A Second Reply to an Answer Made by Doctor Whitgift Part 2, Part 3
THAT EXCOMMƲNICATION, BELONGETH NOT TO THE Bishop alone: Tractate ix. and xviij, according to the D. pag. 661.
YT hauing bene shewed, that in elections and depoſitions, the Bishop can doe nothing withowt the aduiſe of the whole church, nor in the common gouernmēt withowt aſsiſtance of the Eldership: yt muſt folow, that in excommunication, which is one of the weightieſt iudgmentes in the church, this ſole autoritie of the Bishop is vnlawful. For as, when in ciuil matters, the iudgment is of life and death, and as in the art of curing, when conſultation is taken of cutting or burning, the bench is fuller, and the aſsiſtance greater, then when matters of les importance be debated: euen ſo, if it might be accorded to the Bishop, to pas ſome other matters by him ſelf, yet it were not ſafe to cōmit vntounto him the iudgment of excommunication. wherevpon I mervail, why euen here alſo yow goe abowt, to pek owt our eys. For the light of this truth is ſuch, that ſome of the Papiſtes them ſelues, are ashamed to look againſt yt: as appeareth by Pigghius, which ſeeking al maner of peintynges to hyde the filthines of Rome, could finde no colour to diſguiſe this with: but is fayn, partly to confes her nakednes in this behalf: ſaiyng that it is not lavuful (the Bishop of Rome onelyonly excepted) Piggh. hierarch 3. lib. 9. cap.for any Bishop to excommunicate by him ſelf alone. So that, althowgh the weightines of the cauſe, might require a long treatis: yet the plaines of it, wil be content with a short.
Firſt, whether the word diſcipline, may note the vuhole gouernment, or onelyonly the punishmentes, as in a diſputation of wwordes, I wil not ſtriue: althowgh it be knowen, that the word diſcipline, is vſed in good autors, for the whole maner of gouernment, ether at home or in war. Secondly chargeda 2. diuiſ. 661 vuith cōtrarietie, he anſwereth, that to aſcribe excommunicatiō to the Miniſter of the word, and to the Bishop onelyonly, agree, becauſe the Bishop is a Miniſter of the word: which might hauehave bene admitted, if it had bene al one, to be a Bishop and a Miniſter of the word. But ſeing by the word Miniſter, with vsus, is noted a diuers degree, and meinteined by him: it is but an eſcape. Howbeit, I am content he amend his ſpeach: if he had yet amended it, and not rather vtterly marred al. For pretending that *661. 662. et 673.the Bishop onelyonly, hath by the word of god, the excōmunication committed vntounto him, he ſaith notwithſtanding that the church, if she wil, may commit that autoritie vntounto other: giuig the church autority, to make that common, which the word of god hath made ſeueral. Thus he enterfeereth at eueryevery ſtep almoſt, cutting him ſelf to pitifully. The reſt is bIn the former part p. 575.anſwered: ſo are the cIn the former Tract.two next diuiſions, ſauing that it appeareth that yow were ſomewhat hongry, of a teſtimony of great reading, which pres myne ſo ſore: that may be giuen to the verieſt trewand, that euer went on two legges, which may in half an hower know the minde of twenty commentaries, and requireth rather a man wel booked, then ether wel red, or wel learned.
To proue, that the lord did not borow this form of gouernmentDiuiſ. 5. p. 663. of the Iues, he aſsigneth one reaſon, becauſe he neuer appointed it vntounto them: which beſide the vntruth, that hath and shal further appear, is contrary to that him ſelf hath affirmed: where he ſaith, that al, euen the least thinges, vnderunder the law pag. 116.were commaunded. So that oneles he wil denie, that they had euer any Eldership, or hauing it, had it againſt the commā dement of god: it muſt folow, that they had it, by the preſcript of god. Another reaſon is, for that the Iues abuſed their Eldership: then which, there can be nothing more diſagreing from the D. whole cours of defence, which wil not hauehave ſo much as a peeld ceremony remoued, for the abuſe.
VntoUnto the reaſon I alledged why the word Councel, …hap. 5. 22.in S. Mathew, is taken for the Eldership of the church: he anſwereth nothing. wherunto ad, that in other places of the new Teſtament, where it is oft aAct. 5. 2…. & 6. 12. & 23. 30.mentioned: it is alwaies ſo taken. The teſtimonies he citeth, are partly to no purpoſe, partly before confeſſed of me.
This is a wonderful bouldnes, that yow dare ſay, yeaDiuiſ. 6. p 664. and glory in yt, that S. Paul kept an other order of excommunication, then our Sau. Christ commanded: conſidering that he autoriſeth1. Cor. 11. 28 1. Cor. 15. 1. his doeinges in the church of Corinth, with this, that he gaue that vuhich he receiued, who alſo in this very particular caſe of the inceſtuous man, alledgeth the autoritie2. Cor. 5. 4. of our Sauiour Christ. That owt of M. Caluin, maketh againſt him manifeſtly. For vponupon the places boeth of S. Mathew and Paul, he sheweth that the church hath intereſt in the excommunication: onelyonly he noteth, that our Sa. Chriſt applied his form of ſpeach, to the eſtate of the church then, which is nothing to our purpoſe.
After, vponupon confidence of M. Caluins autority onelyonly, he triumpheth vponupon the interpretation I browght, of the purging of leuain, noting the thruſting ovut of the inceſtuous perſon: which notwithſtāding is proued, for as much as that vers, is the concluſion of that before, where, by leuain cā not be denied, but the inceſtuous perſon is noted: vnles we wil ſay, that the Apoſtle concluded another thing, then that which he had before mentioned. bvponupon the ſame place.M Beza alſo, comming after M. Caluin, and not eaſely diſſenting from him: foloweth the ſame ſens, which I hauehave doen: So that althowgh yow take your pleaſure of me, yet yow should not ride ſo hard vponupon him.
But mark a litle, how vnable your anſwers be, to vphould ſuch a confident inſultation. For, where this here ſpoken by a borowed ſpeach, is playnly vttered: yow are compelled to expoūd theſe wordes of the Apoſtle, take avuay the vuicked man amongest yovu, that is, shun his cōpany: which is not onelyonly a wreſting of words, but alſo vnſitting to the cōpariſō with the leuained bread, which S. Paule vſeth to ſet forth excommunication by. For it was not enough for the Iſraelites not to touch or vſe any leauened bread, in the celebration of the Paſouer: but they were bound to put it ovut of their Exod. 12. 15. 29. & 23. 18 & 34. 25.hovuſes, to prouide that no leauened bread vuere found in their hovuſes, and not to kil the Paſouer, before they had rid their hovus of it.
Like violence he vſeth, towching the receiuing of the excommunicate. For where S. Paul vſeth the ſame word of forgiuing, or as it is called, abſoluing, as wel to note his own2. Cor. 2. 10 releas, as the churchis, he wil hauehave, that the ſame word in the ſame vers, in one and the ſame cauſe, to be taken diuersly: and that referred to S. Paul, it shal hauehave the proper ſignification, to remit, but referred to the church, to ſignifie the effectes and ſignes of the remiſsion, or abſolution.
Vuhere I shew, that S. Paules declaration of his good vuil Diuiſ. 7. p. 665.to excommunicate, could be no ful excommunication, becauſe that that notvuithstanding, the Miniſter and church (althovugh vniustly) might hauehave receiued him to the communion of the Sacrament: he anſwereth, that he is yet excommunicate in heauen, which is a mere abuſing of the reader, for I expresly preuēted that. And it is moſt vntrue, that it is enowgh to make the eccleſiaſtical cenſure of excommunication, that a man be bound in heauen: when as our aMath. 18. 17.Sa. Chriſt noteth it, in that he is taken of the church, for a Publican and a Synner, and in that, there is an actual ſecluding from the ſacrament. For otherwiſe, as ſone as ſuch wickednes is committed, and withal ſo long as it is vnrepented: the ſynner is bound in heauen, and in right shut owt from the communion of the Sacrament, althowgh no man excō municate him: which being alledged of me, is vnanſwered.
To that I alledged, that S. Paul ioyneth the Corinthes Diuiſ. 8. p. 666. 1. Cor. 5. 4.vuith him, in the excommunication: he anſwereth, that they are ioyned as lookers on or as witneſſes, not as doers in that action. But who hath taught him, thus to play, with the word of god: when as S. Paul aſcribeth the ſame cauſe, of the corporal aſſembly of the church for that action, which he doeth vntounto that preſence, wherewith he ſaith his spirit should be (after a ſort) there. If therfore S. Paules ſpirit were (after a ſort and as it might) there, to look on, and to be witnes onelyonly: then the church was alſo. els let him shew vsus, with what wordes S. Paul declareth: that his ſpirit should be there for one thing, and the Corinthians for an other.
But what a shameful defence this is, that one voice declareth:1. Cor. 5. 22. whereby the Apoſtle giueth vntounto the church, the iudgment of this matter. now, to iudg, or to giuegive ſentence of malefactors: is more (I think) then to look on, or to be witnes. And what that iudgment is, is yet more clearly declared, by that which foloweth, where the Apoſtle ſaith, that the lordverſ. 23. iudgeth thoſe that are none of the church: giuing to vnderſtand, that they had onelyonly to vſe their cenſures vponupon thoſe of the church, and that they should leaue the infidels to the iudgment of god. ſo that, if he ſay that the iudgment of the church is nothing but a looking on &c. he muſt alſo expound theſe wordes, the lord iudgeth the infidels, that is, the lord ſtandeth by, and looketh on whileſt ſome other punish thē: whereto ad, that the Apoſtle aſcribeth to the church the ſame word of iudging, which he taketh to hym ſelf. Likewiſe that the writer to the Hebrewes, giueth to the church, thatHeb. 12. 25. they should prouide, that no poiſoned root remayn amongeſt them: which althowgh it be caried of ſome, from the perſon to the crime, yet it ys certein, boeth by the place of aDeut. 29. 18.Moſes, from whom it was taken, and by the ſcope of the Apoſtle, that yt is to be vnderſtood of the perſons. For he exhorteth the church, firſt to giuegive diligence, that there be no ſuch amongeſt them: then, if there be, not to ſuffer them to remain, to the infection of other. which is yet alſo more manifeſt, becauſe according to the cuſtome of the ſcripture, that which he ſpake before, by a metaphore or borowed ſp…ch: he expoundeth in the next vers when he ſaith; let there be no vuhoremonger or prophane perſon &c. Ad further, that S. Iude, alluding vntounto the prophet Zachary, willeth the church in taking pitie of ſome, to ſaue others, as it vuere, out of the fire, by fearing them: which church, had no other meanes to ſtrike any fear into perſons, that were (throwgh obſtinacy in ſyn) as firebrandes almoſt half burnt, but by eccleſiaſtical cenſure.
To that I asked, vuhy S. Paul chideth vuith the church, before he had ſignified, that he vuould hauehave hym excommunicate, if it belonged not vntounto the church: he anſwereth, becauſe they did not cōplain of him, whereof there is not a letter to be gathered, in the holy Scripture. And what a miſcheif had it bene, for the church to hauehave had no remedy, for ſuch a contagious diſeaſe at home: but muſt goe ſeek for yt, in another country, and languish al that tyme whileſt the meſſengers went and came.
I leau to thoſe which hauehave the bookes, to look with what faith he hath cited theſe autorities, ſeing contrary to hys wont, he maketh them not to ſpeak: Beſide that, they are alledged for defence of excommunication by the Bishop alone, owt of them which are open enemies to that kinde of excommunication, eſpecially the later writers. I ſay, leauing that, I anſwer, that none of them (one excepted) is to purpoſe. For, albeit the 18 of math. be explaned, by the other of Math. 16. and Iohn 20: yet it foloweth not therefore, that they be al one. And althowgh in the 16 of mathew and Iohn 20, togither with the preaching, the excommunication were vnderſtood: yet the place of the 18 of S. Mathew, being of the autority of excommunication and not of the preaching, the difference doeth ſtil remain. Nether hurteth it, that eueryevery ſeueral Miniſter of the word, hath by theſe places autoritie to excommunicate: being vnderſtode of eueryevery one for his portion. whych muſt needes, ſeing in S. Math. 18 the church hath autority likewiſe: ſo that it can not …e, that one ſeueral miniſter, can by thoſe places chalendg the ſole autority of excommunicating. That alledged of Muſculus, wherin it is ſaid, that he confoundeth theſe three places, is vntrue: for he extēdeth math. 18 to al Chriſtians, reſtrayning math. 16 to the Miniſters.
As for his reaſon to proue them al one, becauſe they were al ſpoken to the Apostles, yt is friuolous: ſeing our Sa. Chriſt did not onelyonly inſtruct them of thinges belonging to their Miniſtery, but alſo of thoſe that touched their priuate lyfe, and of the duties of the whole church. Of the ſame ſort is, that the ſame wordes are vſed in al three places. which is al one, as when the Prince ordeining, that one cheſt may be opened and shut by one onelyonly, one other not ſo, but by others with him: he should conclude, that al hauehave power alike, becauſe Keis with power to lok and vnlok, be giuen to al. For this manifeſt difference, is in the maner of ſpeach, conſidering that Math. 16, he ſpeaketh of one in the ſinguler nombre, in Iohn 20, althowgh he ſpeak in the plural, yet he vnderſtandeth yt diſtributiuely, that ys, that eueryevery one of the Miniſters binedeth and loſeth by preaching. But in S. Math. 18, thoſe wordes being added to autoriſe the churchis excommunication, which word church, is a noun collectiue: they can not be drawen, to the particular perſon of the Miniſter.
Here alſo, it is to be obſerued: that the D. hath quite ouerthrowen his difference, of the Bishop, and of another Miniſter, in the matter of excommunication. For if in S. Math. 16 and Iohn 20, togither with the preaching of the word, is vnderſtanded power to excommunicate: al Miniſters of the word hauing by thoſe places autority to preach, it muſt folow neceſſarily, that they al hauehave power committed vntounto them to excommunicate. And ſo falleth, his whole cauſe: which is, that by the word of god, the Bishop onelyonly hath the right of excommunication.
Vuhere to that of S. Paules excommunicating Alexander &c, IDiui. 10. p. 667. anſwered, that one is ſaid to doe alone, that vuhich he vuas moderator of, and vuherein he had aſsiſtāce: he anſwereth, that it is an imagined shift. But now he knoweth at leaſt, if he wil not acknowledg it: that it ſtandeth of vnfallible aIn the former part of this booK. pag. 196.reaſon, and is confirmed with moſte graue autority of learned men. To that I anſwer, towching the place of Titus, that to auoid an heritik, is not to excommunicate him, but to troble him ſelf no more vuith him: he oppoſeth M. Caluins autoritie, withowt any aid of reaſon. wherein, when I hauehave shewed the reaſon, which led me ſo to expound the place: let the reader doe, as him thinketh good: remembring, that if he vnderſtand it of excommunication, yet it helpeth him not, the ſame anſwer ſeruing, which was giuen to the place of Timothe.
For ſo much then, as the Apoſtle willeth that the Miniſter should avoid him, as one vtterly peruerted: and notwithſtanding willeth b2. Theſſ. 3. 15.otherwhere, that the excommunicate should be houlden for a brother, vntil ſuch time as it appeareth, how that medicine of excommunication wil work with him: and for that alſo, yt apperteineth vntounto the Miniſter eſpecially, euen then priuately to cal vponupon him, when he is excommunicate: it ſeemeth, that this can not be vnderſtanded of one to be excommunicated, but of a deſperate enemy whom excommunication hath not cured, but rather is (throwgh the poiſon in him) hardened. And hereof, I hauehave the iudgment of Ireneus: which ſaith, that the fact of S. Iohn the Apoſtle, which would not goe into the bathes where Cerinthus the heritik was, nor once ſo much as ſpeak vntounto him, vuas doen according to this rule of S. Paul to Titus. …uſeb. li. 4. cap 14.And if an heretik be taken in that ſens, which the D. hath often taken him, in ſaying he mayer, but that he wil be no heretik, that is to ſay for one that ſtandeth ſtif in his fals opinion: then we muſt needes vnderſtād, that this order which S. Paul preſcribeth, is vnderſtāded of that which is to be doen after excommunication. For in ſuch, we muſt not tarry, vntil two or three admonitiōs be giuen: but aſſone as one sheweth him ſelf an heretik in that ſens, the ſentence of excommunication lieth againſt him.
But if the D. wil needes hauehave it vnderſtanded, of excommunication: it shal be the bane of his own cauſe, and a confirmation of that anſwer, which he ſo ſcornefully reiecteth. For S. Paul noting excommunication, by the auoiding of the perſon excommunicate: in commanding Titus to auoid him, doeth not therefore command him alone. where as the D. wil hauehave theſe, and ſuch like commandementes: addreſſed vntounto Titus and Timothe alone. But ether, the church is not here excluded, which yow denie: or els it foloweth, that the church may kepe company with an heretik, and the Miniſter onelyonly forbidden ſo to doe, which is abſurd.
In the next diuiſion, in ſteed of Baſiles offices cited in the latin and Engliſh book, he hath ſet owt a long ſentence of Ambroſe, but which maketh nether whot nor kould: it being graunted, that it apperteyneth to the Bishop, but denied, that it doeth onelyonly. whether to take one man for an other, be ſo gros a faut, as to cite a book which neuer was: let al iudg. yow should rather hauehave compared my faut, with yours in the next diuiſion ſauing one: which yow pas by, as yow doe other withowt any confeſsion. The next diuiſion, I leau vnanſwered.
In the next, I confes I was deceiued in the order of the ſtory, which came thereupon, that Sozomene telleth that firſt, which was doen after, and contrariwiſe: but my anſwer, that the Bishops ſole excommunicating, vuas but the publishing of the ſentence, giuen by him and the church, ſtandeth. Nether is it of any weight, that George would not be entreated, or that ſute was made to him for abſolution. For it is eaſely anſwered, that George had numbers of his faction, for the gaining of which, it behoued to win him firſt.
The D. would with wordes bear vsus down, that Theodoret Diuiſ. 14. p. 670.and Sozom. affirm Ambroſe to hauehave excōmunicated the Emperour alone: which is but a facing, there being nether the word, alone, nether any wordes which countervail yt. his reaſon, that Ambroſe caried away al the commendation, is nothing worth: ſeing it is knowen, that the chief beareth the name, as the general of the field or Captayn, is often ſaid to hauehave won the field, whē notwithſtanding he vſed thereto, the valiancie of the ſouldiers. And to ſet aſide the inſtitution of god, it had bene no commendation of Ambroſis courage, but a note of rashnes and folish hardines: to hauehave enterpriſed that of him ſelf, againſt ſuch a mightie Emperour, wherein he might hauehave had the ſupport of others. ſeing therby, not onelyonly the danger should hauehave bene les towardes him: but alſo the fruit greater, towardes the Emperour, whileſt yt should hauehave had more autority, that was doen by him with others, then by him ſelf alone.Ambroſe Epist. 38. And when Ambroſe ſaith preciſely, that he should be more charged vuith diſpleaſure, then the reſt: he giueth to vnderſtād, that ſome of the diſpleaſure would lye vponupon the neckes of the other Bishops, which with hym determined of that excommunication, althowgh not ſo much as vponupon his, that should hauehave the execution of yt. whereby yt is yet more apparant, that the place owt of Ambroſis epiſtel towching the Synod, and of his anſwer to the Emperour, was cited faithfully, withowt falſifying. As for his anſwer, that the Bishopes lamented it onelyonly, it hath no likelyhood, as it is aIn te examinatiō of the D. cenſures.obſerued. Vuhere he ſaith, that the Synod was aſſembled, before the slaughter, there appeareth no ſuch thing: althowgh the cauſe lieth not in that point. For yt is al one to vsus, whether the Coūcel met for that matter: or being aſſembled for other, vponupon the report of yt, decreed of that cenſure.
The confeſsion of his faut before the congregation, and asking forgiuenes of the church: was alledged to purpoſe. For what is yt, to ask forgiuenes, but to aſk abſolutiō of the church: and why should he ask to be abſolued of the church, if the church had not bound hym? That he ſaith, the penitentes doe ſo with vsus: touching any demaund of abſolution of the church, I think it be vntrue, wherein nothwithſtanding, I refer me vntounto the practiſe. but if it be, it is a very mockery, to craue abſolution of it, whē as, howſoeuer it is ſatisfied, the Bishops abſolution, right or wrong, muſt ſtand. In the firſt ſection of his next diuiſion, let the reader iudg, how shameful his denialis, and in the fourth ſection, how miſerable his defence is: the reſt are anſwered.
Here, as thowgh Tertullian, had cōmitted ſome high treaſon,Diuiſ. 16. p. 673. the D. draweth him, and quartereth him, vponupon Rhenanus coment: whereas, althowgh Rhenanus diſioyn the ſentēces by putting his comment betwene that which I conioyned: yet he ioyneth thē in expoſitiō, as thoſe which hang togither. for Tertull. hauing before ſpokē, of the caſting forth of the wicked owt of the cōmunion of the church: Rhenanus addeth, leaſt yt should be thovught a confuſed cōpany it is ſaid, that there vuere certein Elders etc. yt is to much bouldnes therfore for yow to ſay, that it can not be gathered of this place, that theſe elders medled with excommunication. If they medled with other thinges (as yow confes) much more with this: if the putting betwene of Rhenanus commentary, doeth not hinder, that this ſentence should be referred, vntounto thinges which are further from yt: why should it hinder the referring of yt, to excommunication, which goeth immediatly before. And beſide this open light of Tertulliās wordes, yow hauehave M. Peter Martyr, that was no mangler nor corrupter of Tertullian: which vponupon this place, preciſely affirmeth, that theſe Seniors had their gouernment in vponupon the…. epiſt. to the Cor. cap. 5.excommunication. your shift, that the Elders Tertullian ſpeaketh of, were likely to be Miniſters of the word and ſacramētes: is aIn the 8. tract. diuiſ. 8.anſwered.
In that yow ſay, this autority being admitted, the people is quite shut owt, firſt yow cōclude negatiuely of autority, namely that they hauehave nothing to doe, becauſe Tertullian doeth not ſay they had. Then yow faut again in not marking, that when Tertullian ſaith, that theſe were Preſidentes or cheif in the matter: he leaueth a ſignificatiō, that other had to doe in yt, which folowed with their ſentence thoſe, that with the ripenes of their iudgment, went before the reſt is bIn this chap. 2. diuiſ.anſwered.
If the excōmunicate might not be receiued, withowt theDiuiſ. 17. p. 674. peoples requeſt, much les withowt their conſent: for men vſe not to make requeſt, for that they conſent not vntounto. As for that alledged, becauſe Cyprian would hauehave that abſolution stand, Cyp. lib Epist. 3 epiſt. 8.which was doen by one, that therefore it is lawful for the Bishop alone to abſolue: is to trifle. For ſo Cyprian, wil hauehave it ſtand, that in the mean ſeaſon, he condemneth the doer of yt. And the D. owght to vnderſtand, that it is one thing to preſcribe what should be doen: and another to ſupport a thing which being commanded, is otherwiſe doen then it owght: as hath bene shewed, in the baptim by heretikes. Victor alſo being repentant, and hauing shewed fruites thereof: it had bene againſt right, to hauehave thruſt him owt again. Yf he had not repented: it is certain, that Cyprian would hauehave dealt with him afresh.
Cyprian profeſſeth, that he vuould neuer doe any thing Epist. 10.in his bishoprik, vuithovut the counſail of the Elders, and conſent of the people: and yet the D. can not ſee, how this should make against his ſole excommunication. what ſtronger wordes, could there hauehave bene? If he vuould doe nothing vuithovut them, how much les excommunicate, which is ſo weighty a iudgment. As for that he expoundeth no matter, that is no doutful matter: it is a shameful corruptiō. which appeareth, in that beſide the counſail of the Elders, to reſolue him of the dowt, if any were: he addeth alſo, the conſent of the people. Alſo, for that the ſame caſe, wherein he proteſteth he would hauehave doen nothing withowt the church: was a plain caſe, and whereof he was able to reſolue, withowt the aduiſe of other. Likewiſe that he ſayth, it was in Cyprians power to hauehave doen al him ſelf alone, becauſe he ſaith, he determined not to doe ſo) is yet more ridiculous: as thowgh Dauid in ſaying he determined to Pſalm. 119. verſ. 57.kepe the vuord of god, or any other, that he determineth to kepe his promis, doe therby giuegive to vnderſtand, that ether the one needed not to kepe the word of god, or the other his promis.
The next aCyp. Epi. 14.place maketh the Elders and other church men, as vuel to hauehave povuer in abſoluing, as the Bishop: yet the D. ſeeth not how that maketh against him, which would hauehave the Bishop alone. but (ſaith he) the people is not there mentioned: as thowgh that was not ſufficiently shewed in other places, and here left owt, becauſe they did not lay on their handes as the church officers. althowgh in the later end of that epiſtle, he alſo threatneth the diſordered perſōs: that if they goe forvuard, they shal be made to anſvuer the matter before the people. But yt appeareth (ſaith he) that it could not be doen withowt the Bishop: euen as it could not be doen withowt thoſe, whome Cypriā calleth clerkes: beſide that it is to great daliance, ſeing none denieth the Bishops an intereſt.
The next place is wherein Cyprian ſaith, that for ſo much Cyp. Epist. 19.as abſolution belonged vntounto al, meaing of thoſe in his church, that he alone durſt not doe yt. yet (ſayth he) in that they deſire it at Cyprians hand: it argueth, that the maner was then for one to abſolue. was yt in deed, the maner to doe that which was not lawful, euen by your own confeſsion: that is for one to loſe that which many had bound? For they which deſired abſolution, knw that they were excommunicate by many: if therfore vponupon that they deſired abſolution of one, it be wel concluded that one was wont to abſolue: it foloweth, that they were wont to doe that, which was vnlawful, which is a slaunder of that tyme, and yet helpeth yow not. But the reader may vnderſtand, that they came therfore to deſire abſolution of Cyprian: becauſe it belonged vntounto him, to aſſemble the Seniors by whom the receiuing was firſt handled, before yt came to the church.
And who knoweth not, that the grief of the penitent ſynner, languishing and feinting with deſire of being ioyned with the church again, doeth euen wring owt petitions to be helped of them, which are not able alone to help: eſpecially when as they (likely) thowght, that the reſt would be counſailed by Cyprian. who ſeeth not alſo, that the ſens of Cypriās anſwer to thoſe afflicted perſons, which would hauehave bene deliuered before the tyme preſcribed of their repentance: is to shew him ſelf moued with compaſsion of their ſorow, which he for his part was ready to help, if the other would thereto agree. which may better appear by that2. lib. Epiſt. 3. epiſtle, where the D. ſaith, he can finde nothing of this matter: which notwithſtanding is moſt pregnant. For Cyprian sheweth there, how he trauailed greatly vuith his church, to receiue thoſe vuhich, hauing fallen avuay, repented them: declaring thereby, that it was not in him alone. In the end, althowgh he hath vſed ſuch bouldnes, as I am ashamed to giuegive the proper name of: yet he feareth not to ſay, that I hauehave abuſed the reader. which, let him vnderſtand (as touching three of the middle places) to be ſpoken as wel againſt M. Caluin, as me:Inſt. 4. lib. cap 11 ſ. 6. who vſeth them, to condemn the ſole excommunication of the Bishop.
To the places owt of Auguſtin, noting that he vuould Diuiſ. 18. p. 675.hauehave this diſcipline ceas, if the more part be infected, vuhereby I gathered that he vuas of iudgment, that the conſent of the church vuas to be required: he anſwereth, that thoſe ſayinges are to be vnderſtanded, not of any right they had of excommunication, but of the mislikyng of the fact, for which the Bishop doeth excommunicate. But where hath he in Auguſtin that interpretation, more then I hauehave that which I ſet down? I am wel aſſured, that Auguſtins wordes, are as fauorable to mine, as to his, and ſo much the more fauorable, as the ſchiſm which he would hauehave by this meanes auoided: riſeth ſoner, when one is excommunicate, of whome they hauehave giuen the Bishop to vnderſtand, that they would not hauehave hym thrown owt, then when no ſuch iudgment hath paſſed from them. For then the vngodly oppoſe thē ſelues, not onelyonly becauſe they would hauehave the faut, wherwith they them ſelues be infected, vnpunished: but alſo, becauſe they wil auow their own ſentence. Nether did I propound that ſentence, for Auguſtins wordes, as he ſurmiſeth, but as that, which I gathered of them.
As for the medicin which he pretendeth to giuegive, that the people retain ſinnes, when they ſeparate them ſelues from the company of the excommunicate: it is giuen to him, that is not ſik. For, althowgh that may, by a borowed ſpeach, be ſo called, wherby the effect is put for the cauſe: yet that Auguſtin meant not that onelyonly, it is manifeſt in that he attributeth vntounto the church, helping of the Bishop, yea and the very word of accurſing, which he vſeth for excommunicating: ſo that the D. hath corrupted the minde of Auguſtin. For Auguſtin putteth firſt of al, the churches helping of the Bishop in excommunicating, as one ſeueral thing, and then the auoiding of his company for another: which he expoundeth as al one. but if he wil depart from the vſual ſpeach, he muſt shew vsus ſome good autority: wherby it may appear, that we muſt needes wring Auguſtins wordes to that ſens. which I am aſſured he can not doe: eſpecially when aAd Deme triaden… 1. Epiſt.Ierome who liued in the ſame age with Auguſtin, affirmeth that togither with the Bishop, the Elders in other cenſures of the church, and the church yt ſelf, hauehave, interest in the excommunication. whereupon may appear, that my interpretation of the places browght ether before or now, towching the Bishop excommunicating, vuhich is that he vuas the cheif in the action, and had the publishing of the ſentence, and not the vuhole right of excommunication: is ſoūd, and cōformable boeth to the holy ſcripture, and practis of the elder and purer churches.
That the Canon of the coūcel of Sardis, whereof the Anſwerer glorieth, is to be vnderſtanded not of the Bishop alone: one profe is, in the Elders ioynt gouernment with the Bishop generally in al matters, which I hauehave bIn the former part p. 594. Arles 2. ca. 30.before ſet down. Another shal be, that another Councel autoriſeth, the ſuſpenſion, which the Elders and Clerkes decree against the Bishop: and that (as yt ſaith) by autority of aunciēt decrees. The Councels therfore, giuing the Elders remedy at home, and with in them ſelues: the rash excommunication, which the Coūcel aſcribeth vntounto the Bishop, muſt needes be vnderſtood to hauehave bene doen by aduiſe of the Elders. For otherwiſe, if the Elders conſented not vntounto yt: they had by the auncient decrees, autority to deal with the Bishop thē ſelues, withowt running ether to Metrapolitane, or other Bishop. yf this anſwer like him not, let him (if he had rather) take that which M. cInſt. 4. li. 11. chap. ſ…Caluin giueth: that the Bishops, vuhen they excommunicated of them ſelues alone, did it ambitiously, cōtrary to the decrees of the godly Councels.
As for that yow be of iudgment, that the Bishop may not excommunicate whom he liſteth, withowt profe &c. and therto cite a long ſentence owt of Augustin: it is wel ſaid, but wherfore ſerueth this wel ſaying? doe yow think the church much behoulding to yow, for that which neuer any yet (the Popes Cā oniſtes excepted which giuegive him abſolute power to throw owt and take in whom he liſt) durſt deny? here therfore, yow run fairely, but owt of the way altogither.
If I of the other ſide, should herein ſet down the iudgment of aBucer cō tra Groppe rum, & in 4. chap. to the Epheſ. Item in lib. de rat. exa. can. & lib. de ani. cur.Bucer bMartyr vponupon 1. Co. 5.Martyr, cZuing. in Eccleſiaste ſu…. Chap. 2. diuiſ. 2. page 679.Zuinglius, and other godly writers of our age, againſt the ſole excommunication by the Bishop: it would require a book, by it ſelf. But as in a thing clear and plain, I wil not weary the reader. The two next diuiſions, as meer and oft repeted reproches, I omit.
In the next, he confeſſeth that Chauncelors &c. owght not to medle with excommunication. The ciuil ſeparation from trafique, &c. cited owt of Gualter: is nothing but a rouing. For we meddle not here, with ciuil punishment, except he peraduenture be of his iudgment, that the eccleſiaſtical diſcipline of excommunication, may be taken owt of the church, and this ciuil ſeparation put in place: if he be, let him ſpeak owt, that we may hear him.
But becauſe theſe kinde of allegations be daungerous, and tend to the shaking of this inſtitution of god: and for that alowing ſometyme of excommunication as of the inſtitution of god, at other ſome tymes he inſinuateth, that yt should not be exerciſed, eſpecially againſt the Prince, and nobility: leauing M. Gualter, I wil take me to hym. And to ſpeak in a word of yt, yt is nothing but a meer mockery of the lord, and to offer hym ſelf, as a Baud to al maner of ſynnes in Princes. Yf al were deliuered from this correction (as M. Gualter pretendeth) then yt were good reaſon that the Prince should alſo: but to inſinuat, that others being ſubiect, onelyonly Princes should be exempted (I fear) commeth from a wors cauſe, then from ſimple error.
For who could be ignorant, that our S. Chriſt ſpeakethMath. 18. 15 generally, when he ſaith, yf thy brother &c. whereby he cō prehendeth al thoſe that are members of one church, and childrē of one heauenly father. In which nōber the ſcripture reckeneth the kyng: whileſt in yt he is boeth called a aDeut. 17. 15. 20.brother, and calleth his ſubiectes b1. Cronic. 28. 2. 1. Cor. 5. 12. 12, 13.brethren. or who could be ignorant, that S. Paul ſubiecteth al vntounto this order: ſauing thoſe onelyonly, which are ſtraūgers from the church. So that to ſay, that Princes are not ſubiect vntounto this order: is al one, as yf he should ſay, that Princes pertain no to the kingdome of heauen, are none of the church, hauehave no part with Chriſt &c. Thus ys boeth Chriſt robbed of his honor, which in cō tempt of his order (as thowgh yt were to baſe for Princes to goe vnderunder) is hym ſelf contemned: and Princes defrauded of a ſinguler c1. Cor. 5. 5 2 Tim. 1. 20. 2. Cor. 7. 11.ayd of ſaluation, and way to draw them to repentance, when they (throwgh the common corruption) fal into ſuch diſeaſes, againſt which this medicin was prepared.
Hether belongeth the practiſe of the church in this,Euſeb. lib. 6. cap. 34. Theod. 5. 18 Platina. ca. Gelaſius. and ſuch kinde of cenſures, toward the Emperoures Philip, Theodoſius, and Anaſtaſius on the one ſide, and the godly Emperoures ſubmiſsion thereunto on the other, which yf he (vponupon confidence of M. Gualters autority) dare cōdemn of pride in them which exerciſed thoſe cenſures, or of foly in the Emperours that ſubmitted them ſelues: not to charge hym with Maſter Nowels autority, which ſaith that the Prince ovught paciently to abide excommunication at Tom. 2. fol. 53. Numb. 12. 14. 15. 2. Cronicl. 26. 21.the Bishops handes, what wil he anſwer to the example of Mary Moſes ſyſter and kyng Vzzias, which were ſubiect to the ſame law of vncleānes by reaſon of the leproſy, aſwel as any of the common people. For that the ſeparation commanded in reſpect thereof, was not onelyonly a ciuil policy, to kepe the whole from the ſik, but that there was therein vſed, a part of Eccleſiaſtical diſcipline, yt may appear, for that the Prieſt had the knowledg of the cauſe, the shutting them owt, and receiuing them in: and for that Azarias the Prieſt of the lord, with other his Aſsiſtantes, remoued the kyng owt of the temple, for the which he is commended in the ſcripture.
And if yt had bene onelyonly a ciuil ſeparation, yet when the Princes could not be exempted from yt, for fear of a corporal infecting of their ſubiectes: how much les owght they to be exempted from that ſeparation, which is a1. Co. 5. 6.inſtituted againſt the ſpiritual contagion. that which he obiecteth, of the drawing this ſpiritual ſword, at eueryevery light or no occaſion at al, thereby to deliuer the Prince from ſubiection thereto: ys vayn. for yf they abuſe this power, the Price needeth not onelyonly to cōtēn yt, but alſo may punish the abuſers of yt: So that in this reſpect, there is les cauſe, why the Prince should shake of this yoke of Chriſt, then others: conſidering, that he hath better remedy againſt the abuſe of yt, then others.
That cōtractes of mariadg, appertain not vntounto the iudgmentDiuiſ. 3. pa. 680. of church officers, it is manifeſt, conſidering that it is partly oeconomical, and belonging to the right of the b1. Co. 7. 38.parentes, partly ciuil, in reſpect that it was in tymes paſt concluded before the cRuth 4. cha. 1. 2.Magiſtrate. For as for the bleſſing in the church, it is no part of the contract, but a thing annexed vntounto yt. which appeareth, in that vponupon the bare contract, before the bleſsing: the parties (althowgh not to hauehave company one with another) be dMath. 1. 20.man and wife: and for that the breaker of that contract, is taken for an eDeut. 22. 23. 24.adulterer. wherevpon it foloweth, that the iudgment of diuors, being meerly publik, muſt be the ciuil magiſtrates alone. For matters of willes, it appeareth that they belong vntounto the Magiſtrate: conſidering that they are occupied in the commodities of this life, and towch the diſtribution of goodes or landes.
As for the An. reaſon, that the Bishop hauing best knowledg in thoſe thinges, may best iudg in them: it is a hook, to get al into their own handes. But I deny firſt, that they hauehave, or can (by their calling) hauehave beſt knowledg in ſuch thinges: conſidering that there be diuerſe thinges in them, which require other knowledg, then of the law of god. And the caſe is rare, when the queſtion is, whether a legacy, a contract, or a diuors be according to the law of god, or no: at leaſt which requireth any deep knowledg to diſſolue it. And if al that which may fal into theſe matters, were to be decided by the law of god: yet to ſit as iudg in them, requireth not onelyonly knowledg, but alſo a calling, which Bishops can not hauehave, for the cauſes aboue alledged. Therefore it is manifeſt: that herein the Bishops are vſurpers, whereof alſo the D. may read, M. Nowels iudgment, that vuhoredomes, 2. Tom. fol. 25.adulteries, slaunders, ſubtraction of tithes, caſes testamentary &c. vuhich Bishops ſometyme meddle vuith: are no more spiritual, then are murthers, theftes, oppreſſions, and other iniuries.
Nether wil it help him: that they exerciſe al maner of iuriſdiction, in the Princes right. For, firſt it hath bene shewed, that they owght to exerciſe no ciuil iuriſdiction, althowgh it were committed vntounto them. Then, how cometh it to pas, that in right of their bishoprik, withowt further commiſſion from the Prince: they take vponupon them theſe iudgmentes of whoredome, diuorces &c, euen as they found them in tyme of popery. And as for excommunication, and other cenſures eccleſiaſtical, if they exerciſe them in the Magistrates right: it foloweth that boeth the magiſtrate may much more exerciſe them him ſelf, and appoint other then miniſters to doe thē, boeth which, as they be abſurd, ſo are they ouerthrowen by the D. him ſelf: which thinketh it vnlawful for Chauncelors to excommunicate, for that (as I ſuppoſe) they be no miniſters.
In the next, where the Chauncelors are charged to excommunicate, and abſolue for money, alſo one man for another &c. he ſaith, it is the faut of the man and not of the law. which if it were true, yet it argueth the Bishops vnſufferable careleſnes of godes glorie, whoſe inſtitution is thus shamefully profaned: and neglect of duty towardes the Prince, whoſe ſubiectes are thus pilled. And here it is not to be omitted, that where the eccleſiaſtical cēſures in reformed churches, are exerciſed withowt a penny charge vntounto any perſon: our churches, partly by reaſon of the Archbiſ. and Bishops, and partly the Archdeacons officers and their hangons, which by this meanes liue in al brauery and iolytie of life, are ſore wrung: So that they are therby much les able, to contribute to the neceſſary charges, ether of releeuing their poor miniſter, or ſuſteyning the ſubſidies laid vponupon them, for defence of the realm. Therfore if the Archbishops and Archdeacons wil needes take more vponupon them, then them ſelues be able to beweld: at the leaſt, let them pay their ſeruantes wages, and not thus burden the church. But thus the reader may ſee, how vnworthely the Archbishops, Bishops and Archdeacons deal with the church, which not content them ſelues to vſe tyranny ouer yt, and to take vponupon them of their priuate autority, which belongeth vntounto other with them, hauehave alſo brought it into bondage vnderunder their ſeruantes, and ſeruātes ſeruātes, I mean Chauncelors, Comiſſaries &c. The next I pas by.
In the next, where I shew that the office of Chorepiſcopus Diuiſ. 6. p. 682.alledged for defence of the Chauncelers office, vuas far another thing: he ſaith, that he onelyonly alledged yt to proue that Bishops had their deputies▪ which, how vnhoneſt a shift it is, may appear: in that he maketh no difference, betwene the Chauncelor and Chorepiſcopus, but onelyonly in the name: ſaying, to contend for the name when the thing is certeyn, is a token of a contentious perſon.
Althowgh he had not ſo gained, that the Bishops had deputies: ſeing I aIn the firſt booK and in the former part of th… booK. p. 523.shewed, that boeth the nature of the word, and the autority of certein interpreters, lead to the ſignification aſwel of a Bishop in the countrey townes, as of a deputie. yt is vntrue, that I hauehave any where alowed an ordinary deputy, wherof the queſtion is here: but contrary wiſe, hauehave shewed that there owght to be none, not onelyonly in the treatiſe of the Paſtors reſidence, but alſo in bDiui 2. p. 679.this, wherunto the D. anſwereth nothing. But if it were graunted, that they might hauehave, ſuch as I hauehave shewed to hauehave bene Chorepiſc. yet what a ſtrange concluſion is this, that they may aſwel hauehave Chauncelors: conſidering that he is now conſtreyned to confes, the office of the one greatly different from the other. The reſt is din the former part of this booK p. 146. 229. and in this part diuiſ. 16. p. 645.anſwered: ſo are the two cIn the examination of the D. cē ſures.next.
In the next, where he is charged for alowing as neceſſary the Archbishops court of faculties &c, which he confeſſeth he knoweth not, what it meaneth. He ſaith, he browght better reaſon for it, then is browght againſt yt. which is no defence of his rashnes, wherby he affirmed, that which he confeſſed he knew not. His reaſon which he hath learned ſithens is, that the Quenes p. 561.prerogatiues are defended there: As thowgh the Archbishop were the fitteſt man to defend her prerogatiues. Alſo, that it was ſet vp, when the Pope was put down: in deed ſo yt was, which is a good ſign, that the Archbishop (ſauing profeſsion of obedience to the king) was made Pope in his place. For herevpon it cometh, that he exerciſeth vntolerable and filthy marchandiſe: of which diuers obiected by the Adm. he partly confeſſed,561. 685. and part throwgh lothnes to confes and vnability to anſwer, were paſſed by.
That alſo, of not changing lawes but vponupon ſtrong reaſons, which he other where repeateth: hath no place, where the queſtion is, whether they be againſt the word of god or no. For here that worthy ſentence hath place: yf god command any thing August. in his 3. booK of confeſſ. 8 chap.against the maner or decree of vuhatſoeuer they be, if it vuere neuer doen before, it ovught to be doen, if it hauehave bene omitted, it ovught to be reſtored, if it vuere neuer before, it ovught to be inſtituted. Yf the D. allegation hauehave place, it hath place in variable ceremonies: which notwithſtāding (as hath bene shewed) the church hath changed, according as the circumſtances hauehave required, to the moſt of her comodity.
Seing therfore, our Sau. Chriſt commandeth, that the excommunication should be made by the church: Seing the Apoſtles his faithful interpreters, cōmunicate the ſame power with yt, in commanding yt to thruſt owt impenitēt ſynners, to procure that boeth they may be ſaued, and others alſo kept from infectiō: ſeing alſo the holy goſt, chideth the church, for that it had not vſed this power againſt the vnrepentant: Seing he communicateth with it, the power of abſoluing thoſe which were thruſt owt, whē they declare their repentance: Laſt of al, ſeing boeth the iudgment, and general practiſe of the elder churches, and in a maner of thoſe which are now, lead vsus hereunto: Of the other ſide, ſeing the Bishop can not pas ſmaller matters, withowt the aduiſe of the church: ſeing by his ſole excommunication, he hath browght the church to a miſerable ſeruitude, and that not to him ſelf alone, but to his ſeruantes, Chauncelors, Officials, &c. ſeing vnderunder colour hereof, he hath thruſt his ſickle into the Magiſtrates office, ſuffred the glory of god to be troden vnderunder foot, the Quenes ſubiectes to be pilled: And finally, ſeing that for his ſole excommunicatiō, there is not ſo much as one ether approued example, or writer to be browght (ſome of the papiſtes them ſelues being ashamed of it:) let vsus conclude, that the excommunication doeth not belong vntounto the Bishop alone, but that by the ordinance of god, the church alſo here owght to hauehave her intereſt.