D. Sarauia. 1. Of the diuerse degrees of the ministers of the gospell. 2. Of the honor vvhich is due vnto the priestes and prelates of the church. 3. Of sacrilege, and the punishment thereof. The particular contents of the afore saide Treatises to be seene in the next pages.

Of the names of Patriarchs, Archbishops, & Metropolitans. Chap. XXV.

HAuing laid downe my reasons and proofes, by the which I am taught to dissent from them, vnto whom in other things I yeeld not a litle; I take it now time to answere the cursing and cursed slanders of some, who casting aside the modestie of ciuill Christians, and neglecting the mediocri∣tie of all learned writers, do teare (like mad dogs) and tor∣ment the most reuerend names and religious functions of Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarches & Metropolitans, as pam∣pred and proud titles, antichristian & prophane. But wil you

heare the reasons of vnreasonable men? They alledge, that the Apostle Paul in recounting the degrees of the Ministers of the Gospell (in his Epistle to the Ephesians the 4. chap.) maketh no mention of Patriarches & Archbishops. To the which, before I goe any further, I make them this answere: That those offices are there comprised and contained in the names of Apostles & Euangelists; and in the 12. to the Rom. verse 8. in the word (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) Ruler, (or he that ruleth;) and in the first to the Corinthians the 12. chap. and 28. verse, in the worde (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) gouernors: by all which tearmes and ti∣tles, the sacred order of superior Pastors are vnderstoode. But that the aforesaid offices of Apostles & Euangelists are perpetuall, wee haue already proued, and it may also suffi∣ciently appeare by the sequele of that enumeration of those offices; namely, when he setteth down to what end our Sa∣uiour gaue to the Church, some Apostles, and other Euange∣lists. Was it not for the work of the Ministery, for the edification of the body of Christ? So that, so long as the Church is to be edi∣fied, so long those offices are to be continued in the Church which are there conteined. If the Church could haue beene edified without them, they should neuer haue ben ordeined in the Church. But againe, that part of them are thought to be temporal, & part particular; that thought is ouerthrown by the onely end of that for the which they were ordeined; which end is to be sought for continually of all the faithful euen vntill the comming of the Lord. For are they not still to edifie by these offices, & to grow together into one mysti∣cal body of Christ? Now albeit the office of bishops & arch∣bishops, primates, & patriarchs, doth not extend it selfe so far as did the office of the twelue Apostles: (neither are they inriched with the like treasure or measure of the holy Ghost) yet are wee to consider that this difference is in the qualitie not in the quidditie of the same function: in the measure, not in the matter of their commission. And therfore, whom at this day we call Bishops & Archbishops, Paul the Apostle called Apostles; for that (as we haue said) they are ioyned in the same combinatiō, & made partakers of that cōmission.

And for this cause the calling of Archbishops & Patriarchs, hath beene alwaies called, and is yet to be accounted Apo∣stolike in all places.

Yet, for as much as these names and titles, doe seeme in some mens eyes, to be puffed vp with the tumors of pride and ambition, let vs take a further view of those principall obiects, and friuolous obiections, by the which they are cast into this no lesse straunge then strong conception. Their first argument is forced from the composition of the Greek words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which (as they take it) signifieth that principalitie and power, which is proper to the ciuill Ma∣gistrate only, impertinent to that modestie and simplicitie, which the doctrine of the Gospel requireth of a Pastor. To the which, they also adde the sentence of the Councell of Carthage, which forbad anie Bishoppe to bee called Prince of the Priests; The wordes of the Canon are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The which Gratian in his ninetie nine distinction translateth thus: The Bishop of the chiefe place shall not be called prince of the Priestes, or high Priest, or any other such thing, but onely, Bishop of the chiefe place. Besides all this (say they) the word Archbishop differeth no∣thing from the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Prince of Pastors:) the which name or title, seeing it is only proper to Christ alone we cannot see, how he should bee excused of heinous sacri∣lege, that doth any way vsurpe the same. And therefore all such names are to be cast ouer bord, and vtterly 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 de∣rogate from the name of Christ. And last of all those names which Antichrist himselfe, or the spirit of Antichrist, hath ei∣ther inuented, or inuested into the Church, are to bee auoy∣ded: but that Antichrist was the forger of these titles, it is a plaine case, and therefore to be auoided.

To that, I answer: That the sence & true meaning of these names & titles by way of composition, with the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, conteineth nothing in it, eyther arrogant for ambition, or

for custome insolent. For I will teach them, (if they bee to learne) that the greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth not onely signifie Principality and Magistracie, but also the first, the beginning and original cause of any thing: and besides this, that in com∣position it foloweth the nature of that word, with the which it is compounded: and so, seeing the name of a Bishop doth signifie of it selfe, and in his owne nature nothing that is in∣solent or ambitious, take the name Archbishoppe which way you wil, it cannot any waies sound of any vaine or vain-glo∣rious sense: as it plainely appeareth in other wordes of like composition, as Architectos, Archiatros, Architriclinus, Ar∣chibubulcus, which signifie a Maister-worke-man, a Arch-phi∣sition, a Gentleman-vsher, a chiefe Herds-man, 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 euill: seeing that thereby it signifieth rather the first and chiefe Bishop, then the Lord and Prince of Bishops. Albeit I would not, (nor need I) greatly sticke with him for the name of Prince neither, were it in vse with vs, as in sense it is with the Latines, onely for a chiefe and principall man. But now seeing that name is aduanced to a more roiall and imperiall sense, from hence-forth, I will either not vse it, or vse it verie thriftely.

The like may wee say of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that among good Grecians, it doth not alwaies signifie a Magistrate, or a man in authority, but many times also it standeth for the first au∣thor, or originall cause of any thing. So that Patriarche, doth no more signifie him which gouerneth in the Magistracy, or exerciseth authoritie ouer others, then doth Heresiarch, who is so called, for that hee is the first brother and brocher of that heresie, not that hee exerciseth anye dominion ouer the rank kamiel of that poysonous rable. In very deed, a Patriark signifieth the first parent of any people or ofspring: in which sence also the same word is deriued to our vse, to signifie an Archbishop; because that he among the other Bishops (which are counted Fathers) is as it were the Graundfather: and that thereby also wee might further conceiue, that the gouerne∣ment

he hath ouer others, is meere father-like, not tyrannik So that for modesty sake wer they called, rather Archbishops and Patriarkes, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Princes of the Priests) that all the world might know, that their power ouer their bre∣thren, and fellow-bishoppes, was no other, then that which Paule had ouer Titus and Timothy, and they ouer others. And thus at the last it may appear at the ful, that here is no name giuen to the Bishop of the chief place, which was forbidden by the Carthaginian Canon: seeing that a Patriarke & Arch∣bishop in their proper sense, doe signifie no other then the chief Bishop: who if he be called Prince of the Bishops, among them which write more pure Latine, no man ought to bee a∣greeued therfore: for that (as I haue alredy noted) the word Prince among them, is no more but as principall and chiefe a∣mong vs. And this is that which Ambrose hath written vpon the fourth of the Ephesians. In a Bishop (saith hee) are all the or∣ders contained, because hee is the chiefe Priest, that is, the Prince of Priests, and a Prophet, and an Euangelist.

But now againe, that they say, the word Archbishop doth signifie the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Peter, which signifieth the Arch-pastor: I can but greatly wonder, and yet not suf∣ficiently, that any such thing should proceed from men that would bee accounted learned, and linguists too. I shewed but euen now, what this worde Archbishoppe signified, and what might be made of the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in composi∣tion.

Wherefore, seeing that in the construction of this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as also in other wordes) it may bee taken as well for the first and chiefe Pastor of any people: as for the chiefe Lord and Prince of all Pastours: I see no reason, why that also may not bee giuen to that man, which obtaineth the chiefe place among the Pastors of any place. But when as it signi∣fieth Christ, and that for his supreame gouernement, which he alone hath ouer 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 himselfe to bee called Archbishop. Christ is cal∣led

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Archpastor, absolutely, aboue al com∣parison, beyond all exception, without any limitation: when as our Archbishoppes are not so called simply and absolutelie, but such and such Archbishops, Archbishoppes of this or that sea, whose Suffraganes and Sub-bishops of such or such a Prouince, are sufficientlie known: Among whome onely they are accounted the Primates, or principall moderators: and ouer whom onely, and not ouer all absolutely, they are called Archbishops.

Wherefore, seeing that by this name, is onely signified the chiefe and principall Pastour of some one Prouince, it doth no more derogat from the glory of Christ, then when wee call other Elders and Bishops by the name of Pastors and Doctors: seeing that properly Christ alone is our Mai∣ster and Teacher, and indeede that onelye good Shepheard, which gaue his life for vs.

In like manner, albeit God and the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, be also our Father which is in heauen: yet not∣withstanding, wee may call men also our Fathers, and in so doing offer God no wrong at all. And therefore, whosoe∣uer hee be, that knoweth as well as I can tell him, that these names and titles are in sense manifolde, and ambiguous in signification, so that they may be giuen to diuerse things in diuerse respectes, and yet holdeth plea in this sort, hee doth but seeme to holde himselfe play in a serious matter, to make an idle shewe of his vaine wit, and a sinfull spoyle of the simple reader. For my part, hauing resolued vppon that which before wee haue taught: namely, That in the re∣giment of the Church, Bishoppes were placed ouer Bishoppes, accor∣ding vnto God his diuine ordinance and institution; I cannot see howe that methode of Gods distinct order, coulde haue beene expressed in more apt and fit termes (after the Apo∣stles decease) then by these reuerend titles of Patriarks and Archbishops.

In the which also (setting aside the arrogancy and tyrannie of those which haue abused their authority, and doe abuse)

there is not so much state or pride, as some presume.

I but (will some say,) our Bishops and Archbishops doe entertaine secular charges, and inuade ciuill honours, and are imbost with temporall titles: all the which, how crosly they confront the doctrine of the Apostles, and the good meaning of their titles, who so blinde as may not see it? To this I would answere, before I proceed any further: but it is not for this place, neither dooth this question fall into this treatise. Wherefore, hereafter I will set down what I thinke of this matter, when I come to his proper place.

In the meane while (gentle Reader) suppose, I here de∣fend not those which now liue, (who whiles they ar in view, are enuied) but those faithfull seruants of Christ Iesus, who heereto-fore haue ruled the church with great fruit, before the tyranny of Rome abused the Church of God: namely, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregorie Nysen, Basil the great, Athanasius, Chrisostome, Cyprian, Ignatius, Polycarpus, Ambrose, Augustine, and such like: whose liues as they are further from our eies, so from our enuye. These cannot I with any good consci∣ence, doe not you of any conceit condemne of pride, ambi∣tion, tyranny, or Anticristianisme, for whome all the world will stand vp & witnes, that they were Bishops, Archbishops and Patriarches, and gouerned the churches after a singuler maner, and with an especiall power ouer the rest. If any man thinke hee haue a single gift in these thinges, and suppose he haue the spirit of discretion, as his familiar (to discerne spirits) good leaue hath hee, let him vse it: but let him take heed, his spirit of discretion proue not the spirit of presum∣tion. I verely can finde no such spirite 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 grea∣ter authority with me, then are they which haue written of the same matter in this age, and within our memorie.

But nowe concerning the last exception against their names (I meane of Arch bishops.) I answere, and deny that they were the inuētions of Antichrist; this first, & then also, that whatsoeuer was inuented, (or is vsurped either) of An∣tichrist

is hand ouer head to be reiected of vs; for of necessi∣ty (a necessary pollicy) he deuised, rather then inuēted, some good things, that with them he might ouercast many bad. So doth Satan many times transforme himselfe into an An∣gell of light, that he may deceyue without suspect; hee fay∣neth holines; that he may draw into wickednes: hee defen∣deth the truth, that he may driue into error. (For he should bewray himself too grossely, if he should teach nothing but leasings.) But yet, can there bee a more witlesse conclusion then this, Antichrist taught this, ergo it is false? Antichrist deuised this, ergo it is naught? vnlesse it should be interser∣ted, or at least vnderstood, that the same is contrary also to the worde of God. As for example, that which Peter was taught of the holy Ghost, hee confessed with a liuely faith, namely, That Iesus was the very Christ, and the onely sonne of the liuing God. But now, doth not Antichrist also con∣fesse the same with his mouth? yea whosoeuer dare deny the same, he condemneth to the fagot. Doth he not also im∣brace the sacred volumes of Gods holy word? yes and more then that forasmuch as the Lord hath taught vs in his word, that we should pray continually, he hath of himselfe deui∣sed, to deuide the whole day in matinges and euen song. But now (to come to the poynt) because hee abuseth vnto superstition both fasting and prayer, and the holy Bible, and the blessed confession of the sonne of God, shall we therfore (all in a fling) renounce these thinges? Admit it be his desire that the ministery should be of som reckoning in the world, and that it should be aduanced to no meane degree of ho∣nour in the common wealth: And what then? that we may not be like vnto him, shal we requite the Ministers of Christ with shame for fame, and with slaunders for honours? And because he seeketh to magnify them without meane, shall we suffer them to lie subiect and abiect among the basest routs of the common meany? If braine-sicke men vppon a quarelous minde may presently gainesay whatsoeuer the Bishop of Rome hath sayd, or don: I fear me in the end, they wil in their great hast ouerrun all christian religion, & leaue

it far behinde them. Wherfore, whosoeuer shall think euery thing forthwith to be reiected, for that eyther the author thereof abused the same to tyranny, or the Bishop of Rome inuerted the same to superstition, he is easely to be carried with euery shallow streame into any deepe error.

What things soeuer are in the Church of Rome (that now is) may iustly be distinguished into three parts: Wherof ther are some things that wel consort with the word of God; and some, that do flatly contradict the same; but the most things are such, as there vse is; eyther good, or bad: which thinges are called, things indifferent. Now, albeit bad men may make a bad vse of good thinges, yet can they not inuert the na∣ture therof. Baptisme, the word of God, or whatsoeuer else (of that kinde) the Romanists haue in vse, no wise man will therefore reiect, as if they were euil, because they haue not v∣sed thē wel. As for things vtterly euil, because no man at any time vseth them well, they are vtterly to be reiected of vs, as is all kind of Idolatry, & whatsoeuer doth either vndermine, or ouerthrow the sound & substātiall doctrine of truth. But as for things indifferent, seeing they are such as is he that v∣seth them; they are left in our power to vse them, as time & occasion shal require. An indifferent thing is commonly that, whatsoeuer is nor cōdemned, nor commended in the word of God, & is left free to euery mans choise, either to vse, or not vse: vnles some other thing interchaunce, which altereth the vse of that which otherwise was free, by reasō of the time or place, or the person, wher the same is in vse. For my part, I think things mediat & indifferent might better be defined thus: if we shall say, those thinges are indifferent, which by no law, either Gods law or mās law, are bidden, or forbidden. For by the command of him which hath the authority ouer our persons, the vse of a thing, which otherwise is free, may many waies, & vppon many occasions be restrained, or ouer∣ruled: But of these things, in this place, we are not now to discourse at large. Onely thus much I chiefly note, & would haue iust notice taken of it, that indifferent thinges may bee vsed of vs, although the same things haue ben abused by the

bishop of Rome, or any other Antichrist. Is our liberty to be preiudiced by an other mans religion? specially, where pub∣lique authority hath any thing to do in the matter? suppose it either giueth vs in charge, or putteth vs in choise, to vse those things which the superstitious haue abused: Wherfore whensoeuer anything shal come in question among vs, that hath bene vsed among the Romanists, or other enemies of the truth, it is our part to examine and consider the matter, as it is in selfe, not as it was with them.

There are some in England at this day, who take vpon thē more sowrely, then seuerely, against outward vestementes, cap & surples, musicke and organs, and such like rites of the Church: the which, because they were of some vse in the Ro∣mane Church, now out vppon them, they are sacriligious & prophane. In like maner, and with no lesse modesty, do they proceede against Bishops & Archbishops, their honors and reuenews; Al the which, vnles they could be proued contra∣ry to the word of God, what reason is this they bring (and it is al they bring) for the abolishing thereof: when they say, the author or inuentor therof was Antichrist? No doubt in∣different things which he abused for his tyranny, may be re∣turned to a better vse, for the good of the Church.

Now, as for contētious natures & such, in whose brests this error hath taken fast footing, namely, That the authority of Bishops is a thing pernitious in itself, and preiudicial to the church; I know this my aunswere, as it fitteh not their humors, so it serueth not their turns. Neither yet will they vouchsafe of that, which I haue said of the natural signification of words compound with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Wherfore, albeit the plainest interpre∣tation of the names of Patriarchs and Archbishops like me best, yet notwithstanding I dare say thus much further, if we should grāt (that which they shal neuer euince) that by force of composition a kind of principallity were to be inferred: yet doth it not theruppon follow, that it is therefore a title abhorring from the state of our BB. For let it be lawfull for men to vrge the signification of euery sillable in this sort, & it shal forthwith be vnlawful for any, to be called a monarch,

or to be inuested with the title of an Emperour: for why? forsooth, these names in theyr proper sense, are common to none, but to God onely. These and such like titles of lawful and necessary vse among vs, must vppon this quirk be vtter∣ly abolished: neyther may it be lawfull for vs from hence∣forth to call our Ministers (as the Scripture doth) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Rectors or Rulers, Prelates or Presidentes:) nay we shall not be able to auouch the name of Elders, because this, and these all in sacred Scripture, are proper to Magi∣strates and Princes, and the Nobles of sundry prouinces, 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 preuail, let vs hear what great dainty they make of the name of Prince, in the titles of the cleargy. Origen reprehending the clownishe sourenes of some Bishops, writeth thus; A man may see in some Churches, (especially in the greatest Citties) how the Princes of the christian people, shew no manner affability to any: esteeming thereof as a thing nothing at all pertaining vnto them, &c. And aftewards againe: We speake not these thinges as if we meant to discharge the Ecclesiasticall Principality. In like manner vppon the Epistle to the Romanes the thirteenth Chapter. By the which it appeareth (saith he) that the Iudges of the world do performe the greatest part of Gods law. For all the de∣faults that God would haue punished, he punisheth not by the Pre∣lates and Princes of the Church, but by the Iudges of the worlde. And vpon the twenty seuen Chapter of Numbers, the two and twenty Homily. Let the Princes (saith hee) of Churches learne, not to appoynt their successors after them, such as are allied vnto them, eyther in affinity of kindred, or consanguinity of bloud, neyther that they ought to make the Principality of Churches here∣ditary, &c. Ignatius, no lesse godly then grauely; My Son (saith hee) honour God and the King: and I say further, honor God as the author of al things and the owner; and honor the Bishop as Prince of the Priests, bearing, the image of God, by reasō of his principality, & the image of Christ, by means of his Priesthood. He that honoreth the Bishop, shall be honored of God, as also he that dishonoreth him,

shall be punished of God, &c. Besides many other things in the same place to the same sence. 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 subiect to Dea∣cons, Deacons to Priests, Priests to Bishops, the Bishop to Christ, as he is also to the Father. Againe to the Church of Antioch. You Elders feede the flocke which is committed vnto you, vntill God ma∣nifest him, which shal reign ouer you: For I am now sacrificed: that I may gaine Christ, &c. By which words, the holy Martyr hath sufficiently testified the authority of a Bishop ouer the rest of the Elders.

Doubtlesse in auncient time, the authority of Bishops was great in the Church, theyr reuerence great, and theyr fauour great among the people: the which of al other things made most for the benefit and increase of the Church. Euen as in the common wealth, the fauour of the Magistrats and authority is beneficiall to the people, so likewise of Bishops in the Church. And therefore for good cause thought Hie∣rome, that the welfare of the Church did depend of the ho∣nour of the chiefe Priest &c. Neyther in deed is this the least slight of Satan, when he laboreth to bring the prelats of the Church into contempt, for by that meanes he thinketh to imbecil the doctrine of fayth, and to bring that into suspect, that so at the last he might (if possible he could) bring an vtter ruine, and a ruined ouerture to the whole state of the Church. To which purpose whosoeuer they be, that make themselues the Diuell his stipendaries, vnder what colour so euer they doe it, they discerue but badly, not onely of the whole Church, but also of the common wealth. That which a rebell is in the state, the same is a scismaticke in the Church.

How iust cause the aduerse part here in England hath, to bring theyr Bishops into the obloquy and enuy of the peo∣ple, it smally cōcerneth 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 vsually befall all the best of the Ministery in Holland also, who are in no lesse enuy with the people there, then our Bishops are here. How malapart∣ly

(and the sacrifice) had men do rail and raue in their pub∣licke writing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the deare seruants of Christ, (and that by name) their shameful and shameles libels doe testifie at large. Of which wrongs seeing I my selfe (whiles I conuer∣sed with them) bate not the least share, & yet bear, no won∣der 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 condi∣tion of al Gods seruantes; and that Satan of old and long since, hath by all possible and pestilent meanes endeuored, to make the presidents of Christ his Church, odious and in∣famous among men; that so, their credit especially, being ei∣ther altogether crackt, or very sore crased, himselfe might with more facility and lesse iealosie set abroach and cast a∣broad, all manner hideous and hellish Heresies. In so much that I am perswaded, if Moyses himselfe, if Peter, if Paul were resident among vs, and were in that honour and esteeme, which were fit and well-beseeming their so honorable a cal∣ling, they could not possible escape the cankred chaps of these foule-mouthed Hell houndes. But so long as the ser∣uantes of Christ are in authority in the Church, it is not much that the instruments of Satan can atchieue: but are they once brought vnder the hatch? alas, what is it that the seditious dare not attēpt? This matter need no great proof, it hath too much.

Wherefore, of that degree of Honor, which the Prelats of Religion ought to inioy in an established christian common wealth, the very vilenes of this age doth inforce me to speak more at large. For if base men cannot abide, that Religion should be in any Honor, and villanous minds endeuor their worst, that the credit thereof may be none at all, or worse then it is, I thinke it no great wonder: but, that religious men (as they would seeme) should attempt the same, & euen they, which ought to be patrones and preseruers of the Church dignities, it is a thing odious, preposterous and too bad absurd. Doe they not yell in vaine, and cry out against abuses to no purpose, whose end is not so much to mitti∣gate the abuse of thinges, as to abolishe the whole vse? If

the gouernours of the Church, haue not so beautified theyr Ministery with that integrity of manners, and innocency of life, which reason & the reuerence of Religion doth require; I defend them not, but that according to the lawes they may be seuerely punished, and theyr betters surrogat into theyr places: Neyther are they exempt from the iurisdiction of the chiefe Magistrates, whereby they may not censure vp∣pon them, theyr liues and theyr goods, as vppon other cit∣tizens. No question, it greatly concerneth both Prince and people, that good men be placed ouer the Church, and euil men remoued theyr places: So that, whatsoeuer crimes are here, or else where obiected (and proued) against the Pre∣lates of Religion, they are staynes to the chiefe Magistrate, which tollerateth such Ministers in the Church, or aduan∣ceth such like to be Church officers.

There is not the like reason of the Romish cleargy: For they haue theyr peculiar Magistrates; nor liue they vnder the common law of other Cittizens, neyther yet are they ac∣counted any part of them, (any longer then may stand with their owne commodity.) There the ciuill Magistrate, cha∣lengeth no right to conuert, nor any power to amend, what so euer they committe. But notwithstanding, if the Magi∣strate thinke best, to winke at these publique slaunders, I wil complain my selfe no further; onely if the slanderers wil so moderate themselues, as that they onely finde fault with the fault, not with the state; and whiles they rate abuses, the honor of the calling may be left intemerat. Let it be no mans slaunder, that he is a Bishop, or a Minister.

But of the two-folde order of Elders, according to the Lorde his institution, and the Apostolique tradition, and the perpetuall vse of the Church (so much as the state of the argument doth require) these thinges I haue sayd may suf∣fice. Now it remayneth that wee say some thing also con∣cerning Doctors.