Works of Hooker, Book 7 (2 of 4)

Works of Hooker · Book 7 (2 of 4)

p. 394Thus we see upon what occasion Metropolitan Bishops became Archbishops. Now, while the whole Christian World, in a manner, still continued under one Civil Government, there being oftentimes within some one more large Territory, divers and sundry Mother-Churches, the Metropolitans whereof were Archbishops, as for Order's sake, it grew hereupon expedient, there should be a difference also amongst them; so no way seemed, in those times, more fit, than to give preheminence unto them whose Metropolitan Sees were of special desert or dignity: for which cause these, as being Bishops in the chiefest Mother-Churches were termed Primates, and, at the length, by way of excellency, Patriarks. For, ignorant we are not, how sometimes the Title of Patriark is generally given to all Metropolitan Bishops. They are mightily therefore to blame which are so bold and confident, as to affirm, that,Vilierius de fla…u primitivae Eccl…. for the space of above four hundred and thirty years after Christ, all Metropolitan Bishops were in every respect equals, till the second Council of Constantinople exalted certain Metropolitans above the rest. True it is, they were equals as touching the exercise of Spiritual power within their Dioceses, when they dealt with their own flock. For what is it that one of them might do within the compass of his own precinct, but another within his might do the same? But that there was no subordination at all, of one of them unto another; that when they all, or sundry of them, were to deal in the same Causes, there was no difference of first and second in degree, no distinction of higher and lower in authority acknowledged amongst them, is most untrue. The Great Council of Nice, was after our Saviour Christ but three hundred twenty four years, and in that Council, certain Metropolitans are said even then to have had antient preheminence and dignity above the rest, namely, the Primate of Alexandria, of Rome, and of Antioch. Threescore years after this, there were Synods under the Emperour Theodosius, which Synod was the first at Constantinople, Socr. l. 3. c. ….whereat one hundred and fifty Bishops were assembled: at which Council it was decreed, that the Bishop of Constantinople should not only be added unto the forme: Primates, but also that his Place should be second amongst them, the next to the Bishop of Rome in dignity. The same Decree again renewed concerning Constantinople, C…n. 28.and the reason thereof laid open in the Council of Chalcedon. At the length came that second of Constantinople, whereat were six hundred and thirty Bishops for a third confirmation thereof.Can. 3…. Laws Imperial there are likewise extant to the same effect. Herewith the Bishop of Constantinople being over-much puffed up, not only could not endure that See to be in estimation higher, whereunto his own had preferment to be the next, but he challenged more than ever any Christian Bishop in the World before either had, or with reason could have. What he challenged, and was therein as then refused by the Bishop of Rome; the same, the Bishop of Rome in process of time obtained for himself, and having p. 395gotten it by bad means, hath both up-held and augmented it, and upholdeth it by acts and practises much worse. But Primates, according to their first Institution,Novel 123. 22. were all in relation unto Archbishops, the same by Prerogative, which Archbishops were, being compared unto Bishops. Before the Council of Nice, albeit there were both Metropolitans and Primates, yet could not this be a means forcible enough to procure the peace of the Church; but all things were wonderful tumultuous and troublesome, by reason of one special practise common unto the Heretiques of those times, which was, That when they had been condemned and cast out of the Church by the Sentence of their own Bishops, they, contrary to the antient received Orders of the Church, had a custom to wander up and down, and to insinuate themselves into favour where they were not known; imagining themselves to be safe enough, and not to be clean cut off from the body of the Church, if they could any where finde a Bishop which was content to communicate with them: whereupon ensued, as in that case there needs must, every day quarrels and jarrs unappeasable amongst Bishops. The Nicene Council, for redress hereof, considered the bounds of every Archbishop's Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions, what they had been in former times; and accordingly appointed unto each grand part of the Christian World some one Primate, from whose Judgement no man living within his Territory might appeal, unless it were to a Council General of all Bishops. The drift and purport of which order was, That neither any man opprest by his own particular Bishop might be destitute of a remedy, through appeal unto the more indifferent Sentence of some other ordinary Judge, not yet every man be lest at such liberty as before, to shift himself out of their hands; for whom it was most meet to have the hearing and determining of his cause. The evil, for remedy whereof this order was taken, annoyed at that present, especially the Church of Alexandria in Egypt, where Arianism begun. For which cause the state of that Church is in the Nicene Canons concerning this matter mentioned before the rest. The words of their sacred Edict are these,Concil. Nic. c. 6. Let those customs remain in force, which have been of old the customs of Egypt and Libya, and Pentapolis; by which customs the Bishop of Alexandria hath authority over all these; the rather, for that this hath also been the use of the Bishop of Rome, yea, the same hath been kept in Antioch, and in other Provinces. Now,Ejusd. Con. cap. …. because the custom likewise had been, that great honour should be done to the Bishop of Alia or Ierusalem; therefore, lest their Decree concerning the Primate of Antioch, should any whit prejudice the dignity and honour of that See, special provision is made, that although it were inferior in degree, not only unto Antioch the chief of the East, but even unto Cesaria too; yet such preheminence it should retain as belonged to a Mother-City, and enjoy whatsoever special Prerogative or Priviledge it had besides. Let men therefore hereby judge of what continuance this Order which upholdeth degrees of Bishops must needs have been, when a General Council of three hundred and eighteen Bishops, living themselves within three hundred years after Christ, doth reverence the same for Antiquity's sake,T. C. l. t. …. What? no mention of him in Theophibus, Bishop of Antioch? none in Clemens Alexandrinus? none in Ignatius? no… in Iustin Martyr? in Irenaeus. In Tert…l in O…igen, in Cyprian? in tho…e old Historiographers, ou… of which Eusebius gathered his Story? was it for his baseness and smalness that he could not be seen amongst the Bishops, Elders and Deacons, being the chief and principal of them all? Can the Cedar of Lebanon be hidden amongst the Box-trees? T. C. l. …. ubi supra. A Metropolitan Bishop was nothing el…e but a Bishop of that place which is pleased the Emperor or Magistrate to make the chief of the Diocess or Shire, and as for this name it makes no more difference between a Bishop and a Bishop, than when I say a Minister of London, and a Minister of Newington. as a thing which had been even then of old observed in the most renowned parts of the Christian World. Wherefore needless altogether are those vain and wanton demands, No mention of an Archbishop in Theophilus Bishop of Antioch? none in Ignatius? none in Clemens of Alexandria? none in Iustin Martyr, Ireneus, Tertullian, Cyprian? none in all those old Historiographers, out of which Eusebius gathereth his Story? none till the time of the Council of Nice three hundred and twenty years after Christ? As if the mention, which is thereof made in that very Council, where so many Bishops acknowledge Archiepiscopal dignity even then antient, were not of farr more weight and value, than if every of those Fathers had written large Discourses thereof. But what is it which they will blush at, who dare so confidently set it down, that in the Councel of Nice some Bishops being termed Metropolitans, no more difference is thereby meant to have been between one Bishop and another, than is shewed between one Minister and another, when we say p. 396such a one is a Minister in the City of London, and such a one a Minister in the Town of Newington. So that, to be termed a Metropolitan Bishop did, in their conceit, import no more preheminence above other Bishops, than we mean, that a Girdler hath over others of the same trade, if we term him which doth inhabit some Mother-City for difference-sake a Metropolitan Girdler. But the Truth is too manifest to be eluded; a Bishop at that time had power in his own Diocess over all other Ministers there, and a Metropolitan Bishop sundry preheminences above other Bishops, one of which preheminences was, in the ordination of Bishops, to have foreign, the chief power of ordering all things done.Con. Nicen. c. 6. Illui autem amnino manifestum, quod siqus absque M…tro politani sententia sactus fl… p s…. hune magna …vno de lefin vit Epis…. ess. no…n portere. Can. 4. Which preheminence that Council it self doth mention, as also a greater belonging unto the Patriark or Primate of Alexandria, concerning whom, it is there likewise said, that to him did belong foreign, authority and power over all Egypt, Pentapolis, and Libya: within which compass sundry Metropolitan Sees to have been, there is no man ignorant, which in those Antiquities have any knowledge. Certain Prerogatives there are wherein Metropolitans excelled other Bishops, certain also wherein Primates excelled other Metropolitans. Archiepiscopal or Metropolitan Prerogatives are those mentioned in the old Imperial constitutions, toaaN…vel. 123. can 10. convocate the holy Bishops under them, within the compass of their own Provinces, when need required their meeting together for inquisition and redress of publick disorders;bbNow. 128. c. 9 to grant unto Bishops under them, leave and faculty of absence from their own Dioceses, when it seemed necessary that they should otherwhere converse for some reasonable while;ccNow l. 79. 2. to give notice unto Bishops under them, of things commanded by Supream Authority;ddNovel. 123. can. 22. to have the hearing and first determining of such Causes as any man had against a Bishop;eeNovel. 1. 3. a. 23. to receive the appeals of the inferiour Clergy, in case they found themselves over-born by the Bishop, their immediate Judge. And, lest haply it should be imagined, that Canons Ecclesiastical we want to make the self-same thing manifest: In the Council of Antioch it was thus decreed,ffCan. 9. The Bishop in every Province must know, that he which is Bishop in the Mother-City, hath not only charge of his own Parish or Diocess, but even of the whole Province also. Again, it hath seemed good, that other Bishops, without him, should do nothing more than only that which concerneth each one's Parish, and the places underneath it. Further, by the self-same Council all Councils provincial are reckoned void and frustrate,Can. 16. unless the Bishop of the Mother-City within that Province, where such Councils should be, were present at them. So that the want of his presence, and, in Canons for Church-Government, want of his approbation also, did disannul them. Not so the want of any others. Finally, concerning election of Bishops, the Council of Nice hath this general rule, that the chief ordering of all things here,Can. 4. foreign. is in every Province committed to the Metropolitan. Touching them, who, amongst Metropolitan, were also Primates, and had of sundry united Provinces, the chiefest Metropolitan See, of such that Canon, in the Council of Carthage, was eminent, whereby a Bishop is forbidden to go beyond Seas, without the license of the highest Chair within the same Bishop's own Country; and of such which beareth the name of Apostolical,Can. 23. is that antient Canon likewise, which chargeth the Bishops of each NATION to know him which is FIRST amongst them, and to esteem of him as an HEAD,Can. 34. and to do no extraordinary thing but with his leave. The chief Primates of the Christian World, were the Bishop of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. To whom the Bishop of Constantinople, being afterwards added, Saint Chrysostom the Bishop of that See,Callind. in vita Chrysost. is in that respect said, to have had the care and charge… not only of the City of Constantinople, sed etiam totius Thracia que sex praefecturis est divisa, & Asiaetolius quae ab undecim praesidebus regitur. The rest of the East was under Antioch, the South under Alexandria, and the West under Rome. Whereas therefore Iohn the Bishop of Ierusalem being noted of Heresie, had written an Apology for himself unto the Bishop of Alexandria, named Theophilus;Hieron. Ep. 91. Saint Ierom reproveth his breach of the Order of the Church herein, saying, Tu qui regular quaris Ecclesiasticas, & Nicend Concilii canonibus uteris, responde mihi, Ad Alexandrinum Episcopum Palastina quid pertinet? Nifallor, hoc ibi deçernitur at Palaeslinae Metropolie Casarea sit, & totius Orientis Antiochia. Aut igitur ad Caesariensem Episcopuna referre debueras, aut siprocul expetendum judiciam erat, Antiochiam potius litera dirigenda. Thus much concerning that Local Compass which was antiently set out to Bishops; within the bounds and limits p. 397whereof we finde, that they did accordingly exercise that Episcopal Authority and power which they had over the Church of Christ.

IX. The first whom we read to have bent themselves against the Superiority of Bishops, were Aerius and his Followers. Aerius seeking to be made a Bishop,In what respects Episcopal Regiment hath been gainsaid of old by Aerius. could not brook that Eustathius was thereunto preferred before him. Whereas therefore he saw himself unable to rise to that greatness which his ambitious pride did affect, his way of revenge was, to try what Wit being sharpned with envy and malice could do, in raising a new seditious opinion, that the Superiority which Bishops had,Aug. de haen. ad quod vult deu. was a thing which they should not have; that a Bishop might not ordain; and that a Bishop ought not any way to be distinguished from a Presbyter:Aeriani ab Aerio quodam sunt nominari qui qinum e…er Presbyter, docuisse sen…ur, quad Episcopus non potest ordioare. Dicibo: Episcopum a Presbytero nulla ratione debere diseerni. Aug. de haer. For so doth St. Augustin deliver the opinion of Aerius: Epiphanius not so plainly, nor so directly, but after a more Rhetorical sort. His Speech was rather furious than convenient for man to use, What is, saith he, a Bishop more than a Presbyter? The one doth differ from the other nothing. For their Order as one, their Honour one, one their Dignity. A Bishop imposeth his hands, so doth a Presbyter. A Bishop baptizeth, the like doth a Presbyter. The Bishop is a Minister of Divine Service, a Presbyter is the same. The Bishop sitteth as a Iudge in a Throne, even the Presbyter fitteth also. A Presbyter therefore doing thus far the self-same thing which a Bishop did, it was by Aerius inforced, that they ought not in any thing to differ. Are we to think Aerius had wrong in being judged an Heretick for holding this opinion? Surely if Heresie be an error, falsely fathered upon Scriptures, but indeed repugnant to the truth of the Word of God, and by the consent of the universal Church, in the Councils; or in her contrary uniform practice throughout the whole world, declared to be such, and the opinion of Aerius in this point be a plain error of that nature, there is no remedy; but Aerius so schismatically, and stifly maintaining it, must even stand where Epiphanius and Augustin have placed him. An error repugnant unto the truth of the Word of God is held by them whosoever they be, that stand in defence of any Conclusion drawn erroneously out of Scripture, and untruely thereon fathered. The opinion of Aerius therefore being falsely collected out of Scripture, must needs be acknowledged an error repugnant unto the truth of the Word of God. His opinion was, that there ought not to be any difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter. His grounds and reasons for this Opinion, were Sentences of Scripture. Under pretence of which Sentences, whereby it seemed that Bishops and Presbyters at the first did not differ, it was concluded by Aerius, that the Church did ill in permitting any difference to be made. The Answer which Epiphanius maketh unto some part of the proofs by Aerius alleged, was not greatly studied or labored; for through a contempt of so base an error, for this himself did perceive and profess, yieldeth he thereof expresly this reason; Men that have wit do evidently see, that all this is meer foolishness.foreign But how vain and ridiculous soever his opinion seemed unto wise men; with it Aerius deceived many, for which cause somewhat was convenient to be said against it. And in that very extemporal slightness which Epiphanius there useth, albeit the answer made to Aerius beaaAs in that he saith, the Apostle doth name sometimes Presbyters and not Bishops, … Tim. 4. 14. sometime Bishops and not Presbyters, Phil …. …. because all Churches had not both, for want of able and sufficient men. In such Churches therefore as had but the one, the Apostle could not mention the other. Which Answer is nothing to the l…t…er place above mentioned: For that the Church of Philippi should have more Bishops than one, and want a few able men to be Presbyters under the Regiment of one Bishop, how shall we think it probable or likely? in part but raw, yet ought not hereby the Truth to finde any less favour than in other Causes it doth, where we do not therefore judge Heresie to have the better, because now and then it alledgeth that for it self, which Defenders of Truth do not always so fully answer. Let it therefore suffice, that Aerius did bring nothing unanswerable. The weak Solutions which the one doth give, are to us no prejudice against the Cause, as long as the others oppositions are of no greater strength and validity. Did not Aerius, trow you, deserve to be esteemed as a new Apollos, mighty and powerful in the Word, which could for maintenance of his Cause, bring forth so plain Divine Authorities, to prove by the Apostles own Writings, that Bishops ought not in any thing to differ from other Presbyters? For example, where it is said that Presbyters made Timothy Bishop, is it not clear, that a Bishop should not differ from a Presbyter, by having power of Ordination? Again, if a Bishop might by Order be distinguished from a Presbyter, would the Apostle have given,bb1 Tim. 4. 14. with the Impesition of the Presbyteries hand. Of which Presbytery S Paul was chief. 1 Tim. 1.6. And I think no man will deny that S. Paul need more than a simple Presbyters Authority. Phil. 1. 1. To all the Saints at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons. For as yet in the Church of Philippi, there was no one which had Authority besides Apostles, but their Presbyters or Bishops were all both in Title and in Power equal.1 Tim 4:141 Tim 1:6Phil 1:1 as he doth unto Presbyters, the Title of Bishops? p. 398These were the invincible demonstrations wherewith Aerius did so fiercely assault Bishops. But the Sentence of Aerius perhaps was only, that the difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, hath grown by the order and custom of the Church, the Word of God not appointing that any such difference should be. Well, let Aerius then finde the favour to have his Sentence so construed; yet his fault in condemning the order of the Church, his not submitting himself unto that Order, the Schism which he caused in the Church about it, who can excuse? No, the truth is, that these things did even necessarily ensue, by force of the very opinion which he and his followers did hold. His conclusion was, That there ought to be no difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop. His proofs, those Scripture-sentences which make mention of Bishops and Presbyters, without any such distinction or difference. So that if between his Conclusion and the Proofs whereby he laboured to strengthen the same, there be any shew of coherence at all, we must of necessity confess, that when Aerius did plead, There is by the Word of God no difference between a Presbyter, and a Bishop; his meaning was, not only that the Word of God it self appointeth nor, but that it enforceth on us the duty of not appointing, nor allowing, that any such difference should be made.

In what respect Episcopal is gain-fall by the Authors of pretended Reformation at this day.X. And of the self-same minde are the Enemies of Government by Bishops, even at this present day. They hold, as Aerius did, that if Christ and his Apostles were obeyed, a Bishop should not be permitted to ordain: that between a Presbyter and a Bishop the Word of God alloweth not any inequality or difference to be made; that their Order, their Authority, their Power ought to be one; that it is but by usurpation and corruption, that the one sort are suffered to have rule of the other, or to be any way superiour unto them. Which opinion having now so many Defenders, shall never be able while the World doth stand, to finde in some, believing Antiquity, as much as one which hath given it countenance, or born any friendly affection towards it. Touching these men therefore, whose desire is to have all equal, three ways there are, whereby they usually oppugn the received Order of the Church of Christ. First, by disgracing the inequality of Pastors, as a new and meer Human invention, a thing which was never drawn our of Scripture, where all Pastors are found (they say) to have one and the same power, both of Order and Jurisdiction. Secondly, by gathering together the differences between that power which we give to Bishops, and that which was given them of old in the Church: So that, albeit even the antient took more than was warrantable, yet so farr they swerved not as ours have done. Thirdly, by endeavouring to prove, that the Scripture directly forbiddeth, and that the judgement of the wisest, the holyest, the best in all Ages, condemneth utterly the inequality which we allow.

XI. That inequality of Pastors is a meer Humane invention, a thing not found in the Word of God, they prove thus:

1. All the places of Scripture where the word Bishop is used, or any other derived of that name, signifie an Oversight in respect of some particular Congregation only, Their Auguments in disgrace of Regiment by… …heps, as being a meer invention of Man, and nor sound in Scripture, Answered. Titus 1. 5. Timothy 3. 5. Philippians …. 1. 1 Peter 5. 1. 2.Titus 1:51 Pet 5:11 Pet 5:2and never in regard of Pastors committed unto his Oversight. For which cause the names of Bishops, and Presbyters, or Pastoral Elders, are used indifferently, to signifie one and the self-same thing. Which so indifferent and common use of these words, for one and the self-same office, so constantly and perpetually in all places, declareth, that the word Bishop in the Apostles Writing, importeth not a Pastor of higher Power and Authoritie over other Pastors.

2. All Pastors are called to their Office by the same means of proceeding; the Scripture maketh no difference in the manner of their Tryal, Election, Ordination: which proveth their Office and Power to be by Scripture all one.

3. The Apostles were all of equal power, and all Pastors do alike succeed the Apostles in their Ministery and Power, the Commission and Authority whereby they succeed, bring in Scripture but one and the same that was committed to the Apostles, without any difference of committing to one Pastor more, or to another less.

p. 3994. The power of the Censures and Keyes of the Church, and of Ordaining and ordering Ministers (in which two points especially this Superiority is challenged) is not committed to any one Pastor of the Church, more than to another, but the same is committed as a thing to be carried equally in the guidance of the Church. Whereby it appeareth, that Scripture maketh all Pastors, not only in the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments, but also in all Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and Authority, equal.

5. The Council of Nice doth attribute this difference, not unto any Ordination of God, but to an antient Custom used in former times, which judgement is also followed afterward by other Councils, Concil, Antioch. cap. 9.

6. Upon these Premises, their summary collection and conclusion is, That the Ministery T. C. l. …. p. 13. So that it appeareth that the Ministery of the Gospel, and the Functurions thereof, ought to be from Heaven: From Heaven, I say, and Heavenly, because although it the exce…red by Earthly men, and Ministers are chosen also by men like unto themselves, yet because it is done by the Word and Institution of God, It may well be accounted to come from Heaven, and from God.of the Gospel, and the Functions thereof, ought to be from Heaven and of God, Joh. I. 23. that if they be of God, and from Heaven, then are they set down in the Word of God; that if they be not in the Word of God (as by the premises it doth appear (they say) that our kinds of Bishops are not) it followeth, they are invented by the brain of men, and are of the Earth and that consequently they can do no good in the Church of Christ but harm.

Our Answer hereunto is, first, that their proofs are unavailable to shew,Answer. that Scripture affordeth no evidence for the inequality of Pastors. Secondly, That, albeit the Scripture did no way insinuate the same to be God's Ordinance, and the Apostles to have brought it in, albeit the Church were acknowledged by all men to have been the first beginner thereof, a long time after the Apostles were gone; yet is not the Authority of Bishops hereby disannulled, it is not hereby proved unfit, or unprofitable for the Church.

1. That the Word of God doth acknowledge no inequality of power amongst Pastors of the Church, neither doth it appear by the signification of this word Bishop, nor by the indifferent use thereof. For, concerning signification, first it is clearly untrue, that no other thing is thereby signified, but only an oversight in respect of a particular Church and Congregation. For, I beseech you, of what Parish, or particular Congregation was Matthias Bishop? His Office Scripture doth term Episcopal:Acts 1. 22.Acts 1:22 which being no other than was common unto all the Apostles of Christ; forasmuch as in that number there is not any to whom the oversight of many Pastors did not belong, by force and vertue of that Office; it followeth, that the very Word doth sometimes, even in Scripture, signifie oversight, such as includeth charge over Pastors themselves. And if we look to the use of the Word, being applyed with reference unto some one Church, as Ephesus, Philippi, and such like, albeit the Guides of those Churches be interchangeably in Scripture termed sometime Bishops, sometime Presbyters, to signifie men having oversight and charge, without relation at all unto other than the, Christian Laity alone, yet this doth not hinder, but that Scripture may in some place have other names, whereby certain of those Presbyters or Bishops, are noted to have the oversight and charge of Pastors, as out of all peradventure they had, whom St. Iohn doth intitle Angels.Revel. 1.Rev 1

2. As for those things which the Apostle hath set down concerning Tryal, Election, and Ordination of Pastors, that he maketh no difference in the manner of their Calling, this also is but a silly Argument to prove their Office and their Power equal by the Scripture. The form of admitting each sort unto their Offices, needed no particular Instruction: There was no fear, but that such matters of course would easily enough be observed. The Apostle therefore toucheth those things wherein Judgement, Wisdom, and Conscience is required, he carefully admonisheth of what quality Ecclesiastical Persons should be, that their dealing might not be scandalous in the Church. And forasmuch as those things are general, we see that of Deacons there are delivered, in a manner, the self-same Precepts, which are given concerning Pastors, so farr as concerneth their Tryal, Election, and Ordination. Yet who doth hereby collect, that Scripture maketh Deacons and Pastors equal? If notwithstanding it be yet demanded, Wherefore he which teatcheth what kinde of Persons p. 400Deacons and Presbyters should be, hath nothing in particular about the quality of chief Presbyters, whom we call Bishops? I answer briefly, that there it was no fit place for any such discourse to be made, inasmuch as the Apostle wrote unto Timothy and Titus, who having by Commission Episcopal Authority, were to exercise the same in ordaining, not Bishops (the Apostles themselves yet living, and retaining that power in their own hands) but Presbyters, such as the Apostles at the first did create throughout all Churches. Bishops by restraint (only Iames at Ierusalem excepted) were not yet in being.

3. About equality amongst the Apostles, there is by us no Controversie moved. If in the rooms of the Apostles, which were of equal Authority, all Pastors do by Scripture succeed alike, where shall we finde a Commission in Scripture which they speak of, which appointed all to succeed in the self-same equality of power, except that Commission which doth authorize to Preach and Baptise, should be alledged, which maketh nothing to the purpose; for in such things, all Pastors are still equal: We must, I fear me, wait very long before any other will be shewed. For howsoever the Apostles were Equals amongst themselves, all other Pastors were not Equals with the Apostles while they lived, neither are they any where appointed to be afterward each others Equals. Apostles had, as we know, authority over all such as were no Apostles; by force of which their Authority, they might both command and judge. It was for the singular good and benefit of those Disciples whom Christ left behinde him, and of the Pastors which were afterwards chosen; for the great good, I say, of all sorts, that the Apostles were in power above them. Every day brought forth somewhat wherein they saw by experience, how much it stood them in stead to be under controulment of those Superiours and Higher Governours of Gods House. Was it a thing so behoveful, that Pastors should be subject unto Pastors in the Apostles own times? and is there any commandment that this Subjection should cease with them? and that the Pastors of the succeeding Ages should be all Equals? No, no, this strange and absurd conceit of Equality amongst Pastors (the Mother of Schism, and of Confusion) is but a dream newly brought forth, and seen never in the Church before.

4. Power of Censure and Ordination appeareth even by Scripture marvellous probable, to have been derived from Christ to his Church, without this surmised Equality in them to whom he hath committed the same. For I would know, Whether Timothy and Titus were commanded by Saint Paul to do any thing, more than Christ hath authorized Pastors to do; And to the one it is Scripture which saith,1 Tim. 5. 19.1 Tim 5:19 Against a Presbyter receive THOU no accusation, saving under two or three Witnesses: Scripture which likewise hath said to the other,Tit. 1. 5.Titus 1:5 For this very cause left I THEE in Crete, that THOU shouldst redress the things that remain, and shouldst ORDAIN Presbyters in every City, as I appointed THEE. In the former place the power of Censure is spoken of, and the power of Ordination in the latter. Will they say that every Pastor there was equal to Timothy, and Titus in these things? If they do, the Apostle himself is against it, who saith, that, of their two very Persons, he had made choyse, and appointed in those places them, for performances of those Duties, whereas, if the same had belonged unto others, no less than to them, and not principally unto them above others, it had been fit for the Apostle accordingly to have directed his Letters concerning these things in general unto them all which had equal interest in them; even as it had been likewise fit to have written those Epistles in Saint Iohn's Revelation, unto whole Ecclesiastical Senates, rather than only unto the Angels of each Church, had not some one been above the rest in Authority, to order the affairs of the Church. Scripture therefore doth most probably make for the inequality of Pastors, even in all Ecclesiastical affairs, and by very express mention, as well in Censures as Ordinations.

5. In the Nicene Council there are consumed certain Prerogatives and Dignities belonging unto Primates or Archbishops, and of them it is said, that the antient custom of the Church, had been to give them such preheminence, but no syllable whereby any man should conjecture, that those Fathers did not honor the Superiority which Bishops had over other Pastors, only upon antient custom, and not as a true Apostolical heavenly and divine Ordinance.

p. 4016. Now, although we should leave the general received perswasion, held from the first beginning, that the Apostles themselves left Bishops invested with power above other Pastors; although I say, we should give over this opinion, and imbrace that other conjecture, which so many have thought good to follow,They of Walden, Acn. Syl. hist. Boem. Norsilius. Defens. pac Nici. Thum. Wakl. c. 1. l. 2. cap. 0 Calvin, Coment in 1 ad id Lit. Bulhtiger, Decad …. Ser. 3. Juel Defens, apol, par. 2. c. …. …t. Folk. Answ. to the Test. Tic. …. 5. John 1. 25. Mat. 21. 23.John 1:25Matt 21:23 and which my self did sometimes judge a great deal more probable than now I do, meerly that after the Apostles were deceased, Churches did agree amongst themselves, for preservation of Peace and Order, to make one Presbyter in each City, Chief over the rest, and to translate into him that power, by force and vertue whereof the Apostles, while they were alive, did preserve and uphold order in the Church, exercising Spiritual Jurisdiction, partly by themselves, and partly by Evangelists, because they could not always every where themselves be present: This order taken by the Church it self (for so let us suppose, that the Apostles did neither by word nor deed appoint it) were notwithstanding more warrantable, than that it should give place and be abrogated, because the Ministry of the Gospel, and the Functions thereof, ought to be from Heaven. There came Chief Priests and Elders unto our Saviour Christ as he was teaching in the Temple, and the Question which they moved unto him was this, By what Authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee this Authority? their Question he repelled with a Counter-demand, The Baptism of John whence was it, from Heaven, or of Men? Hereat they paused, secretly disputing within themselves, If we shall say from Heaven, he will ask, Wherefore did ye not then believe him? And if we say of men, We fear the People, for all hold Iohn a Prophet. What is it now which hereupon these men would infer? That all-Functions Ecclesiastical, ought in such sort to be from Heaven, as the Function of Iohn was I No such matter here contained. Nay, doth not the contrary rather appear most plainly by that which is here set down? For when our Saviour doth ask concerning the Baptism, that is to say, the whole Spiritual Function of Iohn, whether it were from Heaven or of men, he giveth clearly to understand that men give Authority unto some, and some God himself from Heaven doth Authorize. Nor is it said, or in any sort signified, that none have lawful Authority which have it not in such manner as Iohn, from Heaven. Again, when the Priests and Elders were loth to say, that Iohn had his calling from men, the reason was not because they thought that so Iohn should not have had any good or lawful Calling, but because they saw, that by this means they should somewhat embase the Calling of Iohn, whom all men knew to have been sent from God, according to the manner of Prophets, by a meer Celestial vocation. So that out of the evidence here alledged, these things we may directly conclude, first, that who so doth exercise any kinde of Function in the Church, he cannot lawfully so do, except Authority be given him; Secondly, that if Authority be not given him from men, as the Authority of Teaching was given unto Scribes and Pharisees, it must be given him from Heaven, as Authority was given unto Christ, Elias, Iohn Baptist, and the Prophets. For these two only wayes there are to have Authority. But a strange Conclusion it is, God himself did from Heaven authorize Iohn to bear Witness of the light, to prepare a way for the promised Messiah, to publish the nearness of the Kingdom of God, to Preach Repentance, and to Baptise (for by this part which was in the Function of Iohn most noted, all the rest are together signified;) Therefore the Church of God hath no power upon new occurences to appoint, to ordain an Ecclesiastical Function, as Moses did upon Iethroe's advice devise a civil. All things we grant which are in the Church ought to be of God. But, for as much as they may be two wayes accounted such: one, if they be of his own institution, and not of ours; another if they be of ours, and yet with his approbation, this latter way there is no impediment, but that the same thing which is of men, may be also justly and truly said to be of God, the same thing from Heaven which is from Earth. Of all good things God himself is Author, and consequently an Approver of them. The rule to discern when the actions of men are good, when they are such as they ought to be, is more ample and large than the Law which God hath set particular down in his holy Word, the Scripture is but a part of that rule as hath been heretofore at large declared. If therefore all things be of God which are well done;Lib. 1. and if all things be well done, which are according unto the rule of well doing; and if the rule of welldoing be more ample than the Scripture; what necessity is there, that every thing p. 402which is of God, should be set down in holy Scripture? true it is in things of some one kinde, true it is, that what we are now of necessity for ever bound to believe or observe in the special mysteries of Salvation, Scripture must needs give notice of it unto the World; yet true it cannot be, touching all things that are of God. Sufficient it is for the proof of lawfulness in any thing done, if we canshew that God approved it. And of his approbation, the evidence is sufficient, if either himself have by revelation in his word warranted it, or we by some discourse of reason, finde it good of it self, and unrepugnant unto any of his revealed Laws and Ordinances. Wherefore injurious we are unto God, the Author and Giver of Human capacity, Judgement and Wit, when, because of some things wherein he precisely forbiddeth men to use their own inventions, we take occasion to dis-authorize and disgrace the works which he doth produce by the hand, either of nature or of grace in them. We offer contumely, even unto him, when we scornfully reject what we lift without any other exception than this, The brain of man hath devised it. Whether we look into the Church or Common-weal, as well in the one as in the other, both the Ordination of Officers, and the very institution of their Offices may be truly derived from God, and approved of him, although they be not always of him in such sort as those things are which are in Scripture. Doth not the Apostle term the Law of Nature even as the Evangelist doth the Law of Scripture, foreign,Rom. 1. 32. Luke 1. 6.Rom 1:32Luke 1:6 God's own righteous Ordinance? the Law of Nature then being his Law, that must needs be of him which it hath directed men unto. Great odds, I grant, there is between things devised by men, although agreeable with the Law of Nature, and things is Scripture set down by the finger of the Holy Ghost. Howbeit the dignity of these is no hinderance, but that those be also reverently accounted of in their Place. Thus much they very well saw, who although not living themselves under this kinde of Church Polity, yet being, through some experience, more moderate, grave and circumspect in their Judgment, have given hereof their sounder and better advised Sentence. That which the holy Fathers (saith Zanchius) have by common consent,Confes. 169. without contradiction of Scripture, received; for my part, I neither will, nor dare with good Conscience disallow. And what more certain, than that the ordering of Ecclesiastical Persons, one in authority above another, was received into the Church by the common consent of the Christian World. What am I, that I should take upon me to control the whole Church of Christ in that which is so well known to have been lawfully, religiously, and to notable purpose instituted? Calvin maketh mention even of Primates that have authority above Bishops,Epist. 150. It was, saith he, the institution of the antient Church, to the end that the Bishops might by this bond of Concord, continue the faster linked amongst themselves. And, lest any man should think that as well he might allow the Papacy it self; to prevent this he addeth, Aliud est moderatum gerere & honorem, quàmtotum terraram orbem immenso imperio complecti. These things standing as they do, we may conclude, that, albeit the Offices which Bishops execute, had been committed unto them only by the Church, and that the superiority which they have over other Pastors, were not first by Christ himself given to the Apostles, and from them descended to others, but afterwards in such consideration brought in and agreed upon, as is pretended, yet could not this be a just or lawful exception against it.

The Arguments to prove there was no necessity of instituting Bishops in the Church.XII. But they will say, There was no necessity of instituting Bishops, the Church might have stood well enough without them, they are as those supersluous things, which neither while they continue do good, nor do harm when they are removed, because there is not any profitable use whereunto they should serve. For first, in the Primitive Church their Pastors were all equal, the Bishops of those dayes were the very same which Pastors of Parish Churches at this day are, with us, no one at commandment or controulment by any others Authority amongst them. The Church therefore may stand and flourish without Bishops: If they be necessary, wherefore were they not sooner instituted? 2. Again, if any such thing were needful for the Church, Christ would have set it down in Scripture, as he did all kinde of Officers needful for Iewish Regiment. He which prescribed unto the Iews so particularly the least thing pertinent unto their Temple, would not have left so weighty Offices undetermined of in Scripture, Ep. 3. lb. 1.but that he knew the Church could never have any profitable use of them 3. Furthermore, it is the judgement of Cyprian, that equity requireth p. 403every man's cause to be heard, where the fault he is charged with was committed. And the reason he alledgeth is, for asmuch as there they may have both Accusers and Witnesses in their cause. Sith therefore every man's cause is neceiest to be handled at home by the Iudges of his own Parish, to what purpose serveth their device, which have appointed Bishops unto whom such causes may be brought, and Archbishops to whom they may be also from thence removed?

XIII. What things have necessary use in the Church,The sort-alledged Argument, answered. they of all others are the most unfit to judge, who bend themselves purposely against whatsoever the Church useth, except it pleasie themselves to give it the grace and countenance of their favourable approbation; which they willingly do not yield unto any part of Church-Policy, in the forehead whereof there is not the mark of that new devised stamp. But howsoever men like or dislike, whether they judge things necessary or needless in the House of God, a Conscience they should have touching that which they boldly affirm or deny. 1. In the Primitive Church no Bishops, no Pastor having power over other Pastors, but all Equals, every man Supreme Commander and Ruler within the Kingdom of his own Congregation or Parish? The Bishops that are spoken of in the time of the Primitive Church, all such as Persons or Rectors of Parishes are with in? It thus it have been in the prime of the Church, the question is, how farr they will have that prime to extend? and where the latter spring of that ne…-supposed disorder to begin? That Primitive Church wherein they hold that amongst the Fathers, all which had Pastoral charge were Equal, they must of necessity so farr enlarge, as to contain some hundred of years, because for proof hereof they alledge boldly and confidently Saint Cyprian, who suffered Martyrdom about two hundred and threescore years after our blessed Lord's Incarnation. A Bishop, they say, such as Cyprian doth T. C. l. 1. p. …9. & …on. The Bishop which Cyprian speaketh of, is nothing else but such as we call Pastor, or as the common n…m…: with us is, Pastor; and his Church whereof he is Bishop is neither Di…ces… nor Province but a Congregation which met together in one place, and to he taught of one man.speak of, had only a Church or Congregation, such as they Ministers and Pastors with us, which are appointed unto several Towns. Every Bishop in Cyprian's time was Pastor of one only Congregation, assembled in one place to be taught of one man. A thing impertiment, although it were true. For the Question is about Personal inequality amongst Governors of the Church. Now to shew there was no such thing in the Church at such time as Cyprian lived, what bring they forth? Forsooth, that Bishops had then but a small circuit of place for the exercise of their Authority. Be it supposed, that no one Bishop had more than one only Town to govern, one only Congregation to rule: Doth it by Cyprian appear, that in any such Town of Congregation, being under the cure and charge of someone Bishops, there were not, besides that one Bishop, others also Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, yet subject to the power of the same Bishop? If this appear not, how can Cyprian be alledged for a Witness, that in those times there were no Bishops which did differ from other Ministers, as being above them in degree of Ecclesiastical power? But a gross and a palpable untruth it is, That Bishops with Cyprian, were as Ministers are with us in Parish-Churches; and that each of them did guide some Parish without any other Pastors under him. St. Cyprian's own Person may serve for a manifest disproof hereof. Pomius being Deacon under Cyprian noteth, that his admirable vertues caused him to be Bishop with the soonest; which advancement therefore himself endeavoured for a while to avoid. It seemed in his own eyes too soon for him to take the title of so great Honor, in regard whereof a Bishop is tenned Pourisex, Sacerdos, Antistes Dei. Yet such was his quality, that whereas others did hardly perform that duty, whereunto the Discipline of their Order, togetherwith the Religion of the Oath they took at their entrance into the Office even constrained them; him the Chair did not make, but receive such a one, as behoved that a Bishop should be. But soon after followed that Prescription, whereby being driven into exile, and continuing in that estate for the space of some two years, he ceased not by Letters to deal with his Clergy, and to direct them about the Publick affairs of the Church. They unto whom those**Etsi Frarres pro dilectione iua cupoli sunt ad conven endum & visiandum Censissires boars quos illustravit ja… gloriosis initiis divina degnati; ramen caur-hoc & non glomeratim nee pre multitudinem simull iunctain pure …saciendum ne ex hor ipsu invidi… conciten ur, & in evened …alive denegenar, & ilum inferiabiles multum volumus, …m perdamus is; Consulite ergo & providere ut cum temperamento bee egi ruids poth: Ira ur Presbyteri que que qui ille apud Consessores offer ant sinu…h cum singulls, Diaconis pervices acc…rum, qua & metatio personarum, & vecitiirudo converient um minuis invidiam Ep. 5. Epistles were written, he commonly entituleth the Presbyters and Deacons of that Church. If any man doubt, whether those p. 404Presbyters of Carthage were Ministers of the Word and Sacraments or no, let him, consider but that one only place of Cyprian, where he giveth them this careful advice, how to deal with circumspection in the perilous times of the Church, that neither they which were for the truths sake imprisoned, might want those Ghostly comforts which they ought to have, nor the Church by ministring the same unto them, incurr unnecessary danger and peril. In which Epistle it doth expresly appear, that the Presbyters of whom he speaketh, did offer, that is to say, administer the Eucharist; and that many there were of them in the Church of Carthage, so as they might have every day change for performance of that duty. Nor will any man of sound Judgement I think deny, that Cyprian was in Authority and Power above the Clergy of that Church, above those Presbyters unto whom he gave direction. It is apparently therefore untrue, that in Cyprian's time, Ministers of the Word and Sacraments were all equal, and that no one of them had either Title more excellent than the rest, or Authority and Government over the rest, Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, was clearly Superiour unto all other Ministers there: Yea, Cyprian was, by reason of the Dignity of his See an Archbishop, and so consequently Superiour unto Bishops. Bishops, we say, there have been alwayes, even as long as the Church of Christ it self hath been. The Apostles who planted it, did themselves rule as Bishops over it, neither could they so well have kept things in order during their own times, but that Episcopal Authority was given them from above, to exercise far and wice over all other Guides and Pastors of God's Church. The Church indeed for a time continued without Bishops by restraint, every where established in Christian Cities. But shall we thereby conclude, that the Church hath no use of them, that without them it may stand and flourish? No, the cause wherefore they were so soon universally appointed was, for that it plainly appeared, that, without them, the Church could not have continued long. It was by the special Providence of God no doubt so disposed, that the evil whereof this did serve for remedy, might first be felt, and so the reverend Authority of Bishops be made by so much the more effectual, when our general experience had taught men what it was for Churches to want them. Good Laws are never esteemed so good, not acknowledged so necessary, as when precedent crimes are as seeds out of which they grow. Episcopal Authority was even in a manner sanctified unto the Church of Christ, by that little bitter experience which it first had of the pestilent evil of Schismes. Again, when this very thing was proposed as a remedy, yet a more suspicions and fearful acceptance it must needs have found, if the self-same provident Wisdom of Almighty God, had not also given before-hand sufficient tryal thereof in the Regiment of Ierusalem, a Mother-Church, which having received the same order even at the first, was by it most peaceably governed, when other Churches without it had trouble. So that by all means, the necessary use of Episcopal Government is confirmed, yea strengthened it is and ratified, even by the not establishment thereof in all Churches every where at the first. 2. When they further dispute, That if any such thing were usedful, Christ would in Scripture have set down particular Statutes and Laws, appointing that Bishops should be made, and prescribing in what order, even as the Law doth for all kinde of Officers which were needful in the Iewish Regiment; might not a man that would bend his wit to maintain the fury of the Petrobrusian Hereticks, in pulling down Oratories, use the self-same argument, with as much countenance of reason? If it were needful that we should assemble our selves in Churches, would that God which taught the Iews so exactly the frame of their sumptuous Temple, leave us no particular instructions in writing, no not so much at which way to lay any one stone? Surely such kinde of Argumentation doth not so strengthen the sinews of their cause, as weaken the credit of their Judgement which are led therewith. 3. And whereas Thirdly, in disproof of that use which Episcopal Authority hath in Judgement of Spiritual Causes, they bring forth the verdict of Cyprian, who saith,Cypr. lib. 1. Ep. 3. That equity requireth every man's Cause to be heard, where the fault he was charged with was committed, forasmuch as there they may have both Accusers and Witnesses in the Cause: This Argument grounding it self on Principles no lesse true in Civil, than in Ecclesiastical Causes, unless it be qualified with some exceptions or limitations, over-turneth the highest Tribunal Seats both in Church and Common-wealth, it taketh utterly away all appeals, it secretly condemneth even the blessed Apostle himself, as having transgressed the law of Equity, by p. 405his appeal from the Court of Iudea, unto those higher which were in Rome. Acts. 25.Acts 25The generality of such kinde of axioms deceiveth, unless it be construed with such cautions as the matter whereunto they are applyable doth require. An usual and ordinary transportation of causes out of Africa into Italy, out of one Kingdom into another, as discontented Persons list, which was the thing which Cyprian disalloweth, may be unequal and unmeet; and yet not therefore a thing unnecessary to have the Courts erectted in higher places, and judgement committed unto greater Persons, to whom the meaner may bring their causes either by way of appeal ot otherwise, to be determined according to the order of Justice; which hath been always observed every where in Civil States, and is no less requisite also for the State of the Church of God. The Reasons which teach it to be expedient for the one, will shew it to be for the other, at leastwise, not unnecessary. Inequality of Pastors is an Ordinance both Divine and profitable: Their exceptions against it in these two respects we have shewed to be altogether causless, unreasonable, and unjust.

XIV. The next thing which they upbraid us with,An Answer unto those things which are objected, concerning the difference between that power which Bishops now have, and that which antient Bishops had more than other Presbyters. is the difference between that inequality of Pastors which hath been of old, and which now is: For at length they grant, That the superiority of Bishops and of Arch-bishops is somewhat antient, but no such kinde of Superiority as ours have. By the Laws of our Discipline a Bishop may ordain without asking the Peoples consent, a Bishop may excommunicate and release alone, a Bishop may imprison, a Bishop may bear Civil Office in the Realm, a Bishop may be a Counsellor of State; these thing antient Bishops neither did nor might do. Be it granted, that ordinarily neither in elections nor deprivations, neither in excommunicating, nor in releasing the excommunicate; in none of the weighty affairs of Government, Bishops of old were wont to do any thing without consultation with their Clergy, and consent of the People under them. Be it granted, that the same Bishops did neither touch any man with corporal punishment, nor meddle with secular affairs and Offices, the whole Clergy of God being then tyed by the strict and severe Canons of the Church, to use no other than ghostly power, to attend no other business than heavenly.Liv. lib. 1. Tarquinius was in the Roman Common-wealth deservedly hated, of whose unorderly proceedings the History speaketh thus, Hic Regum primus traditum à Prioribus morem de omnibus Senatum consulendi solvit; domesticis Consillis Rempub. administravit, bellum, pacem, foedera, societates, perse ipsum cum quibus voluit injussu Populi ac Senatus, fecit diremitque. Against Bishops the like is objected, That they are Invaders of other mens right, and by intolerable usurpation take upon them to do that alone, wherein antient Laws have appointed, that others, not they onelyonly, should bear sway. Let the Case of Bishops he put, not in such sort as it is, but even as their very heavyest Adversaries would devise it: Suppose that Bishops at the first had encroached upon the Church, that by sleights and cunning practises they had appropriated Ecclesiastical, as Augustus did Imperial, power; that they had taken the advantage of mens inclinable affections, which did not suffer them for Revenue-sake to be suspected of Ambition; that in the mean while their usurpation had gone forward by certain easie and unsensible degrees, that being not discerned in the growth, when it was thus farr grown, as we now see it hath proceeded, the world at length perceiving there was just cause of complaint, but no place of remedy left, had assented unto it by a general secret agreement to bear it now as an helpless evil: all this supposed for certain and true, yet surely a thing of this nature, as for the Superiour to do that alone, unto which of right the consent of some other Inferiours should have been required by them; though it had an indirect entrance at the first, must needs through continuance of so many ages as this hath stood be made now a thing more natural to the Church, than that it should be opprest with the mention of contrary Orders worn so many ages since quite and clean out of ure. But with Bishops the case is otherwise; For in doing that by themselves, which others together with them have been accustomed to do, they do not any thing, but that whereunto they have been, upon just occasion authorized by orderly means. All things natural, have in them naturally, more or less, the power of providing for their own safety: And, as each particular man hath this power, so every Politick Society of men must needs have the same, that thereby the whole may provide for p. 406the good of all parts therein. For other benefit we have not any, by sorting our selves into Politick Societies, saving only that by this mean each part hath that relief, which the vertue of the whole is able to yield it. The Church therefore being a Politick Society or Body, cannot possibly want the power of providing for it self: And the chiefest part of that power consisteth in the Authority of making Laws. Now, forasmuch as Corporations are perpetual, the Laws of the antienter Church cannot chuse but binde the latter, while they are in force. But we must note withal, that, because the body of the Church continueth the same, it hath the same Authority still, and may abrogate old Laws, or make new, as need shall require. Wherefore vainly are the antient Canons and Constitutions objected as Laws, when once they are either let secretly to dye by dis-usage, or are openly abrogated by contrary Laws. The Antient had cause to do no otherwise than they did; and yet so strictly they judged not themselves in Conscience bound to observe those Orders, but that in sundry cases they easily dispensed therewith, which I suppose they would never have done, had they esteemed them as things whereunto everlasting, immutable, and undispensible observation did belong. The Bishop usually promoted none, which were not first allowed as fit, by conference had with the rest of his Clergy, and with the People: Notwithstanding, in the case of Aurelius, Saint Cyprian did otherwise. In matters of Deliberation and Counsel, for disposing of that which belongeth generally to the whole body of the Church, or which being more particular, is nevertheless of so great consequence, that it needeth the force of many Judgements conferred; in such things the common saying must necessarily take place, An Eye cannot see that which Eyes can. As for Clerical Ordinations, there are no such reasons alledged against the Order which is, but that it may be esteemed as good in every respect, as that which hath been; and, in some considerations, better, at leastwise (which is sufficient to our purpose) it may be held in the Church of Christ, without transgressing any Law, either Antient or Late, Divine or Human. which we ought to observe and keep. The form of making Ecclesiastical Officers, hath sundry parts, neither are they all of equal moment. When Deacons having not been before in the Church of Christ, the Apostles saw it needful to have such ordained: They, first, assemble the multitude, and shew them how needful it is that Deacons be made. Secondly, they name unto them what number they judge convenient, what quality the men must be of, and to the People they commit the care of finding such out. Thirdly, the People hereunto assenting, make their choyce of Stephen and the rest; those chosen men they bring and present before the Apostles: Howbeit, all this doth not endue them with any Ecclesiastical Power. But when so much was done, the Apostles finding no cause to take exception, did with Prayer and imposition of hands, make them Deacons. This was it which gave them their very being, all other things besides were only preparations unto this. Touching the form of making Presbyters, although it be not wholly of purpose anywhere set down in the Apostles Writings, yet sundry speeches there are, which insinuate the chiefest things that belong unto that Action: As when Paul and Barnabas are said to have fasted, prayed, and made Presbyters: When Timothy is willed to lay hands suddenly on no man, for fear of participating with other mens sins. For this cause the Order of the Primitive Church was, between Choyce and Ordination to have some space for such Probation and Tryal as the Apostle doth mention in Deacons, saying, Let them first be proved, and then minister, if so be they be found blameless.

Alexander Severus beholding in his time how careful the Church of Christ was, especially for this point; how, after the choyce of their Pastors, they used to publish the names of the Parties chosen, and not to give them the final act of Approbation, till they saw whether any lett or impediment would be alledged; he gave Commandment, That the like should also be done in his own Imperial Elections, adding this as a Reason wherefore he so required, namely, For that both Christians and Iews being so wary about the Ordination of their Priests, it seemed very unequal for him not to be in like sort circumspect, to whom he committed the Government of Provinces, containing power over mens both Estates and Lives. This the Canon Law it self doth provide for, requiring before Ordination scrutiny: p. 407Let them diligently be examined three dayes together before the Sabbath, D…c… quando Epis. sect Igitur.and on the Sabbath let them be presented unto the Bishop. And even this in effect also is the very use of the Church of England, at all Solemne Ordaining of Ministers; and if all Ordaining were Solemne, I must confesse it were much the better.

The pretended disorder of the Church of England is, that Bishops Ordain them, to whose Election the People give no voyces, and so the Bishops make them alone, that is to say, they give Ordination without Popular Election going before, which antient Bishops neither did nor might do. Now in very truth, if the multitude have hereunto a right, which right can never be translated from them for any cause, then is there no remedy but we must yield, that unto the lawful making of Ministers, the voyce of the People is required; and that, according to the Adverse Parties Assertion, such as make Ministers without asking the Peoples consent,Eccl dis p 14 do but exercise a certain Tyranny.

At the first Erection of the Common-weals of Rome, the People (for so it was then fittest) determined of all affairs: Afterwards, this growing troublesome, their Senators did that for them, which themselves before had done: In the end all came to one man's hands, and the Emperour alone was instead of many Senators.

In these things, the experience of time may breed both Civil and Ecclesiastical change from that which hath been before received, neither do latter things always violently exclude former, but the one grawing less convenient then it hath been, giveth place to that which is now become more. That which was fit for the People themselves to do at the first, might afterwards be more convenient for them to do by some other: Which other is not thereby proved a Tyrant, because he alone doth that which a multitude were wont to do, unless by violence he take that Authority upon him, against the Order of Law, and without any publick appointment; as with us, if any did, it should (I suppose) not long be safe for him so to do.

This Answer (I hope) will seem to be so much the more reasonable, in that themselves, who stand against us, have furnish'd us, therewith, For, whereas against the making of Ministers by Bishops alone, their use hath been to object, What sway the People did bear when Stephen and rest were ordained Deacons: They begin to espy how their own Plat-form swerveth not a little from that example wherewith they controul the practices of others. For, touching the form of the Peoples concurrence in that Action, they observe it not; no, they plainly profess, that they are not in this point bound to be followers of the Apostles. The Apostles Ordained whom the People had first chosen. They hold, that their Ecclesiastical Senate ought both to choose, and also to Ordain. Do not themselves then take away that which the Apostles gave the People, namely, the priviledge of chusing Ecclesiastical Officers? They do. But behold in what sort they answer it.

By the sixth and the fourteenth of the Acts (say they) it doth appear, Eccl. Discipl. fol. 41.that the people had the chiefest power of chusing. Howbeit that, as unto me it seemeth, was dine upon special cause, which doth not so much concern us, neither ought it to be drawn unto the ordinary and perpetual form of governing the Church: For, as in establishing Common-weals, not only if they be popular, but even being such as are ordered by the power of a few the chiefest, or as by the sole Authority of one till the same he established, the whole sway is in the Peoples hands, who voluntarily appoint those Magistrates by whose Authority they may be governed; so that afterward not the multitude it self, but those Magistrates which were chosen by the multitude, have the ordering of Publick Affairs: After the self-same manner is fared in establishing also the Church: When there was not as yet any placed over the People, all Authority was in them all; but when they all had chosen certain to whom the Regiment of the Church was committed, this power is not now any longer in the hands of the whole multitude, but wholly in theirs who are appointed Guides of the Church. Besides, in the choyce of Deacons, there was also another special cause wherefore the whole Church as that time should chuse them. For inasmuch as the Grecians murmured against the Hebrews, and complained, that in the duly distribution which was made for relief of the poor, they were p. 408not indifferently respected, nor such regard had of their Widows as was meet; this made it necessary that they all should have to deal in the choyce of those unto whom that care was afterwards to be committed, to the end that all occasion of jealousies and complaints might be removed. Wherefore that which was done by the People for certain Causes, before the Church was sully settled, may not be drawn out, and applyed unto a constant and perpetual form of ordering the Church.

Let them cast the Discipline of the Church of England into the same scales where they weigh their own, let them give us the same measure which here they take, and our strifes shall soon be brought to a quiet end. When they urge the Apostles as Precedents; when they condemn us of Tyranny, because we do not, in making Ministers, the same which the Apostles did; when they plead, That with us one alone doth ordain, and that our Ordinations are without the Peoples knowledge, contrary to that example which the blessed Apostles gave: We do not request at their hands allowance as much as of one word we speak in our own defence, if that which we speak be of our own: but that which themselves speak, they must be content to listen unto. To exempt themselves from being over-farr prest with the Apostles example, they can answer, That which was done by the People once upon special Causes, when the Church was not yet established, is not to be made a rule for the constant and continual ordering of the Church. In defence of their own Election, although they do not therein depend on the People so much as the Apostles in the choyce of Deacons, they think it a very sufficient Apology, that there were special considerations why Deacons at that time should be chosen by the whole Church, but not so now. In excuse of dissimilitudes between their own and the Apostles Discipline, they are contented to use this Answer, That many things were done in the Apostles times, before the settling of the Church, which afterward the Church was not tyed to observe. For countenance of their own proceedings, wherein their Governors do more than the Apostles, and their People less than under the Apostles the first Churches are found to have done, at the making of Ecclesiastical Officers, they deem it a marvellous reasonable kinde of Pleading to say, That even as in Common-wealt, when the multitude have once chosen many, or one to rule over them, the right which was at the first in the whole body of the People, is now derived into those many, or that one which it so chosen; and that this being done, it is not the whole multitude, to whom the administration of such Publick affairs any longer appertaineth, but that which they did, their Rulers may now do lawfully without them: After the self-same manner it slandeth with the Church also.

How easie and plain might we make our defence? how clear and allowable even unto them, it we could but obtain of them to admit the same things consonant unto equity in our mouths, which they require to be so taken from their own? If that which is truth, being uttered in maintenance of Scotland and Geneva, do not cease to be truth when the Church of England once alledgeth it; this great crime of Tyranny wherewith we are charged, hath a plain and an easie defence? Yea, But we do not at all aske the Peoples approbation, which they do, whereby they shew themselves more indifferent and more free from taking away the Peoples right. Indeed, when their Lay-Elders have chosen whom they think good, the Peoples consent thereunto is asked, and, if they give their approbation, the thing standeth warranted for sound and good. But if not, is the former choyce overthrown? No, but the People is to yield to reason; and, if they which have made the choyce, do so like the Poeples reason, as to reverse their own deed at the hearing of it, then a new election to be made; otherwise the former to stand, notwithstanding the Peoples negative and dislike. What is this else but to deal with the People, as those Nurses do with Infants,Eccles. Discip. p. 41. whose mouths they besmear with the backside of the spoon, as though they had fed them, when they themselves devour the food. They cry in the ears of the People, that all mens consent should be had unto that which concerns all; they make the People believe we wrong them, and deprive them of their right in making Ministers, whereas, with us, the People have commonly farr more sway and force then with them. For inasmuch as there are but two main things observed in every Ecclesiastical function, Power to exercise the duty it self, and some charge of People whereon to exercise the same; the former of these is received at the hands of the whole visible Catholick Church: For it is not any one particular multitude that can give power, the force p. 409whereof may reach farr and wide indefinitely, as the power of Order doth, which whoso hath once received, there is no action which belongeth thereunto, but he may exercise effectually the same in any part of the World, without iterated Ordination. They whom the whole Church hath from the beginning used as her Agents, in conferring this power, are not either one or mo… of the Laity, and therefore it hath not been heard of, that ever any such were allowed to ordain Ministers: OnelyOnly Persons Ecclesiastical, and they, in place of Calling, Superiours both unto Deacons, and unto Presbyters; only such Persons Ecclesiastical have been authorized to ordain both, and to give them the power of Order, in the name of the whole Church. Such were the Apostles, such was Timothy, such was Titus, such are Bishops.Neque enim sas crae aut licebat ut interior ordinater major in: Coment, q. Ambros. til. hutio…ur, in 1 Tim. 3.1 Tim 3 Not that there is between these no difference, but that they all agree in preheminence of Place above both Presbyters and Deacons, whom they otherwise might not ordain. Now whereas hereupon some do inferr, that no Ordination can stand, but only such as is made by Bishops, which have had their Ordination likewise by other Bishops before them, till we come to the very Apostles of Christ themselves. In which respect it was demanded of Beza at Poissie, By what Authority he could administer the holy Sacraments, being not thereunto ordained by any other than Calvin, or by such as to whom the power of Ordination did not belong, according to the antient Orders and Customs of the Church, sith Calvin, and they who joyned with him in that action, were no Bishops: And Athanasius maintaineth the fact of Macarius a Presbyter, which overthrew the holy Table, whereat one Ischyras would have ministred the blessed Sacrament, having not been consecrated thereunto by laying on of some Bishops hands, according to the Ecclesiastical Canons, as also Epiphanius inveigheth sharply against divers for doing the like, when they had not Episcopal Ordination.foreign. To this we answer. That there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow Ordination made without a Bishop. The whole Church visible being the true original subject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than Bishops alone to ordain: Howbeit, as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may be in some cases not unnecessary that we decline from the ordinary wayes. Men may be extraordinarily, yet allowably, two wayes admitted unto Spiritual Functions in the Church. One is, when God himself doth of himself raise up any, whose labour be useth without requiring that men should Authorize them. But then he doth ratifie their Calling by manifest signes and tokens himself from Heaven. And thus even such as believed not our Saviours teaching, did yet acknowledge him a lawful Teacher sent from God: Thou art a Teacher sent from God, otherwise none could do those things which thou dost. Luther did but reasonably therefore, in declaring that the Senate of Mulheuse should do well to ask of Muncer, From whence he received power to teach? who it was that had called him? And if his answer were, that God had given him his Charge, then to require at his hands some evident sign thereof for men's satisfaction; because so God is wont, when he himself is the Author of any extraordinary Calling. Another extraordinary kinde of Vocation is, when the exigence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual wayes of the Church, which otherwise we would willingly keep: Where the Church must needs have some ordained, and neither hath, nor can have possibly a Bishop to ordain; in case of such necessity, the ordinary Institution of God hath given oftentimes, and may give, place. And therefore we are not, simply without exception, to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of Bishops in every effectual Ordination. These cases of inevitable necessity excepted, none may ordain but only Bishops: By the imposition of their hands it is, that the Church giveth power of Order, both unto Presbyters and Deacons. Now, when that power so received is once to have any certain Subject whereon it may work, and whereunto it is to be tyed, here cometh in the Peoples consent, and not before. The power of Order I may lawfully receive, without asking leave of any multitude; but that power I cannot exercise upon any one certain People utterly against their wills; Neither is there in the Church of England any man, by order of Law, possessed with Pastoral charge over any Parish, but the People in effect do chuse him thereunto. For, albeit they chuse not by giving every man personally his particular voyce, yet can they not say, that they have their Pastors violently obtruded upon them, in as much as their antient and original interest p. 410therein, hath been by orderly means derived into the Patron who chuseth for them. And if any man be desirous to know how Petrons came to have such interest, we are to consider, that at the first erection of Churches, it seemed but reasonable in the eyes of the whole Christian World, to pass that right to them and their Successors, on whose soyl, and at whose charge the same were founded. This all men gladly and willingly did, both in honor of so great Piety, and for encouragement of many others unto the like, who peradventure else, would have been as slow to erect Churches, or to endow them, as we are forward both to spoyl them, and to pull them down.

Its no true assertion therefore, in such sort as the pretended Reformers mean it, That all Ministers of God's Word ought to be made by consent of many, that is to say, by the Peoples saffrages; that antient Bishops neither did nor might or dain otherwise; and that ours do herein usurp a farr greater power than was, or then lawfully could have been granted unto Bishops which were of old. Furthermore, as touching Spiritual Jurisdiction, our Bishops, they say, do that which of all things is most intollerable, and which the Antient never did, Our Bishops excommunicate and release alone, whereas the Censures of the Church neither ought, nor were want to be administred otherwise, then by consent of many. Their meaning here when they speak of Many, is not as before it was: When they hold that Ministers should be made with consent of many, they understand by Many, the Multitude, or Common People; but in requiring that many should evermore joyn with the Bishop in the administration of Church-censures, they mean by Many, a few Lay-Elders, chosen out of the rest of the People to that purpose, This, they say,Cencil. Carth…e. 4. c. 23. Cypr … Ep 10. & 14. l.…. Ep. 8. is ratified by antient Councils, by antient Bishops this was practised. And the reason hereof, as Beza supposeth, was, Because if the power of Ecclesiastical Censures did belong unto any one, there would this great inconvenience follow; Ecclesiastical Regiment should be changed into mere Tyranny, or else into a Civil Royalty: Therefore no one, either Bishop or Presbyter, should or can alone exercise that Power, but with his Ecclesiastical Consist…ry he ought to do it, as may appear by the old Discipline.