VII.5. The time and cause of instituting everywhere Bishops with restraint.

V. The Apostles of our Lord did according unto those directions which were given them from above, erect churches in all such cities as received the word of truth, the gospel of God. All churches by them erected received from them the same faith, the same sacraments, the same form of public regiment. The form of regiment by them established at first was, that the laity or people should be subject unto a college of ecclesiastical persons, which were in every such city appointed for that purpose. These in their writings they term sometime presbyters, sometime bishops. To take one church out of a number for a pattern what the rest were; the presbyters of Ephesus, as it is in the history¹ of their departure from the Apostle Paul at Miletum, are said to have wept abundantly all, which speech doth shew them to have been many. And by the Apostle’s exhortation it may appear that they had not each his several flock to feed, but were in common appointed to feed that one flock, the church of Ephesus; for which cause the phrase of his speech is this², Attendite gregi, “Look all to that one flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops.” These persons ecclesiastical being termed as then, presbyters and bishops both, were all subject unto Paul as to an higher governor appointed of God to be over them³.

But forasmuch as the Apostles could not themselves be present in all churches, and as the Apostle St. Paul foretold the presbyters of the Ephesians⁴ that there would “rise up from amongst their ownselves, men speaking perverse things to draw disciples after them;” there did grow in short time amongst the governors of each church those emulations, strifes, and contentions, whereof there could be no sufficient remedy provided, except according unto the order of Jerusalem already begun, some one were endued with episcopal authority over the rest, which one being resident might keep them in order, and have preeminence or principality in those things wherein the equality of many agents was the cause of disorder and trouble. This one president or governor amongst the rest had his known authority established a long time before that settled difference of name and title took place, whereby such alone were named bishops. And therefore in the book of St. John’s Revelation⁵ we find that they are entitled angels.

It will perhaps be answered, that the angels of those churches were only in every church a minister of the word and sacraments. But then we ask, is it probable that in every of these churches, even in Ephesus itself, where many such ministers were long before, as hath been proved, there was but one such when John directed his speech to the angel of that church? If there were many, surely St. John in naming but only one of them an angel, did behold in that one somewhat above the rest.

Nor was this order peculiar unto some few churches, but the whole world universally became subject thereunto; insomuch as they did not account it to be a church which was not subject unto a bishop. It was the general received persuasion of the ancient Christian world, that Ecclesia est in Episcopo⁶, “the outward being of a church consisteth in the having of a bishop.” That where colleges of presbyters were, there was at the first equality amongst them, St. Jerome thinketh it a matter clear⁷; but when the rest were thus equal, so that no one of them could command any other as inferior unto him, they all were controllable by the Apostles, who had that episcopal authority abiding at the first in themselves, which they afterwards derived unto others.

The cause wherefore they under themselves appointed such bishops as were not every where at the first, is said to have been those strifes and contentions, for remedy whereof, whether the Apostles alone did conclude of such a regiment, or else they together with the whole Church judging it a fit and a needful policy did agree to receive it for a custom; no doubt but being established by them on whom the Holy Ghost was poured in so abundant measure for the ordering of Christ’s Church, it had either divine appointment beforehand, or divine approbation afterwards, and is in that respect to be acknowledged the ordinance of God, no less than that ancient Jewish regiment, whereof though Jethro were the deviser⁸, yet after that God had allowed it, all men were subject unto it, as to the polity of God, and not of Jethro.

That so the ancient Fathers did think of episcopal regiment; that they held this order as a thing received from the blessed Apostles themselves, and authorized even from heaven, we may perhaps more easily prove, than obtain that they all shall grant it who see it proved. St. Augustine⁹ setteth it down for a principle, that whatsoever positive order the whole Church every where doth observe, the same it must needs have received from the very Apostles themselves, unless perhaps some general council were the authors of it. And he saw that the ruling superiority of bishops was a thing universally established, not by the force of any council (for councils do all presuppose bishops, nor can there any council be named so ancient, either general, or as much as provincial, sithence the Apostles’ own times, but we can shew that bishops had their authority before it, and not from it). Wherefore St. Augustine knowing this, could not choose but reverence the authority of bishops, as a thing to him apparently and most clearly apostolical.

But it will be perhaps objected that regiment by bishops was not so universal nor ancient as we pretend; and that an argument hereof may be Jerome’s own testimony, who, living at the very same time with St. Augustine, noted this kind of regiment as being no where ancient, saving only in Alexandria; his words are these¹⁰: “It was for a remedy of schism that one was afterwards chosen to be placed above the rest; lest every man’s pulling unto himself should rend asunder the Church of Christ. For (that which also may serve for an argument or token hereof), at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist, unto Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always chose one of themselves, whom they placed in higher degree, and gave unto him the title of bishop.” Now St. Jerome¹¹ they say would never have picked out that one church from amongst so many, and have noted that in it there had been bishops from the time that St. Mark lived, if so be the selfsame order were of like antiquity every where; his words therefore must be thus scholied: in the church of Alexandria, presbyters indeed had even from the time of St. Mark the Evangelist always a bishop to rule over them, for a remedy against divisions, factions, and schisms. Not so in other churches, neither in that very church any longer than usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium, “till Heraclas and his successor Dionysius were bishops.”

But this construction doth bereave the words construed, partly of wit, and partly of truth; it maketh them both absurd and false. For, if the meaning be that episcopal government in that church was then expired, it must have expired with the end of some one, and not of two several bishops’ days, unless perhaps it fell sick under Heraclas, and with Dionysius gave up the ghost.

Besides, it is clearly untrue that the presbyters of that church did then cease to be under a bishop. Who doth not know that after Dionysius, Maximus was bishop of Alexandria¹², after him Theonas¹³, after him Peter, after him Achillas¹⁴, after him Alexander: of whom Socrates¹⁵ in this sort writeth: “it fortuned on a certain time that this Alexander in the presence of the presbyters which were under him, and of the rest of the clergy there, discoursed somewhat curiously and subtilly of the holy Trinity, bringing high philosophical proofs, that there is in the Trinity an Unity. Whereupon Arius, one of the presbyters which were placed in that degree under Alexander, opposed eagerly himself against those things which were uttered by the bishop.” So that thus long bishops continued even in the church of Alexandria. Nor did their regiment here cease, but these also had others their successors till St. Jerome’s own time, who living long after Heraclas and Dionysius had ended their days, did not yet live himself to see the presbyters of Alexandria otherwise than subject unto a bishop. So that we cannot with any truth so interpret his words as to mean, that in the church of Alexandria there had been bishops endued with superiority over presbyters from St. Mark’s time only till the time of Heraclas and of Dionysius.

Wherefore that St. Jerome may receive a more probable interpretation than this, we answer, that generally of regiment by bishops, and what term of continuance it had in the church of Alexandria, it was no part of his mind to speak, but to note one only circumstance belonging to the manner of their election, which circumstance is, that in Alexandria they use to choose their bishops altogether out of the college of their own presbyters, and neither from abroad nor out of any other inferior order of the clergy; whereas oftentimes elsewhere the use was to choose as well from abroad as at home¹⁶, as well inferior unto presbyters as presbyters when they saw occasion. This custom, saith he, the Church of Alexandria did always keep, till in Heraclas and Dionysius they began to do otherwise. These two were the very first not chosen out of their college of presbyters.

The drift and purpose of St. Jerome’s speech doth plainly shew what his meaning was: for whereas some did over extol the office of the deacon in the church of Rome, where deacons being grown great, through wealth, challenged place above presbyters; St. Jerome to abate this insolency, writing to Evagrius diminisheth by all means the deacon’s estimation, and lifteth up presbyters as far as possible the truth might bear¹⁷. “An attendant,” saith he, “upon tables and widows proudly to exalt himself above them at whose prayers is made the Body and Blood of Christ; above them, between whom and bishops there was at the first for a time no difference neither in authority nor in title. And whereas afterward schisms and contentions made it necessary that some one should be placed over them, by which occasion the title of bishop became proper unto that one, yet was that one chosen out of the presbyters, as being the chiefest, the highest, the worthiest degree of the clergy, and not out of deacons: in which consideration also it seemeth that in Alexandria even from St. Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius bishops there, the presbyters evermore have chosen one of themselves, and not a deacon at any time, to be their bishop. Nor let any man think that Christ hath one church in Rome and another in the rest of the world; that in Rome he alloweth deacons to be honoured above presbyters, and otherwise will have them to be in the next degree to the bishop. If it be deemed that abroad where bishops are poorer, the presbyters under them may be the next unto them in honour, but at Rome where the bishop hath ample revenues, the deacons whose estate is nearest for wealth, may be also for estimation the next unto him: we must know that a bishop in the meanest city is no less a bishop than he who is seated in the greatest; the countenance of a rich and the meanness of a poor estate doth make no odds between bishops: and therefore, if a presbyter at Eugubium be the next in degree to a bishop, surely, even at Rome it ought in reason to be so likewise, and not a deacon for wealth’s sake only to be above, who by order should be, and elsewhere is, underneath a presbyter. But ye will say that according to the custom of Rome a deacon presenteth unto the bishop him which standeth to be ordained presbyter, and upon the deacon’s testimony given concerning his fitness, he receiveth at the Bishop’s hands ordination: so that in Rome the deacon having this special preeminence, the presbyter ought there to give place unto him. Wherefore is the custom of one city brought against the practice of the whole world? The paucity of deacons in the church of Rome hath gotten the [them?] credit; as unto presbyters their multitude hath been cause of contempt: howbeit even in the Church of Rome, presbyters sit, and deacons stand; an argument as strong against the superiority of deacons, as the fore-alleged reason doth seem for it. Besides, whosoever is promoted must needs be raised from a lower degree to an higher; wherefore either let him which is presbyter be made a deacon, that so the deacon may appear to be the greater; or if of deacons presbyters be made, let them know themselves to be in regard of deacons, though below in gain, yet above in office. And to the end we may understand that those apostolical orders are taken out of the Old Testament, what Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the temple, the same in the Church may bishops and presbyters and deacons challenge unto themselves.”

This is the very drift and substance, this the true construction and sense of St. Jerome’s whole discourse in that epistle: which I have therefore endeavoured the more at large to explain, because no one thing is less effectual or more usual to be alleged against the ancient authority of bishops; concerning whose government St. Jerome’s own words otherwhere are sufficient to shew his opinion, that this order was not only in Alexandria so ancient, but even as ancient in other churches. We have before alleged his testimony touching James the bishop of Jerusalem. As for bishops in other churches, on the first of the Epistle to Titus thus he speaketh¹⁸, “Till through instinct of the Devil there grew in the Church factions, and among the people it began to be professed, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas¹⁹, churches were governed by the common advice of presbyters; but when every one began to reckon those whom himself had baptized his own and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed above the rest, to whom all care of the Church should belong, and so the seeds of schism be removed.” If it be so, that by St. Jerome’s own confession this order was not then begun when people in the apostles’ absence began to be divided into factions by their teachers, and to rehearse, “I am of Paul,” but that even at the very first appointment thereof [it] was agreed upon and received throughout the world; how shall a man be persuaded that the same Jerome thought it so ancient no where saving in Alexandria, one only church of the whole world?

A sentence there is indeed of St. Jerome’s, which being not thoroughly considered and weighed may cause his meaning so to be taken, as if he judged episcopal regiment to have been the Church’s invention long after, and not the apostles’ own institution; as namely, when he admonisheth bishops in this manner²⁰: “As therefore presbyters do know that the custom of the Church makes them subject to the Bishop which is set over them; so let bishops know²¹ that custom, rather than the truth of any ordinance of the Lord’s maketh them greater than the rest, and that with common advice they ought to govern the Church.”

To clear the sense of these words therefore, as we have done already the former: laws which the Church from the beginning universally hath observed were some delivered by Christ himself, with a charge to keep them to the world’s end, as the law of baptizing and administering the holy eucharist; some brought in afterwards by the apostles, yet not without the special direction of the Holy Ghost, as occasions did arise. Of this sort are those apostolical orders and laws whereby deacons, widows, virgins, were first appointed in the Church. ²²[This answer to St. Jerome seemeth dangerous²³; I have qualified it as I may by addition of some words of restraint: yet I satisfy not myself, in my judgment it would be altered.] “Now whereas Jerome doth term the government of bishops by restraint an apostolical tradition, acknowledging thereby the same to have been of the apostles’ own institution, it may be demanded how these two will stand together; namely, that the apostles by divine instinct should be, as Jerome confesseth, the authors of that regiment; and yet the custom of the Church be accounted (for so by Jerome it may seem to be in this place accounted) the chiefest prop that upholdeth the same? To this we answer, That forasmuch as the whole body of the Church hath power to alter, with general consent and upon necessary occasions, even the positive laws of the apostles, if there be no command to the contrary, and it manifestly appears to her, that change of times have clearly taken away the very reasons of God’s first institution; as by sundry examples may be most clearly proved: what laws the universal Church might change, and doth not, if they have long continued without any alteration, it seemeth that St. Jerome ascribeth the continuance of such positive laws, though instituted by God himself, to the judgment of the Church. For they which might abrogate a law and do not, are properly said to uphold, to establish it, and to give it being. The regiment therefore whereof Jerome speaketh being positive, and consequently not absolutely necessary, but of a changeable nature, because there is no divine voice which in express words forbiddeth it to be changed; he might imagine both that it came by the apostles by very divine appointment at the first, and notwithstanding be, after a sort, said to stand in force, rather by the custom of the Church, choosing to continue in it, than by the necessary constraint of any commandment from the word, requiring perpetual continuance thereof.” So that St. Jerome’s admonition is reasonable, sensible, and plain, being contrived to this effect: The ruling superiority of one bishop over many presbyters in each church, is an order descended from Christ to the Apostles, who were themselves bishops at large, and from the Apostles to those whom they in their steads appointed bishops over particular countries and cities; and even from those ancient times, universally established, thus many years it hath continued throughout the world; for which cause presbyters must not grudge to continue subject unto their bishops, unless they will proudly oppose themselves against that which God himself ordained by his apostles, and the whole Church of Christ approveth and judgeth most convenient. On the other side bishops, albeit they may avouch with conformity of truth that their authority hath thus descended even from the very apostles themselves, yet the absolute and everlasting continuance of it they cannot say that any commandment of the Lord doth enjoin; and therefore must acknowledge that the Church hath power by universal consent upon urgent cause to take it away, if thereunto she be constrained through the proud, tyrannical, and unreformable dealings of her bishops, whose regiment she hath thus long delighted in, because she hath found it good and requisite to be so governed. Wherefore lest bishops forget themselves, as if none on earth had authority to touch their states, let them continually bear in mind, that it is rather the force of custom, whereby the Church having so long found it good to continue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honour them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be shewed, by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regiment of bishops, in what sort soever they behave themselves. Let this consideration be a bridle unto them, let it teach them not to disdain the advice of their presbyters, but to use their authority with so much the greater humility and moderation, as a sword which the Church hath power to take from them. In all this there is no let why St. Jerome might not think the authors of episcopal regiment to have been the very blessed apostles themselves, directed therein by the special motion of the Holy Ghost, which the ancients all before and besides him and himself also elsewhere being known to hold, we are not without better evidence than this to think him in judgment divided both from himself and from them²⁴.

Another argument that the regiment of churches by one Bishop over many presbyters hath been always held apostolical, may be this. We find that throughout all those cities where the apostles did plant Christianity, the history of times hath noted succession of pastors in the seat of one, not of many (there being in every such Church evermore many pastors), and the first one in every rank of succession we find to have been, if not some Apostle, yet some Apostle’s disciple. By Epiphanius²⁵ the bishops of Jerusalem are reckoned down from James to Hilarion then Bishop. Of them which boasted that they held the same things which they received of such as lived with the apostles themselves, Tertullian speaketh after this sort²⁶: “Let them therefore shew the beginnings of their churches, let them recite their bishops one by one, each in such sort succeeding other, that the first bishop of them have had for his author and predecessor some Apostle, or at least some apostolical person who persevered with the apostles. For so apostolical churches are wont to bring forth the evidence of their estates. So doth the Church of Smyrna, having Polycarp whom John did consecrate.” Catalogues of bishops in a number of other churches, ²⁷(bishops, and succeeding one another) from the very apostles’ times, are by Eusebius and Socrates collected; whereby it appeareth so clear, as nothing in the world more, that under them and by their appointment this order began, which maketh many presbyters subject unto the regiment of some one bishop. For as in Rome while the civil ordering of the commonwealth was jointly and equally in the hands of two consuls, historical records concerning them did evermore mention them both, and note which two as colleagues succeeded from time to time; so there is no doubt but ecclesiastical antiquity had done the very like, had not one pastor’s place and calling been always so eminent above the rest in the same church.

And what need we to seek far for proofs that the apostles, who began this order of regiment of bishops, did it not but by divine instinct, when without such direction things of far less weight and moment they attempted not? Paul and Barnabas did not open their mouths to the Gentiles, till the Spirit had said²⁸, “Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have sent them.” The eunuch by Philip²⁹ was neither baptized nor instructed before the angel of God was sent to give him notice that so it pleased the Most High. In Asia³⁰, Paul and the rest were silent, because the Spirit forbade them to speak. When they intended to have seen Bithynia³¹ they stayed their journey, the Spirit not giving them leave to go. Before Timothy³² was employed in those episcopal affairs of the Church, about which the Apostle St. Paul used him, the Holy Ghost gave special charge for his ordination, and prophetical intelligence more than once, what success the same would have. And shall we think that James was made bishop of Jerusalem, Evodius bishop of the church of Antioch, the Angels in the churches of Asia bishops, that bishops every where were appointed to take away factions, contentions, and schisms, without some like divine instigation and direction of the Holy Ghost? Wherefore let us not fear to be herein bold and peremptory, that if any thing in the Church’s government, surely the first institution of bishops was from heaven, was even of God, the Holy Ghost was the author of it³³.

---

← From whence it hath grown that the Church is · Contents · What manner of power Bishops from the first →

Footnotes

1. Acts xx. 36, 37. ↩

2. Acts xx. 28. ↩

3. As appeareth both by his sending to call the presbyters of Ephesus before him as far as to Miletum (Acts xx. 17) which was almost fifty miles, and by his leaving Timothy in his place with his authority and instructions for ordaining of ministers there (1 Tim. v. 22); and for proportioning their maintenance (ver. 17, 18); and for judicial hearing of accusations brought against them (ver. 19) and for holding them in an uniformity of doctrine (ch. i. 3). ↩

4. Acts xx. 30. ↩

5. Rev. ii. ↩

6. Cypr. iv. Epist. 9. [al. ep. 66. c. 6.] ↩

7. Hieron. epist. ad Evag. [101. ad Evang. “Cum Apostolus perspicue doceat, eosdem esse presbyteros, quos et episcopos… . Quod autem postea unus electus est, qui cæteris præponeretur, in schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi ecclesiam rumperet.”] ↩

8. Exod. xviii. 19. ↩

9. Ep. ad Januar. [108. al. 54. c. i. t. ii. 124.] ↩

10. Ep. ci. ad Evagr. [ad Evan. § 1. “Nam et Alexandriæ a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium episcopos, presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiore gradu collocatum, episcopum nominabant.”] ↩

11. T. C. lib. i. p. 82. “It is to be observed that Jerome saith, it was so in Alexandria; signifying that in other churches it was not so.” ↩

12. [Euseb. E. H. vii. 11.] ↩

13. [Id. vii. 32.] ↩

14. Socr. E. H. i. 5. ↩

15. [Ibid. Καί ποτε παρόντων τω̑ν ὑπ’ αὐτὸν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τω̑ν λοιπω̑ν κληρικω̑ν, ϕιλοτιμότερον περὶ τη̑ς ἁγίας Τριάδος, ἐν Τριάδι Μονάδα εἰ̑ναι ϕιλοσοϕω̑ν, ἐθεολόγει. Ἄρειος δέ τις πρεσβύτερος τω̑ν ὑπ’ αὐτὸν ταττομένων, ἀνὴρ οὐκ ἄμοιρος τη̑ς διαλεκτικη̑ς λέσχης … γοργω̑ς ὑπήντῃσε πρὸς τὰ παρὰ του̑ ἐπισκόπου λεχθέντα.] ↩

16. Unto Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, Hero a deacon there was made successor. [Euseb. E. H. iv. 36. 3. Ign. ep. adscr. ad Heron. t. ii. p. 108, ed. Coteler.] Chrysostom, being a presbyter of Antioch, was chosen to succeed Nectarius in the bishopric of Constantinople. [Soc. vi. 2.] ↩

17. [Ep. cxlvi. ad Evag. “Quid patitur mensarum ac viduarum minister, ut supra eos se tumidus efferat, ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur? …Manifestissime comprobatur, eundem esse episcopum atque presbyterum. Quod autem postea unus electus est, qui cæteris præponeretur, in schismatis remedium factum est… . Nam et Alexandriæ … presbyteri semper unum ex se electum … episcopum nominabant … Nec altera Romanæ urbis ecclesia, altera totius orbis existimanda est. Et Galliæ, et Britanniæ, et Africa, et Persis, et Oriens, et India, et omnes barbaræ nationes unum Christum adorant, unam observant regulam veritatis. Si auctoritas quæritur, orbis major est urbe. Ubicunque fuerit episcopus, sive Romæ, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandriæ, sive Tanis, ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii. Potentia divitiarum et paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem episcopum non facit … Sed dices, quomodo Romæ ad testimonium diaconi presbyter ordinatur? Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuetudinem? Quid paucitatem, de qua ortum est supercilium, in leges Ecclesiæ vindicas? … Diaconos paucitas honorabiles, presbyteros turba contemptibiles facit. Cæterum etiam in ecclesia Romæ, presbyteri sedent et stant diaconi… . Qui provehitur, de minori ad majus provehitur. Aut igitur ex presbytero ordinetur diaconus, ut presbyter minor diacono comprobetur; aut si ex diacono ordinatur presbyter, noverit se lucris minorem, sacerdotio esse majorem. Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumtas de veteri Testamento; quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levitæ in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi episcopi et presbyteri et diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia.” t. i. 1074-77, ed. Vallars.] ↩

18. V. 5. [t. vii. 694 E. “Antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in ecclesia [religione] fierent, et diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephæ; communi presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiæ gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur cæteris, ad quem omnis ecclesiæ cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur.” Saravia remarks on this passage, “Quod hic dicitur communi presbyterorum consilio ecclesias in principio fuisse gubernatas, non diffiteor: sed hoc non arguit dominicæ institutionis episcopos non fuisse postea præpositos ecclesiæ, non magis quam presbyteros et diaconos non ex ordinatione divina creatos ab Apostolis, quia ecclesiæ absque presbyteris et diaconis sub apostolis regebantur, antequam crearentur diaconi et presbyteri.” c. 23. p. 51. “Inde non sequitur, ab apostolis, ubi viros idoneos Deus dederit, non fuisse præfectos singulis ecclesiis singulos episcopos supra ipsos presbyteros, qui in apostolorum locum succederent, et illa eadem præstarent, quæ ipsi præstitissent, si ubique semper præsentes ecclesiis adesse, aut semper vivere potuissent.” p. 52.] ↩

19. [Sarav. Tract on diverse Degrees of Ministers, Eng. Transl. p. 65. Lond. 1591. “But now those factions begun under the apostles, and therefore that custom began in good time, and the Apostles themselves for the avoiding of schism altered (if not abrogated) the Lord’s institution. The which, methinks, were more than absurd to say. Our Saviour, no doubt, who is the wisdom of His Father, knew much better than the Apostles what was needful and commodious for the preventing of schism. Whom as it did not beseem to seem more wise than their master, so was it not their parts for the default of one church to alter God’s institution. Again, how knew Hierome, that before those schisms brake forth the church of Corinth had their elders, by whose council they were ruled … Neither do we read at any time that the elders of the church of Corinth gave the occasion of this schism, but that it was taken of the people by reason of that opinion they had of their pastors and elders … . They for whose sake this schism was set abroad at Corinth were not at Corinth: so that for the avoiding of this schism the elders which were to be set in some better order under one bishop were Paul himself and Apollos and Cephas,” &c. And p. 67. “The error of Hierom and Aërius grew of the … confused use of these titles (a Bishop and an Elder) as they were then in use. But when the same thing befalleth the title of an Apostle also, is it not strange that they should rather err in the one than the other? For whereas Barnabas, Epaphroditus, and many others are called apostles; yet no man thereby ever thought that there was no difference between them and the twelve apostles.”] ↩

20. Ibid. v. 5. [vii. 695 E. “Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiæ consuetudine ei qui sibi præpositus fuerit, esse subjectos; ita episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis Dominicæ veritate, Presbyteris esse majores, et in commune debere Ecclesiam regere.”] ↩

21. Bishops he meaneth by restraint; for episcopal power was always in the Church instituted by Christ himself, the apostles being in government bishops at large; as no man will deny;—having received from Christ himself that episcopal authority. For which cause Cyprian hath said of them: “Meminisse diaconi debent quoniam apostolos, id est episcopos et præpositos, Dominus elegit: diaconos autem post ascensum Domini in cœlos apostoli sibi constituerunt episcopatus sui et ecclesiæ ministros.” Lib. iii. Ep. 9. [al. Ep. 3. c. 2.] ↩

22. • [A new paragraph begins here in Gauden’s ed.]
    ↩

23. [It is obvious that this sentence is an insertion by mistake into the text of a note on the rough draft of the work, either by Hooker or by some friend (most probably the latter): according to the remark of Dr. Mac Crie, Life of Melville, vol. i. p. 462. The following sentences, down to “perpetual continuance thereof,” are by Gauden printed in Italics, probably because he found them underscored in Hooker’s MS. But the sense, it is apprehended, will be more exactly given by omitting the Italics, (which were probably an insertion of the critic,) and reading the whole as one paragraph with the exception of the supposed marginal note.] ↩

24. [Saravia’s remark however is, “Privatam fuisse Hieronymi opinionem, consentaneam cum Aërio, et Dei verbo contrariam.” c. 23.] ↩

25. Lib. ii. Hæres. 66. [c. 20.] ↩

26. De Præscript. advers. Hæret. [c. 32. “Edant ergo origines ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis, vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveraverit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiæ apostolicæ census suos deferunt: sicut Smyrnæorum Ecclesia Polycarpum ab Joanne conlocatum refert.”] ↩

27. • [So printed, as a parenthesis, in Gauden’s ed.]
    ↩

28. Acts xiii. 2. ↩

29. Acts viii. 26. ↩

30. Acts xvi. 6. ↩

31. Ver. 7. ↩

32. 1 Tim. 1. 18. ↩

33. [Sutcliffe de Presbyt. 119. “Ex istis hæ eliciuntur conclusiones: episcoporum supra presbyteros gradum, cum a synodis confirmetur, a Patribus tanquam divina probetur, cœperitque Apostolorum temporibus, et nunquam nisi nuper, a nuper exortis tenebrionibus condemnata fuerit, omnesque qui contra senserunt pro hæreticis habiti sint: divinam esse ejusdem originem; presbyterium vero, cum a synodis et Patribus ignoretur, figmentum esse humanum.”] ↩