V.78. Of Degrees, whereby the power of order is distinguished; and concerning the attire of ministers.

LXXVIII. It pleased Almighty God to choose to himself¹ for discharge of the legal ministry one only tribe out of twelve others, the tribe of Levi, not all unto every divine service, but Aaron and his sons to one charge, the rest of that sanctified tribe to another. With what solemnities they were admitted into their functions, in what manner Aaron and his successors the high priests ascended every Sabboth and festival day, offered, and ministered in the temple; with what sin-offering once every year they reconciled first themselves and their own house, afterwards the people unto God; how they confessed all the iniquities of the children of Israel, laid all their trespasses upon the head of a sacred goat, and so carried them out of the city; how they purged the holy place from all uncleanness, with what reverence they entered within the veil, presented themselves before the mercy seat, and consulted with the oracle of God: what service the other priests did continually in the holy place, how they ministered about the lamps, morning and evening, how every Sabboth they placed on the table of the Lord those twelve loaves with pure incense in perpetual remembrance of that mercy which the fathers² the twelve tribes had found by the providence of God for their food, when hunger caused them to leave their natural soil and to seek for sustenance in Egypt; how they employed themselves in sacrifice day by day; finally what offices the Levites discharged, and what duties the rest did execute, it were a labour too long to enter into if I should collect that which Scriptures and other ancient records do mention.

Besides these there were indifferently out of all tribes from time to time, some called of God, as Prophets foreshowing them things to come, and giving them counsel in such particulars as they could not be directed in by the law; some chosen of men to read, study, and interpret the Law of God, as the sons or scholars of the old Prophets, in whose room afterwards Scribes and expounders of the law succeeded.

And because where so great variety is, if there should be equality, confusion would follow, the Levites were in all their service at the appointment and direction of the sons of Aaron or priests, they subject to the principal guides and leaders of their own order, and they all in obedience under the high priest. Which difference doth also manifest itself in the very titles that men for honour’s sake gave unto them, terming Aaron and his successors High or Great; the ancients over the companies of priests, arch-priests; prophets, fathers; scribes and interpreters of the Law, masters.

Touching the ministry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: the whole body of the Church being divided into laity and clergy, the clergy are either presbyters or deacons.

I rather term the one sort Presbyters than Priests³, because in a matter of so small moment I would not willingly offend their ears to whom the name of Priesthood is odious⁴ though without cause. For as things are distinguished one from another by those true essential forms which being really and actually in them do not only give them the very last and highest degree of their natural perfection, but are also the knot, foundation and root whereupon all other inferior perfections depend, so if they that first do impose names did always understand exactly the nature of that which they nominate, it may be that then by hearing the terms of vulgar speech we should still be taught what the things themselves most properly are. But because words have so many artificers by whom they are made, and the things whereunto we apply them are fraught with so many varieties, it is not always apparent what the first inventors respected, much less what every man’s inward conceit is which useth their words. For any thing myself can discern herein, I suppose that they which have bent their study to search more diligently such matters do for the most part find that names advisedly given had either regard unto that which is naturally most proper; or if perhaps to some other specialty, to that which is sensibly most eminent in the thing signified; and concerning popular use of words that which the wisdom of their inventors did intend thereby is not commonly thought of, but by the name the thing altogether conceived in gross, as may appear in that if you ask of the common sort what any certain word, for example, what a Priest doth signify, their manner is not to answer, a Priest is a clergyman which offereth sacrifice to God, but they show some particular person whom they use to call by that name. And, if we list to descend to grammar, we are told by masters in those schools that the word Priest hath his right place⁵ ἐπὶ του̑ ψιλω̑ς προεστω̑τος τη̑ς θεραπείας του̑ Θεου̑, “in him whose mere function or charge is the service of God.” Howbeit because the most eminent part both of Heathenish and Jewish service did consist in sacrifice, when learned men declare what the word Priest doth properly signify according to the mind of the first imposer of that name, their ordinary scholies do well expound it to imply sacrifice⁶.

Seeing then that sacrifice is now no part of the church ministry, how should the name of Priesthood be thereunto rightly applied? Surely even as St. Paul applieth the name of Flesh⁷ unto that very substance of fishes which hath a proportionable correspondence to flesh, although it be in nature another thing. Whereupon when philosophers will speak warily, they make a difference between flesh in one sort of living creatures⁸ and that other substance in the rest which hath but a kind of analogy to flesh: the Apostle contrariwise having matter of greater importance whereof to speak nameth indifferently both flesh. The Fathers of the Church of Christ with like security of speech call usually the ministry of the Gospel Priesthood in regard of that which the Gospel hath proportionable to ancient sacrifices, namely the Communion of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ, although it have properly now no sacrifice⁹. As for the people when they hear the name it draweth no more their minds to any cogitation of sacrifice, than the name of a Senator or of an Alderman causeth them to think upon old age or to imagine that every one so termed must needs be ancient because years were respected in the first nomination of both.

Wherefore to pass by the name, let them use what dialect they will, whether we call it a Priesthood, a Presbytership, or a Ministry it skilleth not: although in truth the word Presbyter doth seem more fit, and in propriety of speech more agreeable than Priest with the drift of the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ. For what are they that embrace the Gospel but sons of God? What are churches but his families? Seeing therefore we receive the adoption and state of sons by their ministry whom God hath chosen out for that purpose, seeing also that when we are the sons of God, our continuance is still under their care which were our progenitors, what better title could there be given them than the reverend name of Presbyters or fatherly guides? The Holy Ghost throughout the body of the New Testament making so much mention of them doth not any where call them Priests. The prophet Esay I grant doth¹⁰; but in such sort as the ancient fathers, by way of analogy. A Presbyter according to the proper meaning of the New Testament is “he unto whom our Saviour Christ hath communicated the power of spiritual procreation¹¹.” Out of twelve patriarchs issued the whole multitude of Israel according to the flesh. And according to the mystery of heavenly birth our Lord’s Apostles we all acknowledge to be the patriarchs of his whole Church. St. John therefore beheld sitting about the throne of God in heaven four and twenty Presbyters, the one half fathers of the old, the other of the new Jerusalem¹². In which respect the Apostles likewise gave themselves the same title¹³, albeit that name were not proper but common unto them with others.

For of Presbyters some were greater some less in power, and that by our Saviour’s own appointment; the greater they which received fulness of spiritual power, the less they to whom less was granted. The Apostles’ peculiar charge was to publish the Gospel of Christ unto all nations, and to deliver them his ordinances received by immediate revelation from himself¹⁴. Which preeminence excepted, to all other offices and duties incident into their order it was in them to ordain and consecrate whomsoever they thought meet, even as our Saviour did himself assign seventy other of his own disciples inferior presbyters, whose commission to preach and baptize was the same which the Apostles had. Whereas therefore we find that the very first sermon which the Apostles did publicly make was the conversion of above three thousand souls¹⁵, unto whom there were every day more and more added, they having no open place permitted them for the exercise of Christian religion, think we that twelve were sufficient to teach and administer sacraments in so many private places as so great a multitude of people did require? This harvest our Saviour no doubt foreseeing provided accordingly labourers for it beforehand. By which means it came to pass that the growth of that church being so great and so sudden, they had notwithstanding in a readiness presbyters enough to furnish it. And therefore the history doth make no mention by what occasion presbyters were instituted in Jerusalem, only we read of things which they did, and how the like were made afterwards elsewhere.

To these two degrees appointed of our Lord and Saviour Christ his Apostles soon after annexed deacons. Deacons therefore must know, saith Cyprian¹⁶, that our Lord himself did elect Apostles, but deacons after his ascension into heaven the Apostles ordained. Deacons were stewards of the Church, unto whom at the first was committed the distribution of church goods, the care of providing therewith for the poor, and the charge to see that all things of expense might be religiously and faithfully dealt in. A part also of their office was attendance upon their presbyters at the time of divine service. For which cause Ignatius¹⁷ to set forth the dignity of their calling saith, that they are in such case to the bishop as if angelical powers did serve him.

These only being the uses for which deacons were first made, if the church hath sithence extended their ministry farther than the circuit of their labour at the first was drawn, we are not herein to think the ordinance of Scripture violated except there appear some prohibition which hath abridged the Church of that liberty. Which I note chiefly in regard of them to whom it seemeth a thing so monstrous that deacons should sometime be licensed to preach, whose institution was at the first to another end¹⁸. To charge them for this as men not contented with their own vocations and as breakers into that which appertaineth unto others is very hard¹⁹. For when they are thereunto once admitted, it is a part of their own vocation, it appertaineth now unto them as well as others, neither is it intrusion for them to do it being in such sort called, but rather in us it were temerity to blame them for doing it. Suppose we the office of teaching to be so repugnant unto the office of deaconship that they cannot concur in one and the same person? What was there done in the Church by deacons which the Apostles did not first discharge being teachers?

Yea but the Apostles found the burden of teaching so heavy that they judged it meet to cut off that other charge and to have deacons which might undertake it²⁰. Be it so. The multitude of Christians increasing in Jerusalem and waxing great, it was too much for the Apostles to teach and to minister unto tables also. The former was not to be slacked that this latter might be followed. Therefore unto this they appointed others. Whereupon we may rightly ground this axiom, that when the subject wherein one man’s labours of sundry kinds are employed doth wax so great that the same men are no longer able to manage it sufficiently as before, the most natural way to help this is by dividing their charge into slips²¹ and ordaining of under officers, as our Saviour under twelve Apostles seventy Presbyters, and the Apostles by his example seven Deacons to be under both. Neither ought it to seem less reasonable, that when the same men are sufficient both to continue in that which they do and also to undertake somewhat more, a combination be admitted in this case, as well as division in the former. We may not therefore disallow it in the church of Geneva, that Calvin and Beza were made both pastors and readers of divinity, being men so able to discharge both. To say they did not content themselves with their pastoral vocations, but break into that which belonged to others; to allege against them, “He that exhorteth in exhortation²²,” as against us, “He that distributeth in simplicity” is alleged in great dislike of granting license for deacons to preach²³, were very hard.

The ancient custom of the Church was to yield the poor much relief especially widows. But as poor people are always querulous and apt to think themselves less respected than they should be, we see that when the Apostles did what they could without hinderance to their weightier business, yet there were which grudged that others had too much and they too little, the Grecian widows shorter commons than the Hebrews. By means whereof the Apostles saw it meet to ordain Deacons. Now tract of time having clean worn out those first occasions for which the deaconship was then most necessary²⁴, it might the better be afterwards extended to other services, and so remain as at this present day a degree in the clergy of God which the Apostles of Christ did institute²⁵.

That the first seven Deacons were chosen out of the seventy disciples is an error in Epiphanius²⁶. For to draw men from places of weightier unto rooms of meaner labour had not been fit. The Apostles to the end they might follow teaching with more freedom committed the ministry of tables unto deacons. And shall we think they judged it expedient to choose so many out of those seventy to be ministers unto tables, when Christ himself had before made them teachers?

It appeareth therefore how long these three degrees of ecclesiastical order have continued in the Church of Christ, the highest and largest that which the Apostles, the next that which Presbyters, and the lowest that which Deacons had.

Touching Prophets, they were such men as having otherwise learned the Gospel had from above bestowed upon them a special gift of expounding Scriptures and of foreshowing things to come. Of this sort Agabus²⁷ was and besides him in Jerusalem sundry others, who notwithstanding are not therefore to be reckoned with the clergy, because no man’s gifts or qualities can make him a minister of holy things, unless ordination do give him power. And we no where find Prophets to have been made by ordination, but all whom the Church did ordain were either to serve as presbyters or as deacons.

Evangelists were presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as agents in ecclesiastical affairs wheresoever they saw need. They whom we find to have been named in Scripture Evangelists as Ananias²⁸, Apollos²⁹, Timothy³⁰ and others were thus employed. And concerning Evangelists afterwards in Trajan’s days, the history ecclesiastical noteth³¹ that many of the Apostles’ disciples and scholars which were then alive and did with singular love of wisdom affect the heavenly word of God, to show their willing minds in executing that which Christ first of all required at the hands of men, they sold their possessions, gave them to the poor, and betaking themselves to travail undertook the labour of Evangelists, that is they painfully preached Christ and delivered the Gospel to them who as yet had never heard the doctrine of faith.

Finally whom the Apostle nameth Pastors and Teachers what other were they than Presbyters also, howbeit settled in some certain charge and thereby differing from Evangelists?

I beseech them therefore which have hitherto troubled the Church with questions about degrees and offices of ecclesiastical calling, because they principally ground themselves upon two places³², that all partiality laid aside they would sincerely weigh and examine whether they have not misinterpreted both places, and all by surmising incompatible offices where nothing is meant but sundry graces, gifts, and abilities which Christ bestowed. To them of Corinth his words are these: “³³God placed in the Church first of all some Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly teachers, after them powers, then gifts of cures, aids, governments, kinds of languages. Are all Apostles? Are all Prophets? Are all Teachers? Is there power in all? Have all grace to cure? Do all speak with tongues? Can all interpret? But be you desirous of the better graces.” They which plainly discern first that some one general thing there is which the Apostle doth here divide into all these branches, and do secondly conceive that general to be church offices, besides a number of other difficulties, can by no means possibly deny but that many of these might concur in one man, and peradventure in some one all, which mixture notwithstanding their form of discipline doth most shun. On the other side admit that communicants of special infused grace, for the benefit of members knit into one body, the Church of Christ, are here spoken of, which was in truth the plain drift of that whole discourse, and see if every thing do not answer in due place with that fitness which showeth easily what is likeliest to have been meant. For why are Apostles the first but because unto them was granted the revelation of all truth from Christ immediately? Why Prophets the second, but because they had of some things knowledge in the same manner? Teachers the next, because whatsoever was known to them it came by hearing, yet God withal made them able to instruct, which every one could not do that was taught. After gifts of edification there follow general abilities to work things above nature, grace to cure men of bodily diseases, supplies against occurrent defects and impediments, dexterities to govern and direct by counsel, finally aptness to speak or interpret foreign tongues. Which graces not poured out equally but diversely sorted and given, were a cause why not only they all did furnish up the whole body but each benefit and help other.

Again the same Apostle otherwhere in like sort³⁴, “To every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high he led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men. He therefore gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers, for the gathering together of saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ.” In this place none but gifts of instruction are expressed. And because of teachers some were Evangelists which neither had any part of their knowledge by revelation as the Prophets and yet in ability to teach were far beyond other Pastors, they are as having received one way less than Prophets and another way more than Teachers set accordingly between both. For the Apostle doth in neither place respect what any of them were by office or power given them through ordination, but what by grace they all had obtained through miraculous infusion of the Holy Ghost. For in Christian religion this being the ground of our whole belief, that the promises which God of old had made by his Prophets concerning the wonderful gifts and graces of the Holy Ghost, wherewith the reign of the true Messias should be made glorious, were immediately after our Lord’s ascension performed, there is no one thing whereof the Apostles did take more often occasion to speak. Out of men thus endued with gifts of the Spirit upon their conversion to Christian faith the church had her ministers chosen, unto whom was given ecclesiastical power by ordination. Now because the Apostle in reckoning degrees and varieties of grace doth mention Pastors and Teachers, although he mention them not in respect of their ordination to exercise the ministry, but as examples of men especially enriched with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, divers learned and skilful men have so taken it as if those places did intend to teach what orders of ecclesiastical persons there ought to be in the Church of Christ; which thing we are not to learn from thence but out of other parts of Holy Scripture, whereby it clearly appeareth that churches apostolic did know but three degrees in the power of ecclesiastical order, at the first Apostles, Presbyters, and Deacons, afterwards instead of Apostles Bishops, concerning whose order we are to speak in the seventh book.

There is an error which beguileth many who much entangle both themselves and others by not distinguishing Services, Offices, and Orders ecclesiastical, the first of which three and in part the second may be executed by the laity, whereas none have or can have the third but the clergy. Catechists, Exorcists, Readers, Singers, and the rest of like sort, if the nature only of their labours and pains be considered, may in that respect seem clergymen, even as the Fathers for that cause term them usually Clerks³⁵; as also in regard of the end whereunto they were trained up, which was, to be ordered when years and experience should make them able. Notwithstanding inasmuch as they no way differed from others of the laity longer than during that work of service which at any time they might give over, being thereunto but admitted not tied by irrevocable ordination, we find them always exactly severed from that body whereof those three before rehearsed orders alone are natural parts.

Touching Widows, of whom some men are persuaded, that if such as St. Paul³⁶ describeth may be gotten we ought to retain them in the Church for ever³⁷; certain mean services there were of attendance, as about women at the time of their baptism, about the bodies of the sick and dead, about the necessities of travellers, wayfaring men, and such like, wherein the Church did commonly use them when need required, because they lived of the alms of the Church and were fitted for such purposes. St. Paul doth therefore to avoid scandal require that none but women well experienced and virtuously given, neither any under threescore year of age should be admitted of that number. Widows were never in the Church so highly esteemed as Virgins. But seeing neither of them did or could receive ordination, to make them ecclesiastical persons were absurd.

The ancientest therefore of the Fathers mention those three degrees of ecclesiastical order specified and no moe. “When your captains,” saith Tertullian³⁸, “that is to say the Deacons, Presbyters and Bishops fly, who shall teach the laity that they must be constant?” Again, “What should I mention laymen³⁹,” saith Optatus, “yea or divers of the ministry itself? To what purpose Deacons which are in the third, or presbyters in the second degree of priesthood, when the very heads and princes of all, even certain of the Bishops themselves, were content to redeem life with the loss of heaven?” Heaps of allegations in a case so evident and plain are needless. I may securely therefore conclude that there are at this day in the church of England no other than the same degrees of ecclesiastical order, namely Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, which had their beginning from Christ and his blessed Apostles themselves.

As for Deans, Prebendaries, Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Archdeacons, Chancellors, Officials, Commissaries, and such other the like names, which being not found in Holy Scripture, we have been thereby through some men’s error thought to allow of ecclesiastical degrees not known nor ever heard of in the better ages of former times; all these are in truth but titles of office whereunto partly ecclesiastical persons, and partly others are in sundry forms and conditions admitted as the state of the Church doth need, degrees of order still continuing the same they were from the first beginning.

Now what habit or attire doth beseem each order to use in the course of common life both for the gravity of his place and for example sake to other men is a matter frivolous to be disputed of. A small measure of wisdom may serve to teach them how they should cut their coats. But seeing all well-ordered polities have ever judged it meet and fit by certain special distinct ornaments to sever each sort of men from other when they are in public, to the end that all may receive such complements of civil honour as are due to their rooms and callings even where their persons are not known, it argueth a disproportioned mind in them whom so decent orders displease⁴⁰.

---

← Of power given unto men to execute that heav · Contents · Of Oblations, Foundations, Endowments, Tithe →

Footnotes

1. Πρὸς διατήρησιν καὶ ϕυλακὴν ὁσιότητος καὶ εὐσεβείας καὶ λειτουργιω̑ν αἳ πρὸς τὴν του̑ Θεου̑ τιμὴν ἀναϕέρονται. Philo, p. 297. [ed. Paris. 1552.] ↩

2. [So 1st ed. and all later ones: but Bodl. MS. has of.] 1887. ↩

3. “For so much as the common and usual speech of England is to note by the word Priest not a minister of the Gospel but a Sacrificer, which the Minister of the Gospel is not, therefore we ought not to call the Ministers of the Gospel Priests. And that this is the English speech, it appeareth by all the English translations, which translate always ἱερει̑ς which were sacrificers Priests; and do not on the other side for any that ever I read translate πρεσβύτερον a Priest. Seeing therefore a Priest with us and in our tongue doth signify both by the papists’ judgment in respect of their abominable Mass, and also by the judgment of the protestants in respect of the beasts which were offered in the Law, a sacrificing office, which the Minister of the Gospel neither doth nor can execute; it is manifest that it cannot be without great offence so used.” T. C. lib. i. p. 198. [159. and p. 61, al. 82. “Who can abide that a Minister of the Gospel should be called by the name of a Levite or sacrificer, unless it be he which would not care much if the remembrance of the death and resurrection of our Saviour Christ were plucked out of his mind?”] ↩

4. [Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 721. “We speak not of the name of Priest, wherewith he defaceth the Minister of Christ … seeing the office of priesthood is ended, Christ being the last priest that ever was. To call us therefore Priests as touching our office, is either to call back again the old priesthood of the law, which is to deny Christ to be comen, or else to keep a memory of the popish priesthood of abomination still amongst us. As for the first, it is by Christ abolished, and for the second it is of Antichrist, and therefore we have nothing to do with it. Such ought to have no place in the Church, neither are they ministers of Christ sent to preach his Gospel, but priests of the pope to sacrifice for the quick and the dead; that is, to tread under their feet the blood of Christ. Such ought not to have place among us, as the Scriptures manifestly teach. Besides that, we never read in the New Testament, that this word Priest, as touching office, is used in the good part.” Whitg. Answ. ibid. “The name of Priest need not be so odious unto you, as you would seem to make it. I suppose it cometh of this word Presbyter, not of Sacerdos, and then the matter is not great.” T. C. i. 159. al. 198. “Although it will be hard for you to prove that this word Priest cometh of the Greek word πρεσβύτερος, yet that is not the matter but the case standeth in this; that forasmuch as the common and usual speech,” &c. as in the preceding note. Whitg. Def. 722. “I am not greatly delighted with the name, nor so desirous to maintain it: but yet a truth is to be defended. I read in the old Fathers, that these two names, Sacerdos and Presbyter be confounded. I see also that the learned and the best of our English writers, such I mean as write in these our days, translate the word Presbyter so; and the very word itself as it is used in our English tongue, soundeth the word Presbyter. As heretofore use hath made it to be taken for a sacrificer, so will use now alter that signification, and make it to be taken for a minister of the Gospel. But it is mere vanity to contend for the name, when we agree of the thing.” T. C. iii. 264. “The abuse of the ancient writers herein may easily appear, in that, in this too great liberty of speech, they also used to call the holy Supper of the Lord a sacrifice, and the communion table an Altar: if he allow of the one, he must allow of the other. But if these kind of speeches have given occasion of falling unto many, then it is manifest that this defence is naught.”] ↩

5. Etym. magn. [s. v. ἱερεύς.] ↩

6. Ἱερευ̑σαι, θυσιάσαι. Hesych. [s. v. ἱερευ̑σαι.] “Christus homo dicitur quia natus est; Propheta quia futura revelavit; Sacerdos quia pro nobis hostiam se obtulit.” Isid. Orig. lib. vii. cap. 2. [p. 55 E. ed. Du Bruel.] ↩

7. 1 Cor. xv. 39. ↩

8. Ἔχει δ’ ἀποριαν τί τὸ αἰσθητήριον τὸ του̑ ἁπτου̑ ἁπτικὸν, πότερον ἡ σὰρξ καὶ ἐν τοι̑ς ἄλλοις τὸ ἀνάλογον, ἢ οὔ. Arist. de Anim. lib. ii. c. 11. [n°. 1.] ↩

9. [“Mr. Hooker feared not to say that ‘sacrifice is now no part of the Church ministry,’ and that we have ‘properly now, no sacrifice.’ I presume he meant by proper sacrifice, propitiatory, according to the sense of the Trent Council,” (sess. xxii. can. 1, 3.) “or of the new definitions. In such a sense as that, he might justly say that sacrifice is no part of the Church ministry, or that the Christian Church has no sacrifice. But I commend not the use of such new language, be the meaning ever so right: the Fathers never used it.” Waterland, Charge, 1738. Works, viii. 168. Oxf. 1823.] ↩

10. Isaiah lxvi. 21. ↩

11. [Epiph. i. 908 A. hær. 75. c. 4. ὅτι μὲν ἀϕροσύνης ἐστὶ τὸ πα̑ν ἔμπλεων, τοι̑ς σύνεσιν κεκτημένοις, του̑το δη̑λον. τὸ λέγειν αὐτὸν ἐπίσκοπον καὶ πρεσβύτερον ἰ̑σον εἰ̑ναι· καὶ πω̑ς ἔσται του̑το δυνατόν; ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐστὶ πατέρων γεννητικὴ τάξις· πατέρας γὰρ γεννᾳ̑ τῃ̑ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἡ δὲ πατέρας μὴ δυναμένη γεννα̑ν, διὰ του̑ λουτρου̑ παλιγγενεσίας τέκνα γεννᾳ̑ τῃ̑ ἐκκλησίᾳ, οὐ μὴν πατέρας ἢ διδασκάλους.] ↩

12. Rev. iv. 4; xxi. 14; Matt. xix. 28. ↩

13. 1 Pet. v. 1. ↩

14. Οἱ τω̑ν ἱερω̑ν θεοπαραδότως νομοθέται. Dionys. Areop. p. 110. [de Eccl. Hier. 1, 5.] ↩

15. Acts ii. 41, 47. ↩

16. Cypr. Ep. ix. l. 3. ad Rogatianum. [al. Ep. 3. t. ii. p. 6. “Meminisse Diaconi debent, quoniam Apostolos, i.e. Episcopos et Præpositos Dominus elegit; Diaconos autem post ascensum Domini in cœlos Apostoli sibi constituerunt, episcopatus sui et Ecclesiæ ministros.”] ↩

17. Ignat. Epist. ad Tral. [c. 7. (from the interpolated portion) τί δὲ διάκονοι, ἀλλ’ ἢ μιμηταὶ τω̑ν ἀγγελικω̑ν δυνάμεων, λειτουργου̑ντες αὐτῳ̑ λειτουργίαν καθαρὰν καὶ ἄμωμον, ὡς Στέϕανος ὁ ἅγιος Ἰακώβῳ τῳ̑ μακαρίῳ, καὶ Τιμόθεος καὶ Λι̑νος Παύλῳ, καὶ Ἀνέγκλητος καὶ Κλήμης Πέτρῳ;] ↩

18. [Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 584. “Touching deacons, though their names be remaining, yet is the office finally perverted and turned upside down; for their duty in the primitive Church was to gather the alms diligently and to distribute it faithfully; also for the sick and impotent persons to provide painfully, having ever a diligent care that the charity of godly men were not wasted upon loiterers and idle vagabonds. Now it is the first step to the ministry, nay rather a mere order of priesthood.” Whitg. Answ. ibid. “It is true that in the primitive Church the office of a deacon was to collect and provide for the poor; but not only, for it was also their office to preach and to baptize. For Stephen and Philip being Deacons did preach the Gospel: and Philip did baptize the eunuch. Justinus Martyr saith,” (Apol. p. 98 E. ἡ διάδοσις καὶ ἡ μετάληψις ἀπὸ τω̑ν εὐχαριστηθέντων ἑκάστῳ γίνεται, καὶ τοι̑ς οὐ παρου̑σι διὰ τω̑ν διακόνων πέμπεται) “that in the administration of the Supper, the deacons did distribute the bread and wine to the people.” T. C. i. 128. al. 162. “He affirmeth St. Stephen to have preached. But I deny it: for all that long oration, which he hath in the seventh of the Acts, is no sermon, but a defence of himself… . Philip baptized, not in that he was a deacon, but for that he was an Evangelist.” Comp. Whitg. Def. ubi sup. and T. C. iii. 89-115.] ↩

19. [The Admonition in the passage above had quoted Rom. xii. 8. ὁ μεταδιδοὺς, ἐν ἁπλότητι, (as the Puritans commonly did,) to prove the office of Deacon. T. C. i. 152. al. 190, adds, “St. Paul speaketh there against those which not contenting themselves with their own vocations did break into that which appertained unto others.” See also Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 692. “The deaconship must not be confounded with the ministry, nor the collectors for the poor may not usurp the deacon’s office: but he that hath an office must look to his office, and every man must keep himself within the bonds and limits of his own vocation.”] ↩

20. [T. C. i. 152. al. 190. “If the Apostles which have such excellent and passing gifts did find themselves (preaching of the word and attending to prayer) not able to provide for the poor; but thought it necessary to discharge themselves of that office, to the end they might do the other effectually and fruitfully; he that shall do both now must either do none well and profitably, or else he must have greater gifts than the Apostles had.” Whit. Def. 688. The Apostles were occupied in planting Churches, in going from place to place to spread abroad the word of God, and therefore they could not so conveniently provide for the poor: but the deacons having no such occasion of travelling and removing from place to place, might very well both preach the Gospel and provide for the poor.”] ↩

21. [“Slipes,” Bodl. MS. and early edd. to 1723.] 1887. ↩

22. Rom. xii. 8. ↩

23. [“Whether a doctor may be the master of an hospital, which is the Deacon’s office, is a great question; for they say that Th. Cartwright will rather suffer this confusion of members of the Church, than give over his hospital.” Sutcliffe, False Semblant, &c. p. 26.] ↩

24. [Whitg. Def. 688. “If you speak of deacons now, I say unto you, that under a Christian prince in the time of peace that part of their office to provide for the poor is not necessary.”] ↩

25. [See Sutcliffe, False Semblant, &c. p. 109. “Wherein is proved that the deacon’s office is an holy ministry about the word and sacraments and attendance of bishops: First, by the words of the Apostle” (1 Tim. iii. 13.) “that maketh it βαθμὸν, ‘a degree,’ and indueth it with παρρησία, ‘liberty of speech:’ Secondly, for that the same resembleth the Levites’ office, which taught and ministered; which is confirmed by Jerome’s opinion: Thirdly, by the examples of Stephen and Philip: Fourthly, for that the deacons had the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which to distribute alms were not so necessary:” (see especially 1 Tim. iii. 9:) “Lastly, for that the Fathers with one consent make the same an holy ministry, conversant about the things aforesaid, and never did profane it in mere collection of alms.”] ↩

26. Epiph. lib. i. c. 21. [t. i. p. 50. D. ἀπέστειλε δὲ καὶ ἄλλους έβδομηκονταδύο κηρύσσειν, ἐξ ὠ̑ν ἠ̑σαν οἱ ἑπτὰ οἱ ἐπὶ τω̑ν χηρω̑ν τεταγμένοι… πρὸ τούτων δὲ Ματθίας, ὁ ἀντὶ Ἰούδα συμψηϕισθεὶς μετὰ τω̑ν ἀποστόλων.] ↩

27. Acts xxi. 10; xi. 27. ↩

28. Acts ix. 17. ↩

29. Acts xviii. 24. ↩

30. 2 Tim. iv. 5, 9; 1 Tim. iii. 15; v. 14; ii. 8. ↩

31. Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. iii. c. 37. [Πλει̑στοι τω̑ν τότε μαθητω̑ν, σϕοδροτέρῳ ϕιλοσοϕίας ἔρωτι πρὸς του̑ θείου λόγου τὴν ψυχὴν πληττόμενοι, τὴν σωτήριον προτέρον ἀπεπλήρουν παρακέλευσιν, ἐνδεέσι νέμοντες τὰς οὐσίας· ἔπειτα δὲ ἀποδημίας στελλόμενοι, ἔργον ἐπετέλουν εὐαγγελιστω̑ν, τοι̑ς ἔτι πάμπαν ἀνηκόοις του̑ τη̑ς πίστεως λόγου κηρύττειν τὸν Χριστὸν ϕιλοτιμούμενοι, καὶ τὴν τω̑ν θείων εὐαγγελίων παραδιδόναι γραϕήν.] ↩

32. [2 Adm. 44. ed. 1617. “In the ministry therefore, after rehearsal made of those rare and extraordinary functions of Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, there is declared in the last place those ordinary functions of shepherds and teachers, which endure in every well ordered Church. Eph. iv. 11-13.” T. C. i. 63. al. 85. “That without these ministeries the Church may be complete, it appeareth by that which is in the Ephesians,” &c. Id. ii. 454. “The Archbishoprick seeing it is an ecclesiastical function, either must be planted by one of these places, or die in the Church: considering that there is no ecclesiastical function which is not here set forth.” See also Decl. of Disc. 137; Eccl. Disc. fol. 102. “Quum dubium non sit, Apostolum ad Ephesios omnia munera quibus ministerii opus continetur, et per quæ Christus Ecclesiam suam ædificari voluit, recensuisse.”] ↩

33. 1 Cor. xii. 28. ↩

34. Ephes. iv. 7, 8. 11, 12; Psalm lxviii. 18. ↩

35. [See Bingham, Antiq. i. 5. 7.] ↩

36. 1 Tim. v. 9. ↩

37. T. C. lib. i. p. 191. [153. “Although there is not so great use of these widows with us, as there was in those places where the Churches were first founded, and in that time wherein this order of widows was instituted; part of the which necessity grew both by the multitude of strangers in the persecution, and by the great heat of those east countries, whereupon the washing and suppling of their feet was required; yet for so much as there are poor and sick in every Church, I do not see how a better or more convenient order can be devised … then … that there should be (if there can be any gotten) godly poor widows of the age which St. Paul appointeth … … I conclude that if such may be gotten we ought also to keep that order of widows in the Church still. I know that there be learned men which think otherwise: but I stand upon the authority of God’s word, and not upon the opinions of men be they never so well learned.” Bancroft, Survey, 177. “There is a second sort of disciplinary widowists, that are grown very far past Cartwright’s ifs. One that writeth ‘the Defence of the godly Ministers’ hath in that treatise framed ten arguments of a wonderful power … wherein he always comprehendeth the widows, and nameth them as necessary parts of the form of that church-government which Christ and his Apostles have appointed to be the ordinary and perpetual platform for guiding and governing his Church until the end of the world: and maketh them, by such force as his arguments have, as necessary for the ordinary continuance of them, as either Pastor, Doctor, Elders, or Men-Deacons.”] ↩

38. Tertull. de Persecut. [c. 11. “Quum ipsi auctores, i. e. ipsi Diaconi, Presbyteri et Episcopi fugiunt; quomodo Laicus intelligere poterit, qua ratione dictum, Fugite de civitate in civitatem? … Cum duces fugiunt, quis de gregario numero sustinebit ad gradum in acie figendum suadere?” &c.] ↩

39. Optat. lib. i. [c. 13. “Quid commemorem Laicos, qui tunc in Ecclesia nulla fuerant dignitate suffulti? quid ministros plurimos? quid Diaconos in tertio, quid Presbyteros in secundo sacerdotio constitutos? Ipsi apices et principes omnium, aliqui Episcopi, ut damno æternæ vitæ … lucis moras brevissimas compararent, instrumenta divinæ legis impie tradiderunt.”] ↩

40. [Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 261. “Ministers … … in those days known by voice, learning, and doctrine; now they must be discerned from other by popish and Antichristian apparel, as cap, gown, tippet,” &c. And Eccl. Disc. fol. 97—101. “Certum vestimenti genus, forma, modus, nusquam non modo in communi vita sed ne in sacris quidem in Evangelio præcipitur … Conqueramur ex nostris aliquos inventos esse, qui quum totus Papatus execrandus erat, et hæc Roma Jerichuntanæ illius urbis anathemate devovenda, Babylonicæ vestis specie et splendore capti, eam in Israelitica castra transtulerunt. Cur enim cappam et superpelliceum in sacris, in communi vita liripipium, [tippet] (quod appellant) et quadratum pileum gerenda esse præcipiunt nisi quod hæc auctoritatem quandam apud populum habere … existiment.” &c. The regulations objected to are to be found in Queen Elizabeth’s “Advertisements,” 25 January, 1564-5. See Sparrow’s Collection, p. 126.] ↩