XVI. Now where they lastly allege1, “That the law of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the judgment of the best in all ages, condemn all ruling superiority of ministers over ministers;” they are in this, as in the rest, more bold to affirm, than able to prove the things which they bring for support of their weak and feeble cause. “The bearing of dominion or the exercising of authority (they say2), is that wherein the civil magistrate is severed from the ecclesiastical officer, according to the words of our Lord and Saviour, ‘Kings of nations bear rule over them, but it shall not be so with you:’ therefore bearing of dominion doth not agree to one minister over another.”
This place hath been, and still is, although most falsely, yet with far greater show and likelihood of truth, brought forth by the anabaptists3, to prove that the Church of Christ ought to have no civil magistrates, but [to be] ordered only by Christ. Wherefore they urge the opposition between heathens and them unto whom our Saviour speaketh. For sith the Apostles were opposite to heathens, not in that they were Apostles, but in that they were Christians, the anabaptists’ inference is, “that Christ doth here give a law, to be for ever observed by all true Christian men, between whom and heathens there must be always this difference, that whereas heathens have their kings and princes to rule, Christians ought not in this thing to be like unto them.” Wherein their construction hath the more show, because that which Christ doth speak to his Apostles is not found always agreeable unto them as Apostles, or as pastors of men’s souls, but oftentimes it toucheth them in generality, as they are Christians; so that Christianity being common unto them with all believers, such speeches must be so taken that they may be applied unto all, and not only unto them.
They which consent with us, in rejecting such collections as the anabaptist maketh with more probability, must give us leave to reject such as themselves have made with less: for a great deal less likely it is, that our Lord should here establish an everlasting difference, not between his Church and pagans, but between the pastors of his Church and civil governors. For if herein they must always differ, that the one may not bear rule, the other may; how did the Apostles themselves observe this difference, the exercise of whose authority, both in commanding and in controlling others, the Scripture hath made so manifest that no gloss can overshadow it? Again, it being, as they would have it, our Saviour’s purpose to withhold his Apostles and in them all other pastors from bearing rule, why should kingly dominion be mentioned, which occasions men to gather, that not all dominion and rule, but this one only form was prohibited, and that authority was permitted them, so it were not regal? Furthermore, in case it had been his purpose to withhold pastors altogether from bearing rule, why should kings of nations be mentioned, as if they were not forbidden to exercise, no not regal dominion itself, but only such regal dominion as heathen kings do exercise?
The very truth is, our Lord and Saviour did aim at a far other mark than these men seem to observe. The end of his speech was to reform their particular mispersuasion to whom he spake: and their mispersuasion was, that which was also the common fancy of the Jews at that time, that their Lord being the Messias of the world, should restore unto Israel that kingdom, whereof the Romans had as then bereaved them; they imagined that he should not only deliver the state of Israel, but himself reign as king in the throne of David with all secular pomp and dignity; that he should subdue the rest of the world, and make Jerusalem the seat of an universal monarchy. Seeing therefore they had forsaken all to follow him, being now in so mean condition, they did not think but that together with him they also should rise in state; that they should be the first and the most advanced by him. Of this conceit it came that the mother of the sons of Zebedee sued for her children’s preferment; of this conceit it grew, that the Apostles began to question amongst themselves which of them should be greatest; and in controlment of this conceit it was that our Lord so plainly told them, that the thoughts of their hearts were vain:” the kings of nations have indeed their large and ample dominions, they reign far and wide, and their servants they advance unto honour in the world; they bestow upon them large and ample secular preferments, in which respect they are also termed many of them benefactors, because of the liberal hand which they use in rewarding such as have done them service: but was it the meaning of the ancient prophets of God that the Messias the king of Israel should be like unto these kings, and his retinue grow in such sort as theirs? “Wherefore ye are not to look for at my hands such preferment as kings of nations are wont to bestow upon their attendants, ‘With you not so.’ Your reward in heaven shall be most ample, on earth your chiefest honour must be to suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake; submission, humility and meekness are things fitter for you to inure your minds withal, than these aspiring cogitations; if any amongst you be greater than other, let him shew himself greatest in being lowliest, let him be above them in being under them, even as a servant for their good. These are affections which you must put on; as for degrees of preferment and honour in this world, if ye expect any such thing at my hands ye deceive yourselves, for in the world your portion is rather the clear contrary.”
Wherefore they who allege this place against episcopal authority abuse it, they many ways deprave and wrest it, clean from the true understanding wherein our Saviour himself did utter it.
For first, whereas he by way of mere negation had said, “With you it shall not be so,” foretelling them only that it should not so come to pass as they vainly surmised; these men take his words in the plain nature of a prohibition, as if Christ had thereby forbidden all inequality of ecclesiastical power. Secondly, whereas he did but cut off their idle hope of secular advancements; all standing superiority amongst persons ecclesiastical these men would rase off with the edge of his speech. Thirdly, whereas he in abating their hope even of secular advancements spake but only with relation unto himself, informing them that he would be no such munificent Lord unto them in their temporal dignity and honour, as they did erroneously suppose; so that any Apostle might afterwards have grown by means of others to be even emperor of Rome, for any thing in those words to the contrary: these men removing quite and clean the hedge of all such restraints, enlarge so far the bounds of his meaning, as if his very precise intent and purpose had been not to reform the error of his Apostles conceived as touching him, and to teach what himself would not be towards them, but to prescribe a special law both to them and their successors for ever; a law determining what they should not be in relation of one to another, a law forbidding that any such title should be given to any minister as might import or argue in him a superiority over other ministers4.
Being thus defeated of that succour which they thought their cause might have had out of the words of our Saviour Christ, they try5 their adventure in seeking what aid man’s testimony will yield them: “Cyprian objecteth it to Florentinus as a proud thing, that by believing evil reports, and misjudging of Cyprian, he made himself bishop of a bishop, and judge over him whom God had for the time appointed to be judge6.” “The endeavour of godly men to strike at these insolent names may appear in the council of Carthage: where it was decreed, that the bishop of the chief see should not be entitled the exarch of priests, or the highest priest, or any other thing of like sense, but only the bishop of the chiefest see7; whereby are shut out the name of archbishop, and all other such haughty titles.” In these allegations it fareth, as in broken reports snatched out of the author’s mouth, and broached before they be half either told on the one part, or on the other understood. The matter which Cyprian complaineth of in Florentinus was thus: Novatus misliking the easiness of Cyprian to admit men into the fellowship of believers after they had fallen away from the bold and constant confession of Christian faith, took thereby occasion to separate himself from the Church8, and being united with certain excommunicate persons, they joined their wits together, and drew out against Cyprian their lawful bishop sundry grievous accusations; the crimes such, as being true, had made him uncapable of that office whereof he was six years as then possessed; they went to Rome, and to other places, accusing him every where as guilty of those faults of which themselves had lewdly condemned him, pretending that twenty-five African bishops (a thing most false) had heard and examined his cause in a solemn assembly, and that they all had given their sentence against him, holding his election by the canons of the church void. The same factious and seditious persons coming also unto Florentinus, who was at that time a man imprisoned for the testimony of Jesus Christ, but yet a favourer of the error of Novatus, their malicious accusations he over-willingly hearkened unto, gave them credit, concurred with them9, and unto Cyprian in fine wrote his letters against Cyprian: which letters he justly taketh in marvellous evil part, and therefore severely controlleth his so great presumption in making himself a judge of a judge, and, as it were, a bishop’s bishop, to receive accusations against him, as one that had been his ordinary. “10What height of pride is this (saith Cyprian), what arrogancy of spirit, what a puffing up of mind, to call guides and priests to be examined and sifted before him! So that unless we shall be cleared in your court, and absolved by your sentence, behold for these six years’ space neither shall the brotherhood have had a bishop, nor the people a guide, nor the flock a shepherd, nor the Church a governor, nor Christ a prelate, nor God a priest.” This is the pride which Cyprian condemneth in Florentinus, and not the title or name of archbishop; about which matter there was not at that time so much as the dream of any controversy at all between them. A silly collection it is, that because Cyprian reproveth Florentinus for lightness of belief and presumptuous rashness of judgment, therefore he held the title of archbishop to be a vain and a proud name.
Archbishops were chief amongst bishops, yet archbishops had not over bishops that full authority which every bishop had over his own particular clergy: bishops were not subject unto their archbishop as an ordinary, by whom at all times they were to be judged, according to the manner of inferior pastors, within the compass of each diocess. A bishop might suspend, excommunicate, depose, such as were of his own clergy without any other bishops assistants; not so an archbishop the bishops that were in his own province, above whom divers prerogatives were given him, howbeit no such authority and power as alone to be judge over them. For as a bishop could not be ordained, so neither might he be judged by any one only bishop, albeit that bishop were his metropolitan. Wherefore Cyprian, concerning the liberty and freedom which every bishop had, spake in the council of Carthage, whereat fourscore and seven bishops were present, saying11, “It resteth that every of us declare what we think of this matter, neither judging nor severing from the right of communion any that shall think otherwise: for of us there is not any which maketh himself a bishop of bishops, or with tyrannical fear constraineth his colleagues unto the necessity of obedience, inasmuch as every bishop, according to the reach of his liberty and power, hath his own free judgment, and can no more have another his judge, than himself be judge to another.” Whereby it appeareth, that amongst the African bishops none did use such authority over any as the bishop of Rome did afterwards claim over all, forcing upon them opinions by main and absolute power. Wherefore unto the bishop of Rome the same Cyprian also writeth concerning his opinion about baptism12: “These things we present unto your conscience, most dear brother, as well for common honour’s sake, as of single and sincere love, trusting that as you are truly yourself religious and faithful, so those things which agree with religion and faith will be acceptable unto you: howbeit we know, that what some have over drunk in, they will not let go, neither easily change their mind, but with care of preserving whole amongst their brethren the bond of peace and concord, retaining still to themselves certain their own opinions wherewith they have been inured; wherein we neither use force, nor prescribe a law unto any, knowing that in the government of the Church every ruler hath his own voluntary free judgment, and of that which he doth shall render unto the Lord himself an account.”
As for the council of Carthage, doth not the very first canon thereof establish with most effectual terms all things which were before agreed on in the council of Nice13? and that the council of Nice did ratify the preeminence of metropolitan bishops, who is ignorant? The name of an archbishop importeth only a bishop having chiefty of certain prerogatives above his brethren of the same order. Which thing, sith the council of Nice doth allow, it cannot be that the other of Carthage should condemn it, inasmuch as this doth yield unto that a Christian unrestrained approbation. The thing provided for by the synod of Carthage can be no other therefore, than only that the chiefest metropolitan, where many archbishops were within any greater province, should not be termed by those names, as to import the power of an ordinary jurisdiction belonging in such degree and manner unto him over the rest of the bishops and archbishops, as did belong unto every bishop over other pastors under him.
But much more absurd it is to affirm14, that both Cyprian and the council of Carthage condemn even such superiority also of bishops themselves over pastors their inferiors, as the words of Ignatius imply, in terming the bishop “a prince of priests.” Bishops to be termed arch-priests, in regard of their superiority over priests, is in the writings of the ancient Fathers a thing so usual and familiar, as almost no one thing more. At the council of Nice, saith Theodoret, three hundred and eighteen arch-priests were present15. Were it the meaning of the council of Carthage, that the title of chief priests and such like ought not in any sort at all to be given unto any Christian Bishop, what excuse should we make for so many ancient both Fathers16, and synods17 of Fathers, as have generally applied the title of arch-priest unto every bishop’s office?
High time I think it is, to give over the obstinate defence of this most miserable forsaken cause; in the favour whereof neither God, nor amongst so many wise and virtuous men as antiquity hath brought forth, any one can be found to have hitherto directly spoken. Irksome confusion must of necessity be the end whereunto all such vain and ungrounded confidence doth bring, as hath nothing to bear it out but only an excessive measure of bold and peremptory words, holpen by the start of a little time, before they came to be examined. In the writings of the ancient Fathers, there is not any thing with more serious asseveration inculcated, than that it is God which maketh bishops, that their authority hath divine allowance, that the bishop is the priest of God, that he is judge in Christ’s stead, that according to God’s own law the whole Christian fraternity standeth bound to obey him. Of this there was not in the Christian world of old any doubt or controversy made, it was a thing universally every where agreed upon. What should move men to judge that now so unlawful and naught, which then was so reverendly esteemed? Surely no other cause but this, men were in those times meek, lowly, tractable, willing to live in dutiful awe and subjection unto the pastor of their souls: now we imagine ourselves so able every man to teach and direct all others, that none of us can brook it to have superiors; and for a mask to hide our pride, we pretend falsely the law of Christ, as if we did seek the execution of his will, when in truth we labour for the mere satisfaction of our own against his.
← Concerning the civil power and authority whi · Contents · The second malicious thing wherein the state →
Footnotes
-
[Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 57. “The lordly lords, archbishops, bishops, suffragans, deans, doctors, archdeacons, chancellors, and the rest of that proud generation, whose kingdom must down, hold they never so hard, because their tyrannous lordship cannot stand with Christ’s kingdom. And it is the special mischief of our English church, and the chief cause of backwardness, and of all breach and dissention. For they whose authority is forbidden by Christ, will have their stroke without their fellow servants. Matt. xx. 25, 26; xxiii. 8, 9; Mark x. 42, 43; Luke xxii. 15, &c.” Ans. 37-39, al. 13, &c.; T. C. i. 10, al. 22; Def. 61-75; T. C. ii. 421-436.] ↩
-
[T. C. i. 10, al. 22. “Our Saviour Christ upon occasion of the inordinate request of the sons of Zebedee, putteth a difference between the civil and ecclesiastical function. He placeth the distinction of them in two points; whereof the one is in their office, and the other is in their names and titles. The distinction of the office he noteth in these words: ‘The kings of the gentiles, &c.’ Whereupon the argument may be thus gathered; That wherein the civil magistrate is severed from the ecclesiastical officer doth not agree to one minister over another. But the civil magistrate is severed from the ecclesiastical officer by bearing dominion; therefore bearing dominion doth not agree to one minister over another.”] ↩
-
[De Brés, “La Racine, &c. Des Anabaptistes, &c.” p. 841.] ↩
-
[“Horum verborum verus et simplex hic est sensus: Vestra gubernatio diversa erit ab ea quæ est regum propria… Si quis locus citari potest ex evangelicis scriptis ad probandam superioritatem inter evangelii ministros, hic unus est… ubi omnes sunt futuri pares, præcepto nihil opus quo moderatio mandatur in præcipua dignitate constituto. Sensus igitur hujus præcepti est, Quanto quis inter vos major erit tanto submissius inter suos fratres se gerat. Tametsi omnes Apostoli ejusdem ordinis et potestatis fuerint, ætatis discrimen et donorum Sp. Sancti magnum inter eos fuit.” Sar. de divers. Min. Grad. c. 15. vid. etiam de Honore Præsulibus debito, c. 2.] ↩
-
T. C. lib. i. 100. [al. 76. ap. Whitg. Def. 361.] ↩
-
Lib. iv. ep. 9. [ii. p. 166. ed. Fell. “Quis autem nostrum longeest ab humilitate? utrumne ego, qui quotidie fratribus servio, et venientes ad ecclesiam singulos benigne et cum voto et gaudio suscipio? an tu qui te episcopum episcopi, et judicem judicis ad tempus a Deo dati constituis?”] ↩
-
[T. C. i. 72.] Ὥστε τὸν τη̑ς πρὼτης καθέδρας ἐπίσκοπον μὴ λέγεσθαι ἔξαρχον τω̑ν ἱερέων ἢ ἀκρὸν ἱερέα ἢ τοιουτότροπόν τί ποτε, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἐπίσκοπον τη̑ς πρώτης καθέδρας. Can. 39. [Cod. Can. Eccl. Afr. 39. ap. Harduin. Conc. i. 884. or 3 Conc. Carth. can. 26. p. 964. ad 397.] ↩
-
[S. Cyp. Ep. 49. p. 63. ed. Baluz. “Novatus, qui apud nos primum discordiæ et schismatis incendium seminavit; qui quosdam istic ex fratribus ab episcopo segregavit; . . cum sua tempestate Romam quoque ad evertendam ecclesiam navigans similia illic et paria molitus est, a clero portionem plebis avellens … Damnare nunc audet sacrificantium manus, cum sit ipse nocentior.”] ↩
-
[Ibid. Ep. 69. p. 121. “Prævaluit apud te contra divinam sententiam et contra conscientiam nostram fidei suæ viribus nixam inimicorum et malignorum commentum, quasi apud lapsos et prophanos et extra ecclesiam positos, de quorum pectoribus excesserit Sp. Sanctus, esse aliud possit nisi mens prava et fallax lingua et odia venenata et sacrilega mendacia; quibus qui credit, necesse est cum iis inveniatur cum judicii dies venerit.”] ↩
-
[Ib. Ep. 69. p. 122. “Quæ mentis inflatio, ad cognitionem suam præpositos et sacerdotes vocare, ac nisi apud te purgati fuerimus et sententia tua absoluti, ecce jam sex annis nec fraternitas habuerit episcopum, nec plebs præpositum, nec grex pastorem, nec ecclesia gubernatorem, nec Christus antistitem, nec Deus sacerdotem.”] ↩
-
Concil. Carthag. de Hæret. baptizandis. [p. 329. ed. Baluz. Superest ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus proferamus, neminem judicantes, aut a jure communicationis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se esse episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit; quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suæ arbitrium proprium, tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nec ipse potest alterum judicare.”] ↩
-
Lib. ii. Ep. i. [72. “Hæc ad conscientiam tuam, frater carissime, et pro honore communi et pro simplici dilectione pertulimus, credentes etiam tibi pro religionis tuæ et fidei veritate placere quæ et religiosa pariter et vera sunt. Cæterum scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle deponere, nec propositum suum facile mutare, sed salvo inter collegas pacis et concordiæ vinculo quædam propria quæ apud se sunt semel usurpata retinere. Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesiæ administratione voluntatis suæ arbitrium liberum unusquisque præpositus, rationem actus sui Domino redditurus.” p. 129.] ↩
-
Ωστε τὰ ἐν τῃ̑ Νικαέων συνόδῳ ὁρισθέντα παντὶ τρόπῳ παραϕυλαχθήσεται. [Conc. Hard. i. 868.] ↩
-
T. C. lib. i. p. 113. [al. 87. ap. Whitg. Def. 408. Whitgift (Answ. 72.) had quoted from S. Ign. interp. ad Smyrnæos, c. 9: Τίμα τὸν θεὸν, ὡς αἰτίον τω̑ν ὅλων καὶ κύριον· ἐπίσκοπον δὲ, ὡς ἀρχιερέα, θεου̑ εἰκόνα ϕορου̑ντα: T. C. replies, “As for Ignatius’ place, it is sufficiently answered before, in that which was answered to Cyprian his place: for when he saith, ‘the bishop hath rule over all,’ he meaneth no more all in the province, than in all the world, but meaneth that flock or congregation whereof he is bishop or minister. And when he calleth him ‘prince of the priests,’ although the title be excessive and big, condemned by Cyprian and the council of Carthage, yet he meaneth no more the prince of all in the diocese as we take it, or of the province, than he meaneth the prince of all the priests in the world: but he meaneth those fellow ministers and elders that had the rule and government of that particular church and congregation whereof he was bishop.”] ↩
-
Theod. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. 7. Ἀρχιερει̑ς. [Ἀϕίκετο καὶ αὐτὸς εἰς τὴν Νικαίαν, ἰδει̑ν τὴν τω̑ν ἀρχιερέων πληθὺν ἐϕιέμενος … ὀκτωκαίδεκα δὲ καὶ τριακόσιοι συνη̑λθον ἀρχιερει̑ς.] ↩
-
Hieronymus contra Luciferian. “Salutem ecclesiæ pendere,” dicit, “a summi sacerdotis dignitate,” id est, episcopi. [c. ix. t. ii. 182. ed. Vallarsii.] Idem est in Hieronymo summus sacerdos quod ἄκρος ἱερεὺς in Carthaginensi Concilio. ↩
-
Vide C. omnes. 38 dist. [Decret. Gratian. pars i. d. 38, p. 184. Lugd. 1572. “Ex septima synodo.” … . “Substantia summi sacerdotii nostri sunt eloquia divinitus tradita, i. e. vera divinarum scripturarum disciplina: quemadmodum magnus perhibet Dionysius.” Comp. 2 Concil. Nicæn. ad 787. can. ii. οὐσία τη̑ς καθ’ ἡμα̑ς ἱεραρχίας ἐστὶ τὰ θεοπαράδοτα λογία, εἴτουν ἡ τω̑ν θείων γραϕω̑ν ἀληθινὴ ἐπιστήμη, κάθως ὁ μέγας ἀπεϕήνατο Διονύσιος. t. iv. 48. ed. Hard. comp. Dionys. de Eccl. Hierarch. c. v. § 7.] Item c. Pontifices, [Decr. Grat. pars ii. causa] xii. qu. 3. [p. 1001. “Pontifices quibus in summo sacerdotio constitutis ab extraneis aliquid … donatur … inter facultates ecclesiæ computabunt.” In Consilio Agathensi [can. 6. ad 506. t. ii. 998. Hard.] Item c. De his. [Decr. Grat. pars iii.] De Consecr. dist. 5. [p. 1991, from a supposed decretal epistle of Melchiades. “Utrum majus sit sacramentum manus impositionis episcoporum aut baptismi: scitote utrumque magnum esse sacramentum: et sicut unum majoribus, i. e. summis Pontificibus, est accommodatum … ita et majori veneratione venerandum.” Comp. Conc. i. 245.] ↩