then it is a flat abusing of scripture to gather fro this saying of Christ, that the Apostles had power of binding conscience because he had so. It is true indeed that there is a similitude or analogie betwene the calling of Christ and his Apostles; but it wholly stands in these points. Christ was ordained to his office before all worldes, & so were the Apostles: Christ was called of his father immediatly, and so were they of Christ: Christ was sent to the whol worlde, & so were they: Christ receiued all power in heaven and earth as beeing necessary for a mediatour; and they receiued an extraordinary authority from him with such a plentifull measure of the spirit as was necessary for the Apostolicall function. Lastly Christ was sent euen as he was man to be a teacher of the Iewes: & therfore be is called the minister of circumcision, Rom. 15. 8. & so the Apostles are sent by him to teach the Gentiles. Thus far is the comparison to be enlarged, & no further. And that no man might imagine that some parte of this resemblance stands in a power of binding conscience, Christ hath put a speciall exception when he saith, Goe teach all nations, teaching them to obserue al things that I have commanded you.

Arg. 6. Rom. 13. Whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God: and, they that resist

[gap]all receive to them selues iudgement: and, ye must be subiect not onely for wrath, but also for conscience s[gap]e. Answ. Magistracie indeed is an ordinance of God to which we owe subiectio, but how farre subiection is due there is the questio. For body & goods & outward coversation I grant all: but a subiection of coscience to mans lawes, I deny. And betweene these two there is a great difference to be subiect to authority in conscience, & to be subiect to it for conscience, as wil be manifest if we do but consider the phrase of the Apostle, the meaning whereof is, that we must performe obedience not onely for anger, that is, for the auoiding of punishment, but also for the auoiding of sinne, & so by cosequent for auoiding a breach in cosciece. Now this breach is not properly made because mans law is neglected, but because Gods law is broken which ordaineth magistracie, & withall binds mens consciences to obey their lawfull commandements. And the danation that is due unto men for resisting the ordinance of God comes not by the single breach of magistrates commandemet, but by a transgression of the law of God which appointeth magistrates & their authority. To this answer papists reply nothing that is of moment. Therfore I proceed.

Arg. 7. 1. Cor. 4. What will you that I come unto

you with a rod, or in the spirit of meeknes? Now this rod is a iudicial power of punishing sinners. Answ. For the regiment & protection of Gods Church. There be 2. rods m[gap]oned in scripture: the rod of Christ, & the Apostolicall rodd. The rod of Christ is termed a rod of iron or the rod of his mouth, & it signifies that absolute & soueraigne power which Christ hath ouer his creatures wherby he is able to couert & saue them, or to forsake and destroy them. And it is a peculiar priuiledge of this rodde to smite and wound the conscience. The Apostolicall rodde was a certaine extraordinary power whereby God inabled them to plague and punish rebellious offenders with grieuous iudgements not in their soules but in their bodies alone. With this rod Paul smote Elimas blind, & Peter smote Ananias and Saphira with bodily death. And it may be that Paul by this power did giue up the incestuous man when he was excommunicate, to be vexed in his body and tormented by the deuill: but that by this rodde the Apostles could smite conscience, it can not be prooued.

Arg. 8. 1. Tim. 3. Paul made a law that none hauing two wiues should be ordained a Bishop: now this law is positiue and Ecclesiasticall and bindes conscience. Answ. Paul is not the maker of this law, but God himselfe, who ordained

that in mariage not three but two alone should be one flesh: and that they which serue at the altar of the Lord, should be holy. And to graunt that this law were a new law beside the written word of God, yet doeth it not follow that Paul was the maker of it: because he used not to deliuer any doctrine to the Churches but that which he receiued of the Lord.

Argum. 9. Luc. 10. He which heareth you, heareth me. Answ. These wordes properly concerne the Apostles, and doe not in like maner belong to pastors & teachers of the Church. And the end of these wordes is not to confirme any Apostolicall authority in making lawes to the conscience; but to signifie the priviledge which hee had vouchsafed them aboue all others, that he would so farre forth assist them with his spirite, that they should not erre or be deceiued in teaching & publishing the doctrine of saluation, though otherwise they were sinfull men: according to Matth. 10. It is not you that speake, but the spirite of my father which speaketh in you. And the promise to be led into all truth was directed vnto them.

Arg. 10. 1. Cor. 11. I praise you that yee keepe my commandements. Answ. Paul deliuered nothing of his owne concerning the substance of the doctrine of saluation & the worship of God,

but that which he receiued from Christ; the precepts here ment are nothing else but rules of decencie & comely order in the congregation: and though they were to be obeyed, yet Pauls meaning was not to binde any mans conscience therewith. For of greater matters he saith, This I speake for your commoditie, and not to intangle you in a snare, 1. Cor. 7. 35.

Arg. 11. Councels of ancient fathers when they commad or forbid any thing, do it with threatning of a curse to the offenders. Ans. The church in former time used to annexe vnto hir Canons the curse anathema, because things decreed by them were indeed, or at the least thought to be the will and word of God: and they had respect to the saying of Paul, If any teach otherwise though he be an angell from heauen, let him be accursed. Therfore councels in this action were no more but instruments of God to accurse those, whome he first of all had accursed.

Arg. 12. An act indifferent if it be commanded is made necessary: & the keeping of it is the practise of vertue, therefore euery law bindes conscience to a sinne. Ans. An act in it selfe indifferent being commaded by mans law is not made simply necessary, for that is as much as gods law doth or can doe, but only in some part, that is, so far forth as the said act or action tends to maintaine

and preserue the good end for which the law is made. And though the action be in this regard necessary, yet doth it still remaine indifferent as it is considered in it selfe out of the ende of the law: so as if peace, the common good & comely order may be maintained & all offence auoided by any other meanes, the act may be done or not done without sinne before God. For whereas God himselfe hath giuen liberty & freedome in the use of things indifferent, the law of man doeth not take away the same but onely moderate and order it for the common good.

Arg. 13. The fast of Lent stands by a lawe and commandement of men: and this lawe bindes conscience simply: for the ancient fathers haue called it a Tradition Apostolicall, and make the keeping of it to be necassary, and the not keeping of it a sinne, and punish the offenders with excommunication. Answer. It is plaine to him that will not be obstinate, that Lent fast was not commaunded in the Primitiue Church, but was freely kept at mens pleasures, & in seuerall Churches diuersly both in regard of space of time, as also in respect of diversity of meats. Ireneus in his epistle to Victor [gap]ed by Eusebius saith, Some have thought that they must fast o[gap] day, some two daies, some more, some 40. houres

day and night, which diversitie of fasting commendeth the vnitie of faith. Spiridion a good man did eate flesh in Lent, and caused his guest to doe the same, and this he did upon iudgemet because he was perswaded out of Gods worde, that to the clean all things were cleane. And Eusebius recordes that Montanus the hereuke was the first that prescribed solemne and set lawes of fasting. And whereas this fast is called an Apostolicall tradition it is no great matter, for it was the manner of the ancient Church in former times to tearme rites and orders Ecclesiasticall not set downe in scriptures Apostolicall orders, that by this meanes they might commend them to the people: as Ierome testifieth, Every province (saith he) may thinke the constitutions of the ancestours to be Apostolicall lawes. And whereas it is said to be a sinne not to fast in Lent (as Augustine speaketh) it is not by reason of any commandement binding conscience, for Augustine saith plainly, that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed any set time of fasting: & Chrysostome, that Christ neuer commanded vs to follow his fast: but the true reason hereof is borrowed from the ende. For the Primitiue Church vsed not the popish fast, which is to eat whitmeate alone, but an abstinence from all meates vsed specially to morufie the flesh and

to prepare men before-hand to a worthy receiuing of the Eucharist. And in regarde of this good ende was the offence. And whereas it is said, that auncient fathers taught a necessitie of keeping this fast, euen Hierome whome they alledge to this purpose saith the contrary. For confuting the errour of Montanus who had his set times of fast to be kept of necessity, hee saith, We fast in Lent according to the Apostles tradition as in a time meete for vs: and wee doe it not as though it were not lawfull for vs to fast in the rest of the yeere except Penticost: but it is one thing to doe a thing of necessitie, and anothing to offer a gift of free-vvill. Lastly, excommunication was for the open contempt of this order taken vp in the Church, which was, that men should fast before Faster for their further humiliation & preparation to the sacrament. So the 29. cano of the councill of [gap] must be understood. As for the Canons of the Apostles (so falsely called) and the 8. councill of Toledo, I much respect not what they say in this case.

Arg. 14. Gods authority binds conscience: magistrates authority is Gods authority: therefore magistrates authority binds conscience properly. Ans. Gods authority may be take two waies: first for that soueraigne and absolute power which he useth ouer all his creatures: secondly,

for that finite & limited power which he hath [gap] that men shall exercise ouer men. If the minor, [gap] that Magistrates authority is Gods authority, be taken in the first sense, it is false: for the soueraigne power of god is mooue [gap]ic able. If it be taken in the second sense, the [gap]

[gap] false. For there be sundry authorities ordained of God, as the authority of the father oner the childe, of the master over the servant, the authority of the master ouer his scholler, which doe not properly and [gap] bind in conscience as the authority of gods lawes doth.

By these arguments which I haue now answered, & by many other being but lightly [gap], it will appeare that necessary obedience is to be performed both to ciuil & ecciesiasticall iurisdiction: but that they haue a constraining power to bind conscience as properly as gods laws do, it is not yet prooued, neither can it be, as I will make manifest by other arguments.

Arg. 1. He that makes a law binding consciece to mortal sinne, hath power, if not to saue yet to destroy: because by sin, which follows upon the transgressio of his law, comes death & danation: But God is the only lawgiuer that hath this priuiledge, which is, after he hath giue his law, vpo the breaking or keeping thereof, to save or destroy. Iam 4. 12. There is one lawgiuer that can saue or destroy. Therfore God alone makes laws

[gap]inding coscience properly, & no creature ca do the like. Answer is made that S. Iames speaks of the principall law-giuer, that by his own proper authority makes lawes, & doth in such manner saue & destroy, that he need not feare to be destroied of any: & that he speaks not of secondary lawgiuers that are deputies of god & make laws in his name. I say again that this answer stads not with the text. For S. Iames speakes simply without distinctio, limitatio, or exceptio: & the effect of his reason is this. No ma at all must slander his brother, because no man must be iudge of the law: & no man can be iudge of the law, because no man can be a law-giuer to saue and destroy. Now then where be those persons that shall make lawes to the soules of men, & binde them unto punishment of mortall sinne; considering God alone is the sauing & destroying lawgiuer.

Arg. 2. He that can make laws as truly binding conscience as gods lawes, can also prescribe rules of Gods worship: because to bind the consciece is nothing els but to cause it to excuse for things that are well done, and therefore truely please God, & to accuse for sinne wherby god is dishonoured: but no man can prescribe rules of gods worship; & humane lawes as they are humane laws, appoint not the seruice of God. Esai. 29. 13. [gap]ir fear towards me was taught by the precept of [gap]. Mat. 15. 9. they worship me in vain teach[gap]

doctrines which are the commandements of [gap]. Papists here make answer, that by lawes of men we must understand such lawes as be unlawfull or unprofitable being made without the authority of God or instinct of his spirit. It is true indeed that these commandements of men were unlawfull: but the cause must be considered: they were unlawfull not because they commanded that which was unlawful & against the will of God, but because things in themselues lawfull were commanded as parts of gods worship. To wash the outward part of the cup or platter, & to wash hands before meat; are things in respect of civill use very lawfull, & yet are these blamed by Christ & no other reason ca be rendred but this, that they were prescribed not as things indifferent or ciuill, but as matters pertaining to Gods worship. It is not against Gods worde in some politike regards to make distinctions of meats, & drinks, & times: yet Paul calls these things doctrines of deuils, because they were commaded as things wherein God would be worshipped.

Arg. 3. God hath giuen a liberty to the conscience whereby it is freed fro all lawes of his own whatsoeuer, excepting such lawes & doctrines as are necessary to salvation. Col. 2. 10. If yee be dead with Christ, ye are free fro the elemets of the world. Gal. 5. 1. Standye in the liberty wher with

Christ hath freedyou, and be not againe intangled with the yoke of bondage. Nowe, if humane lawes made after the graunt of this libertie, bind conscience property, then must they either take away the foresaid libertie, or diminish the same; but that they cannot doe: for that which is gra ted by an higher authority, namely God himself, cannot be reuoked or repealed by the inferiour authoritie of any man. It is answered, that this freedome is onely from the bondage of sinne, from the curse of the morall law, from the ceremoniall and iudiciall lawes of Moses, and not from the lawes of our superiours. And I answer againe, that it is absurd to thinke that God giues vs libertie in conscience from any of his owne laws, and yet will haue our consciences stil to remaine in subiection to the laws o[gap] sinnefull men.

Arg. 4. Whosoeuer bindes conscience, commaunds conscience. For the bonde is made by a commadement vrging conscience to do his dutie, which is to accuse or excuse for euill or well doing. Now Gods laws commaund conscience in as much as they are spirituall, commaunding bodie and spirit, with all the thoughts, will, affections, desires, and faculties, and requiring obedience of them all according to their kinde. As for the laws of men, they want power to commaund conscience. In deede if it were possible

for our gouernours by law to commaund mens thoughts and affections, then also might they command coscience: but the first is not possible, for their lawes can reach no further then to the outward man, that is, to bodie and goods, with the speaches and deedes thereof: and the ende of them all is not to maintaine spirituall peace of conscience, which is betweene man and God, but onely that externall and ciuill peace which is betweene man and man. And it were not meete that men should commaund conscience, which cannot see conscience and iudge of all her actions, which appeare not outwardly and whereof there be no witnesses, but God and the conscience of the doer. Lastly, men are no fitte commanders of conscience, because they are no lords of it, but God himselfe alone.

Argum. 5. Men in making lawes are subiect to ignorance and errour: and therefore when they haue made a law (as neare as possible they can) agreeable to the equitie of Gods law, yet can they not assure themselues and others that they haue failed in no point or circumstance. Therefore it is against reason that humane laws beeing subiect to defects, faults, errours, and manifold imperfections, should truly bind conscience, as Gods lawes doe which are the rule of righteousnes. All gouernours in the world,

vpon their daily experience see and acknowledge this to be true which I say, (by reason that to their olde lawes, they are constrained to put restrictions, ampliations, modifications of all kindes, with new readings and interpretations) saving the Bishop of Rome (so falsly tearmed) which perswades himselfe to haue when he is in his consistorie, such an infallible assistance of the spirite that he can not possibly erre in iudgement.