A LEARNED SERMON PREACHED NOT LONG SINCE IN S.MARIES CHVRCH IN THE Vniuersitie of Cambridge: succinctly debating the chiefe of those matters, which are now in question in the Church of England.

Luke 22. ver. 26. But you not so: But let him that is or shall be greater amongest you, be as the younger, and the ruler as he that ministreth.

THese wordes of our Sauiour Christ, deuide
them selues into two parts. viz.
A dehortation: in these words: But you not
so: in which our Sauiour dehorteth his Disciples,
from ambition and tyrannie.
An exhortation: in the other wordes: but let him that
is, or shall be greater amongst you, be as the yonger: and the
ruler, as he that ministreth. That is, that in their superioritie
and authoritie, they should be humble: and behaue
them selues as Ministers, ministring good to all.
Of the later of these two parts, containing very good,
and fit matter for this place because of the time I shall
not be able to intreate. I will therefore keepe my selfe
within the compasse of the first, namely the dehortation:
But you not so.
Which words do seeme to be somewhat imperfect, and
therfore lest I should be thought to ad anie thing of mine
owne, I will borrow the words of the Euangelist Saint
Mathew chap. 20. 26. & Saint Marke chap. 10. 43. who
writ one and the selfe same thing: so to make the sence it
shalbe NoValue: In these words there are three,
which containe some difficultie in them.
NoValue: it shall not be.
NoValue: so.
NoValue you or with you.
So that, for the vnderstanding of the meaning of our Sauiour
Christ, we must search out, what is meant by, It
shall not be: what by, so: what by, you.
It shall not be. This kinde of phrase of speech, in our
English tongue, is vsed two maner of wayes, either forbidding
a thing to be done, or foretelling a thing not to
be done: As when a maister saith to his seruant, This shall
not be done to day, or, It shall not be done to day. In this
speech, he doth forbid a thing to be done. But when an
Astronomer shall say, of the weather, It shall not be hot,
drie, cold, or rainie, on such a day, or such a moneth, In
this kinde of speech he doth not forbid, but foreshewe a
thing that shal not be. In these two sences, are these words
NoValue: it shall not be, vsed in the Scriptures: namely
either forbidding a thing to be done, in which sence, Imperatiuely:
or foretelling a thing not to be done, in which
Prophetically. Prophetically, these words NoValue are vsed
Apoc. 10. 6. where the Angell sweareth: NoValue: that it shall not be time any more: prophecying, and
foretelling a thing that shall not be. So likewise it is taken
Apoc. 22. 5. NoValue and shall not be night there,
prophecying of the estate of the kingdome of heauen.
This I take it, is the reason, why some haue thought
Christ to speake prophetically in this place.
If it be taken prophetically, then it must needes be either
a prophecie of the estate of his Disciples, in this life,
or in the life to come. If in this life, then the sence is this:
The Kings of the Gentiles do rule, and those that are in authoritie,
are called good doers: But you not so. That is, I do
foreshew vnto you, that you shal not be so. As if he should
say: they, in their authoritie, are called good doers: but
you, exercising authoritie, shalbe called bad doers: they
ruling euilly, are called good men: you ruling well, shall
be called euill men. In which sence, our Sauiour Christ
is made to speake in this place, all one with that, which
in another place, elsewhere he saith: The Disciple is not
greater than his Maister: If they haue called me Beelzebub,
they shall also call you. Me, that came to minister good to
them, and to giue my life for them: euen so you, that in
your authority, shall procure the welfare of all, and spend
your liues to do good to all. This sence is true, for by lamentable
experience, we find it to be so, when as amo~gst
vs, some, for their superioritie are called Antichristes:
some for their authoritie, Tyrants: for dealing iustly,
without partialitie, cruell men: for restraining the libertie
of certaine persons, Persecutors. This sence though
good, yet doth it not fit this place, my reason is this. Because
our Sauiour Christ presently after saith NoValue, let
him be, speaking Imperatiuely.
If we take it to be a prophecie of the life to come, then
the sence is, The Kings of the Gentiles do rule ouer them:
But you not so. That is, in my kingdome, which you falsly
imagine to be vpon earth I do foreshew vnto you, that it
shal not be so. In which sence, our sauiour Christ is made

B

to rebuke two things in his Disciples. First, that they ambitiously
sought to be each of them ouer other. Secondly,
that they preferred earth before heauen, and the hauing
of a kingdome vpon earth, before the kingdome of heauen.
This sence is the better thought of: First, because in
this place our Sauiour Christ doth rebuke the ambitious
strife for rule that was in his Disciples.
Secondly, because it was the manner of our Sauiour
Christ, to drawe them from the cogitation of earthly
things, as Luke 12. 32. from too much caring for foode,
and apparell, to the earnest desire of the kingdom of heauen,
in these words, Feare not litle flocke, it is your fathers
will to giue you a kingdome.
Thirdly, because immediately after, verse 29. our Sauiour
Christ speaketh of his kingdome: And I appoint
vnto you, as my Father hath appointed vnto me, a kingdome:
that you may eate and drinke, at my table in my kingdome,
iudging the twelve Tribes of Israell.
This sence is good, for by lamentable experience, we
find it to be true, when as some so vnsatiably hunt after
honor, that if they may but sit in the seat of honor, though
they die so soone as they be set, they care not. These, do
so much account of earth, that they care not for heauen:
as appeareth by so great cost, bestowed vpon great sumptuous
houses and stately pallaces, and litle or not prouision
sent vp to heauen: by which they shew plainly, that
they neuer mind to dwell there, and onely to dwell on
earth: whereas, alas poore soules, they are but tenaunts
at will, without any state of inheritaunce, or tearme of
yeares, and cast out to day or to morrow, at the will of
the Lord. This sence therefore, though good, and fitting
other places in the Scripture, yet doth it not fit this place.
my reasons are these.
First our Sauiour Christ, Matt. 20. 28. propoundeth
his maner of liuing here being conuersant vpon earth, as
a patterne vnto his Disciples: which can not be vnderstood
of the life to come, but of this life, saying vnto the~,
As the Sonne of man came not to be ministred vnto, but to
minister, and to giue his life for manie: insinuating, that
they in like maner, in their superioritie, and authoritie
ouer others, here vpon earth, should not propound this
to them selues, to be ministred vnto: that is, to haue others
at their commaund, as slaues to do their will, but to
minister, that is, to employ them selues to the good of others,
and for the procuting thereof, to spend their liues.
Secondly, because the Euangelists, Saint Mathew and
Saint Marke haue these wordes, He that will be greater:
which words import two things: first a change of estate,
from lower to higher, and from lesser to greater. Secondly,
a desire to be in other estate: which two things cannot
fit the kingdome of heauen, for there all things are eternall,
and therefore not subiect to change. And our estate
there, shall be an happie estate, and we shall desire no other
estate.
Thirdly, because the Euangelists compared together,
do declare, that by NoValue, our Sauiour meaneth, NoValue,
let it not be. For whereas the Euangelist Saint Marke,
Chap. 10. 43. hath NoValue: verse 44. NoValue
Saint Matthewe 20. 26. hath NoValue: verse
27. NoValue. It is therefore in this place spoken Imperatiuely,
forbidding a thing to be done, that is NoValue
and NoValue.
NoValue, that is, to tyrannize, which is, either ouer

B ij

the goods, bodies, or soules of men. Ouer the goods of
men, by taking away by force violently, or by deceipt
guilefully, the leases, lands, goods, or possessions of men.
Ouer the bodies of men: by hurting the~, by false imprisoning
them, by murthering them, by countenancing murtherers,
or acquitting murtherers. Ouer the soules of men:
by causing them to sweare, and forsweare them selues.
NoValue: that is, to vse will as a lawe, which is,
when the wil of some great man, shall be a sufficient warrant
to stay, or peruert iustice, or when any in authoritie
shall be led by his owne will, of affection, or malice, to
peruert iustice. On the contrarie side, he doth command,
or at the least commend, to rule iustly: for no forbidding
precept, but doth either co~mand, or commend the contrarie,
that is, doth either like, or not dislike the contrarie.
And thus much for the words NoValue, in which our Sauiour
Christ doth not forbid authoritie to his Disciples.
NoValue. This word is taken diuersely of sundrie men.
I do not purpose to name the persons, but reciting all opinions,
which with anie shew of reason haue, or can be
gathered, I purpose to set downe so neare as I can, the
purpose and intent of our Sauiour Christ.
Some attribute NoValue to the word NoValue: making
the sence thus, They that are in authoritie, are called NoValue:
which word is of some translated gratious Lord: But
you not so: that is, you shall not be called Lords.
Others attribute NoValue to the verbe NoValue, making
the sence thus, The kings of the Gentiles do rule: But you
not so: that is, you shall not rule.
Others, though they attribute it to the same verbe, yet
make the sence thus. The kings of the Gentiles do rule: But
you not so: that is, you shall not rule.
So either titles of honour, as Lord, ruler, or NoValue,
or ruling, or so ruling, is forbidden.
Titles of honor, whether Lord, ruler, or NoValue, are
not forbidden.
The word NoValue hath not one sillable in it, that signifieth
Lord. It is neuerthelesse so translated, because of
the imperfection of our English tongue: for hauing no
one word that signifieth a title of honour, and of doing
good which this word NoValue in this place doth signifie
the godly interpreters knowing voces to be rerum
imagines haue by this periphrasis gracious lords, sought to
set downe the meaning of our Sauiour Christ, vsing Lord
for a title of honor, and gracious for a title of doing good.
This title NoValue I reade to haue bene giuen to great
personages, as to Ptolomeus the third of that name, after
Alexander, and the immediat successor of Ptolomeus Philadelphus,
and to Ptolomeus, the seuenth after Alexander,
and successor of Ptolomeus Philometor, and as some write
to Cleomenes king of Sparta.
In this sence, being vsually giuen to great men, our Sauiour
Christ in this title doth not simply forbid the name
of NoValue, but the ambitious affecting of that title, and so
of honor, according as Matth. 23. 8. and 9. he forbiddeth
the~ to be called Rabbi, or father: where not the name simply,
but the ambicious affecting of that title is forbidden.
Againe, NoValue is a title of doing good, and all one
with NoValue, and NoValue: which titles are
indifferently giuen to all Christians, magistrates, people,
and Ministers, in the Scriptures. And that it may euidently
appeare, that this title is not forbidden, the Apostle
Peter doth apply it to our sauiour Christ. Actes. 10. 38.
NoValue, which went about doing good. And in

B iij

this sence our Sauiour Christ doth not forbid, simply, the
name and title of NoValue: but the hauing or giuing of
vaine titles, according as the Gentile rulers, which were
called NoValue, being NoValue: good-doers, being in deede
bad-doers.
In like maner, the title of Lord is not forbidden in this
place, nor in any other place of Scripture, to the Ministers.
Our Sauiour Christ, in regard of his superioritie
ouer his Disciples, was called Lord, Iohn 13. 13. You call
me Lord, and Maister, NoValue: yea the Apostles
haue this name giuen them, Actes 16. 30. NoValue.
My Lords, what shall I do that I may be saued?
In which place neither Paul nor Silas do reprehend
that title giuen them, which if it had bene vnlawfull, they
would.
Likewise, the title of ruler, is in the Scripture giuen
to Ministers, Hebr. 13. 7. NoValue. Remember
those rulers which haue preached vnto you the word
of God. And in the seuenteenth verse of the same chapter,
NoValue. Obey those rulers.
As titles of honour are not forbidden to Ministers: so
not to other rulers. The old Testament is full of high titles
giuen vnto them: and so are there some in the New.
The Euangelist Saint Luke, in his Gospell, Chapter 1. 3.
writing to Theophilus, giueth him this title: NoValue:
most excellent, or renowned Theophilus: which
title also Paule giueth to Festus, Actes 26. 25. NoValue,
most noble Festus. To be short, if anie title of honor, were
simply euil, it were the name and title of God giuen vnto
men, but that title in the old Testament in diuerse places,
is giuen to rulers, and the same is confirmed to them by
our Sauiour Chirst, Iohn. 10. 34. Titles of honour are
therefore neither forbidden to Ciuill, nor Ecclesiasticall
rulers.
Nowe remaineth the second sence: The kings of the
Gentiles, do rule: But you not so: that is, you shall not rule.
This sence can not agree with this place, for it is against
all sence, that where the titles of rulers are giuen, there ruling
should be denied. And most certaine it is, that Christ
in this place, forbiddeth vaine titles, and indeede there is
nothing more vaine, than bare titles, without the thing
itselfe.
Againe, our Sauiour Christ, in the words immediatly
following, doth graunt vnto them to beare rule, saying,
NoValue, whereas, if his purpose had
bene to forbid rule vnto them, he would haue sayd, NoValue,
rule therefore in this place is not forbidden.
Now remaineth the third sence, and that is this: The
kings of Gentiles do rule: But you not so: that is, you
shall not so rule. And this is the true, and natural meaning
of our Sauiour Chirst: but this so ruling, that is, the maner
of ruling, is diuersly taken of diuerse men, and the
word NoValue, attributed to diuerse wordes, in the verse going
before.
Some attribute NoValue to the word NoValue, making the
sence thus: The kings of the Gentiles, do rule: But you not so:
that is, you shall not rule as kings, and so vnderstand by
kings, supreme rulers, making our Sauiour Christ in
this place to forbid supreme gouernent.
Others attribute NoValue to the verbe NoValue: & do make
the sence thus, The kings of the Gentiles, do rule: But you,
not so: that is, you shall not rule, vnderstanding by rule,
ciuill authoritie, and so make our Sauiour Christ in this
place, to forbid Ciuill gouernment to his Disciples.
Others attribute NoValue to the same verbe, but by it, vnderstanding
tyrannous gouernment, & so make the sence
to be this. The kings of the Gentiles do NoValue, that is, rule
tyrannously, or oppresse them: But you not so: that is, you
my Disciples shall not tyrannize.
So that in this place, our Sauiour
Christ doth forbid either
Supreme,
Ciuill,
or Tyrannous
gouernment.
Supreme gouernment is not forbidden: my reasons
are these. First, because the word NoValue, in this place
doth not signifie onely the supreme gouernour, for he
speaketh in the plurall number, and of many, there being
at this time but one supreme gouernour, namely, Tiberius.
And therfore by NoValue are vnderstood the inferior
rulers, according as in Scripture the word NoValue is giuen
to the inferiour ruler: as Marke 6.14. NoValue:
Herod the king, whereas Herod was but an inferiour ruler,
vnder Augustus and Tiberius, and so Matthew 2. 22.
NoValue, that Archelaus was king: whereas
Archelaus was likewise an inferiour ruler. And this is
likewise made plaine by the verbe NoValue, do rule: spoken
in plurall number, of moe than one, and in the
present tense, whereas onely Tiberius did at this time excercise
supreme gouernment.
A second reason is this, To exercise supreme authoritie,
is not simplie euill, as appeareth in that Paule doth
appeale to Cæsar, as supreme gouernour. Actes. 25. 11.
NoValue. I appeale to Cæsar. As likewise, by the
godly and Christian gouernment, of Constantine, Theodosius,
and others: allowed of, by so many, so learned, and
godly fathers. Therefore supreme gouernment is not in
this place forbidden.
Ciuill gouernment, is likewise not forbidden: my reasons
are. First, if it had bene the purpose of our Sauiour
Christ, to forbid Ciuill gouernment: in all men: he wold
haue sayd, The kings of Israell haue ruled: But you not so.
Or if his purpose had bene to forbid it in the Ministerie,
he would haue sayd: The Priests of Israell do rule: But you
not so.
Secondly, our Sauiour Christ in this place, and in this
verse, doth graunt to his Disciples, that they may beare
rule, when as he saith: NoValue.
Thirdly, our Sauiour Chirst in this place, speaketh to
the whole Church, in which it is lawfull for some to exercise
Ciuill authoritie.
Fourthly, both in the olde and new Testament, the
Priests did exercise Ciuill authoritie. And the Apostles
do by their owne examples and writings, testifie the lawfulnesse
herof. In the old Testament we reade that Noah,
Melchisedech, Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, and Iob, did sacrifice
as Priests, and exercise authoritie as Rulers. But it
may be, some will obiect against these, that they were extraordinarie,
and before the Law.
What shall we then say to Moses, to whom manie
learned men haue attributed both? But to come nearer,
in the first booke of Samuell, we find Ely to be Iudge &
Priest: Samuell after him, Iudge and Priest: Ioell and
Abia the sonnes of Samuell, Iudges and Priests. All these
succeeding one another. Succession must of neccessity take
away extraordinarie. Yea, and of this gouernment God
doth say, that it was his own ordinance. 1.Samuel 8.7.
They haue not cast away thee, but me, that I should not

C

11

raigne ouer them. The like many be said os Esdras, Nehemias,
and Mattathias, commaunded, for to doe after the
law of their God, & zealous of the same law, who without
all question, would not haue exercised both, had not
both bene lawfull to them, by the law of their God.
Againe, what shall we say, to those many examples,
which diuerse learned writers haue noted in Priestes:
Some being deuiders of land: chiefe of Princes counsels:
Captaines of armies: but especially to that 1. Chron. 26.
30.31. of Hasabias and Ieria, which by Dauid are appointed
in ministerio Dei, & regis: both in Ecclesiasticall,
and Ciuill causes.
But it may be some will obiect, that this was lawfull
in the old Law, but not in the new. To which I answer,
that if it were lawfull in the old, much more is lawfull
in the new. For if the Priestes, when the feastes were so
manie, and their sacrifices as I may terme them infinite,
might intend to exercise Ciuill authoritie, vnder Princes:
much rather may the ministers of the new Testame~t,
when as their feasts and sacrifices do cease, and the Gospell
is farre more plainly, and plentifull preached.
It may be some will farther obiect: What example
haue you in the new Testament, of any Apostle, exercising
Ciuill authoritie vnder Princes? To this I answer,
that though there were no exa~ple in the new Testame~t,
yet doth not that proue, that it is vnlawfull: for then may
we reason thus, There is no example in the new Testament
of anie Christian exercising the office of a king:
therefore the office of a king is not lawfull: I thinke if anie
should so reason, he would be accounted a mad man.
This therefore I say, that as we do reason from the olde
Law, for the establishing of the authoritie of the king,
because it was God his owne ordinance, and that ouer his
owne people Israell, so from the same do we reason, that
it is lawfull for Ministers to exercise Ciuill authoritie: because
the Priests by God his appointment, did exercise
Ciuill authoritie vnder Princes.
But it may be some will still obiect, Yea but what is
the cause then? if it be so lawfull? that none, or verie fewe
examples are found in the newe Testament, of Apostles,
or other Ministers, exercising Ciuill authoritie? To this
I answer, that I take it, there were two especiall reasons.
First, because immediate delegation of authoritie, was
an argument of exceeding fauour, as appeareth in Herod,
his sonnes, and the Agrippaes. The authoritie, was now
especially in the hands of heathen Princes, wicked men,
and cruell tyrants, such as hated Christ, the professors of
Christ, and much more the preachers of Christ, such as
the Apostles were. Now to exercise authoritie, without
delegation, they would not, because of Christ his words,
Luke 12.14. Who hath made men a ruler? shewing, that
because he had not Ciuil authoritie delegated, he would
not then exercise it.
A second reason, which I also adde to this, is. Because
that the Apostles were sent to preach throughout all the
world, and therefore, hauing no certaine place, and countrey,
in which alwayes to abide: how could they exercise
authoritie by delegation from Princes: seeing they had
no continuall abode in anie place.
But lest any should thinke it vnlawfull for Ministers to
exercise Ciuill authoritie, the Apostles, by their owne
examples, hauing this authoritie delegated with the
consent of the Church haue left vs sufficient light, to see
the lawfulnesse thereof.

C ij.

First of all therefore, we reade Act. 4. 35. that the money
was layed at the Apostles feet. If any denie that to be
Ciuill, yet what is it to take account, both what they sold,
and for how much, which thing the Apostles did. But if
any shall still say, that this was not Ciuill, yet to deuide
those goods must neede be Ciuill, as appeareth by Christ
his words, Luke 12. Who hath made me a ruler, or a deuider?
That the Apostles did deuide this mony, it appeareth
in that it is said, It was laid at the Apostles feet, & deuided:
why was it laid at their feete, but to be deuided? Againe,
certaine it is, that they did deuide: for afterwards, Actes 6.
they chose Deacons, to take from them the office of deuiding,
because the Church was now great, and they were
to disperse them selues, to preach to all the world.
Secondly we reade Act. 5. that Peter sitteth, Iudicially
vpon Saphira: for there Saphira appeareth before him, &
he reasoneth with her, about the sale of her goods, saying,
Haue ye sold it for thus much? He doth also proceede
to sentence of death, verse 9. The feete of those that buried
thy husband, are at the doore, and shall carrie away thee.
If any shall obiect, that this was extraordinarie, I answer,
that it was, in regard of the maner of her death, but
not, the sitting in iudgement vpon her, to examine her.
Againe, we reade, 1. Timoth. 3. 4. that a Bishop may
be ruler of a house: in these wordes: ruling his owne
house well: the which, may at the first, seeme a small
thing, to proue Ciuill authoritie to be lawfull in the Ministerie,
but being better co~sidered of, it importeth much.
For, Ciuill authoritie is either Politicall, or Oeconomicall:
and Oeconomicall is, of the Father, Maister, and Lord. If
therefore a Bishop as a Father, Maister, or Lord, exercise
Ciuill authoritie, it cannot be, but that Ciuill authoritie is
lawful. This againe is illustrated, in that the gouernment
of a father, is the patterne of the gouernment of a king, &
therefore a king is called in the fift Commandement, a
father, Honour father.
The same Apostle, in the same Epistle, 1. Tim. 5. 19.
vseth this exhortation to Timothie, the Bishop of Ephesus,
Against an Elder, receiue no accusation, under two
or three witnesses. He graunteth to Timothie, to receiue
accusations, or billes of complaint, and that he may
proceed Iudicially, by two or three witnesses, which is,
by citing them, by examining them, & by deposing the~.
If any shall obiect, and say, that this is Eccesiasticall, because
of the Elder, a minister, I answer, that seeing Accusation
is put indefinitly, as in the Greeke: or else, as we
reade it in English, no accusation, generally, it must of necessitie
be Ciuil; for accusatio~s alwayes, against Ministers,
are not Ecclesiastical, as appeareth, when as Ministers accused
for fellonie, treason, and murther, are conuented before
the Ciuil magistrat, without any claime of his clergy.
Againe, if it were Ecclesiasticall, in regard of the Elder,
why should it not be Ciuill in regard of the accusers,
the accusers being lay men? for it is not sayd, amongst Elders,
that is, of one Elder against another: but against an
Elder: that is, of lay men against Elders.
Againe, if we read the words with an Emphasis, as, Against
an Elder receiue no accusatio~ vnder two or three witnesses,
the~ they infer, that against those that are no Elders,
that is, lay men, he may proceed without three witnesses.
Likewise the same Apostle proceedeth, ver. 20. those
that sinne, rebuke before all, that other may feare. verse
21. I charge thee before God, and our Lord Iesus Christ, and
his elect Angels, that thou obserue these thingsNoValue:

C iij.

without preiudice: NoValue doth infer NoValue, a iudgement
seate, and a sentence of iudgement, NoValue inferreth
NoValue, a iudge: NoValue inferreth NoValue, to iudge: NoValue, he
must: not NoValue, that is, iudge before hand, which is
before he hath cited the witnesses, examined the witnesses,
deposed the witnesses, and had the number of two or
three witnesses. And therefore to expresse the meaning,
he addeth:NoValue: which is, as Beza
translateth it, nihil faciens, in alteram partem declinando.
The like phrase of speech being attributed Deut. 17. 20. to
the Ciuill Magistrate. Therefore in this place Ciuill authority
is not forbidden. There remaineth, tyrannous authoritie,
which is in this place forbidden: my reasons are
these. First, Either Supreme, Ciuill, or Tyrannous gouernment
is forbidden. But neither Supreme, nor Ciuill. Ergo
Tyrannous. The force of this reason is manifested, in that
which went before.
Secondly, not gouernment, but the maner of gouernment
is here forbidden, and that maner, was tyrannous;
this I proue by these reasons. First, the kings that are here
spoken of, did tyrannize, as for example, Pontius Pilate,
who condemned Christ an innocent: Herod Antipas,
who tooke away his brother Philip his wife, and at the
request of a woman, put to death Iohn the Baptist: Archilaus,
of whose raigne Ioseph is afrayd: Herodes magnus,
who slue many infants, and vnder the coulour of worshipping
Christ, sought the ouerthrow of Christ and his
kingdome. That these were the gouernours here spoken
of, I proue, because Christ saith, Marke 10.42. you know,
speaking of those rulers, they knew, and these were they.
Againe, Christ sayth NoValue: and here NoValue:
they do tyrannize: and speaketh in the present tense: and
some of these now ruled, and all these, in their gouernment
tyrannized. And it plainly appeareth, that he onely
speaketh of tyrants, because he saith, NoValue. That
this word NoValue doth signifie to tyrannize, I proue
by the vse of the same verbe, in other places of the Scripture,
both old, and new Testament, as 1. Pet. 5.3 NoValue.
Act. 19. 16. NoValue. And
so Esay 3. 4. NoValue.
Againe, the testimonie of learned writers, and godly
fathers, expounding these places of the Euangelistes, do
manifest it.
Erasmus expoundeth it, Dominantur in eas, siue, aduersus
eas.
Musculus expoundeth it, potestate aduersum illos opprimendos
vtuntur. And a litle after, non regunt populum, sed
premunt, suisq3 affectibus seruire cogunt, id quod est, NoValue:
and expounding the word NoValue, he interpreteth
it: potenter opprimunt inferiores.
Chrysostome vpon these wordes, in Mathew, doth expound
it in like maner, and vpon the same wordes thus
speaketh, vt dominentur minoribus, vt seruificent, & spolient,
& vsque ad mortem abutentur vita eorum.
But it may be some wil obiect, that in this place the simple
verbe is vsed, & therfore not tyranny, but rule & iurisdictio~
is forbidde~. To this I answer, that the words which
our Sauiour Christ here vseth, do manifestly shew, and
proue, that tyranny is forbidden, eue~ in this simple verbe.
First, because the wordes are, NoValue: which
wordes can not be read, NoValue: you shall not
rule. But NoValue: and NoValue.
A second reason, why in this simple verbe, tyrannie is
forbidden, because that this simple verbe NoValue is vsed
in the Scriptures, not for rule onely, but many times for
a peruerse kind of rule and for oppression, as 2. Cor. 1. 24.
NoValue. Rom. 6. 13. NoValue.
And in the old Testament, Dan. 11. 4. NoValue.
But it may be some will obiect, that God in the Scriptures
is called NoValue and sayd NoValue. I answer, that true
it is: but God is said NoValue, because he ruleth after his
owne will: his will being the perfect rule of iustice,
whereas if man whose will is corrupt, should rule after his
owne will, it were meere tyrannie.
But it may be some will further obiect, that true it is,
that the simple verbe NoValue is thus vsed in the Scriptures,
but how proue you it to be so vsed in this place? To
this I answer, that it is likewise vsed so in this place: and
my reason is this, because the verbe NoValue is opposit to
NoValue, in this maner, NoValue:
and againe, NoValue.
NoValue That this, is a fit
and naturall opposition, appeareth by comparing this
with the other Euangelists, for so Mar. 20. 26. NoValue,
or as here,
NoValue.
Againe, for the confirmation of this opposition, the
consent of all Harmonies, agreeing, that in al these Euangelists,
Mathew, Marke, and Luke, one & the same thing
is handled and spoken, and therefore, all these must be
compared together, and the simple verbe NoValue in this
place, is the same that the compound NoValue is in
Mathew and Marke. Adde vnto this the exposition of
all learned writers, which so farre as I haue read, do interpret
them, to be one and the same thing.
As therefore in the wordes NoValue: authoritie was
commended, and not condemned in the Disciples of our
Sauiour Christ: so in this word NoValue, ambition, vaine
titles, and tyrannie are onely forbidden, not ruling, or hauing
authoritie, nor simply the desire of bearing rule.
There remaineth the last words, NoValue: you or
amongest you. And these must in like maner be discussed.
In this place there is no doubt to be made, whether our
Sauiour Christ speaketh to his Disciples, Peter, Iames,
Iohn, &c. or not. &c.
The question is therfore, whether our Sauiour Christ
speaketh to his Disciples, and none but them, or to his
Disciples, & some represented by them. If we vnderstand
it to be spoken to them onely, then we take it to be spoken
personally, that is, to his Disciples and no other: so
that then, nothing in this place, is either forbidden or
commanded to others. But this is against sence, and hath
no reason whereupon it should be grounded, and is approued
of no learned writer, and therefore I stand not to
improue that.
It is therefore spoken to the Disciples, and some other
represented by them, and thus it is taken Representatiuely,
that is, aswell to those that are represented by them, as to
them.
Hereof ariseth this question, whether our Sauiour
Christ speaketh Represenatiuely to the whole Church,
that is, all Christians, Ministers and people, or Representatiuely
to the Ministers of the Church onely.
In this place by you, our Sauiour doth vnderstand the
whole Church, that is, all Christians, both Ministers and

D

people, and this I proue by these reasons following.
First, the Disciples to whom Christ speaketh, had not
as yet the office of preaching, and baptizing all nations,
for this was after Christ his death committed to them:
whereas this was spoken in his life, and therefore represent
Christians, not Ministers onely. But admit they had
that office, as these Disciples are in this Chapter and other
places of the Gospell, called Apostles: and likewise had
the office of preaching, though I take it that were temporarie,
and to certaine people; yet certaine it is, that these
Disciples in their persons represent Christians, as in their
office Ministers, and therfore, being spoken to them, why
should they not in this place, aswell or rather, represent
all: Ministers and people, as Ministers onely.
A second reason is. It were absurd, to thinke that our
Sauiour Christ doth forbid tyrannie to Ministers onely,
whereas tyrannie, being a thing simply euill, is more fitly
forbidden to Ministers and people, that is, all Christians.
A third reason is: Our Sauiour Christ in this chapter,
doth immediately before, and also presently after, vsing
this word you, and speaking to his Disciples, & none but
them, as in this place, speaketh to them, representing the
whole Church, and not the Ministers onely: as in the 19.
verse of this 22. of Luke, in these wordes: This is my body,
which is giuen for you: by, you: in that place, though it
be spoken to the Disciples, is not vnderstood, the
Ministers onely, for then none might be saued but Ministers:
but it is spoken to the whole Church, and the body
of Christ is giuen to the Disciples, that is, for all Christians.
Againe, verse 20. This cup, is the new Testament, in
my bloud, which is powred out for you. In which place,
by, you: Christ meaneth, not only Ministers, but all Christians,
whom these Disciples did now represent, otherwise
none should be saued but Ministers, if the bloud of
Christ were shed for none but them. And therfore S. Mat.
chap. 26. ver. 28. expoundeth these words, saying, which
is shed for many. Againe in the words presently after, ver.
29. I haue appointed vnto you, as my father hath appointed
vnto me, a kingdome: by, you: he vnderstandeth, all Christians:
for vnto all true Christians, he hath appointed a
kingdome.
But it hath bene obiected, that our Sauiour Christ, in
this Chapter, speaketh to his Disciples, vsing the word
you, and yet speaketh not to them, representing the whole
Church. To which I now answer, that true it is, that our
Sauiour Christ in this Chapter, saith, I haue earnestly desired
to eate with you. &c. I say vnto you. &c. But I answer,
that in these places he speaketh Personally: that is, to
his Disciples onely, and no other represented by them.
Now the question is not, whether it be taken Personally,
or Representatiuely; for then this were though litle to
the purpose yet ad idem: but in this place, the question is,
whether he speak representatiuely, to the Ministers of the
Church onely, or representatiuely to the whole Church.
If therefore there can be brought out of this Chapter, so
many places, so manifest as these are, in which Christ
speaketh to his Disciples, and none but them, as he doth
in this place, and yet as representing the Ministers onely,
& not other Christians, then shall that beare some stroke,
& come to be ballanced with the weight of these of these reasons.
A fourth reason is this. The opposition in this place,
which is betweene Gentiles & you, doth manifestly proue
that it is spoken to the whole Church. As for example,
The kings of the Gentiles, do tyrannize ouer them: that is,

D ij.

the people. Amongst these are kings tyrannizing, & people
tyra~nized. But you not so, or, it shall not be so with you.
that is, I do command, that with you there should be neither
kings tyrannizing, nor people tyrannized. It is thus
with them: it shall not be so with you Ministers: is neither
right, nor good opposition. It is thus with the Gentiles, it
shall not be thus with you Christians, is a fit, good, and
sensible opposition. So then, the opposition betweene the
kings of the Gentiles tyrannizing, and people tyrannized,
and you, doth proue manifestly, that Christ meaneth not
onely Ministers, but also people, that is, all Christians, amongst
whom he would haue neither tyrants, nor people
tyrannized.
Againe this is manifest to be Christ his meaning, because
that in like maner, in the scriptures speaking of Ge~tiles,
and making an opposition betwixt them & others,
the opposition is between Gentils and Christians, & not
betweene Gentiles and Ministers: as Mat. 6. ver. 7. 8. The
Gentiles do thinke, that by their much babling they shall be
heard. Be not you like vnto them: that is, be not you my Disciples,
you that take my name in your mouths, that heare
me, that professe your selues to be Christians. And againe
in the same Chapter, verse 32. After all these things do the
Gentiles seeke, and therefore saith to them, verse 31. Be not
you therefore carefull, &c. for your heauenly Father knoweth,
&c. In which place, our Sauiour doth plainly make
an opposition, betwixt those he spake to, that is, his Disciples,
and those that heard him, and Gentiles, that is,
those that were spoken of, to whom he would not haue
his Disciples, that is, Christians to be like.
A fift reason is, this place compared with that of Mat.
chap. 23. vers. 8. 9. doth shew plainely, that it is spoken to
the whole Church: for in that chapter our Sauiour Christ
speaketh of the same matter, vseth a like forme of words,
and the very same words: as for example, The Scribes and
the Pharisies are called Rabbi, &c. But be not you so called &
in this Chapter is the like. They that are in authoritie are
called NoValue. But you not so. Againe ver. 11. But let him
that is the greater, be as the minister. Which words are in
the former places of the Euangelists. Now, if one place of
Scripture is to be expounded by another, and the darker
by that which is more plain, these in like maner, may one
be expounded by another. If any shall aske, how I proue
that our Sauiour Christ, in this 23. of Mathew, speaketh
to the whole Church, I answer, that it manifestly appeareth,
in that in the first verse of that Chapter, it is sayed,
Then spake Iesus, to the multitude, and his Disciples.
This might further be strengthened and confirmed, by
the opinion of ancient, and late writers some whereof I
haue before mentioned. But these reasons are apparant
and very sufficient: I therfore conclude, that our Sauiour
speaketh in this place to all men: forbidding all Christia~s
ambitiously to striue for honor, or to tyrannize ouer the
people. What our Sauiour commandeth, is contained in
the words following, But let him that shalbe greater, &c.
The Lord of his infinit mercie, graunt, that all Rulers may
learne to follow the commandement of Christ, neither ambitiously
striuing for higher places, nor by vniustice and crueltie
abusing the lower: then shal God be glorified, and we
his people liue a quiet and peaceable life, in all godlinesse and
honestie. Which he graunt, who hath bought vs with his
precious bloud, Iesus Christ the righteous. To whom, with
the Father, and the holy Ghost, be all honor and
glorie world without end.
FINIS.