A18081:26
The rest of the second reply of Thomas Cartvurihgt [sic]The rest of the second replie of Thomas Cartvurihgt [sic]
The rest of the second reply of Thomas Cartvurihgt [sic]: against Master Doctor Vuhitgifts second answer, touching the Church disciplineThe rest of the second replie of Thomas Cartvurihgt [sic]: agaynst Master Doctor Vuhitgifts second ansvuer, touching the Church discipline
Basel: printed by Thomas Guarinus, 1577
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
My reply is that our Saviour Christs vocation, was to be a Minister of the gospel, but he crefused civil judgment because of his vocation: therefore he refused it, because he was a Minister of the gospel. whereupon also followeth, that Bishops being Ministers of the gospel: ought not to receive, any such power. See now how justly he complaineth, that I answer not to that he said, that Christs refusal in the partition of the inheritance, pertaineth no more to Bishops then to Kings: no marvel also, if it require further answer, it was so well guarded: seeing his reason is, because the doings of Christ be a pattern for all Christians: then which, there can be nothing more absurd. For although all his doings, be instruction to all Christians: yet that they are a pattern to them all, draweth with it, that all may preach, that none may give judgment in civil causes, and a number more horrible confusions: it being also a false ground of popery, whereby they would establish the lenten fast, and other such corruptions.
My reply is that our Sauiour Christes vocation, vuas to be a Minister of the gospel, but he crefused ciuil iudgment because of his vocation: therfore he refused it, because he vuas a Minister of the gospel. whervpon also followeth, that Bishops being Ministers of the gospel: owght not to receiue, any such power. See now how iustly he complaineth, that I answer not to that he said, that Christs refusal in the partition of the inheritans, perteyneth no more to Bishops then to Kinges: no mervail also, if it require further answer, it was so wel garded: seing his reason ys, because the doeinges of Christ be a patern for al Christians: then which, there can be nothing more absurd. For althowgh al his doeinges, be instruction to al Christians: yet that they are a patern to them al, draweth with it, that al may preach, that none may giue iudgment in civil causes, and a number more horrible confusions: yt being also a fals ground of popery, wherby they would establish the lenton fast, and other such corruptions.