being over-far pressed with the apostles' example, they can answer, "That which was done by the people once upon special causes, when the church was not yet established, is not to be made a rule for the constant and continual ordering of the church." In defence of their own election, although they do not therein depend on the people so much as the apostles in the choice of deacons, they think it a very sufficient apology, that there were special considerations why deacons at that time should be chosen by the whole church, but not so now. In excuse of dissimilitudes between their own and the apostles' discipline, they are contented to use this answer, "That many things were done in the apostles' times, before the settling of the church which afterward the church was not tied to observe." For countenance of their own proceedings, wherein their governors do more than the apostles, and their people less than under the apostles the first churches are found to have done at the making of ecclesiastical officers, they deem it a marvellous reasonable kind of pleading to say, "That even as in commonweals, when the multitude have once chosen many, or one to rule over them, the right which was at the first in the whole body of the people, is now derived unto those many, or that one which is so chosen; and that this being done, it is not the whole multitude, to whom the administration of such public affairs any longer appertaineth, but that which they did, their rulers may now do lawfully without them: after the selfsame manner it standeth with the church also."

How easy and plain might we make our defence, how clear and allowable even unto them, if we could but obtain of them to admit the same things consonant unto equity in our mouths, which they require to be so taken from their own! If that which is truth, being uttered in maintenance of Scotland and Geneva, do not cease to be truth when the church of England once allegeth it, this great crime of tyranny, wherewith we are charged, hath a plain and an easy defence. Yea, but we do not all ask the people's approbation, which they do, whereby they shew themselves more indifferent and more free from taking away the people's right. Indeed, when their lay-elders have chosen whom they think good, and the people's consent thereunto is asked, and if they give their approbation, the thing standeth warranted for sound and good. But if not, is the former choice overthrown?

Dis.

p. 41.

No, but the people are to yield to reason; and if they which have made the choice do so like the people's reason, as to reverse their own deed at the hearing of it, then a new election to be made; otherwise the former to stand, notwithstanding the people's negative and dislike. What is this Eccles. else but to deal with the people, as those nurses do with infants, whose mouths they besmear with the backside of the spoon, as though they had fed them, when they themselves do devour the food? They cry in the ears of the people, that all men's consent should be had unto that which concerns all; they make the people believe we wrong them, and deprive them of their right in making ministers, whereas with us the people have commonly far more sway and force than with them. For inasmuch as there are but two main things observed in every ecclesiastical function, power to exercise the duty itself, and some charge of people whereon to exercise the same; the former of these is received at the hands of the whole visible catholic church. For it is not any one particular multitude that can give power, the force whereof may reach far and wide indefinitely, as the power of order doth, which whoso hath once received, there is no action which belongeth thereunto, but he may exercise effectually the same in any part of the world without iterated ordination. They whom the whole church hath from the beginning used as her agents in conferring this power, are not either one or more of the laity, and therefore it hath not been heard of that ever any such were allowed to ordain ministers: only persons ecclesiastical, and they, in place of calling, superiors both unto deacons and unto presbyters; only such persons ecclesiastical have been authorized to ordain both, and give them the power of order, in the name of the whole church. Such were the apostles, such was Timothy, such was Titus, such are bishops. Not that there is between these no difference, but that they all agree in pre-eminence of place above both presbyters and deacons, whom they otherwise might not ordain.2 Now whereas hereupon some do infer, that no ordination can stand but only such as is made by bishops, which have had their ordination likewise by other bishops before them, till we come to the very apostles of Christ themselves. In which respect it was demanded of Beza at Poissie, "By what

a Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior ordinaret majorem. Comment. q. Ambros. tribuuntur, in 1 Tim. 3.

authority he could administer the holy sacraments, being not thereunto ordained by any other than Calvin, or by such as to whom the power of ordination did not belong, according to the ancient order and customs of the church; sith Calvin and they who joined with him in that action were no bishops:" and Athanasius maintaineth the fact of Macarius a presbyter, which overthrew the holy table whereat one Ischyras would have ministered the blessed sacrament, having not been consecrated thereunto by laying on of some bishops' hands, according to the ecclesiastical canons; as also Epiphanius inveigheth sharply against divers for doing the like, when they had not episcopal ordination. To this we answer, that there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a bishop. The whole church visible being the true original subject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than bishops alone to ordain: howbeit, as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may be in some cases not unnecessary that we decline from the ordinary ways. Men may be extraordinarily, yet allowably two ways, admitted into spiritual function in the church. One is, when God himself doth of himself raise up any, whose labour he useth without requiring that men should authorize them. But then he doth ratify their calling by manifest signs and tokens himself from heaven. And thus even such as believed not our Saviour's teaching, did yet acknowledge him a lawful teacher sent from God: "Thou art a teacher sent from God, otherwise none could do those things which thou dost do." Luther did but reasonably therefore, in declaring that the senate of Melheuse should do well to ask of Muncer, from whence he received power to teach? who it was that had called him? and if his answer were, that God had given him his charge, then to require at his hands some evident sign thereof for men's satisfaction: because so God is wont, when he himself is the author of any extraordinary calling. Another extraordinary kind of vocation is, when the exigence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual ways of the church, which otherwise we would willingly keep where the church must needs have some ordained, and neither hath, nor can have possibly, a bishop, to ordain; in case of such necessity, the ordinary institution of God hath given oftentimes, and may give place. And therefore we are

3 Ἐπισκοπῆς χειροθεσίαν.

not, simply without exception, to urge a lineal descent of power from the apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination. These cases of inevitable necessity excepted, none may ordain but only bishops: by the imposition of their hands it is, that the church giveth power of order, both unto presbyters and deacons. Now, when that power so received is once to have any certain subject whereon it may work, and whereunto it is to be tied, here cometh in the people's consent, and not before. The power of order I may lawfully receive, without asking leave of any multitude; but that power I cannot exercise upon any one certain people utterly against their wills; neither is there in the church of England any man, by order of law, possessed with pastoral charge over any parish, but the people in effect do choose him thereunto. For, albeit they choose not by giving every man personally his particular voice, yet can they not say, that they have their pastors violently obtruded upon them, inasmuch as their ancient and original interest therein, hath been by orderly means derived into the patron who chooseth for them. And if any man be desirous to know how patrons came to have such interest, we are to consider, that at the first erection of churches, it seemed but reasonable in the eyes of the whole Christian world, to pass that right to them and their successors, on whose soil and at whose charge the same were founded. This all men gladly and willingly did, both in honour of so great piety, and for encouragement of many others unto the like, who peradventure else would have been as slow to erect churches, or to endow them, as we are forward both to spoil them, and to pull them down.

It is no true assertion therefore, in such sort as the pretended reformers mean it, "That all ministers of God's word ought to be made by consent of many, that is to say, by the people's suffrages; that ancient bishops neither did nor might ordain otherwise; and that ours do herein usurp a far greater power than was, or then lawfully could have been, granted unto bishops which were of old." Furthermore, as touching spiritual jurisdiction, our bishops, they say, do that which of all things is most intolerable, and which the ancient never did; "Our bishops excommunicate and release alone, whereas the censures of the church neither ought, nor were wont to be, administered otherwise than by consent of many." Their meaning here, when they speak of many, is not as before it

Concil. Carthag. 4. c. 23.

was when they hold that ministers should be made with consent of many, they understand by many, the multitude, or common people; but in requiring that many should evermore join with the bishop in the administration of church censures, they mean by many, a few lay-elders, chosen out of the rest of the people to that purpose. This, they say, is ratified by ancient councils, by ancient bishops this was practised. And Cypr. l.iii. the reason hereof, as Beza supposeth, was, "Because if the Ep. 10.14. 1..Ep. 8. power of ecclesiastical censures did belong unto any one, there would this great inconvenience follow; ecclesiastical regiment should be changed into mere tyranny, or else into a civil royalty: therefore no one, either bishop or presbyter, should or can alone exercise that power, but with his ecclesiastical consistory he ought to do it, as may appear by the old discipline."

And is it possible, that one so grave and judicious should think it in earnest tyranny for a bishop to excommunicate, whom law and order hath authorized so to do? or be persuaded, that ecclesiastical regiment degenerateth into civil regality, when one is allowed to do that which hath been at any time the deed of more? Surely, far meaner witted men than the world accounteth Mr. Beza, do easily perceive, that tyranny is power violently exercised against order, against law; and that the difference of these two regiments, ecclesiastical and civil, consisteth in the matter about which the actions of each are conversant; and not in this, that civil royalty admitteth but one, ecclesiastical government requireth many supreme correctors. Which allegation, were it true, would prove no more than only, that some certain number is necessary for the assistance of the bishop: but that a number of such as they do require is necessary, how doth it prove? Wherefore, albeit bishops should now do the very same which the ancients did, using the college of presbyters under them as their assistants, when they administer church-censures, yet should they still swerve utterly from that which these men so busily labour for, because the agents whom they require to assist in those cases, are a sort of layelders, such as no ancient bishop ever was assisted with.

Shall these fruitless jars and janglings never cease? shall we never see end of them? How much happier were the world if those eager taskmasters, whose eyes are so curious and sharp in discerning what should be done by many, and