiae, desire the commendation of bountyfulnesse. I knowe that certayne of the Kynges of Egypte were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, munifici & benefactores, bountifull and benefactours: and that they were de∣lyghted to bée so called. I know also that among the Hebrues theyr Princes were called Munifici & liberales per antonomasian: But what then? if eyther they vayne∣gloriously desyred that name, or were so called, when they deserued rather the names of Tyrantes and oppressoures, dothe it therefore followe, that they be vn∣lawfull names for suche as maye deserue them? The moste that can bée gathe∣red of this place (for any thyng that I perceyue) is, that the Kings of the Gentiles had vayne and flattering titles giuen them, béeing nothing lesse in déede than that whiche their names did signifie: and so maye it bée a good admonition for menne* 1.11 to learne to answere to theyr names and titles, and to doo in déed that whiche by snche names and titles is signified. Nowe then if you will haue Vos autem non sic, but it shall not bee so wyth you, to bée a prohibition to all Christians, and especially

to Bishops, that they shall not ambitiously seeke dominion as the Gentiles dyd: vniustly and tyrannously vse their authoritie, as they also dyd: nor haue names and titles to the whiche they doe not accordingly answere, no more than the Gen∣tiles did, then I agrée with you. But if you will haue Vos autem non sic, to restrayne them from being called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, liberal benefactors. &c. as your interpretatiō agréeth not with the wordes of the other two Euangelistes, so doth it not wyth any learned interpreter that I haue read.

To your argument concerning names and titles, I answere as I did to the former.* 1.12 Some names & titles are proper to the ciuil Magistrate only, as the names of Em∣peror, King, Prince, Duke, Erle. &c. These names are not giuē to any of the Clergie in this Church to my knowledge: some names are cōmon to the Ciuill Magistrate,* 1.13 with Ecclesiasticall persons, as certaine names of reuerence, of superioritie, & of of∣fice. The name of Gratious Lorde, is a name of superioritie, and of reuerence, ac∣cording to the manner of the countrey where it is vsed, and therefore may well a∣grée, eyther to the ciuill or Ecclesiasticall persons: and in many places, dyuers are called by this name Lord, (which is in Latin Dominus,) for reuerence and ciuilitie; whiche haue verie small dominion. As for the name of Archebishoppe or Metro∣politane, that is not proper to any ciuill Magistrate, and therfore without the com∣passe of your argument. Thus then you sée, that some titles are proper to the ci∣uill Magistrate, some to the Ecclesiasticall, and some common to both, wherby your maior is vtterly ouerthrowne. As for this worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vpon the whiche you séeme to grouude your argument, I see not why it may not be common to all men, that shewe themselues liberall and beneficiall.

There is no man denyeth but that there is, and must be great difference betwixt the pompe and outwarde shewe of a Prince, and the state of an Ecclesiasticall person, bothe in titles and other maiestie: and I thinke that he is verie blynde, that séeth it not so to be in this Churche of England: yet may the Ecclesiasticall person shewe foorth the countenance of his degrée, whervnto he is called of God, by his Prince, and by the lawes of that realme wherein he is a subiect.

It is true, that an Ecclesiasticall Minister doth much differ from a ciuil Magi∣strate* 1.14 touching his ministerie and spirituall calling, yet is he not so distincte, that he may exercise no such ciuill office wherein he may doe good, and which is an helpe to his Ecclesiasticall function. As the ciuill Magistrate may in some thynges exercyse iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, and medle in matters of the Churche, so may the Eccle∣stasticall person in some causes vse ciuill iurisdiction, and deale in matters of the cō∣mon wealth, if it shall be thought expedient or necessarie by the chiefe Magistrates.* 1.15 M. Caluine in his Commentaries vpon this texte, thoughe in some poyntes he agrée* 1.16 with you, yet hath he these woords. Adde herevnto, that Christe did not so muche re∣specte the persons of men, as the state of his Churche, for it may so bee, that he which is Lorde of a village or citie, doe also (necessitie constraining) exercise the office of teaching. Wherby it is playne, that a temporall Lorde (if necessitie require) maye together with his Lordship become a preacher of the Gospel. M. Brentius in his. 48. Homilie* 1.17 * 1.18 vpon Luke, speaking of this matter sayeth, that Bishops whiche glorie themselues to be the successours of the Apostles, may not vnder the pretence of their Ecclesiasticall of∣fice vsurpe externall dominion ouer kings and Princes, to make kings whom they list, and to displace whome they liste. And by and by he obietteth and answereth as follo∣weth, Therefore thou wilte say, it is not lawfull for a minister of the Churche (whether thou callest hym a Bishop or a preacher) to haue temporall dominion, and to gouerne* 1.19 the people committed vnto him by ciuill pollicie? I answere that it is not lawfull for a Minister of the Churche to vsurpe suche rule and dominion, vnder the pretence of the Gospell, and of his Ecclesiasticall Ministerie: Peter muste not therefore haue do∣minion ouer Antioche or Rome, bycause he is an Apostle. &c. But if temporall domini∣on or possession happen to the minister of the Gospell, eyther by inheritance, or ordi∣narie election, or any other Ciuill or lawfull contracte. &c. then maye he enioye these

externall thyngs. &c. And in his. 52. Homilie, vppon these woordes of Christ nowe* 1.20 in question, he wryteth thus: VVhat shall wee then saye to these thyngs? bycause Chryste sayeth: The kyngs of the Nations beare rule ouer them, and are called boun∣tyfull,* 1.21 but it muste not bee so among you, shall it not bee lawfull for a Christian man to beare rule in a temporall kingdome, and acknowledge the tytles of honoure, as of bountyfulnesse and clemencie, whyche are gyuen vnto Princes? Is it not lawfull also for a Bishop, to haue temporall dominion? Christe in thys place dothe not thynke it vnlawfull for Christians, to bee Magistrates, neyther dothe he forbidde Bishoppes to haue externall dominion. But he sheweth a difference betweene the kingdome of thys worlde, and his kingdome. He teacheth, that the kyngdome of this worlde and his king∣dome are so distincte, that he which is a minister of his kingdome, must not in that respecte vsurpe the kingdome of this worlde: for the Apostles thought, that bycause they were A∣postles, therefore they shoulde possesse the kingdomes of the worlde. And therefore Christe in this place condemneth their false opinion. &c. Christe doth not condemne Magistracie among Christians. &c. No, he dothe not forbidde Byshops to haue externall dominion, if they come vnto it by inheritaunce, or by lawfull election. It is a verye harde matter bothe to preache the Gospell, and to exercyse temporall dominion, and yet it is not of it selfe vnlawfull together with the ministerie, to keepe and vse tempo∣rall dominion, if it come ordinarily and lawfully. For Christe came not to trouble ci∣uill lawes, and the ordinarie gouernmentes of the kingdomes of this worlde, but rather that these being preserued, his Gospell might be preached quietly. Haec Brentius. But of ciuill authoritie in Ecclesiasticall persons, occasion wil be giuen to speake more at large hereafter.

That which Christ sayde, Quicun{que} maior erit inter vos. &c. VVhosoeuer will be great* 1.22 among you, let him be your minister: though it may especially appertaine to the Apo∣stles, yet it is also a generall rule for all Christians, and so is the example of him al∣so, whiche hée propoundeth vnto them. And so doth Musculus verie truly interprete this place, to whome M. Bucer agréeth, whose woordes be these: The Anabaptistes* 1.23 thynke here that they are able to proue, that it pertaineth not to a Christian to beare rule,* 1.24 and that no man can be together a Magistrate, and a Christian, bycause Christe sayde* 1.25 here to his Disciples, Vos autem non sic, not consydering that those, whyche godlylle and according to the wil of the Lord beare rule, Nihil minus quàm dominari, imò maximè seruire, & tantò pluribus, quantò pluribus praefuerint, doe nothyng lesse than beare rule in deede, yea verily doe moste of all serue, and euen vnto so many doo they serue, ouer howe ma∣nye so euer they beare rule: surely Christe woulde haue his Apostles to haue their au∣thoritie in Churches, and they themselues did greately require to be obeyed: but bycause in that they sought nothing vnto themselues, but only saluation aud the glorie of God in those whome they ruled, they did gouerne the Churches: they had euery where the supe∣rioritie: they ruled suche as beleeued: they woulde haue the godlie to bee obedient vnto them: interim nihilominùs seruierunt omnibus, dominati sunt nemini, And yet in the meane tyme serued all, and had dominion ouer none: So also in the Ciuill gouernmente, who was euer in greater dignitie than Moses, or more to bee feared for his authoritie and power? and yet who euer serued mo, more diligently, and more humblye, whiche neuer soughte any thing for himselfe, or tooke any thing vnto himselfe. &c. but day and nighte to the vttermoste of his power, sought for the safetie of the people. &c. If any now so beare office, and rule the workes of the handes of the Lorde, and gouerne the sheepe of his pa∣sture according to his will, what doth he else but serue all those whom he gouerneth? And* 1.26 therefore Christ doth not here dehort from bearing rule, and being a Magistrate, but from seeking rule and dominion: for I had rather take this saying of the Lord in this generalitie, than to restrayne it to the Apostles only: Eò quòd omnino pius Magistratus seruiat non do∣minetur, habeat{que} per se omnia secundum praesentem domini cohortationem: Bycause a godlie Magistrate doth altogether serue, and not beare rule, and hath by himself all things agree∣able to this present exhortation of the Lord. Thus you sée Bucers iudgemente vppon these wordes of Christe.

Chap. I. seconde Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 14. lin. 11.

And it is the common opinion of all writers, that these words of Christe doe not condemne superioritie, Lordeship, or any suche like authoritie, but the ambitious desire of the same, and the tyrannicall vsage therof.

T. C. Pag. 11. Sect. 3. &. 4.

Agaynst this is sayde, that the places doe nothing else but condemne ambitious desire, and ty∣rannicall vsage of authoritie, and doth not barre the ministers of these things.* 1.27

Then belyke all those godly and learned men, whiche haue vsed these places to proue that the Pope, whiche professeth himselfe to be an Ecclesiastical person, ought not to haue the ciuil sword, nor to vsurpe vnto himselfe suche glorious pompe, haue abused them. For you teache hym, howe he shoulde answere, that there is nothing forbidden but ambition and tyrannie, and in dede this is the answere of all the Papistes to that obiection.

Io. Whitgifte.

Those godlie and learned men whiche haue vsed these places agaynste the Pope,* 1.28 haue rightly vsed them, and if it had pleased you, you might haue vnderstode, that in the verie next leafe folowing I say: that these places may be aptly allea∣ged against the pryde, tyrannie & ambition of the Bishop of Rome, which seeketh tyrannically to rule, and not to profit, but not against the laufull authoritie in any state of men. They therefore alledge it truly,* 1.29 and yet you vntruly expounde it, for the Popes dominion is suche, as is in this place forbidden, that is vsurped and tyrannicall, bicause he hath not onely entred into the spirituall kingdome of Christe, and sought to reigne in mennes consciences, but also pulleth from Princes the power of earthly dominion, saying that he hath that im∣mediatly from God, and the Emperours and Princes immediatly from him. And so doe the learned expounde this place, and it is their answere to the obiection of the Anabaptistes. I fully agrée with my L. of Salisburie his allegation of this place, for Bishops may not be kings, nor haue any such ciuill dominion, as the Pope clay∣meth and vsurpeth.

Chap. I. Diuision. 3.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 14. Sect. 1. & Pag. 15. Sect. 1. &. 2.

Musculus expounding these places sayth in this sorte: VVho so* 1.30 euer vvill be great among you. &c. He saith not, no man ought to be chiefe among you, vvhich he should haue said, if it had not bin lawful in the king∣dome of God for some to be great and chief, or if it had bin necessarie, that all should haue bene in all things equal: the Celestial spirits are not equall: the Starres be not equall: the Apostles themselues vvere not equall: Peter is founde in many places to haue bene chiefe among the rest, vvhich vve do not denie. Therfore this is not Christes meaning to haue none greate or chief among Christians, seing the verie necessitie of our state requireth that some be superiours and betters, so farre is it from being repugnant to charitie. In a common vveale it is necessarie that some should excell other, so is it in a vvell ordered familie: In like maner there must be in the Chur∣che gouernours, presidentes, rulers, of vvhome Paule maketh mention, Ro. 12. 1. Co. 12. Heb. 13 as ther is also in the bodie some principal mēbers,

some inferiour. &c. Therfore Christ doth not require that in his kingdom all should be equall, but this he doth require, that none should desire to bee great, or to be thought and counted chiefe. Hitherto Musculus.

Which interpretation must needes be true, else we may saye that Christ in this place reiecteth and disalloweth the Princes and Ma∣gistrates of the Gentiles, and also forbiddeth the same among Chri∣stians: which is false and Anabaptisticall.

Likewise the same Musculus saith, that Christ teacheth in thys place, what he ought to be indeede that desireth to beare rule ouer other, to witte, that he ought to be a seruāt to other, that is (as he doth in∣terpret it) to profite other, and to serue for the commoditie of other: for though the name of a prince and of a Lord be a name of honoure and dignitie, yet is it the office of a Prince and Lord to serue those which be vnder them, in gouerning of them carefully, and in prouiding for their welth and peace.

T. C. Page. 11. Sect. 5. &. 6.

But Musculus a learned man is of that iudgement.* 1.31 And master Caluine as learned as he, and diuers other are of that iudgement that I haue alleadged: this is no great proofe on your side, nor reproofe of ours: let vs therfore see the reasons wherwith this expositiō is warrāted. (a) 1.32 Mus∣culus reason is this, that if he should haue inent that the Apostles should haue bin equall and none greater than an other, then there should be equalitie of all, and none should haue authoritie ouer o∣ther. And so there should be no degrees of the Prince and subiect in the common welth, of master and seruant in a family, of people and minister in the Church. But it is no good reason to say there is, nor ought to be, any inequalitie amongst the Apostls, therfore there is none, nor ought to be none at all. Or to say there is no inequalitie amongst the pastors, therefore there is no inequalitie be∣twene the pastours and the people. For as the common wealthes, and families, and Churches are preserued by inequalitie, and in that some are higher, and some are lower, some rule, and some obey: so are the same likewise preserued by equalitie of certaine amongst themselues, as albeit the (b) 1.33 Consuls in Rome were aboue other officers, and the people, yet were they equall betweene themselues. (c) 1.34 And although it be the preseruation of the familie, that the master should be aboue the seruant, and the father aboue the sonne, yet it tendeth also to the quiet of the house, that the ser∣uants amongst themselues, and the brethren amōgst themselues, should be equall. And so we graūt, that for the preseruation of the Church, it is necessarie that there be some should beare rule, and o∣ther should be vnder their rule, but I denie, that thereof followeth that one minister should beare rule ouer another. Whereas master Musculus saith that Peter was found in many places chiefe among the rest, if he meane as Eusebius cap.. 14. lib. 2. doth, which saith that he was (d) 1.35 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. or his vertues and gifts he had, one that spake be∣fore the rest, and in the name of the rest, (which he seemeth to do in that he doth not absolutely giue any chieflie vnto him, but only in certaine places) I agree with him, and do not denie, but suche chieflie may be amongst the ministers, as shall appeare more at large hereafter.

This interpretation of master Musculus (master Doctor saith) must needes be true, or else Christ should reiect Princes and Magistrates, amongst both Christians and other. I haue she∣wed that it doth not follow bycause he forbiddeth that rule vnto the ministers, therefore he forbid∣deth it simply and altogither, no more than the law which forbiddeth that any straunger should be king of the realme, forbiddeth therefore that there should be no king of the realme. Whereas you say master Musculus teacheth how he ought to rule which ruleth, and what he ought to be, I haue told you before, other thinke otherwise, and therefore you hauing set downe his iudgement be∣fore, needed not to haue repeated it here againe.

Io. Whitgifte.

Not only master Musculus doth so expound this place, but also Bucer and sundry others, both old and newe writers: as Chrisostome, Theophilact &c I knowe that M. Caluine doth otherwise thinke of it, but that is no sufficient answer to Musculus hys reasons. The firste reason of Musculus you collect on this sort: If Christe should haue meant, that the Apostles should haue bin equall. &c. then there should be equalitie of all: wherein you deale with Musculus, as you deale with me: that is, you make his arguments a∣gainst his expresse words: for where doth Musculus reason in that manner?* 1.36

The first reason of Musculus is this. If Christ had ment that it should not be lawful in the kingdome of God for some to be great and chiefe, then would he haue said, no man ought to be great among you, but he said not so, for his words be, whosoeuer will be great

among you. &c. therefore. &c. And this is a better reason than you can well answere. If you could haue done it, you would not haue shifted it off with a vaine confutation, not of Musculus, but of your owne deuised argument.

Musculus his second reason is this. There is superioritie in the kingdome of God, and one aboue another, as there is in the celestiall spirites, in the starres, and in other states. For Peter is found in many places to haue bin chiefe among the rest, and therefore this is not the meaning of Christ, that none should be great or chiefe among Christians.

His third reason may be thus gathered. The very necessitie of our state requireth that some should be superiours and betters, as well in the Church, as in the common welth &c. therefore it is not Christes meaning to haue no superiours. &c.

In like manner doth he reason out of the. 12. of the Rom. 1. Cor. 12. Heb. 13. and of the parts and members of mans body: And in the end thus he concludeth: Therfore Christ dothe not require that in his kingdome all should be equall, but this he dothe require, that none should desire to be great. &c.* 1.37

To these reasons you answer not one word, but shift them off by telling vs, that as common weales and families and Churches are preserued by inequalitie. &c. and as albeit the con∣suls of Roome. &c. which be to no purpose, and make directly against you. For not only in a family the maister is aboue the seruante, but one seruant also aboue another,* 1.38 wherevnto Christ himselfe alludeth Mat. 24. when he saith, who is a faithfull seruant whome his master hath made ruler ouer his houshold. &c. In like manner not only the father is aboue the sonne, but also in the same family one brother is aboue another: and euen in the scripture Gen. 49. and other places, it may be séene that prehemi∣nence of dignitie hath bin always (for the most part) giuen to the eldest: wherefore* 1.39 these similitudes help you not.

And whereas you séeme to graunt, that the pastour must be superiour to the peo∣ple, and yet one Pastour not to be aboue another, the words of Christ rather import the contrary: for the dominion that is here forbidden, is not of one minister ouer ano∣ther, but ouer the people of God, as the similitude of them that sit at the table, and of them that serue doth euidently declare: for who are they that sit at the table to be ser∣ued, but the people (which is the Church) in respect of whome the ministers are ser∣uants? Therefore this place is very vnfitly alleadged, to proue that there shoulde be no superioritie betwéene ministers: for suche superioritie in gouernment as by your owne confession may be in ministers ouer the people, may also be in one minister o∣uer another, for any thing that this place hath to the contrary.

But whether one minister ought to be aboue another or no, shal be discussed in his* 1.40 proper place.

What superioritie soeuer M. Musculus giueth vnto Peter ouer the rest, that ex∣ample is aptly applied to the iustifying of his exposition vpon this place, that we haue now in hand. But I must tell you that you do not truly translate the words of Euse∣bius concerning Peter. For this worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifyeth not only to speake before the rest, and in the name of the rest (as you translate it) but it signifyeth also principem in om∣ni re gerenda: a chiefe ruler or guide, in euery matter or businesse. Wherfore I say still that this interpretation of M. Musculus must needes be true, and that it may as well be alleadged to take away superioritie from Christian Princes, as it may from ecclesiasticall ministers.

This of M. Musculus that he saith, that Christ heere teacheth, what he ought to be in∣deede, that beareth rule ouer other, neither haue I before rehersed, nor you hitherto answered.

Chapter. I. the. 4. Diuision.

Ansvver to the Admonition Page. 15. Sect. 3. &. 4.

Moreouer the Greeke words that Christ vseth in al these places,

as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do signifie to rule with oppression, & to rule as a man list.

Furthermore Christ doth not say, that no mā shall be great among them, or beare rule, but he saith. Quicunque voluerit inter vos magnus fieri. &c. He that desireth to be great among you. &c.

T C. Pa. 12. lin. 8.

But the greeke words (you say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do signifie to rule with oppression, And why may not I say that this preposition (1) 1.41 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth not signify heere a peruersnesse of rule, but an absolutenesse and a full power, and iurisdiction, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not to learne, or to perceiue, euilly, and peruersly, but to learne exactly, and to per∣ceiue throughly and perfectly? but what neede we to follow coniectures in so plaine a matter? whē as S. Luke vseth the simple words without any composition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 you not perceiue that the preposition wherein you put so great confidence deceiueth you, besides the manifest vntruth you committe in saying, that all (2) 1.42 three Euangelistes haue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Furthermore you say that our sauiour Christ saith not that no man shall be great amongst them, but he that desireth to be great amongst thē. He had said so before, whē he had said, it shall not be so amongst you, and therefore needed not to repeate it. And yet another Euan∣gelist saith not, he that desireth to be great, but let the greatest among you be as the least, whereby he dothe not reprehende, onely the desire of being greate, but will not haue them to be one about* 1.43 another.

Io. Whitgifte.

You aske me why you may not say that this preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not signify heere a per∣uersnesse* 1.44 of rule, but an absolutenesse, and a full power and iurisdiction? I answer that if you should so say, you should say otherwise than the truth is, and contrary to the iudge∣ment of the best interpreters. Erasmus expounding that place of Mathew, saith thus, Nec est simpliciter dominantur sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dominantur in eas, siue aduersus eas, frequen∣ter enim ea praepositio in malum sonat, quod tyranni populi male gerant principalum, neither is it simply they haue dominion, but they haue dominion ouer them, or against them: for that* 1.45 preposition (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) doth oftentimes sound in euill part, bycause the Tyrannes of the peo∣ple do rule euill. And expounding the other word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he saith. Et praepositio similiter in partem malam sonat, iudicans eam protestatem esse tyrannicam & cum malo parenti∣um esse coniunctam: And the preposition (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) likewise soundeth in the euill part, declaring that power to be tyrannicall, and ioyned with the hurt of the subiects. M. Beza in hys* 1.46 notes vpon the same place, wel alloweth of this interpretation. But this also (saith he) is to be vnderstanded (which Erasmus did not let passe) hoc vocabulo & eo quod proximê se∣quitur, non quamuis dominationem significari, sed cum imperiosa quadam acerbitate coniunctam, quam prohibet Paulus Eph. 6. &c. that by this word, and that which nexte followeth, al kynde of domination is not signifyed, but that which is ioyned with a certaine imperious cruel∣tie, whiche Paule forbiddeth. Eph. 6. so it is taken. Acts. 19. &. 1. Peter. 5. For otherwise the faithfull ministers of the word of God do exercise an authoritie, not at all to be contem∣ned: And therefore also I haue interpreted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, licentia vtuntur aduer∣sus eas, They vse licence or vnlawfull libertie against them. That place of the. 19. of the Actes, verse. 16. doth manifestly declare the true meaning and signification of this* 1.47 worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both in this place, and in the. 1. Pet. 5. vers. 3. for there it is manifest that it signifieth a violent kinde of dominion.

The place of Saint Luke must be interpreted by these places of Mathewe, and Marke. It is sufficient that these two Euangelists haue these words, and a manifest declaration how that place of Saint Luke is to be vnderstoode.

My words be not as you report them, I do not say in all thr〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e Euangelistes, but in all these places, meaning of Mathewe and Marke. This is but a shift to dallie of a matter which you cannot answere, and the vntruth returned vpon your selfe.

When I say that Christ doth not say that no man shall be great among them, but he that doth desire to be great. &c. I saye as the wordes be, and as

Musculus himselfe noteth. That place of Luke which you recite is so farre from an∣swering* 1.48 this, that it doth confirme it rather. For in that that Christ there saith, he that is great among you. &c. he insinuateth that there must be some great among them, whom he ther teacheth how to vse himself, as I haue before declared out of M. Bucer, and as Musculus doth likewise note.* 1.49

Chapter. 1. the. 5. Diuision.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Page. 15. Sect. 5. &. 6.

To conclude, it is manifest, that in Matthew and Marke he repro∣ueth the ambition of the sonnes of Zebedie, who ambitiously desired the one to sit on his right hande, the other on his left. And in Luke the ambition of the rest of the Apostles, who contended amōg them∣selues which of them should be greatest.

So that it is plaine, that these places suppresse ambition and de∣sire of rule, in all kind of mē: and not superioritie, not magistracie, not iurisdiction in any kind of persons.

T. C. Page. 12. Sect. 1.

Last of all you conclude that our sauioure Christ in the. 20. of Mathew reproueth the ambi∣tion of the sonnes of Zebedie, and in the. 22. of S. Luke all the rest of the Apostles. I grant you, he doth so, and that could not be done better, than in telling them, that they desired thinges not meete for them, and which would not stand with their calling. And if as you say the ambition (a) 1.50 only was reprehended, and the desire of rule to oppresse others with, the answere you attribute to our sauioure is not so fit, for they might haue replied and said, that he forbad tyrannicall rule and oppression of their inferiours, but they desired that which was a moderate and well ruled gouern∣ment. And seemeth it vnto you a probable thing that S. Luke meaneth tyrantes and oppressours, when as he sayth they are called beneficiall and gracious Lords? (b) 1.51 men do not vse to call op∣pressours, liberall or bountifull Lords, neyther is it to be thought of all the Apostles, that they de∣sired rule one ouer another, to the end that they would vse crueltie, or tyrannie, or oppression, one o∣uer another, for that were to do them great iniurie. Besides that it is sayd, that the rest of the dis∣ciples disdayned at the two brethren, which they would not haue done, if they had had any purpose or mind to haue oppressed them, then they would haue contemned them, rather than haue disdayned them, if they had broken out into such grosse faults. For Aristotle teacheth that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (whiche* 1.52 is the (c) 1.53 same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, the verb whereof the Euangelist vseth) is against those that are supposed of them that beare the disdayne, to be lifted vp higher and into better estate than they are worthy of, which agreeth with that interpretation which I haue alleadged, and cannot agree with the other, which you set downe. For who (speaking properly) would speake after this forte? The rest of the Apostles disdayned at the two brethren, or thought them vnwoorthy that they should beare tyrannicall rule ouer them.

Io. Whitgifte.

I haue declared both my authours and their reasons concerning the exposition of these places, which may satisfye any man that is not wilful. Your reasons to the cō∣trary, haue no ground, but only vsed, that it may be thought that you haue said some∣thing. Beit, that Christ told the sonnes of Zebede, that they desired thinges not meete for them, what is that to the purpose, to proue that he did not reproue their ambition? as though there may not be ambition both in desiring that which is vnlawfull, and that also which is lawful.

I do not say that their ambitiō only was reprehended (I maruel what you meane so to falsifie my words) for I thinke also that he reproueth the tyrannicall rule of the kings of the Gentiles. But this I with Musculus, Bucer and other learned men con∣stantly affirme, that he condemneth not rule, but violent and heathenish rule, not superioritie or gouernment, but the ambitious and gréedy desire of the same.

If it so displease you that I interprete the Gréeke words to signify a tyrannical rule, and a gouernment by oppression, blame Erasmus, Musculus, and Beza, who so interprete them: nay blame S. Luke who doth most euidently in the. 19. of the Act. ver. 16. vse* 1.54 one of these words in the same signification. Why they were called Liberal and boun∣tifull,

notwithstanding they be tyrants and oppressours, I haue before declar〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 desired the commendation of bountifulnesse and liberalitie, though they 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e∣serue it. It is no straunge matter for men of great authoritie to be called by such 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉∣tles, as they do not deserue. The Pope is called sanctissimus, and seru〈1 line〉〈1 line〉s seruorum Dei. and yet is he farre from doing any thing by these names signifyed. Men vse to call their rulers and gouernours by their accustomed titles, howsoeuer they deserue them, though it be gracious or bountifull Lords, when they haue no sparke of grace or bountifulnesse. What rule or superioritie soeuer it was that the Apostles desired, they desired it ambitiously and out of time, and therefore were iustly reproued for theyr ambition.

I told you before that Christe in those places condemneth not ambition only, but vnlawfull gouernmente also, euen such as the Gentiles vsed of whome Christe in those places speaketh. And whereas you say that the rest of the disciples disdayned the two brethren. &c. you do but spend inke and paper in dallying. The disciples heard by their request that they desired promotion and preferment aboue the rest and therfore they disdayned them: what opinion they had of their vsage in their offices, that is vnkno∣wen either to you, or to me, bycause the scripture hath not expressed it: but thys I think, that they were as ambitious in disdaining, as the other were in desiring. Your definition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of Aristotle is néedelesse (but only that thereby we may know you to be an Aristotelian) for the Apostles, disdained them, bycause they desired rule and dominion, not bycause they desired to rule well or to rule euil. And surely an en∣uious person and a disdainfull, hath not so much respect to the lawfulnesse or vnlaw∣fulnesse of the preferment and promotion of him, whome he doth enuy and disdayne, as he hath to the partie that is preferred, and to the preferment it selfe: as it is not vnlike that there are some of you that disdaine such as be in place aboue you, be they Deanes, Byshops, or Archbyshops, although you say that their offices be vnlawful, and tyrannicall. And this vice is too common among you, for you thinke some of vs to be lifted vp higher, and to better estate, that be not so worthy as yourselues, & hinc illae lachrymae: if I iudge amisse, let the modesty of your booke reproue me.* 1.55

In that you say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be all one, you are much deceiued: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is indignatio ob res prosperas alicuius seu foelicitatem, qua indignus est, a disdayne for the prosperitie or felicitie of some man, which he is vnwoorthy of: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 est indignatio stomachatio quaelibet & de qualibet causa, is any kind of indignation or stomacking, and for any cause: so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth conteine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and is as it were genus vnto it.

The Exposition of the place Matth. 23. Chapter. 2.

Ansvvere to the Admonition Page. 15. Sect. vlt. &. Page. 16. Sect. 1. &. 2.

Touching the place in the. 23. of Matth. where Christe saide vnto* 1.56 his disciples Be not you called Rabbi, cal no man father, be not called ma∣sters. Who is so ignorant to thinke that Christ forbiddeth by these words one Christian man to cal another Lord, master, Father? shal not children call their parents father? shall not schollers call theyr teacher master? and shal not seruants call him master, vnder whose gouernment they are? Is it not lawfull for one to call another ma∣ster, Doctor, Father, Lord. &c. Paule (notwithstanding these words of Christ). 1. Cor. 4. calleth himselfe their father: and. 1. Tim. 2. he cal∣leth himselfe the Doctour of the Gentiles. Wherefore it is manifest

that these names be not here prohibited, muche lesse the offices: but only the Pharisaical, ambitious, and arrogant affection of superio∣ritie: As it is also manifest by this that followeth: whosoeuer exal∣teth himselfe. &c And surely as Christ condemneth heere the ambi∣tious affection of suche as ambitiously desire these names of supe∣rioritie, so dothe he in lyke manner condemne those who be so puf∣fed vp with pride and arrogancie, that they contemne and dis∣daine to call men in authoritie by the titles of their offices. For pride, contempte, and arrogancie, is as well in refusing to gyue honoure and reuerence, as it is in ambtiouslye desyring the same.

But the chiefe purpose of Christ in this place is, to teache vs not so to depende vpon men, as though it were not lawfull to breake their decrees, or to decline from their authoritie: For there is one onely father, Lorde, and maister, to whome we are so bounde, that by no meanes we may declyne at any tyme from hys pre∣ceptes.

These places therefore may be aptly alleadged agaynste the pride, tyrannie, and ambition of the Byshop of Rome, whiche see∣keth tyrannically to rule, and not to profyte: but it maketh nothing at all agaynste the lawfull authoritie of any other in any state or condition of men.

T. C. Page. 12. Sect. vlt.

Concerning the exposition and sense of that place I agree with you, and* 1.57 suppose that it is quoted of the authours of the Admonition, rather to note〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e ambition of certaine, whiche gape greedily at these bishoppricks whiche wee haue, to the ende they might be saluted by the name of Lords, and honours, than to proue that one minister should not haue dominion ouer another. And therefore although these places be against no lawfull authoritie of any estate or condition of men, yet as they are aptly alleadged against the bishop of Rome, the one against his estate and authoritie simply, the other againste his tyrannie, and euill vsage of himselfe in that authoritie: so it may be aptly alleadged agaynste any other, whyche shall fall into the lyke faulte of the Byshoppe of Rome.

Io. Whitgifte.

It is manifest that they quote this same place for the selfe same purpose that they do the other: there can be no mist so thicke, that may darken the eyes of men from séeing it, except they séeing will not sée, as you do at this time,

I am glad that you agree with me in the exposition of this place: surely in so doing you must also agrée with me in the exposition of the other. For as Christ héere doth not forbid the names but the arrogant and ambitious desire of them, so doth he not there forbid authoritie and superioritie, but the coueting of it, and ambitious and in∣ordinate desire of the same. And if you well marke the words, Christ doth here much more plainly forbid these names, then he doth thare those offices of superioritie.

If any man doth imitate the Byshop of Romes ambition, either in office or in name, he hathe me as greate an enimie, as he hath you. But in that you passe ouer with silence, these words of mine, these places therefore may be aptly al∣leadged. &c. you séeme eyther to allow my expositions of the other places also, or else you are ashamed of your owne vnfaithful and subtil dealing, which before would haue made your Reader beléeue, that I had misliked all those godly & learned mens iudg∣ments, which vse these places against the Byshop of Rome: it had bin plaine dealing to haue set downe my words in order, as I haue done yours.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 17. Sect. 1. 2. 3.

Howe aptly that place of the. 24. of Mathew, But if the euil seruant* 1.58 shall say in his heart, &c. is alleaged, let all men iudge. I thinke it for∣biddeth not to punish such as breake good lawes. But Lorde howe these men are beaten, which do as they list, say what they list, & that with reioycing therto? that is, if they be no otherwise beaten than hitherto they haue bin, they will not only with schismes & 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉actions teare in sunder this Church of Englande, but in time ouerthrow the whole state of the common wealth.

To proue that either we must haue a right ministerie of God, and a right gouernment of his Church according to the Scriptures set vp. &c. or else there can be no right religion &c. is alleaged the ninth of Mathew, the fourth to the Ephe. and the eightenth of Mat. In the ninthe of Mathew the place they alleage is this: Surely the har∣uest is great, but the labourers be fevve: vvherfore. &c. In the fourthe to the Ephe. He therfore gaue some to be Apostles. &c. In the eightenth of Mat. If thy brother trespasse agaynst thee. &c. The first place decla∣reth that ministers of the word are necessarie in Christes Churche. The seconde, that there is diuers kindes and degrees of them. And the thirde sheweth an order of correcting secrete sinnes, and priuate offences, and medleth not with those that be open and knowne to other. Now therfore consider to what purpose those places be noted in the margent, and how little they proue that which is concluded.

As for all the rest of the places of scripture that followeth, noted in the margent of this Preface, I knowe not to what purpose they be alleaged, but only for vayne glory, to bleare the eyes of the igno∣rant* 1.59 people, and to make them beléeue, that al that which is written in this booke, is nothing else but scripture it selfe. They haue delte very subtilly, to quote the places only, and not to set them downe in playne wordes, for by this meanes they thinke that of the most part it shall neuer be vnderstanded, howe vnaptly, and to what small purpose they be alleaged.

Io. Whitgifte.

All this L. C. passeth ouer in silence, thereby (as I thinke) acknowledging it to be true.

Ansvvere to the Admonition. Pag. 18.

This name Puritane is very aptly giuen to these men, not bicause* 1.60 they be pure, no more than were the Heretikes called Cathari, but bicause they thinke them selues to be mundiores caeteris, more pure than o∣thers, as Cathari dyd, & separate themselues from al other Churches and congregations as spotted and defiled. Bicause also they suppose the church which they haue deuised, to be without all impuritie.

T. C Pag. 13. Lin. 1. & Sect. 1.

The purenesse that we boast of, is the innocencie of our fauiour Christ, who shal couer al our vnpurenesse, and not impute it vnto vs. And for so much as fayth purisieth the heart, we doubt not but God of his goodnesse hath begon our sanctificatiō, & hope that he wil make an end of it euē vntu y^e day of our Lorde Iesus. Albeit we hold diuers points more purely thā they do, which impugne

them, yet I knowe none that by comparison hathe either sayde or written, that all these that thinke as we doe in those poyntes, are more holy, and more vnblameable in lyfe, than any of those that thinke otherwyse. If we saye that in those poyntes whiche we holde from them, that we thinke soundlyer than they doe, we are ready to proue it, if we saye also, that we lyue not so offen∣siuely to the worlde commonly, by getting (a) 1.61 so many liuinges into oure handes, as woulde finde foure or fyue good learned able Ministers, all the world will beare vs witnesse. Other pure∣nesse we take not vpon vs. And therefore, as the name was first by the Papistes maliciously in∣uented, so is it of you very vnbrotherly confirmed. Whereas you saye, that they are Puritanes, whiche suppose the Churche whiche they haue deuised, to be without all impuritie, if you meane without sinne, you doe notably sclaunder them, and it is already answered. If you meane that those are Puritanes or Catharanes, whiche doe set foorthe a true and perfecte paterne or plat∣forme of reforming the Churche, then the marke of this heresie reacheth vnto those, whiche made the booke of common prayer, (b) 1.62 whiche you saye is a perfecte and absolute rule to gouerne this Churche, wherein nothing is wanting, or too little, nor nothing running ouer, nor too muche. As for the Catharanes (whiche were the same that are otherwise called Nouatians) I knowe no suche opinion they had, and they whome you charge, are as farre from their corruption, as you bee.

Io. Whitgifte.

You haue sayde vnto me in one place of your booke, Quid verba audiam cumfacta videam? euen so I saye to you, for why will they not come to oure Sermens, or to oure Churches? why will they not communicate with vs in oure Sacramentes? not salute vs in the stréetes? nay spitte in our faces, and openly reuile vs? whye haue they their secrete conuenticles? You knowe all this to be true in a number of them. I knowe not why they shoulde doe so, excepte they thinke them selues to be contaminated by hearing vs preache, or by comming to our Churches, or by com∣municating otherwyse with vs. Whiche if they doe, it argueth that they persuade them selues not onely of suche an outwarde perfection, but of suche an inwarde pu∣ritie also, that they may as iustly for the same be called Puritanes, as the Nouatians* 1.63 were. You knowe that the first occasion why Nouatus did separate him selfe from the Churche, was bicause he coulde not obtayne the Bishoprike of Rome, whiche he ambitiously desired. You knowe also that his pretence was bicause the Bishops dyd receyue those into the Churche, whiche had fallen in the time of persecution. Afterwardes he fell into greater and mo absurdities, for commonly suche as once deuide them selues from the Churche, fall from errour to errour, without staye. This Nouatus thoughe he séemed to condemne ambition in all other men, yet was he most ambitious him selfe: thoughe he by vehement othes denied him selfe to desire a Bishoprike, yet did he most gréedily séeke for it: though he boasted of more perfec∣tion in lyfe, and of a more perfecte platforme of a Churche than he thoughte o∣thers had, yet was it nothing so. He was the firste that I reade of, that forseeke his* 1.64 ministerie, and that sayde, Se nolle amplius presbyterum esse, sed alterius Philosophiae stu∣diosum: that he woulde no longer be a Minister, but a student in other Philosophie. Reade Eusebius in his sixte booke of his Ecclesiasticall historie, Cap. 43 and Nicephorus in his sixte booke also, and third chapter. Surely the storie of Nouatus is worthy to be noted, bycause there be so many at these dayes, which do not so much differ from him in opi∣nions, as they agrée with him in conditions.

You affirme that I saye, The booke of common prayer to be a perfecte and absolute rule to gouerne this Churche, wherin nothing is wanting or too little, nor nothing running ouer, or too muche. If I haue sayd any suche thing, quote the place, that the Reader may con∣sider of it, and knowe that you speake the truthe. But if I neuer eyther spake, or writte any suche thing, then are you a false witnesse, and I haue to desire the Reader to consider of the reste of your sclaunderous reportes, according to the truthe of this. I haue learned with Sainct Augustine to giue this reuerence onely to the wryters of Canonicali Scriptures, that I thinke none of them to haue* 1.65 erred in wryting. And I doe firmely beléeue, that onely the bookes of the Cano∣nicall Scripture, are of that absolutenesse, and perfection, that nothing maye be ta∣ken

awaye from them, nothing added to them. I doe not thinke the Communion booke to be such, but that it may admitte alteration. I doe not beléeue it to bée so perfecte, but that there maye be bothe added to it, and taken from it. But thys I saye, that it is a godly booke, withoute any errour in substance of doctrine, and no∣thing in it (that I knowe) agaynst the worde of God: and those imperfections, or rather motes that you saye to be in it, not to be suche, that any godly man oughte to stirre vp any contention in the Churche for them, muche lesse to make a schisme, and least of all to deuide him selfe from the Churche. This is my opinion of that booke, whiche vnlesse by learning and good authoritie I iustifie, let me haue the blame and shame of it. I will not enter into your heartes, to iudge what you thinke of your inwarde puritie, (whiche notwith∣standing in comparison you haue in this present place arrogated vnto your selues) that very perfection of an outwarde platforme of a Churche whiche you chalenge vnto your selues, is one steppe to Nouatianisme, and well deserueth the name of Ca∣tharisme.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Scripture〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ested.
• * 1.2

  The tru〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 ex∣position of the 20. of Math. &c.
• * 1.3

  This is is a note of your owne deuising.
• (a) 1.4

  Petitio prin∣cipij.
• (b) 1.5

  aequiuoeatio.
• * 1.6

  Gouernment not forbidden of Christ, but the kinde of gouernment.
• * 1.7

  Two faultes in the argu∣ment of T. C.
• * 1.8

  The ciuill Magistrate doth not sim∣ply biffer from the Ecclesia∣stical, by bea∣ring domi∣nion.
• * 1.9

  Diuers signi∣fications of the word Do∣minion.
• * 1.10

  Caluinus.
• * 1.11

  Howe the wordes, Vos autem non sic, may be reser∣red to names.
• * 1.12

  Diuers kyn∣des of names.
• * 1.13

  Names com∣mon to ciuill and Ecclesia∣stical persons.
• * 1.14

  Ministers may execute some kinde of ciuill iurisdic∣tion.
• * 1.15

  Caluine.
• * 1.16

  A temporall lorde may be a preacher.
• * 1.17

  Brentius.
• * 1.18

  What kynde of external do minion is de∣nyed to mini∣sters.
• * 1.19

  What kind of temporall do∣minion a Mi∣nister may ex∣ercise.
• * 1.20

  Idem.
• * 1.21

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.22

  Quicun{que} ma∣ior erit inter vos. &c. expounded.
• * 1.23

  Buce〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 in. 20.
• * 1.24

  Mitth.
• * 1.25

  They which∣〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ear rule god∣l〈1 line〉〈1 line〉y, serue.
• * 1.26

  The place of Math. 20. generall.
• * 1.27

  The Bishop of Salis burie so allegeth this place in his defēse of the Apologie a∣gainst M. H〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 ding. pag. 65〈1 line〉〈1 line〉
• * 1.28

  These places are rightly v∣sed against the Pope, not∣withstanding this interpre∣tation.
• * 1.29

  The Popes dominion such as Christ here forbiddeth.
• * 1.30

  Musculus.
• * 1.31

  This is a simple answer to op∣pose one 〈◊〉〈◊〉 authoritie a∣gainst another.
• (a) 1.32

  A false collec∣tiō vpon master Musculus hys words.
• (b) 1.33

  Ministers may haue domi∣nion ouer the people, but one of them must not be aboue a∣nother. 1. they may rule but not be ruled.
• (c) 1.34

  Examples against himselfe
• (d) 1.35

  Eusebius not truly translated.
• * 1.36

  Musculus his reasons vpon the. 20. of Math.
• * 1.37

  Musculus his reasons not answered but shifted off by. T. C.
• * 1.38

  Thexamples of. T. C. a∣gainst himself Math. 24.
• * 1.39

  Ge. 49. vers. 3.
• * 1.40

  Tract. 8.
• (1) 1.41

  Bycause the〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 you should say contrary to the iudgement of a〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 learned men.
• (2) 1.42

  Vntruth, for 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 name not three Euangelista.
• * 1.43

  Lu. 22. v. 26
• * 1.44

  The true in∣terpretatiō of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.45

  Era. in annot.
• * 1.46

  Bez. in annot.
• * 1.47

  Al5. ias. 15.
• * 1.48

  The place of Luke insinu∣ateth a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 among the Apostles.
• * 1.49

  Luke. 22.
• (a) 1.50

  Vntruth, fo〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 say not, only.
• (b) 1.51

  That is not so
• * 1.52

  In his rhet〈1 line〉〈1 line〉. ad Theod.
• (c) 1.53

  It is not the same, for one is more generall than the other.
• * 1.54

  Mē called by titles not de∣serued.
• * 1.55

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not one.
• * 1.56

  Rabbi Ma〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 The place of Math. 23. ex∣pounded.
• * 1.57

  Bylike it was fondly allead∣ged, when you do but suppose their meaning.
• * 1.58

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• * 1.59

  Subtilty in quoting pla∣ces only.
• * 1.60

  The name of Puri〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ane.
• (a) 1.61

  And yet some of you haue a competent num∣ber, without do∣ing any duetie at them.
• (b) 1.62

  An vntruthe, for I do not saye so in any place.
• * 1.63

  The qualities of Nouatus, and cause of his heresie.
• * 1.64

  Nouatus the first that for∣sooke his mi∣nisterie.
• * 1.65

  The canoni∣call scriptures are only abso∣lute & perfect.