D. SARAVIA.  

1. Of the diverse degrees of the Ministers of the Gospel.  
2. Of the honour which is due unto the Priests and Prelates of the Church.  
3. Of Sacrilege, and the punishment thereof.   
The particular Contents of the aforesaid Treatises to be seen in the next Pages.  job. 8. 
8. Inquire I pray thee of the former age, and prepare thyself to learn of the Fathers,  
9 (For we are but of yesterday, and are ignorant.)  
10. Shall not they teach thee?  
LONDON. Printed by john Wolf, and are to be sold by john Perin at the sign of the Angel in Paul's Churchyard. 1591.   

The Contents.  
The first Book.  

1 WHat the Ministry of the Gospel is, and what be the parts thereof.  
2 Of ordinary and extraordinary calling to the Ministry.  
3 Of the twelve Apostles.  
4 Of the seventy Disciples.  
5 Of Prophets.  
6 That the names and titles of Apostles, Evangelists, & Prophets, were given also unto other Pastors and Doctors of the Church.  
7 Of Deacons.  
8 That the Churches in their beginnings had no other Bishops and Elders, besides the Apostles themselves & their fellow-labourers.  
9 Of Priests (or Pastors) and Bishops.  
10 Of two degrees of Pastors.  
11 That the doctrine of the Apostles acknowledgeth no annuary Elders, to rule only, and not to teach in the Church.  
12 The place of Ambrose expounded.  
13 The place of Paul expounded, in his first to Timothy the fift Chapter, what it is to labour in the word and doctrine.  
14 That, that order is of God, which appointeth superior Elders Bishops, and that but of man, where all Pastors & Elders are alike.  
15 That our Saviour by no statute, repealed the supereminent authority of Pastors among themselves.  
16 That the form of the Apostles government did not end, with the death of the Apostles.  
17 That the commandment; To preach the Gospel to all nations (the Apostles being now received up into Heaven) doth in like manner bind the Church: to the which the authority Apostolic is also requisite.  
18 That the Apostolic authority is as necessary for the conserving and confirming, as for the founding & first planting of Churches.  
19 By testimony of Eusebius his Ecclesiastical history the former Chapter is confirmed.  
20 That the authority of Bishops over Priests or Elders, is approved by the consort of all Churches throughout the whole world.  
21 That Bishops are ordained by a divine institution, and Apostolic tradition.  
22 That it was the opinion of Aerius, That there is no difference between a Bishop and a Priest: which opinion was condemned for an Heresy by the Fathers.  
23 Hierome his opinion confuted.  
24 Of one Bishop in one Diocese.  
25 Of the names of patriarchs, Archbishops, and metropolitans.  
26 Of Doctors.   
The second Book.  

1 THat by a certain Law of nature among all nations, the Presidents of Religion were esteemed worthy great honour.  
2 How great the reverence of Priests hath been in all nations.  
3 What the honour of the Priesthood was among the people of God.  
4 Of that double honour which is due unto those Elders which rule well, and the arguments of those which think the contrary.  
5 An answer to the arguments of the former Chapter.  
6 That the honour which is given to the Pastors of the Church, is joined with a certain Religion towards God.  
7 Certayne other reasons confuted, and the truth confirmed, by many testimonies of Scripture.  
8 That the good examples of our forefathers, prescribe a Law to their successors.  
9 That the oblations of Christians are part of God's worship.  
10 An answer to certain objections: with the which it is confirmed, that the Ministers of the Gospel are worthy no less honour, than were the Priests of old among the people of God.  
11 The judgement of the Father's concerning the oblations of the faithful.  
12 That the Church had no small revenues, and certain places in the which they did celebrate their assemblies, before the time of Constantine.  
13 A distinction of Church goods.  
14 That the Prelates of Churches are not maintained of alms, but of the due reward of their labours.  
15 Of those lands which are held in fee, and have annexed with them any civil authority or jurisdiction.  
16 That Bishops and other Pastors are not forbidden to be Lords of Fees, and sometimes to undertake secular and civil charges.  
17 What a Fee is, and what are the laws and conditions thereof.  
18 A distinction of Fees.  
19 An answer to the objection, that civil jurisdiction, outward pomp, and honours which are annexed with these Fees, do not agree with the simplicity of the Euangelique Ministry.  
20 That it is lawful for Bishops to hear civil causes, and to determine upon them.  
21 An exposition of that place of Luke, the two and twenty Chapter.  
22 That the Pastors of the Church, for the necessity of the common wealth, may attend some times upon worldly affairs.  
23 That diverse functions are not confounded, albeit undertaken of one man,  
24 That David and Solomon used the aid of Priests and Levites in civil affairs.  
25 Their error confuted, that think no civil affairs of the common wealth ought to be committed to the Bishops and Pastors of the Church.  
26 That where the Church is the common wealth: the same man, as Bishop, may take charge of the Church for the Lord jesus, and render fealty and obeisance to the king, as one that holdeth by faith and homage.  
27 An other argument, against the endowment of Fees, confuted.  
28 Of the honourable titles which are given unto Bishops.  
29 Of the Bishop's family and retinue.  
30 Whether it be better for Ministers to live of the stipends of the Magistrate, or rather of the oblations of the faithful.  
31 The Stipendaries called to account, and confuted.  
32 Certain reasons why Stipendaries are disproved.   
The third Book.  

1 OF Sacrilege, & the punishment thereof.  
2 What Sacrilege is.  
3 The reasons with the which they commonly excuse their Sacrilege.  
4 An answer to the reasons of the former Chapter.  
5 A distinction of those Church goods, which the Church of Rome possesseth at this day.  
6 That the goods of Monasteries are not all of one kind.  
7 That it is another thing to come from Paganism to Christianity, then to come from Popery, or some other Heresy.  
8 How grievous and incurable the sin of Sacrilege is.  
9 Certain examples of God's vengeance against Sacrilegious persons.   
FINIS.   

To the Reader.  
YOu will say; what need all this waist? this labour might have been well spared. For seeing the same argument hath been handled long since, and of late; learnedly, and at large by men of our owns: what need this foreign aid? In such abundance of wits and writings, to transport Saravia out of Latin into English, is to bring owls to Athens, and to carry sticks to the wood; as it is in the Proverb.  
True it is: the cause hath been undertaken long since; but it was late first: and of late; but it was long first: And the same hath been maintained learnedly enough; if not with learning too much: and it hath been handled at large also; yet all little enough: Such is the female misconceit, of the lascivious malcontent, and the male miscontent of the learned ignorant of this age, ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Notwithstanding, seeing in the judgement of the most wise and best learned, this German Book seemed for sound judgement inferior to none, and for grave discourse equal to any, it was therefore thought by them an action no less commodious to the people, then commendable to the Author; that he, who in the causes of present controversy, hath propounded his judgement unto all, should have his judgement expounded unto us. The which although it hath been curstly censured by a certain suspicious and suspected Critic, emulous of his betters credit, who in his professed lectures hath used the remembrance of his name in disdain, with Saravia nescio quis: Yet his best auditors there, and others his betters elsewhere, have found this difference between Saravia and him: that, besides his great learning, and no less experience (of the which this great Censor never had the one, never will have the other) Saravia hath made known to him and the whole world, by this his resolute definitive, who he is: whereas the other in one whole term hath so behaved himself in the same cause, that albeit we all know who he is, yet we could never tell where to find him. So hoppeth he between the stone and the Altar, that as a man distract between fear and flattery, he maketh up his doubtful resolution with this harmless confession, Sentio quod sentio; quod? nescio. I know what I know, what? I do not know.  
I, but now we see the adverse part (partly by their lawless outrage, and partly by their lawful restraint) to be now as impotent in their faction, as they are odious in their opinion, to be at this time as unable, as they were at all times unworthy to prevail: and then, what need we any longer strive when the enemy can no longer stand? I answer; that their increase was seen long since, to be at the full, and their credit appeareth even now to be in the Wain. For the which as we are to give God thanks, (who in taking justice upon some of them, hath taken pity upon the whole Church,) so likewise are we to pray for the rest, that in good time we may see, either their speedy amendment, or their present preferment: (For it is time (O Lord) that thou have mercy upon Zion, yea the time is come.) Notwithstanding, in the mean time we have entertained this proffered aid, not so much to invade the seditious brethren, or to bring home the resolved recreant, as to strengthen the godly Subject, and to bring forward the well affected Protestant. With the which if any man find himself aggrieved let him show for it; but so, that Saravia may understand what he saith.  
For my part; if I have conceived him right, the fruit is yours: if I have delivered him not right, the fault is mine. Sure I am, the Author meant you well; and my Authors: And so do I.  
The Translator.   

TO THE MOST Reverend father in Christ, John by the providence of God Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan. To the renowned and most honoured Heroic, Sir Christopher Hatton, Knight of the most noble order of the Garter, and high Chancellor of England. As also to the noble and right honourable, Sir William Cecil, Baron of Burghley, Knight of the most noble order of the Garter, and high Treasurer of England, of her majesties most Honourable privy Counsel, my very good Lords, true felicity.  
THe ancient received custom of dedicating books to men of name and authority, is grown and grounded upon many reasons great & weighty, all which it shallbe needless for me to reuise in this place: But for my part, there are chief three causes moving me to consecrat this my small travel to you the most Honourable, and honoured of me (my good Lords.) First, that thereby I might testify unto you the duty and devotion of a loyal and grateful mind towards you, that find myself severally and singularly bound unto you all and every one of you. For first, one of you (upon my repair into England) disdained not to entertain me a stranger with no strange countenance, and strange courtesy: The other also dained to accept me (unworthy) into his own family: And the other of his especial favour brought to pass, that by her majesties privilege and preferment, I might be made of a foreigner a freeman, of an alien a Citizen. And seeing I have received all these favours without any deed or desert of mine, (God thou knowest mine unworthiness) I were but too ingrate and unkind, if I should bury in dark and deep silence your so rare and religious demerits. But whereas I have no other thing to render or repay unto your Honours, but a mine of thanks, and a thankful mind, that mind will I always bear, and that duty in mind, so that I will not cease to worship the sacred memory of your religious love towards me.  
Another cause is, the very nature of the argument I undertake, the which I could not well prosecute, without some particular mention of the Church of England. In the which, seeing I have now my part and portion of a pastoral province (and praised be the Lord, my lot is fallen unto me in a fair ground) might I not seem unmindful of my good & neglecting my duty, if when I undertake the cause of those Churches which are alien and outlandish, I should overslip the state of mine own Church now gremiall to me and mere English? But when mine hearts desire and prayer to God is, that I may some ways benefit my countrymen, if I forget thee O jerusalem? And yet if I should forget my duty herein, the mere alliance and relation of the matters themselves, is such and so great, as that by ordinary course of necessary consequence I must be enforced, to infer and praefer the mention thereof in my books. But because I am but new made of Flemish, sterling, that is, of Outlandish, English, it may be happily, that they which are homebred, will think I deal not well with them, to deal with them, and that I meddle too far, when I come so near. For which cause I thought it necessary for me, to commend and commit myself unto your Honourable patrociny, that this stranger book might freely pass under your safe conduct. Neither shall it grieve me much, though it be unjustly cast by most voices, if it may justly pass your account: neither shall it hurt me much, though the enraged multitude in disordered throngs cast stones at me, only if your Honours vouchsafe to give me the white stone.  
But the last cause is, for that I am in some doubt, how this discourse will be taken of them, for whose sakes especially it was undertaken. For it is to be feared, that they are so far from turning stones unto bread, that they will make stones of bread, and that which I have done to relieve their weakness, they will account as devised to undermine their estate, and so take that with the left hand, which I proffer with the right. And in deed what other thing should I look for at their hands, who (in am of my well deserving towards them) have sought heretofore, rather to cast me off with disgrace, then to give me up with reward? How desirous I have always been of public peace, and how zealous over them that laid snares for my life, I dare appeal unto God and men: and yet for my good will what great reward have I received at their hands, but sharp revenge, or what better meed for my pains, then bitter malice?  
But no reason I should take this kind of cruelty unkindly, seeing it is so common a case, and commonly incident to me, with many my betters. And therefore far be it from me, that the injuries of a few (though no few injuries) should so far prevail with me, that I should therefore less regard the better health of the whole Church. Should I be for private wrongs so far enraged beyond all sense, and besides myself, as to study to be revenged upon many good men, being offended but of a few bad fellows.  
After I was last called from hence by the Belgike Churches, I conversed among them in divers places ten whole years together: in what time I found by advised experience, that there were two things of great moment greatly miss in those Churches, the which I could not then without grief, and cannot now without sin conceal, namely, That the ministry of the Gospel received of them by public authority, is not adorned by them with due honour: And again, That wealth and worship in the order of the ministry, is thought a needless thing to advance the estimation thereof in a civil society. (Men that we are) misconceaving is the cause of all this. For now a days (for sooth) no Church is thought reform, unless First all Church dignities, be either thrust out at the Church porch, or thrust down to the belfry, and then all the Church goods, be either put in the great bag, or given to the greedy baggage. The which error if it do proceed (as it will if it be not nipped in the head) it will one day reveal, not only upon the church, but also upon the whole state a greater misery, then can easily be driven into every common man's head. To the which this also may be added, that there are many of opinion (and they are of many opinions) That the abolishing of Bishops is not the least part of reformation, and That their authority in the Church is crept in, not of any divine institution of God's word, but (that which not any Church before this time did ever avouch) of the only error and ambition of man's wit. Our elders & all ancient divines (for the preventing of Schism, and conventing the headstrong and giddy headed rashness of many) held the prudent moderation of one (in one City or province) to be ordained from above. And they knew very well, that albeit the quirk of speaking (for so they speak) be found in many, yet the art of governing, and the rule of well ruling, is known but of a few.  
How great a stay a godly and prudent Bishop may be, to any troubled or distressed State, ancient histories do plainly teach, & present experience might make us learn. Do you not know (I know you are not ignorant) how that many times, many things betid in a christian common wealth, which require the advise of Ecclesiastical Prelates? As also where the Gospel is publicly authorized, that there are many things requisite for the Church, which cannot be effected with out the civil Magistrate? And how then, are not they in a peevish and a perverse error, which either exclude the Magistrate from causes Ecclesiastic, or sequester the Minister from affairs politic? (silly men that they are) as if either the Christian Magistrate were no part of the Church, or the sacred Minister not Citizen of the same common wealth? And yet neither the Magistrate (if he be Christian) is to neglect the safety of the Church, nor the Minister (if he be godly) not to regard the safeguard of the state. But these two (the Magistrate and the Minister) so long as they shallbe distracted into parts, and as it were divorced in state the one from the other, and shall not take sweet counsel together like friends, or not communicate in consent for their common benefit, they cannot but conceive divers and doubtful surmises, fond yea, and some times false opinions of each others government. The Magistrate that keepeth fresh in memory the new broken yoke of the Pope's tyranny, feareth least by any means he should fall again into the like, though unlike. And therefore is jealous over the counsels and conventicles of the Clergy, & suspecteth always some snare to be laid in them to entangle his liberty. Of the other side, the Pastors (so many as are, or will be accounted faithful in their Ministry) cannot but be careful for the welfare of their flock, and therefore seek by all means to benefit the Church, and to shun those things which may prejudice the same: who when they see divers kinds of people to prevail in the Commonwealth, and they some of them open professed enemies to the Church, some but suspicious and suspected favourites, few faithful and unfeigned friends; no wonder though they dare hardly commit their cause and their credits, themselves and their safeties, to such Governors. Besides, they being ignorant of the common counsels, how should they be good interpreters of such things as are done in the Commonwealth? neither can such counsels be well communicated to the common people, and yet reason would they should, seeing they are common.  
If the States in the Low-countries (brought to low estate) had their learned and reverend Bishops, in that estimation they ought to be, in every well ordered state, no doubt with their vigilancy and moderation, they might more easily have remedied their present miseries. I did complain (not without cause,) to see the Church goods piled and pilfered, and learned Pastors set to their stipends: Of the which, some in deed do live & relieve their families (though poorly God knows) and some again for the moiety of their stipends, & the multitude of their familiars, are by no means able to keep open shop windows. I speak not, (or need not) of them which are denied their wages, or serve (like our soldiers) for cheese flemish, if that they can get it. But by this means, when as (to the grief of all good men) I did see the most sacred study of Divinity to languish, that young wits were afraid of it, and old heads a weary of it, Churches without Pastors, Schools wanting professors: I lamented with myself, and sorrowed for these mischiefs, and those we might easily conject, would issue out of these as out of Pandora's box. Neither did I sorrow for these things to myself alone: I acquainted my griefs, where I was acquainted. But because in those intempestuous times, I could not safely either speak, or write my mind, without suspect of contention, covetousness, or ambition, I contained myself discontent, expecting a fit opportunity. In the mean while, I could have wished that this argument might have been undertaken of some other, and of some other profession: And that doubtless might have been performed of such an one with so much the more ease and less envy, by how much the matter did less concern himself. But seeing no man offered himself to this service, (and the service honourable) after many delays, I overcame myself at last, and in the zeal of my duty, have vndergon that burden, which Atlas himself can not sustain alone: and therefore in the conscience of mine own weakness, I come loaden to your Honours with mine over-burden, and lay down the same in three little books under your names (thrice reverend and renowned.) And this also have I done with the greater confidence, and the less conflict, for that both the truth of the cause itself, will bear me up, that I slip not, and also your honourable favours (as I hope) will bear me out, if I slip not.  
And now, if it shall please God to put them in some better mind, whom these things do chief concern, so that these may be commended of them, and they amended by these, I verily shall rejoice in them, but they shall be beholding unto you. But if these things displease them, and they find themselves offended with my liberty, I shall find others (I doubt not) as amorous of the present truth, as they are of their private humour, and as far in love with reverend antiquity, as they are in liking with insolent novelty; unto whom I persuade myself (though they should forespeak the contrary,) this my labour shall not be altogether unwelcome. Wherefore for your Honours I will pray, and importune the most great and Almighty, that he would vouchsafe to give you life, even a long life, for the benefit of the Church, and the advancement of the kingdom of Christ.  
London 4. Kal. April. Anno Dom. 1590. Your honours most bounden Hadrian Saravia   

TO THE GODLY AND Faithful Ministers of the Church of Christ, throughout the Low-countries, my brethren beloved in the Lord.  
AT what time I lived at Leiden (worshipful and beloved) I many times, with many of you, bewailed the state of the Church there: In the which, the devil, (the devil it is) spreadeth his net, as many other ways, so especially now with a certain new slight after another fashion: In the which he hath his gins and engines, nothing like unto those of old, when he went a hirding with gainful hypocrisy, and entangled the souls of Christian people with a kind of costly superstition: then did the Clergy, and the laity ambitiously contend, (as yet they continue under the Papacy) whether should exceed the other: they in their pompous sanctimony, or these in their superstitious munificency: So they, sold (and sell) at a dear reckoning: these, bought (and buy) at the huckster's hands: The one deceiving, the other deceived; both in an error, never a better. And is it not strange to see (a thing that is not strange,) how superstition and hypocrisy is of more force and prevaileth more, to conquer and lead captive the minds of men, then true and sincere religion, which is pure and plain, without wealth or guard? But such is either the negligence of men, or the nature of man, it will be deceived, and will deceive. Who is able to recount (and keep reckoning,) the quirks and the tricks, the gibing and the juggling of the Roman Koran, by the which they hold play with the simple, and play noddy with the people's simplicity? The pains of Purgatory, the Pope's pardons, Images, false miracles, pilgrimage to statues, shrines and crosses, relics of saints, bones, teeth, and ashes, vestments, belts, and sandals, and a thousand such like trumperies? These are the martes and the merchandise which they make over to the people for hid treasure, while they sell the people for old shoes, What should I more say? They say themselves, (and the more shame) they are not ashamed to say: That these and such like, are the Religious illusions of the Religious. What a commodious craft auricular confession is, the jesuits (besides other the Romish Prelates minions) do feel, and find. But now adays, because the true Ministers of Christ, and the faithful stewards of his house are not trained up in these trades, nor guilty of these trains, they are set at nought of naughty men.  
And yet of old, when the people doted over their false Gods, and spared for no cost, so they might satisfy their souls with never-satisfied superstition, they were notwithstanding nothing so rank in seeking to satisfy the ravin of that unkind lust towards their false God and his worship, as they were slow and slack to inquire after the true God his service, and his true servants: and why then should it seem a thing rare or insolent among us, if the like kind of unkindness be revolved upon us in this age? For man to man, and age to age is as like, as is the water to the water, day to day, to day and hereafter.  
In what honour and estimation the Ministers of the Church are among the Romanists, is well known to such as either now live, or at any time have lived amongst them. But now, amongst us the professors of the Gospel, they which sincerely teach the true religion, and truly teach what way leadeth to heaven, and by what means we are reconciled to God, are either nothing at all accounted, or as nothing. Is any thing (for honour sake?) for pity sake yielded unto them? it is by and by thought much of, and thought too much, be it never so little. For which sin, not only the unkindness of the people is to be condemned, as principally guilty, but our own foolishness also may be convicted, as accessory faulty. And how? Forsooth a toy hath taken us in the head, and we have taken a toy in hand, by surprising the Pope's tyranny, to suppress our own liberty: As if indeed, the excessive riot, and not expleable avarice of the Popish Clergy could by no possible means be rebated, unless we thrust down the reformed ministery beneath the Bell-ferie, and hand over head lay waste all the possessions of the Clergy. A passing device indeed, to bring this to pass (as it hath already brought it within come to pass) that the Church wanteth wherewith to nourish the sacred Muses, and is feign to honour the painful Minister with monthly menstruous fees.  
From hence is foisted into the Church, a kind of temporal biter, after a new fashion & an evil example: who chief attending, upon their own drudgery, by the way join hand with the Pastor in his province, and that for a year or two at the most (that they may be good in their office.) And by this means, (that which I account worse than all the rest) the beauty of the Church is vanished, and that united force of the brethren which in placed in one Bishop, who dare with confidence, and may with authority control the wicked in their enterprises, is utterly lost and languished. For whilst every one is despised, all are contemned and likewise, whilst every one taketh care of his own Curch only, they altogether neglect the good of the whole Church generally. I spare to exemplify this: yourselves suppose, what, and where upon I speak it. But do you not see, or can you not conceive, how that many things may daily chance in the Church, which concern all Churches in common, and for the which, a present remedy must be had? In this case no private man dare undertake the cause: and why? he seethe and considereth that the matter pertaineth not to him, or to any one, or to a few, but unto all the rest of that whole Province in common. But whilst he which could find in his heart to put himself upon the action for the common good, yet findeth many doubts in his heart, and is still afeard lest either himself should not be allowed, or that he should perform not confirmed, by the rest; of necessity the time is deferred in this necessity, and needs must a further time be expected, until the brethren may be assembled. That a Synod should be called for every such matter, it is both costly and inconvenient: and many times also before either they could be called, or come together, either the mischief that was feared would be received, or the occasion that was proffered would be overpassed, whereby the evil might either altogether, or more easily have been removed.  
Amongst you, the church-good are rifled and ruined without any reverend regard of sacred or profane: as if (forsooth) it were religion for the Church of Christ to be worth one dodkin in a christian Commonwealth: or as if indeed it were the only error of the Church of Rome, that they are rich. Doth any thing remain yet unransackt in any of your Churches? the better for those Burgreeves and Burgomaster's in whose hands it is. As for yourselves, there is not so much as one mite left to be at your disposing: you that stand so much in your ownlight, and have put out two lights with your too much lightness, can you put out mine with an half penny? alas good souls: if you were every one poor, yet might you be all rich. But now it is the common opinion, that Pastors ought of congrutie to be poor and needy: and that is so deeply infixed in the hearts of the simple people, that they can hardly be persuaded to the contrary. Is it possible, but by such means it should one day come to pass (if they thus proceed) that the whole Ministry of the Church should fall either into utter decay, or wretched contempt? I was purposed (if I had stayed with you) to have conferred about this matter with the States themselves. And verily I would have exhorted and entreated them, that they would take some better course in this cause: I would have taught them, that they had no right at all unto the church-good: I would have proved and protested unto them, that whatsoever calamities have befallen the Low-countries, they are all but the just vengeance of God for their sacrilege: that the goods of Cathedral and Collegiate churches, and also of many Monasteries, were destinate and consecrated to the use of sacred studies: And last of all, I would have informed them, and confirmed to them, that whatsoever hath varied from the first institution thereof, ought not to be destroyed, but restored by the christian Magistrate. But this my good purpose was hindered, first by the untimely death of the Prince of Orange, and then also for the Earl of Leycester his sake: Lest I might seem to have attempted the same, either at a bad time, (in the greatest tumult of the country) or else by bad means (presuming upon the favour and furtherance of my L. the Earl.  
In the mean while, I might greatly wonder at the error of many, and they not meanly conceited towards the Gospel: neither should I cease to wonder, were it not that I know the Ministers themselves, whom the matter doth more nearly concern, to be the authors of that error. But when I consider with myself the iniquity of these evil days, and the bad meaning of evil men, I cannot well tell whether I might rather lament or rejoice in that their foul oversight. For albeit to have the churches spoiled & left desolate of such helps with the which it ought to be relieved, may bring upon both Church and State a greater misery than many can suspect, or any can avoid: notwithstanding, that in the beginnings of reformation, there was nor mention nor motion made for the church-good, it grieveth me the less; for that by this means the adversary cannot well say, that we rather sought the treasure of the Church, than the glory of God. For had they made any question of the church-good, these cavils and quarrels might have taken some advantage of them. But now, when as they esteemed of whatsoever the Papists possessed, as of things nothing pertaining unto them, and referred all the whole matter to the moderation of the Magistrate; by this means, Suspicion itself could not but clear them of suspicion. So God sometimes doth use the very ignorance of his servants, to some good end: namely, when as a truth taught out of time, would do more hurt then good. Notwithstanding, that which sometimes hath been objected, can neither be denied nor defended; that there were some which took our part in hope of the pray only. And albeit these things were not altogether unknown unto the godly at that time, (as their writings do witness) yet in wisdom they chose rather to suffer and say little to that injury, then that in hast they should go about to offend any. And in this they did imitate Saint Paul, who in the rich City of Corinth, had rather labour with his hands, and so get his maintenance, than otherwise to give any occasion of suspect to a novice people, not seen into the dignity of his right Apostolic. And shall I tell you? that only consideration was not the least cause, why myself dared not bewray unto every one the silence of my thoughts: And yet (such was my native weakness, or my foolhardy forwardness) I could not hide myself from my brethren and companions, and some also of the Magistrates of Gaunt. But I spoke not then so freely, as I mean to do in this discourse: For I always feared, as I ought to do, lest such as were but newly won to the faith of Christ, might be haply lost by my indiscreet liberty, and myself brought into a needless jealousy of avarice and ambition.  
But now, seeing I am in that place and condition, in the which no man can justly accuse me, as if I sought any especial commodity for myself, or desired any other thing, then that which is commodious and necessary for the Church: I thought it my duty to speak plainly, what I think of the goods and possessions of the Church. Neither is it enough for me, that I am here well provided for my self: I wish the like unto my brethren. And although I may justly complain myself, to be injuriously forsaken of you, whom I ought to have found the chief Patrons of mine innocency: yet notwithstanding, my love and my Zeal, both towards the Church, and also unto you-wards, is not therefore either altered, or alienated. And how then should I be less careful for yours & your Churches good, then when myself was in the same ship with you? Wherhfore, seeing we have now sufficiently winked at this error, as well of the people, as the Magistrate, which (if it be suffered) will bring to the Church, either a deadly ruin, or a desperate mischief: we may no longer dissemble the matter; the Church itself must be taught her duty towards her ministery. It is a perilous & pernicious thing, to bequeath an evil precedent unto our posterity: who shall take all for reformation, whatsoever they received in the name of Reformation (for what cause so ever it was done.) Men (as you know) for the most part, use rather to regard the deed, then to respect the cause: what is done every man can tell, but for what cause it was done, there are few which can conceive, or well consider.  
I must needs confess, I have proceeded somewhat farther into this matter, than my purpose was, when I came first hither: For that I see here in England, by the evil precedents of other Countries, most men are carried away with the same errors. Some strain their consciences so far, and open their mouths so wide, that like drunken men they stretch and yawn after the Church-livings, and do even gormandize them already in their hopes merciless, and bottomless conceits. And some again while they grudge the Pastors their fields, and envy the Euangelique Bishops the riches of Romish Prelates, (as if it were not lawful for us to succeed them, and not exceed them) would seem to eat their hearts in garlic (as they say) while they eat and spit their own gall in malice. A strange opinion they hold, that the place, power, and authority, it hath pleased her Majesty and the rest of the states, the Bishops should retain in this kingdom, is a grant utterly averse unto the reformation of religion. Wherhfore now, what honour is due in a Christian Commonwealth to the Ministers of the Church, and how forforth the same may extend, is to be examined more at large.  
But it is to be feared, lest some will be scarcely well pleased, especially such as be ignorant of the ancient Church government) with this my treatise of the divers degrees of the Ministers of the Gospel: and the rather, for that I have noted in their newecome reformation two things not to be liked of: namely, that the authentic order of Bishops is abrogated, and a novel kind of Presbyters intruded. The which I have the rather noted, for that the common sort of people are of opinion, that not the least part of reformation consisteth in the dilapidation of church-good, in the extirpation of Provincial Bishops, and in the creation of Demi-laicall, and mongrel Presbyters. The which opinion of the people, I do therefore reprehend, not that I dissallow, that certain grave seniors and godly men should consort with the Pastors, (that is, the true Presbyters of the Church:) but that they may know, (as they shall be taught) not to mistake them for those Elders, of the which, in the Acts of the Apostles, and in Paul's Epistles there is often mention, and is it not needful also, to point at an error betimes, lest it being by time confirmed, should not afterwards be easily corrected?  
If any man shall think myself in the error, or that I have gone further than he liketh well of: let him teach me that which is better. I will presently alter my judgement, and give over the bucklers unto him that can do best. The which I speak not as if I doubted, or were not thoroughly resolved, that those things of the which I affirm in this book, were not assumed out of god's book. (For I do verily believe that I have not swerved from that rule which God hath given me to follow.) But yet, if any man presume he can teach the contrary out of the word, (and make not the word contrary) I am more ready to attend and be taught, then to teach, and had rather be overcome, then overcome: condition, that that only truth may prevail, which in truth ought to prevail. In the mean while, as I have always borne, and bear with such as dissent in opinion from me, (so long as they hold entire the Lord jesus:) so likewise in the same charity may they bear with me, if I descent from them, I heartily wish, and entreat earnestly. If it shall please God, by the counsel of christian Princes, that there may be a general and a free council celebrated, that (as it becometh me) I refuse not to be judge of my judgement: but if otherwise, neither I can be persuaded by others, nor persuade others: let us expect with one accord the judgement of Almighty God, when every one shall render according to the moiety of his talon, a reason of his ministery. For me to contend with my brethren after a bitter manner? it is no part of my meaning. If in any place my style shall seem more sharp: believe me, (I will not fable with you) the greatness of the mischief, not any private grief, hath set an edge on it. And to speak reason, what reason have I to be violent, or virulent in this question? Seeing whatsoever is held amiss, I impute it to the error and ignorance of art, not to the malice or evil meaning of men.  
The horrible sacrilege of men is not so manifest to the world, as the execrable authors thereof are unknown unto me: (and it grieveth me not that they are unknown.) Of whom then should I exclaim? Against whom should I declaim? But whereas certain ungodly men are craftily crept in amongst us, who make a show of religion, and would seem to favour the Gospel, and that not so much of any devotion towards God, as in detestation of all godliness: I am constrained many times, more earnestly to inveigh against the subtlety and impiety of such: (let them be of what estate they may be, if they be of that condition) For neither are our own colours clear of such stains: against whom can there be any wormwood too bitter?  
This I note, that if at any time I name the Hollonders, I note not the whole nation: (God forbidden) but only those that degenerate from the natural integrity of their own nation. But are not they so much the more worthy greater ignominy, by how much the more fond they abuse their own authority, and the people's simplicity? such therefore I must necessarily, and may worthily accuse of Atheism and irreligion, the rest, I cannot excuse of error and ignorance only. Indeed error and ignorance do sometime mitigate the guilt of the offender, but never can it obliterate the stain of the offence.  
It will seem a hard matter I know unto some, that sacrilege should be openly reprehended, and unto some an absurd thing, that in the policy of the Church, Bishops should be required. For there are here in England a certain number of wicked men, (and I am very sorry for them) who are so far out of order with that order, as if no Ecclesiastical Discipline were to be had under them. Amongst whom, the quarrel is grown so far, that now they divorce themselves from the communion of the English church, as Papistical and Antichristian, and so betake themselves to their private and not permitted conventicles. Whom I could do no less then lightly note in this place, because they seem to patronage their odious schism, and mutinous huggor-muggar by the precedent precedents of our foreign Churches. O God thou knowest, and themselves cannot be ignorant, that the first peregrine churches which were here in England, had their Lord Bishop Alasco, and these which at this day are under the protection of the most gracious Elizabeth, do acknowledge the Bishops of those Dioceses in the which they are, and to them they supply. But (thanks be unto God) there are others, who being somewhat more mild and moderate in their proceed, do not altogether estrange themselves from the assemblies of their churches: but yet, they have the Bishops in emulation also, and promise unto themselves a golden world, could they but once bring to pass, that by a preposterous Alchemy of earthly policy they could turn gold into dross, that is, Bishops into Presbyters, & their revenues into annuities. But to them I dare say, and can foreshow, that they shall bring, themselves? The whole state Ecclesiastik into deep disdain, disdain worse than themselves deserve. And whereas (the Lord be praised for it) we have now some good Discipline, it will come to pass that then they shall have none at all, but voluntary, which as soon as it is begun, will be gone. I omit the tumults and contentions with the which they shall first trouble and turmoil both heaven and earth. But this is plain, and I dare promise them, that they which were the first authors thereof, will prove their first enemies, so soon as under these colours they shall have obtained their desires.  
The calamities of your present churches yourselves see, and suffer: but from whence they arise, or what is the true remedy (pardon me, I beseech you, if I speak as I think) you seem not to see or conceive at all.  
Do you not hear of the turbulent state of other Churches? and you know what they were from the beginning. Where, if they had entertained for a popish Prelate, a true BB. & for Romish massmongers Euangelique Ministers, contented and contenting themselves, with the rites and revenues of their own Churches: no doubt all things amongst them, had continued more peaceable and prosperous, aswell in Church as, Commonwealth.  
The like I affirm of other provinces, from whence is exiled the tyrant of Churches. But what can be done, where the minds of men are foreseasoned with prejudice, and already resolved, That to be ruled by bishops, and to be relieved by Tithes (and other oblations of the people,) is a point of Popery.  
But may I not be so bold to tell them, (and I will tell them but the truth) that these, and such like medicines as they go about to administer unto the Church maladies, are like to prove but provocations unto further mischiefs? Admit the drugs they concoct be not simply offensive, yet is it to be considered, (and wise men will consider) whether the faintness and infirmity of the whole body of the commonwealth, may abide the same. Here there is need of great wisdom, & no less moderation: the which as it may be in many, so must it be in one, which may execute the same: and this is he, which is not to look over one part, but to watch over all, not of the whole world, (which never any mortal thing, or could, or can,) but of one City or province, so far forth as the power of man may extend itself. And may we not also more safely walk in the steps of the ancient fathers, then rashly to step aside into tracts of our own treading?  
Now, how you will accept of this my liberty, I cannot well tell, but I hope well of you, and commit the whole cause unto God himself. This I am persuaded, and this have I learned, that in an unstaid estate, it is not the part of a good Citizen, to suspend his censure of the Commonwealth, nor of a faithful Christian, to suppress his opinion of the Church of Christ. For mine own part, if in this dangerous enterprise, I shall obtain that only, which I have propounded unto myself, I shall have just occasion to give thanks unto my GOD: but if it fall out otherwise, yet shall I have discharged my duty unto my Brethren, and performed my vow to the Church of God. Unto the which, I have hitherto thought myself indebted as much as this comes unto, That a known error ought not to be over-slipped in the silence of me. But put case, I do small good upon those, for whose sakes especially I have travailed in this duty; yet shall their remain a perpetual note of that notorious error unto all posterity, that they yet at the length may amend that, in the which they have found their Fathers to have been faulty.  
London the fourth of the Kal. of April. Desirous of your welfare. Hadrian Saravia.   

To the courteous Reader.  
Whosoever thou be (gentle Reader,) into whose hands this book shall come, in any case I would not have thy mind troubled with this discourse, as if we did reverse some grand Article of thy faith, when we do but restore, (for so we hold it behofefull) the grave Senate of Bishops into the reformed Churches (so called.) Do we cross herein the judgement of some late writers of great name? Why then judge you, (and judge me worthy of double blame) if I should be either so frontless, or so forgetful at least, as to adventure upon this contradiction, of mine own head: suppose ye me at the least, backed with the pillar of truth, (the sacred scripture) and borne out with the consent of the ancient Fathers, and countenanced with the continued custom of the whole Church. What then? (Will you say) did they, whom you call men of name, see nothing? I answer, they did see indeed, that which I see: But as they which take upon them to repair an old house, albeit within doors there be many pretty rooms, and necessary corners, which they would willingly, and might well be reserved; yet notwithstanding, when they behold on every side, the most parts rotten and ruinated, and those good parts to hang together by putrefied and imperfect joints, they are in despair, that the house can not be well turguised, except the whole frame should be overturned: Even so the reformers of gods house, albeit they did see to their grief, many excellent things which might well, and well worthy, be reserved, yet perceiving them to be either utterly distained with superstition, or doubtfully entangled therewith, and consequently despairing, that they could not root out the grounded superstition and tyranny of the pope, unless they plucked up by the roots many singular ornaments of the church; in the anguish of their zeal they cried at once, down with it, down with it, even to the ground. And so is it come to pass that together with impiety and Idolatry (if not before them both) such and so many instruments are taken away, as might have been very great helps to the Church, both for the preserving of Discipline, and also for the retaining of that dignity to the ministery, which is decent and requisite in a civil society.  
But to the purpose: although in material things, that which we have exemplified before, many times must be so of necessity: yet in moral causes there is no such necessity. The state therefore of this question (friend reader) is not of thy faith in Christ, or of thy souls health, but by what guides especially, and governors, thou mayst be best lead in the way of truth, and kept in the path of eternal life. And upon this point is all this variance. For there are some of opinion, that all discipline of manners, is to be referred to the Magistrate, and that the Minister is to be restrained to the bare Preaching of the word, and ministering of the Sacraments. The which fancy of men, seeing it hath neither the word of God to confirm it, nor any precedent of our Elders to give countenance to it, I can but wonder, how so frivolous an opinion, could once either creep in, or peep out of the heads of Divines. But there are other which yield (as they ought to do) the power of Ecclesiastical censures to those Bishops and Elders, which are such, both in name and indeed: unto whom, they deny not that authority which God gave unto his Apostles, and their successors the Bishops. And last of all, there is a third kind of them, which rejecting the order of Bishops, join with the Pastor certain annual Elders, unto whom they commit the regiment or the Church, and the ordering of Ecclesiastical Discipline. Thus did the Philosophers of old, when it came in question, what kind of Government was best: Of whom, some preferred the Monarchy of one, and that (as it is indeed) they judged the best: yet others maintained, that an Oligarchy or joint government of a few, was as good as the best: again there were others, who for a Democraty, or state popular, would yield to none of the rest. And last of all, there were some, who to the former three added a fourth, which they indifferently, (not equally) mixed of all three; and that they would make good, to be as good as they all, and better than any of the rest. But in the mean while they considered not this, that any kind of government as it is in itself, is not so much to be considered in governance, as is the nature and condition of them, who are to be governed, and for whose good that kind of government is ordained. So that now, that form of policy is to be accounted best, not which is such in his own nature, but that which is most necessary for the people, the time, and the place. For which cause, (as I conceive) GOD himself in the secrecy of his wisdom, hath not set down unto any nation, any perpetual form of government, the which it was not lawful to alter according to the incidencie of time, place, and persons.  
But in the government, of the which we dispute, the case is far otherwise: for in that it proceedeth immediately from God, men may not alter the same according to their fancies, neither is it necessary: For the wisdom of God hath so tempered the same, that it repugneth no form of civil government. In deed, where any one whole state is become Christian, the government happily may receive some kind of alteration, but not such as shall alter the nature of it. Were they before in government diverse, and in no one thing alike? now they consort in one, and lend each other their mutual aid. Wherefore, whatsoever other men think in this matter: doubtless the Christian Magistrate, in a well ordered state, ought not to be held as a private person, either in Church or commonwealth. The which distinction being not sufficiently looked into, hath distracted us into diverse errors in Church Discipline. For my part, (and the best will take my part,) I hold, that the state of Bishops is necessary in the Church, & that Discipline is best and from above, in the which, godly Bishops, with the not nicknamed Elders do sit at the helm.  
And yet when I consider with myself, the badness of these times, and the bad condition of some places, in the which it hath pleased God, by the hands of learned and religious men to gather together his dispersed flock out of the captivity of Babylon. I do not see indeed, how the true Bishops could have been restored. In the Churches of Flanders and Holland, myself have sustained the office of a Pastor: but shall I tell you? I cannot easily tell, how many impediments I there found in this business. But shall that which was done extraordinarily, and partly of necessity, and that but in a certain few places, and that but in our age only, prescribe a law to the world beside? This divorce of minds and opinions had never been, were it not for the tyranny of some misruly Bishops, a novel opinion is crept up, opposing itself against all antiquity, which holdeth all Bishops generally in jealousy: and yet, the like and no less suspicion is raised of our new consistories also, whether rightly or wrongfully, I will not say.  
Wherefore, he that will undoubtedly attain to the certain knowledge of these things indeed, must be sure, that he examine and try the cause himself, devoid of all passion or preoccupation of affection. Many times within these six and twenty years, have I delivered my mind unto my friends in familiar conference, (though not at all times, nor to all) concerning the government of Bishops. What they would conceive of me for so doing, I might easily conject by others, who had in like manner revealed themselves unto their brethren. For as it happened, a certain disputation fell out between certain Ministers, concerning the same position: in the which M. Doctor Villerius, (whose name I cannot remember without due reverence) assumed, that the authority of Bishops was not so rashly to have been rejected. But Lord, how they were nettled and nestled with this? as if with that one word, he had utterly overthowen that equality, which they expected in the French churches, and which they thought requisite in all Ministers. O grief: to me they made known their grief, and (pitiful complaining) they complained to me thereof. But what should I here do? defend him I dared not, (and yet I liked well the cause of his opinion,) lest I should incur the like suspicion of aspiring thoughts. But from that time forward, that conference gave me occasion to search and sift out more narrowly, those matters by myself. And that which then happened to me, I doubt not but is incident to many others with me, who in wisdom see, also and consider, that the authority of Bishops is greatly wanting in ours, and all Churches.  
There are some which can endure, nor equal, nor superior: I give God thanks, I can see my superior without envy, and sustain my inferior without contempt. But now, seeing I am here in England, no man can challenge my affection as guilty of a Bishopric, or as if I seek dominion over my brethren: (the calling I affect, but not to be called.) And therefore now I dare more boldly, and will more freely speak what I think, then before I thought it requisite; neither was it convenient, when I conversed among brethren never-a better.  
Yea, but I may seem in this action, to soothe up the Bishops, and seek their countenance: countenance? nay than must I seek further, and never look the Bishops in the face, whose condition in this thankless age, is more subject to the envy and obloquy of men, than myself am. And indeed, if that were all, and all but so little, it were the part of a wary child, and him that would husband his credit to make the most of it, rather with safety and silence to say nothing, and with patience and policy, to expect the issue of these things. The which I dare say, I also could have done as well as others, without displeasure to myself, or disfavour to any. But what moved me, God knoweth: men may construe my fact as themselves affect: but it is the Lord that judgeth my soul. Notwithstanding, let the courteous Reader conceive my meaning in few words: I desire to benefit the churches already, and to be reform, to extirpate Schism where it is rooted, and to prevent it where it is rising. He that thinketh this cannot be done by these means, shall have his own saying for me: but yet the event of things (mother of fools,) will one day make it plain, how good and profitable my meaning was; and in the mean while, the Church (if it beware not) may receive that detriment, which it cannot repair.  
The ground of our salvation, is to know God, & whom he hath sent, jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, the Bishop of of our souls. But as in every thing which men go about: whether weaving, carving, or any other craft, of the which, either the City, or the civil Magistrate hath any care, that it should be well done, there must be a decent order kept, and a diligent oversight had of the works, the which by how much the more curious it is, by so much the things themselves do flourish the better, and continue the longer: So likewise in Religion, the same order and oversight ought to be had, if we will have the same to flourish amongst us, or to continue pure and intemerate for ever. But that all men do not agree about the manner of ordering and governing the Church, why should that trouble the quiet of any peaceable man? Do ye not know, that the more profitable and necessary a thing is to be used, the more lets and delays are made by the enemy, either to infect, or else to interrupt the use thereof? Was there ever at any time, any thing so clear and manifest among men, that was out of all controversy? How then knowest thou this, that thou knowest nothing? Or how cometh it in question among men, whether a man seethe, or doth that, which in very deed, he both seethe and doth? Without controversy there is no part of philosophy, or precept of Divinity, no point of Religion, which hath not been called into controversy; This sore travail hath God given to the sons of men, that they might be exercised therein. But the vanity of man's will, detracteth nothing from the verity of any thing. And therefore, go to gentle Reader, be doing with the sequel, and do well by it.   

THE PREAMBLE.  
THe surprising of the Bishop of Rome his tyranny, to whose sceptre (a croisier) all churches, and kingdoms, and empires were enthralled, is, now of late grown so hot, that now a days, all Primacy, and the name of Primacy is found guilty, (not guilty,) and thought worthy to be exiled the Church of Christ: (wisely.) For by that means, all the tyranny of Prelates may be subdued. But they are far wide in my judgement. The Tarquin's once exiled Rome, the very name of King became odious among them: as if (forsooth) with the name of those tyrants, tyranny had ceased. But were they not afterwards (and then justly) thralled and threshed, as men thrash corn, with more, & more kinds of tyranny, then if they had retained still the sovereign name of Kings and their princely authority? Neither indeed, is there any tyranny at all in the name of a King, but in the nature of a Tarquin. And the like we may justly say in this action: that the pride and tyranny, with the which the Church of Christ was wearied and wasted, was not in the Primacy of Bishops and archbishops, but in the persons which did abuse their authority, and going beyond their commission, extended the bounds of their Province, further than might lawfully stand with the modesty and moderation of christian Religion: by which means indeed, the power of Rome is become excessive and insupportable. But shall I now, upon this bare presumption, indite of tyranny, the more ancient form of Church policy, and so many godly men, (or rather Gods amongst men) of rare learning, sincere lives, and sound Religion? Or shall I condemn of error, those sacred and religious Synods, in the which, holy men of God did ratify that ancient policy of the Church, which with reverence (as they ought,) they received of their godly predecessors? far be that sin from my thoughts, as far as is this impure age from their perfections. For albeit I am not ignorant, that both Fathers and Counsels may err, (if they enact against the will and word of God,) notwithstanding, it followeth not, that therefore they erred in this. But if so be we were thus equally affected towards others and ourselves, that as we know a natural infirmity to be universally infused in the natures of all men, so with all we would acknowledge the same, to be particularly imprised in ourselves also: we would then more diligently search and pry into the reprehension of ourselves, rather than of others: But now it is far otherwise with us. Is there any thing in the Fathers (for some especial cause moving us) misliked of us? By and by we have this theorem at our finger's end: We must remember, they were but men; and because men may easily err, we muster whatsoever we mis-conceive of them, among the errors of that age. In the mean while, we never remember ourselves, that we also are but men, and therefore may err with them: yea, we are such men, (neither are we exempt from the common infirmity of men) who may then err, when we think amiss of them, and in that very thing may we err, for the which we condemn them.  
This is once: that against the constant and consonant conclusions of the ancient church, we ought not to attempt, or admit any innovation, without a plain commission from God's holy writ: and this also I dare boldly say, that whosoever taketh away all authority from the Fathers, he leaveth none for himself. Indeed it must be confessed, that the Fathers were men, and that they had their wrinkles: yet can it not be denied, that to have our Fathers to be our Patrons in the principal points of faith, and extern policy of our church, (things controverted between the Popelings and us) is a matter of no small moment, and of especial account. And albeit, the uniform consent of God's children from the Apostles times unto this day, may not be compared with the eternal word of God: Notwithstanding, of right it may come in, and stand for the second place.  
The custom of god's people, received of all Churches thorough out the whole world, is in manner of a law, sacred and inviolable: Neither is there any likelihood, that there could ever have been an universal consort of all Churches and ages, without either the authority of god's word, or the tradition of the Apostles. Notwithstanding, for as much as no consent, no custom, no ancient prescription, can, or aught to prevail in the Church of Christ, against the word of God; Therefore, those reasons are to be weighed, and those Scriptures to be examined, which moved the Fathers to entertain, and continue that Church government, which our new reformers will in no case agree upon; that we may certainly know, whose is the error; theirs, or ours.  
The time hath been, when no good men disallowed of Bishops and Archbishops: but now, in despite of the Pope's tyranny, & his complices, it is come to this pass, that their very names are called into question: and that of diverse men, for diverse causes. Some, because they are (as they suppose) the devices of Antichrist, or his forerunners, think them unworthy thee Church, and worthy to be cast over-boorde. Others, yet more modest, in some reverence of antiquity, think they may be borne with all for a time, (although in the mean time they allow not of them) until such time, as commodiously the names may be antiquate with the things themselves. In the mean while, for that they know, (neither can they be ignorant) to what singular effect the Church of God hath been governed by grave and godly Bishops, they have not the face to condemn them openly: yet because they see certain reformed Churches of this age, to be governed without Bishops: It is enugh: they have not the power any longer to tollerat the more ancient government. O the regiment of Pastors and Elders passing all antiquity, our souls have longed for thee, and we have a desire unto thee: for that thou alone art grounded upon the Lord jesus his institution, and thou, (if any) art wholly purified of all tyranny and ambition.  
O, but by your leave (good brethren) the shadow you embrace, is no substance: neither is the plot you conceive, a privileged place. Are you so far in love with your lifeless Pygmalion, the work of your own hands? I know who is not: & he hath reason for his, why not; For neither is your new draft of strange government, sufficiently proved by the word of God: neither is it yet, (or can at any time) be confirmed by the example of our Elders. And how should it? (if we should judge aright of it) seeing it was partly unknown unto them, as a thing insolent and not heard of: and partly condemned of them, as a thing Heretical, and not approved of. Wherefore, to speak the plain truth, without flattery or partiality: I think of this new form of Church government, as some think of our Bishop's regiment: Namely, that it is but a devise of man's conceit, and there to be tolerated, where a better cannot be obtained. And contrariwise; that which is disallowed of some, as devised by man, seemeth unto me to be the very ordinance of God, and the only true government of the Church; as that which hath his institution from God; not only in the old, but in the new Testament. But because it is defiled with the manifold abuses of men: that which were to be laid upon the person, is imputed to the function; as if (forsooth) no such miscarriage might befall this their novel kind of government.  
The Romish Antichrist, with his Bishops, Archbishops, patriarchs, and metropolitans, hath so troubled and entangled the Church of Christ, that tyranny itself, is thought to be masked under those honest and honourable titles. It is most true: He that is once stung of a Serpent, suspecteth every stone: and once bitten of a dog, is afraid of every cur. Some therefore, that they might apply some remedy to this malady, have reversed those names, and yet retained the same things; and for Bishops, have anointed Superintendents, and for Archbishops, general or provincial Superintendents: as if the controversy were not for the thing itself, but for names sake. But (wise as we are) seeing the signification of words, is variable and voluntary: when we agree in truth, what need these garboils about terms? If the forms of government, which are signified by those terms, are contained in god's word; Is there any reason or sense, that in disgrace of those names, these forms should not be retained of us? If any man object, that in the government of Bishops there are many corruptions: I make no question of that; So we might cavil with the government of the civil Magistrate: hath it not his corruptions? Have they not their infirmities? Yet was there never any that had his five wits, who thought that a sufficient reason to remove those from their place, that are precedent in the state. Wherefore, our question is not, how the Bishops have abused their authority, but whether the Lord hath so forbidden this their Primacy, that there may be, nor Pastor over Pastor, nor Bishop over Bishop, in the outward policy of the Church. As for the rest, if any will accuse the Bishops or their Consistories, either of neglect duty, or corrupt dealing: no man will be their hindrance, why they may not prosecute that, (and persecute them) before the chief Magistrate. I take not upon me the apology of any Bishop: I am not so worthy; they are not so weak, as that they need my Patrociny; they are able to say for themselves, and to gainsay their accusers; only I lament, that the antic order of church government, (of great and long esteem with our forefathers) should be negligently lost, or violently taken from us: and I fear me greatly, least in the infelicity of this age, it be utterly taken from us. For who seeth not, and grieveth not to see, how men are set together upon mischief? even to reduce the whole ministery of the church, to the bare ministery of the word.  
But this our present controversy, can by no means better be decided, then by conferring the orders of the Ministry in that order as they were ordained of God, and delivered of the Apostles: according to their singular degrees, and several seasons, as they were then in use: So shall we easily learn, what order is consonant to the word of God, and what dissonant: the which, that I may the better perform; there are two things which afford me fit ingress thereunto. The first is, the first institution of those several orders: The second is, that one place of S. Paul to the Ephesians, the fourth chapter, where he setteth down the diverse ministries of the church, distributed into their several degrees. Wherein the first place are invested (as the chief Patrons, and first patriarchs of the gospel) Apostles; in the second, Prophets; in the third, Evangelists; in the fourth, Pastors and Doctors. Of all the which, we are now to discourse in their due order. And albeit Paul seem to write of the functions given to the church after the Ascension of Christ: Notwithstanding we will look back a little further for this matter, neither will we cease our diligent pursuit, until we come to that time and place, in the which Christ selected his twelve Apostles; and so return by the seventy and two Disciples, whom he ordained also, and added to the Apostles, for the preaching of the gospel throughout jewrie.  
And albeit, this discourse do chiefly intend the distinction of Ministers; yet by the way, we have somewhat to say of Deacons also. For whereas the doctrine of life, doth not nursle us up in any idle contemplation of good things, but rather traineth us up in the practice of all goodness, especially of christian charity: Therefore of the ministery of the gospel, there ariseth an other Ministry, which exerciseth itself about bodily necessaries of this life, and consequently hath imposed upon it the dispensation of the church stock: whereby it cometh to pass, that there is a twofold Ministry of the church: One, which only respecteth the glory of God, & ou souls health: An other, which regardeth the procuration of earthly things, and the preservation of this present life. After these things handled, and set out of hand as I may: in the sequel of this my travel, I will entreat of that honour and reverence, which by the law of God, instinct of nature, and right of nations, is proper and peculiar to the sacred Minister. And last of all, against the gourmandiers of church goods, I will set down and lay before their eyes, the odious sin of Sacrilege, with the dires and punishments accompanying the same. And these three things, according to the variety of their natures, I have distinguished into three books: but because they are of some affinity, and rise together insequence, I have also laid them together in this one volume.   

Doctor Saravia, of the divers degrees of Ministers.  

What the Ministry of the Gospel is, and what be the parts thereof. Chap. I.  
ALthough this present Treatise doth chief aim at the inequality of Ministers, yet notwithstanding I take it a good way, or not much out of the way, if we set on first with the definition of the Ministry: that thereby it may the better appear, what is common to the Ministers among them all, and what is proper to every one in his particular order.  
Upon diverse grounds of the Scripture, diverse definitions may be diversely framed; but I comprise them all in one word or two, of the Apostle Paul: and upon his bare word I affirm: 
1. Cor. 4.1. 1. Tim. 3.16.  That the Ministry of the Gospel is a certain dispensation of the mysteries of God, which were revealed unto the world by the coming of Christ. Where I call a mystery, not only that doctrine of the wonderful counsel of God in the redemption of mankind, but also all other things which God hath annexed unto that doctrine. And those I resolve into three sorts: Whereof the first is, The preaching and publication of the Gospel: the second is, The use and administration of the Sacraments: the third is, The exercise and execution of Ecclesiastical government.  
The preaching of the Gospel is a sacred Embassee in the name of Christ, in the which sinners are entreated to reconcile themselves to God; or thus; It is the publishing of that doctrine of free pardon of sins, which Christ himself sued forth from his Father, and purchased with his precious death; or otherwise also thus; It is the doctrine of the free justification & sanctification of the holy Ghost, which is obtained by faith in Christ jesus. Many other definitions might be added, were it not that I delight to be brief: Of these, if you couceive what the Gospel is, and the preaching thereof, it sufficeth, & I am satisfied. To the second part of this ministry, do appertain the commands of the Lord, to baptize the faithful and to administer the Lords Supper. 
Mat. 16.19. and 18.18.  But to the third part (which is of government) is reserved the power of the keys of heaven, & the pre-eminence of binding & losing upon earth. And this authority hath two branches, whereof the one compriseth the Ordaining of Ministers, the other comprehendeth the Censure of manners. 
Act. 14.13.  By this power the Apostles ordained Bishops and Elders in the church, unto whom they demised their authority; that all things might be done duly and decently, and that good order might be maintained in the Church of Christ. In the assurance of this power, the Apostle delivereth unto Satan, the stiff necked and self-willed enemies of the truth; & of this power, in his Epistles he many times inter serteth imperious menaces with gentle admonitions. But of this matter there is some controversy in these days: have you not heard of it? neither did our fathers. For there be some of strange opinion (but strongly opinionat) that the whole Censure of manners is to be set over to the Magistrate; and how so? because it appertaineth to his duty to take care for good order and public honesty, and to take punishment of disordered persons & pernicious offences. But to the Pastor (under a christian Magistrate) no such matter. Let him only teach virtue and tax vice, and administer the Sacraments hand over head. In deed he may admonish all men to prove themselves before they eat of that bread and drink of that cup: to the which if they do obey, it is so much the better; but if not, yet that must be left between God and their conscience. Forbidden any man the Communion? God forbidden.  
Is it not to be wondered, that they which confess that the Minister hath power of binding, should not consider that the same Minister hath the like power of losing also? Do they not know, that there is the like reason of them both? or can they not conceive, that the effects being contrary, they are performed of the Pastor with contrary actions? It is without all controversy, that sinners are loosed by the Ministers, when remission of sins in the name of Christ is pronounced to the faithful; But when as by the same power, the wrath of God and vengeance eternal is denounced against the unfaithful, and that they are denied the sweet comfort of the holy Sacraments, who doubteth, but that they are bound in like sort? Is it not abhorring from the duty of a faithful Pastor, to let in Wolves into his master's sheepfold? so is it also, if he thrust not out those, which are closely crept in. If so be it so fall out, that any man fall from the faith after baptism, or when he confesseth Christ with his lips, that he deny him in his life, and within himself crucify again the God of life; What? is there here no part of the Pastor's office to be performed? He shall restrain (they will say) the disobedient, & release the penitent. Very good. But seeing these things cannot be done, but with contrary faculties; as to the penitent he shall pronounce the sweet promises of God's mercy and receive him into the Church; So to the disobedient he shall denounce all the dires and execrations of God's wrath, (that he is a recreant from the kingdom of God, that he is exiled the City and forbidden the house of God) and he shall deny the dog returned to his vomit, the bread of the children of God. Wherefore as a faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God baptizeth none that was once an infidel, without some public confession of his faith: so neither doth he receive to the Communion a notorious sinner, without apparent conversion of life. This is old Divinity.  
But to spend many words in the confutation of this conceit, is no part of my meaning, neither would it quite for cost; this only cause would require a whole choir of conclusions, & that too painful a course, for so needles a discourse. This only seemeth to me a sufficient confutation thereof, that it is a new and an unexpert error, crossing the advised judgement of all ancient Divines: that I urge them not with the Heathen, more holy than themselves, with whom there was always great difference, between things sacred and profane. But if Popish Prelates have heretofore abused, and abuse at this day the lawful power of the church, by their lawless tyranny, shall their unlawfulness make a lawful thing of none effect? Together with religion a law was made, which excluded the irreligious from religion, since the world began. And is not then the condition of the Church present to be pitied, being now come to this stay, that when as it ought to be the school of virtue, it will not endure the censure of conformity? And that which to the Heathen (men rude and untaught in the true worship of God) seemed most beautiful in itself, and no less beneficial to the common wealth, should altogether of us Christians be neglected as needless, or contemned as erroneous?  
But to return to the principal issue in this controversy: albeit the ministry of the Gospel committed to the pastors of the Church, be one and the same in them all: yet in this third part, concerning the diverse degrees of authority, which first the Lord himself constituted, and afterwards the Apostles continued, there is great odds between them, and no small inequality to be found among them. Amongst the which, there is no controversy, but that the Apostles have the first degree of dignity, Evangelists the second, Prophets the third, Pastors and Elders the fourth, Doctors the last. For as the authority of an Apostle was greater than of an Evangelist or a Prophet, & of a Prophet greater than of a Bishop or an Elder: so was the authority of Titus and Timothy, who were both Elders and Bishops, greater than was the authority of those Elders, whom by their Apostolic commission themselves had created in every Town. And albeit the Baptism of Christ be one and the same, by whom so ever it be administered, whether of an Apostle of the highest, or of an Elder of the lowest order, and the doctrine of the Gospel is neither better nor worse which is delivered of these, or of those: Notwithstanding good order of government doth not permit, that the authority of all should be all alike, or that the like commission should be granted to these, and them; the constant and continued custom of the Church ministry, derived from the Apostles time, and vnrepealed unto this day, doth evince the same.  
The first creation of the twelve Apostles, and the seventy Disciples, doth contain a manifest demonstration of this whole matter. For that the beginnings of the old, and new Church might accord: First the twelve Apostles were elected to be the first patriarchs and progenitors of a new people: but afterwards, when the harvest was greater than the labourers, and the kingdom of Heaven already began to suffer violence, as the Lord joined with Moses in the old Testament seventy Elders, to assist him in the governance of his people: so in like manner upon the like occasion, our Saviour added unto the twelve Apostles, seventy other Disciples. And so in the first infancy of the Church, we may see how the Lord ordained two diverse degrees of Ministers: whom when he distinguished in number, and dissevered into distinct companies, did he not declare, that in honour and authority they were not equal, not all of a company? The which thing verily he would never have done, had he once known (and he should know) that it had been a sin, for Ministers to be diverse in degree, and not equal in dignity. And these were the first preachers of the Gospel under the Lord's direction, whiles himself was yet resident among them. But after he ascended into Heaven, he raised up Prophets also in the Church, when as at Whitsuntide he poured forth of his spirit, whereby he might make his Disciples as miracles, not only for their manifold languages, but also for their divine wisdom and foreknowledge. But in process of time, when the number of Churches increased and multiplied exceedingly, so that themselves were now no more able to ground and govern them; they took unto them of their followers, and made them their fellow labourers. Who although they were of rare faith and ripe gifts, yet were they the scholars and followers of the Apostles and Evangelists, much inferior to their masters. But when as not only the number of the Churches, but the multitude of believers increased still above number, than were there ordained for several Churches, several Pastors, who in that age without distinction were called Bishops and Elders. And of all these we purpose to speak particularly, so soon as I shall have showed you my mind concerning the diverse kinds of Calling to the Ministry.   

Of ordinary and extraordinary calling to the Ministry. Chap. II.  
NO man not lawfully called, may intrude himself into the holy Ministry of the Church. For it is belonging unto God alone to choose his own Ministers, and to prescribe laws unto men, by the which he would have them chosen. Wherefore, there are now two kinds of lawful callings to the Ministry: one, when a man is called of God himself: an other, when he is ordained of men, according to the laws prescribed of God. This we call ordinary, the other extraordinary. That which is extraordinary cometh to pass two sundry ways, and at two several times: namely, either immediately from God without any intermeane: or else from God, but yet by means of his Prophet. And that also is of two sorts, either when there was no certain order set down in the same matter, or else when there was a certain order appointed for the same. Of the first, we have an instance in Moses and Aaron, both called extraordinarily; Moses immediately from God without any inter-mean: and Aaron by his brother Moses: Who, being so commanded of God, preferred to the Priesthood, Aaron with his sons, and the whole Tribe of Levy. But then there was no law written, so that from them the order and function of Levy had their foundation. Of the latter we have an example in Samuel, whom God called after the order of Priesthood was received and confirmed amongst the people of God: So was Elias the Thesbite raised besides the common order, when an order was set down; and so were for the most part all the Prophets of the old Testament. But Elizeus and others were so called of God extraordinarily, that he used in this business his Prophet Elias, as a mean thereof. So likewise in the new Testament, Christ called his twelve Apostles, unto whom also he added seventy other Disciples, when as yet there was no certain order set down for the Ministry of the Gospel: But Paul and Mathias he added to the twelve, after the institution of the Ministry.  
The Privilege of an extraordinary calling is this, that as it hath God the only author, so it hath the same God the only director of the same. For always extraordinary gifts do accompany an extraordinary calling: in so much that they which are so called of God, have no need to be informed of man, in those things which concern the execution of their charge: as it appeareth in Moses and the Prophets, as also in the Apostles and Evangelists.  
The ordinary calling is that, which is made of men, according to such laws as God hath set down for the same. As was the Priesthood of the family of Aaron, and the Ministry of the Levites in the old Testament: and as is at this day the calling of Bishops and Elders, who both of the Apostles themselves, and also of their successors, were chosen assistants for the founding of Churches, and appointed precedents over them being founded, and so for ever (so long as there is a Church) are to endure.  
As for men, they have no power (not commanded of God) to call any man to the Ministry extraordinarily. Wherefore they are deceived that think Titus or Timothy, or john Mark & other the Apo. followers & fellow-labourers extraordinarily called, seeing they were called no otherwise, then were the other Elders and Bishops whom the Apostles ordained over diverse Churches. Was there any thing in them singular or extraordinary? impute not that to their extraordinary calling, but to their ordinary conversing, with tutors and instructors, excellent and extraordinary, (the Apostles and Evangelists.) I admit their gifts were rare, and their perfections extraordinary, yet notwithstanding (no dispraise to any) they wanted much of that manhood of strength, which was in their instructors, neither were they wiser than their teachers. Never did Apostle give Apostle instructions, as Paul did to Timothy and Titus; who as they supplied the Apostles places, so they followed not their own, but the Apostles precepts. So were they at once & together both scholars and masters: for as they did conform the Churches, & inform their pastors with wholesome doctrine, so themselves also were informed of the Apostles, the Apostles immediately from God, and our Lord jesus Christ. So that Paul might boldly say (as he said truly) What things I have received of the Lord, I have delivered unto you: but Timothy might say with us (and we with him) what things we have received of the Apostles, we have delivered unto you. And albeit both he and we, have received of the Lord, that which we have delivered to the Churches, yet notwithstanding our receipt is after another sort. They lived with the Lord, and those things which they heard and saw, and handled with their hands of the word of life, they delivered to the Church: but Titus and Timothy, and all they which succeeded, taught and teach with us, such things as were delivered by their hands unto us.  
Besides Titus and Timothy, Paul had his fellows and joint labourers, Sylas and Barnabas; I say his fellows, not his followers; his schoolfellows, not his scholars. For why? they had their calling as he had, extraordinary from God, and therefore unto them he set down no precepts of wholesome doctrine, he gave no instructions of Church government, as he did unto Titus and Timothy. Where I leave it to every indifferent man's judgement, what difference there was between the calling of those, and of these. As for the calling of those, whom it hath pleased God to raise up for the reformation of his Church, there be many which move many questions, and make more to do, than they need: out of the which when they can no ways wind themselves, at all adventure they cast anchor in this unknown coast of extraordinary calling. But unless I be wondrously deceived, they do but ride in a shallow, and they need not. For to oppose himself against a false and corrupt opinion concerning the Son of God, or of the chief grounds of religion, every good Christian (well seen in sacred writ) both can and aught. Wherefore amongst so many, as God hath stirred up to so singular a purpose (as he hath stirred up many) how few I pray you have they been, whose calling was extraordinary, except a few? And what then can the adversary object in this case against the Church of England? Or wherein can it justly be challenged? May it not defend her calling ordinary, as may also many other Churches in Germany? Say that irreligion hath universally possessed some certain Church; I say, there need no calling extraordinary to recall the same. The Church, may be extraordinarily reform (if so it be required) by them, which have ordinary authority to perform it. We have heard of many reformations in the kingdom of juda, to the which neither civil Magistrate was ordained more than ordinary, nor novel Priesthood. Did not the Priests themselves, which before were defiled with foul Idolatry, purify the Temple, the people, and themselves together from foul Idolatry? And at this day, if the Bishops of the French Churches, would redeem themselves from the Pope's tyranny, and sweep their Churches clean of all error and Idolatry; what need should they have of any other calling, then that which they have? The like I affirm of all other Churches, (in what part of the world soever) which through the iniquity of these days, and the subtlety of the enemy, are involved and overcast with the most dangerous mists of error and ignorance. If they please to send for our Countrymen, and use their counsel, they may but if otherwise they will not, they are to usurp no authority over their Churches, but rather to rejoice and congratulate with them for their conversion, making proffer unto them of their company and their countenance.   

Of the twelve Apostles. Chap. III.  
THe twelve, which were the first preachers of the Gospel, were chosen of the Lord himself. With them he deigned familiarly to converse, and friendly to acquaint with all his counsels (which according to the time, they were capiable of) that afterwards they might the better testify of those things, which they both saw, & heard. Their first province extended not itself beyond the confines of jewry; for they were then forbidden to go into the way of the Samaritans, or to enter into the streets of the Gentiles. And in this their first circuit, the Lord unto the office of preaching, joined the power of Baptism, and the working of miracles,. But so long as no end was imposed unto the ceremonies of the old Church, neither yet the order of Aaron's priesthood was abrogated, they founded no particular Churches, but retained company and communion with the rest of the jews, in such things as concerned the service of God.  
But what the peculiar office of the Apostles was, is easily understood by the commands which our Saviour gave them after his resurrection, and also by those promises which he made in john, concerning the comforter which he would send them after his ascension. In the last of Matthew these are the words of our Saviour to his Disciples: All power (saith he) is given to me in Heaven and in earth; Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things what so ever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you until the end of the world.  
In which words the chief parts of their Apostolic function, are thus to be discerned: The first, is that Legacy which is immediately given them of God, unto all nations, and not restrained within any limit; an other, is the publication of that doctrine which they received of the Lord; the third, is the administration of those Sacraments which were instituted of God; the last, is the protestation of that especial aid, which albeit generally it concern the whole church, yet particularly it respecteth the Apostles themselves. Likewise in the fourteenth, and sixteenth of john, the gift of the holy Ghost is promised unto them, for the better performance of their Apostolic function.  
And that was it, which did so moderate their tongue and their talk, as that they should utter no doctrine of their own, but of their master Christ. And albeit the commission of teaching, with the power of working miracles, were granted out unto others also, yet this always remained proper to the Apostles, and entire to their calling, that their only doctrine was a paragon and a pattern, by the which all others doctrine was to be tried, And also: that they alone in the beginnings of the Church, conferred the holy Ghost under a visible sign, by the laying on of hands, (as it is in the eight of the Acts and the seventeenth verse.) Wherefore as Moses had God the first author of the law, so was it requisite the Apostles should have the same ground of their consecration, that the foundation of the Church might be laid sure and indefeyseble.  
As for the authority of the Apostles among themselves, it was one and the same, and their honour alike: there was no odds between them, but that which either gifts, or gravity did make. And albeit Peter be every where called the first, yet was that primacy in the order only of his vocation, not in the pre-eminence of his commission. For if so be that (out of those words of the Lord,) Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and such other like, the Apostles had conceived any especial authority committed to Peter, they would never have moved the question twice after that, which of them should seem the greatest. And albeit the Lord vouchsafed Peter, james and john, the participation of some greater secrets; yet notwithstanding he bore himself so indifferently towards them all, in the donation of any especial place, as that themselves could not tell, among themselves, whom to prefer before his fellow. But from this degree of Apostolic dignity, judas through his treasonable and sacrilegious avarice fell, and into his place was Mathias invested after the ascension of Christ: and last of all other, was Paul also ascribed into this holy society, after a right wonderful and miraculous manner.   

Of the seventy Disciples. Chap. FOUR  
ALbeit Paul for honour sake, have placed Prophets in the second place, yet notwithstanding upon just occasion, I have domised them to the third: For that I am here to observe, not the honour, but the order of their calling; and to take them as they fall, not in regard of the pre-eminence of their titles, but in respect of the priority of those times, in the which they were called in the new Testament. Wherefore, when as the Lord perceived, that for the smallness of the time the Harvest was great, and for the greatness of the Harvest, the labourers were but few; he elected seventy other Disciples to preach the Gospel, and to publish the glad tidings of peace. Unto whom albeit he gave the power of miracles also, & no less privilege than had before the twelve Apostles, (to be honoured of them, unto whom they preached;) yet notwithstanding, he united them not together with the Apostles, to make of them all, one order or society: For ye shall always read, that the twelve were ever separate from the seventy: Who in this regard seemed inferior to the Apostles: For why? they were not in ordinary with the Lord, as were the Apostles; so that they could not be witnesses of such things, as he did and said. If there were any, any more familiar than the rest, they were but few, namely two; joseph (surnamed the just) and Mathias: of the which one (God being governor of the lottery) was invested into the place of judas. Barnabas also, was appointed Apostle-like to discourse through diverse countries, and to plant certain Churches, who notwithstanding (most certain) was none of the Apostles. Philip likewise may be taken for one of this order, (and many other) who laboured with the Apostles in the work of the Gospel. And seeing it is so plain a case, that these all were called immediately from God, and that (as we read) God gave unto his Church Evangelists: who shall we say were those Evangelists, if not these? Resolve then, that those seventy Disciples were Evangelists, and those Evangelists inferior to the Apostles. For why, they were given as Legates or Lieutenants, under those grand Capitains, to undertake (with like authority) their task and their turns.  
And yet besides these, the Apostles took unto them diverse others, as fellow labourers with them: But in them there was not that valour, as was in those, whom the Lord himself did choose, and infuse with an Apostolic spirit. We have read of Barnabas, Jude and Sylas, their great travel, and no small authority in the Church: In which respect they came near, and were next (in deed) unto the Apostles themselves. But how might this have been, if so be the spirit of God had not wholly possessed them, as it did the Apostles? But we know, how that they all met, (that were at the election of Mathias) the same day in the same place, with the Apostles themselves, when the Lord poured forth of his spirit a visible shape. And albeit Barnabas was no Apostle, none of the twelve; yet can we make no less of him, than an Evangelist, one of the seventy.  
As for Mark and Luke, albeit their authority in the Church were great, and their deserts great, for their perfect and well penned Histories of the Gospel: yet are they not to be reputed with the seventy Evangelists, by reason their calling was by men unto the Ministry. Tertullian in in his fourth book against Martion, writeth thus: Luke (saith he) not an Apostle, yet Apostolic, not a master, but a scholar, as he was less than his Master, so likewise was he so much the more less than an other, for that he was follower of a less Apostle. As for Mark, Papias in his Commentaries (as Eusebius reporteth in his third book) hath left us this testimony. Mark the interpreter of Peter, wrote in deed very diligently, what so ever he remembered; yet not altogether in that order, as they were spoken and performed by the Lord. Neither in deed did he hear the Lord himself, neither was he any follower of his, but afterwards (as I have said) became the companion of Peter, etc. Wherhfore Mark did not amiss in this, that he divulged in writing such things, as before he committed to memory: seeing above all things he chiefly regarded this one thing, that neither he would omit any thing he heard to be true, neither commit any thing he knew to be false.  
Thus saith he of him: And it is well known, that he was inferior unto Barnabas also, in authority: for he was his follower, and in a manner his scholar; as he was also Paul's and Peter's, and that in no other order, than were Titus and Timothy. And yet notwithstanding, the name and credit both of Mark and Luke (for their faithful register of the Apostles precepts) is such, and so reverend, as that their Gospels are recorded among the canonical scriptures, and are equaled in authority, with the more exquisite labours of Matthew and john.  
And reason too: For in their evangelic records, whom had they for their patterns or their patrons, but the Apostles and Evangelists? So that, whereas the Gospel of Ma hue, may seem to be only Mathewes, and that of john to be john's only, these their Gospels may be reputed the Gospels, not of Mark and Luke, but of all the Apostles and Evangelists. In the which thing verily they are worthy great commendations, that they savoured no whit at all of men; (as commonly they do which pen Histories,) but they so nearly and narrowly followed the very spirit of the Apostles and Evangelists, as if the Apostles themselves had been rather the penners, than perusers of so great a work.  
Wherefore Luke is for good cause commended of Paul (in the second to the Corinth: the eight chapter, and eighteenth verse) when as he saith, We have also sent that brother whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all Churches. But by these you may easily conceive, who were properly Evangelists, and who not.   

Of Prophets. Chap. V.  
AS we reckon none in order with the twelve, (Paul only excepted) so with the seventy, find we not any that may be compared. And albeit we doubt not, that God could have added to the 70. others also, no way their inferiors, yet seeing we have no record of sacred writ to avouch the same, it were hard for man to affirm, that there were any such: But now when as besides the twelve Apostles, and those seventy Evangelists, we read of other also, who in like manner have been honoured with the first fruits of the holy Spirit; by what name or title shall they be called? or by what addition shall we distinguish them from the rest? Of the number of an hundred and twenty men, there remain fix and thirty still: whom seeing we neither account with the twelve Apostles, nor yet with the seventy Evangelists, it remaineth, that we adorn them with the name of Prophets. For this it is which Peter doth insinuat unto the people, out of the Prophet joel (in his Apology for himself and his fellows) namely, That the spirit of prophesy, promised of old to be given out in the later days, was then poured forth upon that assembly, whom then they heard preaching and prophesying in diverse tongues, to their great astonishment.  
Wherefore those thirty six men, which neither are ascribed into the company of the twelve Apostles, nor yet are recounted in the society of the seventy Evangelists, were those first Prophets, whom God gave into his Church, after our Saviour was received up into Heaven. In which order (as it might very well be) was Ananias of Damascus reputed, and Agabus, both of them renowned Prophets.  
judas and Sylas are also called Prophets, and for that cause are they sent by the Apostles to Antioch, to exhort & confirm the brethren. And I am of opinion, that these and such like were properly called Prophets, not Metaphorically; seeing they did foresee things to come by the spirit of God, and by the same spirit revealed things secret and recondite. And albeit the interpreting of the Scripture be a kind of prophesying, yet is that kind more proper to the Doctor, than the Prophet, and more truly may a man account Doctors interpreters of the Scripture, than Prophets. But doubtless God restored to his Church, in those latter days, that true kind of Prophecy, which in Israel was familiar from the beginning, and in singular wisdom did erect three kinds of Doctors in his Church, and gave them to his new people; Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets. And these were the first Elders and Bishops of the Church of jerusalem.   

That the names and titles of Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets, were given also unto other Pastors and Doctors of the Church. CHAP. VI  
ALbeit, by that which I have already written, it may sufficiently be understood, whom I call by the name of Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets: yet notwithstanding, because those names are for good causes given unto others also, some what must be said of them in like manner. In the Epistle to the Romans the sixteenth Chapter, Andronicus and junius, are called notable among the Apostles: and out of the eight Chapter of the last to the Corinthians, Titus and the brethren which were with him, are called Apostles: and in the Epistle to the Philippians, Epaphroditus is called their Apostle.  
The derivation of the greek word is well known, that Apostles are called, of sending, for that they are Posts or speedy messengers, sent of especial purpose as Legates or Ambassadors into divers parts of the world; & according to this signification, whosoever is sent as a messenger in any business, may be called an Apostle. In this sense, our Saviour himself, (who is Prince and Lord over the Apostles) in the epistle to the Hebrues, is called an Apostle. But (to be short,) this name is no where given in the new Testament to any (so far as ever I could learn) but to the ministers of the gospel only: Amongst whom because there was great inequality; Paul calleth those first twelve Apostles, the chief Apostles: (as it is in the eleventh chapter of the last to the Corinthians,) where he saith; I suppose, that I was not inferior to the chief Apostles: (as it is also in the 11. verse of the 12. chapter.) By the which it appeareth most plainly, that besides those chief Apostles, who held the commission of their embassage immediately from God, there were many other also, which were in like manner called Apostles: either for that they were accounted of the Apostles, as fellow-labourers in their sea-apostolique; or else for that they were sent as Legates in the same business, by the church of jerusalem, which was the mother Metropolitan church. Among whom sometime, there foisted in of their own heads, certain other jolly fellows, false Apostles, whom Paul calleth false brethren, and deceitful labourers: who under a copy of fair semblance, could transform themselves into the colours and companies of Christ his Apostles. And these were they which sought by all possible means, to impair the authority of Paul, as of one (forsooth) that saw not the Lord in the flesh, and therefore not worthy to mate and match with the other Apostles, in like equipage of authority. But do you see their purpose? Or do you conceive their policy? By this means they meant to thrust Paul into the last and lowest form of Apostles, that themselves being mate with Paul, might more easily give the truth a check.  
Against the malapertness of these men, the Apostle maintaineth the authority of his power Apostolic, affirming that he was chosen apostle, not by men, but of God. To how great, or rather to how small purpose should the Apostle have urged this, had not the name of Apostle been common unto others also, which were not of that company and convent of the twelve Apostles, but were sent from men, and by men, & were not immediately from God? among whom are to be accounted, Titus, Andronicus, Timothy, Mark, and many other, whom all posterity hath reverenced, and accounted for Bishops and Archbishops of the church.  
May not the like be said of the name of Evangelists? For who knoweth not, that the same name was given unto many other, besides those seventy two: because indeed, they were called to the same function, both under the seventy, & under the Apostles. True it is, they had not the like measure of God's spirit, and yet according to the moiety of their several talon, they did much edify the church, and magnify the foundation which the Apostles had laid. And therefore are they called Apostles, and Evangelists, not only in respect of the sense and signification of the words, but also in regard of the Apostolic, & evangelic function, into the which they were associate and assumed by the Apostles, as helpers and fellow-labourers.  
But as for the name of Prophets; not only, they are so called in the scriptures, unto whom God hath revealed the secrets of things to come, but they also, which do faithfully reveal the secrets of Gods eternal truth to others, and know how to apply ancient prophecies, to present circumstances. In which sense, all Euangelique teachers and interpreters of sacred scripture, may be said to be Prophets.   

Of Deacons. Chap. VII.  
IF my purpose had been in recounting the degrees of Ministers, to have followed the course of honour, I would have set next under Prophets, Pastors and Doctors. But for as much as I have tied myself unto the order of time, in the which they were first ordained; of force I must first speak of Deacons, before I come to Bishops and Elders: for we read that they were first created, when as yet (besides the Apostles and those Evangelists, and Prophets, of the which we have lately spoken) the Church had no Elders: and reason to. For when as the Ministry of the gospel, according to God's holy institution, hath annexed unto it a religious care, and consideration of the poor, the Apostles took that unto themselves, as a thing pertaining to their charge: until the murmur and mutiny of the Greeks' against the Hebrews, gave occasion of the Deacons Election. But were there not at the beginning, dispensers and disposers of the common treasure? When Christ himself kept residence here upon earth, who but judas discharged that pension? and doubtless, if the Apostles could have performed both, they would never have given charge that others should have been chosen for that charge. And yet that charge, was not so wholly given over of the Apostles to the Deacons, as that afterwards, they thought the same nothing at all appertaining unto themselves. Have we not read, what Paul and Barnabas did, being requested to be mindful of the poor? how vigilantly they undertook that care themselves? And therefore they thought it requisite, that the men to be chosen into that charge, should be men full of the holy Ghost.  
But do you not wonder now, that these new elects did not employ themselves in gathering and giving of alms only? Why (men forgetful of themselves) they take upon them the office of teaching also. See how Philip preacheth the gospel to the Samaritans also, and baptizeth them that believe: how, while Stephen preached Christ more fervently, he is become the first martyr of Christ. May we not conceive by these precedents, what the rest of them did? or shall we be so foolish as to think, because there is nothing written of the rest, that therefore they did nothing, or not this? Of the greatest part, even of Christ his Apostles, is there not deep silence, or little said? of whom notwithstanding there is nothing more clear, then that they performed their imposed pensions with impeachable diligence.  
The like precedent therefore, hath been well followed of our godly predecessors, who did also employ their Deacons in the ministery of the word, and holy mysteries. For why? they doubted (and that not without cause,) lest that profitable function should become contemptible, & be had in esteem, as stewardish and too homely, and not at all belonging, or not beseeming the sacred ministery. Wherefore, that they might be of greater reverence & regard in the clergy, they were permitted to read the gospel to the people, & to minister the cup in the Sacramental symposy. And at the length, their authority increased so far, that no BB. would want his Deacon: yea, sooner would a Bishop want his Priest, then be without this Deacon. But now, how this kind of Deaconie deceased, it is nothing to our purpose: It sufficeth me, that I have showed, what was of old the office of Deacons. I need not add, that what things the Apostle requireth in Deacons, are in a manner equal with those he desireth in a Priest: But this I may say, that by that only one thing, it may full well appear, that the office was then esteemed as a charge of no small import. And therefore, it need not seem so strange a matter to any man, if some greater thing than a Church-warden-ship was committed to the order of Deacons, by our honourable predecessors. The which I note to this end, that all men may know, how the churches of old committed no absurd thing in this, nor we (if there be any which at this day, do imitate them) when they make the Deacony a degree to a further ministery.  
This therefore is the fourth order of the ministry, according to the order of time; and the first, that was devised of man, when as yet there were no other Priests created, than those whom the Lord himself had invested with his own hands. Now, whether this order be observed every where, that they should be created Deacons before they be ordained Priests, I cannot tell. In the epistle to Titus, in the which Paul commandeth, that he should retain Pastors in every city: there is no mention made of Deacons. And in the 19 chapter of the Acts, where it is said of Paul and Barnabas, that they ordained Pastors in the churches, there is nothing said of Deacons. And indeed, for as much as there are greater parts required in a Priest, then in a Deacon; a competent Deacon might sooner be had, (where need was) then a sufficient Priest: whose present want, the Apostles and Evangelists themselves (for a time) could better supply, then of Deacons: because the function Apostolic, is further from procuring the Church treasuries, then from Preaching the mere sacred mysteries. With the which, this also is to be considered, that the necessities of the poor, are not patiented of any long delays.  
That Paul in his fourth chapter to the Ephesians, maketh no mention of this order, it need not greatly to trouble any: seeing his purpose was not to specify all the degrees of the ministry, but only to note the especial. Our Saviour himself taught, that care & compassion showed to the poor, was a most blessed work: when he said, That was given or not given to himself, that was granted or grudged the poor. But in the reformation of some churches in these days, it is now no more a church office, but a civil duty. The care of the poor, oversight of the hospitals and widows, and orphans, which was wont to be the Bishop's charge, the Magistrate hath taken to himself. But upon what occasion it first grew to this under the Bishop of Rome, I will declare else where. No doubt the Magistrate, that desireth to restore the church to her first beauty, will refer that function to Ecclesiastical persons. For if they shall find any corruption in them, it shall be always in their power to punish the offenders, and to amend the fault: but it is not in the Bishops or Pastor's power, to do the like, if it shall fall out, that the Magistrates themselves, or they which are deputed by them in these affairs, shall in like manner offend. Ought they not to consider, that the same thing may befall themselves, which they fear in the ministery? No question, the ministery of the poor, is a religious thing, & part of god's service. Where I find two things greatly to be complained of: First, that in some reformed churches, the whole office of a Deacon, is made oeconomic, rustical, and not unlike unto an annual baliwick: & then, That the order of Deaconisses, attending upon the poor, impotent, sick, (of the which, there is yet some shadow remaining in the Papacy) is among us altogether relinquished. It is much to the purpose (in my judgement) how and of whom the necessities of the poor be relieved in the house of God. I am not ignorant indeed, that the old custom of the church is grown to some smack of superstition: but this of ours, which we now have, whether (a God's name) will that grow? We are apt to fall from superstition to profanation, but to keep the golden mean, we have no means.  
It hath been of old, the greatest beauty of the Church, the greatest praise of the Pastors; bounty towards the needy, and mercy towards the distressed. And what should I say of noble women (and no less renowned) maids and widows, Queens and Empresses, who of their earnest devotion towards God, & their inward compassion towards the poor, have wholly consecrated themselves (under their superuigill Bishops) unto this holy ministry.  
When I look into our churches, I cannot but prefer the commendable care of them, who continue in the church the true Deaconie, before those, who (as if it were some vile and civil charge) traverse it over to men of life and profession unhallowed and profane (For so they range the collectors for the poor, among the basest drudges of the city.) But in this I pity them, that satisfying (if not rather deceiving) themselves with the bare name, they seem not sufficiently to conceive the true and full nature of a Deacon. Of the which, there are yet many things to be spoken, but my discourse plies it, and applieth itself to the order of Elders and Bishops.   

That the churches in their beginnings, had no Bishops & Elders, besides the Apostles themselves, and their fellow-labourers. CHAP. VIII.  
IN the eleventh chapter of the Acts, is the first mention made of Elders, in the church of jerusalem: In the which, so long as the Apostles and Evangelists did themselves continued, they had no need of any other elders. But after they once began to be dispersed (james their head being cut of, and Peter slipped aside) than they began to have their Elders, whom (from that time forwards) Luke always joineth with the Apostles, which were at jerusalem: but when and how, and of whom they were ordained, it is not read. Notwithstanding this order, although it was ordained in the church after Deacons in time, yet is it before them in regard. But that churches were for a time without Priests, (or Elders,) it is more manifest out of the epistle to Titus, & the fourteenth of the Acts, then that it can be denied. But how long they were so, I will not define: In this matter, I suppose the Apostle had not at any time so great a regard of the time, as of the persons, and their perfections. For it was not for the wisdom of the Apostles, rashly to lay their hands of any, or to appoint them over the church, whom God had not anointed with those graces, which are required in a Pastor of the church. Wherefore, when as the churches which were newly converted to the faith, did consist but of novices: there was no remedy, but they must stay a time, until they had made trial of their dispositions, and taken notice of their abilities, unto whom the church-government was to be committed. In the mean while, all things were moderated, by the vigilant oversight of the Apostles, and Evangelists, and such, as they entertained to their succours, as helpers and fellow-labourers.  
No doubt, the Apostle Paul is like unto himself in all his Epistles, & therefore it was not haphazard, that in the Epistle to the Philippians only, he saluteth Bishops & Deacons, & in none of the rest. By the which, as we are put out of all doubt, that the church of the Philippians had their Elders and Deacons: so are we left in suspense, for any of the rest. (If so be (as else where) we are to gather of his style, the state of the church.) Here therefore it behoveth the reader to be very attended, that will learn to know, what churches had their Priests, and what not. Is it likely, that he which ordinarily accustometh to greet so lovingly in all Epistles, all that he knew to be endued with any virtue, so willingly to commend all that he knew to be of any desert in the church, and also so freely to note all that he knew to be in any defect, (I say) is it likely, that of all other, he would have left the Bishops and elders unsaluted? in the epistle to the Rom. he saluteth many whom albeit he call his fellow-labourers, yet are they no where said to have borne any sway in the church of Rome. He remembreth Aquila (& the church which was in his house) who was now at Corinth, then at Ephesus, & sometimes again at Philippos: neither forgetteth he Andronicus & Vrbanus, whereof the one he commendeth, as notable among the Apostles, and the other he confesseth, as his fellow labourer. These and all other, whom he knew resiant at Rome, he deygneth with titles of condign praises, because they labobored together with the Apostles. And therefore no doubt if so be any of them had been the proper Pastor of that Church, he would surely have taken some knowledge, or made some remembrance of it: As we read that he did in his Epistle to the Philippians, of Epaphroditus, and to the Colossians, of Epaphras, and Archippus.  
Moreover when Paul came to Rome, we read how he was received of the brethren, and of the Elders: the which thing might even as well have been there (if there had been any such Elders there) as in the fifteenth of the Acts, and the one and twenty also, it is well noted, how he was entertained of the Elders. But by these it may appear, what the state of the Church was at Rome, when the Apostle did write unto them. The like may be declared out of either Epistle to the Corinthians, (that I name not any other) namely, That they had not their proper Pastors, or peculiar incumbents, when those Epistles were written. For who knoweth not, that Paul did write unto new born Churches, which either were then but in the mould, or as yet in their nonage? Who besides Timothy and Titus, Apollo & Lucas, Stephanus and Fortunatus, Achaicus and such like, (whom the Apostle did send to them in common) had no other Elders, nor yet any other Bishop, but the Apostle himself. And although the Churches were not without order, yet there was not that order, as afterwards they had, when they were not set in order, under Elders, that had taken orders. In mean season, the Apostles & Evangelists, and other religious teachers, did visit them by turns, as their opportunity served. And hence is it, that Paul and Apollo do excuse themselves unto the Corinthians, that they did not visit them so often as they could have wished. The which was also very well noted of Ambrose and Epiphanius. Epiphanius adversus herese, in the 75. heresy hath these words. When the Gospel was young the holy Apostle wrote according as the matter then stood. For where there were Bishops appointed, he wrote to Bishops and Deacons. Neither could the Apostles appoint all things at the first. In deed the greatest need was of Priests, and Deacons, for by these two, all Ecclesiastical functions may be discharged. But where there was not any man found worthy a Bishopric, there they remained without a Bishop. But where need was, and there were that were worthy of it, there were appointed Bishops. But where there was no great multitudes, there were not found among them, that might be made priests. & so they contented themselves with one Bishop in that place, etc. And he addeth: So the Church received the fullness of her functions: for every thing had not all things at the first, but in process of time, those things were provided, which were requisite to the perfection of things necessary. Ambrose upon the 4. of the Epistle to the Ephesians, writeth thus: In all things the writings of the Apostle, doth agree with the order which is now in the Church, because these things were written about the beginnings of the Church. For he calleth Timothy also a Bishop, whom he had ordained a Priest; because the first Priests were called Bishops; that one going away, the next might succeed him. Thus saith Ambrose: And therefore the writings of the Apostles are to be understood, according to the seasons in the which they were written. In deed the Apostles laid the foundations: but others raised the work; Paul planted, Apollo watered. And therefore so soon as with the time the Church increased, and the number of believers multiplied, they were not sufficing for the multitude whom the Lord himself had sent: for which cause the Apostles took unto themselves fellow-labourers in the Ministry, first Deacons, than Priests or Elders. Of whom we are now to speak.   

Of Priests, or Pastors, and Bishops. Chap. IX.  
THe Apostle Saint Paul, next after Evangelists, placeth Pastors and Doctors, but whether he meant by them, two distinct orders, or but one only, there is the question; and that because whosoever is a Pastor, ought also to be a Doctor, but it is not so conversively on the other part: For it may be that he is a Doctor, which not any where is a Pastor. This is once: that as by the three former names of Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, the Apostle seemeth to note those, which had an extrordinary vocation from God immediate, and not from men; so by these two last names of Doctors and Pastors (whether we take them as both one, or otherwise) he seemeth to understand those, which by men were preferred to the Church. And that Bishops and Elders are those, whom Paul calleth Pastors, it sufficiently appeareth by that in the twentieth Chapter of the Acts, where Paul entertaining the Elders he had sent for from Ephesus, telleth them, that they were appointed of god, Bishops to feed the Church. And thereupon we also acknowledge no Elder or Bishop in the Church of Christ, that is not a Pastor or feeder. For it is in the essence of an Elder his office, with wholesome doctrine to feed the flock of Christ.  
Presbyter is a Greek word, and answereth to that which the Hebrews call Zachen, which signifieth not only an Elder in years, (who for his age is to be reverenced, but also an ancient in the common wealth, who for his place and authority is to be honoured: yea it is a title of honour, with the which the Nobles and Magistrates of the old Testament are graced: from whence also it is derived to the Rectors of the Church in the new Testament, who are called Bishops, by reason of their oversight and watchful care; which is a title of work & labour, but the name of Pastor is a title declaring a special charge & office, so called of feeding the Lords flock with the Angellike food of his heavenly word. Albeit there are many other titles also, common to the said Pastors in the Scriptures, as that they are called Stewards, Precedents, Prelates, Guides, Governors, Ministers, and such like. The virtue & property of which titles, I will not here stand to explain: it is that you may have else where: Only I will enforce from thence such arguments, as the occasion shall serve, and the matter which I handle shall require.  
In the mean time you shall understand, that the office of these Pastors, and doctors (albeit ordained of men) doth not differ in kind, from that of the Apostles. For the chief part of them both, is to instruct, exhort, reprehend, and refel the adversaries of the truth, (Besides the administration of the Sacraments, a thing no less pertaining to Pastors, than Apostles.) Neither is a Pastoral oversight disiusticed of that Apostolic authority of Ecclesiastical censure, which remaineth, and is requisite for the edifying of the Church. For why? they succeed (that I may use Hierome his own words) the Apostolic order: and in another place, It is no easy matter to stand in Paul his place, or to maintain the dignity of Peter, now reigning with Christ.   

Of two diveas degrees of Pastors. Chap. X.  
But now, for as much as there is not the same, or the like proportion of charge committed to all Elders; there is also no small difference among those, whom the Scripture calleth by the same name of Bishops and Elders. The which seeing it must be discerned, rather by themselves as they are in deed, then by their names as they are called, let us always chiefly regard, what they are, then, what they are called; that we may truly distinguish between things that differ, not so much in name as in nature.  
The first Elders therefore whom the Apostles ordained, were their fellow-labourers in the Lord his vineyard, as john, Mark, Titus, Luke, Timothy, Demas, Siluanns, and many others of whom we read in the Scriptures. All the which, by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, were created Ministers, no otherwise then the rest, who afterwards were placed over their several Churches. Notwithstanding, that which we read of Timothy, we conceive of the rest; and therefore that charge which was given unto these, was rather provincial, then particular: seeing they were the associates, and assistants of the Apostles themselves.  
But when as daily the number of the faithful increased, and the increase of Churches was thereby more and more advanced, together (as supply could be made of able men for the ministery) the Apostles and Evangelists, (or their associates) installed into particular Churches, particular Pastors: who being placed in their wards (as it were) should not range at large from thence, but under the Apostles (as faithful Pastors) should keep watch and ward over the vineyard of the Lord. And yet they were not so invested into those their several charges, that the sole and whole authority being demised to them, they should rule the Church alone, and the charge thereof should thenceforth concern the Apostles no more: but to this end were they so disposed, that seeing the Apostles themselves could not be always resident in every place, there might notwithstanding (by their good means) be nothing wanting in any place. If twelve men could have been sufficing for all Churches, there should never have been levied any new increase of other seventy. But when they altogether could not serve, to serve the turn, both these, and they both, had need of more abettors, to help them out withal.  
And albeit the ministery of the Gospel under Christ, be only one, as the priesthood of the law under Moses was one: yet notwithstanding, as in one priesthood there were divers degrees of government, so likewise in one ministery of the Gospel, there are (as you have heard) divers degrees of Pastors. For have you not seen, how of the Lord himself, there were two degrees of Ministers ordained? (& of them the one was superior to the other.) How afterwards of the Apostles, there were in like manner ordained two orders? (for to some they gave in commission the Churches of one whole province, and to some again the single rectory of one only Church.)  
That Titus and Timothy, had a superior intendencie over many Churches, as also over them, which were already, or were to be preferred thereunto, it is sufficiently manifest unto every indifferent sense. For otherwise, why was he so diligently admonished to beware, that he lay not his hands upon any man extemporie? And again: to what purpose is he so cautionately forbidden, to admit any accusation against an Elder, without the testimony of two or three witnesses? This therefore leadeth us thus far, as it were by the hand, that of force we must confess, how that under the Apostles, & of the Apostles, there were ordained two degrees of Ministers, & they of divers authority, though not of divers titles: unto whom, albeit the Scripture for the present, gave no proper or distinct denomination, yet in good time Posterity did it, well advised. For although the names of Pastor and Bishop, were commonly given to all Ministers of old, yet presently upon the Apostles time, the name and title of Bishop was imparted, as a proper addition to the first & chief order of Elders. And yet they were not destitute of their distinction by their more sacred titles, even in the Apostles time. For did not the Apostles themselves grace the chief Elders with the title of their fellow-labourers, & their fellow-labourers with their own titles? In the which notwithstanding, we find their posterity very sparing, and that for just cause; namely, for that obsequious reverence, and religious regard they had of the Apostles lately deceased; the chief instruments and ornaments of God's Church.   

That the doctrine of the Apostles acknowledgeth no annuary Elders, to Rule only in the Church, and not to Teach. Chap. XI.  
Out of that place of S. Paul not well understood (it is in the fift chap. of the first to the Corinthians) there are many now adays which have devised a fond and newfound distinction, clean contrary to the Apostles meaning. (Alâs for them) he thought nothing less, then of any temporal Elders, to play the bugs in the Church (like special bailyes) for a spurt, and be gone: whereas in the whole school of the Apostles, you shall not find, the worst Elder, that is not placed in one of the two foresaid forms. Generally in all Elders, the Apostle requireth thus much; That they be apt to teach: And, 
1. Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.9.  that they may be able to exhort with wholesome doctrine, and improve them which say against it. If in this novel kind, we look for parts agreeable to these: sure I am, we shall never find, that dumb Elders, of a years growth, mute to instruct, made to command in the Church, are any where comprised in this form.  
As for that government, the Apostle numbereth among the gifts of God's spirit, it is to be understood indeed of a singular and supereminent gift. For no doubt the right art of government, is a rare and a religious thing: the which albeit there are scarce any that will not boldly arrogate unto himself, yet is it truly to be found but in a few. Wherefore (as I rather judge) this so exquisite a gift of government, is to be reserved unto the more excellent order of Elders; as namely, the Apostles and Evangelists, and others the principal Ministers of that time, as were Titus and Timothy, and such other, which governed many Churches with power Apostolic.  
And therefore me thinks, that they of all other are far wide, who think so rare and singular a gift of God's spirit, aught to be impropriate to so base an order of Elders, mute and momentary, which govern not long, and teach not at all. Sure I am, that the Apostolic Churches, and the sequel of many years after, never entertained any such kind of aldermen, for Church officers. And had not the Apostles and Evangelists, and their associates, sole pre-eminence over the Elders of particular Churches, in the absolute authority of Church government?  
True it is, I find certain Sages and Seniors, who did usually sit in counsel with the Priests of the old synagogue, who were not Priests; but I read not of any in the Church, of counsel with the Pastors, but the Pastors. And in very deed, in the Apostles days, and many ages after, there were not in Esse any Christian Magistrates, which could consult with the Elders of the Church, in matters concerning the Church. As for those Elders and Seniors, whom we read to have been joined with the Priests in council and commission, they were the ordinary Magistrates of Israel, which lawfully could not be sequestered or secluded from the counsels and constitutions of the Priests, no more then at this day the Christian Magistrate is to be restrained from the synods and assemblies of the Church. For albeit there be two kinds of government; one of the City, an other of the Church: yet are they both derived from one and the same author. The which also, although they be executed after a divers manner, and that the one proceed of God, as he is the creator and moderator of all things, and the other of one and the same GOD, as he is the restorer and redeemer of mankind, and each of them have their several end also: yet notwithstanding, seeing the same society is both Church & City, and the authority of them both is drawn from the same head: so likewise are they driven to one end, and come all to the same pass. And of this it cometh to pass, that they both have many things in common, which cannot easily be propounded without a common assembly, nor concluded without a general assent.  
The Minister hath authority from the Lord our Saviour, to govern the Church: the Magistrate from the same Lord our creator, hath the like sovereignty to rule the City. The which two divers and distinct estates, so often as they do friendly consort together in one unisone, & direct all their counsels to the same end, I say so long, the City must needs thrive, and the Church cannot do amiss. As for any other Elders in the Church (besides these of the which I have now spoken, and you heard) I would to God some man would show me which be they (if there be any such.) Doubtless it passeth my cunning, to find any such Church-bugs or Burgesses in the word of God.  
Do you not know, that the offices of the Church, are gifts of the spirit, and as it were talents of the Lord, laid out to loan among men; of the which there must one day an account be rendered to the Lord? I tell you, it is not at the pleasure of any servant in the house of Christ, rashly to exonerate himself of any office he hath undertaken: He that once putteth his hand to the plough, and afterwards looketh back, is not fit for the kingdom of God. For my part, I could never yet read, that there was at any time in the Church, any office temporary, if it were ordinary. I admit, that Deacons may afterwards be made Ministers; but that cannot be accounted a defection from the office, which is the perfection of the same, neither is that offfice forsaken, when in the same order a higher is undertaken; they fall not from that they were, but rise to that they were not. This custom Tertullian sometimes reprehended in his book De praescriptionibus contra haereticos, in these words: Their giving of orders is rash, light, and inconstant: sometimes they praefer younglings, sometimes wordlings, and sometimes recreant revolters, that they may bind them with their titles, whom they cannot hold with the truth: A man can never gain more, or with more ease, then in the ranges of recreantes, where the only being there, is to deserve pay. Therefore one is to day a Bishop, to morrow another; to day a Deacon, to morrow a Parson; to day a Priest, to morrow a lay man: (for they give to lay men also Church offices.)   

The place of Ambrose expounded. Chap. XII.  
THat which is alleged out of Ambrose, to confirm that kind of Eldership which some reformed Churches in this our age have received, is nothing at all to this question. For Ambrose there speaketh of Elders in age, not in office.  
Such indeed, the Bishops and Elders in times past, took in counsel with them, as did also of old the ancient Synagogue; And yet Ambrose bringeth them not into any equipage with those, which were Elders in calling, whom he had about him, and who governed the Churches under him; but he grieveth that such grave and ancient men in years, whom the Apostle would not have reproved any thing roughly, should not remain in the like esteem with the Pastors and Elders of the Church, as they were of old. For expounding those words of Paul to Timothy: 
1. Tim. 5.1,  Rebuke not an ancient (or an Elder) but exhort him as a father, he writeth thus. That in reverence of his years, an ancient man is to be provoked with mildness to goodness, that he may the rather take warning: for being gently admonished, he will be afraid, lest afterwards he should be more roughly dealt withal; which were a shame for an Elder. For among all nation's age is honoured, for which cause both the Synagogues of old, and afterwards also the Church, had always certain ancient men, without whose advise nothing was done in the Church. The which by what negligence it was left off, I cannot tell, except haply it were through the sloth, or rather the pride of some Pastors, because they alone would seem to be some thing. Thus much saith Ambrose: who (I dare be bound for him) thought nothing less, then that any order of the Ministry, set down by the Apostles, was now worn out: For himself had Elders, which did also rule the Church with him, or under him; besides that, the words do show as clear as noonday, that he spoke here of Elders, not in office, but in age.  
If any vouchsafe certain ancients (experienced in many things) the senate of the Church, I say not against it; but this I avouch that such (were they all more ancient than japhet) are not to be accounted among the Church officers and Elders, which the Apostles ordained. And I dare be bold further to affirm, that they are in no small error, who think, that the Elders and ancients in certain reformed Churches in this our age, are of the same suit with those, whom the Apostles ordained in the fourteenth of the Acts, and Paul sent for from Ephesus in the twenty chapter, Whose order and office is described at large in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.  
I perceive here the reformation of the English Church, appointeth in every place certain Church officers, which represent in some sort those ancients and Elders, and they are commonly called Churchwardens. Notwithstanding these come short of that authority in Ecclesiastical censure, To excommunicate: but if any excommunicate person, shall disorderly press into the holy assembly, they are to endeavour (by the advise of the Minister) to remove him. Their ordinary office, according to law, is this; To gather & collect, to lay up, and lay out the rents and revenues of the church; to keep the body of the Church, and the rest in repair, to keep the Church book (together with the Minister) to admonish offenders, and unruly fellows, and as for the stubborn, infamous, and offensive, to present them to the Bishop, or his deputy, & that upon their oaths: furthermore also, to note who they are that absent themselves from divine service, upon the Saboth, or holidays, and to set a fine on their heads, according to the law provided in that case: and also, to look that due silence, and all other kind of honest seemlines be observed in the time of divine service. If the ancient primitive Church, had any such kind of Elders, they were not (I am sure) at any time accounted of our elders, among the Elders & Bishops of our Church: for they always made a difference in the Church, between the laike officers, and the Church Ministers. In Tertullian his Apology, the Elders, which we read, were present & precedent in christian assemblies, were Bishops and Elders, no temporal men; unless we would make him contrary to himself, who justly upbraided the Heretics of that time with that fault, That they profaned Church functions with lay persons.  
Neither are these things so spoken of me, neither would I be so taken, as if I challenged those reformed Churches, that use some such like Seniors (for so they suppose) as Ambrose seemed to wish for: I myself did use them, when I supplied the place of a Minister in some reformed Churches. For the tyranny of Popish Bishops being overthrown, when as they which are indeed the true Elders, do themselves in like manner sustain the office of a Bishop: they could not well take unto themselves the entire government of the Church, without some suspicion of the like; if no less tyranny. And therefore it was necessary for them, to join with themselves certain godly men out of the whole corpse of the Church: for that without the assistance of their associates, it was not possible for them alone, to countercheck the immodesty of bad men, and to bring them into some Coram.   

That place of Paul expounded, in his first to Timothy, the fift chapter, What it is to labour in the word and doctrine. Chap. XIII.  
IT need not greatly trouble any man, when Paul saith; That those Elders especially are worthy double honour, which labour in the word and doctrine: as if it followed thereupon, that there were other Elders also in the church, which taught not: For these two, do not signify one & the same thing, to Labour in the word, and to Teach; seeing there was no Elder ordained of the Apostles, that was not apt to teach. But for as much as the measure of the gifts of God's spirit, are not alike in all; (for there be which have received five talents, who must also pay use for five unto the Lord; & there be again, which have received but two:) To whom much is given, of him many things are required. If the dolours Paul suffered for preaching the Gospel, were compared with other men's labours, we might well conceive, how well worthy he was of greater honour than they, whose labours were far unlike in the like labour. Some enjoy their office, & have joy thereof in rest & peace, & teach their people at home, and endure no hardship abroad; whose doctrine is determined within the precincts of their own precession. But others there be, which teach not one only Church, but the whole Church, with their learned labours, and that not once for all (while they live only) but also, (a great deal more) after many generations. The which that they may the better perform, they let for no labour, they spare nor oil, nor toil, nor health, nor wealth, nor life itself, in that regard.  
Besides there be, that for the Gospel's sake, set light by the loss of friends, and favours, and riches, and revenues; they overcome dangers not to be numbered, and undergo slanders not to be suffered, only that they may enforce and set forewards the Gospel of Christ. And such doth the Apostle seem to understand in this place; not every ordinary and perfunctory Teacher, that governs in the Church, and instructeth with wholesome doctrine the people of God committed to his charge.  
The verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to labour, (used by him, not in this place only) signifieth properly, great and grievous labour. And therefore they are far wide, that think Paul meant in this place the bare preaching of God's word, and take this to be the odds between their Elders, that some teach the people, others govern only, and that for a while only, and therein supplying also, and applying themselves to the Ministers of the word. More proportionable to those times, and proper to this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such Elders are to be understood, as were at that present among them; as Titus and Timothy, and Tithitus, Mark, Luke, and such like Paul his legates and joint labourers, which in deed feared no danger, refused no labour, whereby they might advance and divulge the blessed doctrine of the sacred truth. Of Timothy, Paul testifieth in the last Chapter of the first to the Corinth: when as he thus writeth, If Timothy come unto you, see that he be without fear among you, for he worketh the work of the Lord, even as I do. By which we may perceive that Timothy was not without fear, nor yet without danger, neither that without cause. A while after speaking of Stephanus, and Aechaicus, and Fortunatus, who had given themselves to minister unto the Saints, he saith:  
And be ye subject unto such, and to all that help with us, and labour. After which sort, I also expound that place in the first to the Thessalonians, the first chapter & the twelfth verse.  
We beseech you brethren, that ye know them that labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you. In all which places, the Apostle useth the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to labour, by the which he understandeth no ordinary, vulgar, or trifling exercise, but an extraordinary, vehement, difficult, and troublesome labour. And therefore Paul his meaning is, that how much greater trouble, and more troublesome turmoil the Elders undertake in their office, they are so much the more worthy to be graced with the greater Honours. So that Paul in these words, respecteth the singular care of some, not the single preaching of all.  
Writing to Timothy, he defineth a Bishopric to be a work: of the which it followeth, that the greater the Bishopric is, the greater is the labour, the greater is the work. If he which is over one only Church, shall find himself somewhat to do: what shall we say of them, unto whom the care of many Churches is committed. So was it with Titus and Timothy, and diverse other Bishops and Elders, of that order.  
The whole sum therefore of our assertion, resolveth into thus much: that among the Bishops or Elders in the Scripture, which governed Churches under the Apostles, there were diverse degrees in deed, by what names soever ye please to call them; of the which some were over one Church only, and that under the direction of an other, and some again over many Churches, suppliant to none of the same order: as it is well known of Titus and Timothy, and the rest. I know there are many, who in the secret prejudice of their foreseasoned opinions, will not stick to say, that Titus and Timothy, and the rest of that form, were Evangelists, and invested with an extraordinary kind of a not imitable authority.  
To whom I answer, that I have heard so in deed, and read it to: but without reason or proof at all, of any credit. For where as Paul writeth to Timothy, and chargeth him that he do the work of an Evangelist, 
2. Tim, 4.5. 1. Cor. 16.10  it doth no more conclude that Timothy was an Evangelist, (so properly called) then that other place of Paul to the Corinthians: He doth the work of God even as I, doth prove that he was an Apostle.   

That that order is of God, which appointeth superior Elders, Bishops. And that but of man, where all Pastors and Elders are alike. Chap. XIIII.  
We have showed before, what was the extraordinary calling, and the efficacy thereof, (which was to be found in Titus and Timothy.) To the which I add, that all ancient and authentic writings held Titus and Timothy for Bishops, unto whom the Elders of inferior orders were suppliant and subject. In whose footings our father's insisting (which next succeeded the Apostles) retained in use that form of government, which they received of the Apostles. Now a days, there be some of this belief, that there were only these two degrees of Ministers left us by the Apostles, namely Pastors and Doctors: who cutting short that difference of Pastors, which I have noted, and casting of that ancient decency of Church government, which I have proved, do christian a new a foreign and a forged kind of Presbytery, and with much boldness stand forth to avouch, that this their new devise, is divine, & that other (continuing a lawful descent from the Apostles time, is but humane. Wherefore here (beloved) it is time to look about us. For they easily avoid all that we have already avowed of the Apostles, Evangelists, and Pastors; when they answer, that the government Apostolic was but temporanie and momentary, and determined with the Apostles and Evangelists themselves, long since deceased, so that now there is no more any one Apostle before another.  
But that the truth of this question may the better appear, we must now have an especial eye to all those gifts, which were especially pregnant in the Apostles and Evangelists, that thereby we may know, what was proper to the Apostles and their times, and what common to all Pastors unto the world's end. To which end, the first thing we are to reuise in the Apostles, is that their extraordinary calling (for they had it immediately from God,) then also, their general Embassee and commission without restraint, or limitation: Thirdly, that in all things which concerned their function, they had a never-errant director, (the spirit of truth) who suggested unto them, whatsoever they before had heard of the Lord, or should otherwise be requisite for them to know. And the last thing, is their power Apostolic.  
Of these, the first three were necessary, for laying the groundwork of Churches, upon the which others should build: the which unless they had been semented (as it were) with the more sure joints and strongest sinews of God's spirit, what soever should have been raised & reared thereupon by others, must needs have reeled, and ruined together with the same. As for the gift of miracles, I stand not upon that, seeing that was bestowed upon many other of the faithful also, as it pleased God. Of all these gifts, they could communicate nothing unto their successors, besides the Ministry of the Gospel: The which seeing it was inherent in the power Apostolic, they surrendered that also to their subsecutors: and that, because it is a thing necessary, not only for the increase, but also for the continuance of Churches. For without the word preached, the Sacraments administered, and the Church governed, there can no Church well continue. Wherefore as the preaching of the word, and the use of the Sacraments was not given to the Church, only for the Apostles time, but that they might continue unto the age to come, even to the world's end: So likewise the form of government, which was ordained of God, and delivered of the Apostles, and confirmed of the fathers, aught to remain and continue in like sort. But that form had Pastors inferior and superior, and therefore that also is to be retained in the Church of God. Neither doth the equality in the Ministry hinder, why there may not be an inequality in the policy of the Church. In the old law there was one Priesthood equal and alike to all the Priests: & yet were there diverse degrees of Priests in respect of government, and in an equal order of Priesthood, there was a not equal Honour of government. Neither is it prejudicial to us, that their Priesthood was Levitical and typical, seeing the state & government which was among the Priests and levites, did not so much respect any intricate type, as a well ordered state: that all things might be done decently and in due order. Wherefore for as much as God himself was author of that policy and government, in the which levites were subdued to levites, and Priests to Priests: it ought not to be recounted any humane constitution, where a Minister is subject to a Minister, and one Pastor to an other: For that is no more unlawful at this day, than it was at that.   

That our Saviour by no statute repealed the supereminent authority of Pastors among themselves. Chap. XV.  
AS for our Saviour and his censure in this matter, I do not find that by any means he did abolish the superiority of Ministers but rather that he did establish it, when as in the first ordinance of the Ministry, he appointed Ministers of the Gospel, some superior & some inferior to the rest. To the which ordinance of Christ, those his words are not any whit adverse, where he saith; The Kings of the nations rule over them, and they which have power among them are called gracious: but it shall not be so with you: but he that is greatest among you let him be as the least, and he which is chief, as he that ministereth. etc. The true and plain sense of which words is this. Your kind of government shall be diverse from that which is proper to Princes, whether you take those which are more tyrannous and truculent over their people, or those which in their government, are more mild and moderate, accorto their laws. Doth this sense or sentence take away that difference of persons, which the law of nature and the rule of government do prescribe? If there be any place in the Gospel (and there are many) which may be cited for the superiority of Ministers, this is one. For unless the Lord had meant that in the government of the Church, there should be some greater than the rest, he would never have said, He which is greatest among you let him be as the least; he might have made short work of all, and as soon have said, There is none first among you, none greatest, none chief. But he that is greatest among you (saith he) let him be as the least, and he which is highest, as he that ministereth. Which were no advice, where there is none higher than another. Where all shall be alike, what need there any precept, how he which is greatest among them should behave himself? The meaning therefore of this precept is this: How much any of you is superior to the rest, so much more submiss shall he carry himself towards the rest. For albeit all the Apostles were of the same order and power, yet the difference of age, and diversity of gifts was great among them, and therefore it could not be, but that they which had received greater gifts of the Lord, should receive greater countenance of men.  
The Apostle Paul in his first Chapter to the Galathians doth sufficiently declare this, where he showeth that he had conferred of the Gospel with them, which seemed to be somewhat, the which he forthwith repeating again, showeth, that there were certain of these Apostles of chief authority among the rest, of whom notwithstanding he affirmeth, that he received nothing. Such was the mildness and moderation of his spirit; he would not go about to make that equal in-equality odious, of the which the Lord himself was the author. For he well knew, that neither he which had received five talents, aught to think he hath but two, and much less, he which hath but two, to compare himself with him that hath five. And in deed, can there be any reason given, why there should be rather an inequality in government, then in other gifts? or do men abuse authority only, to maintain their tyranny? Doubtless it is not greatly material, with what gifts a man enthronize himself Pope over his brethren; whether for his fine wit, or deep knowledge, or smooth eloquence, or any other such inward virtue: Whether for the holiness of life, or strictness of fasts, or largeness of alms, or any such outward complement: or else for his wealth, his worship, and superior authority. As for the answer of our Saviour it extendeth far and near: neither is it to be referred to the Apostles alone, as if it were only forbidden an Apostle, to domineer over an Apostle, but it stretcheth itself unto all other. For albeit the power was great, in the which they were to be installed of the Lord, to the benefit of the church; notwithstanding, that was rather to be employed of private men over private persons: and thereupon the Lord forbiddeth that they should after the manner of Kings and Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is domineer, or rule by force. Hence is it that Paul writeth to the Corinthians; Not that we have dominion over your faith: but that we are ministers of your joy: 
2. Cor. 1.24. 1. Pet. 5.3.  And in the first of Peter; Not as if we ruled by force over the chosen. For that in deed, because it beseemed men private over private men, the Lord hath forbidden his Apostles that, and hath taught them rather to make the hearts of the people to relent by lenity and entreaty, as we read the Apostle Paul did in many places, & specially in the second to the Corinth's, 
2. Cor. 5.20.  where he thus writeth; Wherhfore are we now ambassadors in the name of Christ, as though God did beseech you through us, we entreat you in the name of Christ, that ye be reconciled to God.  
And yet notwithstanding in other places he is again more sharp and severe, as when he saith, What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod? or in love, and the spirit of meekness? And in the latter Epistle the tenth Chapter, when he speaketh of that power he received of the Lord, he showeth how little primacy was in the Church, in such things as pertained to the kingdom of God. By all the which it doth appear, that by that prohibition of violent dominion which Kings may use over their subjects, the power of government in the Church is not inhibited, by the which one Minister is eminent in authority over another, no more than the power of the Pastor is thereby intercepted, which is ordinary and aught to be over his people. Will any man say, that the Lord hath so confounded those two distinct orders of Ministers, that the Apostles should differ in nothing from the seventy Disciples? I do therefore greatly wonder, that men learned should so far overshoote themselves, as once to persuade, or to be persuaded, that out of this place (so often alleged to so little purpose) the superior authority of Bishops over Priests was forbidden by Christ: the which they can by no means do, without the reproof & reproach, the prejudice and impeachment of all the most ancient & best learned Fathers, whose persons they may sooner accuse, then convince of Tyranny, and whose government they may more easily discommend, then mend. The Lord his purpose was to take that error from the Apostles, which was in their minds, not to take that power from the Apostles, which he had given into their hands.   

That the form of the Apostles government, did not end with the death of the Apostles. Chap. XVI.  
THat the government of the Apostles, is said by some to have deceased with the death of the Apostles, it is neither grounded upon true authority of Scripture, nor proved by any consequence of reason, nor maintained by any precedent of the Fathers. Neither is it of any greater force, nor have they any greater reason, that say the Apostles authority was extraordinary: For by the same reason they may at this day deny, that any man hath any authority to baptize and to preach. If what things were extraordinary in the Apostles, they could not return to their posterity: may not the same reason serve to prove, that there is no authority left unto us after the Apostles, either to preach or to baptize? I would gladly then hear some just cause, why rather the Church government should cease with us which was under the Apostles, than the preaching of the Gospel, or the administering of the Sacraments. For in them there was as much extraordinary, as in the other.  
This is much like, as if of old a man should have said, that after the death of Moses and Aaron, the Priests and Levites had not the same power with Moses and Aaron, because theirs was extraordinary. Wherefore as after their decease, the same order of government which was used of Moses and Aaron, remained to their posterity: In like manner, the Apostles and Evangelists were a lantern and a law unto us which should come after them, of perfect Church government. And that which our Saviour said of the Priests of the jews, That they did sit upon the chair of Moses and Aaron, may be said of our Bishops, that they sit in the chair of Peter and Paul, that is, that they have succeeded them in the same seat and state of government.  
There are two words, which being not well taken, may be very offensive, namely, Temporary and extraordinary: For it is to be understood, that there are not jointly to be given alike to the whole function Apostolic, and every part thereof. And yet some are made to believe, that whatsoever was in them extraordinary, the same was also temporary: When as indeed, whatsoever was in them extraordinary, was not temporary: For all things in the Apostles were extraordinary, of the which many things in process of time became ordinary. Only those things which deceased with the Apostles were temporary. But what things those were, I have already declared at large.  
And now, that I may first begin with the preaching of the gospel: it were very hard to restrain that to the persons of the Apostles, and their age only: For albeit so large a legacy, as was the Apostles, be not committed uno any: yet is there some such like of the same kind, with the like authority.   

That the commandment, To preach the gospel unto all nations, (the Apostles being now received up into heaven) doth in like manner bind the Church: to the which the Authority Apostolic, is also requisite. Chap. XVII.  
THe command, to preach the gospel, and the commission, to all nations, we understand to be so given in charge to the Apostles, that withal it obligeth the church also; neither did the charge of preaching the gospel to the incredulous heathen, respect the apostles only, but all future ages to the world's end. In the last of Matthew, when the Lord had said, that all power was given unto him in heaven and in earth, and had commanded, that they should go forth, and teach all nations, etc. he added; I am with you unto the world's end. Which cannot be restrained to the Apostles only, seeing it concerneth all whom he commandeth to preach, and to whom he promiseth his divine presence for ever: neither can this promise be divorced from the former command, and thereby it appeareth, that Christ commanded the church also; that Apostles having taken heaven, order might be taken, that the gospel might be preached to the Gentiles in all coasts, upon all occasions. And verily if the Apostolic authority had been Temporary, that also had been a personal gift, and particular: neither would they have presumed to have taken themselves companions and copartners in that Apostolic charge, to the which themselves only were appointed of the Lord. But when as they knew, that their office, & whatsoever authority they had received, was rather given to the whole church, then to their sole selves; they thereupon were bold, to make others, joint partners with them in their Apostolic power, whom they also knew should be their successors. Neither in nature, could so great a work be finished of so few labourers: and therefore also the commandment of the Lord, could no further bind the Apostles, then for the term of their mortality: in the which time, the Lord did not purpose to determine, either the promise of his help, or the preaching of his word.  
The Apostles than had need of many helpers in the Lord, and fellow-labourers for the business of the Lord: the which when they could not accomplish themselves, they left their posterity to finish that, which themselves could not effect. Had the Apostles carried their commission to heaven with them, and besides the private care of particular Churches, the Bishops (whom the Apostles left their successors) had thought the further propagation of the gospel did nothing pertain to them: I doubt me, the confines of Christ his kingdom had never been enlarged to so great a monarchy as it is. What need I remember you of the rare and memorable examples, of the thrice reverend fathers in the primitive church? With what serious study, with what earnest desire, with what constant endeavour, and last of all, with what great labours, and many streaming showers of the blood of Martyrs, were the churches of old planted, watered, and increased? It is a thing better known and commended, then that I need to repeat it, or themselves to repent it.  
Notwithstanding there be some in these days, which take up but to shrewdly this sentence of ours: as if it were some anabaptistical fancy, when it is said, that the Church hath at this day, if not Apostles, yet Apostolic Ministers: but as for the fancy, (if anabaptistical) let themselves look to that, lest they take themselves by the nose. For my part, I would but know, whether the gospel yet at this day, now after a 1500. years, be come to the ears of all Nations. In the mean time, let them consider how many nations, (whom the Apostles never saw) by the pains and preaching of godly Pastors, (who in this labour succeeded the Apostles) have received the Lord Christ.  
I will not now stand to tell them, only this I conclude, that the command and commission of preaching the Gospel, standeth yet in his full strength and force in the church of God, and should, so long as there is any nation, that knoweth not the Lord. That at this day there is none sent by the churches of Christ, to the nations which have not known Christ, it is not long of the lack of sufficient power to send, but of sufficient persons to be sent, or at least wise, of a better zeal to advance the kingdom of Christ. Indeed no man ought to tempt the Lord: Did not himself forbidden his Apostles to stir one foot out of jerusalem, to discharge their duty before they had received the holy Ghost? So requisite is it, that a man be thoroughly furnished for so great an enterprise, before he undertake it. And therefore, because the judgement of one man may be overweening and deceived, (especially if he may be his own judge) it is requisite, that the authority of the church in that case be expected. But here is required an Authority Apostolic: the which if the Church have not, (although it have fit men) neither hath it the power to send. For who can give that to another, which he hath not himself? Whosoever therefore is sent (whether you please to call him an Apostle, or an Evangelist; or a Bishop,) he hath need of the like, and no less power than Timothy and Titus had in the like, and no less charge.  
This therefore is the authority which is assigned to the church by the Keys: the which the Lord our Saviour gave, not so much to Peter and his collegiates, as to the Church itself: so that of right it may do that at this day, which it could of old; namely, where occasion serveth to give in commission unto sufficient men, the publishing of the Gospel, with Authority Apostolic.   

That the Apostolic authority is as necessary for the conserving and confirming, as for the founding and first planting of Churches. Chap. XVIII.  
But for as much as the power Apostolic, is no less needful and necessary for the conserving and confirming, as for the planting, and first placing of churches, we must also have a special regard to that. For by reason (as it is thought) of Bishops and Archbishops, primates, and metropolitans, which have succeeded the Apostles and the Evangelists, there is now some controversy moved for that. And verily I have oftentimes wondered with myself, what it is that should make any learned or religious man think, that the office of Apostles and Evangelists, is ceased in the Church, and that at this day there are none possessed of any authority Apostolic, to whom the other Elders ought to supply in the governance of the Church: and I wonder the more, that there be any that should think the power Apostolic, a thing so extraordinary, as if it were not possible, that it should be devolved to their posterity.  
Indeed the Church hath not continued those names amongst us: but is that sufficient to prove, that with those titles, the authority also is surceased? First, if a man would but well mark the latter days of the Apostles (of Paul especially) he should find, that the Apostolic government could not possibly end with the Apostles. For by those things the sacred Scripture doth testify of Paul, we may judge of the rest, who no doubt, were no less careful for the good of the Church, even to their last gasp, wheresoever it pleased God to translate them out of this life: But the second Epistle of S. Paul to Timothy (indicted about the last of his days) doth witness abundantly, what an universal care he had even then of the Churches. There he maketh mention of his fellow-labourers, whereof some he had sent to go unto divers Churches, and some he sent for to come unto himself; that being now ready to flit out of this life, he might give them his last charge of all things, concerning the welfare of the Church, and the furnishing of that building himself had left unfinished.  
This his last will and Testament he left with them. The which had been to no purpose, had the power Apostolic died with him, or had the authority of that their legacy been compelled within the circuit of every particular parish. For they all, whom Paul there remembreth (as Titus, Mark, Luke, Crescens, Tithicus, and Timothy himself) were associate with Paul in his Apostolic sea, as unto whose several charge, he had demised many and sundry Churches; The which if it were not free for them (with that recreant Demas) to cast up, and give over, while Paul yet lived, how much less, after he was dead? Wherefore now they were made, and remain his heirs (as before they were his peers) of his Apostolic pains and pre-eminence.  
That the other Apostles had also their consorts and collegiates in their Apostolic charge, unto whom (themselves discontinuing this life) they demeaned the no less care of the Churches with the like authority, there was never wise man that doubted of it. And furthermore, that their lawful authority, with the which they prosecuted and persevered in the Lord his affairs, could no more be extinguished with them, than it was abolished with the Apostles (so long as there was any church remaining.) But as they succeeded the Apostles, so had they their successors: upon whom if themselves did not bestow the power they had received, the Church did; which is heir general of the power Apostolic.  
But go to now: let us imagine (if there can be such a conceit) that it is not so, as I have said: let us suppose also for a while, that the Apostles left all unto Pastors and Elders of equal authority, who had only the charge of their several Churches, and their provinces limited within the precincts of their own only parishes; What then (shall we say) became of those Churches, in the which the Apostles (intercepted by death) or they which with the Apostles did govern the Churches, could not ordain any Pastors? Did their death fall out so pat, that every Church had their Pastors and Doctors, and that none of them was left out of fashion, (I mean without their Deacons, and Doctors, and Pastors, and Presbyters) as were sometime the Churches of Crect under the Apostle Paul? Who then followed the work that was unfinished? Was there no need then of some Timothy or Titus, to make perfect that, which was yet not performed? The Apostles yet living, it was needful that Titus and Timothy, and divers such others, should have a larger commission; how much rather after their death? Wherefore to conclude, either the work of God, begun of the Apostles, was altogether to be left off, or else to be followed a fresh by those, whom for that purpose they left behind them.   

By the testimony of Eusebius his Ecclesiastical history the former chapter is confirmed. Chap. XIX.  
EVsebius, in the third book and fourth chapter of his Ecclesiastical history, writeth thus; But that Paul preaehed the word of God unto the Gentiles, and that he laid the foundation of Churches from Jerusalem, and the confines thereof, even unto Illyricum, it sufficiently appeareth, not only by his own words, but also out of the book of Luke, entitled, The Acts of the Apostles. Furthermore, in what Provinces or dominions, the Apostle Peter preached the Gospel unto them which were of the Circumcision, and delivered the word of the new Testament, it is plain and evident enough out of his own words, taken out of that Epistle, we have truly proved to be his by the consent of all men, and which he wrote to the jews dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, & Bithynia, etc. And again in the same place; But how many, and who were the true & natural followers of the Apostles, which were accounted able and fit men to govern the Churches which they had founded, it is not easy to say, they only excepted, whom some perhaps may gather by the way out of Paul his writings. For the which purpose Luke also maketh not a little, who reckoneth by name the Disciples of Paul, whilst he laboureth to record them in the Acts. Among whom was Timothy, who is said to be the first that obtained the Bishopric of the Church which is at Ephesus. Titus also was over the churches which are in Crect. And in the same place he saith: That among the rest of Paul his companions and Disciples Crescens was one, whom Paul himself witnesseth, was gone into Galatia: Linus was another, whom in his second to Timothy, he witnesseth to have been with him at Rome, whom also we have declared before, to have been the first Bishop of the Church of Rome, after Peter. And another was Clement, who was the third Bishop of Rome, whom Paul affirmeth, to have been his copartner and fellow-labourer in the Lord. Unto which we may add that Areopagite, Dionysius by name, of whom Luke in the Acts reporteth, that he was converted to the faith after that sermon of Paul, which he made in Mars street at Athens, and of whom an other Dionysius, pastor of the Church at Corinth (a very ancient writer) doth record, that he was the first Bishop of the Church at Athens.  
The same Eusebius in the same book, the one & thirty chapter, hath these words; And besides these, there were many other of that age very famous, who both immediately succeeded the Apostles, and also as the Disciples of so great and excellent Masters, being adorned with many singular and divine virtues, raised a most comely edifice upon the the foundations of the Apostles, which they had well laid in all places: who both amplified more fully and plentifully the preaching of the Gospel, and sowed the seeds of the kingdom of heaven far and near, throughout the universal world. For all the Disciples for the most part, which lived in that age, being inflamed with a more ardent Zeal and earnest love of the heavenly wisdom, and being ravished in mind with a rare kind of desire after God's word, executed very exquisitely the commandment of our Saviour, which before was given; and to them which wanted their help they willingly unfolded all their treasures. Afterwards, straying far from their own home, they performed the pensions of Evangelists, and to those which had not as yet so much as heard of the word of faith, they laboured with all care and constancy to preach Christ, and to deliver the Scripture of the holy Gospel. Who, when as in divers far and foreign countries they had laid the foundations only of the faith, and had ordained other Pastors, and committed the care to them of those which were newly brought to the faith, that they might be diligently trained up in the doctrine of Christ, themselves departed into other regions and countries, with the grace and power of God. For many wonderful powers and miracles, by the help of the holy spirit, were done by them even unto that day: so that throngs of people being persuaded, even at the first hearing of the Gospel preached, with ready wills entertained and embraced that religion and worship, which is only due unto God, the author of all things. Thus far Eusebius.  
I could allege other particulars out of the same author, and others, of divers Bishops, sent by divers Churches, at divers times, to convert the Gentiles. In whom it was necessary, that they should have the like authority with that, which Titus & Timothy received of the Apostles. That some here fly unto their old starting hole of extraordinary calling, when they are called upon with these reasons; they have small reason. For, an ordinary ministery being established in the Church, it is as badly, as boldly done of them, and it will prove but an evil example to others, to allege an extraordinary calling, unless they could make some certain proof thereof.  
Wherefore, if we would but a little more attentively conceive and consider, what the state of the Churches was thorough out the world, when the Apostles departed from hence, we should soon find that in many places they left well ordered Churches, in the which there was nothing a wanting, that is, which had there one Bishop over them, (as were the seven Churches of Asia, unto whom the spirit of the Lord speaketh in the Revelation:) and again we should find some other Churches, as yet not finished and thoroughly fashioned, which wanted many things to their perfection, some more, some less, according to the time, the place, the plenty & scarcity of the people, which had given their names to Christ. And besides all this, we shall find innumerable places, whether the Apostles could not come, where were no Churches at all. But whatsoever, or of what manner soever they were, they were all dependent upon the Apostles government: whom if no man did succeed with like authority, it must needs be, that they were all left as widow Churches and Orphans; which is an absurd thing to say. But if we shall say, that they changed that manner of government, with the which they were acquainted under the Apostles: how could that possibly be permitted, without the great mischief and misery of all those Churches?  
Of these things therefore I infer, That there was left of the Apostles Authority Apostolic to their successors, whom they had disposed over many Churches: and that, partly for the establishing of such Churches as were thoroughly finished, and partly, for the finishing of such as were left not thoroughly form, and partly also for the planting of new, where as yet there was none founded. And this was the cause, why Paul being shortly to take his leave of his life, sent Crescens into Galatia, and Titus into Dalmatia, and sent for Timothy and Mark to make their repair unto himself. Even as the Lord himself, being now ready to give up this life, provided for his Disciples; in like manner, the Apostles took great care for those Churches, which were gathered, and were to be gathered from among the Gentiles; otherwise, how should the Churches have received their so great increase after the Apostles? Verily, it is with tears to be lamented, that their holy Apostolic zeal is at this day so cooled amongst us, that no man so much as once thinketh of publishing the Gospel, unto Nations altogether estranged from the faith of Christ.  
But now, seeing there were many Churches left of the Apostles but new begun, and more, not yet begun, according to that power they had received of the Lord, the work of the Gentiles conversion which was begun by them, was to be followed to the end. Of the which it followeth, that the Apostolic power, given of the Lord for the edifiying of his Church, doth yet remain in the Church. And those parts of Apostolic government, as they were given of old to certain singular Bishops, so are they to be given at this day, where they are not given, and so are they to remain, where they are given. If any man desire some reformation to be had in that kind, for my part I am not against it. The disposing of this power, the Church hath, as it always had; yet so, as where the Lord hath given a Christian Magistrate, he be not left out, nor lose his part. For they doubtless are those Seniors, Ancients and Elders, of the which there is so often mention in the Bible: whom we read to have been joined of old with the Priests and Levites in weighty matters: for they are in stead of the whole people.   

That the authority of Bishops over Priests or Elders is approved by the consent of the Churches throughout the whole world. Chap. XX.  
THat which we read to be done of all Churches from the Apostles times, and of the Fathers throughout the compass of the whole earth, and the same continued even unto these our days, I do always hold as a sacred Canon of the Apostles, not to be repealed. Neither is it a small presumption to abrogate that, which hath been received with so great and universal consent; from the which to revolt, besides that it is in itself an uncouth declination of a conceit giddy and headstrong, it will also bring with it a greater mischief and misery to the Church, than many at the first will conceive, or any in the end can relieve. Among the old Canons, which for their antiquity are called the Apostles, we read this that followeth: It becometh the Bishops of every nation to know, who is the chief among them, which is to be accounted as it were the head, without whose opinion these aught to do nothing of any great moment, but that every man do those things which belong unto his own parish, and the villages which are of the same. Neither let himself do any thing without the knowledge of all: for so there shall be concord, and God shall be glorified through our Lord in his holy spirit.  
This Canon (a word or two translated) is renewed in the Council of Antioch, in these words: The Bishops which are in several provinces ought to know, that he which is Bishop in the Metropolitan City, hath charge also of the whole province, for that they which have any business, recourse from all places to the Metropolis or mother City. Wherefore it seemeth expedient, that he excel the rest in honour, and that the other Bishops do nothing of any great moment without him (according to the ancient decree of our Fathers) but only those things which pertain unto their own precincts, & the Parishes subject to the same. For let every Bishop have authority over his own province, and let him govern the same according to his own devotion: and let him have charge of the whole province which is subject to his City, that he may create Priests and Deacons, and dispose all things with judgement: besides this, let him do no other thing without the Bishop of the mother Church, neither he himself without the opinion of the rest. In which Canon renewed and re-established, I observe two things: the first is, the Antiquity of the Canon; the other is, That the province was not always committed to the Bishop of the Metropolitan City; seeing a cause is added, why Ecclesiastical controversies are to be presented to the Bishop of the Metropolitan City, rather than to any other: of the which seeing the Apostles Canon made no mention, the first Fathers seemed not always to have had that respect of the said Metropolis.  
The antiquity of this custom, is sufficiently declared in the seventeenth chapter of the Nicene council, as followeth: Let the ancient custom prevail, which was in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolie, that the Bishops of Alexandria have an excellency & supreme dignity over all these: Seeing that this is also the custom with the Bishop of Rome. In like manner, at Antioch, and in other Provinces, primacy, dignity, honour, authority, is given unto those Churches. But this is most plain: that if any man he made a Bishop, without the consent of the Metropolitan, The great Council defineth, that he ought not to be a Bishop. Thus goeth the Law, neither were it any great matter to confirm the same, with the Canons of other Counsels, and Ecclesiastical histories. But by this it may appear, what was the judgement of all those ancient father's concerning this matter.  
That some are of opinion, that patriarchs and Archbishops were first created of the Nicene council, or (as some will have it) of the first Constantinopolitan Council; their opinion is their error: for the Nicene council, which was called about the twenty year of Constantine the great, testifieth, that it enacteth no new thing, when it commanded, that the old custom should be continued: so that, it was no new thing at that time, for some one Bishop to have superior authority over the rest of his brethren, his authority being limited by certain laws. But that some argue, how that to be precedent over divers Provinces, & to have charge of them, belongeth to the office of an Apostle, and an Evangelist; and that one and the same man cannot be an Apostle and an Evangelist and a Bishop, for that these are distinct offices: I may answer them, that never yet any before these our days, did ever either so think, or write. The Fathers have testified in their writings, what they received of their forefathers, that james an Apostle was ordained of the rest, Bishop of jerusalem. The which thing also seemeth to have been done upon just and necessary occasion: namely, for the necessary good of the Church. For when as that was the mother of all other churches, & that the jews resorted thither out of all the parts of the world, it ought not but to have an Apostle resiant among them, so long as might be: who might resolve the brethren in such doubts, as were likely to arise among them. Although indeed, to pilgrim through divers regions, & to preach the gospel, is most properly appertaining to the office of an Apostle: so that they may not abide in one place, but where necessity requireth.  
As therefore the Apostles discharged the duty of a Bishop when as they took upon them the particular charge of some on special church (namely, when the necessity of the church universal did so require,) neither did think they did any thing therein; contrary to their Apostolic calling, so likewse if that which wholly pertaineth to the Apostles, be committed to the Bishops, it need not seem a thing either unreasonable, or not profitable, when the good order of church government doth require the same. But whereas the Canon saith, that we should keep the old custom, not the Lord's institution: it may seem that the power of patriarchs, crept into the church of a contrary custom, rather than of any divine institution. I answer, that the canon doth not gainsay, that the power Apostolic in church-government was not left unto the church, of the Apostles: but that, beside or above the rest, these or they, should enjoy it (as namely he of Antioch Alexandria, jerusalem, & Rome,) that indeed was of the mere custom, and at the sole disposition of the church. For those particular Bishops did not receive their Apostolic power immediately from GOD, as did the Apostles, but from the church and by the church; the which as it is not restrained to any certain situate places or persons, cities, or Bishops: so neither is the authority Apostolic. Who doubteth but that the Nicen council, or any other like to that, might have translated the Patriarkie of the Roman BB. to some other place, & have given it to the BB. of Ravenna, or of Aquiline, for good cause, if their had been any? The like I say of the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. But that the counsels of Bishops had this authority, they declared then sufficiently, when as they made him of Constantinople com-peer in all things with him of Rome. By the which also it may evidently appear, that the prerogative of the power Apostolic, was not given by succession, but as it was best befitting the commodity of the church, by those especial cities. And therefore, in that the Canon giveth that to custom, it doth not thereby take from it the divine institution. But that I may return to the next successors of the Apostles and Evangelists, Titus and Timothy, and the rest whom sacred writ recordeth, were joined with the Apostles as assistants, that they were Bishops, & had charge of many churches, the most ancient and authentic tradition approveth the same: neither are those things so far at variance between themselves, as some would have them, to be a Bishop, & to do the work of an Apostle, or an Evangelist. For this is the common consent of all the fathers, that the office of a Bishop, and an Apostle or Evangelist are all one, only that the office of the one is more ample, and augustious. Cyprian in his 10. epistle writeth thus. The Deacons ought to remember, the Lord himself did choose Apostles, that is Bishops & Prelates: but the Apostles themselves ordained them Deacons, after he was received up into heaven. Thus saith Cyprian; out of whose words we may learn, that a Bishopric is an Apostleship, as also an Apostleship is a kind of bishopric. Hereupon the Apostle Peter in the Acts, calleth the Apostleship of judas a bishopric. And in like manner speaketh Augustine. For no man is ignorant (saith he) that our Saviour ordained bishops in the church. For before he ascended into heaven, he laid his hands upon his Apostles, & made them bisheps. And Ambrose upon that in the 4. to the Ephesians, some were given to the church Apostles: writeth thus. The Apostles are BB. but the Prophets are expounders of the scriptures, which may now be called Priests. For in a BB all the orders are contained, because he is first a priest, who is chief of this priests, and a Prophet, & an Evangelist, to the furnishing of the rest of the offices of the church. Theodoret also upon the 1. to Tim. cap. 3. saith thus. Of old they called the same men Priests and BB. but those that are now called BB. they then called Apostles: but long since, they left the name of Apostles, to them which were indeed apostles: but the addition of BB. they imposed upon such, as of old were called Apostles: so was Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philip, & so Titus of the Cretensians, & Timothy of Asia. All the fathers which succeeded the Apostles, were not of opinion, that the form of government they had received of the Apostles, should ever have been altered or exauterate: the which verily they could never have persuaded themselves, had they known, that the government of Titus and Timothy, had been but Temporary, and Extraordinary. But is it credible, nay is it possible, that Timothy & Titus, and others, unto whom the like province was demised, should be ignorant of this themselves? Augustine expounding that in the 44. Psalm, Instead of thy Fathers, thou shalt have children, showeth that our Bishops inherited the Apostles, as children their fathers. And were it not a point of frontless and ungracious in solencie to deny, that our fathers had their Bishops and Prelates, even from the Apostles times, and a part of needles and superfluous diligence, to prove a thing so manifest: I might easily, and would willingly stay upon the citing & summoning of many more fathers, until we were fully compassed with a cloud of witnesses. But this is not the question: but rather it is now doubted, whether the ordinance of Bishops be of God, or of men, as an order that slipped into the church, rather of humane custom, then divine constitution. Wherefore of things confessed & granted, let us decide and determine things doubted and in question.   

That Bishops are ordained by a divine institution and Apolique tradition. Chap. XXI.  
THere is nothing more certain, than this, That the Apostles ordained nothing in the Church, which they received not of the Lord. But they created Bishops, (as Titus and Timothy) wheresoever need was in the Church. And indeed, had not the Apostles created Bishops, as they dispersed themselves through out the whole world, how could ever the calling of Bishops have been so universally approved by so general an assent of all cities?  
But when as many Churches were infinitely distant from others, is it not strange, that not any one Church retained that divine kind, of government (as it is thought) which is adored at this day in some reformed Churches? Doubtless, Churches so diverse and distant, could not but greatly differ in things indifferent, where there was no certainty set down by the Apostles. And therefore this could not be without a miracle of either part: Namely, that either they should so universally consort in this one government, if it were not received by tradition from the Apostles, or that with so general a consent they should alter the same, if it were. For all the world knoweth, that in all the world the government was one, and the same for all the world.  
This is without question and beyond all exception, that all the ancient authentic fathers, (so many as held the right faith) were of this belief, that in this only plot, they did follow the Apostolic tradition, and divine institution. Ireneus in his third book the third Chapter, against Heresies, writeth thus. It is easy for all men to see (that will see the truth) the ancient tradition of the Apostles in the Church, through the whole world: and we can reckon up those which were ordained Bishops of the Apostles themselves, and their successors also even unto ourselves, which neither taught, nor knew any such thing as these men dote of. Out of the which it appeareth: That, what thing was received in all Churches, which were founded of the Apostles, was an Apostolic tradition, and divine institution, but the order of Bishops was received every where in all Churches, and therefore an Apostolic tradition and a divine institution. Cyprian in his fourth book the ninth Epistle. From whence (saith he) are schisms bred, and yet do breed, but where the Bishop which is one and over the Church, is condemned by the proud presumption of some, and the man which is honoured by the acceptance of God, is dishonoured by dishonest men. etc. The same Cyprian in his seven and twenty Epistle (according to the order of his Epistle) citing that of Mathews, Thou art Peter & upon this work etc. he inferreth, That even from thence, according to the course of time and succession of ages, the ordination of Bishops, & the computation of the Church doth run? So that the Church may seem to be grounded upon Bishops, and every action of the Church to be governed by the same Precedents. Wherefore seeing this is thus founded upon the divine ordinance of God, I can but wonder at some.   

That it was the opinion of Aerius, That there is no difference between a Bishop and a Priest: which was condemned for an Heresy by the Fathers. Chap. XII.  
THus have we heard of the acceptance of God, & the divine ordinance, upon which the authority of Bishops relied, as our Fathers believed. To the which I now add, that had not the orthodoctike fathers believed, that the order of Bishops was grounded upon the word of God, they would never have recounted the opinion of Aerius, among other Heresies: Who three hundred years long after the Apostles times, was the first that durst affirm, That there was no difference between the holy Bishop, and an ordinary Priest. Of whom Epiphanius recordeth, that he spoke more like a fury, than a man; who (as he also reporteth) was wont to say, What is a Bishop to a Priest? there is no difference between them: for there is but one order, and one honour, and one dignity. The Bishop layeth on his hands, the Bishop sitteth on his throne, so likewise doth the Priest. Thus saith Aerius. But of the other side, Epiphanius first showeth, That a Bishop may create Priests, and that he cannot be created of Priests. The order of Bishops (saith he) is the begetter of Fathers, for be begetteth Fathers unto the Church; but the order of Priests cannot beget Fathers: by the regeneration of Baptism it begetteth children to the Church, but not Fathers, or Teachers: For how should he create a Priest, who hath not the power of laying on of hands in the election? And he answereth Aerius for his cavels, That his trifling & emulation deceived him, and that he was ignorant of the nature of antic histories. For that when the preaching of the word was but a new thing, the holy Apostle writ according to the state of the thing, as it then stood. And therefore where there were Bishops appointed, he wrote to Bishops and Deacons: (neither could the Apostles do all at once. But they had present use of Priests & Deacons: For by those two all Ecclesiastical functions are to be performed) But where there were not any found worthy a Bishopric, there the place was void of a Bishop, but where need was, and there were that were worthy, there they placed Bishops. But where as there were not many, there were not many to be found among them to be made Priests, and therefore they contented themselves with a Bishop only in that place: But it is not possible, that a Bishop should be without a Deacon and the Apostle had an especial care of that, that he should not be without his Deacons. And thus the Church received the fullness of his functions, according as the condition of time and place did require. For every thing was not furnished with all things at the first: but in process of time, such things were provided as were requisite to the performance of things necessary, etc. These things he confirmeth by the example of Moses, who finished his common wealth, not all at once, but after a time. But as of old, he should have taken a wrong course, who to reform the Church of Israel, would have taken his pattern from the imperfect, and not composed state thereof: So likewise at this day, they maintain but too foul an error, that would bring the state of a Church well grown in years, back again to the swaddling clouts. And therefore Epiphanius very well inferreth thus: So likewise (saith he) are those things which are written in the Apostle, until the Church be enlarged, until it come to her ripe years, until it be most perfectly preyzed with the or-nature of wisdom, by the Father, Son, and holy Ghost. Epiphanius perceived that there were many things wanting, and that all things were not in their perfect temper, & that after a time, one and the same man was not both Priest and Bishop, as it well appeared by that which Saint Paul writ to Timothy, who was a Bishop: Against a Priest or Elder receive no accusation without two or three witnesses: He said not to any Elder; receive no accusation against a Bishop, etc. Augustine in like manner, mightily confirmeth this the censure and sentence of Epiphanius, who also mustereth this error of Aerius among the mid-ranke of old confused Heresies.   

Hierom his opinion confuted. Chap. XXII.  
THat which is objected out of Hierome, upon the first Chapter of the Epistle to Titus, namely, that Bishops are greater than Priests, rather by the custom of men, than the constitution of God etc. I answer: that it was the private opinion of Hierome, consenting with Aerius, dissenting from the word of God. Wherefore we are now diligently to examine his reasons, for that his assertion, lest we might seem without cause to have forsaken him.  
These therefore are his words: Before that (through the instigation of Satan) there were parts taking in the Church, and the people said, I hold of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common consent of Eldres: but after that once every man thought those that he baptized, were his own, and not Christ's: it was decreed throughout the whole world, that one chosen from among the Priests should be placed over the rest, unto whom the whole care of the Church should appertain, and by whom all occasion of Schism should be taken away, etc. That here he saith, how that at the beginning, the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the Elders: I will not greatly stand with him: and yet that proveth not, that the Bishops were not afterwards preferred by the Lord his institution. For than might we not as well say and with as good reason; that the Elders themselves, and the Doctors which the Apostles created, were not according to the Lord his institution, because at the first the Church was governed of the Apostles without Elders or Deacons, when as yet there were neither Elders nor Deacons. But that the Apostles themselves governed the Churches by themselves (and some other their coadjutors) before there were any Elders, there is no man but knoweth, or may learn to know out of the Epistle to Titus. And likewise, whosoever is of any judgement (or hath not his judgement blinded) may easily gather of the thing itself, that in those beginnings, while yet the Churches might be visited ever and anon of the Apostles themselves, and their associates, so long it was not needful they should anoint any other Bishops over the Churches; the Elders might serve the turn: Who also (so long as there were no other besides the Apostles) might likewise be called Bishops. So also I confess, that there was a time, when the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the people, as in Crete (before the creation of Elders) and at Corinth, and at Rome: which afterwards having their Elders (as at Philipos and at Ephesus) were then ruled by their more sacred counsel; but yet under the care and oversight of the Apostles and Evangelists. Wherefore hitherto it followeth not of all this, that the Apostles (as God afforded able men) did not prefer over several Churches several Bishops, & them over the other Elders; that they succeeding in place of the Apostles, might perform those very same things, which the Apostles themselves would, if they could either have lived always, or have been every where resident. But in deed, what need had they of Bishops, so long as the Apostles themselves discharged the duty of Bishops? And yet when as in the whole world, the number of Churches did daily increase, so that the Apostles could not stay in one place, nor go to all places: of force (and as soon as need was) they created Bishops, unto whom they committed that charge (as were Titus and Timothy and many other) no doubt with the same power, and according to the same divine institution of God, by the which before they created Elders.  
But that Hierom saith, how that Bishops became greater than Elders, of custom rather than of any divine institution; it hath no semblance of truth. Which challenge I make good upon him, first from the time, when he saith this custom began. Before (saith he) through the instigation of the devil they began to make sects in the Church, and it was said among the people; I hold of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas, the Churches were ruled by the common counsel of Elders, etc. But now those factions began under the Apostles; and therefore, that custom began in good time, and the Apostles themselves for the avoiding of schism altered (if not abrogated) the Lord his institution. The which (me thinks) were more than absurd to say. Our Saviour no doubt, who is the wisdom of his father, knew much better than the Apostles, what was needful and commodious for the preventing of schism. Whom as it did not beseem, to seem more wise than their master; so was it not their parts, for the default of one Church, to alter God's institution. Again how knew Hierome, that before those schisms broke forth, the Church of Corinth had their Elders, by whose council they were ruled? It is more likely by Paul his Epistles (all circumstances considered) that they had as then none especial and peculiar Elders.  
If any man come in and say, that these things happened after the Apostles time, and that Hierome did not so much respect the Church of Corinth, as diverse others (and therefore speaketh not of Corinth, but of the people) who were fallen into diverse schisms; I come upon him again, and tell him, it is not enough for him to say so, but it must be proved out of approved Histories, what those scisms were, and how, and where, and when they began; and how from that time, this foresaid custom began. We read in the Revelation of seven Angels, the Prelates of seven Churches, of the which one was Ephesus, the which (as it is manifest) had many Bishops before that time (as were also at Philippos) all which, as I have showed, were Elders also.  
I say therefore, that in the original of the Church, there was a time, when they had nor Elders, nor Bishops, besides the Apostles themselves, the Evangelists and their fellow-labourers: (as in Crete) (for the beginnings of all were alike.) Shall we therefore say, that those Elders were set over the Church of custom, not of any divine constitution, because the Churches at the first, under the Apostles governed themselves without Elders? or, that after they had abused that their popular kind of governance, that thereupon the government was committed to the council of Elders, of custom?  
Moreover if this argument were good, we might argue in like manner, against the institution of Deacons, and say they were not ordained according to any divine institution, because that in the beginning there were none of that order: namely, so long as the faithful were of one heart, & one soul, and no man said, the things he possessed were his own: but after that through the instigation of Satan, the Greeks began to mutiny against the Hebrews: For the avoiding of contention there were some chosen to be Deacons among them: So therefore ordained of custom, not of any divine institution; the which how weakly it followeth, he is but a week man that cannot well judge. For albeit the Apostles allege some other secondary causes, yet (it is most certain) the creation of Deacons did chieffy begin of that: And therefore I say in like manner, that albeit I should confess, that the first occasion of creating one Bishop, over & above the rest of the Elders, was by reason of schism, notwithstanding it therefore followeth not that it was done for that cause only, or that it was not done of any divine institution. But the occasion of creation of Bishops alleged by Hierom, is a conjecture but too uncertain, & grounded upon no likelihood of reason; that for the offence of one Church, the Apostles (contrary to the Lord his institution) should place one Bishop over all the Churches, which had not offended, & that throughout the whole world: This were very hard. Neither do we read at any time, that the Elders of the Church of Corinth, gave the occasion of this schism, but that it was taken of the people by reason of that opinion they had of their Pastors and Elders, by whom they were either baptised, or brought to the faith. But for men to swell in the vanity of their humours, with an over-prised conceit of their Teachers, as also of their parents, and place of their nativity and such like singularities, it is (as you know) an ordinary thing among men. And yet they, for whose sake this schism was set abroache at Corinth, were not at Corinth, so that, for the avoiding of this schism, the Elders which were to be set in some better order under one Bishop, were Paul himself, & Apollo's and Cephas, and such disordered fellows, by whom the people were drawn to such a singularity.  
Without doubt, me thinks this was a vain motion, and an idle conceit of Hierome, as is also that which he addeth of a decree made throughout the whole world. Good now, let me ask him this question: When, or of whom that decree could be made? or at least wise how, or by what possible means so general a consent could be obtained, against the will of the Lord in the first ordinance of Elders. For presently in all the Churches throughout the whole world, Bishops were above Elders, both in honour and authority: That blessed Paul would change the Lord his own institutitution; or if he would, that he could, it is not likely. The other Apostles, dispersed throughout divers regions, were ignorant of those things which were done at Corinth, so that they cannot be suspected to have given their voices to the ratifying of this decree. But that we may imagine, that this schism at Corinth came to their knowledge at the length; & that, after some miraculous manner they all met together from diverse foreign and the farthest parts in the world (I say) to imagine all this; yet can any man ever imagine, that for the avoiding of this one schism, they all would conspire together for the overthrow of the Lord his own institution? And much less could this be done after the Apostles time, that all Churches should assemble and consent, to alter and exautorate that which was both ordained of the Lord, and delivered of the Apostles: At the least some of them would have still received the first institution.  
But of the antiquity of this custom, we will call Hierome himself for a witness: and we shall find him, not only in this place, but also in his Epistle to Euagrius. At Alexandria (saith he) even to Heraclas & Dionysius, Bishops, the Elders chose one from among themselves, and placed him in a higher degree, and named him their Bishop: In like manner, as if an army should name them an Emperor. And yet by the way, I would not the people should here be deceived, & think by these words of Hierome, that the Elders always placed one of their own company over them. There are innumerable examples, where the Elders being discarded, the people and the clergy, have elected either Deacons, or some others, which were not reputed among the clergy. By the which also it may appear, that the churches were not acquainted at all with that general decree, or that they had any such regard thereof in their elections of Bishops, that they must always choose from among their Elders, their ordinary Bishop. Yet be it so: and let us yield thus much to Hierome, that there was such a decree made: then must we needs say, that either they made the same, contrary unto the Lord his institution, and so we must also say, that all those fathers, & all their counsels shamefully erred, (which we cannot say they did in any other thing, and we have showed they could not do in this) or else we must say, that they made it in a thing indifferent, neither with the institution of God, nor against it, but in the mere power and sole disposing of them, from whom it proceeded: And then what are we, (silly men) that we should once dare to condemn that decree, unto the which all Christendom did condescend? Wherefore, (as before) I now again infer, that this censure was but the private conceit of Hierome, repugnant to the general judgement of all the fathers, which either went before him, or lived after him. And therefore, when as he knew full well, that it would be objected against him, that this was but his bare censure, not the sentence of the holy Scripture, he assayeth to make good the same with scripture, and thereupon he first pawneth Paul his Epistle to the Philippians, in the which he greeteth the Bishops & Deacons of that church: as also the 20. of the Acts, and the 1. of Titus, where they which were Elders, are called Bishops. To the which places, before I make any further answer, it shall not be amiss to hear what Theodoret saith of this matter: he expounding this place of Paul, writeth thus: they call Bishops, Elders, for that at that time, they had both the names, as it well appeareth in the 20. of the Acts, and the 1. to Titus. For with Bishops he joineth Deacons, when he had made no mention of elders: neither could it otherwise be, that there should he many Bishops the Pastors of one city: by which means it cometh to pass, that they were the Elders of one city, whom he calleth Bishops. But in this Epistle he calleth the blessed Epaphrodite then Apostle, for he saith, your Apostle and my companion in labour. So that he manifestly showeth, that he had the dispensation of a Bishop committed to him, when he had the denomination of an Apostle. Thus much Theodoret Now you shall understand, that the error of Hierom and Aerius, grew of the not different and confused use of these titles, (a Bishop and an Elder) as they were then in use. But when as the same thing befalleth the title of an Apostle also: is it not strange, that they should rather err in the one, than the other? For where as Barnabas, Epaphroditus, and many others are called Apostles; yet no man thereby ever thought, that there was no difference between them and the twelve Apostles: but because the history of the calling of the twelve Apostles, (and those other, which were likewise called Apostles,) is better known unto them, and more familiar with them, than is that of the Elders and Bishops, (so commonly called:) therefore this whole matter seemeth involved in more dark and thick mists of obscurity, unto such as are not expert in searching out hidden and unknown histories in the acts and monuments of the Apostles? For by reason of the interchangeable community of names, they think not that there is any difference, (or conceive not what it is) between those distinct persons, which are called by names not distinct. As for example, this name (Apostle) would have deceived him foully, that should have gone about to have equaled all of this name with the twelve Apostles; & so stands the case also with the name of Bishops, for that it is in danger to deceive (if it do not daungerouslly deceive) those, which indistinctly apply that one name, to the two degrees of Elders. Wherefore they must know, that the same name is not always of the same nature, and many times one word is significant as well for the general, as the particular. And this must we conceive of this word Elder, that in the capacity of his signification are indifferently entertained all degrees of Pastors, so that the Apostles themselves may generally be called Elders, when as properly the lowest degree of Pastors is best known, and most fitly called by that name. Besides all this, there is in many words an Etymology, or proper interpretation, according to the which also it so falleth out, that many times, diverse names have the same use: by which means, not only Elders, but Apostles also may be derived into the same name of Bishops. This may very easily be exemplified in civil things and names, where we may well perceive the like use of no less titles, (as Dukes, Earls, Knights, Lords and Barons:) all which titles are given to many, which differ much in honour and dignity: neither is it any new or insolent thing, for one mighty King to have many meaner Kings under him of his name, but not of his power. The like we may say of Dukes, who have also under them other Dukes, of whom they receive due fealty and homage: and some Earls also, (as the Count Palatine, of Rhine, & Flanders) are Lords also over other Earls. What should I speak of Knights, Lords, & Barons, which under the same titles, have not the same type of honour or authority. He would be laughed to scorn of very children for his labour, that should infer an equality of their callings, from the quality of that they are called. I, but (will some say,) there is not that reason of the Ecclesiastic ministery, and the civil policy. I also tell them, that I do not compare office with office, but name with name: that all the world may see, how childish a reason it is, for the community of names and titles, to take away the diversity of things & persons. Albeit there be some new writers of this age, who hold opinion, that the presidency of on over many elders, is to be abolished, as a thing that hath prevailed in the church of custom, & upon the courtesy of men only, & that against the grounded verity of gods sacred constitution; yet for all that, the universal consent of alchurches in the world, consorting with gods word, shall further with me, than the opinion malcontent of the heretic Aerius, or the misconceited judgement of Hierome alone, having lost himself in the ambiguity of doubtful words, & not found out the antiquity of the first age of the church. For this is manifest out of the word of God, that in the time of john the Apostle, those 7. Cathedral Churches of Asia had their seven Bishops, and they imposed over them by a certain divine, not any humane ordinance. For when as the holy Ghost there conceileth nothing, in the which, either the Angels themselves, or they which were under there government, had offended: he would never have passed over without just reprehension so insolent and ambitious an innovation, (for so it seemeth unto some) as then but newly suborned, and boldly brought forth into the church of God, and that confronting the flat ordinance of God himself. No doubt, those so famous and renowned Churches had many Elders, and happily a college of Elders: and yet the defaults of those churches, were not laid upon the many Elders, but he calleth upon the several and principal Elder of every particular church: whose authority in the church government, unless it had been somewhat more than ordinary, they alone should never have borne the blame of that function not well performed.  
A certain writer of this age goeth about to defend, or at least to excuse this heresy, (or error if you had so rather) of Aerius: but his reasons with the which he would do it are so slanderous, scandalous, and reproachful against the counsels, and against the fathers, as of truth I am altogether ashamed of them. Aerius, like a good honest fellow, is excused, & the fathers (poor souls) or openly accused of no small faults, ambition and tyranny: who seeing he bringeth nothing worth any thing, besides that we have before touched out of Hierome, I will not vouchsafe his cavils the confuting. How much more christian-like, & modestly hath that most famous man, and thrice reverend father Zanchius, (never sufficiently renowned for his rare learning and religion) how much more like a good christian, hath he written in his Confession, what he thought concerning the controversy? These are his words: My faith is grounded chief and simply upon the word of God, and then somewhat also upon the common consent of the whole Catholic Church; if so be it repugn not the sacred writ. For I do believe, that what things were concluded and received of the holy Fathers, assembled in the name of the Lord, by a common consent of all, without any contradiction to the holy scriptures, that those things also (although not of like authority with the scripture) are of the holy Ghost. Hence it cometh, that whatsoever things are of this sort, I nor will, nor dare with a safe conscience disallow them. But what one thing is more certain, out of histories, out of Counsels, out of the writings of all the Fathers, then that those orders of Ministers (of the which we have spoken) were received and established in the Church by the common consent of the whole Christian commonwealth? And who am I, that what the whole Church hath allowed, I alone should disallow? Neither yet have all the learned men of our time dared to disallow them, for that indeed they knew, that both these things were lawful in the Church, also that they all were ordained and performed of a godly religion, and to good ends, for the good of the elect. Besides that, reason was, I should have regard of those Churches also, the which although they have embraced the Gospel, yet they retain their Bishops, both in deed and name. And what shall we say of the Churches of the Protestants also, where they want not their Bishops and Archbishops in deed, whom (having cast their good Greek names, into bad Latin) they call Superintendentes, and general Superintendentes? But where also, nor those good old Greek, nor these bad Latin names are in use, there notwithstanding are commonly certain private & especial men, in whose hands, in a manner, is all the authority. Wherefore now the controversy is concerning names; but seeing we do agree in deed, what do we contend about names? In the mean while, as I have not disallowed the Fathers in this matter which is now in question; so also I cannot but love the zeal of our brethren, who therefore were out of love with those names, because they feared, least with the old names, the old ambition also and tyranny should be called in again, to the ruin of Churches. Thus gravely divineth that reverend old Zanchius: with whom I could join many more testimonies (if it were needful) of the best writers of our time, to confirm this matter: who are either wholly of our opinion, or very sparingly of the contrary. But for this time lonely Zanchius shall stand for the rest, least I should overcharge this small volume with a multitude of witnesses   

Of one Bishop in one Diocese. Chap. XXIIII.  
NOw that we have proved that government of the Church to be of God, in the which Pastors are subject to Pastors, and Elders suppliant to their Bishops: we are in the sequel of this our discourse, to see and examine, Whether one Church or diocese is not capiable of two or more Bishops, at the same time, of the same type and authority. True it is, that the Church of Jerusalem had the twelve Apostles, the seventy two Disciples, with the Prophets, their Bishops: neither are examples wanting of divers churches, which have had jointly together divers Bishops. Epiphanius writing against the Arrian heresy, falling into some mention of the Church of Alexandria, seemeth to intimate thus much; That in that age there was this custom in divers Churches, that they might have two Bishops at once, when as notwithstanding in the church of Alexandria, he affirmeth there was no such custom.  
To the which, I thus answer: First, that the twelve Apostles, & the rest, remained at Jerusalem for a certain time, but they were appointed Bishops & Teachers, not for that one City only, but for the whole world. Now for the custom of certain Cities, which at one time had their two bishops; what manner custom that was, how rare & extraordinary it was, we may sufficiently learn by that one election of Augustine, who was made Bishop, while Valerius Bishop of Hippon yet lived. The which thing was done, as extraordinary, so contrary to the decree of the Nicene council. But what rule so general, that suffereth no exception? It is no sin I confess, for one Church to have many Pastors of equal power, but whether it be convenient it should be so, experience will teach. Indeed of old, the Bishops being of great years, sometimes would name their successor, and assume a fellow-laborer in office with them, and that, partly to prevent the tumults which commonly infested their elections: and partly also, because sometimes the Bishops being disabled by age & sickness, were not sufficing to discharge their duties in their own persons: for which cause it was lawful for the new Elect to supply the aged his place, & sit together in the same chair. As for Valerius the Bishop of Hippon, he being moved thereunto by the example of foreign Churches, got Augustine with much ado to be joined with him: but how unwillingly he undertook that place, albeit he were importuned thereunto, as well by the prayers, as by the precedents of others, he expressly testifieth in his 110. Epistle; Wherein are reported what things were done at the assignment of Eradius Priest, to succeed Augustine in his Bishopric, as they were taken by the notary, the people consenting and confirming the same: to whom he thus speaketh: I know that you know (saith he) Eradius to be a fit man, and worthy of a bishopric, but I would not there should be that done by him, that was done to me: but what was done yourselves can many of you witness: they only cannot tell, which either were not as then born, or as yet had not the capacity to know. While as yet my Father and bishop, Valerius of famous memory lived in the flesh, I was ordained then bishop, and I sat together with him, the which thing I then knew not that it was inhibited by the Council of Nice, neither did he know. Wherefore, that which was reprehended in me, I would not should be reprehended in my son. And thus saith Augustine.  
Gregory Nazianzen in an epistle to Gregory Nyssen, writeth of this custom in these words: But if any man contend, that whilst one Bishop is living, an other ought to be elected, let him know that these things are of no force against us. For it is manifest and apparent unto all the world, that we are precedent, not only at Naziantz, but also at Sosrie, and that (setting apart the reverence of our ancient Fathers and grave Doctors, and those that laboured the same of us with their urgent prayers) we took upon us that presidency as strangers. Thus saith Nazianzene. By the which we may understand, how insolent and extraordinary a thing it was, that one Church should have two Bishops. Epiphanius also made some small mention of this custom, that he might show the cause, why Athanasius did not immediately succeed Alexander, seeing he was deputed thereunto by Alexander; namely, for that the custom of the Church of Alexandria did not permit, that he should be chosen Bishop, while their Bishop yet lived. Most true it is indeed, that both the Bishops and the people were persuaded of this, That one Church did admit but one Bishop: when it was otherwise, Necessity which hath no law did excuse it. When Constantius, at the request of certain noble Matrons, had called Bishop Liberius from exile, and would have had him to govern the Church of Rome together with Foelix, who was then surrogate and substitute in his place: the people hearing the emperors letters, and scorning the contents, thundered together with one voice; One God, one Christ, and one Bishop. Cyprian also writing of the lawful election of Cornelius: Seeing that after the first (saith he) there cannot be a second; whosoever is made after one (who ought to be one and alone) he is now no more second, but none at all. like manner Ignatius, who was in the age before Cyprian, and is accounted the second, or third Bishop of Antioch, after the Apostles; reducing the gifts of the only one God, to an unity in the Church, writeth thus; There is one flesh of the Lord jesus, one blood that was shed for us, also one bread which is broken to us all, and one cup which is given to us all, there is one Altar for the whole Church, and there is one bishop with the company of Elders.  
The Father's reason was this: because God would (whose will is a law to us) that there should be but one high Peiest in the old Testament: with whom (so long as he lived) no other might be surcharged: unless haply he had defiled himself with any notorious crime, or by chance had fallen into some unclean disease, which might make him either unapt, or unable to perform his sacred duty. The which although it contained in it a secret mystery, of the which the Church at this day retaineth no present memory: yet the policy of this mystery (which by no means is to be divorced from it) ought not to be controlled of any that profess Christianity.  
If any man here suppose, that by this reason the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome may be maintained: to him I say, that he taketh the matter amiss: For there is great odds between a pastoral prefecture over one region, and an imperial prerogative over the whole world. So ample and augustious is that his supreme empire and superlative degree in the Church, as that it dilateth itself over all Christian churches wheresoever, throughout the whole world; but was the whole world at any time demised to any one Apostle? Peter had the sea Apostolic over the circumcision, and Paul over the uncircumcised: but yet so, as they excluded not their compeers and copartners in the same power with them. For james also was the Apostle of the jews, which lived at Jerusalem, and in all judea: but Peter over those which were dispersed among the Gentiles only. So likewise Paul limited his sea Apostolic among the Greeks of Asia and Europe, leaving in the mean while other provinces for other Apostles. If in like manner the Bishop of Rome had contented and contained himself within the precincts of his own territory, how should any man have accused him of any impious or usurped tyranny?  
Again, for as much as it appeareth, that the Apostolic tradition (so much as concerneth the regiment of the church and the outward policy thereof) was taken of our Saviour, and afterwards also of the Apostles, from out of the old Testament; (so far forth as the condition of time and place, & the state of the people and persons might permit) can there be any error in this, if the Fathers (their successors) seem in like manner to borrow from the same foundation, certain politic constitutions, for the edifying of the Church? Upon this occasion Hierome thus writeth to Euagrius: And in that we know, that the Apostolic traditions were taken out of the old Testament: that which Aaron and his sons, and the Levites were in the Temple, the same are the Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, in the Church.  
I conclude therefore, that over every several province or precinct (which make as it were one City) they very well and worthily placed several Bishops; and likewise over every whole country or region, either Patriarches, or Archbishops, or Primates, or metrapolitans (call them as you please) & moreover that this was done of the antic Counsels & Fathers, to singular purpose, & well consorting with God's holy ordinance. With the which that I may at the last determine this controversy: of those things which I have already declared and concluded, as well of the offices of the Gospel (which were ordained of the Lord, and left unto the Church by his Apostles) as also of the uniform consent of the Counsels, and continual practice of the Church in all ages, it shallbe easy for all men to know, That that government is not of man, or from man, in the which the Elders are subject to their elder Bishops, & the Bishops to their higher Patriarches, & metropolitans; but contrariwise, that the same is divine, and ordained of God, and that as well in the old, as the new Testament.   

Of the names of Patriarches, Archbishops, & Metropolitans. Chap. XXV.  
Having laid down my reasons and proofs, by the which I am taught to dissent from them, unto whom in other things I yield not a little; I take it now time to answer the cursing and cursed slanders of some, who casting aside the modesty of civil Christians, and neglecting the mediocrity of all learned writers, do tear (like mad dogs) and torment the most reverend names and religious functions of Bishops, Archbishops, patriarchs & Metropolitans, as pampered and proud titles, antichristian & profane. But will you hear the reasons of unreasonable men? They allege, that the Apostle Paul in recounting the degrees of the Ministers of the Gospel (in his Epistle to the Ephesians the 4. chap.) maketh no mention of patriarchs & Archbishops. To the which, before I go any further, I make them this answer: That those offices are there comprised and contained in the names of Apostles & Evangelists; and in the 12. to the Rom. verse 8. in the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Ruler, (or he that ruleth;) and in the first to the Corinthians the 12. chap. and 28. verse, in the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) governors: by all which terms and titles, the sacred order of superior Pastors are understood. But that the aforesaid offices of Apostles & Evangelists are perpetual, we have already proved, and it may also sufficiently appear by the sequel of that enumeration of those offices; namely, when he setteth down to what end our Saviour gave to the Church, some Apostles, and other Evangelists. Was it not for the work of the Ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ? So that, so long as the Church is to be edified, so long those offices are to be continued in the Church which are there contained. If the Church could have been edified without them, they should never have been ordained in the Church. But again, that part of them are thought to be temporal, & part particular; that thought is overthrown by the only end of that for the which they were ordained; which end is to be sought for continually of all the faithful even until the coming of the Lord. For are they not still to edify by these offices, & to grow together into one mystical body of Christ? Now albeit the office of bishops & archbishops, primates, & patriarches, doth not extend itself so far as did the office of the twelve Apostles: (neither are they enriched with the like treasure or measure of the holy Ghost) yet are we to consider that this difference is in the quality not in the quiddity of the same function: in the measure, not in the matter of their commission. And therefore, whom at this day we call Bishops & Archbishops, Paul the Apostle called Apostles; for that (as we have said) they are joined in the same combination, & made partakers of that commission. And for this cause the calling of Archbishops & Patriarches, hath been always called, and is yet to be accounted Apostolic in all places.  
Yet, for as much as these names and titles, do seem in some men's eyes, to be puffed up with the tumours of pride and ambition, let us take a further view of those principal objects, and frivolous objections, by the which they are cast into this no less strange than strong conception. Their first argument is forced from the composition of the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which (as they take it) signifieth that principality and power, which is proper to the civil Magistrate only, impertinent to that modesty and simplicity, which the doctrine of the Gospel requireth of a Pastor. To the which, they also add the sentence of the Council of Carthage, which forbade any Bishop to be called Prince of the Priests; The words of the Canon are these: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The which Gratian in his ninety nine distinction translateth thus: The Bishop of the chief place shall not be called prince of the Priests, or high Priest, or any other such thing, but only, Bishop of the chief place. Besides all this (say they) the word Archbishop differeth nothing from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Prince of Pastors:) the which name or title, seeing it is only proper to Christ alone we cannot see, how he should be excused of heinous sacrilege, that doth any way usurp the same. And therefore all such names are to be cast over board, and utterly to be exiled the Church of Christ. Neither is the arguing of these names to be taken for trifling, when as they seem so greatly to derogate from the name of Christ. And last of all those names which Antichrist himself, or the spirit of Antichrist, hath either invented, or invested into the Church, are to be avoided: but that Antichrist was the forger of these titles, it is a plain case, and therefore to be avoided.  
To that, I answer: That the sense & true meaning of these names & titles by way of composition, with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, containeth nothing in it, either arrogant for ambition, or for custom insolent. For I will teach them, (if they be to learn) that the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth not only signify Principality and Magistracy, but also the first, the beginning and original cause of any thing: and besides this, that in composition it followeth the nature of that word, with the which it is compounded: and so, seeing the name of a Bishop doth signify of itself, and in his own nature nothing that is insolent or ambitious, take the name Archbishop which way you will, it cannot any ways sound of any vain or vainglorious sense: as it plainly appeareth in other words of like composition, as Architectos, Archiatros, Architriclinus, Archibubulcus, which signify a Maister-worke-man, a Arch-phisition, a Gentleman-usher, a chief Herdsman, and such like. By all which we may manifestly see, that the name of Bishop, being in nature good, the name of Archbishop cannot be in composition evil: seeing that thereby it signifieth rather the first and chief Bishop, than the Lord and Prince of Bishops. Albeit I would not, (nor need I) greatly stick with him for the name of Prince neither, were it in use with us, as in sense it is with the Latins, only for a chief and principal man. But now seeing that name is advanced to a more royal and imperial sense, from henceforth, I will either not use it, or use it very thriftily.  
The like may we say of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that among good Grecians, it doth not always signify a Magistrate, or a man in authority, but many times also it standeth for the first author, or original cause of any thing. So that patriarch, doth no more signify him which governeth in the Magistracy, or exerciseth authority over others, then doth Heresiarch, who is so called, for that he is the first brother and broacher of that heresy, not that he exerciseth any dominion over the rank kamiel of that poisonous rabble. In very deed, a Patriarch signifieth the first parent of any people or offspring: in which sense also the same word is derived to our use, to signify an Archbishop; because that he among the other Bishops (which are counted Fathers) is as it were the Grandfather: and that thereby also we might further conceive, that the government he hath over others, is mere fatherlike, not tyrannik So that for modesty sake were they called, rather Archbishops and patriarchs, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Princes of the Priests) that all the world might know, that their power over their brethren, and fellow-bishoppes, was no other, then that which Paul had over Titus and Timothy, and they over others. And thus at the last it may appear at the full, that here is no name given to the Bishop of the chief place, which was forbidden by the Carthaginian Canon: seeing that a Patriarch & Archbishop in their proper sense, do signify no other than the chief Bishop: who if he be called Prince of the Bishops, among them which writ more pure Latin, no man ought to be aggrieved therefore: for that (as I have already noted) the word Prince among them, is no more but as principal and chief among us. And this is that which Ambrose hath written upon the fourth of the Ephesians. In a Bishop (saith he) are all the orders contained, because he is the chief Priest, that is, the Prince of Priests, and a Prophet, and an Evangelist.  
But now again, that they say, the word Archbishop doth signify the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Peter, which signifieth the Archpastor: I can but greatly wonder, and yet not sufficiently, that any such thing should proceed from men that would be accounted learned, and linguists too. I showed but even now, what this word archbishop signified, and what might be made of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition.  
Wherefore, seeing that in the construction of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as also in other words) it may be taken as well for the first and chief Pastor of any people: as for the chief Lord and Prince of all Pastors: I see no reason, why that also may not be given to that man, which obtaineth the chief place among the Pastors of any place. But when as it signifieth Christ, and that for his supreme government, which he alone hath over all Pastors, as the Lord of all, both people and Pastors, the sense is altered, and the case: so that in that sense, there are none of our Archbishops, which in any case will suffer himself to be called Archbishop. Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Archpastor, absolutely, above all comparison, beyond all exception, without any limitation: when as our archbishops are not so called simply and absolutely, but such and such Archbishops, archbishops of this or that sea, whose Suffragans and Sub-bishops of such or such a Province, are sufficiently known: Among whom only they are accounted the Primates, or principal moderators: and over whom only, and not over all absolutely, they are called Archbishops.  
Wherefore, seeing that by this name, is only signified the chief and principal Pastor of some one Province, it doth no more derogat from the glory of Christ, then when we call other Elders and Bishops by the name of Pastors and Doctors: seeing that properly Christ alone is our Master and Teacher, and indeed that only good Shepherd, which gave his life for us.  
In like manner, albeit God and the Father of our Lord jesus Christ, be also our Father which is in heaven: yet notwithstanding, we may call men also our Fathers, and in so doing offer God no wrong at all. And therefore, whosoever he be, that knoweth as well as I can tell him, that these names and titles are in sense manifold, and ambiguous in signification, so that they may be given to diverse things in diverse respects, and yet holdeth plea in this sort, he doth but seem to hold himself play in a serious matter, to make an idle show of his vain wit, and a sinful spoil of the simple reader. For my part, having resolved upon that which before we have taught: namely, That in the regiment of the Church, Bishops were placed over Bishops, according unto God his divine ordinance and institution; I cannot see how that method of God's distinct order, could have been expressed in more apt and fit terms (after the Apostles decease) then by these reverend titles of patriarchs and Archbishops.  
In the which also (setting aside the arrogancy and tyranny of those which have abused their authority, and do abuse) there is not so much state or pride, as some presume.  
I but (will some say,) our Bishops and Archbishops do entertain secular charges, and invade civil honours, and are embossed with temporal titles: all the which, how crossly they confront the doctrine of the Apostles, and the good meaning of their titles, who so blind as may not see it? To this I would answer, before I proceed any further: but it is not for this place, neither doth this question fall into this treatise. Wherefore, hereafter I will set down what I think of this matter, when I come to his proper place.  
In the mean while (gentle Reader) suppose, I here defend not those which now live, (who whiles they are in view, are envied) but those faithful servants of Christ jesus, who heretofore have ruled the church with great fruit, before the tyranny of Rome abused the Church of God: namely, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nysen, Basil the great, Athanasius, Chrisostome, Cyprian, Ignatius, Polycarpus, Ambrose, Augustine, and such like: whose lives as they are further from our eyes, so from our envy. These cannot I with any good conscience, do not you of any conceit condemn of pride, ambition, tyranny, or Anticristianisme, for whom all the world will stand up & witness, that they were Bishops, Archbishops and patriarchs, and governed the churches after a singular manner, and with an especial power over the rest. If any man think he have a single gift in these things, and suppose he have the spirit of discretion, as his familiar (to discern spirits) good leave hath he, let him use it: but let him take heed, his spirit of discretion prove not the spirit of presumption. I verily can find no such spirit of Antichrist in those most christian fathers: I find they were men, and had their errors: and yet in this argument, their writings are of greater authority with me, then are they which have written of the same matter in this age, and within our memory.  
But now concerning the last exception against their names (I mean of Arch bishops.) I answer, and deny that they were the inventions of Antichrist; this first, & then also, that whatsoever was invented, (or is usurped either) of Antichrist is hand over head to be rejected of us; for of necessity (a necessary policy) he devised, rather than invented, some good things, that with them he might overcast many bad. So doth Satan many times transform himself into an Angel of light, that he may deceive without suspect; he feigneth holiness; that he may draw into wickedness: he defendeth the truth, that he may drive into error. (For he should bewray himself too grossly, if he should teach nothing but leasings.) But yet, can there be a more witless conclusion than this, Antichrist taught this, ergo it is false? Antichrist devised this, ergo it is nought? unless it should be interserted, or at least understood, that the same is contrary also to the word of God. As for example, that which Peter was taught of the holy Ghost, he confessed with a lively faith, namely, That jesus was the very Christ, and the only son of the living God. But now, doth not Antichrist also confess the same with his mouth? yea whosoever dare deny the same, he condemneth to the faggot. Doth he not also embrace the sacred volumes of Gods holy word? yes and more than that forasmuch as the Lord hath taught us in his word, that we should pray continually, he hath of himself devised, to divide the whole day in matinges and even song. But now (to come to the point) because he abuseth unto superstition both fasting and prayer, and the holy Bible, and the blessed confession of the son of God, shall we therefore (all in a fling) renounce these things? Admit it be his desire that the ministry should be of some reckoning in the world, and that it should be advanced to no mean degree of honour in the common wealth: And what then? that we may not be like unto him, shall we requite the Ministers of Christ with shame for fame, and with slanders for honours? And because he seeketh to magnify them without mean, shall we suffer them to lie subject and abject among the basest routs of the common meany? If brainsick men upon a quarelous mind may presently gainsay whatsoever the Bishop of Rome hath said, or done: I fear me in the end, they will in their great haste overrun all christian religion, & leave it far behind them. Wherefore, whosoever shall think every thing forthwith to be rejected, for that either the author thereof abused the same to tyranny, or the Bishop of Rome inverted the same to superstition, he is easily to be carried with every shallow stream into any deep error.  
What things soever are in the Church of Rome (that now is) may justly be distinguished into three parts: Whereof there are some things that well consort with the word of God; and some, that do flatly contradict the same; but the most things are such, as there use is; either good, or bad: which things are called, things indifferent. Now, albeit bad men may make a bad use of good things, yet can they not invert the nature thereof. Baptism, the word of God, or whatsoever else (of that kind) the Romanists have in use, no wise man will therefore reject, as if they were evil, because they have not used them well. As for things utterly evil, because no man at any time useth them well, they are utterly to be rejected of us, as is all kind of Idolatry, & whatsoever doth either undermine, or overthrow the sound & substantial doctrine of truth. But as for things indifferent, seeing they are such as is he that useth them; they are left in our power to use them, as time & occasion shall require. An indifferent thing is commonly that, whatsoever is nor condemned, nor commended in the word of God, & is left free to every man's choice, either to use, or not use: unless some other thing interchaunce, which altereth the use of that which otherwise was free, by reason of the time or place, or the person, where the same is in use. For my part, I think things mediate & indifferent might better be defined thus: if we shall say, those things are indifferent, which by no law, either God's law or man's law, are bidden, or forbidden. For by the command of him which hath the authority over our persons, the use of a thing, which otherwise is free, may many ways, & upon many occasions be restrained, or overruled: But of these things, in this place, we are not now to discourse at large. Only thus much I chief note, & would have just notice taken of it, that indifferent things may be used of us, although the same things have been abused by the bishop of Rome, or any other Antichrist. Is our liberty to be prejudiced by an other man's religion? specially, where public authority hath any thing to do in the matter? suppose it either giveth us in charge, or putteth us in choice, to use those things which the superstitious have abused: Wherefore whensoever anything shall come in question among us, that hath been used among the Romanists, or other enemies of the truth, it is our part to examine and consider the matter, as it is in self, not as it was with them.  
There are some in England at this day, who take upon them more sourly, then severely, against outward vestments, cap & surplice, music and organs, and such like rites of the Church: the which, because they were of some use in the Roman Church, now out upon them, they are sacrilegious & profane. In like manner, and with no less modesty, do they proceed against Bishops & Archbishops, their honours and revenues; All the which, unless they could be proved contrary to the word of God, what reason is this they bring (and it is all they bring) for the abolishing thereof: when they say, the author or inventor thereof was Antichrist? No doubt indifferent things which he abused for his tyranny, may be returned to a better use, for the good of the Church.  
Now, as for contentious natures & such, in whose breasts this error hath taken fast footing, namely, That the authority of Bishops is a thing pernicious in itself, and prejudicial to the church; I know this my answer, as it fitteh not their humours, so it serveth not their turns. Neither yet will they vouchsafe of that, which I have said of the natural signification of words compound with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Wherefore, albeit the plainest interpretation of the names of Patriarches and Archbishops like me best, yet notwithstanding I dare say thus much further, if we should grant (that which they shall never evince) that by force of composition a kind of principality were to be inferred: yet doth it not thereupon follow, that it is therefore a title abhorring from the state of our BB. For let it be lawful for men to urge the signification of every syllable in this sort, & it shall forthwith be unlawful for any, to be called a monarch, or to be invested with the title of an Emperor: for why? forsooth, these names in their proper sense, are common to none, but to God only. These and such like titles of lawful and necessary use among us, must upon this quirk be utterly abolished: neither may it be lawful for us from henceforth to call our Ministers (as the Scripture doth) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Rectors or Rulers, Prelates or Presidents:) nay we shall not be able to avouch the name of Elders, because this, and these all in sacred Scripture, are proper to Magistrates and Princes, and the Nobles of sundry provinces, and and yet for all this we see, that Ministers of the Church are called by these names.  
Last of all, if the authority of the Fathers, may be of any prevail, let us hear what great dainty they make of the name of Prince, in the titles of the clergy. Origen reprehending the clownish sourness of some Bishops, writeth thus; A man may see in some Churches, (especially in the greatest Cities) how the Princes of the christian people, show no manner affability to any: esteeming thereof as a thing nothing at all pertaining unto them, etc. And afterwards again: We speak not these things as if we meant to discharge the Ecclesiastical Principality. In like manner upon the Epistle to the Romans the thirteenth Chapter. By the which it appeareth (saith he) that the judges of the world do perform the greatest part of God's law. For all the defaults that God would have punished, he punisheth not by the Prelates and Princes of the Church, but by the judges of the world. And upon the twenty seven Chapter of Numbers, the two and twenty Homily. Let the Princes (saith he) of Churches learn, not to appoint their successors after them, such as are allied unto them, either in affinity of kindred, or consanguinity of blood, neither that they ought to make the Principality of Churches hereditary, etc. Ignatius, no less godly than gravely; My Son (saith he) honour God and the King: and I say further, honour God as the author of all things and the owner; and honour the Bishop as Prince of the Priests, bearing, the image of God, by reason of his principality, & the image of Christ, by means of his Priesthood. He that honoureth the Bishop, shall be honoured of God, as also he that dishonoureth him, shall be punished of God, etc. Besides many other things in the same place to the same sense. The same man in an other place. Therefore (saith he) let all things be performed among you according to a direct order in Christ: Let Lay men be subject to Deacons, Deacons to Priests, Priests to Bishops, the Bishop to Christ, as he is also to the Father. Again to the Church of Antioch. You Elders feed the flock which is committed unto you, until God manifest him, which shall reign over you: For I am now sacrificed: that I may gain Christ, etc. By which words, the holy Martyr hath sufficiently testified the authority of a Bishop over the rest of the Elders.  
Doubtless in ancient time, the authority of Bishops was great in the Church, their reverence great, and their favour great among the people: the which of all other things made most for the benefit and increase of the Church. Even as in the common wealth, the favour of the Magistrates and authority is beneficial to the people, so likewise of Bishops in the Church. And therefore for good cause thought Hierome, that the welfare of the Church did depend of the honour of the chief Priest etc. Neither in deed is this the least slight of Satan, when he laboureth to bring the prelates of the Church into contempt, for by that means he thinketh to imbecil the doctrine of faith, and to bring that into suspect, that so at the last he might (if possible he could) bring an utter ruin, and a ruined overture to the whole state of the Church. To which purpose whosoever they be, that make themselves the Devil his stipendaries, under what colour so ever they do it, they discern but badly, not only of the whole Church, but also of the common wealth. That which a rebel is in the state, the same is a schismatic in the Church.  
How just cause the adverse part here in England hath, to bring their Bishops into the obloquy and envy of the people, it smally concerneth me: I set not as arbiter between both parts. But this I say; that the same things which betideth the Bishops here in England, doth usually befall all the best of the Ministry in Holland also, who are in no less envy with the people there, than our Bishops are here. How malapartly (and the sacrifice) had men do rail and rave in their public writing 〈◊〉 the dear servants of Christ, (and that by name) their shameful and shameless libels do testify at large. Of which wrongs seeing I myself (whiles I conversed with them) bate not the least share, & yet bear, no wonder to any, if for my part, I like the better of Bishops. For I am not ignorant of this, that this is but the ordinary condition of all God's servants; and that Satan of old and long since, hath by all possible and pestilent means endeavoured, to make the precedents of Christ his Church, odious and infamous among men; that so, their credit especially, being either altogether cracked, or very sore crazed, himself might with more facility and less jealousy set abroach and cast abroad, all manner hideous and hellish Heresies. In so much that I am persuaded, if Moses himself, if Peter, if Paul were resident among us, and were in that honour and esteem, which were fit and well-beseeming their so honourable a calling, they could not possible escape the cankered chaps of these foul-mouthed Hell hounds. But so long as the servants of Christ are in authority in the Church, it is not much that the instruments of Satan can achieve: but are they once brought under the hatch? alas, what is it that the seditious dare not attempt? This matter need no great proof, it hath too much.  
Wherefore, of that degree of Honour, which the Prelates of Religion ought to enjoy in an established christian common wealth, the very vileness of this age doth enforce me to speak more at large. For if base men cannot abide, that Religion should be in any Honour, and villainous minds endeavour their worst, that the credit thereof may be none at all, or worse than it is, I think it no great wonder: but, that religious men (as they would seem) should attempt the same, & even they, which ought to be patrons and preservers of the Church dignities, it is a thing odious, preposterous and too bad absurd. Do they not yell in vain, and cry out against abuses to no purpose, whose end is not so much to mitigate the abuse of things, as to abolish the whole use? If the governors of the Church, have not so beautified their Ministry with that integrity of manners, and innocency of life, which reason & the reverence of Religion doth require; I defend them not, but that according to the laws they may be severely punished, and their betters surrogate into their places: Neither are they exempt from the jurisdiction of the chief Magistrates, whereby they may not censure upon them, their lives and their goods, as upon other citizens. No question, it greatly concerneth both Prince and people, that good men be placed over the Church, and evil men removed their places: So that, whatsoever crimes are here, or else where objected (and proved) against the Prelates of Religion, they are stains to the chief Magistrate, which tolerateth such Ministers in the Church, or advanceth such like to be Church officers.  
There is not the like reason of the Romish clergy: For they have their peculiar Magistrates; nor live they under the common law of other Citizens, neither yet are they accounted any part of them, (any longer than may stand with their own commodity.) There the civil Magistrate, challengeth no right to convert, nor any power to amend, what so ever they commit. But notwithstanding, if the Magistrate think best, to wink at these public slanders, I will complain myself no further; only if the slanderers will so moderate themselves, as that they only find fault with the fault, not with the state; and whiles they rate abuses, the honour of the calling may be left intemerat. Let it be no man's slander, that he is a Bishop, or a Minister.  
But of the twofold order of Elders, according to the Lord his institution, and the Apostolic tradition, and the perpetual use of the Church (so much as the state of the argument doth require) these things I have said may suffice. Now it remaineth that we say some thing also concerning Doctors.   

Of Doctors. Chap. XXVI.  
WHen the Apostle in the fourth to the Ephesians nameth Pastors and Doctors, a man cannot certainly gather from the manner of his speech, whether he would have them diverse in office, or but one and the same, and that, because a Pastor is necessarily a Doctor or teacher, but not so conversively. Wherefore the thing itself must help us out: For not every one, whom the Lord hath endued with learning, and with a sound gift of teaching, hath presently withal received the authority of a Pastor: The knowledge and science of sacred Scripture, may be given to any man; Kings, Nobles, Knights, may be learned, who notwithstanding are not fit to be over any Churches. And albeit the administration of the Sacraments, and governance of the Church are so combined with the office of teaching, that he cannot be a Pastor, which is not a teacher; notwithstanding that followeth not in good conversion, that every one who hath received the power to teach, should forthwith be an Elder, or Bishop of the Church: these things are distinct each from other. From among those which are apt to teach, Elders and Bishops are chosen, and of old, the Priesthood was never without power to interpret: but yet the gift of prophecy, and the ability to interpret did not make a Priest. The Priest was of duty an interpreter of the law, and a Doctor, & a Prophet, but yet every doctor of the law, or prophet, was not a priest. An Apostle in deed, was both Prophet, and Doctor, and Pastor, but every Prophet or Doctor, was not an Apostle or Pastor. Seeing therefore that Doctors are distinguished from Pastors, & the knowledge of the mysteries of God with the faculty to expound them, is the gift of the holy spirit: whosoever excel in that gift, and can as well by writing as word of mouth edify the Church, they are to be reputed for Doctors, of what estate soever they be: the king shall derogat no more from his royal Majesty, if for the edifying of God's people, he compose any godly work, than did David or Solomon of old, who in there time were no les renowned for their heavenly wisdom, then for their princely power. Although the Apostle forbidden a woman to speak in the congregation, yet if she be learned, she may write, and privately instruct her family. Wherefore now, if we will come to the true understanding of the Apostolic writings: we must with sound judgement put difference, between Pastors, & Doctors, who besides the teaching & interpreture of the word, did not otherwise intermeddle with any thing in the church. For albeit in the infancy of the church, those first christians, had no public professed schools: yet was it always lawful for Prophets and Doctors to teach publicly in the church; unto whose grave advice, the faithful were no less bound to obey, then to their Pastors. But all this while, they had not the power of the Church censure, nor the right to redress whatsoever was amiss. We read of Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, that they taught in the church of Corinth: but we find not, that they had there the authority of Bishops and Elders. And therefore no wonder, though the corruptions and abuses which reigned among them, were not given them in charge to correct, or that it was not laid to their charge that they did not correct; for there was no remedy, they must suffer that they could not remedy, and in the mean while, expect Paul his coming amongst them. Likewise in the Epistle to Titus, a man might well wonder, why Paul joined not in like commission with Titus, Zenas and Apollo's, expounders of the law (they being then also in Create:) except it were for this, that they were Doctors only: for he was not ignorant, that they were then also with Titus. Doubtless, had they been of the same order and power, they should also have received the same charge. And might it not better have been performed of three, then of one? But yet we see, that the Apostle gave the charge of Teaching there to many, the power of Ruling, to one alone. By the which it appeareth, that the Doctors and Prophets of those times, were an aid unto the Pastors, & that they taught under their direction. For indeed it chief concerneth the duty of a Bishop, to teach the church committed to his charge, by himself, and by others.  
〈…〉 such things are there in the Apostles writings, 〈…〉 we may take no small view of the beginnings of 〈◊〉, and of that form of government which was used of the Apostles, and received of the next immediate ages, & delivered to Apostolic men, their successors. It is very well ●●●ed of Epiphanius, that there are certain histories hidden in the Apostles writings: the ignorance whereof, many times hath been the cause of much error in the church. But thus it came to pass, that the Bishops gave licence to teach the scriptures unto those, which the Grecians call Lay-men: The which thing, Eusebius recordeth in his sixth book, the 13. chapter, concerning Origen. That when as yet he was not priested, he did notwithstanding set up school at Caesaria, and was there in treated of the Bishops there about, not only to dispute, but to open the scriptures also: The which thing Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria, (Origen his rival) did greatly reprehend, when as notwithstanding himself was the man, that had sent him before into Arabia to the same end: neither yet did he except against him, when he was catechiser in his own church. But when as of mere envy he could no longer endure, that the renowned fame of Origen should daily increase, (seeking all manner occasions to pick a quarrel against him) he laid blame in the Bishops, that they would seem to licence a Lay-man publicly to profess the scriptures. To the which, his malicious cavils, Alexander then Bishop of jerusalem, and Theodistus Bishop of Caesaria, make answer in these words. For that you urge in your letters, that it was never hard of before nor is used as yet, that laymen should dispute, and expound the Scriptures in the presence of Bishops, In that thing you seem (I know not how) to avouch a manifest untruth. For where fit and able men are found that may be any aid to the brethren in the word, they are requested of the holy Bishops, that they would instruct the people in the same, as was Eusebius of Nero, at Larandy, Paulinus of Celsus, at Iconium, and Theodorus of Atticus among the Synadines, all the which were blessed & godly brethren and it is very likely, (although it be unknown to us) that the same thing is done in other places. Thus for Eusebius.  
Wherefore, albeit the primitive churches had not their university schools, like unto those we have at this day: yet, that they were not altogether without schools, Alexandria alone is witness sufficient, which brought out Doctors before Origen, Pantaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus, and many others: Neither is it to be doubted, but that custom also was derived from the Apostles. We know the knowledge of scriptures to be the gift of God's spirit; but shall that therefore take away the exercises and the traveils of devoted students: Amongst the people of God, the Prophets had their Colleges, in the which Samuel and Elias, and Elizeus and such others were Masters: neither was it any disparagement for the other Prophets to live under their discipline. God was never the author of tumultuous confusion, but of order, nor were the men of God, a company of furious bedlams, but a society of sage and wise men, of a mild and a moderate spirit. They which at this day hold schools, and their orders in contempt, are frantic in their own conceit, and ignorant of all good society and godly civility: nor do they know (nor can they conceive) what infinite good they only do in all estates. Who can sufficiently commend the religious purpose of those men, which were the first founders of Universities? Are they not the fruitful seminaries of all good literature, and the wholesome nurses of all honourable virtues? The which being taken away, all humanity and civil courtesy would languish together: and not that only, but within a short space we ourselves, now learned and religious, should strangely degenerate into minds and manners more savage and barbarous, then are any of the nations. But no need I should digress any further into the praise of our well renowned Universities: only this I say, that the Doctors and Teachers they send forth into the Church of Christ, and whosoever else, by their private labours, and diligent traveils in the scriptures have attained to the knowledge thereof, ought not by any means to take upon them any thing in the Church, against the good will, or without the good leave of their BB. 〈◊〉 why? They are private men, & under their governance. But yet, being requested, or commanded by them, (as of old, so now) they may profess: always remembered, that they do it for the good of the church. A degree of the university, or any other testimony of learning, ought not to impair the authority of the Pastors, or to disturb the good order of the Church.  
That at this day they which are created Doctors, are for the most part Elders: I do not mislike it; for of old also it was but a very rare and extraordinary thing, for laymen to profess the word publicly. But time, place, and necessity may limit this matter, and prescribe an order thereunto, not to be ordered by headstrong and desperate temerity. Young men must here take heed, lest they presuming for their learning upon the Universities testimony, they should therefore think, that they are already adopted into the orders of the holy ministry; (unless they be otherwise ordained then so:) the which I would have thought scarce worthy the noting, were it not that I have found some to far overshot in this error.  
There are also some others at this day, who disclaiming the office of Pastors, and that ordination which is solemnized by the Bishops, will notwithstanding be accounted Doctors in the church: but to baptize, to minister the sacraments, to visit the sick, to bury the dead, to read public prayer in the Church, they think it stands not with their credit. And why? For soothe because they see these parts of the ministry performed, sometimes by some not deeply learned. Again, there are other, which think it no small part of reformation, that every church should have with their Pastor a Doctor: as if (good men) one Pastor, (who of duty is also a Doctor,) could not discharge both parts. Many such fancies I wittingly omit, and recount them amongst the well-pleasing dreams of such as learn to feed themselves: whom verily I cannot so well like of. For albeit I confess, that certain Doctors publicly professed in the Church, which were not Pastors: yet I find, how that was used in the Apostles times of necessity, and afterwards very extraordinarily, & only then, when either the urgent necessity, or the present commodity of the Church did so require. For the ordinary Doctors of the church, are the Bishops themselves, who if they could suffice to perform all duties alone, they needed nor Elders nor Deacons to join with them. We know how in a small Church one Elder is enough: And that the greatness, and great increase of Churches, made this diversity of ministers, both for order and number. But if any man desire to see more of this argument, he may read the writers of this age: These things (as I think) may serve for this turn: who purpose not to treat of every thing exactly, but only to show what I find wanting in some Churches, which would seem the best reform. To the which end, I have recounted unto you the divers degrees of the ministers of the church, even as they were ordained of the Lord, and delivered of the Apostles, and received of our first fathers, and Apostolic predecessors. In whose footsteps we may more safely continue, then by not containing ourselves therein, to entangle our proceed in some other new and strange extravagants.    

The second Book. Of the honour which is due unto Prelates and Elders in the Church.  

Chap. I. That by a certain law of Nature among all nations, the Precedents of Religion were esteemed worthy great honour.  
HOw great the dignity and excellency of the Gospel is above all the unhallowed mysteries of profane nations, and how far it excelleth the Levitical Priesthood of Moses also, and consequently in how great regard of honour, the same aught to be amongst all that profess Christianity: the time hath been, when it was needless to tell; but now, more than necessary to prove. For the lewdness, (I might say the irreligion) of some men in this our age, doth of force compel me somewhat more earnestly to lay to their charge, the neglect duty of ingrate minds towards God's Ministers; whom while they deprive of their due honour, they bring Religion itself into deep disdain, and withal they bewray that they make no great account of God himself, whose Legates they deprave. For there be, which think it were not a point matter, if they were not left worth a point: and think it never the worse for the commonwealth, if they had no place at all in the commonwealth. Because (forsooth) it is said of our Saviour & his Apostles, that they renounced all worldly honours; therefore are they thought worthy no honour in the world; any vile or vulgar esteem (if so be they may have that) is enough for them, least haply they should be exalted in their own sense, and become proud of nothing. Thus they think none worthy of honour, that either do not affect it, or are not infected with it. This error is to be confuted in this discourse: in the which it shall be showed, that by all rights, both of God and man, the sacred ministery in a well ordered commonwealth hath always been had in greatest honour and estimation amongst all nations, and, that Christians (above all others) do own no less to their Pastors, than did of old the people of God to their Priests.  
Albeit the life of man be involved and overcast with dark and thick mists of error and ignoriunce, insomuch, that many times it is dazzled at the view and sight of such things, which of themselves are clear enough: notwithstanding there are yet some things so clear and so manifest, as in the which no man (being not senseless or besotted) can plead or pretend any ignorance. Such are those general notions of sin, which GOD (the author of nature) hath imprinted and imprized in our hearts and minds, as things which are engendered and congenerate with us: such is Religion towards GOD, love towards our parents, and reverence towards our progenitors.  
And albeit the relic of God his Image, is many ways distained in us, since the attainder of our first parents, yet is it not altogether destroyed; there always remained such a resplendent light of that divine nature, as by the which men might naturally and clearly see, both what was good, and what was not good; and conceive in some sort also, what was godly, and what was godless. Indeed the Gentiles aberred from the true knowledge of the Godhead, and the true worship thereof: yet notwithstanding in this one thing they were well resolved, that there was a GOD, and that he was to be honoured. Their Religion was depraved by them, yet were not they deprived of Religion: but now, where it is come to that pass, that men think either that there is no God, or no worship of God: there the mind may be said, not to err, but to rave: for they alone offend against that notion of God, which is engraven in the minds of all men, and which ingrafteth a voluntary Religion, and a religious inclination, (will they, nill they) in the heart of every man. Nor was there ever Nation so barbarous, nor was there ever people so savage, which could live without Religion: take away Religion, and take away all civility from men, all severity from laws.  
There are many parts in a commonwealth, unto the which for great cause, there are great honours given: especially to prowess martial: of the which albeit the use be great, yet is it for no great time: But the use of Religion is eternal: There may be a state without a Soldier, not without a Minister: The use of a Soldier is far from perpetual, the less, the better; the more seldom, the more welcome; but Religion is everlasting, and can never be casseered. But what should I compare the ministery of Religion with other mysteries in the commonwealth, which all have their deserved honours? They all must unuaile to Religion, whether you respect the excellency, or the necessity, or the commodity of that mystery. Wherefore, that so notable and necessary a function to the state, should want honour in the commonwealth, it wanteth common reason. All Nations were ever of this mind and opinion that they thought the Precedents of Religion, were always to be chosen from among the chief Nobility: or if haply they were not by birth Noble, than they were to be ennobled by the commonwealth. But that the consent of all Nations in any one thing, is the very law of Nature, it was very well defined by that excellent & learned Orator Tully (who could very well define:) against the which now at the last to strive and storm, under the colour of reformation, is rather an outrage, than an error, to be convicted of frenzy, rather than to be suspected of folly. Did ever precept of our Saviour cross and encounter, either the law which himself gave unto the Fathers, or the Edict which nature (God I mean) hath given and engrafted in the secret penitralles of all their successors?   

Chap. II. How great the reverence of Priests hath been among all Nations.  
I Will therefore remember unto you in how great honour the worshippers of false Religions have always had their Priests in all places: that their folly may the rather appear, who (I know not with what religion) would detract due honour from true religion. For albeit the Caldees, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks' Latins, French, Britons, and all other Nations, have by diverse errors, and most detestable superstitions, declined from that first and sincere religion, which our first parents left to their posterity: yet notwithstanding, there always remained many impressions as yet uncancelled, and they not concealed; as are these, That the world is governed by the divine providence of the eternal Godhead, and that the same ruleth over all earthly things: that whatsoever is good proceedeth from him, and whatsoever is evil is declined by him: and therefore that he is to be religiously worshipped: and therefore the sacred symysts of his religion, are especially to be honoured. And thus it came to pass, that among the Assyrians and Babylonians, their Caldies': among the Medes and Persians, their divines were always of singular account, and supereminent authority; for why? They were the governors of religion, and the expositors of the law both sacred & profane. To which end they were exercised from their youth in all learned and liberal sciences: they did comprehend the motions of the heavens, and deuined by the errors of the stars: they read, and learned, and taught Religion, rites, and laws: they were compeers with kings in their government, so that, nothing was done without their council and consent. Finally, of so great esteem was the discipline of the Wisemen among the Medes and Persians, as that he was not thought worthy the Empire, that was not found skilful in their Arts and Emblems.  
Theseus was the first that put a difference between Nobles (whom he called patricians) and husband men, and Artificers: to the Nobles he gave power and pre-eminence to profess religion, to choose Magistrates of their own company, and also to moderate and interpret in matters sacred and divine. This law their posterity, as they received it of their ancestors, so they observed it very religiously: By which means it came to pass, that great reverence was always given, both to the sacrifices, and to all other their religious actions. Neither could their Priests want their due parts of that divine reverence, whom they always selected out of the noblest families, and who were ever one in their public Counsels. For, as if God himself was present (unto whom we ought not to think that there is any thing unknown) even so in the presence of the sacred Priests, did they propound all their more serious actions; namely, the divines among the Athenians, and the soothsayers sitting in counsel with the King among the Lacedæmonians.  
Strabo in his twelfth book writeth of two Temples sacred to Bellona, which were called Comana: of whom the one was in Capadocia, the other in Pontus, both alike in all parts: for that indeed they were one made by the other, and had altogether the same rites and ceremonies common to them both. In those places, either of the Priests were in greatest regard of honour next unto the King himself: and albeit they were subject to the prince, yet where the people suppliant them. They had either of them six thousand servants which were called Hierodulists, or Church servants, besides no small quantity of land, over the which they were free Lords. Twice every year did the Prelate were a diadem; the Prince and Priests, for the most part, being of the same family. Plato in his book deregno confirmeth these things, and saith, that it becometh all men to conceive honourably of the Priests and Prophets, and that they ought of right to be had in great estimation, as well for the greatness of their actions, as the honour of their office. Wherefore (saith he) in Egypt it is not lawful for that King to sway the sceptre, that holds not of the Crosyer. Insomuch, that if any, either by prowess, or by policy have invaded the kingdom, who is not of that holy kind, notwithstanding afterwards (there is no remedy) he must be initiated into that mystery. And not there only, but in many places amongst the Grecians also, a man may find, where the chief sacrifices are committed to the chief Magistrates. Neither is this which I maintain, less manifest among yourselves: for you also advance the most magnificent rites (especially the ancient sacrifices) to him, that by lot is chosen your King. The same Philosopher in his twelfth Dialogue de legibus, speaketh much of that honour, which then, and of old was given unto Priests, both dead and living, as well in their public assemblies, as at their solemn funerals.  
The Romans and Latins were no whit inferior either to the Greeks, or to the Egyptians in this behalf: for they also joined the sacred Priesthood with the royal Majesty. All the first Kings of the Latins & Romans were Priests. The Emperors also, which afterwards succeeded them, would themselves be the high Priests. But what reverend regard the Romans themselves had of Religion, Valerius Maximus hath left recorded in these words: But such (saith he) was the care our fathers had, not only for the present account, but also for the future increase of religion, that even then when the City was most flourishing fortunate, they delivered ten sons, princes of the Senate, to the ten several provinces and people of Hetruria, only to this end, that they might learn the sacred discipline of their Religion. But what the authority of divines was at Rome, we may best hear by a divine. Tully in his second de legibus writeth thus: The greatest and the worthiest thing in the Commonwealth, is the privilege and pre-eminence of Divines, joined with the greatest authority: Neither do I conceive thus, because I myself am a Divine, but because it becometh us all so to conceive: For indeed, what greater thing is there, (if we speak according to the equity and right of the thing) then with authority, either to dismiss the companies, and the counsels of chief Empires and the greatest potentates, when they are proposed: or to restrain them, when they are concluded? or what thing can there be more solemn, then to cease from the affairs we have already in hand, if one Divine alone, do but say the contrary? What thing can there be more magnificent, then of his entire power to appoint, that the Consuls should depose themselves from their Magistracy? Or what thing more religious, then to give leave, or not to give leave, to deal with the people, or not to deal? And what is it to repeal laws, not lawfully made? that nothing can be allowed to be done by the Magistrate, in peace or in war, without their authority? Thus far goeth Cicero, whose authority I could confirm with many examples, if need were. But what should I speak of the Flamines and Arch-flamines, and other the Priests, and Arch-priestes of the Romans'? It sufficeth, they thought the Imperial majesty itself to be adorned with the honour of Hie-priest. But that all the societies of Priests, were in especial honour among the Romans, it might very well be known, if it were but by this, that all the companies of Priests, had their places in public triumphs, and solemn spectacles, (the chief Priests and the chief Curates:) There set (saith Arnobius) fifteen men crowned with laurel wreaths, & jupiters' Archpriests with their miters: there set the Divines, interpreters of the mind and will of God, as do also the chaste Virgins, nurses, and nourishers of the never dying fire. Of these things, he that desireth greater variety, may seek them in the Roman history: these things suffice me.  
But now I will travel over the Alps, and will set before your consideration, what religion was of old amongst the French and Britoneses, and what honour for religion. And first, it is sufficiently known, that the Druidists were Priests of the chief nations on this side the Alps: of whom we read in Caesar his Commentaries, that they were had in great esteem, for so he writeth: In all France there are two sorts of those, which above the rest are of especial honour and account: The one are the Druidists, the other are the men at arms. They are conversant in divine service, they attend upon sacrifices private, and public, they are the expounders of Religion: Unto them great flocks of youth recourse for their learning, and these have especial honour among them. For they do determine of all controversies (in a manner) both private and public: and if there be any crime committed, any murder attempted, if any controversy, about inheritance, or the bounds of lands, they also set down their decree, and appoint the penalty.  
If any person, either private or public, will not stand to their censure, they lay the censure of the church upon him, they excommune him the Church: this is the greatest punishment among them. But who so are thus excommuned, they are forthwith accounted among the number of the graceless and ungodly: they are forsaken of all men, all men fly their company and their conference, lest by contagion they might take any infection, nor are they to have any law if they desire it, nor is there any honour to be given them, though they deserve it. But over all these Druidists, there is one as chief & principal, which hath the chief authority among them, etc. Moreover, these Druidists use not to be present in war, neither do they pay any tribute with other men, but have an exemption from wars, and an immunity from all other incumbraunces. Thus witnesseth Caesar himself. By the which we may see, how all nations even of that light of nature, which yet glimpseth in the breasts of men, and by the which they have esteemed, either GOD or Gods to be adored, have likewise judged according unto the same, that the ancients of religion are worthy to be consacred with all condign honour and due observance.   

CHAP. III. What the honour of the Priesthood was among the people of God.  
THat this the judgement of all nations, did not proceed of any error of man's mind, but of a certain feeling of the law of God written in their hearts, the most sacred histories & the laws which God himself hath made, do prove sufficiently: for do they not all enthronize the Priesthood among the most principal honours? Among the people of God, the Hie-priest had always the second place next unto the King. Among the more ancient and antic fathers, when as yet there was no law written, wheresoever true religion did flowrishe, the first-born had always this prerogative of honour in their families above the rest of their brethren, He was graced with the Priesthood. But if at any time, the Lord of his absolute authority, did translate the right of the first-born unto the younger brother, with all he invested him also into the same dignity of the Priesthood: so came jacob to be priested.  
And this custom continued with the people of God, even unto the age of Moses, under whom, by the express commandment of God, the Priesthood was translated from the first-born in general, unto the tribe of Levy. But now how careful God himself was of this; That his Priest should be honoured, the process of Moses his history can sufficiently testify: neither is it needful for me to delate all things at large: it sufficeth to have noted the chief grounds Only this is not to be omitted, (besides that our God would have him represent our high and thrice honoured Priest, Christ jesus, that the rights which of duty belong unto God himself: God (as an especial favour) he hath given to his Priests, when as he demised unto them the use of those things which were offered and brought as presents unto him, and which it was not lawful for any man to touch and turn unto his own use, that was not the Lord's Hie-priest. Again, his pleasure was, that the right of the tithes and tenths, and other honours of especial prerogative, which by the laws of nature did belong to God only, should be a stipend unto the Priests for their sacred ministry: beside, first fruits, redemtions of their first borne, head-pences, subsidies & such like, were by his laws referred to the use & benefit of the Priests, and tabernacle of the Lord. And last of all, he appointed them only, the dispensation both of divine and humane laws: in honour whereof, he did by law enact, that the judgement of the Hie-priest should be held sacred and inviolable in all controversies: unto the which, if any man were so obstinate as not to supply, his death was the am of his contumacy.   

Chap. FOUR Of that double honour which is due uno those Elders which rule well, and the arguments of those that hold the contrary.  
THat the Elders which rule well in the Church are worthy of double honour, (according unto the saying of Saint Paul) all that will be accounted christians, do confess in words; but when it once cometh unto deeds, they can hardly award them a single (God knows) and a simple honour. But verily, if there be a meed, due for every merit, then doubtless there is an especial duty to be yielded unto the Ministers of the church. Doth not the only regard of honesty decree, that Parents should have of their children, the merit of their education? Lawyers of their clients, the fees for their counsel? Physicians of their patients, the reward for their direction? the Tutor of his people, the stipend for his instruction? But who so faithfully administereth unto the faithful servants of God in sacred things, he doth largely contain all these benefits in one; Seeing that God hath imposed upon the Pastors of the Church the persons of all these. For which cause doubtless, the irreligion and ingratitude of some Magistrates in this age is worthy the greater dishonour: who while they will seem to be favourites of christian Religion, defeat the Ministers thereof of their due Honour, & so far are they from imparting any thing of their own thereunto, that what so ever of old hath been consecrate to sacred uses, they are ready to distract unto profane ministries. These men, that they may seem to have some colour for their craft, will cunningly reason the case thus: That there is not the like regard to be had of the Ministry of the Gospel in this age, as was of old of the Priesthood under the law of Moses: That God did cocker them in those Honours he spared them: but the Ministers of the Gospel are out of that age, they are passed seven, they may shift for themselves, and learn to live in the world, poor and inglorious. And of this Christ gave them a good example, (and his followers the Apostles) who of purpose did choose a poor life, and neglected the honours and pleasures of this world. Besides all this, they preach to us the contempt of earthly things: why should they not lead the other way themselves, which they lay out unto others.  
This you hear is a popular and plausible speech, well pleasing all greedy and mis-begetting men, who regard not so much that the Church may be furnished with godly and learned Ministers, such as Christ requireth; as, that under this colour, they themselves may be excused of their irreligious contempt of God's servants, and their sacrilegious imbecilling of God's Church. But these men being obdurate in their base conceit, seem for their feigned and interfected religion, not unlike unto those, who with a counter-contempt of wealth, hunt currant after hid treasure, that so they may make a gain of their beggary, and a sweet smell of their druggery. The nature of Cynics is not clean worn out, together with the name: nor yet the cowherdly affection of those, that think fryerly beggarlines, to be Apostolic holiness. Do you not see here, how the same error hath put on sundry shapes, lest by any means he himself should appear in it, whom no man liketh in his own likeness? In deed the very colour of contemning those things, which commonly all men do admire (as pleasures, riches, and honours) doth bring the simple people into a religious wonderment; who for the most part worship with greater reverence the bare counterfeit of virtue, than virtue itself, which cannot counterfeit. But if so be they do (as they say) so greatly delight in the imitable virtues of Christ and his Apostles; why do they not also take view of those forward christians in the primitive Church, and go presently and sell all their lands, and lay the price at the Apostles feet?  
But now I must have a saying also to those other colours, which they lay on, to countenance this error, lest the mind being foreseasoned with prejudice, should aver an approved truth without just trial. For my part, I will not willingly conceal any of those things, which are laid to our charge by the patrons of this Hypocrisy. Wherefore (say they) as riches do bring with them certain provocations to sin, & administer nourishment to the same: so poverty is the mother of all virtue, and the stepdame of all vice. For that bridleth & bringeth under the untamed wildness, and wilfulness of man's sinful nature. And that this is so, the advised sentence of the best Philosophers confirm the same. For when as they (giving over themselves to the study of Philosophy) were not ignorant, that worldly wealth would be but their hindrance, they spared not either to leave them, or to lose them. The evangelic precepts subscribe together to this opinion, the which in every place do incite us to the loathing of riches, to the liking of poverty, and more than that, they do even thunder out against the rich the woes of all wretchedness. Contrariwise our Saviour promiseth his bliss to the poor, and affirmeth, that it is more easy for a Camel to dance through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to aspire to the kingdom of Heaven. Did not himself choose to be borne poor, to live poor, to die poor? of himself he said, The birds of the air have nests, and the foxes have holes, but the son of man hath not where to put his head. Also if he entertained any into his discipline, the first lesson was to sell all they had, and give to the poor. For that in deed, riches, are but as certain shakels to such as follow Christ, with which they being entangled, can not possibly keep pace with him. Neither can the mind surcharged with the burden of extern things, mount up and soar aloft into the highest Heavens. Moreover to these it is more probably added, that in the time of Constantine, there was a voice heard from Heaven, which said, That poison was infused into the Church. The which was thought to be uttered because of those riches, & that great wealth, with the which the godly Emperor Constantine, is said to have honoured the Pastors, and Bishops of the Church. But these things you must consider are commonly trikt up and set forth after the finest fashion, and with the best side outward; and yet how many absurd things, and absonant from the mind and meaning of our Lord and Saviour do follow out of these, and fall upon heaps.   

Chap. V An answer to the arguments of the former chapter.  
But that the truth of the controversy may appear to all, all must learn to know, that those gospel precepts, of contemning riches, were not given to a certain few Apostles, but to all, even as many as would follow Christ. Wherefore first, that distinction of counsels and precepes▪ overturneth itself, even in those very words, which go for counsels. For God hath set down one law for all, one rule to live well, and he hath laid out one path to eternal life, as well in the old, as the new Testament. Notwithstanding if any man of any private purpose set do●●● with himself, that he will needs live in poverty, God forbidden, I should be his hindrance. But they which think, that the forsaking of all things, and the profession of poverty is a thing, not commanded to all, but given in counsel to some, as a more perfect course of a godly life; I say, they are in a false belief. 
Luke. 14.33.  The words of our Saviour are these: So likewise, who so ever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, can not be my Disciple. Where you shall understand, that what so ever is commanded as necessarily to be observed of the Disciple of Christ, may not by any means be omitted: and therefore it is manifest, that there is no such counsel given in that place by the Lord our Saviour, as that it is left in our own free power to omit the same: but the precept there is set down more absolute, under the pain of damnation, if it be omitted.  
The cause of this error, was the misconceyving of that place in Matthew, the nineteenth, and Luke the eighteenth, & Mark the tenth, where there seem to be two distinct things set down, namely, an ordinary way to eternal life, by the observance of God's commandments, and another more perfect and ready way, by the alienation of all our goods, & the dispensation of them towards the poor. In Matthew we read how our Saviour answered one; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Who when he had very insolently boasted, that he had kept them all from his youth up: how far he was from that perfection he boasted of, our Saviour proveth, when he brought to light the secret corruption of a covetous heart, which lay hid within, and made known to him, how far he was from the entire love of his neighbour, when he commanded him to sell his possessions, and give to the poor. In the which notwithstanding, our Saviour required of him no new thing, no thing extraordinary, nothing that he was not bound to do by that same law, which he presumed he had performed: (seeing there it is commanded that we should love our neighbour as ourselves.) For the force of the precept is this, that we own not only all outward things to God and our neighbour, but even our life also, if need doth require. Of the which perfection, how much this stripling wanted, he then bewrayed, when as Christ commanding him to give but his goods to the poor, he seemed to be touched so near. And yet unless we be at that point with ourselves, as that we could willingly departed from all that we have, for the mere love of God and our neighbour, we can not enter into the kingdom of God. And therefore Christ did not propound unto the Pharasie a free thing, the neglect whereof did not exclude from the kingdom of heaven; but a thing altogether necessary for him that would enter into it. And therefore when he did perceive him departed away heavily after this precept, he added. Verily I say unto you, it is hard for him which is rich to enter into the kingdom of Heaven; again I say unto you, it is more easy for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. By which words it is most manifest, that no voluntary thing is propounded, the which if a man did perform, he should do well, if not, he should not do amiss (as it is to live a single life) but a thing altogether necessary for him that would be saved.  
But what then meaneth our Saviour (say they) when he saith, If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all thou hast, and give to the poor. Seemeth he not to grant, that the keeping of the commandments of God are sufficient to eternal life, but not sufficing to perfection? No verily: For that this was not the meaning of the Lord, his very words sufficiently declare, but that in deed he spoke of that perfection which is commanded in the law; of the which the young man had observed an outward show, when as he wanted the inward substance. For doubtless, he which is not ready and resolved to lay down all that he hath, & to leave his life blood also for the love of his neighbour, he can not be said to love his neighbour as himself. And therefore, seeing he would needs know what he wanted, our Saviour very wisely rejoined him to the necessary duty of charity. Wherefore this is the sense of Christ his words. If thou wilt be a perfect observer of the law in deed, and art desirous to tread that path into eternal life, which is laid out in the said perfect, and absolute performance of the law of God, keep those commandments of the love of God, & thy neighbour: go thy ways, set thy things in an order, that thou mayst be ready at all times to give unto the poor.  
Now, unless this precept did concern all, to what purpose are these words, It is more easy for a Camel to enter through the eye of a needle, then for him that is rich to enter into the kingdom of God. Whosoever therefore will serve under Christ his colours, is commanded to bid father & mother and all farewell, how dear so ever they be unto him, yea he must also not spare his own life; for unto all it is said, Whosoever forsaketh not all he hath, cannot be my Disciple. That our Saviour here enjoined his Disciples no new or insolent thing, the example of Abraham may persuade us, whom God of old also commanded, to leave his country, his kindred, & all that was precious unto him in Chaldea, that he might go, whether it pleased the Lord to appoint him. So did God exercise the father of the faithful; that he might be always at an hours warning to surrender his riches, & all other emoluments of his life. In like manner Christ will have all the true legitimat children of Abraham, to depute all which they have to his glory, and to benefit their brethren, as the cause, the time, and the place require. And this is that perfection which God at this day requireth under the Gospel, and which God of old exacted under the law, & before the law, without the which no man at any time shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven. In deed it becometh the preachers of the Gospel, to appear before all others in the contempt of worldly things: but yet there is no peculiar precept thereof given to them, any otherwise then to all other christians. As also for the example of Christ which they allege, they cannot be ignorant of this, that it is set forth to be imitated, not only of the apostles & ministers of the gospel, but generally of all christians of what condition soever. But nor pattern nor precept of Christ, either confoundeth or controleth the degrees of honour which are necessary in a common wealth. All men may lawfully be liberal towards the poor, and be poor themselves also in spirit, even in the midst of their wealth. Nor Daniel his lieutenancy over the Babylonians, nor joseph his jurisdiction over the Egyptians, nor Mardochai, nor Nehemias their courting among the Persians, were any hindrance to them in the worship of God: Neither was yet the royal Diadem of David and other godly Princes any preidiudice unto them, why they might not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. We have read of the great wealth of job and Abraham, and other patriarchs, who were religious towards God, liberal towards the poor, and far from all covetousness. Neither doth penury conclude, neither doth plenty exclude the contempt of riches. If a man have nothing, and yet languish in a desire to have, he is covetous; again, if a man have much but yet is not bound to that which he hath, he is the true contemner of all that he hath.  
The precepts of Christ, concerning the selling of our possessions, are understood to be observed, not so much in the work itself, as in the willingness of mind to perform the same, according as time and place doth require. 
Acts. ●.  Barnabas (one of the seventy) sold no land, before he see the necessity of the brethren to exact the same. So long as the Lord lived (whom also he followed) he kept possession of all his possessions. In like manner, such times may fall (and we may fall into those times) in the which christian charity shall require every christian to do the like: but where there is no such need, it is better kept, and it shall do more good and upon more occasions, then if all were sold at once, & afterwards want wherewith to relieve other, or themselves, etc. I dare say, that Abraham, job, and David followed the precepts of the Gospel, & good christians are as well to imitat them as Christ, & his Apostles. Our Saviour himself witnesseth of Zacheus, that he was the child of Abraham, in imitation of the faith which was in Abraham n: amely, when as he undertook to give half of that he had to the poor, & to restore four fold where he had defrauded. By which words of our Saviour, the vanity of that reason is convinced, which affirmeth that God cockered the patriarchs and the Levitical Priests, (as a carnal people) in riches and honour, which things the Lord hath denied to christian Pastors.  
In deed we will not deny, but some things were given in those times of an especial and a partial favour, and that God did wink at some things of old, which at this day he will not oversee: For then the common error of all nations, had in some things invaded the people of God also, (as in their many wives and often divorces, etc.) But, that God did not only pamper the Fathers with things external, and did not erect the minds of the faithful to things eternal, it cannot be spoken without a mouth of blasphemy against God, and a slander of injury against the Fathers. There was the same faith of the Fathers, & us, the same doctrine of both the testaments: the time only is altered, (such things being fulfilled which foreshowed of the Messiah) in religion & manners there is no such alteration. Who will say (and not repent him) that those most sage & wise Heroics of that age, were ignorant of the nature of riches, & the condition of this present life? namely, that they were diffluent & distrustful, & scarce worthy to be taken for goods; and that man ought to aspire to a greater & more excellent good, which is certain, and not to be suspected, and stands upon no die. The very Philosophers knew these things, and argued very religiously of them: and did the divine Prophets, the servants of God conceive nothing more noble than these earthly things? nothing can be said of purpose more absurd. Wherefore let this opinion fly, and let us resolve upon that which is certain: That there is one way of life prescribed to all men, and that, the only one way of virtue, constant & to be continued in all ages: For it was given of God. And again: That we may safely follow the Fathers, when they cannot be proved to have erred from that course of life, which was prescribed both to them & to us: and therefore, if it were then lawful among God's people, for the Priests and Levites to enjoy riches, and to be adorned with honours, the same is also lawful at this day for the Ministers of the Gospel in a christian common wealth.  
As for the Philosophers (which as they say) had riches in so light account: I also say, that the same thing is taught us by Christ, after a more excellent manner, and that he is not worthy the name of a Christian, that doth not excel the Philosophers in the same thing. For they both erred from the true scope, and besides a vain and popular applause, they gained nothing by their foolish and unprofitable loss. Neither hath Christ taught us to cast away our goods, but to give them unto the poor. Goods are received of God, for the use of man; & they which are rich receive them of God, not to lose, but to lay out: but they, as if the things themselves had been evil, not of man's corruption, but of their own condition, cast them clean away. When goods are called the provocations of evil, you must understand that they are so called, not that themselves are in fault, but they only which abuse them. Whatsoever God hath created is good, and hath some good use: that therefore one hath cast all his wealth into the Sea, an other having conveyed all his substance into a few precious stones, crushed them all unto powder, it was an action of vain and ridiculous applause, of no good use. But the precepts of Christ do direct us to the love of God and our neighbours, unto whom we own all that we have.  
The contempt which we see in some currish Philosophers, and certain smoky brethren of this age, is far from the love, either of God, or of man: and it is well seen, how far it is estranged even from that humanity, and humane civility which ought to be in men. But the poverty of Christ and his Apostles, was of another kind. Our Saviour lead a private life with joseph and his mother Mary, and got his living with labour and handiwork, not with begging and loitering. He took care for his mother Marie, and also provided for her according to that poor estate, which he of singular and especial purpose had chosen. Neither could riches have done him any hurt, if he would have possessed them: But that the least occasion of suspicion might not be given to any, that he aspired to any earthly kingdom, his divine purpose was to live poor, and lie hid for a time: for if the world had known the Lord of glory, they would never have crucified him: but that which a few wise men did, no doubt all the world would have done the like: they would have brought presents unto him from the furthest parts of the world. And what would Tiberius (think you,) have done amongst the rest: who (in glorious as he was) canonised Christ amongst the number of Gods, and took order with the Senate, that the same should be done by public decree?  
After thirty years space, he betook himself to preach, and within no great while, he had no small family: he entertained first twelve Apostles, and after them seventy other disciples. For all the which he so provided, as that they never wanted. And yet no small portion could suffice to keep so great a company, were it to find them but sparingly. By the which (as by the way) we may gather, how great the bounty and liberality of good & devout men was towards Christ.  
That he maketh answer to a certain curious companion, and telleth him, That the birds of the air have nests, and the Fox's holes, but the Son of man hath not where to put his head: the answer must be understood according unto the conceit of the demander, not according to the bare words of the replier. He expected some great commodity to be had by the retinue of Christ, and supposed he could not be without some stately and magnificent receipt. (For we read in john, that Christ showed his house to a couple of his disciples) But our Saviour would allure no man unto him with such baits, as with the which most men are entangled, (as are honours and riches and such like,) rather did he lay before him such things, as with the which most men are most commonly terrified (as are slanders, and need, and dangers.)  
I marry sir (will some say) therefore it beseemeth not the Prelates of the church, and other ministers of the gospel, to roost aloft in Princely palaces, and stately edifies. True indeed, if so be they were in like condition of time and place, as in the which our Saviour lived: that is, if they lived under a Magistrate estranged from the true religion, who were like to be jealous over the true Messiah and his Ministers, lest they should affect the kingdom, if he should see them frolic in such things, as by the which they might make some way unto a kingdom, (as are great riches, stately palaces, strong towns, & costly retinues:) and beside, if they should converse amongst a people, which could conceive no other kingdom of Messiah, but such as should flourish in all such royal ensigns. But the Lord by this his mean estate affected two things: First he prevented the jews cavils, so that they could not justly accuse him for affecting the kingdom; and beside, he taught withal, that his kingdom had no inter-common with the kingdoms of this world: So that by the one, he avoided the envy and jealousy of some, and with the other he confuted the common error of all, concerning this one kingdom of the Messiah? If so be there had been no danger of these things, but the mystery of our redemption might have been wrought as well with the suspected pomp of extern majesty: no doubt the owner of towns and towers and all external things, would not himself have refused them. For all the palaces and Provinces of the world ought of right to have received the King Christ; when he came into the world, he came into his own; and the true heir came, not only of his father's kingdom, but also of the whole world. And therefore, that the blind and besotted jews, did not entertain him with that honour which beseemed him, their negligence therein is not to be imitated, for their ungodliness cannot any ways be excused.  
I would they could but tell me, with what triumphs, with what courteous and friendly entertainment our Saviour should have been received of the Roman Emperors and their deputies, if he had been well known of the Hye-priests of the jews, and other Princes and governors which ruled the world; (if he had been well known unto them?)  
The people, and so many as believed that he was the promised Messiah, with what solemn clamours, and triumphant iubelies did they receive him, and convey him into the holy city? Those honours and others which were given him, our Saviour did not reject them, but rather defended them as he might, against the envious. And had there been that religion in the Hie-priests, Scribes and Pharisees, and the rest of the jews which ought to have been; their duty was to have thronged together for the receipt of the Saviour of the world, and to have solemnized the entertainment of the promised Messiah, with all honour and reverence which is due, & might be done by men, not only to a mortal Prince, but to an immortal God. Wherefore, it is but a bad consequence, to argue from that which was done of error & ignorance, to that which ought to be done of right & allegiance. Neither hath that any force to bind us, which the Lord did of especial purpose extraordinarily, where as there remaineth not now the like use of that purpose. That his will was to be borne in an out room, and to be found in a fowl stable, and that his own decree was to be crucified of the jews: it prescribeth no law unto us, unto the which we are bound to obey. Neither is his example herein to be admitted, but his purpose to be admired.  
And that which I say of our Saviour, the like do I affirm of his Apostles and other Ministers, according unto every man's place. For as the estate of our Lord and Saviour, had been after a far other sort, if all men, or the jews at the least, with whom he did converse, had but known that he was the Lord of glory: So likewise do I affirm, that the estate of the Ministry ought to be much more glorious under a christian Magistrate, where Christ is well known, then under an Heathenish government estranged from the knowledge of Christ.  
As for the estate of poverty, I hold as I have proved, that the same which is commanded in the Gospel indefinitely, is enjoined all Christians generally: Neither are the Prelates of the Church any otherwise bound thereto, then are the rest. How many soever the Lord in his last judgement shall find upon just account to have lived rich (against whom he hath pronounced the woe of his eternal curse) they all shall perish everlastingly: and they only which shall be found among the poor in spirit (unto whom the kingdom doth appertain) shall live eternally. The precept of evangelic poverty, which Christ followed, and left in charge to be followed of us, is this; namely, Lowliness of mind, which is the most peremptory contemner of all visible things. The poor in spirit is he, which beareth not a haughty spirit, neither honereth after dishonest desires: which liveth content with his estate, and committeth his whole life unto God: if he have nothing, or if it be little which he hath, he is not solicited with disquiet cares; but trusteth in God his maker, of whom he hopeth for his daily bread: Again, if he be rich, his spirit is not exalted by reason of his riches, but well remembreth, that he brought nothing unto this world, neither shall carry any thing away: he knoweth, that riches are but wash, and wax wayward, that they may easily be translated from him, that they may many ways perish with him: he acknowledgeth, that he hath received them of the Lord, neither to be kept in ward, nor to be spent in waist. All which parts of spiritual poverty the Apostle requireth in his first to Timothy, the sixth chapter, where he admonisheth Timothy to exhort the rich unto this poverty: Charge them that are rich (saith he) in this world, that they be not high minded, that they trust not in uncertain riches, but in the living God (which giveth us abundantly all things to enjoy) that they do good, and be rich in good works, ready to distribute. Hear have we that poverty which our Saviour requireth to be in rich men: which (as you may see) doth nothing at all invert the use and propriety of earthly things. This I say is that poverty, the mother of virtue, which all the holy patriarchs and Prophets, with all the Apostles & first Christians, and last of all, which all the godly have always observed, and our Saviour himself both in word and deed, both in plenty and poverty, taught to be observed. But is not this the very Atheism of julian the recreant, and the only Saracisme of the enemies of Christian religion, when they have rob and rifled the Churches of their wealth and dignities, to insult over the poor Ministers, and to say, they ought to be poor after the example of Christ and his Apostles? As for that they fetch in the uncertain sound of a certain voice, heard in the time of Constantine: it is to be understood (if it be to be believed) of Arrius and his envenomed doctrine, not of the forged donations of Constantine .. The wealth and riches which Constantine vouchsafed, could not be offensive to the Church, seeing they were neither so great as they make them, nor yet seduced the Bishops and Elders from their Ecclesiastical functions, as they would have them. But then, the husbanding & disposing of them was after such a sort, as might easily clear the Bishops from all suspicion of avarice.   

Chap. VI That the honour which is given to the Pastors of Christ his Church, is joined with a certain Religion towards God.  
THat the Priests and Levites under the old law were exceedingly well provided for, & that according to Gods own ordinance and institution, it is a thing better known, then that any man can make any question of it. The same is as plain a case also for the Ministers of the Gospel under the new Testament, and that by the same authority, and for the same reasons; were it not for the sacrilegious impiety of some, who while (as they say) they seek to shun one occasion of evil in the Church, they bring upon the same many miserable extreems. Neither is want less to be feared then abundance, to breed the bane of the church. In what things our Fathers (as we think) offended, we see very clearly; but where we offend ourselves, we will not grope with our hands: Lynxes in other men's faults, Moules in our own. That there is an honour due unto Parents, Lawyers, Tutors, & physicians, it is most manifest: neither is there any man, that is not a bad man, that will deny it. How much rather are all Christians devoted unto the Ministers of the Gospel, seeing they alone do bear the person & the burden of these all? For they are both Fathers, & Tutors, & Lawyers, and Physicians: & therefore, how much more they excel in worthiness, so much more worthy to be preferred in worship. Besides all this, the reverence which is given to these and such like, is, only of courtesy & common civility, and respecteth man only, and our duties to men: but the honour which is due unto God's Ministers, respecteth God himself, & his heavenly ministry. They are the servants of God, his legates, the dispensers of the mysteries of God, & are sent of God to discharge an heavenly embassy for God in the person of Christ: whom, whosoever contemneth, contemneth the Lord jesus, & God the Father, their judge and revenger. The countenance, or contempt of God his servants, toucheth God himself very nearly, who is always most honoured or dishonoured in his Minister. Wherefore that prerogative in the Church, with the which not man so much, as God himself is honoured, is sacred and religious, and hath the promise of reward not only in this life, but in the life to come. Matthew the tenth and the fifteenth chap. He which receiveth you, receiveth me; & he which receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. He which receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall receive a Prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall have a just man's reward: & whosoever shall give drink to one of these little ones, even a cup of cold water only in the name of a Disciple, verily I say, unto you, he shall not lose his reward. The Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians, calleth those presents which were sent to him, an odour that smelleth sweet; a sacrifice acceptable and pleasant to God. So that in the poor, whose wants we relieve, Christ is worshipped, but in the Ministers, whose calling we maintain, Christ is honoured.  
The Levitical sacrifices have had their end: but the evangelical sacrifices shall have no end, until the world's end. The evangelic sacrifices are the confession of faith, unfeigned thanks giving, and all the trophies of praise, which we erect and direct unto the glory of God: as also the cheerful bounty, and charitable good works we show forth unto the comfort of men. For which cause the Apostle to the Hebrues exhorteth all men that they would continually offer the sacrifice of praise unto God through Christ, that is, the fruit of the lips which confess his name: and (moreover,) that they would not forget to do good, and to distribute: for they are the sacrifices (saith he) with the which God is well pleased. Howsoever therefore profane men, make small account of that honour which is due unto the Elders, notwithstanding, that the same is sacred, and to be compared with the sacrifices which were offered of old in the Lord's Temple, it is apparently manifest by the manifold testimonies of Scripture.   

CHAP. VII. Certain other reasons confuted, and the truth confirmed by many testimonies of Scripture.  
But it shall not be amiss for us to see in this place, how far out of all order the frenzy of certain ungodly men will hurry itself: who will not only not deign to contribute of their own to the Ministers, but they hardly vouchsafe them those honest stipends, which they pay unto them out of the robberies of their own Churches. Out of that one example of Paul, they think they may set the Minister to plough and harrow, or whatsoever mannuarie drudgery: that by this means, all sacred study might languish, and the little flock of Christ, being left desolate of learned Pastors, might lie open to the rapine & torture of foxes, and caterpillars, and wolves of all sorts. There is no great need (say they) of any great store of Learning in a Minister: it is enough, if with a little zeal, and a few good words they can exhort the people to a certain kind of verbal devotion: and for this, the Bible is extant in the mother tongue: as for the deepe-sprung-brestes of the learned Muses, it sufficeth divines, if they may get but a smack of them by the way, or suck them as through an hardle. O divine wisdom, Christ, in thy Father's bosom, is not this with that recreant julian, to envy thy Christian people the liberal Arts? And that which not? And thou seest it.  
But let us return to Paul, who in an Epistle to the Corinthians recounteth of the labour of his hands, by the which he got his own living, as a praise to himself, and a reproach to the Corinthians; shall it follow of this, that all Ministers of the Gospel ought to do the like? for so they think. But now can not I tell, whether I shall rather disclaim the impudency, or disdain the ignorance of these men: seeing the Apostle himself doth plainly resolve, that he did more in that case than he needed, and less than he might. For had he not as great right, to put them to as great charges, as did the other Apostles? But for certain causes he would not, and therefore spared them. But who seethe not here, that this the commemoration of the Apostle, is a certain exprobration unto the people of that duty they neglected? So long as that Epistle shall be read among men, that shame will stick fast to the Corinthians, that they suffered so excellent an Apostle to want, in so plentiful a City. Doubtless therefore, it is but too too bad dealing both with Paul, and with us, to urge that which the Apostle was urged to do once or twice upon occasion of necessity (that he might offend no man, or lest any being offended, should say or think, he preached the Gospel, not so much for the love of religion, as for the hope of reward:) and to pass over as never seen the more authentic examples of other Apostles, and of Paul also himself, who else where openly testifieth, that the Churches had abundantly ministered unto him all things necessary, & that he also freely exacted the same thing of them, and that of duty: (as in the fourth to the Philippians, from the tenth verse to the twenty, and to Philemon, from the eight verse to the nineteen. But what is the reason (may we think) that that one place of the Corinth's should be so much noted, which maketh mention of the labour of the Apostle his hands, and that notable place of the Acts should be so little spoken of, where it is reported, that the faithful laid the price of their possessions at the Apostles feet, and that they left all their substance in their hands? And why is not that example of Ananias and Saphira as well quoted, who for detracting somewhat of the price of their own lands, were severely punished by present death? Ingrating covetousness no doubt, and irreligious ingratitude hath made them there, as quick sighted as Argus, but here as blear-eyed as Oules, so that thereat they stare, herein they are stark blind.  
But, that the intoxicate frenzy of these men may appear the more outrageous, it shall well requite our pains, if in this place we make regard to the evangelic precepts of Christ in this cause. In the tenth of Matthew, and the tenth of Luke, we read, and we may remember, how the Lord, when he had sent his Apostles to preach the Gospel, gave them authority to feed upon those things that they found amongst the faithful. The labourer (saith he) is worthy of his reward. And Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy, the fift chapter: The Elders which rule well (saith he) are worthy of double honour, especially they which labour in the word and doctrine: For the Scripture saith; Thou shalt not mussle the mouth of the Ox which treadeth out the corn. And in his first Epistle to the Corinthians the ninth chapter, from the fift verse to the fifteen, he maketh a plain and a plentiful demonstration by seven several arguments, that they which preach the Gospel, aught to live of the Gospel.  
His first reason is taken from the Soldier: That no man goeth to warfare of his own costs and charges. The second, is drawn from the husbandmen: Who, if they plant a vine, it is reason that they should eat of the fruit of the vine. The third is borrowed of the shepherd: Who feed their flocks, and are fed by their flocks. And that no man should think the Apostle spoke of affection, he addeth: Say I these things according to man? Namely, as a man moved with avarice, or carried away with covetousness? Nay then he provoketh of his side the law itself, which always enjoined us a certain civility, and semblable kindness even unto brute beasts; (if they do us any service) that we may well know, how much rather we ought to perform the same towards men, I say towards men, which above all men, deserve well of all men. And this is the fourth argument in that place: which he amplifieth by the similitude of him which ploweth, and thresheth out the corn, for the commodity thereof. It is written in the law of Moses (saith he) Thou shalt not mussle the mouth of the Ox, that treadeth out the corn; Doth God take care for Oxen? either saith he not this altogether for our sakes? for our sakes no doubt it is written: that he which eareth, should ear in hope, and that he which thresheth in hope, should be partaker of his hope.  
The fift argument is drawn from them which sow corn, in hope to make a good harvest: If we have sown to you (saith he) spiritual things, is it a great thing if we reap your carnal things? There is no proportion at all between these things; we give you much greater things than we receive of you.  
The sixth argument is drawn from the divine institution of God, under the old Testament; because it was then of the Lord ordained, that the Priests and Levites, so many as minister at the Altar, should live of the Altar: Do you not know (saith he) that they which minister about holy things, eat of the things of the Temple? and that they which wait at the Altar, are partakers with the Altar?  
And last of all he showeth, that the like institution was ordained of the Lord, under the new Testament: That they which preach the Gospel, shall also live of the Gospel. By which reasons it is made as clear as noonday, that all Christians are bound in duty to honour their Pastors. And how then should they be excused of ingratitude & ungodliness, which defraud them of their due honour?  
That the contempt of the Minister redoundeth to God their Master, and that no man so much as God himself is thereby held in scorn, that one place in the sixth to the Galathians the sixth verse doth abundantly declare, which is after this sort: Let him that is taught in the word communicate with him that taught him, all his goods. Be not deceived: God is not mocked; For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap; for he that soweth to the flesh, shall reap corruption, but he that soweth to the spirit, shall of the spirit reap life everlasting. Let him which is instructed (saith he) communicate all his goods. Good Lord (will some say) what meaneth he by this? What he meaneth may easily be understood by a Synecdoche: by the which he saith All his goods, for part of all his goods. How great a part, it is not prescribed; unto the old people the tenth part was laid forth; unto the new people no part: seeing they own of duty unto Christ their Lord and Saviour, not the tenth only, but the ninth, eight, seventh, sixth, fift, and even the whole, and all, if the necessity of the Church requireth so much. To this he addeth; God is not mocked: as if he should have said: It is but in vain, that you make so many vain excuses: for here the question is not of man's maintenance, but of God and the Gospel's countenance: not what honour you show to man, but what due regard ye yield unto God: think not you pintch on the Parson's side, when God himself is the party; you may haply delude them, but God will not be dallied withal. Here therefore, if we could but once conceive the least part of that which all rich men, and Nobles, Barons, Earls, Dukes, and Kings themselves do owe unto the Ministers of God's Church; and that the same might once be freely given, according as God's laws do command, and the godly duty of a grateful mind doth require: how great might we think would the treasure of the Church be, in a good Christian commonwealth?   

Chap. VIII. That the good examples of our forefathers, prescribe a law to their successors.  
WHen our Forefathers had well considered that there was no certain prescription set down, as a law unto them for this matter under the Gospel, which precisely limited what and how much every man was to give: they wisely & willingly set down a law unto themselves and their successors and they gave unto the church tithes, oblations, glebes, and yearly revenues from out their possessions: that thereby the Pastor might be maintained, the poor relieved, and the youth instructed: The which voluntary donations are now ratified unto the Church by the same laws, which make good to every man the propriety of his own possessions.  
Who doubteth of the liberality of the Primitive Christians, (which brought the price of their lands to the Apostles,) but that they might as well have given them the land itself, if the state of the time and place had been such? But they which did then expect the subversion of that place and people, and looked for no better world under those ungodly Priests, than their Lord and Saviour had found before them, they thought good to sell all, and only of their mere bounty, (no man compelling them thereunto) they committed all the money to be at the Apostles courtesy. This their example hath been well followed by our godly forefathers, who willingly out of their own wealth have liberally provided for the church, not for once, but for all ages: the which thing they thought to be nearly appertaing to their duty.  
I am not ignorant that this religious action hath degenerated into a preposterous zeal: for which cause, (courteous reader) I give thee to understand, that I do not here defend any godless, or superstitious donations, but only note unto thee the great untowardness of man's nature, which is always more prone to ruin into contrary enormities, then to run on in the way of harmless mediocrity. We easily stumble from one extreme to another: but yet their fall is more tolerable, which transgress in excess, than they which offend in defect: as it is always more easy to deduct from abundance that which is needless, then to supply in an exigent that which is needful. Happily some cur-modgen, or cursed Church-robber will scorn at this; who have already set down this for their rest, either with a greedy mind to rifle the church or with a galled conscience to retain that they have rifled from the church, rather than of any godly devotion to pass any thing of their own unto the welfare thereof. But let him scorn at me, and scorn for me: yet let him beware he laugh not God to scorn▪ it sufficeth me, if he can so satisfy God.   

CHAP. IX. That the oblations of Christians, are part of God's worship.  
ALbeit God be not to be won by gifts (for what needeth he, seeing he needeth not any) yet notwithstanding he requireth some fruit of our religious thoughts, and some testimony of our loyal mind, and he will be honoured of our earthly substance: for this is part of that worship which is due unto God, and in the which we prove and profess ourselves thankful, for those benefits we have received. Do you not know, that God will be so worshipped in spirit and truth, (that is, in mind and faith) that in the mean while, there be no want of extearne worship in the honour and homage of our bodies? For he is the maker and maintainer, both of body and soul, and therefore of right he is to be worshipped in them both. And are not our bodies the temples of the holy Ghost, which dwelleth in us? In like manner, seeing he is also the only donor of all our wealth and worldly goods, of like right he requireth our duty, and his honour in this behalf. Whereupon our Lord and Saviour, being moved in a case of paying tribute to Caesar, made this answer, That we must give unto God, that which is Gods, and unto Caesar that which is due unto Caesar: showing thereby, that there is a tribute due to be paid unto God also, as well as to Caesar, as a testimony of our loyal subjection to his divine Majesty. And is not the reason also as great for our heavenly King, as an earthly Caesar? Solomon in his Proverbs, among many other religious precepts, hath given us this: Honour the Lord in thy riches, and in the first fruits of all thy increase: and thy barns shallbe filled with abundance, and thy wine presses shall burst themselves with new wine. For no doubt we own a tribute to the Lord, as unto the great King, no otherwise then to an earthly Prince: unto whom we may pay tribute for two respects: both that he may be able for those charges he undertaketh for the commonwealth, & also, that we may testify unto him our fealty and subjection, as to our lawful King: the first being for our use, the second for his honour. But now, the first of these hath no place in God, neither doth he require any thing of us in that behalf: but the latter is so much the more due to God, by how much the more God is greater than man, and the profession of subjection, is necessary in every faithful christian. Wherefore, after the Lord had appointed Israel a peculiar people to himself, forthwith, as Prince and chief Lord over his people, he demanded the tenth of all their increase, with other rites and royalties of his supreme power; And whereas it was always an heinous matter among the Eastern monarchs, to appear before the King without a present: God required the like honour of his people; namely for that he was both king and Lord over his people. For which cause, in the law, where all the males are commanded to appear before the Lord, they are forbidden to come near without an offering. Moreover, is there not yet extant in Malachy a shameful rebuke against the jews, which practised deceit in their first fruits, and in their tithes? That sacrilege the Lord justly punished in them with the dire of a contagious dearth: the which notwithstanding, he promiseth (if they will amend that fault) that he would open the windows of heaven, and power out upon them a gracious plenty of all things. The words of the Prophet are these: Will a man spoil his judges? but ye have spoiled me, and say, in what what things have we spoiled thee? in tithes and first fruits. Ye are cursed with cursing itself, for ye the whole nation have spoiled me. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, and let there be meat in mine house, and prove me now saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open unto you the windows of heaven, that I may pour upon you a blessing, that their may be no end of abundance etc. Among the people of God it was always reputed an special exercise of god's religion, to pay tithes truly of all that they possessed: which they knew to be given, not so much to a mortal priest, as to the immortal God. Doth not the Pharisie in the gospel glory in his fidelity of true tithing, as in a rare virtue?   

CHAP. X. An answer to certain objections: the which it is confirmed by that the ministers of the gospel are worthy no less honour than were the priests of old among the people of God.  
But it is excepted, that the times are altered: that at this day under the gospel, the Priesthood is translated into Christ, whose shadow it was: that he hath imposed an end to all outward rites: by which means the right of tithing, is also antiquated with the Priesthood, and all that outward glory which made the antic Priests more honourable is therewithal eclipsed. Neither is there any man at this day which can arrogate to himself (without impiety) those ancient honours of the former priesthood. Is it not registered among the chief errors of Antichrist, that he vaunteth and advanceth himself for Hic-priest? Because that honour at this day, is proper and peculiar to Christ alone. In place of the ancient Priesthood, which was accompanied with an external and a religious majesty, our Saviour hath substituted the Ecclesiastical ministry, base and abject, in great disgrace, and clean out of countenance: And hath he not given them their christening also, according to their calling?  
For therefore he gave them the servile names of Apostles, and Ministers, and Deacons, and Bishops and Pastors, setting aside all titles of Honour and dignity, as are the names of Fathers, and Doctors, and Lords and such like: that they might know, what they were to conceive of themselves & their Ministry, and that the people might likewise learn what reckoning to make of their pains, and their persons.  
Here is a fair tale surely, and well soothed. But what of all this? that the Pastors and Bishops of Christ his Church, are worthy less Honour in a christian common wealth, than were of yore the Elder Priests? Why then let us conclude with all a lya or too: that the levitical priesthood is more honourable than Christ's; & that the ministry of the law is more glorious, then that of the Gospel, than the which if there can be any assertion more absurd, this conclusion of theirs shall go for no bad confection. For if the Honour due to the Minister, be to be measured according to the outward show, we may well conclude, that Aaron was worthy double reverence, and our Saviour the high Priest thrice sacred, none at all. For why? he was investured with no mitre, no labels, nor did he glister with gold and precious stones. But let us first take that they give us in good worth; (namely that the Priests of old were to be honoured with no small obsequy) & then let us examine the case, what is to be deducted thereof from the Euangelique Minister.  
You are to understand therefore, that in most parts of the old ceremonies, many times two things did meet in one, which notwithstanding were diverse and distinct in themselves: of which the one did contain the shadow and promise of that which was to be exhibited in Christ, the other did pertain to some proper and especial duty in the Church: the shadows are ceased (those things being performed which in Christ were promised:) but the bond of especial duty remaineth as yet not canceled. For example sake: the commandment of keeping the Sabaoth, hath a promise of eternal rest, and a shadow of the rest of our bodies the seventh day; and besides that, it includeth a moral duty of serving of God, and ceasing from our labours. The other precepts also do contain that duty of external worship, which is due unto God, together with the rites of that time: the rites being relinguished, the worship of God to be retained. The like we may say of the Priesthood, in the which there were sundry respects: Whatsoever was typical, was determined in Christ: but of the other parts which were moral, (namely such as concerned the instruction of the people, the ministry of the Sacraments, & the regiment of the church) the manner is changed, but the kind remaineth: there is not the like order in circumstance, but the same ordinance in substance of the office. The chief parts of the Priest's function were these: to teach religion, to interpret the law, to govern the Church, to administer the Sacraments, to stand between God and the people, to make sacrifice, & to purge sins. All which parts, albeit our Lord and Saviour hath only wholly discharged, and some of them also so peculiarly improved to himself, as that they cannot be imparted with any mortal thing besides himself: yet notwithstanding he hath made many of them of that nature, as that without any disparagement to his person they might be left in common to others. In deed no sinner can be made a sufficient mediator between God and man. (Neither can he which is not pure from the guilt of sin himself, expiate with blood the sins of man, or avert by death the wrath of God.) The ancient Priests bore the figure only of those more than divine functions, but the thing itself was in Christ alone; And therefore whosoever at this day shall challenge to himself the one of these, committeth blasphemy against Christ.  
But as the Lord did nothing in derogation of his heavenly dignity, when he gave power unto all christians to offer spiritual sacrifice, namely the sacrifice of praise, and prayer, etc. (For all they which in a true faith worship God are made Kings and Priests:) even so likewise, without any profanation of his peculiar Priesthood, hath he committed the other parts thereof (which I touched before) namely the teaching of religion, the expounding of the law, the ministering of the Sacraments, the governing of the Church, and such like, I say he hath granted and demised these and such like parts of his divine Priesthood to his Apostles & Church ministers: who in this respect may participate the honour of the old Priesthood without impiety, & may also be called Priests without jealousy. The which name although in the first age of the Church, we do not read that it was given to the Ministers of the Church, least happily the Ministers of the old Synagogue, & the new Church might be confounded: (For as yet the old Priesthood remained, or the flesh memory thereof continued) yet afterwards, the Fathers did not amiss, when they renewed the same again in themselves, the Prophet Esay being their author, & the spirit of God their warrant, who divined long before, that God should raise to himself Priests & levites out of the Gentiles. Neither is there any danger at all in the name at this day, were it not for the sacrilege of the Bishop of Rome, who hath set up Altar against Altar, & Priesthood against Priesthood, & the sacrifice of the Mass, against the sacrifice of Christ, invading by all means those parts of the Priesthood, which are peculiar to Christ alone: of which matter we are not to speak in many words at this time Briefly, this we desire may be made known to all, that we detest the impiety of the Roman Antichrist, & for so much as pertaineth to this part of the Priesthood, we acknowledge no other Priest but the Lord jesus. In the other parts (which we have noted) we hold, that the Apostles & other Pastors of the church, have lawfully undertaken the dignity, as of their legacy, so of the Priesthood also.  
Now then, I join more chosely with them for the issue of their whole argument, & answer, That whatsoever in the levitical Priesthood did fore-shadow the office of Christ, is utterly abolished by the bloodshed of Christ, of the which no part may be usurped by any mortal man: Again, that the rites, ceremonies, & outward pomp of the Priesthood, as well in the ornature of the body, as the ordinance of tithes (as they were then challenged) are together deceased by the same means: but yet, that honour which was due to them in regard of the worthiness of their holy ministry, is by no means impaired, perished much less. The Priesthood of Aaron being abrogated, the rights of that Priesthood after their several manner are also abrogated, and with them the ministry of the Church is translated from the Tribe of Levy, to the company of Apostles, and their successors. In whom seeing all things which merit any Honour, are greater than they which were in the Levitical Priests, doth it not necessarily follow, that a christian doth owe no less honour to his Pastor, than the jew did perform to his Priest? I confess the duty of tithes & oblations (after that manner and order they were offered under Moses) are ceased under Christ. Not that christian people should be less bounteous towards their Pastors, than were the jewish nation towards their Priests; but rather, that the free people should exceed the servile, and that a christian should do that of his own accord, which the jew did by constraint. For where as christians have received of the Lord, not only the like graces, but far greater blessings than the jews: and seeing the Ministry of them whom the Lord hath set over his church, is in nothing inferior, or less necessary than the Ministry of the law, of force, if not rather of duty, there remaineth as great a necessity of due honour for this, as for that; at the lest no less: seeing that what soever was ceremonious in the old oblations of tithes and offerings, is so diminished, as that what so ever was moral therein, retaineth his force still. Had there been no proportion between both these ministries, & the necessary duties of them both, the Scripture would never have said, that, As they which minister about holy things, eat of those things whicb are of the Temple, and they which wait at the Altar, are partakers with the Altar: So the Lord hath ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel.  
That our Saviour ordained the Ministry of the Gospel with no ornature of outward beauty, no magnificence of worldly stateliness, as he did of old the Mosaical ministry: it was not to this end, that Christians should do less Honour to their Pastors, than did of old the Israelites; but for that the worthiness thereof is such, that it needeth no outward ornaments: The which notwithstanding if it may have, it is not magnified therein, if it may not have, it is not diminished therefore. But where the ministry of the Gospel is received in a triumph (as it were) of public authority, there all worldly goods ought to supply to the Honour of our Saviour, and the health of his servants: so that they may be denied where they are proffered, and requested where they they are denied; according as the cause, the time, the place, & the people do require. As for the servants of Christ, they ought to be ready for all assays: for honour and dishonour, good report and evil report, plenty and poverty, life and death, for that they are to use this world as not using it, the fashion whereof passeth away.  
God under the old Testament framed to himself a peculiar common wealth, the which although afterwards it might receive diverse forms of government, yet he did always so provide for the honour of the Priesthood, that they always retained that degree of dignity, which the Lord would have them maintain among the people of God. God under the Gospel, hath impropriated no peculiar people, neither hath he planted any certain form of government: He sent unto all nations preachers of the Gospel, private men, without any warlike accutrements. Them he appointed, not to alter any form of government, lest they might seem to be sent, rather for the subversion, then for the conversion of the Gentiles. And yet this hindereth not, but that they may take upon them a greater state, and better beseeming the worthiness of their calling, where Religion itself is advanced by public authority, and in wisdom is made the groundwork both of the laws and the common wealth. In the old law, the Priest's Honour was especially set down, what, how great, after what sort, in what things it should consist. In the new Testament that limitation could not be laid forth; because it could not (would they never so feign) be like itself, or the same, among all people, in all places, at all times. But as good christians do take unto themselves many other imitable examples out of the old Testament, and the law of nature, and the orders of nations, by the which they may the better be brought unto a civil conformity, and a conformable civility of life: so likewise ought we to do in this case.  
The minority & under-reckoning of the ministry, is not so held in the judgements of those christians that have their consciences acquainted with divine causes, but in the sight of carnal professors, and the censure of the Church's enemies. All indifferent hearts & eyes may see and conceive, that how much greater Christ is then Moses, and the Gospel more excellent than the law, so much more honourable is the evangelic ministry, than the aaronical Priesthood; the which we are abundantly taught by the manifest arguments of the Apostle Paul, & we may very well learn by the manifold Sermons of our Saviour Christ. Of old among the people of God it was, for good cause, held a great matter, for any man to be like unto Moses, or Elias. For after the receipt of the law, and his familiar conference with God in the mount, the face of Moses is said to have been so radiant with passing all wondrous bright some rays, that the eyes of the amazed Israelites by no means might endure the Sun bright lustre of his resplendent countenance. After him was Elias no less honoured and renowned, as well for his wonderful acts, achieved in the zeal of God his law, as also for his miraculous end, translated alive into the Paradise of Heaven. Notwithstanding all this, the Apostle in his latter to the Corinthians doth learnedly maintain, that the Ministry of Moses was of the letter, and of death, but the Ministry of the Gospel, of the spirit and of life, and so much the more glorious. As for the rest, our Saviour himself preferreth john Baptist alone before all the Prophets, whom he affirmeth to be more than a Prophet, and yet he resolveth, that the least Minister of the Church is greater than he. And therefore if Christ may be judge, the least Minister of the lowest degree in the Church, is more honourable & to be honoured more in his office, then are any, or all the Priests of the old Testament.  
As for the low titles the Lord gave to his Ministers, for bidding the glorious insignes of honour, as of Lord, Father, and Doctor: I answer, that it was not done, that the Ministers should be of less honour among the people, than were of old the Priests & levites, or that they should be debased beneath all estates, & be of no esteem in a christian common wealth, but rather that they might retain a lowly & an humble conceit in so lofty & so honourable an estate. For unless the Lord in wisdom should temper & keep under the overweening waywardness of man's nature, even in his dearest servants, Such is the excellency of the Ecclesiastical calling, that the conceit thereof might easily overcharge light minds with lofty thoughts, & suddenly overturn rash heads into ruined estates. But as humility is taught them in their inglorious titles; so is their excellency taught us by their magnifical statues. For are not these they which are called, the Salt of the earth, the Light of the world, Stars in the firmament, Angels, and Legates, Stewards & dispensers of the mysteries of God, Ministers of the spirit of life? what and how great is that honour and power they have received of the Lord, that they can bind and lose in earth, what things are bound and loosed in Heaven; that they can remit and retain sins? that they can open and shut the highest Heaven? Can there be any thing given to men more Honourable in this mortality?  
As for the use of those names, Doctor, Lord & Father, we will speak thereof hereafter. Now, that I may determine this disputation, of those things we have here set down, I conclude, That christian people are no less devoted to their Pastors in all duty, than were of old the Israelites to their Priests and levites. And, Where christian religion is publicly authorized, that there the same degree of honour is to be given to the Ministers in the common wealth, which was used to the Priests & Prophets among the people of God. But if so be it so fall out, that among ungodly people & ungracious Magistrates, there be no reverend regard had of this honour due to the Minister, that there the professors be not offended therewith, seeing the worthiness of their Ministry is such, as that no injury of man can any ways diminish it. For it becometh them to be at this point with themselves, that if so be the honour due to their ministry be given them, they may rejoice in the religious godliness of the faithful towards God: but if it be denied them, they may not grieve thereat, as if themselves had lost any thing. Neither are they greatly to contend with the Magistrate for their right, especially at any intempestive season: but they are to commit their causes unto God, and with Paul to expect a more convenient time to expostulate. In the mean while let them pray unto God, that he would vouchsafe them better minds that would be accounted for good christians. The chief care of a faithful Pastor must be this, to gain many souls unto Christ, not much riches, or many honours: First let them seek the kingdom of God, and all these things shallbe cast upon them. Wherefore, seeing there are many parts of that honour which is due to the Minister, I will chiefly prosecute those, which the civil society of life doth require in a christian common wealth, and that above all others, which consisteth in the maintenance of Ministers; a thing never so much in controversy as at this day. Of the which we will first hear what was the opinion of those fathers which lived in time next after the Apostles.   

CHAP. XI. The judgement of the Father's concerning the oblations of the faithful.  
I Will first begin with Origen, who lived under Severus, about two hundred years after our Saviour: He, upon the eighteenth Chapter of Numbers, in his eleventh Homily writeth thus. It is behooveful, and it is also beneficial, that first fruits should be offered unto the Priests of the Gospel: For so hath the Lord also ordained, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, and they which serve at the altar should also be partakers of the altar. And as this is due & decent so of the contrary part; I account it both unmeet and undecent, and ungodly also, that he which worshippeth God, and entereth into the Church of God, and knoweth that the Priests and Ministers do wait at the altar, and attend either upon the word of God, or the ministery of the church, should not offer unto the Priests the first things of those fruits of the earth, which God hath given by bringing forth his Son, and sending forth his rain: Neither can I think such a mind to be mindful of God, neither that he thinketh or believeth, that God hath given the fruits he hath received: which he so hordeth together, as if they were none of Gods. For if he believed they were given him of God, he would also acknowledge, that in rewarding the Priests, he thereby honoured God for his gifts. And moreover, that these things the better to be observed, may be taught by the word of God, let us hear what the Lord saith in the Gospel. Woe be unto you Scribes and Pharisees, ye hypocrites, which tithe Mint, that is, pay tithe of Mint, & Cummin, and Ane-seeds, and let pass the greater things of the Law: Hypocrites these things ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone, etc. The same author proceedeth in the same book. How then doth our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and pharisees, if they dare not taste of the fruits of the earth, before they have offered the first fruits unto the Priests, and the tithes are set forth for the levites: and I, doing none of these things, do so abuse the fruits of the earth, as that the Priest knoweth not of them, the Levite is ignorant of them, the altar of God doth not taste of them.  
Ireneus the Scholar of Polycarpus in his fourth book, the four and thirty chapter, writeth of the sacrifices and oblations of Christians, (the which thing he also in many other places remembreth) whereby the custom and opinion of the church at that time concerning that matter, may the better appear. The words of the holy Father are these: Wherhfore, we ought to offer to God the first fruits of his creaturts, as Moses saith, Thou shalt not appear empty in the sight of the Lord thy God: that in what things a man hath showed himself thankful, in those things he which is deputed over him, might thank fully receive that honour of him. And that kind of oblation is a 〈…〉 ain allowed: For there were oblations there, and there are oblations here also: There were sacrifices among the old people, there are sacrifices in the Church also: but the manner of them is only altered; seeing that now these are offered not of bond slaves, but of freemen. For there is one and the same Lord, but there is a several form of servile oblations, and a several form of them which are free, that even by these oblations also there might appear some token of our liberty. For there is nothing idle or endless with him, without some sign, or sense.  
And for this cause indeed, they did consecrate their tenths: but they which have obtained their liberty, do dedicated to the Lords use, all things that they have, cheerfully & freely giving those things which are of less account, having indeed a greater hope, that widow and poor woman casting in here all her substance into the Lord his treasury, etc. Afterwards in the same chapter, he addeth this. Wherefore, seeing the church offereth with singleness; for just cause is the gift thereof accepted as a pure sacrifice before God: Even as Paul also writeth unto the Philippians: I was even filled, after that I had received of Epaphroditus that which came from you, an odour which smelleth sweet, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasant unto God. For we ought to offer oblations unto God, and in all things to be found thankful unto God our maker, offering the first-lings of those his creatures, in a pure mind and faith without hypocrisy, in a farm hope and fervent love. And this oblation, the church only doth present pure unto the Creator, offering unto him of his own creatures with thanksgiving, etc. And again in the same chapter, But we offer unto him, not as he needed our offerings, but to show ourselves thankful unto him for his bounty, and to sanctify his creatures: For as God hath no need of those th' ngs which come from us, so we have need to offer some thing unto God.  
Irenaeus calleth Alms and oblations good actions, as also Cyprian calleth them good works: Paul being their Author, who calleth them good deeds and distributions, and good works, 
1. Tim. 6.18. Tit. 3.14. Heb. 13.16.  and Sacrifices, with the which God is well pleased.  
Many other things of the like import, might be cited out of the same Author: But let us attend unto that of Cyprian in the like sense, the words somewhat altered, who in his four and thirty Epistle writeth thus, of the Readers whom he had ordained. Now you shall understand, that we have appointed for them the honour of an Elder, that they should be honoured with the same fees that the Elders are, and that they should divide the allowance for every month in equal portions. The fees which were divided every month unto the Priests, he calleth the honour of the Presbytery. But out of his sixty Epistle, we may also make some estimate, of what wealth the Church of Carthage was: namely, by a certain contribution made by the Clergy and laity of that place. For there were collected no less than an hundred sestercees, which they sent to the Bishops of Mauritania to redeem captives: being also ready to send more, if need were. The words of Cyprian are these.  
We have sent unto you an hundred sestercees, 
That is 2500. ducats at the least, or unless that may seem to great a sum for that time 2500000  which were gathered here in the Church, over the which I am precedent by the favour of God: the contribution being made by the Clergy, and people that are amongst us: the which you shall dispose there, according unto your best endeavours. And in his sixty six Epistle, he writeth thus: The tribe of Levy which attended upon the Temple and Altar for divine service, might receive no portion of that devotion, but while the rest did husband the earth, they should honour the Lord only, and therefore for their living and allowance, they were to receive tenths of the eleven Tribes, of those fruits which did increase.  
The which reason and order is now observed amongst the Clergy at this day, that they which in the Church of the Lord, are promoted unto any Ecclesiastical dignity, should by no means be called away from their divine function, neither should be entangled with troubles and worldly affairs, but according unto the honour of the maintained brethren, as they which receive tenths of fruits, should not departed from the Altar and the sacrifices, but day and night should attend upon heavenly and spiritual business, etc. About the same time, there were maintained at Rome under Cornelius the Bishop, six and forty Priests, seven Deacons, 
Eusebius lib 6.25.  so many Subdeacons', as also two and forty Servants, Exorcists, Readers and Doorkeepers, all together two and fifty.  
The number of the whole Clergy was an hundred fifty and five men, all the which no doubt, for the most part had their proper families: and yet besides all these, the widows and other which were afflicted, either with poverty or infirmity, were a thousand and five hundred: all the which, as Cornelius himself doth witness in an Epistle to Fabian Bishop of Antioch, the grace and bounty of the Lord did abundantly relieve: and lest any man should think that this was done penuriously or sparingly, he addeth, that so great a number of Ministers, so great a multitude of poor, by the providence of God were made rich, and abounding in all plenteousness.  
The history of Laurence, deacon of Rome, is sufficiently known: whom the tyrants of that time held in suspicion, that he had the custody of the church treasure. And their suspicion was true in part, for the church had treasure; and in part it was false, for that it was not the manner of the church to lay up, but to lay out the treasure they had. By the which means, Phillip's oblations also and donations to the church were repealed all to late: for the ministery of the Deacons by the hands of the poor, had there laid them up, where neither rust nor moth, nor any caterpillar of the Church, could break through and steal. Neither was this the least praise of the churches of that age, that as they were privately poor, so were they commonly rich, after the example of the church at Jerusalem.   

CHAP. XII. That the church had no small revenues, and certain places in the which they did celebrate their assemblies, before the time of Constantine.  
THat professed Christians had farms & possessions, the increase whereof they distributed to the clergy, & poverty of the Church, the edicts of Constantine the great do sufficiently testify. True it is, that under Dioclesian, the christians were spoiled of all they possessed, either privately, or in common: but the godly & cristian Emperor giveth in charge to the presidents of the province, that those places in the which Christians did celebrate their assemblies, and all other things whatsoever they possessed, or any ways pertained to the right of their society, should again be restored unto them. 
Enead. 7. 8.  Sabellicus maketh mention of one Lucina, a noble and rich matron, that was exiled by Maxentius, for that she had named the Church of Rome to be her heir.  
Indeed it is to be acknowledged, that from the time of Constantine, the state of the Church was no ways impaired, (neither do I speak of the false and feigned donations of Constantine) but this is a thing most certain, that he was a bountiful Prince towards the Church, and worthily renowned for his bounty. Sozomenus reporteth of Constantine his honourable liberality towards the Church of Christ; 
Lib. 1.8.  that of those grounds which in every City were tributary, he reserved a certain pension, which accustomably was wont to be paid into the Exchequer, and distributed the same unto the Churches and the Clergy; the which his great & gracious largesse, he afterwards ratified by law to stand good for ever. 
De vita Constant. li. 4. 28  Eusebius in the life of Costantine witnesseth the same.  
That therefore all men may understand what the wealth of the Church was in those times, I will produce a few presidents of that age, and begin with that which Augustine hath left in record concerning his own Church at Hippon. (For he was himself also of an honourable house, & of great wealth.) I (saith he) according to the common conceit of many, 
Epist. 225.  which compare themselves with themselves, seem not to have come from wealth, but to have come to wealth; for my father's inheritance can hardly be reckoned the twentieth part, in comparison of the church's revenues, the which now I am accounted to possess as chief Lord. Whence that Church had that great wealth, it is to be seen in the same Epistle.  
Prosper in his book De vitae contemplativa, reporteth of Hilary Bishop of Arelat, to his everlasting praise, that he had, did not only retain those things which the church then but that he did also enlarge the same, by the manifold heritage's of the faithful which he received. Among Basil his epistles there is one whole one, which testifieth, that there were many at that time which used to leave by testament a great part of their inheritance unto the Church, and some sometimes which did make free gift of all. But what need I to stand upon the manifold reports of such things? The laws of the Emperors, concerning this whole matter, are sufficiently known. Nay this one thing I would admonish the Reader, lest at any time he be deceived, when as many times he may read in the Fathers, that the goods of the Church, are not only the goods of the Bishops, and the goods of the Priests, but the goods of the poor also: I say, there he shall but note, how the ancient custom of the Church hath been disordered, through avarice and hypocrisy. When all the Church goods of every Diocese were in common unto all the Churchmen of the same territory, to be divided to every Churchman according to the discretion of the Bishop; then was that saying in force: The goods of the Church are the goods of the poor: Not that the whole substance of the Church was to be consumed upon the poor, but because the fourth part thereof was their due by right. For the first part was for the Bishop himself: the second, for the other Churchmen: the third, for the Church works: the fourth, for relieving the poor, and redeeming the captive.  
But when as by reason of the manifold inconveniences, which did daily arise by means of this community, and the great multitude of Churches which now began to be every where erected and set up throughout the country, and endowed with peculiar commodities, they began to departed from this community, by a secret consent (as it were) of the whole world, and so, that certain portions were designed for the Bishop's allowance; others also, for the other Priests and Ecclesiastical persons which were in ordinary residence in every Cathedral Church; and last of all other, Priests also were ordained by the Bishops every where through the country▪ over parish Churches with standing titles, who were by that means called to a particular part of the common charge with the Bishop (lest that which was to be cared for by all, should be neglected of every one) (as it commonly cometh to pass) there is no doubt (had none of the Church goods been taken from the Clergy) but by this means the poor and needy should have been much better provided for by the several clergymen of every particular territory, then when the fourth part of the remains of the Church goods were employed to their use in common; and that also with more ease, and much less murmur. But the trumpery, not the poverty of the Church, monks and Nuns, and such others, which were called religious persons, purloining that fourth part under the title of evangelic poverty, which they professed, have utterly rob both the Clergy and the poverty, and have brought in a strange and wonderful disorder into the ancient ordering of Church goods; so that, that part which of old was due unto the poor, is now in the winding up devolved to the rich: that I may omit the manifold abuses of Impropriations, and Commendams, & such other shifting sacrilegious titles.  
Ambrose in his thirty and one Epistle, the fift book: The possessions (saith he) of the Clergy, are the provisions of the needy: and therefore let the Churches keep reckoning of this, how many captives they have redeemed, how many poor they have refreshed, how many exiles they have harboured. For the Church hath gold, not to purse, but to disburse, and to relieve the necessities of the needy. What profit is it to keep that which profiteth not? Augustine also in his treatise upon john, the one and twentieth chapter, disputeth of that right which the Apostles and Ministers have by the word of GOD, to receive carnal things of them, unto whom they minister spiritual things: They give gold (saith he) and they receive grass. And in his tenth Tome, there is extant no less than a whole Homily, concerning the paying of tithes as of duty.  
Hierome also in his third chapter upon Malachi, amongst other things which concern this opinion, hath these words: That which we say of tithes and first fruits, which of old were given of the people to the Priests and Levites, understand ye also to concern the people of the Church, who are commanded not only to pay tithes and first fruits, but also to sell all that they have, and give to the poor, and to follow the Lord. The which so great a matter if we will not perform, yet at the least lets us imitate the beginnings of the jews, that we may give part of all unto the poor, and afford the Priests and Levites their due honour. For which cause the Apostle saith; Honour the widows, which are true widows: And, That the Elder is to be honoured with double honour, especially he which laboureth in word and doctrine: the which duty who so now will not perform, he is proved thereby to defraud and supplant God himself, and he is cursed therefore of God in the penury of all things: so that he which soweth sparingly, shall reap sparingly, and he which soweth liberally, shall reap liberally, etc. Many other things of like sort may we read in that place to this sense. But if I should repute unto you whatsoever the Fathers have written of this argument; I should but repeat the same things, and be tedious to the Reader in a matter of no controversy.   

Chap. XIII. A distinction of Church goods.  
THe goods of the Church are not all of one fort: for there are some which consist in the oblations of the people; some, in proper possessions; some, in rents and revenues; some, in lawful fees and ancient royalties. All the which are commonly distinguished into two several kinds: whereof some are called Spiritual, and some accounted Temporal. But seeing these terms do neither so fitly, nor yet so fully express the nature of these things, more proper words were to be devised by more perfect Civilians. For unto that which is Temporal, there is nothing in nature opposite, but that which is Eternal: and to that which is Spiritual, nothing is contrary, but that which is Carnal or corporal. They therefore speak more aptly of these things, who for the word Temporal, use the words Civil and human: and for Spiritual, the words Sacred holy, and divine. Now albeit, that ought generally to be accounted holy & sacred, whatsoever is consecrated to God, and his ministery: yet notwithstanding, they call oblations (because they more nearly concern God and his service) more properly sacred and divine things; not so much for distinction sake, as for that the condition and propriety thereof is such. But human and civil goods, they account the fields and possessions of the Church; for that in nature and condition they are not unlike unto those, which other Citizens possess, and are therefore given unto the Clergy, that not only in the Church, but also in the commonwealth, they may be of good estate, and well able to maintain the credit of the place and person they sustain: the which by no good means they can be able to uphold, if in worldly wealth they be so curtold, and kept so threadbare, as that they cannot be in case to be as bountiful as other men. Great matters are looked for at the hands of the Clergy; as hospitality, relieving the poor, and such other things, which Christ himself not only taught, but in person performed in some good sort. And is it not a shame for a Bishop to exhort others unto charity towards the poor and needy, and himself neither to put the same in practice, nor yet to be able?  
But least any man should think, that this distinction came out of the Pope's Mint, and therefore to be rejected; he shall understand by those things we have now cited, that it is the Fathers, the authentic Fathers. Ambrose in his Epistle de tradendis basilicis, maketh mention of the collations of the people, and the fields which the Church possessed. Wherefore the gifts and oblations of the faithful, which they offer of their own accord, are to be accounted holy goods, go●●s sacred and divine: because in that case the chief respect is not of man, but of God. Under this kind we comprise the payment of tenths and tithes also: albeit there be great difference between those tithes, which either now the people pay of their own voluntary, not constrained, or have of old religiously undertaken by a law imposed upon themselves and their posterity, to pay unto the Ministers; & those tithes which Princes gave unto them, and laid out for them by their Injunctions. For we must understand thus much also, that tenths have been paid of old, not only to the Priests, but unto the chief Magistrate also. Have we not heard of certain tributes wont to be paid to the common treasury, which afterwards were given by the Emperor Constantine unto the Churches? Namely, for that albeit the superstition of the Gentiles were in many places put down by public authority; yet the Nobles and richer sort, with the greater part of the people, having not forthwith received the faith of Christ, the bare oblations of the faithful, (although bountiful) were not sufficing to relieve the poor, and to maintain the state of their Pastors. So that unless I quite lose mine aim, those tributes were either tenths or tithes.  
For there is nothing better known, then that the Romans imposed the payments of tenths, upon those provinces they conquered: and what proportion could they more fitly give unto professed Churches, than the tenths of those they conquered? This example did Charles the great follow, who having overcome the Saxons, and having put to flight their King Windekind, he commanded tenths to be paid unto him: part whereof the Bishops and other Pastors of the Church had, and part the kings officers also received.  
As for the conjecture of Crantz in his Metropolis, who thinketh that tenths were given unto Nobles in fee, by the Bishops, I cannot for my part allow thereof: seeing it so evidently appeareth out of the approved Annalies, that those tenths were received of the kings Officers before there were any Bishops, and whereas yet there were none. But whereas tithes seemed not to suffice the state of the Clergy, the godly Prince, of a religious and wise purpose, added glebes and lands unto the use of the Church. For indeed that wild Nation, tamed only by force & arms, received the Christian Religion for fear, but in affection were so estranged from it, that they would sooner suffer the Bishops, and those preachers which the Emperor sent unto them, rather to starve among then, then to thrive by them.  
But who so desireth to read more of this matter, may read Crantz his Metropolis, and the Saxon Chronicles. In the mean while, we have thus learned, that those tenths and tithes, which no religion of the Christian people, but the liberality of the religious Magistrate hath given unto the Church, were properly to be accounted among the Churches, Civil goods. But when as at this day they are so intermingled, that the manner of their first donations is not known, for good cause they are now called by the more certain and the more singular part of them, and are therefore accounted among those Church goods, which are not civil, but sacred and divine.  
As for those goods of the Church which we distinguish by the name of civil goods and human, they may be distinguished into the possession of such fearms and rents, which the Church had even under heathen Emperors before Constantine; and into the possession of such fees and manors, which under the Christian Magistrate have annexed unto them some civil jurisdiction. The which, because some contend that no Ecclesiastical person ought to enjoy, we are in like manner to examine that matter, the rather, for that there are some which think, they ought rather to live of other men's Alms.   

Chap. XIII That the Pastors of churches are not maintained of alms, but of the due reward of their labours.  
SOme have been of opinion (you will very hardly believe it) (neither do I their opinion) that our blessed Lord and his Apostles did not only live very bare, but very beggars: and therefore that the Ministers of the Church ought to live of mere alms, according unto their godly example. But the law of God defieth this error, and forbiddeth the whole trade of begging among his people. Neither do we read, that the Lord at any time repealed this law; and sure we are, that there have been always extant among us certain laws of the Emperors also against upright beggars.  
Alms are given for pity sake to help and cheer the needy: but whatsoever is given as a testimony of any virtue, is either a stipend for certain pains taken, or a present for a certain reverence conceived (albeit the party be poor unto whom it is performed.) When the Lord therefore sent forth his Disciples to preach, he gave them a commission to take up their maintenance of them to whom they preached: and he therefore compared them to labourers, and their stipend to a reward, not to an alms; which being due, is to be charged, and discharged as of right. Whereby the nature of those things which the godly did contribute unto the Lord his use, and his Apostles, is easily understood to be of the condition, not of alms, but of fees. Even as the offerings, and certain parts of the sacrifices were allotted to the Priests, not as free alms, but as the fruits of their labours: so the godly Pastors do receive of the faithful people, not a dole, but a duty; the one being of right, the other of mere pity. If any man urge, that the sense of this word Alms, doth extend itself more largely amongst learned Divines, & that it is taken for all kind of benevolence which is showed for God's cause unto the benefit of our neighbour: How truly they so affirm, I leave that to them which are but meanly seen in the Greek tongue.  
In the mean while, I will not stick with them for so much as this cometh to, that in such a sense, those things which are given to the Church for the benefit of the Ministers, may be called Alms also: this always reserved, that they still differ white and black from those alms, with the which the poor are relieved. For what have they deserved? You remember where I said, that there is no other law imposed upon the Minister by the Lord, then unto the rest of the faithful (excepting only the condition of their function.) Neither doth any man doubt, that the faithful are forbidden by any religion, to become the free tenants of their Princes.  
But as for the laws and conditions which particularly concern the estate of Ministers, there is not any one which inhibiteth them to use the benefit of Princes, and to be devoted to them, as far as other Citizens. Over and beside all this, the Euangelique precepts are in no case an excuse unto the right of nations, or the equity of Moses law: but they all (and all the world shall witness the same) have appointed for the Priests and sacred Ministers, both fields and farms and other civil estates. And can they by any law, or equity be sequestered from the general privileges of all citizens, which are to live now among citizens, and to sustain under the same Magistrate the same burdens of the commonwealth with other Citizens?  
And hath not God himself commanded by his law, that there should be given unto the Priests and Levites, not only tithes and offerings, but Cities also, with their towns and territories? Or had they any less authority over these their towns and Cities, than had the other Tribes over their Cities and fields which fell unto them by lot? The Gospel being received by public authority, the Lord hath no where forbidden the Ministers of the Gospel to possess fields and farms after the same manner, neither hath he inhibited that any such realties should be given them to possess. But is it possible there should be any so base, and bade minded towards religion, that he could once wish the Ministers thereof to be of worse estate in a christian society, than were of old the Priests and Levites in the Commonwealth of Israel? It is well known, that Ministers having to converse in a civil society, had need also of those helps which are requisite in a civil society, & may reconcile them into favour, and maintain them in authority with the common people, as wisdom and wealth especially: Seeing that whosoever he be that neglecteth either of these, can by no means live, and live well in a civil society.  
The wise man in his Ecclesiastes the seventh chapter, hath very well noted the practice of this: For wisdom is good (saith he) with an inheritance, and the excellency of them which see the Sun, because that man shall rest in the shadow of wisdom, and the shadow of silver: And indeed, upon these two pillars doth rest the chief strength and stay of a civil life. There is one kind of life which is public, and in the common prospect of men, and hath necessarily to do with men of all sorts: and there is an other kind of private and privy life, under an heathen Magistrate, full of danger; so that, there he is to deal as well with Magistrates as with private men: here, he may well deal with none at all. I say in this case there is no comparison to be made of these two kinds between themselves, that without distinction we should make the like condition of the Ministers life in all places, and subject unto the like conditions.   

Chap. XV. Of those Lands which are held in fee, and have annexed with them any civil authority and jurisdiction.  
AND that which maketh all the doubt for those Lands which are held in fee by the Church, is this, that many times they have annexed with them some Civil jurisdiction and Knight's service. The which thing is forbidden the Pastors of the Church by the laws of the Church; unto whom also the power of the sword seemeth to be forbidden by the Lord himself.  
The ancient Canons, which are accounted the Apostles, allow not a Bishop to be busied in the service of war, or any civil function. The sixth Canon standeth thus. A Bishop Priest, or Deacon, shall not take upon him any worldly cares, neither shall he defile himself with such. Cyprian also in an Epistle unto the Priests of Furnam, writeth against one Victor, for that he made one Geminus Faustinus overseer of his last will, and forbiddeth them that there should be any oblation made amongst them for his death: His words are these. The Bishops our predecessors, religiously considering, and providently forecasting of things, enacted, that no brother departing this life, should appoint any Clerk to be his guardian or supra-visor: and if any so did, there should be no offering for him, neither should any Sacrifice be celebrated for his departure: Neither indeed doth he deserve to be once named in the prayer of the Priests, at the Altar of God, who sought by all means possible to withdraw the Priests & Ministers from the Altar of God.  
These decrees of the reverend Fathers, are confirmed by that example of the Apostles, who sequestered themselves from the oversight of the poor, which notwithstanding is a godly and a religious action, and resigned that charge unto other godly men, lest themselves should be withdrawn from the ministery of the word, which thing chief was imposed upon them by the Lord. Moreover, for so much as pertaineth unto Knight's service, or any other civil function, the fourscore and second of the Canons, which are called the Apostles; decreeth thus: The bishop, Priest, or Deacon, that giveth himself unto warfare, and will occupy himself, both in the Roman regiment, and also in the Ecclesiastical government: let him be divested. Give unto Caesar, those things which are Caesar's, and unto God those things which are Gods.  
The council of Chalcidon in the seventh Canon the fifteenth action, hath laid a curse also upon those that dare presume to do these things. The words of the Canon are these.  
We do decree, that those which are once ordained in the Clergy, (as also all Monks) shall neither come unto any military service, or to any secular promotion. But they which dare do these things, and do not with repentance return to that, of the which they made their first choice for God's cause; they are accursed. To these Canons we may add the conditions of the fees themselves, the which are such, as by them all manner free-tenure is taken away from the Clergy, and company of Monks: For a fee is defined by the Lawyers, to be a Military service. but seeing the laws of the Church do forbid Churchmen and Moonkes, to exercise any Military service, they cannot by any right, either receive, or retain the benefit of the service.   

Chap. XVI. That Bishops and other Pastors of the Church, are not forbidden to be Lords of fees, & sometimes to undertake secular and civil charges.  
TO the former objections I first answer, according to that I have already proved▪ as well by the laws of the first christians, as by the testimony of the ancient fathers, that the Church long before Constantine his time had both fields and farms, the commons and commodities pertaining to the same. But is there now any other reason, why Ecclesiastical persons may not also hold the same in fee (if they be given in fee) as well as did of old these Priests and levites, those Towns and Cities which they received of their brethren? As for those Canons before cited, I answer and affirm, that we allow, nor Elder nor Bishop to be detained, or withdrawn with secular cares from their spiritual function any further, then may be beneficial to the Church and common wealth, or may satisfy the necessity of our christian neighbour. That the charge of domestic secular affairs is here forbidden by any Canon, that a man should neglect his own family, unto whom he is bound by the right of alliance or affinity; nor godly charity, nor christian faith, will suffer us so to think: But that the charge of a Lordship or Mayrolty or such like, that a Bishop should be Consul in the field, Mayor of a Town, Clarke of the market, Chamberlain to the King, or Factor for the state, and such like, we hold them to be forbidden by that sixth Canon, and we utterly renounce the same.  
To the fourscore and second Canon, I answer and affirm, that service of war is forbidden by the same, not that which is necessary, but that which is voluntary. Upon which ground I hold this for a sure principle, that that Priesthood or Bishop doth both against the honour and the honesty of the sacred ministry, whosoever without command of supreme authority, or constraint of extreme necessity, shall take upon him any service of war, either as leader or as soldier. But when such time and places betid, as shall exact this at our hands, we are unwillingly to yield to unwelcome necessity.  
Theodoret in his second Book the third chapter, writeth of one james Bishop of the City of Nisib, (which of some is called Antioch Migdon) that he was upon occasion both Bishop and Captain of the same his City, the which by the help of God he manfully defended against Sapor King of Persia, and delivered the same as well with his prows, as his prayers. The same Theodoret, in his fourth book the twelfth Chapter, recordeth as much and much more, of the warlike power and prows of Eusebius Bishop of Samosis, who managing himself with all manner warlike habiliments, ranged along throughout Syria, Phenicia, and Palestine, where he erected Priests and Deacons, and performed such other Ecclesiastical pensions. Neither did I ever read of any that found himself offended with this action, or thought his action offended against that Canon. I do not so think (nor will I say so much) of Theophilus and Cyrillus Bishops of Alexandria, who took upon them a secular principality over that City, the Emperor not noting it, but not commanding it.  
As for the Canon which Cyprian citeth, I must needs confess that I cannot attain unto the reason thereof, only this I am assured of, that it was but a particular and a provincial decree, serving only for that time and that place. For no doubt, to take charge of Widows and Orphans, is an especial work of piety, and commanded of God in every place of his Law: and so, that they incur no small blame, that defer to take upon them not the patrimony, but the patrociny of such.  
For good cause therefore was the old custom continued in the Church, that Bishops should be the patrons of Widows, and the Fathers of Orphans, and that they especially before all others, were to take charge of them without any shame to their calling, without any breach of the Canons. You shall hear how the Council of Sardis doth allow and recommend the same in plain words. For this is the speech which Osiris, than Bishop there, made. Much importunity and too much confluence, with unlawful suits, hath brought the matter to this pass, that we have not so much either favour, or credit committed unto us; whiles there are some, which cease not to repair to the Court of the Bishop, (and especially they of Africa) who (as we know) reject and contemn the wholesome directions of our most holy brother and fellow Bishop Gratus. Who do not only present divers and sundry matters not material to the Church, (as many times it cometh to pass) that widows, orphans, and the poor might be succoured, but they do further crave for certain secular dignities, and civil offices. This bad order therefore stirreth up not only much muttering, but many offences also. Notwithstanding, this is a commendable thing, that Bishops should be a means for those which are oppressed with wrongful violence, (as if so be a widow be molested or an orphan defrauded) and yet so, that these parties have some just cause of complaint, and some honest petition to present. Wherefore, if it so please you (my beloved brethren) let this be a decree, that Bishops come not to the Court, except happily they, whom the Religious Emperor shall by his letters invite. But because oft times it cometh to pass, that they which suffer wrong, fly to the Church for succour, and they also which do wrong, and are adjudged therefore to some i'll, or exile, or in deed what sentence of judgement soever they receive, they ought here to be relieved, and without all doubt their pardon to be craved: Therefore if it so please you, as I have said, so let it be decreed. They all gave a placet, and let it be enacted. This Canon containeth a certain exposition of the sixth Canon of the Apostles, and it teacheth us what secular cares a Bishop, or a Priest may undertake, and what not. The Bishops in this point were imitators of their Fathers the Prophets, which always gave their helping hand to widows, orphans, and other afflicted people. Do we not read how fatherly and friendly the Prophet Elizeus greeteth the Sunamite after his entertainment? 
2. Reg. 4.  What wouldst thou that I should do for thee? is there any thing to he spoken for you to the King, or to the Captain of the host? Nor need this seem to any man any such a strange duty of religion, that Bishops (or other Ministers) should repair to Princes, to entreat for the distressed.  
Ambrose undertaking an honourable Embassee for Valentinian the Emperor (being yet a child) to Maximus the tyrant, spoke thus in his case (as himself reporteth to Valentinian in an Epistle) Whom (saith he) ought Bishops rather to defend, than orphans? For it is written, judge the cause of the fatherless, and defend the widow, and deliver him that suffereth wrong: and in an other place: Ye judges of widows, and fathers of fatherless. As for that which is urged from the example of the Apostles, there is no child so simple so to conceive thereof, as if when the Apostles had once chosen Deacons, the care of the poor and the widow did no more pertain to them. I noted before, how the necessity of the poor was commended to Paul and Barnabas after that and we read how Paul also carried the benevolence of the Corinthians and other Churches, to Jerusalem. Wherefore, to conclude, if it be lawful (as it is) for bishops and Pastors, and that according to the rules of charity, to employ their labour in outward affairs, and to detract some what from that time, which otherwise were to be spent in reading of holy writ, and other sacred travels, and that only for our private necessities, or our neighbours: what labour shall we think too much, or what pains not to be performed in the commendable affairs of the King or common wealth, for a public necessity, and a greater commodity?   

Chap. XVII. What a fee is, and what are the conditions thereof.  
NOw it remaineth that I make answer for those Church goods which are held in Fee, of which term before the irruption of the more barbarous nations into into the Roman Empire, there was no where any mention: that phrase taking his original from the Goths, Vandals, and Longobards, What may be the etymology thereof, and what is signified thereby, the learned at large discourse, & discuss: whose judgements and opinions it were now too long to repeat. But for our purpose this is enough, and this is a clear case, that a Fee with the Lombard's, doth signify a privilege or an especial benefit with the Latins: so that a Fendotarye with them is the same that a free Tenant is with us, who holdeth by fealty and homage only.  
But a Fee is defined among the Lawyer's divers ways: First, that it is a military service imposed and undertaken upon this condition, that the tenant for the benefit received perform his service in war, and therein show his fealty and fidelity to his patron and his benefactor. (By which we may understand, what was the original of tenors in Fee.) notwithstanding, for as much as there are some fees which are not military, neither stand upon knight's service, this may serve for a more general definition, that, a Fee is a benefit, or a privilege given unto some man upon this condition, that he which receiveth the benefit, shall in am thereof perform some duty or service, as a testimony of his thankfulness. But here there are three things of necessity to be observed: the Persons, the Things, and the Right. The Persons are the Lord, and the vassal (that I may so speak with the Feudist) between whom the service is contracted: The which for the most part in deed is military or knight's service; I say, for the most part, because of the ecclesiastic or church service. But the Thing is the matter & substance of the benefit received, as fields, fermes, jurisdictions, immunities, courts, or whatsoever else is held in Fee. But last of all, the Right accrueth from these both: For the Fee in respect of the Lord, is a benefit given to the vassal, upon that condition that he should recognize the author thereof in some kind of service; but in respect of the vassal, the Fee is the right of using and manuring another man's thing, upon that condition, that some service of duty, and testimony of his fealty be due for the said thing. But now is there any of these three, more cross of contrary to the calling and condition of Ministers, then of other Christians? But that it may the more plainly appear what is the nature of the whole matter, and what therein is repugnant to the state of a Minister, we will more diligently examine the particulars of these pretended Fees.   

Chap. XVIII. A distinction of Fees.  
THis title of Fees is many ways divided: but that which maketh for the present purpose is this. Of Fees some are mere Civil, some are Military. The civil Fee is again subdivided into an Ecclesiastical or Church Fee, or a temporal or Lay Fee. In the nature of Ecclesiastical or Church Fees, are our Parsonages, our bishoprics, Archbishoprickes, Abbeys, and such like, which are given to hold in free tenure by the Prince's Sceptre. In the manner and nature of Civil Say Fees, are those secular dignities and civil offices of the common wealth, as Lieutenancies, Mairolties, Consulships, and such like: of the which we do not purpose in this place to make any particular discourse. It sufficeth for this time, that we have noted, how all Fees are not given for military duties, neither do all hold upon Knight's service. Moreover this also is most manifest, that the laws of Fees have often times altered, and the nature with the laws, so that there is nothing more variable than that title: And, that the whole matter dependeth upon certain customs, and the uncertain pleasures of the Lords, who upon any condition, or without any condition (if it please them) may freely give the things they have, to be held and used.  
In deed the first occasion of Fees was Knights service: that the Prince might always have a sufficient host, & Captains competent for the defence of the common wealth: So that Fees no doubt in the beginning were no other thing, but stipends for war, not hereditary but temporary, & not unlike to Princes annual pensions at this day. And then no question, neither young children, nor youths under the age of fourteen were capiable of those Fees, nor generally any, whosoever was not apt & able for service of war; & yet we see afterwards how they were made Hereditary also, so that in many places they now differ little or nothing, from ordinary inheritance. Whereby we may see, that those laws & conditions of Fees, which determine that a Clerk is no able person to hold in Fee, are to be understood no otherwise than of knights Fee. In the which notwithstanding, if it seem good to the Lord of the Fee, to alter the law thereof (as he justly may by his absolute authority) he may also grant the same Fee upon any condition, unto the Church in general, or to any of the clergy in particular. In the mean while, those Laws which serve to restrain clergy men from these Fees, do in like manner by the same reason exclude women and children, and young men, and old men, and all men that are not fit for military service: Who when as at this day they are notwithstanding admitted; what reason, that Clergy men alone, should be excepted? For they also may perform by an other man, or supply with another duty, that duty of Chievalry (if it be a duty) as well as women & boys: wherefore, seeing that at this day the Pastors and Prelates of the church, do live under the same Magistrate, & the same laws, neither do challenge unto themselves any peculiar immunity from the burdens of the common wealth, any otherwise then other Citizens; surely to deprive them of the like benefits, or to depose them from the like privileges with other citizens, is an action no less odious to all, then injurious to them. But as of old for good cause it seemed necessary to them which had the chief place in the common wealth, to give lands and Lordships in Fee to their Nobles and noble warriors for military attendance, and the peaceable continuance of the common wealth: so also did they take it no less necessary, and as great reason for them to give unto Pastors and Bishops in the like name and nature of Fees both towns and towers, and parks, & woods, and pools, and fishings, and fermes, and fields, and tenths, and tithes, for the sacred ministry of God's Church, and the reverend administration of things sacred, thereby to advance the honour, and support the worthiness of that most honourable & heavenly calling.  
As for those things which the Bishops and other Ecclesiastical persons in England, do hold in Fee, they are for the most part of that nature, as that they require no military service: for they are given in Frank almoigne (as they term it) and yet notwithstanding, all ancient Bishoprics have freely granted many Fees and such like tenors, unto their Tenants in fee, to hold in Knight's service: Who by this means do perform unto the kings of England, as well military, as other necessary services in the Bishop's behalf: by the which the Bishops are enlarged and set free from them.   

Chap. XIX. An answer to the objection, That civil jurisdiction, outward pomp and honours which are annexed with these fees, do not agree with the simplicity of the evangelic ministry.  
IF any man object, that these tenors in fee, are accompanied with certain Royalties, civil jurisdictions, secular titles, honours and retinewes, in which things, the ancient Nobility are an ornament unto the King and the Country: and therefore not agreeable unto the simplicity of the ministery: which thing the Lord himself taught, as well by express doctrine, as especial example: Because indeed such things they do but entangle a man in extearne vanities, and solicit their hearts with the cares of this world, in the which it becometh a Bishop to be secure.  
And furthermore, for that the Lord himself being requested to sit but as arbiter between two brethren, denied the same. And again, when the Apostles made the question, which of them should be the greatest, he made answer and said: The Kings of the Gentiles reign over them, and they which bear rule over them are called gracious Lords: but ye shall not be so, but he that is greatest amongst you, let him be as the least, and he which is Prince, as he which ministereth. By which, the words and examples of our Saviour we are taught, that the Ministry of the Gospel hath nothing common with the Commonwealth.  
It may suffice for an answer unto this objection, which we have before noted: namely, that all this they talk of, hath his place in that estate, in the which, our Saviour and his Apostles lived, not in that commonwealth, in the which the chief Magistrates acknowledge Christ jesus their chief Lord, and sovereign King. For as the Magistrate is of an other calling now in the Church, then before he had: so is it reason, also that the servants of the Lord should be of better estate in the Commonwealth, then before they were.  
The Magistrate, which before was an enemy and a persecutor: (according unto the prophesy of Esaias) is become a Foster-father of the Church, and a religious worshipper of the Lord Christ: under whom, were it not an absurd thing, that the servants of Christ should have no more honour, then under a persecutor? But because it is not set down expressly in the Scripture, what, of what sort, and how great the same aught to be, many men's minds are here at a maze, and some are of mind so to leave it, as at a dead loss; and yet notwithstanding, the thing itself is not so hard to find out, and it is in his own nature well enough known, and that both by the written law of God, and the universal censure of all nations: were it not for the awkewarde interpretation of those scriptures which I have now cited.  
Out of the which notwithstanding, there is nothing else directie concluded, but that it is not any part of the Ecclesiastical function, to intermeddle in civil affairs, the which indeed is out of all controversy. Neither is that the question: but whether the same man that is a Pastor, may not together with the ministry of the Gospel, be lawfully employed in politic affairs, for the benefit of the Church, and good of the Commonwealth. For when as the Minister of the church, is citizen also of the commonwealth, he ought not think any thing not pertaining to him, that pertaineth to the Commonwealth: so that being lawfully called, he may not undertake some part of the civil estate. As for that which I lately cited concerning our Saviour, who refused to be an arbiter, it is nothing to this question. For the spirit of Christ in the mouth of Paul doth plainly teach us, that the meanest of the church, are good enough to judge of earthly causes, for that one day they shall judge the world, yea, the Angels themselves; (a judgement far greater than this.) The which, seeing the Apostle affirmeth of any Christian: is it to be thought, that only Christ alone was no fit man to take up a small matter between two brethren, if they both had been content to stand unto his judgement? We cannot therefore imagine, that our Saviour Christ simply refused the office of an arbiter, but that he denied himself to be that judge, which might command both parties to stand unto his arbitrement.  
And is not this then a slight testimony, for to prove it not lawful for a Bishop, (who is both a Citizen, and a subject) to exercise any civil jurisdiction, the Magistrate so commanding him? or to execute some other pension of the Commonwealth, (not abhorring altogether from his profession) being furnished with sufficient authority to discharge it?  
That the fourscore and second Canon commandeth him to be disordered, who undertaketh both Provinces (the Ecclesiastical power, and the secular principality,) for my part, I say not against it: if so be that it bring no inconvenience unto the Bishops of the Church, and that it may be done with the good leave of the Prince, and without any great hurt to the Church and Common wealth. And thereupon we are also bold to say, that Theophilus and Cyrill, Bishops of Alexandria, transgressed that Canon: of whom Socrates reporteth, that of themselves they took unto themselves the principality of that city. In like manner do the Bishops of Rome, when as they improve unto themselves those things which are Caesar's. For when as they are the vassals and subjects of the Emperor, they have notwithstanding extolled themselves above their Lords, and advanced the shepherds croysier above the royal sceptre. But for those Bishops which vail their bonnet to their Sovereign, and obey their Princes in honest and godly things, there is not the like reason. And many things many times are done in the Commonwealth extaordinarily, so that there can no law be published or made, which it is not lawful for to gainsay at some time or other, for the good of the Commonwealth.  
Neither is the other example that they urge, of any force. For had our Saviour meant to have enthronized himself in that earthly kingdom, (which he never meant) yet would he have refused that tumultuous course: For what power had that part of the people to anoint him King?   

CHAP. XX That it is lawful for Bishops to hear civil causes, and to determine upon them.  
THat Bishops had to deal in civil causes, when as the parties submitted themselves to their judgement, it is sufficiently known by the writings of the Fathers, & the works of justinian. The which, although it were a matter of no small trouble unto the godly Bishops: yet the iniquity many times of secular judges, their delays, demurs and cavils in law were such, as that the Bishops of mere charity were moved unto this labour. Neither are they therein to be so censured, as if they usurped the place of the civil Magistrate: for he did it by the consent of the chief Magistrate: as it appeareth in the writings of justinian in his first book de Episcopali audientia, the fourth title, where he commandeth, that there should be that reverence given unto their judgement, which is due unto the highest powers: (from whom it is not lawful to appeal) and moreover he commandeth that the execution of their judgements, be done by his civil judges.  
By reason of the statute of Praemunire (as they call it) (against the which, whosoever offend, they are punished with is a matter of very great danger in England, for Churchmen to invade the office of the civil Magistrates: and therefore, there is kept a most circumspeact distinction between the affairs of the Civil, and the Ecclesiastical Court. If at any time any of the Bishops (or any other of the clergy) are thought meet men to undertake any civil charge, they do it not by the especial commandment and commission of the King, under the broad seal of England. But those charges are always accompanied with some honour, so that they may be accounted rather a help, than a hurt to the proceed of the Gospel: (as are the offices and dignities of a privy Counsellor, a Commissioner, a justice of peace, and such like.) Neither (as I do think) will any man of sound judgement say, that those charges are either imposed upon any Citizen without the chief Magistrate, or if they be so imposed, that they can of any man be deposed, or laid aside.  
If any man except, that this is more abhorring from the office of a Bishop, than was of old the charge of the poor, from the which notwithstanding the Apostles did abdicate themselves, because they could not attend upon that, and their own charge too: and therefore urge, that it is not possible for Bishops, that they should discharge both charges well; for which cause they ought to sequester themselves from the one: I answer, first, that the Apostles did not so far forth discharge themselves of the poor man's box, that that they thought it not appertaining to them to have any further care thereof: for they always continued patrons of the poor, as do the Bishops also, whom we will not so entangle with civil causes, that they forsake their own; but that, (as it especially concerneth their office) upright dealing, and sincere charity may be maintained among them, whose souls health is committed unto them. But how much a godly and diligent Bishop may do in this matter, Austin alone may serve for many examples, who wrote so many excellent volumes, when as yet he employed no small part of his time in these troublesome affairs. Whose words I will here infer, for that they enforce a sufficient confutation of this their cavil: I call the Lord jesus witness to my soul (saith he) in whose name I boldly speak these things, that for so much as concerneth my commodity, I had rather work every day with my hand (as it is used in well ordered Monasteries) and reserve the other hours free to read, and to pray, and to exercise myself in the Scriptures, then to sustain the tumultuous perplexities of other causes, in determining secular controversies by judgement, or in taking them up by arbitrement. To the which troubles the same Apostle hath appointed us, not of his own will, but of his that spoke in him. The which notwithstanding we read not that he himself sustained; for indeed the course of his Apostleship stood not with it. Neither did he say, If therefore you have any secular controversies, bring them before us, or appoint us to give judgement of them, but those which are least esteemed in the Church, set them up (saith he.) And I speak to your shame, is it so, that there is not any wiseman among you, which can judge between his brother, but the brother goeth to law with the brother, & that before infidels? Wherefore, those wise men which were resiant in some certain place, being faithful and godly (not those which discoursed this way and that way for the Gospel sake) I say, such would he have to be the examiners of those matters. For which cause it is no where written of him, that he at any time attended upon any such business, from the which notwithstanding we cannot be excused, albeit we be of the number of those which are least esteemed, because he would have those also set up (if wise men were wanting) rather then that the controversies should be brought into the open and ordinary Court. The which labour notwithstanding we undertake, not without comfort in the Lord, for the hope of eternal life, that we may bring forth fruit with patience. Thus saith Augustine; whose reasons in my judgement may satisfy any reasonable man, verily they satisfy me, neither can I find any thing to mislike in this action of his.  
This is one general maxim in the rules of Christianity, That whatsoever we read in the word of God, either forbidden, being not evil of his own nature; or commanded, being of itself not good; in those things Christian charity dispenseth, and disposeth of the matter, as the time, the place, and the cause doth require. Unto the which, whosoever doth refuse to subscribe, he doth it of stubborn and froward hypocrisy, not of any religion or devotion he hath of the precept.  
Neither is the Divines rule unknown, concerning those things which are bidden, or forbidden in the word of God; namely, That some things are forbidden, because they are evil; and some things are evil, because they are forbidden, (suppose for some especial purpose.) And again on the contrary part, That there are some things commanded, because they are good; and some things therefore to be accounted good, because they are commanded by God, who requireth such things of men for some especial causes.  
Now those things which are of the first sort and section, are under a constant and perpetual law, and not to be changed by any means: but there is not the like condition of the other sort, neither do they bind any man any further, than the reason and occasion of the law doth require. Examples of this matter we have in the observation of the Sabaoth, and the use of the showbread, of the which it was not lawful for any man to eat, but the Priests only: besides many other things of like nature, which we read to be either commanded, or condemned. In this our case; it is no crime to be a King, nor to be a Magistrate, a capital sin. And therefore the reason of the commandment abating the thing itself abideth free; and it remaineth lawful for Princes, and other Magistrates, to be of power to command the Bishops of the Church in a Christian commonwealth, those things, which would rather be an aid and an ornament, than any hurt or impediment to their holy calling: I speak of calling in general, not of any one man's calling (which haply may be hindered, and shall have need of others which may help him) but of all theirs, which are in the same calling, unto whom there ariseth any honour and authority from the rest. So that if all things be thoroughly examined, and all commodities with all discommodities compared together, which may any ways accrue unto the Church and common wealth: I doubt not, but that which wanteth in one part, shall be requited in the other with advantage.   

Chap. XXI. An exposition of that place of Luke, in the two and twentieth chapter.  
NOw I come to that place of Luke, the two and twentieth chapter: where it is recorded, that there was some question made amongst the Apostles, which of them should seem the greater: the which for that it arose of a certain persuasion of honour and rule, our Lord & Saviour (the great Master of humility) repressed the same, and confuted their misconceit, when as he forbade them to imitate the proceed of heathen Princes, and made himself an example of his manner of government. For albeit he had called them indeed to a singular kind of dignity, notwithstanding he would have them understand that the same differed heaven and earth, from that which is usual in imperial kingdoms. For as the kingdom of God is divers from the kingdoms of the earth, even so it becometh the Ministers of that his kingdom, to be of divers conditions also.  
Indeed it is the fashion of the Court, to sew pillows under the elbows even of most vile men: and commonly they which grind the faces of the people with blood-thirsty tyranny, and practise upon them all kind of cruelty, are notwithstanding called most merciful and most gracious Lords. Wherefore our Saviour especially here taxed the manifest misdemeanours of them, which then did domineer over the people of God, noting withal the manifold abuses of other ungracious Tyrants, which by force and arms had enthralled mighty kingdoms under their dominion, unto whom the grace of graciousness was given even by them, whom they oppressed most ungraciously.  
Moreover, there was settled in the minds of the Apostles a certain conceit, that the kingdom of the Lord should be earthly, as they did see that of the Romans to be, and as they had heard that of David and Solomon to have been. Higher than this could not they advance their conceits: for alâs they were as yet but mere infants in Christ, and did but learn as then to go by ground. Whereupon it came to pass, that they imagined very strongly, that they could be made no other by the Lord, then Lords Lieutenants at the least: from the which their childish overweening, our Saviour doth in this place take them down a little. But that it may be made yet more apparent unto all, what might be the Lord his very meaning in that his saying, I will yet sound into the cause a little deeper.  
The Apostles seem to make a very plain question, demanding no more but this; Who should be the greatest among them: but in what things he should be the greatest, that is not there expressed. No doubt a man may be accounted greatest for sundry causes: as greatest in age, in experience greatest, greatest in learning, in eloquence greatest, greatest in wisdom, in wealth, in nobility of birth, in authority and power, and such like. But now, the Apostles were private men, in nothing singular, which commonly maketh men's minds ambitious, and causeth men's thoughts to overreach. As for age, experience, wealth, wisdom, nobility, & such like, they openly bewray themselves in whom soever they are the greatest, so that there is seldom any question about those things.  
It remaineth therefore, that the question between them was for honour and authority: the which also may seem a ridiculous thing among the poor fraternity of the twelve Apostles, unless haply a man would judge them ambitious, rather for their desire, then for their honour. But far be it from me, that I should rashly condemn those good men of any sacrilegious ambition, seeing the Lord himself did not so much correct them, as direct them in their demand. It appeareth rather by that the Lord answered, than by any thing the Apostles propounded, that they did not regard the present state of things, as they were then, but that they had an eye to that rather which they hoped to see shortly under Christ. They knew, that the kingdom of GOD was now at hand, about the proclaiming whereof they chief were sent; neither were they ignorant how honourably the Prophets had written thereof; namely, that it should be, as a most mighty, so a most ample kingdom▪ not to be bordered, but with the compass of the whole earth; that all nations should come and acknowledge their fealty, and do due homage thereunto: and that, albeit they expected many enemies and adversaries, both tyrants and traitors, yet notwithstanding, the rebellious of the people should be appeased at the last.  
Wherefore, when as they were of belief, that this kingdom should be restored unto Israel out of hand, their question is, who should be next unto Christ in that kingdom. For as the Israelites had borne a long time the heavy yoke of some tyrannous Empires; so they were persuaded, that all Nations should now yield to the just consequence of their renewed title. And they did see indeed, that their present number did well agree with the twelve Princes of the twelve Tribes of Israel, and that the seventy two Disciples did as well resemble the grand Senate of God's people. Whereby as they knew, that amongst them of old, there were diverse degrees of dignity under King David, and other Princes, so they persuaded themselves, that the like distinction of orders and honours ought to be continued amongst them. Neither could they so soon forget that honourable speech of their Lord, when he promised them, that one day they should sit upon twelve thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel.  
These conceits (I should conceive) the Apostles had then in their heads, being made as yet, and not thoroughly exercised in the censure of heavenly things: & these I think rather to have proceeded in them, of a certain weak ignorance, and erroneous misconceiving, then of any sacrilegious pride, or ambitious overweening. But the Lord, perceiving their thoughts, correcteth their misconceit, & teacheth them, That he had not called them to sway an earthly sceptre, but to seek a spiritual Empire: in the which, notwithstanding the power they should receive of him, they should still continue, and content themselves, not Princes, but private men. Wherefore, albeit they should be the chief and principal of the new people of God, yet their principality should not be any thing more magnificent than the estate of other private men, and therefore in the form of that government he had appointed for his Church, the first and principal aught to imitate his example, who lived among them as a servant and a Minister, when as yet they called him (as indeed he was) both Lord and Master. And this is the plainest exposition of Christ his words.  
Where we see, that our Saviour, because he would not stir up any headstrong innovation in the common wealths and kingdoms unto whom he sent his Apostles, of especial purpose he sent them private and impotent, without either warlike complement, or civil regiment; namely, to convert souls, not to invert states: lest if he should have erected here any earthly kingdom, they might have supposed, that there had been no other kingdom to be expected. No doubt the calling and state of the Apostolic function was for just cause great and honourable, and their authority in the spiritual kingdom authentic and impregnable: and yet all that did not advance them above the state of private men in the commonwealth; and being private, he would not have them precedent therein. And verily these things were thus ordained of GOD, in a very prudent manner, and upon a very especial purpose. For why should any occasion be given for the heathen to cavil at the doctrine of the Gospel, as a thing seditious to the government, and pernicious to the commonwealth? The Lord without doubt did in great wisdom foresee, that the wicked would be ready to pick many quarrels at the doctrine of the Gospel; when as notwithstanding all this, there is no politic Philosophy, no imperial constitution, that doth more strictly bind the consciences of men unto subjection and obedience, than the doctrine of the Gospel doth. The principles of Philosophy, and the laws of Nations do permit many things against Tyrants, which the Religion of Christ doth flatly inhibit.  
But the prudent advise of this precept of Christ will more manifestly appear, if we shall for a time but imagine the contrary: namely, that the Apostles had followed that error, in the which they were found: and then let us admit, that the whole world had been won and wasted by them with war and robbery: (for they must of force have followed that forcible course, which that renowned thief Mahomet kept: a course far differing from the means and manners of our Saviour Christ.) But should not thus the jews have been confirmed in their error? And should not by these means just cause have been given to the Kings of the earth, to have armed themselves against Christ and his Gospel? After the subversion of Jerusalem, there was a diligent inquisition made by the especial commandment of Vespasian, if any could be found that were of the stock of David. For the jews, notwithstanding their overthrow, gave not over their hope, still expecting their Messiah: They did see that the times which David had foretold, were then fulfilled; and thereupon they did argue, that the Messiah was borne, and that the time was now at hand, in the which the Roman Empire should impair, and themselves prevail: The which thing gave the occasion, that so great and cruel a persecution was afterwards raised against the same Nation.  
The like we read of Domitian, who had the posterity of David in no small jealousy. For casting the worst, and fearing least some new Messiah should arise, and break the sceptre of their Roman Empire, he caused inquiry to be made after all that were of that kindred. Whereupon one jocatus by name, brought before him the nephews of judas (who was the Lord his brother according to the flesh) who did not only draw their pedigree from David, but were thought to be very nearly allied to the Lord himself. But when they were examined, what possessions they had, and of what wealth they were, & were found to be of very mean estate, (the hardness of their skins warranting the labour of their hands,) and when they further understood how they believed, that the kingdom of Christ should not be an earthly Monarchy, but an heavenly Hierarchy; neither yet, that he should come before the consummation of the world, to judge the quick and the dead: They were forthwith rejected base and simple men, and were without suspicion set at liberty.  
In like manner (no question) the private estate of the first Apostles, was both a testimony unto them of their innocency, and a safe conduct among the nations for their security. But what would not the Roman Caesars and other like Magistrates have done, if the Ministers of the Gospel had been sent and set forth with power of war, and other habiliments of like power?  
These the precepts of our Saviour, may therefore worthily be alleged against the tyrannique Bishop of Rome, who challengeth the right of all Empires, and holdeth the Roman Empire, as his proper fee: but they cannot be alleged against those Bishops, which live subject unto laws and Magistrates, and keep themselves in a proportionable order with other Citizens. Wherefore, where the Gospel of jesus Christ is honourably received by public authority, how should this abatement of our Saviour be wrested against all Bishops? that they should not be in that reverend account under a Christian Magistrate, which the laws of all nations, and even the very law of nature itself, and the written law of God also doth expressly award them? As for those places of scripture, about the which we now contend, this only may be gathered: That the Pastors of churches, in respect of their ministery, have no power over the bodies, or goods of Christians; Neither that they can challenge unto themselves those rights, which God hath placed in the power of the Magistrate only. But that the same Magistrate in no place, at no time, for no cause, may commit no portion of the Commonwealth unto the Bishops of the Church, it is not as yet proved, neither can be, (if I be not deceived.)   

Chap. XXII. That the Pastors of the Church, for the necessity of the Commonwealth, may attend some times upon worldly affairs.  
IF it be allowable, to detract some part of that time, which otherwise were to be employed in the study of the Scriptures, that the Minister of the Church may the better provide for the private good of his own family: much more may the same be converted to the good of the Commonwealth, the man being able to assist the same, either by his aid, or his advice.  
Where either the want, or the unwillingness of any Church is such, that either it cannot, or will not afford the Minister his due honour, it is lawful for him to have recourse unto the labour of his hands: whereupon the Elibertine council, oftentimes pretermitted Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to traffic for their better maintenance: The which thing, is also allowed by diverse other Canons, which I suppose superfluous to rehearse, seeing that one instance of Paul may suffice for all. But now, if so be that private necessity may privilege the detenee of the ministery, what may public necessity do? And yet if at any time, the Minister be exercised (for his private commodity) in base and wretched business, thereiss no man greatly offended with it: But if he be employed in any honest and honourable affairs of the Commonwealth, now a days there is no man that doth not invie it and inveigh against it: And whence for Gods-sake is this of devotion? from love, or from envy.  
I say not these things, as if I thought that Bishops, or other Pastors, were rashly to be encumbered in their holy course: But where the necessity, or greater commodity of the Church, or Commonwealth doth require the same, there is nor reason, nor religion against it. Are not Bishops Citizens also, and subject to Laws and Magistrates, as well as other men? Or may they not be commanded (if they cannot be entreated) by them unto whom they are subject, to do good to the Church or Commonwealth?  
Neither is that of Paul to Timothy, any thing at all against this assertion. (No man that warreth, entangleth himself in the affairs of this life:) For the affairs of this life are those, with the which we get things needful for this present life: not those things which appertain to the public estate of the Prince or Commonwealth. warfare itself is one of the public affairs of the Commonwealth, unto the which whosoever is levied, must leave his domestical affairs: so that if a man would urge the similitude thoroughly, He which warreth unto God, must leave all his domestical affairs: against that example of Paul; of whom no man will doubt, but that he discharged his Pastoral duty faithfully, & yet notwithstanding entangled himself in the affairs of this life, when necessity constrained him, to get his living with his handy labour, and to spend that time in the affairs of this life, which otherwise he might better have employed, either in prayer, or in Preaching: Being ready, no doubt, to have done the like in public affairs which he did in private, had the Magistrates commanded, and the good of the people required the same. Wherefore, the sense of the similitude is this, that we must abstain from those things, which do so hinder the War, to the which we are called, as that they force us to forsake the same.  
That the use of certain things, which do pertain unto the Commonwealth, as to have a Civil jurisdiction in certain Cities or towns, which a man may discharge by another; to be of the King's council in certain causes; to be present at the public assemblies of the kingdom; to deliver his judgement in things concerning the state; to undertake and discharge a royal Embassee; at certain times of the year, to be present at sessions, and assizes, and to undertake all these by the King's especial commandment, or general commission, that these things I say, and such like are of that wicked nature, that whosoever useth them, cannot be a Bishop, or a Minister, this I say should have been proved: and this also, that the Minister which intermeddleth in any of these things for a public commodity, being thereunto called and commanded by the Magistrate, doth commit a wicked thing, and unworthy his calling.   

CHAP. XXIII. That diverse functions are not confounded, albeit undertaken of one man.  
THAT which is commonly said of the state Ecclesiastic, (that it is distinct from the Civil estate,) is altogether impertinent to this question: seeing both callings become not one, though one man be called to them both. Are not the parts of of a Lawyer diverse, and the parts of a Physician diverse? yet the same party may play both parts, and prove as good a Lawyer as a Physician. In like manner, the same man may be both Physician and Divine, and cure the body, as a leech, and comfort the soul, as a spiritual Father. Spiridion was a husband man, and got his living by graizing: yet was he a Bishop of the Church, and a Pastor of souls; shall we think that he confounded both these functions? I, but a Bishop requireth the whole man, neither yet is one man sufficing for more charges. I, but this indefinite censure is uncertainelie true, and certainly false: and there are many presidents to the contrary, both in the old Testament, and in other antic histories.  
First, I would know whether Spiridion both Pastor of sheep and of souls, were not a man able for both these charges? No man as yet (so far as I can learn) hath envied him his farm with his Bishopric: No man hath dared to condemn that holy men, but all men have worthily admired both his simplicity and his sanctimony: and yet might he have been more greedy of graizing, then of gaining souls, had his mind been set upon covetousness. But why then might not the same man have been both Bishop, and the king's Counsellor as well? No doubt the greatness of every charge is chiefly to be considered, and then also, the supply of necessary aid, which a man may have in either charge, whereby he may well discharge the same. There are some Churches more great than other some; & some have more business, some less, in so much that the Pastor may have much time sometime, to spare from his ordinary charge. And in a great Church, where the Bishop hath many and great affairs, it may be, he hath many and great helps. Had these two functions been so adverse and contrary the one to the other, that they could never be exercised together by the same man, Moses would never have been both Prince, and Priest over the people of God.  
But I fear me, some silly shrewd fellow will have his action against me, for that I have called Moses a Priest: And yet I would have him first to understand, that after he had created Aaron, himself still continued both Prophet and Pastor, as he was before. But that Ely & Samuel were both judges and Priests together, it cannot be denied. You will say, that was a thing extraordinary: and I say, that I do not speak of any ordinary thing, neither of all the Pastors of the Church: only I urge what may lawfully be done, where the welfare of the Church or common wealth requireth the same, and in the mean while, these examples shall prove, that the same thing hath been done.  
But if so be you would have a view of a civil authority, which was also ordinary: may it please you consider those forty eight Cities of the Levites, and the government thereof. (For they could not be governed without a Magistrate and ordinary judges) shall we say that they chose them Magistrates out of other Tribes, to determine their controversies, when as themselves were ordinary Lawyers, and not only present, but precedent at ordinary judgements? deuteronomy the one and twenty Chapter, and first verse, every question and controversy is determined according to their censure. And is there not the like reason of those royalties which are given to clergy men in a christian common wealth, with those Cities and suburbs the old Israelites gave the Priests and Levites by the commandment of God?   

Chap. XXIIII. That David and Solomon used the aid of Priests and levites in civil affairs.  
ANd as the most renowned and religious Princes David, Solomon & others, used the Priests and Levites at their command (as other subjects) in civil government, so likewise may christian kings use the aid of Bishops & other Pastors of the church, if there be any among them which may stand, either them, or the common wealth in any stead. In the first of the Chronicles the three and twenty Chapter, at the commandment of David, there is a survey made of all the Levites, from thirty years of age and upwards: and there were found eight and thirty thousand. Of the which, four and twenty were appointed to be overseers of the works for the house of the Lord, and six thousand were ordained Rulers and judges in all Israel. And lest any man should think that they were judges only in Ecclesiastical causes, (as some now a days would hold men in hand) (forcing the Scriptures to that form of government they see in some Churches) let the six and twenty Chapter of the same Book be well read, and advisedly perused, and he shall find, that the Isharites, Chenanas and his brethren, men of might, were deputed officers and judges for the business without, over Israel. Of the Hebronits, Hesabias' and his brethren, men of might, a thousand and seven hundred, were appointed Officers for Israel beyond jordan westward, in all the business of the Lord, and for the service of the King. And in the same Chapter it is said, that David appointed the kinsmen of jedijas, men of might, two thousand & seven hundred, Princes of families, over the Rubenites and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasses for every matter pertaining to God and the King.  
To these I may add, that which I read (in the nineteenth of the 2. of the Chronicles) of king jehosophat, who intending the restoration of God's worship, and the reformation of the common wealth, appointed judges, levites and Priests, and Princes of the families of Israel, for the judgement and cause of the Lord. And where as some think by that in the last verse of this Chapter: That the Priests and Levites were only deputed over Ecclesiastical causes, because it is there written, Behold Amarias' the Priest shall be the chief over you in all matters of the Lord: and Zebadias' the son of Ishmael, a ruler of the house of juda shall be for all the King's affairs, etc. As if he had there put some difference between matters civil and Ecclesiastitall; It is an error, grown (as I have said) of a certain foreseasoned opinion of that government, which we see now in the Church or Rome, and some other reformed churches. For who seethe not, that in this place, the king's affairs, and in the six and twenty of the former book, the service of the King, doth not signify all one with civil matters, and politic affairs: but what so ever pertained to the King's right. (Such as were first described by Samuel, and afterwards either imitated, or augmented by the consent of the people, (as it often cometh to pass;) of the which there was nothing prescribed by Moses.) But what the business of the Lord was, the tenth verse going before, declareth by particulars. For the Priests were interpreters of the law, as well civil as ceremonial, and the King so appointing, they were also the ordinary judges thereof.  
These things I do therefore remember, that all men may know, what is lawful for the Ministers of the Gospel (who succeed the Levitical Ministry) in civil causes, under a christian Magistrate; (not that I would wish them entangled therewith any otherwise, than the necessity of time and causes may require) and, that we may also know, that those precepts of our Saviour were given to no other end, then that (as I have said) that misconceit of his kingdom should not be strengthened in the minds of his Disciples. Lest they should think the power which was given them were annexed with such authority, as that they might alter at their pleasure, and innovate public estates by their peculiar power.   

Chap. XXV. Their error confuted, that think no civil affairs of the common wealth ought to be committed to the Bishops and Pastors of the Church.  
NOw a days this common error hath invaded the minds not only of the common sort, but of some part of the learned also: so that there are many of that side very strongly opinionate, that the civil affairs of the common wealth, do nothing at all appertain to Bishops and Ministers, no more than if they were neither citizens, nor any supplement of the common wealth. Curriers, Dyer's, Weavers, Beere-brewers, Smiths, Fuller's, Merchants and peddlers, furnish the common house, and give their voice in things concerning the common wealth: (neither can I disallow the same in a common wealth) but that the Pastors of Churches should stand excommunicate out of their general assemblies, it is a thing utterly against the equal right of all Citizens. Seeing they live under the same laws, obey the same Magistrate, bear the same burdens of the common wealth: Seeing in such public assemblies, they do consult as well of their lives and goods, and what so ever else, upon the which not only their own estate, but the public good of their Churches also doth depend, seeing I say, they do consult of these no less than of cloth, and wool, and fish and fells, & importing and transporting any other commodities, is there any light of reason, or light reason, why godly Ministers ought to have less care of the common wealth, then common Burgomaster's? If they can allege no reason, what colour can they set upon their misshapen ground? Why they above all others should be excluded the civil assemblies, or Parliaments provincial, whom it chiefly concerneth to see, lest the flock committed to their charge be laid open to Wolves. In those things which concern the safety of their souls? nay but in those things also which touch the security of their bodies. Are they not appointed of God watchmen and overseers (as it were in a high tower, or heedeful centrenel) as they which are to see from far, what mischiefs are like to ensue, that they may admonish as well the people as the Magistrates themselves of such things as are to be avoided? The which in deed they cannot do, so long as they are kept fasting from the conscience and conference of such things, as are done in the common wealth.  
If the Church could stand safe, though the common wealth fell to decay, or if the one might rise by the ruins of the other, I had the less to say: but when as Church and common wealth are embarked in the same vessel, & sail together in the same danger: how should the devout minister be less solicited for the safety of the common state, then are the common Burgesses, who for the most part judge one thing commodious for the Church, an other for the common wealth, & another for themselves and their own estate: These are in office but for a year, they never forsake their charges: These may provide many ways for themselves & their own estate with the detriment of the Church, & danger of the common wealth; they can by no means preserve themselves or theirs, unless both Church & common wealth together be preserved: These consult that the common wealth sustain no damage in corn and cattle, in wares and merchandise, lest themselves at any time should want their sweet return: They do not a little regard these things: but besides these, their especial care is that justice, faith, godliness, and true religion decay not in the common wealth, lest at any time the kingdom of Christ should want his due increase. But do learned BB. understand less what belongeth to the good of the common wealth, then illiterate Burgreeves, & rank chapmen? Very unprofitably have they consumed themselves in their head-paine vigils, and heart breaking studies, if they have learned nothing whereby they may benefit the common wealth.  
I, but Ministers are of private estate, Burgreeves are Magistrates: It is not convenient that the same man should undertake both an Ecclesiastic, and a politic office.  
Truth it is, neither do I know any ignorant (except themselves) what is decent in this matter, and what is not. But to be present at the sacred Parliaments, to give a voice, and to give advice, is not to be a Magistrate. The books of the Prophets are plentiful in the precepts of peace, in the policies of war, and in the best counsels for all things which concern the common wealth: and sacred histories do record of purpose, how the people of God never adventured upon any action of weight and moment, before they had well consulted with the Priests and the Prophets. Such was the custom also of other countries, wheresoever there was any religion or reverence of God. What need I now again put you in mind of the Chaldees and their Wise men, the Egyptians and their Priests, the Grecians & their Prophets, the Romans' and their Soothsaiers, the French with their Druidists, without whose more sage advice, it was always thought a thing ominous, once to attempt any notable thing in the common wealth. Neither were they deceived in their opinion: For was the neglect of God ever left without revenge? Yea the opinion of false gods contemned, hath found the true God a sharp revenger: wherefore all antiquity thought well, that nothing could go well in the common wealth, without due reverence done to Religion: they began their wars with Religion, they ended their wars with Religion.  
But whence in God's name (if it can be in God's name) is this error sprung up among those which glory in the true religion, that they disdain in their counsels to take counsel of religion? Verily where God is banished public assemblies, & religion is made but a scorn to the wicked, & the common wealth a private gain to every varlet; happy Bishops, happy Ministers of the Church which are farthest off from such Godless and irreligious conventicles. Blessed is that man that hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, and hath not stood in the way of sinners, & hath not sit in the chair of the scornful.  
The time hath been under our Lord Christ, when Bishops thought it not agreeable with their honour, to sit in the counsels of Emperors: whether it were of any superstitious error of themselves, or of any contagious misdemeanour of the consistorians, I cannot well tell; but this I am sure of, that it is no indecorum for the servant of Christ, to be seen in the congregations of God. God standeth in the congregation of Gods, the judgeth among Gods. But it there, the counsels were held for private gain, or privy deceit, for wicked treasons, or bloody murders, no wonder though the godly BB. were ashamed to stand in the ungodly assemblies: For albeit God be there also, as judge & revenger, yet the devil is there present, as Precedent of the council: otherwise there was no reason, why it might not be a thing decent & convevient too, for a B. to stand in the consistory, (Admit him) as a Doctor to give advice according to the word, as Legate for the Prince or the estate, as a Solicitor for the widow & the orphan, for the poor & the oppressed, for the traduced and condemned. This was then also a religious custom among the most ancient & best conceived Bishops.  
What Ambrose did, & what he thought in this case, himself witnesseth of himself in his first Book the 27. Epistle: who even then when as he excused himself to the Emperor Valentinian, for that he would not dispute with Auxentius the Arrian B. in his Palace, yet even there also he acknowledgeth his duty in that behalf, saying: Wherefore take it in good worth (gracious Emperor) that I can not now come to the Consistory: For I have not acquainted myself to stand in the Consistory, but on your behalf: Neither can I willingly contend within the compass of your Court, who nor know, nor seek to know the the secrets of the Court. So that albeit Ambrose thought it not beseeming the dignity of a Bishop, to stand as an ordinary man in the throng of the consistorians, yet he thought it pertaining to his duty, to be there present in the Prince's causes, and the affairs of the common wealth. Wherefore, whencesoever this persuasion sprung, & whosoever they be, which think it either an unlawful, or an unseemly thing, for any Minister to intermeddle in civil causes, they do greatly wrong the honour of religion, the welfare of Princes, and the public state, whom they envy the good use, grave advice, and loving fidelity of so necessary Citizens and subjects of the common wealth.  
If the honest examples of ancient Bishops might be of any authority at this day, I would reckon up many honourable Legacies undertaken by most reverend Bishops in civil causes: but there are two precedents which may sufficiently serve for our purpose. The first is that of Ambrose who was twice Ambassador for the Emperor Valentinian, to the Tyrant Maximus; & that, not without great success: the other is that of Marutha Bishop of Mesapotamia, whom the Roman Emperor sent Ambassador to the king of Persia, as Socrates recordeth in his seventh book of Ecclesiastical histories: the which his one Embassee was abundantly beneficial, both to the Church, and also to the Emperor himself. By these reasons and examples I am drawn to this conclusion, that it is both lawful and requisite for Princes, to demise certain civil causes & affairs to the ancients of the Clergy; and that it is but the error of them which lust to go alone though they go awry, that think, that the Minister ought to be sequestered from all civil affairs, in a christian common wealth. As for those words of our Saviour, and the tradition of the Apostles, they teach us no other thing then this; That no public civil authority is joined with the Ecclesiastical Ministry, as any part thereof. But the state of the Church being altered; where the Church is the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth the Church, there the state of the Euangelique Ministers, may lawfully be the same, which was of old in the Priests and Levites among the people of God.   

CHAP. XXVI. Where the Church is the Commonwealth, the same man as Bishop, may take charge of the Church for the Lord jesus, and render fealty and obeisance to the King, as one that holdeth by faith and homage.  
SOme there be which think, that the Church is in the Commonwealth, as a certain part thereof, & that the whole Commonwealth itself is not the Church. But this distinction hath no place in a Christian people. In times past, when christians were mingled with the heathen, as at this day they are among the Mahometists, it was then of force a part by itself, and it might be said, the Church is in the Commonwealth, as the people of Israel were sometimes in Egypt, or at Babylon. I touch not now that state of a Commonwealth, in the which the headstrong people are distracted into diverse factions, and the headless Churches are dismembered under the same Magistrate. That is a weighty matter indeed, and such as requireth a proper treatise of itself. But where the whole nation hath given their names unto Christ, and there is no man which is not sprinkled in his Baptism, there doubtless the Church is the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth the visible Church: under the which who so supplieth, whether in respect of the one only, or in regard of both names (the order appointed by God being kept, and those things remaining diverse, which in nature are distinct) there is nothing in the Gospel that forbiddeth the same.  
In that a man is Pastor of the people, or Bishop of the Church, he holdeth of Christ: in that he is a subject and a tenant to the Commonwealth, he holdeth of the Prince: that he may perform his duty to both these, he is not constrained to give over either of these: the same man may give unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's, and nevertheless, perform that unto God which is due unto God. A Bishop, as he is a Pastor, doth owe unto Christ a vigilant care over the flock committed unto his charge; and as he is a subject and free Citizen, he oweth unto his Prince faithful obedience, dutiful homage, and all other kinds of lawful service.  
If it should so fall out at this day, (as it hath done full oft and full well) that some nobleman holding in fee of the King, should be called unto the Ministry, (as one which hath sufficient learning, and no less devotion) the doctrine of the Gospel doth not prohibit, that such a man should be made a Bishop, and yet retain his free hold and the royalties belonging there-unto. (Always to be considered, that the laws of the Commonwealth permit the same.) Neither is there any cause, why any man should think, that this Bishop would be carried away with his secular affairs from his pastoral charge: For if there be any fear of God in him, and if he have any care of the Church, he will honestly, and may easily provide, that such things be discharged by his servants, and will govern his Church himself. We see that noblemen have the surplusage of as much time from their secular affairs, to dispend in idle repasts, as might well suffice a Pastoral charge. And therefore it is not the possessions of the King's farms and fees, which do so alienate a man, as that he cannot be both Lord of them, and a good Bishop too. And therefore, if any christian King shall think it behooful, either for the honour of his estate, or the stay of the Commonwealth, that certain BB. of the church should hold in fee either manors or honours by their privilege, I cannot find that either he is forbidden to grant & demise; or that they are commanded not to receive, & enjoy the same. And that which I read not to be prohibited, I understand to be permitted, neither can that be prejudicial to the Church, which is beneficial to the commonwealth; especially when the Church is the Commonwealth.   

CHAP. XXVII. another argument against the donation of fees confuted.  
IF so be any man urge us any further, and say, that the oblations which are made in the Church, with the which, as well God himself as his servants are honoured, are utterly opposite to the nature of fees: because they are offered to testify the grateful memory of some benefit received: But contrariwise, a fee is granted by the Lord thereof upon that condition, that the tenant in fee acknowledge the donor in some kind of duty for a benefit bestowed. And therefore, seeing these two are opposite between themselves, and in condition cross each other, it seemeth that Bishops and Pastors are not rightfully endued with the title of fees: and this also is made good upon them by this reason. Those things which are given to the Pastors of the Church, in regard of their ministry, are in the nature of certain presents, and are reputed amongst the holy actions of religion, which are to be rewarded of God only: And therefore, to require in am of them any temporal recompense, or civil obsequy, is a thing no less preposterous, then irreligious: but fees are granted upon that condition that the feudatory recognise his Patron in some kind of personal (or proportionable) duty: & therefore our ancestors have not well done, to honour the Church with their endowments of fees. The distinction of church-good which before I remembered, doth contain a very easy & plain answer to all this: namely, that the goods of the Church, are partly sacred and divine, partly civil and humane. For fees are civil goods, & therefore not to be numbered among oblations, but donations: neither were those Cities and suburbs which were given by the people of God to Priests & levites, at any time recounted among their offerings. Besides this, there is a difference between these things, to offer some thing to God, & to give any thing to the church.  
Things movable, which do perish together with their very use, are said to be offered unto God, when they are given to his Ministers, or to his poor members for Gods-sake, (albeit the one hath the name of a gift, the other of an Alms.) The which thing, for that the benefit thereof hath the nature of an oblation, or sacrifice, (for neither are they given for any reward, nor received upon any condition,) therefore, in nature they are nothing alike unto the donation of fees, as themselves very well confess. I admit they also oblige a man to a grateful memory of that they have received: yet are they not given upon that condition, that thereupon some duty should be performed.  
Wherefore, seeing that the donation of fees, are neither in use, nor in sense like unto the religion of oblations, why should they be confounded with them? Or how should a man honestly argue from thence, that the Ministers of the church may not be endued there with? Are they not Citizens and subjects, and live under the same law, and obey the same Magistrate, and bear the same burdens of the Commonwealth? By what equity then can they be abridged the possessions of civil goods, by the benefit of the Prince & commonwealth?  
Besides, seeing it is thought but equal by the consent of the holy Fathers, that the fields and farms of the Church, should yield a tribute under the most Christian Princes; that the increase and benefit of those fees, should serve for the good, partly of the Church, partly of the Prince, & partly of the Commonwealth, it is not repugnant to the state of the Church, or stay of religion. And indeed, why should not the same thing betide their fields, which befall the persons themselves? who albeit they are dedicated to God, & mancipate to his service, yet they commit nothing unworthy their function, or not beseeming their calling, when as according unto the dignity of their place, they perform due service to their Prince, and other duties to the commonwealth.  
That which is added of the pension, or stipend of Ministers, is easily answered by the same reason: for it differeth not from the other. Wherefore as a man may consecrate himself and his labours to God and the Church, & yet reserve his due obsequy to his Prince and the commonwealth: so likewise may the Church enjoy both fields, and fearms, and fees in the commonwealth, and yet make no claim to any extraordinary immunity from service, nor ever think much of any ordinary fealty, due to the patrons thereof. The Bishop and every other Minister of the Church, is subject to the laws and Magistrate of the commonwealth: and seeing he oweth homage to the Prince, as to the common parent of the people: there is no absurdity committed, if by the access of some especial benefit he become more nearly bound unto him, than the common sort.  
How many and how bloody wars the Bishops of Rome have made upon the Emperors, and other Christian Princes, even for the only investiture of those fees which they challenge unto themselves as consecrate to God, & therefore (as they persuaded themselves) free from all civil service, all histories can well witness. Wherefore those Magistrates at this day do show themselves very ingrate, (I may say ungodly) to the present ministery; who, when as by defending the authority of the civil Magistrate, which the Bishop of Rome had impaired, they have now at the length brought to pass, that they have recovered the same by their means, do now notwithstanding envy them their poor estate in the Church, and their small authority in the commonwealth. May not that of the Apostle (2. Cor. 11.19.) be truly said of this people? They suffered those gladly which brought them into bondage, which took of their goods, which exalted themselves, which smote them on the face; I more, which afflicted them with fire and sword, and made them run through Purgatory, glad that they might get to Hell. But the faithful servants of Christ, which set them free from the captivity of the Pope, and gave them that liberty which they now abuse against the Church, those they do not only not reward with that honour they well deserved, but they deprive them of those dignities they once possessed: They lay baits for the bane for some, & set snares for the lives of others, & contrive plots for the deposing and disparaging of all. Is this the thanks they give to their Pastors? And is this the reward for so many benefits received by their preaching? O God forgive them this sin, if it be possible. But thou wilt one day judge between them and us, and revenge this infamy done unto thyself.   

Chap. XXVIII. Of the honourable titles which are given unto Bishops.  
NOw we have spoken of fees, and of that civil jurisdiction which is annexed unto them, it remaineth that we speak somewhat also of their titles of honour. Neither will I seek into all, but will show you unto a few of them, and comprise in one or two all the rest, which either the custom of the time & place, or the courtesy of Kings and Princes, do give unto the chief states of the kingdom. With the which here are some in England, which find themselves not a little offended, & would hold others in hand (though they dare not hold their hand) that such titles are not to be given to the greatest Bishops.  
The first that displeaseth them, is the title of Lord, which yet at this day is used to be given rather for honour sake, then for homage. The proper signification thereof is sufficiently known, to have relation to the possession & propriety of a thing: In which sense, every man is Lord of that he hath. It hath a secondary relation also to a Servant: in which sense the Roman Emperors would not be called Lords, or Masters. Suetonius reporteth of Octavius, that he abhorred the name of Lord & Master, as curse, and a slander. Indeed the Barbarians acknowledge no other distinction of persons, but of Masters & Servants: & therefore their Kings also do domineer over their subjects, as masters over their servants; & the fathers of families have the same authority over their wives & children, as over their servants. This would seem (& might well) a very unreasonable thing to us, being not (as they are) a people base & servile. And yet the Moschovites rule at this day after this manner; neither is the Empire of the Turks much unlike the same. And generally, all the Eastern kingdoms were once of this government, & kept this foul rule over the nations where they conquered. (Whether the King's kindred had any privilege besides the rest, it is to be doubted, & so I leave it.) But these a man might truly call Dominos, Lords, or Masters: in which sense our Kings themselves will not be so called: nor will they take it in good part to be so slandered; for their subjects are not their slaves, or servants, neither do they so use them. They hold it their chiefest glory to have a free people subject unto them; and think it more honourable, to command over a free then a servile nation.  
And albeit the King may truly be called Lord, and indeed the only chief Lord in his own kingdom (referring the signification of that title, either to the subjection of the whole people, or the propriety of his own kingdom) yet contenting himself with the royal title of King, (which glory he will communicate with no subject) he envieth not his subjects the name of Lords, but whom he thinketh worthy, he honoureth with that title. Neither do inferior persons only call superior personages Lords, but they also which are Nobles of equal authority do so salute their peers. And doth not the King himself vouchsafe to greet the Honours of his land by the names of Lords? The name of Lord is of many significations, and is (as I have said) a title rather of honour and of favour, then of rule and of Empire: the which argueth the no small malice, or otherwise the great ignorance of them, which hold the title of Lord to be of so great authority, as that it is not convenable to the calling of Bishops. And yet at this day among the best Latinistes, the same name ordinarily is given to any man of any ordinary esteem. So doth the signification of this title vary, according to the diversity of regions, and persons, and proprieties.  
They which in England do make the same a signification of greater honour, then that it may any ways agree with their Bishops do ground that their error upon an other, by the which they are persuaded that it is a thing insolent and absurd, for Bishops to be taken for peers of the land. But herein they seem to bewray themselves in like passion with the sons of jacob, when they envy their own brother, for that he was made more honourable than themselves; who ought rather to have thought themselves honoured in their brother. It is utterly against the nature of a well ordered commonwealth, that the order of religion should not be accounted among the chief states of the land: the which honour seeing it cannot be given to all that are in the same order, it is wisely and worthily provided by the chief Magistrate, that the whole order should be honoured in a few of them. The which thing seeing it is agreeable to the law of God, and the custom of the ancient people of God, & the practice of all Nations under the Sun; may it not seem a wonder greater than their error, that any learned men should be found in any wilderness of the world so overgrown with moss, (the melancholy of their distempered brains) as once to oppose themselves in any civil society against the same?  
But let us hear yet, with what reasons they are moved so far beyond all reason. Those proud titles (say they) of dominion, are the inventions of Antichrist: and our Saviour answered his Apostles contending about the primacy, That the kings of nations rule over them, and they which exercise authority upon them are called gracious Lords; but it shall not be so with you. And in the 23. of Matthew: You shall call no man your father upon earth, for there is one your father which is in heaven: be not called Doctors, for one is your Doctor, even Christ. Whatsoever else is alleged is of small worth: & these words of our Saviour being honestly entertained, the rest will willingly yield themselves.  
First therefore I affirm, that the titles of dominion were invented, before Antichrist himself was hatched, he being the author thereof, who is the author of dominion. Neither is there any thing arrogant in the titles, but in the impotent and usurped aspirement of such, which oft times rejecting their commendable titles affect the contrary, and call themselves servants of servants, which think themselves Lords of Lords: & name themselves with the less and the least, which will be accounted the greater & the greatest, that if for nothing else, yet for that they are so named. But the Lord his meaning was not to abolish the use of these titles, Lord, Doctor, and Father, but to teach us only by these his precepts, to beware of two dangerous perils: The first is, the vain swelling or swelling vein with the which Hypocrites are commonly puffed up by reaso of these titles: the other is, the preposterous confidence which the simple people commonly have in their elected Doctors, or Fathers: upon which advantage the popular professors distract the name of Christ, so that some hold of Paul, some of Ap●llo, and some of Cephas, and every man best fancieth the Doctor himself hath chosen: when as no man ought to build upon any Doctor's words, but on his alone which cannot err (the Lord Christ.) Neither was it the Lord his intent to inhibit us, that we should not call those by their names, unto whom the Lord hath given the names of Doctors & Fathers in the Church, or that children should not call them Fathers upon earth, that begot them into the world; or that Disciples should not call them Doctors in the City, that instructed them in the University; or that Christian servants should not call them Lords & Masters, which have entertained them into their families. No doubt Onesimus both might & aught to call and recognize Philemon for his Master: And did not Paul also (a most perfect imitater of Christ) call himself the Doctor of the Gentiles? And why may not we also call him, as well a Doctor as an Apostle? In the first to the Corinthians, chap. 4. he calleth himself their Father. Although (saith he) you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have you not many Fathers; for I have begotten you through the Gospel. The like we read in many other places: by the which we are given to understand, that not the condition, but the ambition only of those names was forbidden, with the singling out of some especial Doctor, or Teacher, by the which we will show ourselves to be singular: For that indeed that knowledge of the truth, which we would seem to experience in some especial men, is only to be expected in that Doctor alone, who with the Spirit is able to lead us into all truth.  
But now, what shall we say of the name & title of Lords? First I say, it is no where written; Be ye not called Lords: And again I say, that although it were written, it could bear no other sense, or have any other interpretation, than those other titles which before are noted. That dominion over the lords heritage is forbidden by the Lord, there is no man that doubteth: and did the word Lord always imply a Dominion, it were some thing they said. But we have heard of the divers significations of these words. As for that the Lord said unto his Apostles, It shall not be so with you; what sober man will interpret him, as if he had said, Ye shall not be called Lords? If the Kings and Princes of the commonwealth, will have you to sit in the assemblies of great men, and will hear your judgement concerning the state of the Church, and will consult together with you concerning the affairs of the commonwealth, and in regard of my name, and in reverence of your calling, will have you reputed among the peers of the land, take heed, beware of that, and suffer not yourselves to be called Lords: this is a proud title, and that is a foul matter. From hence no doubt did arise that odious hypocrisy in the Church of Rome, which under the baseness of mean titles, exerciseth the sharpness of no mean tyranny, and under the name of Servant of servants, usurpeth dominion over Masters and Servants. And hence it is also, that his champions do glory in this, to be called Friars (Minorites) the less, or the least: as if forsooth there were, nor pride, nor tyranny lurking under these their lubarly names: or as if the name of Lord only, were to be attended with pride and tyranny.  
Wherefore, the meaning of our Saviour in those words, was not to forbid his disciples those ordinary terms of honour, which are given them by the favour of the Prince, and consent of the people: only his intent was to teach them, that the Gospel was no princelike Ministry, or royal signory. By the which it neither is, nor can be concluded, that Princes may by no means use the assistance of Ministers, nor grace the learned Pastors with certain principal degrees of honour. Hath Christ by any law diminished the Prince's power? or hath he by any counsel advised them to withdraw their bounty from his servants? or that they should have no regard of those duties they have performed? or not to grace with titles of honour their honest demerits, of whose truth & wisdom they have made great use, & had great experience? Nabuchadnezer preferred Daniel amongst the Babylonians; Darius advanced Mardocheus among the Persians; and shall it not be lawful for a Christian King to honour the servants of Christ for their religion? & that upon a certain religion forsooth? That the mean may be exceeded, no man doubteth; namely, when as divine honours are given to mortal men; or where immoderate dignities are ambitiously affected of them, who ought to be the patterns of modesty, & the Doctors of humility: but yet, that civil honour cannot be thought immoderate (but of immoderate men) which according to the custom of the Country, is given for just causes by the advised Prince to his approved Subjects.  
How many most holy men, whose lives were only private, (yet publicly renowned) which have suffered themselves to be called Lords? witness the two Testaments. 
3. Reg. 18.  Did not Abdias the servant of K. Achab, meeting with Elias, salute him by the name of Lord? 
4. Reg. 4.  Was not Elizeus honoured of the Sunamite by the name of Lord? Did not the keeper of the prison call Paul and Barnabas by the name of Lords? 
Acts. 16.  And yet the modesty of their minds notwithstanding was no less, then that of Peter, who would not suffer himself to be honoured of Cornelius above measure. We read of Paul & Barnabas, how they rend their clothes, and ran into the throng, & repealed the divine honours which jupiters' Priest, with the people, would have done unto them; and verily, if so be in the name of Lord, there had been any such eminent honour, or imminent danger, as some think, they would have refused that. I conclude therefore, that in a Christian commonwealth, which is the Church of Christ, all extern things, as wealth, riches, preferment, and civil honours, may be referred of all and every the faithful, of any calling or condition whatsoever, to the glory of GOD, and the good of the Church, and the benefit of the commonwealth. (For so indeed they ought to be referred.) With the which I include this also, that the servants of Christ ought so to prepare themselves, both for honour and ignominy, both for wealth and want, as that they may use all things aright, to the honour of God, and edifying of his Church.   

Chap. XXIX. Of the Bishop family and retinue.  
BEsides all this, the Bishops retinue & ordinary attendants, are no small motes in the eyes of some, that cannot without envy behold the same. For do they not therein imitate the peers and potentates of the land? Not Christ (I warrant you) not Peter, not Paul, were ever thus guarded. But alâs poor popular, and child-pleasing speech: simple are the men, whom these fair words make feign: for I dare be bold to say, that the retinue of Christ & his Apostles was as honourable as it might be, in respect of the time, & the thing for the which he came into the world; & much more honourable should have been, if God had meant to restore mankind after an other sort than he did. And yet as it was, our Lord and Saviour was not without above fourscore men in his family, which waited upon him whither he went, or went before him whither he was to come.  
I, but there were no gallant Gentlemen to brave it in their chains of gold, there were no barbed steeds to prance it in their silver studded reins: In that solemn pomp, when Christ would show his glory unto the City, he was well mounted upon a sorry Ass, attended with the simple company of his weak Disciples. I, but this again is but a popular persuasion, in the which there is nor pith nor rind against the thing in question. Will they never learn, that our Saviour after that manner provided for that season, lest either he should incur the suspicion of affecting an earthly kingdom, or otherwise might have hindered the work of our redemption? Doubtless, had he been known in his kind to Herod, to Pilate, and to the chief Priests: that which the people did of a good zeal, they would have done for their own advancement; but then would they never have crucified the Lord of glory: Neither would he which took in good worth the honour of that ointment which was powered upon him, and received royal presents of the wise men, (gold, myrrh, and frankincense,) have ever refused that honour which was due unto him from all earthly Princes, might it have stood with the salvation of mankind. But is not this a worthy kind of arguing (which is used aswell against the Papists as against us) to reason from the times & actions of a faithless people, to the times and duties of a christian nation? neither do I commend in our Bishops, either pride or riot, or any superfluous excess; but this I say, that that retinue is not to be disallowed, which the received and continued custom of the country requireth.  
It was an ancient custom in the Church, that a Bishop should never walk forth alone, or be alone: he had records and eie-witnesses of all his actions. Now they which are more indifferent to Bishops, had rather they should be attended with gownsmen: the which I also had rather. But let us weigh the matter in an even balance: for they which would have the Bishop's retinue to be men of his own quality, seem to say somewhat, and to stand to the examples of the ancient Fathers. But it is well known that our BB. are never without such also. Wherefore, the question is now of the number: which cannot be prescribed to all alike, for that their revenues are not all alike. But go too: let us once again allow Bishops their ancient attendants. The more there is of them, the greater is his family, & so a greater number of servants, and so a greater retinue by odds, then is as this day: and shall not their envy also increase with the company for company?  
But the serving men's swords, and the gentlemen's chains do gall them at the heart, and pain them in their eyes, as if (good men) it were a thing misbeseming the calling of christians, that a Bishop should be attended by Gentlemen, whether old or young? That young Gentlemen and well nurtered, should be preferred to some godly BB. that they may attend his person, and mark his manners, & thereby become the better, and better learned: there no is no man without an envious eye, that can mislike the same. Bishop's houses have been always Colliges of learned men, and schools of all virtue; and what hindereth that they may not now be? But lest I should seem to have taken upon me the patrociny, rather of BB. then of their calling, I may not seem to set forth the virtues of any, which at this day do govern the Church of England. And yet, neither the zeal of my duty, nor the conscience of their demerits will suffer me, to pass over in thankless silence the sacred memory of that most reverend Father, john, L. Archbishop of Canterbury, with that godly Diocessan William, L. Bishop of Coventry, mine own Ordinary. As for the rest, they are all known to me alike. I knew sometimes, (neither shall they ever be unknown) that most reverend L. and Father Edward Grindall, (the memory of which man is renowned in all the Churches of Christ:) and two other BB. no less famous for their learning and religion, jewel L. Bishop of Salisbury; and Horn, L. Bishop of Winchester: whose religious godliness & rare knowledge, I could wish that all the BB. evil-pleased emulists had among them, every man his part. What other Bishops and Archbishops happy. England hath bred within our memory, their learned works declaim in our studies, and their inflamed blood doth yet speak in the book of Martyrs. That they were men both of sincere life and singular learning, what man, (if a man) that will deny it? I testify therefore, that I do not defend Bishops (if there be any evil,) but the calling of Bishops, which in my conscience I judge before God (who shall judge my conscience) to be godly, christian, ancient, Apostolic, profitable, and necessary. As for the crimes and abuses, with the which the evil spirits charge our Bishops, they touch their person, not their function. The tyranny of Rome being surprised, & the authority of Princes restored to their right places, wherein soever any Bishop offendeth (if indeed he offendeth) it may easily be corrected: and it chief concerneth the chief Magistrate to see, that godly men, well noted for their virtues, (such as the word of God doth commend) be set over the churches: If the Princes neglect this, let the people know, that schism is a remedy worse than the malady: for what sedition is in the Commonwealth, the same is schism in the Church of Christ.  
And albeit these things do little concern those churches which are committed to your charge (reverend Brethren,) where there are no Bishops, or rather where they are all Bishops: notwithstanding, I have more largely dilated of these things, that the whole matter may be made manifest unto all you, and that you all may understand, that the honour which is given unto Bishops, is both an aid and an advancement to the Church or christian Commonwealth; and that you may take aim by this, how far wide they are, which inveigh them this honour, & desire to make them, or to make no more of them, then of ordinary men. That which I am persuaded, Satan with a certain wile hath procured, that so he may bring down all the Pastors into contempt together, that so the whole authority of religion being little or nought worth, himself might freely cast forth all manner contumelies and blasphemies against Christ. For who are they (which durst, oppose, or could prevail against the enterprises of his more mighty complices? I know what I speak, neither can you (beloved) be ignorant thereof. But I have said enough of this matter for this time: and will one day (if God will) speak more plainly of that which remaineth.   

CHAP. XXX. Whether it be better for Ministers to live of the stipends of the Magistrate, or of the oblations of the faithful.  
ALL they which think, that the Ministers of the Gospel may live of the Gospel, are not of one judgement: For there be some which hold, that Ministers ought to live of the tithes and oblations only of Christians, renouncing all temporal goods, and surrendering them to the Prince and people. Other are of opinion, that they ought so to live, for so long only as the Magistrate is an enemy to christianity: who so soon as he hath received the Gospel, aught to provide, that Ministers may be allotted their sufficient stipends: the which thing when he hath once performed, from thence forth, there ought to be no more oblations.  
For my part I am of a contrary opinion, for that I am taught by the word of God, that oblations ought to continue in the Church: and that, because they are the exercises and testimonies of our religion towards God and his servants, by the which we not only pay our vows to the Almighty, but therewith also the Pastors to the people, and the people to the Pastors are mutually devoted the one to the other. For (I know not how) a man doth not only bind with his bounty, but is bound himself also, after a secret manner: And as the benefactor maketh him his own of whom he doth deserve, so likewise himself becometh his, and they both, (if so be there be a free and an ingenious disposition in both) rejoice in the same benefit, as well he which giveth, as he which receiveth. Now therefore, me thinks their reasons are too too politic and profane, by the which oblations are abrogat in some Churches. For albeit religion ought not to be measured by allowance, yet is it not to be without a reward. As for that they so hotly allege of the many and manifold abuses thereof, it is to no purpose: unless we should say, that the ceremonies also which were commanded, were to be abrogated even then while they were commanded, and all other sacred rites which God hath ordained, were together to be abolished, because Hypocrites have and do wickedly abuse the same. For what is there so sacred, which the impiety of men will not profane? Wherefore, we are rather to inquire, what God hath commanded, not what this or that man thinketh most commodious.  
If any man object, that oblations are antiquated, as are also tithes, and all other sacrifices and ceremonies of the old law; I would have him to know (if he be yet to learn) that they are not exacted at this day in that manner, neither were so exacted of our Fathers (as it may appear by those their testimonies which I have before noted) but that they are only required, as testimonies of a thankful mind towards God, and a propensive devotion towards his Church. But this kind of duty hath no temporal prescription, it is perpetual, and bindeth the faithful to the world's end.  
It is also objected, that where the Pastors are abundantly provided for, by the ample revenues of the Church, or other set & certain stipends, there oblations ought to cease. I answer, that the oblations may be the less or not so often, as otherwise they ought to be, where the Church hath no fermes, or receiveth no annual increase of their fields: but not, that there ought to be none. The end of oblations, is not only the necessary relief of the Ministers, but our dutiful devotion towards God. And hence is it, that the wise man saith in the third of his proverbs, Honour the Lord with thy riches, and with the first fruits of thine increase, etc. He doth not say Honour the Priest, (who notwithstanding was to be honoured, and was honoured) but honour the Lord. And Paul to the Philippians the fourth Chapter, telleth them, that he desired not a gift, but the fruit which might abound for their rejoicing, not for his. So then they which take away oblations deprave the faithful of this fruit of their Religion, 
Tit. 3.14.  and consequently of that Communion of their goods, which good christians ought to exercise between themselves. Wherefore, as we have proved, that it is lawful for Pastors to live of the possessions which are given unto Churches, the like do we say of oblations.   

Chap. XXXI. The stipendaries called to account and confuted.  
NOw let us call their reasons to an even reckoning, which appoint Ministers their maintenance by the Magistrate his allowance. For now a days this is thought a better devise, than the ancient received use of offerings & glebes. And reason too: for by this means, many inconveniences may be avoided, which man's infirmity bringeth with it. But their reasons and arguments are of a new mould, & not known to the Fathers, or not thought worthy, for the which oblations should be deposed from their former state. Their first reason is this. That by this means an occasion might be taken away, so that men could not so readily make merchandise of the word of God, which otherwise might be easy for them to do, who employing their whole Ministry to gain and usury, would apply themselves unto them most, of whom they hoped to receive most.  
I answer, that the contrary may rather seem more likely, seeing that the very covenanting for a stipend, is in the next degree to a flat bargain (unless we would judge bargaining by giving and taking, and measure the same by the minds of men rather than the matter.) For what other thing is it to merchandise, then to sell any then for lucre sake? But when the Magistrate setteth down a certain price for the Minister's labour, or the Minister himself requireth the same, albeit in plain terms there is no bargain made of either side, yet notwithstanding of both, these may seem rather to buy & sell the word, than they which live by the oblations of the faithful, or the increase of their fields. Oblations are not certain, and they have in them a certain kind of Religion: but stipends are certain, and are in their nature more civil, religious not at all. Now whether, I pray you, may be said rather to sell? He which in respect of his holy Ministry receiveth the free gifts of his people, or he which rateth his labour at a certain set stipend? Our forefathers in wisdom thought, that this religious merchandise of religion could by no means be better avoided, then if on both parts they made a religion in that very action of offering and receiving. I conclude therefore, that this mischief which some are afraid of, namely that the whole Ministry should be given to gain & usury, can never by this means be avoided in covetous men: their minds being so affected (or infected rather) as that they would make a gain of any thing, and being always ready to convey themselves thither, where the greatest wages might be had.  
Again (say they) that liberty of speech which is necessary in a Minister, may thus be better performed: For of whom they shall daily receive somewhat, they either could not tax their vice, or else they must do it with loss to themselves: but now where no man giveth any thing of his own, they may admonish all degrees of men, with more boldness and less danger.  
This reason partly confuteth itself, and may easily be retorted, and partly falleth in his own strength, and can no ways be relieved. For is it not to be feared also, that the Ministers should speak in favour of them, of whom they take wages? These men for the most part have greater faults than the most part; and yet if the Pastor chance but to stir their humour, their stipend is in hazard. Let a Preacher with his liberty offend a whole multitude, he shall not endanger either himself, or his estate so much, as if he displease but one Magistrate. As for liberty of speech, it is generally a very popular and plausible thing, with the which while a few are offended, many are well pleased, and the evil will of a few gotten by this means, procureth the good will of a great many. Besides, our Saviour provided but badly for his Disciples, (if this reason be of any force) when as in the old law he commanded the Priests and Levites to live of the oblations of the people, as also in the new Testament, he would have his Apostles and their successors to live of the Gospel, If the danger be such, that therefore they may not tax vice. But it seemeth, these men have either not attained to the knowledge of oblations, or regard but a little what is read in the most ancient Divines, concerning the same. First he which thinketh, that by this means the suspicion of flattery is taken away, greatly deceiveth himself, & rashly condemneth the ancient Fathers. But go to: let us confer the Sermons of the Fathers which lived by oblations, and the severity of Ecclesiastical discipline used in those days, with the Sermons and proceed of our Preachers of this age. Shall we not be ashamed (if we blush not) of ourselves and our times, in the which all vice are so rise, and all discipline so slack? doubtless, that liberty of our Fathers in reprehending sins of old, doth even now reprehend us. Again let the Pastor's Sermons, where they live of the devotion of the people, be compared with those, where they stand to the stipend of the Magistrate, and it will easily appear whether of them do best perform their duty in this behalf. But last of all, what need they depend upon the voluntary devotion of the people, where besides their ordinary oblations, there are fair glebes and sufficient lands provided for the use of the Church? To the which we may also add, that it is the duty of a christian Magistrate, to cause the people to perform their duty towards their Pastors: so that it is altogether a needless fear which is here alleged. And whereas they think that the suspicion of flattery is by this means avoided (as if they were in danger to be smoothed in their sins, which are rich, and give with a full hand) it is but a foolish conceit, arising from that error, that christians are not bound to their oblations; or else of this nicety, that it is unseemly (forsooth) and superstitious to bring them to the Church, or otherwise to gather them. By the which in deed they have made themselves the patrons of the sacrilege of this age, which hath left nothing for the Ministers worthy the gathering up: so that if there be any want in oblations, there want must be supplied else where.  
But by certain stipends (say they) the modesty of Ministers, and the honesty of their family are provided for. For what ingenious man would willingly make his need known to every man? and with what face can they of the family go door by door to gather things necessary? verily their credit is endangered, and their modesty.  
But did you ever hear, that the Ministers of the Church were brought to such an exigent, as that of force they must gather their relief from door to door, among their own people? In deed, there was such a custom in the time of Popery for mendicant Friars, brought up among them of a certain superstition, without any precedent precedent of the ancient Fathers. But is there no other way to gather christian oblations, but so? and are they not either brought by the faithful of their own voluntary, or collected by some of the honest neighbours appointed for that purpose? But of the other side, by the certain stipends which depend upon the uncertain pleasures of the Magistrates, it is very badly provided, both for the necessity of the family, and the modesty of the Ministers, where either so small wages are allowed, or their allowance so slenderly paid, that the poor Pastors (pitiful complaining) for mere poverty are constrained to give over their trade, and to forsake their Ministry. Where the people are persuaded, that they own nothing to their Pastors, and that it pertaineth to the Magistrate only to provide for the Ministers (alâcke poor Pastors) I am ashamed to report, how both people and Magistrate bear themselves towards them.  
But furthermore they dispute,, that in these stipends the Ministers can use no deceit, when it shallbe sufficiently known, how much they receive: when as otherwise, a covetous Minister may pretend, that either he receiveth less than he receiveth, or not so much as sufficeth.  
To this I answer, that the oblations, of the which we argue the case, are not so secretly given, or so closely kept, but that it is commonly known how much they are, and what the Minister receiveth. But to what purpose is all this? or to what end should all know how much the minister either receiveth, or hath? or who can prescribe a mean for that matter? The Pastor layeth out as well as he taketh in: & must that also needs be known? That which they add, of the covetous Minister, who may pretend that he receiveth less, then either he receiveth, or may well suffice, it proceedeth of the same error. I have known many Ministers in my time, among whom there is not one, whose wealth is not commonly known, and what he ordinarily receiveth every year; so that there is no other means for them to lie here, then there, unless you would lie for them. But to what end are these reasons? or how, think they, did the ancient Bishops of the Church live? Ignatius, Ireneus, Cornelius, Cyprian, and such like, whose memorial will continue with their glory to the world's end? A man shall never prevent the cavels of malicious men, whether the Ministers live of tithes and oblations, or whether they stick to their certain allowance: both here, and there, whatsoever is received will be thought too much of some. 
A flemish florence or gilderne, is 2. shillings sterling.  I have often times heard the Boor's groin and grunt to this effect, that a stipend of two, three or four hundred Flemish Florence's was great wages. I (said they) can keep my family for less: Neither do I receive so much of all the gain that I can make; thus unequally comparing not themselves with themselves, but their sties with the state of they Ministers. As if there were no difference between a private man of the basest rout, & a public Minister at the high Altar: And yet two or three years' wages will scarce serve to buy him books, & bsides, of duty he ought to be bountiful & intertainable to the needy.  
But now they say, that by this means it is well provided for the subjects, who for the most part are but poor, & live hardly in their Villages: For how should they maintain the Minister, who are themselves to be maintained?  
Here in deed is the error of our age to be noted, which in some places give to the civil Magistrate the goods of the Church, and permitteth them to gather up tithes, which are due to the Minister. But to the purpose. In villages, the poor which have nothing, give nothing, if it be little which a man hath, he giveth little: every man payeth his tith according to his wealth, and according to the greatness of his increase, whether the commodity lie in tillage, or in herbage. And in deed the poor could no ways better be provided for, that they should not relieve their Pastors, themselves being to be relieved, then thus; for by this means the Pastors are maintained by them which have much, & they maintain them which have nothing. The increase of their fields, for the most part, keep a certain scantline, & evermore the number of them is greater, which receive, then of the poor which want the same. But these their reasons are too blame, that both poor & Pastors are so badly provided for, as they are: for by them the goods, which are consecrate to holy uses, are betrayed to profane wretches, of whom themselves must now go beg their allowance, and be glad to serve and flatter in most slavish sort for their just reward.  
But yet again they argue, that men will seek occasion to discharge their Minister, when they shall see that they must give often, & shall hear their vices inveighed against; & so will fain causes with greater authority & contention to thrust him out.  
But who seethe not here, how weakly this argument is grounded even upon an evil grounded government of the Church, who leave in the people's hands, to place & displace their Pastors at their pleasure; & yet, if it so falleth out at any time (as it falleth out, so often as they fall out) the christian Magistrate must be but an idle auditor in this injury, & have no authority at all to compel the wicked in this case to their duty. But let Cornelius Bishop of Rome an holy Martyr answer this, who being destitute of the aid of the christian Magistrate, and being infested by Novatus his faction so far forth, as that he was not far from giving up his hold, and yielding to the wicked; yet did he ever want of those his ordinary oblations, even in the midst of so much evil will, and so many dissensions, so that he could not maintain therewith his 500 and 50. clerks, and a 1000 500 poor people? Neither were any of the Fathers, which lived of oblations, ever fearful of the wicked, but were ever fearful to the wicked, and were feared.  
Of no greater force is that which they say, that evil men being reprehended, will give nothing, but will rather suffer their Minister to famish for hunger. As if that were not rather to be feared lest it should be done, (as we have experience of the doing) by the Magistrate which payeth them wages, when so ever a good Minister shall displease a bad Magistrate, But it seldom falleth out, that Pastors have only evil men in their parishes; the Lord's flock is mixed of good and bad. The good do love that which the wicked do hate, whom to displease is a great praise among good men; who will not suffer the faithful Minister to suffer loss for his well doing, but will themselves supply that, which they shall see wanting on the part of the wicked.  
But there is commonly alleged an other commodity of these stipends, namely this, for that the Ministers may not seem to take any thing of them of whom they ought not, as are the notorious ungodly, and noted Heretics, with whom a man ought not to have any thing to do: as also of the good and godly, being poor and needy, to whom a man ought rather to give: as are widows, orphans, the sick and needy, whom to pill and pole is a point of cruel Religion. But I pray you, where doth the Magistrate receive, or of whom doth he contract those things, by the which the Ministers are paid their stipends? Of their own goods, or out of the public treasury? but is not that confusedly gathered of the wicked together with the godly, of the poor together with the rich? This is indeed a strange religion, that it shall not be lawful for Pastors to take of them, of whom the Magistrate taketh that he giveth them. All men pay subsidy, and other tributes of the commonwealth, without respect of person, every man according to the moiety of his substance: Of them which have nothing, they take nothing.  
But this their religion is like unto that of the franciscans, who when they make great dainty to handle any money with their proper fingers, they have other to do it for them. I admit, it is a thing not beseeming a godly Pastor, to take of all comers: but as the voluntary oblations of wicked rich men are not to be received, so the free offerings of godly poor men are not to be refused (so that they exceed not the ability of the giver) For although it be little which is given, yet seeing it is the fruit of godliness, it ought neither to be contemned of the Pastor, nor yet suppressed in the faithful. But be it remembered, that I said, the voluntary oblations of the wicked: for no doubt, a Minister of the Gospel may take tithes even of infidels also, if they be due to the Minister by the law and custom of the Country: neither is religion any more violated in so doing, then when the rents of farms are paid, or received of husbandmen our tenants, that are heretics.  
As for the argument they draw from the vain ostentation of the contributors, who because they could not be unknown, contention might arise among them, who should exceed the rest; it is an argument none at all: unless by the same reason, we will have Christians to abstain from good works, to avoid ostentation. But no man is to be dissuaded from bounteous beneficency, lest he should fall into the affectation of vainglory. And that contention and emulation is good, when one man striveth to excel another in well-doing: as for the hearts and minds of men, let us leave them for God to judge.  
But their last argument is this, that there is no commandment, that Ministers of the Church should be maintained by the oblations of the people: by the which it may be concluded, that it is not necessary that the same manner of maintaining the Ministry should be maintained alike in all places, and at all times: but that all things ought to be referred to good order, that they may be done to edification.  
I answer, that albeit the Minister of the Church be not commanded to live of the oblations of the people: (for he may live of his own, and for certain causes spare the people for a time:) yet notwithstanding, in the mean while the commandment abideth, by the which the people are bound to honour their Pastor, and by the liberal participation of their goods, to testify their grateful & godly devotion towards God, and him. Neither is the question so much for the Minister's maintenance, as for the godly regards and grateful minds of the faithful towards God, who is always most honoured, or dishonoured in his servants. For my part, I know not as yet the customs of all nations and countries: Neither am I he, that will prescribe to any man in this matter.  
In the mean while, I speak of those things which I have learned by great use and long experience; and it grieveth me, that in many things of like nature, we abolish old things, and suborn worse. True it is, that parishes under the Pope, had their privileges, their glebes, their rents and their tithes, by which their Pastors were well maintained; & now, because some abuses be crept in, shall the whole use of them be taken away? Me thinks these are but cold reasons I have now confuted: with the which it were to be wondered, that any man should be carried away, were it not that the hatred of Popery did hurry men headlong into vain contrarieties in such things as are, or have been used among them.   

Chap. XXXII. Certain reasons why Stipendaries are disproved.  
WHere as the Apostles rule commandeth us, that all things be done in good order, and to edifying, it will be a labour worth the pains to see, whether that may better be done, by paying Ministers their stipends, or rather by that ancient manner delivered by the Apostles, and received by the Fathers, which giveth to Pastors their tithes and their offerings.  
First, I do not think that wisdom is grown up with us, that we should dispose of things better than our Fathers have done. Besides, there is no man that desireth to be clear from the adversaries cautels, that aught at this day to make any innovation in the Church of Christ, without the approved example of former ages. But this is a novel kind of honouring the Pastors of the Church, not read of in the scriptures, not known of unto the Fathers, nor ever heard of before these our days (the common brokers of all news) that the Church had their Stipendiary Ministers.  
Notwithstanding, when I say, that Stipends taken out of the Exchequer, (or otherwise collected,) do blast the fruits of religion, and deprive the people of the comforts thereof: I would not so be taken, as if I thought it unlawful for the Magistrate to contribute out of the treasury to the Church: But this I say, that the Christian people ought notwithstanding continually to be devoted unto their Pastors, in the bonds of a religious affinity, and religiously to honour their Ministers with the testimonies of their grateful memory: the which when it is hindered by the one part, it must needs be, that charity should wax very cold on both parts.  
Saint Paul (as we have said before) gave it in commandment, that he which is taught, should communicate in all his goods with him that taught him: from the which duty no stipend ought to excuse the able auditory, no excuse to dispense with an expense of duty. For that communication of their goods, is not so much to relieve the others necessity, as to approve their own duty. The poor Christian brother is honoured for his want; but the holy Minister of God, for the worthiness of his office.  
Besides this, the good will of the Magistrate is variable, who being once offended with the Ministers, whether right or wrong, they shall be sure to leap short of their stipends. But whensoever the common treasury shall shrink (as by many means it may be brought to a low ebb) then alack poor Ministers, needs must your state be most miserable. The people not accustomed to pass any thing to their Pastors, will think it pertaineth nothing to them whether they sink or swim: and most men are of that boorish nature, as that they will rather leave the Pastor destitute, than they will seem to contribute: and so, he being forsaken of his flock, of force must needs forsake his flock, (as at this day it is come to pass in many places of Holland.)  
But how wretched the estate of the Ministry is in that country, by reason of the baseness of their stipends, and the badness of their payments, they know best that smart for it: when as (poor souls) they are constrained to trudge no small journey to beg their wages of their good masters: of whom many times, they being entertained with disdain, are sent away with a mischief, and bring nothing home with them but night, (besides the weariness of their limbs, the loss of their time, the expense of their money, and anguish of their relenting souls.)  
To these miseries we may add this also, that the Magistrate, accustomed to pay the Ministers their wages out of the common treasury, beginneth to take them for civil officers, and towne-seruants: so that base men will not stick sometimes, after they are once out of office, (as Curriers, Tinkers, Carpenters, peddlers, and such like) to insult over their Pastors with a villainous mind, and in a shameless manner, and to say, What, sir-priests? you are our servants, we are your good masters, we pay you wages: I would be ashamed (so God me help) so disdainfully to shake up the veriest page or basest drudge in my lords kitchen, and as soon I should be called to mine answer for it.  
I remember, in a solemn banquet made at Gaunt, to the Prince of Orange, it was my hap to sit over against a couple of jolly Burgomasters: who when they once began to be somewhat warm in their liquor, and were now come from never a word, to never a wise word; at last they spied me busy in talk with another, and thinking I marked not what they said, they began to speak their pleasure, and by chance I over heard thus much of their good talk. We must take heed (said they) lest these busy Ministers become more cumbersome unto us, than were ever our corn-fed Papists: we must therefore keep them under least they grow too lusty, & creep too far in favour with the people, and so become a terror to the Magistrates: but especially we must look to this, that their wages be not too great: He that bringeth up his servant delicately, at length shall find him maisterfull.  
These men (a God's name) would seem the patrons and pillars of Christ his Church: but they (be it spoken without any prejudice to any other) did afterwards bewray the venom they fostered in their hearts, when not long after they both became traitors to God and their country. Whether Holland harbour any more such mates, let them look to it unto whom it belongeth: but the like effects give a shrewd guess of the like affects. In the mean while we see, how this disdainful dealing against God's Ministers cometh of this, because they are so brag that they pay them their stipends; being indeed no other thing, then that which they have before purloined from the church, & crambd into their guilty coffers. Wherefore, let no man wonder, if I like but a little of this manner honouring of the ministery: for small is the honour that is braved with contumely. And therefore in the name of God, let that manner of honouring Gods Ministers be continued in the Church, which was appointed by the better wisdom of the Lord, aswell in the old, as in the new Testament, I say let it be continued in that manner as it was well conceived, and worthily received by the ancient Fathers: Neither let the prerogative of our own conceits any longer deceive us, as if we were the only men that could devise a better. Let abuses be corrected; but so, that the lawful use be either retained, or restored. Nor let the iniquity of those men which have defiled things sacred and profane, so far prevail with us, that we should therefore confound things secular and sacred, or that we should take away that distinction in things, which nature, reason, and religion hath set down.    

The third Book. Of Sacrilege, and the punishment thereof.  

Chap. I. That donations are made firm to Churches by the same laws, by virtue whereof other Citizens hold their possessions.  
THE study and bounty of our forefathers in enriching the Church are sufficiently known; in whom, it may seem no small wonder, that every where, always, and at all seasons; they should so far mistake the matter, that is, so childishly to deal in this matter, and that their posterity should now at the last see more and conceive better than they, who in the same cause take a clean contrary course to them, & that without any command of God, any example of former age. No doubt, as to stand upon the examples of our Fathers in their offences, is foolish and unreasonable; so rashly to condemn the same where justly they cannot be convinced, is utterly godless and irreligious.  
True it is: we are all prone to evil, Fathers, and Father's children; but to whether of these may we be more easily persuaded, judge you: to give of our own, or to take away other men's? Our Elders gave, (which no man can deny) of no evil mind: our upstarts take away that our Elders gave; with what mind, the thing itself doth show. Our Fathers gave according to law: our novices take away contrary to law. Wherefore seeing the endowments made to the Church have their strength and assurance from the very same laws, by the which other Citizens possess their goods, is there any man that would not judge it a tyrannous act, if any Mastrate (showing no cause) should thrust any subject out of his possessions?  
Wherefore, the Churchmen ought to have been first heard, and just cause should have been brought in against them, why they were not any longer to be suffered to enjoy the possessions of the Church in a Christian commonwealth. They also ought to have been heard which were to succeed the Massepriestes in pastoral charge, whom it chief did concern what was to be done with those goods. But what need all this? without any just knowledge, or further trial of the cause, a quick course must be taken; & the Chequer (if it were the Chequer) swopt at al. But if the Churchmen were found ready to renounce all Popery, and to receive the true profession of Christ his religion what cause was there left, or what occasion might be found, why Bishops and Pastors should be expelled their parishes & possessions? unless haply they did reckon the Church goods among the other heresies? which error is already confuted. But where now shall I lay the blame? upon the ignorance of the Ministers? or the avarice of certain Officers? No doubt, they were both in great fault. But certain crafty & ungodly men, who not in the zeal of godliness, but for the desire of goods (presuming of a pardon for the contempt of all religion) joined themselves unto us; and while they would seem the more serious favourites of the Gospel they became the most sacrilegious instruments of this mischief: so that the same which of some was thought to be done of error or ignorance, in these was brought to pass of a malicious wickedness. For who can excuse them of most heinous sacrilege, who under colour of reformation in some parts of Germany, & the Low Countries, have made a prey of whatsoever was given for holy & necessary uses, to the Church and Church Ministers? With due reverence I acknowledge the chief Magistrates, as the chief patrons of religion: and I hold it always lawful for them, according to their royal right, to make laws for the Church and Church goods; always provided, that they so take not the matter upon themselves, that they take all unto themselves. For it is not the part of a patron to spoil his client; neither was it ever heard of, before these days, that any Christian Magistrate brought into his Chequer all the Church goods, & made no bones thereof. They which upon occasion rifled the Church, only of some small part thereof, & that when the Chequer was in some great consumption, are but evil spoken of for their labour in all histories. What then may we judge of them, who have set the cards, & drawn the Church of every penny? I name none; But I mean them, who by their example have given the hint to their neighbours, and set them a pattern of an holy robbery. Lord, how like are these rank professors to julian the recreant, or the Turkish tyrant, which make no difference between things sacred & prophene? how unlike to any Christian Magistrate, (so far as I know) either of this age, or our forefathers? But is it a foul matter for sacrilege to be objected to a Christian Magistrate? a more filthy thing is it to be committed.   

Chap. II. What Sacrilegeiss.  
THere are some found now adays (not far to seek) who think that no sacrilege can now be committed, because the, difference between sacred & profane in extern things, was taken away by the death of our Saviour; which seemeth to me not the judgement of a Divine, but the opinion of an Atheist. For albeit to the holy all things are holy, and to the profane all things profane; yet that distinction of things is not taken away, which they have in their appointed use. There was always among all nations a great difference put, between those things which were dedicated unto divine service, and those things which serve men for their common uses. Things for the most part take their denomination from their end for the which they were ordained. So private men have their treasure; and the commonwealth her treasure: If you do respect the matter, they are both of one nature; namely, gold and silver, and whatsoever else is of any price: but if you respect either the end, or the possessor, you shall find a great difference between them. The end of a private man his treasury, is the commodity of a family; but the end of the public treasure, is the benefit of the Prince and the whole Country. In like manner the treasure which is given or gatheted to the worship of God, it hath his proper end, diverse and distinct from both those before mentioned: the which end seeing it is sacred, it giveth the name also to the treasure, and it is called sacred.  
Furthermore, because the inviry is greater which is committed against a Prince, or a public state, then if the same be done against a private man's person, or his estate; therefore the robbing of a private treasure, is called plain Theft; but of the common treasure, a Robbery of the commonwealth. So likewise how much the more horrible the offence is which is committed against God, then against man, so much more detestable is the direption of the sacred treasury, then common theft, or the robbing of the common treasury. For which cause they call that also by his proper name Sacrilege, which is commonly defined, to be the theft of a thing sacred. The deformity of which theft is so much the more notorious, by how much the more sharper punishments God himself, as also the laws of all nations have devised against the same. Albeit the definition containeth, not only things sacred to the worship of the true God, but of false gods also: for that it is the conscience that maketh the sacrilege, & an opinion of the holy godhead contemned. But how all those goods the Romish Clergy did possess (under the title of the poor, & the Church) have been translated to private & profane uses, I need not tell, for it is too manifest.   

Chap. III. The reasons with the which they commonly excuse their Sacrilege.  
But sacrilegious persons and their patrons, will not only maintain themselves with their theft, but they will maintain their theft; that is was well and worthily done, for the overture of the Pope, and the investiture of the true Church. Their reasons are these. That the goods of the Church did serve to Idolatry, & profane uses, the which being taken away, they could by law deuolue no man, but only to the common treasury, of the which the Christian Magistrate hath the care and custody. And as the godly Emperors Constantinus, Theodosius, Honorius, and Areadius, having by their laws put down the Idolatry of the Gentiles, had the places and revenues of their temples and their prebends in their own power, to dispose of them as they thought best, and that without any sin of Sacrilege: so likewise at this day, the Papacy being exiled, the goods & annuities of Munks, Nuns, and mass-priests, may be challenged by the same right to the Christian Magistrate. But that wast goods pertain to the common treasury by way of excheate, it is a known point in the law, and a common case.  
Neither were the Bishops of old of this opinion, that the Church had nay right to those goods which were destinate unto the service of Idols: so that it may seem a very strange thing to us, that at this day there should be found any faithful Minister of the Gospel, which should once presume to make challenge to the goods of the Popish Church, to the use and behalf of reformed Churches. In the first of the Codices de paganis & sacrificijs, the 14. title, there is an imperial decree extant, the words whereof are these: We will & command, that all places which in the old time of error were deputed to sacred uses, be joined to our substance. But what so ever by that right, either the liberality of former Princes, or our Majesty, would have come to the hands of any particular persons her soever. let that remain in their inheritance, with an everlasting assurance: but those things which by many decrees our pleasure is should appetaine to the hly Church, Christian religion shall challenge that unto itself. Given the 3. of the Calend. of September, at Ravenna. Honorius 10. & Theodosius 6. A A. Coss. By which decree it is manifest, that it was always in the power and right of the Emperor to give those things which were waste by the abolishing of Idolatry, unto whom it pleased them. And Dig. the 23. books, ●. title, Da usu & usu fructu Legalis. Leg. 16. Legatum. We read of Legacies given to the setting forth of Pageants, which might not beset forth; the which, changing but the name of pageants into the name of Popishmasse, are all alike: the words are these: A Legacy is left to a City, that of the yearly nevenewes thereof a Pageant might be solemnized in that City, for the sacred memory of the deceased, which thing it is not lawful to celebrated. I ask therefore what you think of that Legacy? Modestinus maketh answer; Seeing the testator his will was, that a Pageant should be set forth, but such as was not lawful there to be set forth, that it is no reason, such a quantity of money, which the deceased bequeathed to the show, should return the benefit of the heir. And therefore the heirs of the deceased, and the chief of the City being gathered together, they are to consider unto what use the thing commised to their trust, may be converted, that the memory of him that made the testament, may be solemnized in another, and more lawful kind. These things siath Mode inus in the ninth of his answers. By which law any man may see, what is to be though of such behests, as are bequeated to the celebrating of unlawful Masses.  
To these things it may be added, that the avarice of Churchmen was insatiable, procuring to themselves infinite donations, both superstitious and superfluous. Yea when liberality waxed cold, they purchased of themselves, both fields and fearms, and many times whole countries, so that at last they would have encroached upon all Christendom, had not the laws of advised Kings and Emperors limited them, who did perceive that their over-thriving was to the overturning of the Commonwealth. And therefore every wise Magistrate had need to take heed, that they dash not their feet against the same stone.   

Chap. FOUR An answer to the arguments of the former chapter.  
I May answer, that we have no less need to beware least while like wise men we ply us to run from one fault, we rush like fools into another. Have not our fore fathers kept a mean? Why then let their error be a warning unto us. For we are men also; and it is a more ordinary thing among us, to slide into a contrary vice, then to keep a commendable mean: and therefore it may also come to pass, that too much niggardlinesses may carry us whither we ought not. But to admit the utmost, that the Clergy would have raked together their wealth, to the ruin of the Commonwealth; and that of old, donations were made, partly superstitious, & partly superfluous; yet of all this it followeth not, that there were none lawful, none religious, none acceptable unto GOD, and a agreeable unto his word, and profitable unto his Church. But was there any thing in their goods superfluous? it might have been cut off: was there any thing in his use superstitious? it might have been taken away, or turned to better use.  
That they say it was done, for the over-ture of the Pope's tyranny, & the investiture of true christianity, it is but a mere colour, and that but a bad one neither. Crafty men abused the preaching of the Gospel, and the simplicity of godly men (whom it was easy to hold so in hand) that so themselves might gormandize the goods of the Church, as a fat pray that hung fit for their lips. That it was so, the thing itself preacheth unto us. Neither will I any longer stay therein, lest this sink being stirred, should exhale a vapour too filthy and unsavoury.  
But that which is alleged for the defence of sacrilege, may not so pass, unexamined. The first is, That the church goods served to idolatrous & profane uses: which being taken away, could by no law deuolue to any but to the public treasury. Now that the fallacy of this proposition may the better appear: I assume that to me which themselves cannot deny me, namely, that there is a difference to be found between those things which are dedicated to idolatry and excess, and those things which are abused to idolatry and excess. There is nothing so holy which the wicked may not abuse: and yet the abuse of a good thing doth not invert the nature thereof. As for the wealth of the Romish Clergy, it was not all given to idolatrous and ungodly uses: for there were many things given of old, to the use of the poor, and Pastors of the Church. The which albeit the Popish Clergy have abused, yet the nature of the donation is not thereby altered. Of the donations which were made to Churches, some were before the corruption of the Church, and some after. (For I showed before, that the oblations and donations of the faithful, had their beginning even with the Apostles.) But that these, which were made before the corruption, are sacred to God, no godly man will deny the same. Now, the Bishop of Rome and other heretical Pastors, found the churches founded by the Apostles, and furnished (according to those times) with sufficient riches: to the which, albeit they added much by much naughtiness, yet the same is not to be esteemed of alike, but so to be accounted of as the rest was. No question, in the Church of Rome, and other heretic Churches, there are diverse and sundry things, the which if they be taken in their proper kind, are very christian, and commanded by God himself: (such is the sacred Ministry of the Church, & holy care of the poor:) So that whatsoever was bequeathed to either of these, or unto them both, hath a godly end, and may have a godly use. As for the profanation of things, it ought not so much to move us, as the nature of things: against the which there is no little to be gained, either by prescription of time, or abuse of the thing. But if it so fall out, that the profane use be abolished, they ought to be reversed unto their lawful use, for the which they first served. The Ark of the Lord was taken of the Philistines and profaned; but it did not therefore cease to be sacred to God, & being received again from the Philistines, it was no less to be esteemed, than it was before. The vessels and ornaments of Solomon's temple, were translated by Nabucadnezar to Babylon; the which things being laid up in the Temple of his Gods, after his manner he used them religiously. But Babylon being conquered, Cyrus in the right of a conqueror, might have prayed upon them: yet when he once knew, that they afore-times pertained to the holy worship of the most holy in the temple of Solomon, he abstained from them, and commanded that they should be restored to their former use again. More wisely or more religiously done? least hapiy he might have incurred the same crime of cursed sacrilege, for the which the Lord had justly punished profane Balthasar his predecessor. By the which it may appear, that what things are once destined to the use of the Church, are sacred unto God for ever; not is it lawful at any time to distract them to foreign uses.   

CHAP. V A distinction of those church-good, which the Church of Rome possesseth at this day.  
But when as all the goods which we see in the Church of Rome, are not of the same kind, we cannot give the same judgement of them al. There is therefore a threefold difference of them always to be remembered: In the first order I place those, which our godly Fathers gave to the Church, for the maintenance of the Pastors, and the relief of the poor. In the second order I place those, which were granted to the church for superstitious uses; as for Masses, Dirges, Monks and Nuns, & morrow mass-priests. And in the last order I place those infinite donations, pernicious to the Commonwealth, which were either rashly made by Kings and Emperors, or wrongfully extorted from them, by force or fraud: of which kind are the investiture of those Ecclesiastical fees, which were given by godly Princes to the churches; the which when as by that title they do pertain to them of right; yet the BB. of Rome doth challenge the whole right thereof to himself But these things, seeing that by the laws both of God & man, they pertain to Kings alone, that which is Caesar's is to be given to Caesar. The Lord hath forbidden ministers to be Kings over their churches: & therefore, in the 22. of Luke, he purgeth that humour in the heads of his Apostles with this Aloes. The Kings of nations rule over them, and they which have power over them are called bountiful, but it shall not be so with you: that is, you shall not be Kings: with which magnificent titles of bountiful and gracious, they flatter them which have small cause, bearing the heavy yoke of their cruel dominion. Wherefore in this case, christian Kings may lawfully reverse, whatsoever the Bishop of Rome hath unlawfully raked to himself, by fraud or by force.  
But here I require discretion and moderation to be used, that Caesar do not so reverse those things which are Caesar's, that together he fall to rifle those things which are Gods. Indeed the clergy of Rome hath ravished them both; but they are not worthy whom the christian Magistrate should imitate: neither is he a man of worth, that will punish theft with sacrilege. What things the error of our fathers gave to superstitious uses, they are void I confess, (supestition and idolatry being taken away,) & the godly Magistrate may dispose of such goods, as he shall think good: neither hath the church any right to challenge in these. And yet, if the authority of the former law alleged, and the counsel of the learned father Augustine be of any worth, those legacies which were given for the celebrating of masses, & the nourishing of Monks may be converted to some better use, by the which, the memory of the testator may be solemnized in another & a more lawful kind. In the 16. of Numb. the censors with the which, the 250. rebels offered up incense, as Priests in sin & ungodliness, were notwithstanding hallowed before God: and therefore, that in no wise they might afterwards be employed in any common uses, he commanded them to be drawn into broad plates for a covering to the altar. So were the instruments which the irreligious abused converted to a sacred and a religious use. The which commandment indeed, although it be not general, yet it containeth therein an especial instruction, by the which we are taught, what ought to be done in such a case. Augustine in his 154. Epistle to Publicola, is of opinion, that the Idols, Idol-temples, & groves which were put down, were not to be diverted to any private use, but to be converted into public services, and the honour of the true God; that the like thing may be done by them, which is done in the men themselves, who are converted from a sacrilegious & impious people, to the true religion of the living God: Lest otherwise it might seem to be done, not of conscience, but for covetousness. But seeing the law of God prescribeth nothing in this matter, and whatsoever Moses hath written thereof, concerneth the people of Israel in particular, I make it no matter of religion why the Magistrate may not determine herein as it shall seem best to his godly wisdom. Nor do I disavow the decree of the emperors Honorius and Theodosius, but I advise all Princes and other chief Magistrates, who have erst reform Churches, or shall hereafter, that this one thing be always well considered of them, namely, that Churches were but rob of their rights by Monasteries, when they gleaned to themselves the duty of tithes and oblations: which things christian Princes and people have consecrated of old, to the honour of their Pastors, & the comfort of the poor. For they preposterously take upon them the government of Churches, contrary unto the order of the ancient Church, and under the title of voluntary poverty, these gathered that to themselves, which was given to the poor for necessity.   

CHAP. VI That the goods of Monks are not all of one kind.  
AS in those goods which the Pastors and rectors of the Church possess, I have showed that there is great difference: so neither are we to think, that the goods of Monks are all of one sort. It were to long to repeat, how they came to so great wealth, neither is it needful; only this I would have well noted, that whatsoever the Monks possessed, which of right was due to the Pastors of the church, that all that did pertain to the first order of church-good (which I before noted:) the which indeed after the subversion of Monasteries are not to be taken for waste, so long as there is any Church remaining. Whereupon I infer, that all popish idolatry being put down, only those things which maintained, either tyranny, or idolatry, do deuolue by right to the Chequer: the rest, which had nor cause nor end erroneous, was to be testored the Church again.  
If so be in any place, all is come to the common treasury, whatsoever the Monkish professors had in possession, and that, not so much with the consent, as by the counsel of those, whom the matter itself did concern, and ought rather to have intercessed, and taught the Magistrate the contrary, let them bear the blame for that part themselves, worthy also to bear the burden. We know that the profanation and abuse of Church goods could not be such, as that they could invert the nature of things given, or infringe the virtue of the donation itself. That which the Ark of God was, was it not still, even among the Philistines? Neither were the vessels of the Lord his Temple unhallowed, though they were in the midst of Babylon. That the Pope of Rome with his clergy have abused, and do abuse the true and lawful goods of the Church, it ought not to be any prejudice to the godly Ministers of the Church: Seeing the possessors thereof are not Lords, but stewards only, who have the use, benefit, and bestowing of the Church goods, not the propriety.  
As for that they say, that the Bishops of old thought, that the Church had no right to those things which were dedicated to the service of the Heathen gods: it maketh nothing at all against the truth of our position: For neither do we hold, that the Church hath any right to those things which are immediately destinate to ungodly uses: I have already confessed, that those things are in the second order of Church goods: & therefore in the power and at the pleasure of the christian Magistrate. I remember that I said, that I did not dislike the decree of Honorius and Theodosius, and other godly Emperors: whose better examples, if they had imitated, whose error hath urged me to write thus much, there had been no need of this discourse.   

Chap. VII. That it is an other thing to come from Paganism to Christianity, then to come from Popery, or some other heresy.  
Moreover this also is not to be omitted, that it is one thing for a people to be converted from Paganism to Christianity, and an other thing to come from Popery, that is from Heresy to true Christianity. The difference which is between Paganism and Christianity is much greater, then that which is between Christianity & Popery. Paganism hath nothing in common with Christianity: Popery is Christianity, Christianity allayed; allayed, or rather racked with foul Idolatry, and (that I may so speak) it is a certain medley, or a kind of mongrel and motley Christianity. For the sacred Scripture both of the old and new Testament, the covenant of God, the Baptism of Christ, the remission of sins, and the name of a christian, with many other things of the same profession are there, peculiar to the Church, which are notes of christianity, & are no where to be found out of the Church: Not in Paganism, not in judaisme, not in Nahumetisme. So that the Heresies & Superstition which being substracted, are added to the Romish Church, the remainder is mere Christianity. Very Popery is but a botch of the Church, not the very Church: but that which the foul Leprosy is, or any other deadly contagion in the body of man, the same is Popery in the body of the Church. So that, to forsake Popery is not to forsake the Church, but to fly from the infection of the church. Now then; when an Ethnic becometh a Christian; an Alien and a stranger, is received and inserted into the new people, & then beginneth he to be a member of the Church. But in the reformation of any erroneous or straggling Church, an adulterous Church becometh a chaste spouse, and base christians are made lawful, (the wife being reconciled to her husband:) and therefore, what things so ever the adulterous Church usurped of the goods of her husband, the lawful Church (as true spouse) doth challenge the same to herself by his right. In Theodosius Records the sixteenth Book and the four and forty title, against the Donatists, thus it goeth. But those places, in the which cursed superstition as yet remaineth, let them be joined to the holy Catholic Church, so that their Flamines and Priests, their Prelates and all their Ministers, be spoiled of all their goods, and exiled into diverse Isles and sundry provinces. There also in the fourth Book, we read of a decree from the same Emperors Honorius and Theodosius, against the Montanists, in these words. If there now remaineth any proper edifices, which ought to be called rather dens than Churches, let them be awarded to the holy Churches of the Orthodoctike sect, with all their indowmentes.  
Before our times there have been not a few alterations in the Church. In the which when godly Emperors put down the Heretics, they rob not the Churches of their possessions, but restored them to the true professors. Of the which thing Saint Austin in his fifty Epistle to Boneface a certain Capitayne, writeth thus. What so ever was possessed of the Donatists part in the name of their Churches, christian Emperors by their religious laws have commuanded, that they come with the Churches themselves to the catholic Church. Thus saith Austin: And were it not as he saith, I would confirm the same with many witnesses.  
Wherefore, that I may now comprise those things I have said: Those Church goods which were gotten, either by fraud or by force, and usurped without right; or else if they were freely given, but to a superstitious end, are in the power of the chief Magistrate. But those things which are lawfully granted and received of the Church, (to no such end, by no such means) are consecrate to GOD, neither can they be any ways transuersed without sinful Sacrilege. Saint Austin, in his Treatise upon Saint john the twelfth Chapter. Behold judas (saith he) is among the holy men, and that you shall not need to contemn him, a Sacrilegious Church-robber, not a petty Lassoner: he was a thief of the Treasure, but the lords Treasure; of the Treasure, but the sacred Treasure. And if crimes are distinguished in the Court, whether it be theft, or public robbery, (for public robbery is said to be a theft from the common Treasury) how much more sharply is a Sacrilegious thief to be judged, which presumeth to steal, not from every place, but from the holy Church? Doubtless he that taketh from the Church, may be compared to judas the wretch. So saith good Father Austin.   

Chap. VIII. How gracious and in●●●●ble the sin of sacrilege is.  
PLato, being to set down a law against Church-robbers, beginneth the matter with a large preface, and first concludeth, that the sin of Sacrilege is uncurable, and that he which is infected with any such wretched covetise, is not moved thereunto either for God's evil, or for man's, so much as for his own, and that by reason of some other old and odious sin, not yet punished, nor ever to be expiate. And therefore he exhorteth those, upon whom this deadly desire groweth, that they would use to sacrifice for the same, and humbly to fly to the Temple of the Gods; to frequent the company of good men, to hear their godly conference, and to endeavour themselves to do and to speak those things which are honest and just. But if so be, that infirmity will not so departed, death for such a wretch were better than life. Wherefore he enacteth this Law. Whosoever is aprehended for Sacrilege, 
De legib. Dialog. 9  (if he be a servant, or a foreyner) his fault being written in his forehead, and his hands, and being well whipped with so many stripes as the judge shall award, let him be thrust naked out of the borders of the land: For happily by this punishment, being brought to shame, he may amend his manners. For no punishment is appointed for any man's hurt; but of two things it commonly effecteth the one, it maketh him either much better, or not so bad, that sustaineth the punishment. But if it be a Citizen which shall be found to have committed any such thing against the Gods, or to have done some great and graceless wrong to his parents, or his country, let the judge so censure of him, as of one which is incurable, considering this with himself, what honest instruction and education he hath had of a child, and yet hath not abstained from the most heinous sins. Wherhfore let this man's punishment be death, the least of all evils. So shall he profit others by his example, while he is made infamous among all, and is put to death beyond the borders of his own country.  
The laws of the twelve tables provide thus against the same sin. Who so stealeth or pilfereth any holy thing, or committed to the holy place, let him be held and handled as a murderer of his Father. But what need I recite the severity of Laws in this behalf? it is a thing well enough known, if it were but half so much feared. But even they also which escape the laws and judgements of men, because they are either too mighty, or too crafty, yet can they not escape the vengeance of God. For it is one of the most detested sins, after the which the wrath of God yearneth, till it be revenged. The examples whereof are to be seen in Histories both sacred and profane.   

Chap. IX. Certain examples of God's vengeance against Sacrilege.  
THe first example of Sacrilege, may be that which we read of Achan, in the 7. of josua, who took of the excommunicate things of Hierico, a Babylonish garment, two hundred sickles of silver, & a wedge of gold. For this offence of one wretched fellow, did not all Israel feel the heavy wrath of God, till satisfaction was made by the death of that accursed party, and his whole family? To this I may add an other, committed by the Priests, and no less severely punished of God, then was that of Achan. In the first of Samuel, the second Chapter, we read of a certain man of God, who came to Ely the chief Priest, and said unto him. Thus saith the Lord, did not I plainly appear to the house of thy Father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaos' house? and I chose him out of all the tribes of Israel to he my Priest, to offer upon mine Altar, and to burn incense, and to wear an Ephode before me, I gave to the house of thy Father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel. Wherhfore have you kicked against my sacrifice and against mine offerings, which I commanded in my tabernacle, & honourest thy children above me, to make yourselves fat of the first fruits of all the offerings of Israel my people? Wherhfore the Lord God of Israel saith, I said that thy house and the house of thy Father should walk before me, but now the Lord saith, it shall not be so: for them that honour me, I will honour, and they that despise me shall be despised. Behold the days come that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy Father's house, and there shall not be an old man in thy house. And thou shalt see thine enemy in the habitation of the Lord in all things wherein God blesseth Israel, and there shall not be an old man in thy house for ever. Never the less, I will not destroy every one of thine from mine Altar, to make thine eyes to fail, and to make thine heart sorrowful: And all the multitude of thine house shall die when they be men. And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons Hophny and Phinees: In one day shall they die both. And I will stir me up a faithful Priest, that shall do according to mine heart and according to my mind: And I will build him a sure house, and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever is left in thy house, shall come and bow down to him for a piece of silver, and a morsel of bread, and shall say, appoint me I pray thee to one of the Priests offices, that I may eat a morsel of bread, etc. Thus saith the man of God: all which things, as he foreshowed, came to pass not long after. For the sons of Ely were slain in battle; the Ark of the covenant was taken of profane men: And Ely hearing the doleful messenger of these wretched news, fell from his seat backward, and broke his neck: his daughter in law the wife of Phinees died in childbed: the holy mount Sylo was forsaken of the Lord, neither was the Ark of the Lord ever brought thither again. And after all this, 80. and 5. men, Priests, of the house of Ely were slain under Saul. I need not speak of the calamities which befell that whole family, for the Sacrilege of two men only. And albeit the profane Philistines did honourably use the sacred Ark after their manner: Yet notwithstanding God plagued them also for their profanation, neither was it forgiven them, that they once handled so holy a matter.  
But I omit the Sacrileges committed from that time, to the captivity of Babylon. Where the infamous act of Balthasar, may be a notable example of God's justice against all Sacrilegers. He in a bravery commanded those holy vessels which his father Nabuchadnezar had stolen from Jerusalem, to be set forth for a cupboard of plate in sumptuous banquet, that out of them, both he & his cupmates might carouse a full despite to the dishonour of God. But the wrath of God found the sot in the deed doing, & brought him in a sharp reckoning, with an heavy up shot in the miraculous motion of a hand writing. And here Daniel called before the king to read & expound the heavenly drawn writ, in stead of a taking away, taketh him up, & among many other things bordeth him thus. Thou hast lift up thyself against the lord of heaven, & they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, & thou & thy Princes, thy wives & thy concubines have drunk wine in them, & thou hast praised the Gods of silver and gold, of brass, iron, wood, & stone, which neither see, neither hear nor understand, & the God in whose hand thy breath is and all thy ways, him hast thou not glorified: Then was the palm of the hand sent from him, & hath written this writing. MENE, MENE, THEKEL, VPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the speech: MENE, God hath numbered thy kingdom, & hath finished it. THEKEL, thou art weighed in the balance, & thou art found too light. VPHARSIN, thy kingdom is divided, & it is given to the Meeds & Persians. After this manner did Daniel salute him. But the same night was Balthasar slain, & the Empire of the Chaldees and Assyrians, which continued an hundred and thirty years, was now finished, and thereupon given away by God to the Medes and Persians.  
But I pass on to the time of the Grecians, under whom the jews suffered much sorrow, as well by their own nation, as by the Grecians. Among the rest the devilish enterprise of Alsimus high priest of the jews, attempting the overthrow of the Temple, was not left unpunished: For he was struck with a dead Palsy, & ended his life in great misery. In like manner Heliodorus, sent by king Seleucus to Jerusalem for no other end, than to ransanck the temple (which he understood to be the guardian of great treasure) felt in himself the revenging hand of God, neither had he escaped present death, had not Onias the Priest intercessed for him. But he being glad he had so escaped, delivered to the king. That God was the overseer of that temple, & the great guard of that treasury: yet notwithstanding, if the king had any man he would gladly do a spite, he might send him thither. The robbing of that Temple, cost Marcus Crassus Roman Emperor full dear. Did not God revenge his Sacrilege by his enemies the Persians? They infused melted gold into his head being dead, because he thirsted after ill gotten good in his life. But judas the Traitor is worthy to have the first place among this holy rabble: Whose Sacrilegious covetousness bread such a monster in his breast, that for base lucre he spared not his own Master, his conscience ever yelling, that he betrayed the innocent. Wherefore afterwards, he being his own accuser, and judge, & tormentor, set down his due punishment, and in desperate manner took it of himself.  
Much of this making were that holy couple Ananias & Saphyra, whom God took in the manner, and took down with sudden death, only for that they adventured to conceal & keep back some part of that their own treasure, which themselves of their own accord had dedicated to the Lord. The fact no doubt might better have been excused in their own, then in another man's treasure, and yet we see the direful censure of God in this case, to the terror of all other.  
How julian the Emperor was paid home at the last, as well for his Sacrilege, as his Apostasy, the fame of all histories hath made a just record. This is he, that in a mockery of Christ and christianity, when he had libde the Church, and left it never a good thing, said: He had well provided of their souls health: For to be poor is one of the privy Counsels of the Gospel. I may join with this julian, julian his Uncle, one caterpillar with an other. This Gentleman, when he had well ransacked the Church, and raked together their most precious vessels & sumptuous Monuments at Antioch in Syria, and had cast them upon the ground all upon one heap, he began very gamesomely to play upon Christ, and to wanton at his pleasure; & to increase the disgrace of that holy spoil of the Church, at last he uncased his postherne parts, and sat him down upon the same: But now, see if God could see the same, and not revenge it? Nay; but presently thereupon, his privy disgraceful parts, and those poors which nature had there placed for necessary uses, were strangely benumbed, in so much that the cankered flesh about those unseemly parts continually putrefied and turned into worms; but last of all, the ugly disease grew on so far, that it passed far the Art of Physic. For the greedy vermin, having once entered the inner parts, still scrawled to the quick and sound flesh, nor imight they ever cease their restless gnawing, till he had yelled out his cursed soul.  
Many more instances might be remembered of christian Princes, were it not to tedious a thing for me to repeat them: as also, for that there are some things registered for wicked sacrileges, which if they had been done without the contempt of God, might very well have been excused. For no doubt, it had been sacrilege in David, when he eat the showbread, were it not that necessity did excuse it. And therefore, sacrilege is to be measured according to the man's irreligion, which is bewrayed aswell in the contempt of false Gods, as the neglect of true: namely, whensoever that is contemned by us, which is worshipped by other men, and we do it not of any true devotion towards God, but of a certain irreligion in ourselves. Generally so greatly is it to be regarded, with what mind a thing be done, as that to destroy the groves and temples of false Gods, of a certain religion towards the true God, is to be accounted for great godliness in the true worshippers: The same thing, if it be done of the worshippers themselves of false Gods, or of some other Atheist and contemner of all the gods, it is to be taken for godless impiety, and wretched sacrilege.  
If any man ask the question, how he should be said to contemn God, that thinketh there is no God: I answer, that that only thing itself, that he thinketh there is none, proceedeth of a contempt, & so consequently of him which is. And therefore it need not seem strange to any man, that the wrath of the true God hath been so enraged, not only against sacrilegious idolaters, but even in the sacrilege of idol Gods. Of which judgement, seeing profane histories afford us infinite copy, we will take view of a few of that company. Nor Brennus nor Xerxes could violate the temple of Delphos, and not taste the cup of god's vengeance for it. As for the sacrilege of the Tholosian gold (from whence the adage grew) I shall not need to speak of it being so generally known. But the soldiers of Cambyses, sent to spoil the Temple of Ammon, were overwhelmed quick in vengeable heaps of heavy sand: and their master a scorner of the Egyptian religion, albeit superstitious: yet because he did it irreligiously; not long after he had slain Apus, was slain himself by his own sword. And how present was the vengeance of God in the revenge of Pyrrhus? He ravished at his pleasure the Lucresian Proserpina: but when he would have sailed away full fraught with his nefarious prey, he wracked with his whole navy upon the next shore: there was he left to the rage of the seas, but the treasure was found, & brought home to the Goddess. To these I add the like example (but the event unlike) of Dionysius the Syracusan tyrant. It is the rather to be remembered for their sakes, whose greatest sport among their secret companions, is, when they have made a prey of the church, to play upon God, as if they would laugh him but of heaven, for his loss in the church. This Dionysius, as I suppose, hath set up school among our religious Atheists of these days. Wherefore, you have here the words of Tully concerning this Dionysius, as they are set down by Valerius maximus. Dionysius borne at Syracuse, counted it in part of his greatest sport, to set forth with gibing terms, his so many sacrileges as we now repeat. For having ransacked the temple of Proserpina at Locris, when he had passed the seas with a prosperous gale, jeering to his followers, do you see (saith he) how fortunate a cut those very Gods have given us, whom we have rob? Having taken away from the Olympian jupiter a golden vestment of great weight, with the which King Hiero had honoured him among the Carthaginian Gods, and having cast him into a new livery of Mockado, he said; that a golden coat was to heavy for summer, and to cold for winter, but his Lincie-wolsie would fit him for both seasons. The same also at Epidaurus, commanded Aesculapius his golden beard to be barbd, because (as he said) it was not fit that Apollo his father should be beardless, and he thus over-barbed. Moreover he seized upon their silver and golden tables in the Temples, and whereas according to the custom of Greece, it was written upon them, These are the good Gods, he said, he was very well content to accept the goodness of the Gods. Again, he took away the golden wreaths, and boles, and garlands, which were held out at arms end by the images, and in so doing, he said, he did receive them, not deceive them: arguing, that it were a mere folly, seeing that we ask good things of the Gods, not to take them, when they proffer them. But this man, albeit he was not punished, as he deserved, yet when as he died, for very shame of his untoward son, he received that punishment by his death, which he escaped in his life. For the wrath of God proceedeth but an easy pace to revenge himself: but in the end he requiteth the slowness of his patience, with the sharpness of their punishments.  
Thus far goeth Valerius: who albeit he say somewhat, yet that is much more which the same Tully noted: namely, that tyrants are stung with a continual disquiet of conscience, the villainies they have committed never suffering them to rest, but wring their minds with incessant torture, no otherwise then a hang man doth a condemned person. Wherefore Dionysius laghters in so many sacrileges were but so many girnings: neither could he, being condemned in himself of so many misdeeds, be without a miserable and mangled conscience. I suppose, in the opinion of men, he might outwardly seem a happy man, but yet within, he knew himself how wretched he was, and he felt the same. For this cause he suffered Damocles to make just trial thereof, (being desirous to try) he sat him down in a golden throne, environed of all sides with a consort of well tuned pleasures, every note provoking him to a sweet relish of this desired happiness: But when he perceived a glittering sword hang over his head, strong with a slender hair point device: his heart was done, and all the sport was dashed: Damocles swore, he would no more be happy, desiring the Tyrant to forgive him his felicity. But how much more tortured were the brains of the tyrant himself, who had not the sword pendant over his most wicked head, but felt it always ready braundished in his wide wounded heart?  
But now what shall I say to the Satirical Poet: Yea, but tell Prelates, what good gold doth in a Temple? Albeit there is small reason (that I may put in an answer for the priests of the heathen) why you of all other should be made privy to this: yet notwithstanding, thus much dare I say in defence thereof, that that gold whatsoever it was, was hollowed, even unto the most impious and idolatrous Priests. But for that which was kept in the Temple of GOD, we may learn, by that which Onias the Hie-Priest said to Heliodorus, what use it had: namely to relieve the poor widows, and maintain the more needful ophanes.  
And as for that which concerneth the treasure of the Church, when it had any, it was neither idle I assure you, nor evil occupied, but as occasion served it, it served the necessities of the distressed: and we may say with Saint Ambrose, The Church hath gold, not to lay up, but to lay out. For that indeed, to feed the poor, relieve the needy, and defend the oppressed, were the actions and exercises, for the which the BB. of old have been worthily commended. And to that end also, because the christian people, would have BB. above all other to be bountiful, they did abundantly provide, that they might so be with the best. But now this is the only drift of policy in some, of simplicity in many, that by all means the state of our BB. might be brought to beggars' estate: they may teach charity (good leave have they) and preach liberality, (there is no man against it) but practise it they may not; they are not forbidden, but they are not allowed. I know they will object the avarice of from, & the riotousness of many BB. in the goods of the Church, that by one means or other, they imbecil that part, which of right pertaineth to the poor. But to admit, that the poor man's part were in the BB. purse: (of the which notwithstanding they have had their quietus est) with what strange reason, or with what new religion do they go about to excuse sacrilege with sacrilege? as if the BB. error could qualify their rage. But I perceive, lest the Pastors of the Church should be the only sacrilegers, they which have got the church-good into their hands, had rather be found of both, the greater church-robbers. For who seethe not, that whatsoever is once taken from the church under this colour, the poor never lick their lips after it? yea, the poor are in far worse case at this day, than ever they were before; who have found poor churchmen more liberal of old, than they can find rich gentlemen now, or any other, which at this day by wrong and robbery usurp the goods of the Church. The tyranny of the Romish Prelates being dissolved, might not the poor more easily have obtained their due of the godly Pastors, then of them which now have crept into their possessions? But to concluded, I affirm, & you shall find it true, that whosoever they be, that wrongfully lurch the Church of their good, or by any means abuse them, let them be of what title they may, or let them do it under what title they will, they cannot be excused of sacrilege, nor their sacrilege excused, when God shall visit with a vengeance.   
FINIS.