§ 1. Nothing is more opposed to license, novelty, and sedition than an order of judgments and magistracies founded upon laws; the man who introduces new dogmas must stand against it. For this reason I said above that all sectarians rise up against ecclesiastical magistracy. They cry out that everything contrary to their lust is tyrannical, and disparage every authority as proud.
Some of these, such as the Genevans, insist upon equality among ministers: neither presbyter is to command presbyter, nor Bishop, nor Archbishop. And, so that they may remove every suspicion of tyranny, they abolish the offices themselves from their midst. Others relegate the censure of morals to political magistrates. Others retain the thing itself but reject its name; for they call them superintendents and general superintendents, not Archbishops or Patriarchs. Finally, the more prudent retain both the thing and the names, as do the Britons, who have Primates and Bishops and at the highest summit, or “supremacy,” as they are accustomed to call it, the King himself is placed.
The Britons therefore make the greatest account of this matter and place in it the hinge of their Gospel. Thus Adrian Saravia in the preface to the English Bishops:
In my treatise On the Different Ranks of the Ministers of the Gospel, whatever men may think, I had in mind not only to defend Your dignities, but also, if not to remove, at least to diminish, the offenses given in many places by our men to the Bishops of all the Churches of Christ, both in France and in Germany, and to other learned men not ignorant of the government of the ancient Church; and I endeavored to soothe the wound—which those who inflicted it will never heal—and, as far as was lawful, to remove the impediments to the propagation of evangelical doctrine.
The same author says in the prologue that the cause of so great an error was that, through hatred of tyranny, they abolished the name of Primacy, just as the Romans of old, through hatred of the Tarquins, overthrew kingship itself; yet afterward they suffered more forms of tyranny than they would have done if they had retained the royal name and authority. For these vices belong not to authority but to men.
§ 2. Philip Melanchthon judged that this authority ought to be retained. He writes thus to Luther:
You do not believe how greatly I am hated by the men of Nuremberg and I know not what others, because jurisdiction has been restored to the Bishops. Thus our allies fight for their own kingdom, not for the Gospel. A certain friend wrote that, if I had been hired by the Roman Pontiff for as much money as I might have desired, I could not have undertaken a better method for restoring pontifical dominion than this one which we have instituted, as men may judge.
And elsewhere:
Certain legates are wonderfully incensed against me because I seem to restore the kingdom of the Bishops. Sacranus remonstrated with me about that matter in no friendly manner, with a certain new and unaccustomed bitterness in his use of words. It is as Thucydides writes, τὰ ἐν μέσῳ ἀμφοτέρων χείρονα: “those in the middle fare worse at the hands of both sides.” Would that this had happened to me long ago, so that I might not now be compelled to see these faults of the parties, and so forth.
An eminent testimony from a man who knew his own party exceedingly well. For so great a tragedy was instituted not for the sake of the Gospel but of license, and was destined to seethe with lawlessness and anarchy.
Saravia proves at length against Beza, page 236 and following, that others hold the same opinion. Hence the same author says that others, retaining the thing, changed the names, creating Superintendents in place of Bishops and General or Provincial Superintendents in place of Archbishops, as though the dispute concerned names, not the thing; page 5.
§ 3. They therefore approve the consensus of the ancient Church. Saravia in the prologue, page 1:
Against the unanimous and constant consensus of all the Fathers of the ancient Church, nothing is to be changed without the express word of God. For I say this freely: whoever takes all authority away from the Fathers leaves none to himself.
And:
The custom of the people of God received by all the Churches of the whole world is a certain inviolable law. It is not probable that the universal consensus of all Churches and all times could have arisen without the word of God or Apostolic tradition.
And finally he adds: “Of old no good man disapproved Bishops and Archbishops.”
This consensus, which the English value so highly, Adrian Saravia proves in chapter 20. I shall set down his words for this reason, because they may be useful in all disputed articles of faith:
I judge that what we read was done in all Churches by the Fathers throughout the whole world from the times of the Apostles down to our own age is an immutable canon of the Apostles. It is no small matter to abrogate what was received by so great and so universal a consensus. Besides the fact that departing from it is rash, it brings upon the Church a greater disaster than many suspect, for which afterward no remedy will be possible. Among the ancient canons which because of their antiquity are called the Canons of the Apostles, we read the one which follows here.
Τοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρὴ τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτον, καὶ ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν, καὶ μηδέν τι πράττειν περιττὸν ἄνευ ἐκείνου γνώμης, ἐκεῖνο δὲ μόνον πράττειν ἕκαστον, ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳ ἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ’ αὐτὴν χώραις. Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνον ἄνευ τῆς πάντων γνώμης ποιεῖν τι, οὕτως γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ Θεὸς διὰ Κυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι.
The Bishops of the several nations ought to know who among them is first and is regarded as a head, without whose judgment they are to do nothing of greater importance; but each is to do only those things which pertain to his own parish and to the villages subject to it. Yet neither is that man to do anything without the knowledge of all; for thus there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.
§ 4. The Puritans, who tear apart with abuse those names of Bishops, Archbishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs, gravely reprehend them. Thus Saravia, chapter 25. He says that these names are not proud and are not contrary to the canon of the Council of Carthage, which is Distinction 99: “Let the Bishop of the First See not be called Prince of the Priests, or Supreme Priest, or anything of that kind, but only Bishop of the First See.” Nor, he says, is calling someone ἀρχιερέα, “high priest,” contrary to the honor of Christ, for there is no greater pride in these titles—
—than when someone is named an architect or chief physician: an Archbishop does not signify simply a lord of Bishops, but one in a certain manner.
He denies that he shrinks from the name of Prince and Patriarch; indeed, for the sake of modesty, he prefers to call them Archbishops and Patriarchs rather than ἐξάρχους τῶν ἱερέων, “exarchs of the priests.” Nevertheless no one ought to be offended by the name of Prince, since Ambrose, on Ephesians, chapter 4, writes: “In the Bishop are all the orders, because he is the first priest, that is, the prince of the priests, and Prophet, and Evangelist.” Nor does this prevent Christ from nevertheless being ἀρχιποίμενα καὶ ἔξαρχον, “the chief shepherd and exarch.” Thus far he.
As regards the name of Prince, it had an emphatic signification at that time, and thus the Emperor was generally so called, as may be seen in the histories; for that reason it was sometimes rejected by modest men. Thus the usage of names changes. Now, if when addressing Caesar or the King of Spain or France I said, “O Prince,” I should offend against customary speech; their sons or prefects I would customarily call by that name. But of old the name of Prince was not readily bestowed upon the companions of the Supreme Prince. It was therefore odious at that time because “Prince” was a name of greater power and absolute dominion.
§ 5. They teach that it is a great sign of divine wrath that the name of Bishops has fallen into hatred not only among some of the common people but even among Theologians; in the preface. For the Episcopate is divine; page 4. Primacy too was formerly called Apostolate. For they teach that concord cannot be maintained without these; in the preface, and likewise pages 278 and 405. Saravia, beginning on page 397, indeed prophesies that government will not be firm nor peace lasting amid the equality of all. That this was true has been taught by the Remonstrance and Counter-Remonstrance of the Hollanders, and is taught by the very delusion of their ill-convened Synod. For what will a few men do, even if they could agree? But it is pleasing to hear the adversaries.
Saravia says on page 397:
But come, let us suppose that in those ages there were no Bishops or Archbishops, and that the presidency was circular and the presbyterate annual, as Master Beza wishes. Can anyone experienced in human affairs and acquainted with the perversity of human nature be persuaded that affairs would then have been in a better condition? In this city and its suburbs there are a little more or less than two hundred Ministers of the word of God. The number of the clergy of the Churches of Constantinople, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch was not less but far greater. Come, let them all have been equal and of equal authority, without a Bishop to contain this multitude by authority and gather it again into one body, as it were. What condition is it probable that this Church would have, or that those Churches would have had, while diverse heresies raged in the very bowels of these Churches? Far be it from me to agree with Master Beza. For I believe that the Churches of those times stood and were defended from destruction, according to the grace of God, by the vigor and power of the Episcopal rank and its authority above the remaining multitude of presbyters alone.
Then:
Beza, now second after Calvin, governs the Genevan Church in a small state with few colleagues in number, namely, at most eighteen if you count the teachers with the pastors. There the προεδρία, “presidency,” is weekly and circular, and the presbyters and deacons are new and annual. So long as life is passed in a tranquil condition, all things indeed go well. But if at any time dissension arises among the Ministers of the Churches who are favored by the people and the magistrate, the city will easily be divided into parties, than which no graver evil can happen. With the same ease the presbytery too will be divided; and the common people, once divided, will riot and support the parties. In this case, which certainly cannot always be avoided, what will be done? The Magistrate will interpose his authority. Well indeed; but to which party will he incline? The Roman Emperors were compelled to interpose their authority in the disputes of Bishops, but it was not always granted them to favor the better men; they protected factions and factious men. “But we have not yet experienced anything of this kind under this government.” You therefore seek experience as your teacher—if only its instruction could be had without danger and irreparable harm.
And:
Let us suppose that France, having rejected Roman superstitions, has received the pure doctrine of the Son of God and, which God forbid, has admitted that form of Church government which Master Beza judges to be divine. Does he believe that it will be free from the calamities to which all the Churches of all ages have been subject, the causes of which he imputes to Bishops? And if, at the time when Bishops contained the remaining multitude of Ministers of the word of God in their office so that they could convoke no lawful Synods, nevertheless Synods were assembled against Synods, and what one sanctioned another condemned; if Bishops then ran about this way and that, what would they not have done if all presbyters had been equal to Bishops and Bishops to Patriarchs? If a few men of equal authority could scarcely preserve peace and concord in doctrine, could six hundred, or two or three thousand Ministers of the same authority have done so in place of one?
§ 6. They also teach that the Church could in no way have been propagated if Apostolic authority had migrated into heaven with the Apostles—if Bishops, Archbishops, and Patriarchs, having the general care of the Church, had not founded and planted new Churches and appointed presbyters to water them. Saravia says on page 264:
Once Churches had been established, whether in the East or the West, to run about, invade another’s parishes and provinces, and involve oneself in their affairs was the act of a πολυπράγμονος, “busybody,” and an ambitious man. No one who has bound himself to a particular Church can desert his proper station so as to transfer himself elsewhere at his own pleasure. Nevertheless, because care for propagating the Gospel belongs to the Church, it must choose men for that work whenever and wherever an opportunity for preaching the Gospel shall be offered. Master Beza wishes these to be teachers and pastors only; I, with the whole of antiquity, hold them to be Bishops such as Titus and Timothy were. For pastors are not created for a particular Church unless the Churches have already been established and founded. The man who is to found Churches ought to be superior to those presbyters and Bishops whom he will appoint. Thus the Apostles acted, and by their example the Fathers taught that it must be done thus.
Indeed, I shall concede something further: that this cannot be done otherwise. This is also the reason why heretics have not hitherto spread their faith among the nations. I add further that the Primacy of one man is proved by this argument. For the general care falls upon the man who sets out to preach the faith in new regions and appoint pastors, or he ought to be sent by the man who has the general care. But Archbishops do not possess it; for just as Bishops are bound to their Bishoprics and pastors to their parishes, so Archbishops are bound to their Archbishoprics, and one cannot invade another’s province.
For as to what Beza says on page 275:
Nor indeed do I think we must inquire curiously here whether the Apostles reached all nations; nor even now must we labor greatly over a mission to certain most remote nations, since at home and nearby we have enough and more than enough to occupy us and our posterity.
Saravia rightly judges this impious and foreign to every Christian charity. And deservedly so; for the Apostles did this, to whom the Lord had said that they should teach all nations, and he promised that the Gospel would be preached in the whole world. The Church must therefore labor so that this may be brought to its completion.
§ 7. Saravia demonstrates on pages 213 and 254 that the equality of all the prelates of the Church was nowhere sanctioned. For when Christ forbids them to exercise dominion in the manner of Gentile kings, the matter concerns tyrannical rule, or even moderate political rule, which is not granted in the Episcopate. Nevertheless, on page 211 he adds:
In another treatise, indeed, I defend that the same man, if it is in the interest of the kingdom or of the state, can sustain a twofold capacity; and I believe that God will one day be my witness that this has been done by me, and can be done with a better conscience and more for the edification of the Church, than it is attacked by others.
§ 8. Nor are Archbishops therefore not to be appointed because the care of many Bishoprics is beyond the strength of one man, as Adrian truly demonstrates against Beza on page 413. For the High Priest of the Jews presided over all; then many kingdoms are subject to one king. The whole world was subject to the twelve Apostles. For they have helpers and fellow workers. Furthermore, the general care of great affairs pertains to them.
§ 9. Those who deny that Hierarchy are moved chiefly by this argument: that otherwise they cannot exclude the Roman Pontiff and escape his Primacy. Thus Beza, quoted by Saravia on page 408:
Certainly, if for preserving consensus in the sacred ministry it was necessary to establish a diocesan Episcopal dominion over fellow presbyters and Chorepiscopi; a Metropolitan dominion over provincial fellow Bishops; and a fourfold Patriarchal dominion over fellow Archbishops who were Metropolitans: certainly by the same and equal reasoning a monarchical command over fellow Patriarchs, or a Catholic dominion over the whole Catholic Church, had to be erected. The argument which you, Saravia, raise here in order to evade this reasoning is of no moment. For there is indeed a very great difference, as you rightly say, between the prefecture of one nation and region and that of the entire world, namely as regards the measure of their jurisdictions, but not as regards the thing itself, whether we posit here an order or a degree. It would not therefore follow, from the fact that these prefectures are not equal to one another in measure, that no universal prefecture should be established to which those narrower ones are subordinated.
Saravia attempts to escape this stroke, but unexpectedly runs himself upon the very sword. For Saravia denies that it follows: individual kingdoms have individual kings; therefore one king may be appointed over them all. But Beza says that this is to evade the argument, for he proceeds in this manner: if there can be a Tetrarchy of the Church, so that the Roman, Alexandrian, Constantinopolitan, and Antiochene govern the whole by equal right, why can one of these four not also command the others, or be of principal authority among them? A reason must be given why, when the antecedent has been conceded, the consequence is denied.
If he should say that one man is unequal to so great a care, he has already answered this above, when he assigned several kingdoms to one king, since that king can have fellow workers and counselors, can be content with general care, and can judge only the chief matters. Moreover, Saravia’s arguments prove this. For it was necessary to settle disputes between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Alexandria, and between the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Alexandria, and to preserve unity, since each had his own particular Patriarchate, just as among other Bishops. Just as a dispute may arise among twenty-four English Bishops and be terminated by the Archbishops, may it not likewise arise between the two Bishops of Canterbury and York? Since they ought not to be sent to the royal tribunal in ecclesiastical affairs, they must therefore choose another judge for themselves.
Therefore, so that concord may be maintained, there must be one priest who directs all his brethren. Indeed, Saravia proceeds so far on page 85 as to write that Peter presided over the College of the Apostles. His words are:
As regards the Apostles, who lived together for some time at Jerusalem, it is certain that they were not created by the Lord to remain together in the same place, whether in a single region or city; wherefore there was no necessity that someone be placed over the College. Nevertheless, so long as they lived together at Jerusalem, it is not absurd that some one man then presided over the College of the twelve Apostles. By denying this more obstinately, no good cause against the Roman Bishop is assisted. Who has ever seen a convention or assembly come together in which no one presided to propose the things to be done, ask opinions, and collect votes? Even if we say with the ancient Fathers that this was entrusted to Peter by the Apostolic College, nothing is thereby given to the cause of the Roman Bishop from which he may establish his tyranny. This too was temporary in Peter and ended when the Apostles were dispersed.
Here it must be noted: 1. It is not absurd that one man presided. 2. Indeed, it is absurd if no one presided, because no assembly is so absurd that someone does not preside in it. 3. He acknowledges that the Fathers confess that this was conferred upon Peter. These things are true and contrary to many heresies; necessity therefore extorted the truth from this man. 4. He says that this prefecture of Peter ended when the dispersion occurred. This is false. For it was given to him by Christ; furthermore, the Fathers whom he produces as witnesses of Peter’s prefecture deny that it was temporary and concede that it was transmitted to his successors. Third, it was as necessary when they were dispersed as when they were assembled. For just as there is need of a president among those assembled, so there is need of a convoker among those dispersed; otherwise there would have been no one who could convoke all or some of the Apostles.
But if equality must be altogether preserved, no one can command another, nor many command few, nor few command many. For whenever an equal commands an equal, it is tyranny. For this reason the Synod which is now being attempted at Dordrecht is ridiculous; for although they elect a president, they nevertheless do not have authority, and the Synod itself can command nothing to so many thousands of their brethren, who are equal to it in every respect. For why should a few arrogate to themselves the authority to command more numerous men? If they say that this authority was created by the political magistrate, a greater tyranny now arises than was ever approved in any Church; for the States themselves and their president will make Archbishops and Patriarchs, and then will command that some preachers command and others obey. But if they place one over all, you will be the Patriarch of Holland; if some powerful King or Emperor did the same, he would establish one Patriarch of all kingdoms. And thus, while they flee Monarchy, individual petty tyrants are discovered. But I have treated this matter elsewhere.
Now I give this admonition: Patriarchs and Archbishops should be instituted in such a manner that with the greatest authority they can inquire into and correct morals and discipline; but they should have the least authority over treasuries and riches, and should be able to do the least harm.