regiment doth now seem a yoke so heavy to bear, will be longed for again, even by them that are the readiest to have it taken off their necks. But in the hands of Divine Providence we leave the ordering of all such events, and come now to the question itself which is raised concerning bishops. For the better understanding whereof, we must beforehand set down what is meant, when in this question we name a bishop.

II. For whatsoever we bring from antiquity, by way of de- What a bishop is, fence in this cause of bishops, it is cast off as impertinent what his matter; all is wiped away with an odd kind of shifting answer; name doth import, and That the bishops which now are, be not like unto them what doth We therefore beseech all indifferent judges to belong to

which were.

his office, weigh sincerely with themselves how the case doth stand. If as he is it should be at this day a controversy, whether kingly regi- a bishop. ment were lawful or no; peradventure in defence thereof, the long continuance which it hath had sithence the first beginning might be alleged; mention perhaps might be made what kings there were of old, even in Abraham's time, what sovereign princes both before and after. Suppose that herein some man, purposely bending his wit against sovereignty, should think to elude all such allegations by making ample discovery through a number of particularities; wherein the kings that are do differ from those that have been, and should therefore in the end conclude, that such ancient examples are no convenient proofs of that royalty which is now in use. Surely for decision of truth in this case there were no remedy, but only to shew the nature of sovereignty; to sever it from accidental properties; to make it clear that ancient and present regality are one and the same in substance, how great odds soever otherwise may seem to be between them. In like manner, whereas a question of late hath grown, whether ecclesiastical regiment by bishops be lawful in the church of Christ or no; in which question, they that hold the negative, being pressed with that generally-received order, accordingly whereunto the most renowned lights of the Christian world have governed the same in every age as bishops; seeing their manner is to reply, that such bishops as those ancient were, ours are not; there is no remedy but to shew, that to be a bishop is now the self-same thing which it hath been; that one definition agreeth fully and truly as well to those elder, as to these latter bishops. Sundry dissimilitudes we grant

there are, which notwithstanding are not such that they cause any equivocation in the name, whereby we should think a bishop in those times to have had a clean other definition than doth rightly agree unto bishops as they are now. Many things there are in the state of bishops, which the times have changed; many a parsonage at this day is larger than some ancient bishoprics were; many an ancient bishop poorer than at this day sundry under them in degree. The simple hereupon, lacking judgment and knowledge to discern between the nature of things which changeth not, and these outward variable accidents, are made believe that a bishop heretofore and now are things in their very nature so distinct that they cannot be judged the same. Yet to men that have any part of skill, what more evident and plain in bishops, than that augmentation or diminution in their precincts, allowances, privileges, and such like, do make a difference indeed; but no essential difference between one bishop and another? As for those things, in regard whereof we use properly to term them bishops; those things, whereby they essentially differ from other pastors; those things which the natural definition of a bishop must contain; what one of them is there more or less appliable unto bishops now than of old? The name bishop hath been borrowed from the Grecians, with whom it signifieth, one which hath principal charge to guide and oversee others. The same word in ecclesiastical writings being applied unto church governors, at the first unto all, and not unto the chiefest only, grew in Phil. i. 1. short time peculiar and proper to signify such episcopal authority alone, as the chiefest governors exercised over the rest; for with all names this is usual, that inasmuch as they are not given, till the things whereunto they are given have been sometime first observed; therefore generally, things are ancienter than the names whereby they are called.

Acts xx.

Again, sith the first things that grow into general observation, and do thereby give men occasion to find name for them, are those which being in many subjects are thereby the easier,

• Οἱ παρ ̓ ̓Αθηναίων εἰς τὰς ὑπηκόους πόλεις ἐπισκέψασθαι τὰ παρ' ἑκάστοις πεμπόμενοι, ἐπίσκοποι καὶ φύλακες ἐκαλοῦντο, οὓς οἱ Λάκωνες ἁρμοστὰς ἔλεγον. Suid. Κατέστησεν ἐφ ̓ ἑκάστοις τῶν πάγων ἄρχοντα ἐπίσκοπόν τε καὶ περίπολον τῆς ἰδίας μοίρας. Dionys. Halicar. de Numa Pompilio, Antiq. lib. ii. Vult me Pompeius esse quem tota hæc Campania et maritima ora habeat Ἐπίσκοπον, ad quem delectus et negotii summa referatur. Cic. ad Attic. lib. vii. Epist. 11.

And God brought them unto Adam, that Adam might see or consider what name it was meet he should give unto them. Gen ii. 19.

the oftener, and the more universally noted; it followeth, the names imposed to signify common qualities of operations are ancienter, than is the restraint of those names, to note an excellency of such qualities and operations in some one or few amongst others. For example, the name disciple being invented to signify generally a learner, it cannot choose but in that signification be more ancient than when it signifies, as it were by a kind of appropriation, those learners who, being taught of Christ, were in that respect termed disciples by an excellency. The like is to be seen in the name apostle, the use whereof to signify a messenger, must needs be more ancient than that use which restraineth it unto messengers sent concerning evangelical affairs; yea this use more ancient than that whereby the same word is yet restrained farther to signify only those whom our Saviour himself immediately did send. After the same manner the title or name of a bishop, having been used of old to signify both an ecclesiastical overseer in general, and more particularly also, a principal ecclesiastical overseer; it followeth, that this latter restrained signification is not so ancient as the former, being more common. Yet because the things themselves are always ancienter than their names; therefore that thing, which the restrained use of the word doth import, is likewise ancienter than the restraint of the word is; and consequently, that power of chief ecclesiastical overseers, which the term of a bishop doth import, was before the restrained use of the name which doth import it. Wherefore a lame and impotent kind of reasoning it is, when men go about to prove, that in the apostles' times there was no such thing as the restrained name of a bishop doth now signify; because in their writings there is found no restraint of that name, but only a general use, whereby it reacheth unto all spiritual governors and over

seers.

But, to let go the name, and come to the very nature of that thing which is thereby signified. In all kinds of regiment, whether ecclesiastical or civil, as there are sundry operations public, so likewise great inequality there is in the same operations, some being of principal respect, and therefore not fit to be dealt in by every one to whom public ac

In bishops

traduced;

two the one

it the first

tions, and those of good importance, are notwithstanding well and fitly enough committed. From hence have grown those different degrees of magistrates or public persons, even ecclesiastical as well as civil. Amongst ecclesiastical persons, therefore, bishops being chief ones, a bishop's function must be defined by that wherein his chiefly consisteth. A bishop is a minister of God, unto whom with permanent continuance, there is given, not only power of administering the word and sacraments, which power other presbyters have; but also a farther power to ordain ecclesiastical persons, and a power of chiefty in government over presbyters as well as laymen, a power to be by way of jurisdiction a pastor even to pastors themselves. So that this office, as he is a presbyter or pastor, consisteth in those things which are common unto him with other pastors, as in ministering the word and sacraments; but those things incident unto his office, which do properly make him a bishop, cannot be common unto him with other pastors. Now even as pastors, so likewise bishops being principal pastors, are either at large or else with restraint: at large, when the subject of their regiment is indefinite, and not tied to any certain place; bishops with restraint are they, whose regiment over the church is contained within some definite, local compass, beyond which compass their jurisdiction reacheth not. Such therefore we always mean, when we speak of that regiment by bishops, which we hold a thing most lawful, divine and holy, in the church of Christ.

III. In our present regiment by bishops two things are tradings complained of: the one their great authority, and the other of which their great honour. Touching the authority of our bishops, their autho- the first thing which therein displeaseth their adversaries, is rity; and in the superiority which bishops have over other ministers. They thing con- which cannot brook the superiority which bishops have, demned, do notwithstanding themselves admit, that some kind of difthority over ference and inequality there may be lawfully amongst minisother minis- ters. Inequality as touching gifts and graces they grant, bekind of su- cause this is so plain, that no mist in the world can be cast periority in before men's eyes so thick, but that they must needs discern is which the through it, that one minister of the gospel may be more learnone part holdeth, ed, holier and wiser; better able to instruct, more apt to rule and the and guide them than another: unless thus much were coneth lawful. fessed, those men should lose their fame and glory whom they themselves do entitle the lights and grand worthies of

ters. What

ministers it

other deni

1

this present age. Again, a priority of order they deny not, but that there may be; yea, such a priority as maketh one man amongst many a principal actor in those things whereunto sundry of them must necessarily concur, so that the same be admitted only during the time of such actions, and no longer; that is to say, just so much superiority, and neither more nor less may be liked of, than it hath pleased them in their own kind of regiment to set down. The inequality which they complain of is, that one minister of the word and sacraments should have a permanent superiority above another, or in any sort a superiority of power mandatory, judicial, and coercive, over other ministers. By us, on the contrary side, inequality, even such inequality as unto bishops, being ministers of the word and sacraments, granteth a superiority permanent above ministers, yea a permanent superiority of power mandatory, judicial, and coercive over them, is maintained a thing allowable, lawful and good. For, superiority of power may be either above them or upon them, in regard of whom it is termed superiority. One pastor hath superiority of power above another, when either some are authorized to do things worthier than are permitted unto all; some are preferred to be principal agents, the rest agents with dependency and subordination. The former of these two kinds of superiority is such as the high-priest had above other priests of the law, in being appointed to enter once a year the holy place, which the rest of the priests might not do. The latter superiority, such as presidents have in those actions which are done by others with them, they nevertheless being principal and chief therein. One pastor hath superiority of power, not only above, but upon another, when some are subject unto others' commandment and judicial controlment by virtue of public jurisdiction. Superiority in this last kind is utterly denied to be allowable; in the rest it is only denied, that the lasting continuance and settled permanency thereof is lawful. So that if we prove at all the lawfulness of superiority in this last kind, where the same is simply denied, and of permanent superiority in the rest, where some kind of superiority is granted, but with restraint to the term and continuance of certain actions, with which the same must, as they say, expire and cease; if we can shew these two things maintainable, we bear up sufficiently that which the adverse party endeavoureth to overthrow. Our desire there