Section 14
My satisfaction to objections comes next to be scanned; objections, which would to God they were only of my own framing.
In the first, that Episcopacy is no prejudice of Sovereignty, I justly prove, for that there is a compatibility in this case of God's act, and the King's. It is God that makes the Bishop, the King that gives the Bishopric: what can you say to this?
You tell us you have already proved that God never made a bishop, as he stands in superiority over Presbyters, so you told us; and that is enough, we were hard hearted if we would not believe you: whereas we have made good by undeniable proofs, that (besides the grounds which our Saviour laid of this disparity) the blessed Apostles by inspiration from God, made this difference in a personal ordaining of some above the rest, and giving express charge of Ordination and Jurisdiction to those select persons, in Church government, the Bishops have ever since succeeded.
Tell us not therefore, that if we disclaim the influence of Sovereignty into our Creation, and assert that the King does not make us Bishops, we must have no being at all; for, that the Reader may see you stop your own mouth; answer me, I beseech you, Where, or when ever did the King create a Bishop? Name the man, and take the cause. It pleases his Majesty to give his Congé d'élire for a Bishop's Election to his See, to signify his Royal assent thereto; upon which the Bishop is solemnly ordained by the imposition of the hands of the Metropolitan, and other his Brethren; and these do, as from God, invest him in his holy Calling, which he exercises in that place, which is designed and given by his Majesty: what can be more plain than this truth? As for that unworthy censure which you pass upon the just comparison of Kings in order to Bishops, and Patrons in order to their Clerks, it shall be acknowledged, well deserved, if you shall be able to make good the disparity; when he shall prove (you say) that the Patron gives Ministerial power to his Clerk, as the King gives Episcopal power to the Bishop, it may be of some conducement to his cause: shortly, brethren, the same day that you shall show me that the King ordained a bishop, the same day will I show you that a Patron ordained a Presbyter: the Patron gives the benefice to the one, the King gives the bishopric to the other: neither of them do give the Office, or Calling to either. Go you therefore with your Friar Simon, to your Cell, and consult with your Convent for more reason and wit, than you show in this, and the next scornful Paragraph; wherein while you flout at my modest concession with an unbecoming slight, you are content silently to balk that my second answer, which you know was too hot, or too heavy for your satisfaction.
In the second; the imputation pretended to be cast by this Tenet upon all the reformed Churches, which lack this government, I endeavored so to satisfy, that I might justly decline the envy, which is intended to be thereby raised against us: for which cause, I professed that we do love and honor those our sister Churches, as the dear spouse of Christ, and give zealous testimonies of my well wishing to them.
Your uncharitableness offers to choke me with those scandalous censures, and disgraceful terms which some of ours have let fall upon those Churches, and their eminent professors, which I confess, it is more easy to be sorry for, than (on some hands) to excuse; the error of a few may not be imputed to all.
My just defense is that no such consequent can be drawn from our opinion; for as much as the Divine or Apostolic right, which we hold, goes not so high, as if there were an express command, that upon an absolute necessity there must be either Episcopacy, or no Church; but so far only, that it both may and ought to be; how fain would you here find me in a contradiction? While I in one place reckon Episcopacy among matters essential to the Church, in another place deny it to be of the essence thereof; wherein you willingly hide your eyes that you may not see the distinction that I make expressly between the Being and Well-being of a Church: affirming that those Churches, to whom this power and faculty is denied, lose nothing of the true essence of a Church, though they miss something of their glory, and perfection.
No, Brethren, it is enough for some of your friends to hold their Discipline altogether essential to the very being of a Church; we dare not be so zealous.
The question which you ask concerning the reason of the different entertainment, given in our Church to priests converted to us from Rome, and to Ministers, who in Queen Mary's days had received Imposition of hands in Reformed Churches abroad, is merely personal; neither can challenge my decision; only I give you these two answers; that whatever fault may be in the easy admittance of those, who have received Romish Orders, the sticking at the admission of our brethren returning from Reformed Churches, was not in case of Ordination; but of Institution: they had been acknowledged Ministers of Christ, without any other hands laid upon them, but according to the Laws of our Land they were not, perhaps, capable of institution to a benefice, unless they were so qualified, as the Statutes of this realm do require; and secondly I know those, more than one, that by virtue only of that Ordination, which they have brought with them from other Reformed Churches, have enjoyed Spiritual Promotions and Livings without any exception against the lawfulness of their calling.
The confident affirmation which you allege of the learned bishop of Norwich is no rule to us; I leave him to his own defense; you think I have too much work on my hand to give satisfaction for myself in these two main Questions which arise from my book.
What high points shall we now expect, I wonder?
First, whether that office, which by divine right has sole power of ordination, and ruling all other officers of the Church (which he says Episcopacy has) belong not to the being, but only to the glory, and perfection of a Church: Can we tell what these men would have? Have they a mind to go beyond us in asserting that necessity, and essential use of Episcopacy, which we dare not avow? Do they not care to lose their cause, so they may cross an adversary? For your question, you still talk of sole ordination, and sole jurisdiction; you may (if you please) keep that pair of soles for your next shoes: We contend not for such a height of propriety, neither do we practice it; they are so ours, that they should not be without us, as we have formerly showed; that therefore there should be a power of lawful ordination and government in every settled Church, it is no less than necessary, but that in whatever case of extremity, and irresistible necessity, this should be only done by Episcopal hands, we never meant to affirm: it is enough that regularly it should be their act.
Your second question is, there being (in this man's thoughts) the same jus Divinum for Bishops, that there is for Pastors and Elders, whether, if those Reformed Churches wanted Pastors and Elders too, they should want nothing of the essence of a Church; but of the perfection, and glory of it: The answer is ready: if those Reformed Churches, wanting those whom you call pastors and Elders, did yet enjoy the government, by Bishops, Priests and Deacons, they should be so far from wanting anything of the essence of a Church, that they should herein attain to much glory and perfection: and so much for your deep questions.
The presumptuous Remonstrant would seem to know so much of the mind of those Churches, that he says, if they might have their option, he doubts not but they would gladly embrace Episcopal government; a foul imputation which your zeal must needs wipe off; for which purpose you bring the confessions of the French, and Dutch Churches, averring the truth, and justifiableness of their own government; for which they have good reason: neither shall you herein expect my contradiction; nor yet my present labor of reconciling their government, and ours in the main and material points of both. This condition they are in, and they do well to defend it, but they did not tell you they would not (if opportunity were offered) be content with a better; I am deceived if their own public constitutions be not still concluded with the power of a change; and I have elsewhere showed out of Fregevillaeus, that this order of government was in their Churches at first only provisional; and instanced in those testimonies of approbation, which their learned divines have freely given to our form of administration; which I shall not now stand either to repeat, or multiply: let it be enough for the present to say, that upon my certain knowledge, many eminent divines of the Churches abroad have earnestly wished themselves in our condition, and have applauded and magnified our Church, as the most famous, exemplary and glorious Church in the whole Christian world: so as I wanted not good reason, for that which you are pleased to style presumptuous assertion.
But the reason of my assertion is yet so more offensive, that you wonder how it could fall from my pen:
That there is little difference in the government of other Protestant Churches and our own, save in the perpetuity of their moderatorship, and the exclusion of lay Elders; a passage, as you say, of admirable absurdity. But soft, brethren, I am afraid, first, lest you speak of what you know not; I speak not only of the next Churches of France, and the Netherlands, I speak of them in a generality, as one that (if this place would bear it) could give a particular account of them all: neither can your cavils work my repentance. You tell me of the Moderator in Geneva (as if all the Church of God were included in those strait walls) I could tell you of the superintendents of the Churches of Germany, of the Prepositi in the Churches of Weteraw, Hessia, Anhalt, of the Seniores, in Transylvania, Polonia, Bohemia; but what of the Moderator in Geneva? He is not of a superior order to his brethren; but let me tell you, when Master Calvin was Moderator there, as he constantly was for many years, no Bishop in England swayed more, than he did in that Church: and even in the Low Countries how much the Deputati Synodi, after they had been frequently employed in those services, (as for instance, my ancient and truly reverend friend Mr. Bogermannus) prevailed, and with what authority they carry the affairs of the Church, it is not hard to understand; for those other circumstances, which you are pleased to mention, were the moderatorship perpetual; they would soon accordingly vary; and if not so, yet you may remember, that I said not, no difference at all, but, little, of which your well-affectedness to our government can make this use, that then the abrogation of Episcopacy will be wrought with the less difficulty, and occasion the less disturbance. The old word is: welfare a friend in a corner; still you are for the destructive; none but the Babylonian note sounds well in your ear, Down with it, down with it, even to the ground: but the God of Heaven whose cause it is, will, we hope, vindicate his own ordinance, so long perpetuated to his Church, from all your violent and subtle machinations, and prevent the utmost danger of your already sufficiently raised disturbance.