therfore the minister may punishe with the sword? And bicause Sainct Peter didde so once, ther∣fore the Bishop may doe so alwaye? And bycause Sainct Peter did that whiche appertayneth to no ciuill magistrate▪ and whyche no ciuill magistrate, by any meanes maye or can doe, therfore the minister maye doe that whyche apperteyneth vnto the Ciuill magistrate? For if there hadde bin a ciuill magistrate, the same coulde not haue punished this faulte of dissimulation whi∣che was not knowne, nor declared it selfe by anye outewarde action: So that if this example proue any thing, it proueth that the minister may doe, that no man may doe, but the Lorde onely, whyche is to punishe faultes that are hidde and vnknowne. If this bee ignorance it is very grosse, and if it be against knowledge, it is more daungerous. I haue determined with my selfe, to leaue vnto M. Doctor his outcryes, and declamations, and if I shoulde haue vsed them as often as he giueth occasion, there woulde be no ende of writing. The Lorde giue M. Doctor eyther bet∣ter knowledge, or better conscience.
Io. Whitgifte.
I vse this example of Peter, to shewe that is not agaynst Gods worde for the mi∣nisters of the Gospell to punishe any by imprisonmente: For Peter béeing a mi∣nister of the Gospell dyd punyshe with death, whiche is muche more than to im∣prison: and as Peter did this lawfully by an extraordinarie power, so maye the ministers of the woorde punishe by imprisonmente whiche is a farre lesse kynde of punishment, beyng lawfully therevnto authorised by the ciuill Magistrate, accor∣dyng to the orders of the common wealth and state of the Churche. Therfore my reason is this: Peter punished with temporall punishement, being a minister of the worde, and he dyd nothing repugnant to his vocation, therfore it is not repug∣nant to the office of a minister of the worde to punishe with temporall punishment. Agayne, Peter punished with death: therfore the minister maye punishe with im∣prisonment: I speake de facto, of the deede done, not de modo, of the maner of doing is. And I doubte not but that séeing it was lawfull for Peter to kill by an especiall and extraordinarie power: so it may be lawfull for the minister of the word to im∣prison, by an vsuall and ordinarie power. And so are all your Collections made in vaine, and framed according to your owne pleasure, not so my meaning. If you haue done it of ignorance, you are to be excused: if of set purpose, you are to be blamed.
And wheras you say, that M. Doctor must vnderstand, that this was ecclesiastical powers I say on the other side that you must vnderstand, that this was not ecclesiasticall but méere ciuill, which you might haue learned of M. Beza in diuers places of his booke de Haereticis à Magistratu pun. For thus he writeth. Cedò igitur, Christus quo iure flagellum his corripuit? quo iure Petrus Ananiam & Sapbiram occidit? quo iure Paulus Elymam excaecauit▪ Num ecclesiastici ministerij? minimè profectò: nisi iurisdictiones confundas. Ergo ciuilis Magistra∣tus iure: Nihil enim est tertium. Tell me therefore, by what lawe did Christ take the whip in hand twise? by what law did Peter kill Ananias and Saphira? by what right did Paule strike Elymas with blindnesse? did they those things by the right of the ecclesiasticall ministerie? no truly, except you will confound iurisdictions. They did it therefore by the right of ciuill magistracie: for ther is no meane. And to the same purpose doth he speake sundry times in that booke.
What outcries I haue vsed, or declamations which you haue not in ample manner requited, adding to the same al opprobrious kind of speaches, and iesting taunts that you could deuise, let the indifferent Reader iudge: wherfore I hartely wish vnto you, both better knowledge, and better conscience.