31b Appendix 1 (Continued)

OBSERVATIONS OF THE SAME ZANCHIUS UPON HIS OWN CONFESSION (Continued) Upon the 16th chapter, Aphorism 10

Here should a subdistinction have been added of the godly, because some do come worthily, some unworthily; yea, one and the same godly man eateth sometime worthily, sometime not worthily enough, as in 1 Corinthians 11:1-34 it appeareth. And the ungodly also which receive only the element, and not the thing of the sacrament are not all of one sort. For among them are also contained the hypocrites of whom we spake even now. We thought good therefore, here to join a more plain and clear distinction.

There be two kinds of men which, like as they come to the hearing of the Word, so may they come to receive the Supper of the Lord--the ungodly and the godly. Again, of the ungodly, some are wholly and simply wicked, as atheists, godless men, also Jews and Turks, and all such as know nothing, and believe nothing of all those things which they hear by the preaching of the gospel, or see to be done by the administration of the sacraments. Nay, they rather laugh at and condemn all such matters. These if they come to the Lord’s Table, they neither eat nor drink anything else but bread and wine, and that also, not as they are sacraments, (for they know not of what things they are sacraments) but only as they are of their own nature, namely, bread and wine. For even so also at the preaching of the gospel, they receive nothing but bare words and the sound of the words. Another sort are indeed and before God wicked, though they are not so in respect, I mean, in profession or in sight of men. Such as are the hypocrites in the church who are not endowed with the true and lively faith which is proper to the elect, but have only a temporal and a hypocritical belief. These, coming to the Supper, do indeed eat and drink no more than the former, that is, bread and wine. The reason is because they have no true faith, by which alone Christ’s body is truly eaten. For all this the difference between these and the other is not little.

1. For the former, seeing they believe none of all the things which they hear concerning Christ’s body in the Supper, nor perceive anything with their minds, as little do they eat the true body of Christ, but only with the mouth of the body they eat bread, as common bread. But the other, seeing that by their only historical, hypocritical and temporal belief, they understand in their mind and in some sort do believe the things which are spoken and done, therefore by the same belief and mind, they may be said in some sort to receive, and in some sort to taste, the body of Christ offered in the Word and sacraments, although they do not in very deed eat it, seeing they do not swallow nor retain the same (for this properly is to eat) in the stomach of their soul for nourishment of their spirit, but rather do spew or vomit out the same, being tasted, and after a sort received down. For so also we read in Hebrews 6:1-20 of those temporary professors--that they tasted the heavenly gift and good Word of God, as if he had said, they tasted indeed, and that also by the gift of the Holy Ghost, but being tasted, they cast it up again. And in the parable of the seed, the temporary ones were said to receive the seed of the Word, but that they kept it not, and therefore brought forth no fruit by it. These things cannot be said of the first sort of these wicked ones which are most true of the second sort, namely, these temporary hypocrites. Let this then be the first difference, hereupon follows another difference between the eating of those and these.

2. They, seeing the bread which they take into their mouths they neither acknowledge nor believe it to be a sacrament of Christ’s body, therefore they take it and eat it, not as a sacrament but as common bread; and therefore can they not be said to eat the body of Christ sacramentally. But these take the bread not as common bread, but as a sacrament of Christ’s body, and for that cause are said to eat Christ’s body, though not in very deed, seeing they lack the mouth and teeth of true faith, yet to eat it sacramentally; by an argument drawn, as they call it, aconiugatis, they eat the sacrament as the sacrament of Christ’s body. Therefore they eat Christ’s body sacramentally, and so far forth as it is a sacrament because they eat not Christ’s body in very deed, but only the sacrament thereof.

Hereupon followeth that exposition whereof we spake before, that it is not ungodly to say simply and absolutely that the hypocrites do eat not only the sacrament, but also the thing of the sacrament; that is, not only bread but also the very body of Christ. But in what sense? Namely, in that, wherein the apostle said all they of Corinth in their first state were unclean, ungodly, etc. Afterwards he said they were not only washed (which some might have interpreted only of the water of baptism) but also sanctified and justified, when notwithstanding they were not all made truly such, but as yet there lacked not some hypocrites among them. So all they which, professing faith in Christ, do come to His Supper and eat the sacrament of the Lord’s body are said also to eat the Lord’s true body by reason of the sacramental union; which causeth that he which receiveth the sign is by the church judged to have received also the thing signified, because there is no fault either in the Institutor of the sacrament or in the sacrament itself, but that he which hath received and eaten the one might have also received and eaten the other, since Christ by the minister doth truly offer them both, and the soundness and truth of the sacrament dependeth not upon our faith, but upon Christ’s institution. So that if we receive not the whole sacrament but only the sign without the thing signified, the fault is in our own selves who receive one part with the mouth of our body, and cast away the other part by our infidelity (for an hypocritical faith is infidelity), separating those things which God would have to be joined. By these things it appeareth what difference is in the eating of those that are simply wicked, and the hypocrites, although neither sort can be said truly to eat Christ’s true body. For such only do truly eat Christ who are also truly ingrafted into Christ by a true and lively faith, with which alone the elect are endowed. They which are dead corporally can no longer eat corporal meat. How then should they which are dead spiritually be fed with spiritual food? And only the faithful do therefore live, because by a lively faith they are joined unto Christ, which is our life, as members to their Head; as branches to the vine, as the boughs to their tree. And if, as Cyprian saith, "it be meat of the mind, not of the belly; surely it is eaten with the teeth, not of the body, but of a faithful mind," which only the godly can do.

If likewise the body of Christ be (as Ireneus speaketh) "a heavenly matter," how can it be eaten of them which have nothing in them that is heavenly, but are altogether earthy men, and endowed with no faith whereby they may ascend up into heaven and eat the heavenly food? Therefore only the godly can do this. But the faithful also are not affected all alike, or after one sort, seeing very often they eat worthily but sometime it chanceth that they eat unworthily, and therefore are sundry ways chastened by God for it.

They are said to eat worthily who, before they eat of the Lord’s bread, do examine themselves whether they be in faith; and if they be, then they diligently weigh and consider the signification and greatness of this mystery. Moreover they try their consciences whether they be touched with a true repentance, and by earnest and hearty prayers do stir themselves up to both. And they eat unworthily who although they be planted in Christ by faith and the Spirit of regeneration, yet their faith being in some sort choked with the cares of this world and other affections of the flesh, do not sufficiently prove themselves; do not diligently examine nor stir up themselves to an earnest consideration of so great a mystery; nor weigh with an attentive mind what is given in that holy Table; what the Lord requireth of them; for whom, and for what purpose the Supper was instituted by the Lord. Lastly, they do eat unworthily who (as the apostle speaketh) discern not the Lord’s body, and so come not to that Table with a due reverence and fear of the Lord; discerning in their mind and by faith the things signified from the signs, and the signs from other common meats and drinks in such sufficient manner as they ought, whereby they do not as well open the mouth of the inward man, to eat the spiritual food, as they do the mouth of the outward man to eat the food which (of it’s own nature) is corporal. By reason of this duty so neglected, namely, that they do not sufficiently prove themselves, nor discern or judge of the Lord’s body, and consequently do eat unworthily the Lord’s bread, Christians and faithful men otherwhiles are wont to be visited with divers chastisements of God; yet such as are for their salvation, lest they should be condemned in this world. And of them doth the apostle properly speak in 1 Corinthians 11:1-34, and not of such as be simply wicked and more hypocrites, when he saith these do eat judgment unto themselves, etc. This is thus proved:

1. Because he saith not that they which thus eat unworthily do eat unto themselves , which signifieth eternal destruction, but judgment; which words, what difference there is betwixt them, is manifest in the same text where the apostle in verse 32 saith ; we are judged or corrected of the Lord, lest we should be condemned with the world.

2. When he declareth the punishment which they shall have which eat unworthily, he rehearseth none but temporal chastisements, making no mention of eternal destruction. "For this cause, (saith he) many are weak and sickly," etc.

3. Add this that he saith, "if we would judge ourselves," (that is try ourselves, and acknowledging our sins, chastise ourselves by repentance, and by true faith and amendment of life separate ourselves from the world), "we should not be judged," namely of the Lord, who doth therefore chasten and mortify us, because we do not mortify our affections, nor repent us of our sins.

4. And what meaneth this, that in most plain words he calleth this judgment, by which we are therefore judged because we eat unworthily the Lord’s bread, a chastening very profitable for us. For thus he saith, "But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."

5. And surely he placeth himself and all the other true believers in the number of those which being judged are chastised of the Lord for their salvation. For he maketh two sorts of men: the wicked, which are understood in the name of the world, and teacheth that upon them awaiteth eternal destruction; and then the godly who by reason of their many falls and unworthinesses, are also chastened by many punishments, lest they should also be condemned together with the wicked; and them he setteth down under judgment, that they may avoid , eternal destruction. This place therefore is to be understood properly of the faithful, but [that they are] such as are unperfect, and therefore do grievously sin because they come unworthily to the Lord’s Table.

Whereas some do expound the same also of the wicked, and do take judgment, for condemnation, this is rather to be understood, that it is by a certain consequence, with an argument drawn from the less to the greater, than by force of the text. Thus, if the godly which sometime eat unworthily do eat unto themselves condemnation, then what condemnation shall abide the wicked?

Therefore, if it be spoken of the godly, is taken for chastisement; if of the wicked, it signifieth eternal destruction.

Upon the 17th chapter, Aphorism 1.

Here we spake of such as be of years of discretion. Concerning the young infants of the faithful, the reason is otherwise, as in another place we declared. For the Holy Ghost doth ingraft them into Christ as true members to their Head, from whom they draw their life. Yea, and we also believe that they are endowed with the Spirit of faith, although through the weakness of nature in them they cannot use the same, even as they cannot use the virtue of their understanding, when as notwithstanding they are not without a mind or the faculties thereof. The 2nd Aphorism. In the description of faith, I willingly used those two words of wisdom and prudence, following the most learned divine, M. B. upon the Epistle to the Ephesians; because in the former I comprehend the knowledge of Christian religion, of God, of Christ, etc. In the latter the practice thereof, into which two the whole gospel is distinguished, which Christian religion embraceth, and upon which only it is grounded.

Whereunto belongeth also that others do teach, how faith is an assured knowledge concerning God and Christ, conceived by the Word of God, etc. And the whole Christian doctrine consisteth partly in knowledge, and partly in practice. And there be two kinds of the actions of faith: One in the understanding; another in the will. The understanding being endowed with the light of faith doth perceive, assent unto, and believe things set down in the Word. The will being filled with the power of faith doth love, desire, and embrace the same things as good. And further, such things as pertain to outward works, those it commandeth to be performed faithfully and prudently by the other faculties of the mind and instruments of the body.

Upon the 19th chapter--Of Justification--Aphorism 6.

Whereas I so expounded that place concerning the faith of Abraham out of Genesis 15:1-21 and Romans 4:1-25, as I said that that same thing was imputed unto him for righteousness which he believed concerning Christ the promised seed--I did it rather respecting the matter itself than the bare word of faith. For I was not ignorant that both Moses and Paul spake of the faith of Abraham, that this (faith) was imputed to him for righteousness, seeing the apostle manifestly gathering a general doctrine from the example of Abraham, adjoineth these words, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," that is, he is therefore accounted just with God because he believeth in Him which justifieth the ungodly; by which place it most plainly appeareth, that from the true justification of us are excluded our own works, and that it is wholly ascribed to only faith, as well touching the end as touching the beginning. But when the question is asked what cause there is, why justification should be attributed to faith and not to the works thereof, it is wont to be answered, and that both well and truly, because faith and not the works thereof doth apprehend remission of sins, and Christ our righteousness. For by it we are not justified in respect that it is a work, but in respect that Christ is apprehended by it; by the righteousness of whom alone, being imputed unto us, we are properly reputed just before God. And this is that which some say, how faith justifieth not in respect of itself but in respect of the object which it taketh hold on. Thus is it manifest that it is true which I said, how that was properly imputed unto Abraham for righteousness, for that he believed God concerning Christ, namely that in Him all nations should be blessed, and therefore Abraham himself also.

Likewise in the last Aphorism.

Neither do we allow of those which set our justification in the only remission of sins, denying the imputation of the justice and obedience of Christ, which we think to be repugnant to the Scriptures.

Isaiah 7:1-25--A child is given unto us, etc. Whatsoever therefore he did, or hath, it is wholly ours.

Romans 5:1-21--"For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." The disobedience of Adam was the breaking of God’s commandment, therefore the obedience of Christ consisteth not only in His death, but also in His whole former keeping of the law. Likewise, the disobedience of Adam was wholly imputed to us. Why not then also Christ’s whole obedience? Also, we are two manner of ways made sinners by Adam’s disobedience, namely, by imputation of his transgression, and by the real derivation of sin, that is, of concupiscence into us. Why then should we not think the same of Christ? The virtue of His obedience to the commandments of God the Father is truly communicated unto us, so that we also begin to obey God’s law. What lets then, why we may not say, that His whole obedience is imputed unto us?

1 Corinthians 1:1-31--"...who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." Php 2:1-30--"He became obedient unto death," for which humbling of Himself, and obedience even unto death, God hath highly exalted Him, and in Him us, etc. He hath deserved by His obedience, eternal glory, for Himself and us, as all the schoolmen and fathers do teach. Therefore His obedience also to the law is imputed unto us for righteousness.

Galatians 4:1-31--He was made subject to the law, that He might "redeem them that were under the law." Therefore He kept the law for us, and for our salvation. The testimonies of the fathers, and also of the learned men of this age, for brevity’s sake we overpass. To conclude, we believe concerning Christ, that as for us men and for our salvation, He came down from heaven and was incarnate; so also for the same cause He kept the law, and did all the other things.

Upon the 25th chapter, Aphorism 10, 11, 12. When I write this confession of faith I write everything upon a good conscience; and as I believed, so I spake freely, as the Holy Scriptures do teach that we ought to do. My faith is grounded simply and principally on the Word of God. And next, somewhat upon the common consent of the whole ancient catholic church, if it do not gainsay the Holy Scriptures. For I believe that the things which were decreed and received of the fathers, by common consent of them all gathered together in the Name of the Lord, without any contradiction of Holy Scriptures, that they also (though they be not of equal authority with the Scriptures) come from the Holy Ghost. Hereupon it is that the things which are of this sort, I neither will nor dare disprove with a good conscience. And what is more certain out of the histories, the counsels, and writings of all the fathers, than that those orders of ministers of which we spake were ordained and received in the church by common consent of all the whole Christian common wealth? And who am I that I should disprove that which the whole church hath approved? Neither have all the learned men of this age dared to disprove the same; as knowing, both that the church might lawfully do so, and that all those things were ordained and done upon a godly purpose, and to excellent good ends, for edification of God’s children. For confirmation sake hereof, I have thought good here to insert that which Martin Bucer, of godly memory, a man both for life and learning most famous, hath left written concerning those matters upon the epistle to the Ephesians. The ministry of the Word, being performed by reading and rehearsing the divine Scriptures, by interpretation and exposition of the same, and with exhortations taken thereout, and also by rehearsal and catechism, which is done by mutual questions and answers of the young beginner and the catechizer; and also by holy conferences and deciding of the hard questions about religion; according to this manifold dispensation of wholesome doctrine, there are also many duties in this function. For whatsoever belongeth to the perfectest [most perfect] manner of teaching, is with an especial care to be used in the ministry of the doctrine of salvation, because indeed it ought to be delivered as a knowledge both of all other most divine, and of all, most difficult; namely, that he which is man should live according to God. Now they which do teach diligently the arts, as they are contained in certain known books, as, if they mean to teach mathematical principles out of Euclid, first of all they will read and rehearse the same book. By and by they will expound the several words, such as everyone knows not, as every art hath its own proper words and names. Then, if there be any collection or argumentation, dark or intricate, they explain the same by analysis or resolution, and set it forth by examples; and by general precepts they teach particular things and declare how largely the same are meant and taken. And this is properly to teach. Now though this be in faithful and sound delivery of instruction, yet a true and faithful teacher, not contenting himself thus, doth also rehearse and often taketh account of that which he teacheth, and is still at hand among his scholars, that of such things as they doubt, they may ever require and ask the plainer exposition of himself. Moreover the things which he hath taught them, he also propoundeth to be decided and handled in public disputations, that no whit of doubt may remain. To these things also, he adjoineth oftentimes exhortations to encourage them forward in the same instruction; and exhortations from such matters as may hinder the same; and also general admonitions, reprehensions, and chidings. Lastly, such a master marketh diligently what profit every one of his scholars taketh, and if he find anyone to loiter in his learning, he both privately corrects him, and admonisheth him of his duty. If he perceive any to go through his learning lustily, him he encourageth, commendeth, and whetteth on to follow the study of it more and more. All these seven points of teaching did our Lord Christ also observe. In the synagogue at Nazareth He read Isaiah 61:1-11 and expounded it (Luke 4:1-44). He expounded the commandment of God upon the mount (Matthew 5:1-48). And He taught in all places, and exhorted; He reprehended out of the Word of God. And He made answer to all that asked Him, as well good as bad; and also asked them, as in Matthew 22:1-46. He also catechized His disciples, and He Himself was present at a catechizing (Luke 2:1-52).

Since then the ministry of teaching doth require such manifold labor, there have been also many sorts or orders of ministers appointed to this ministry. And first of all readers, whose office was in some pulpit or high place, to rehearse the divine Scriptures. Now this rehearsal of the Scriptures was instituted to this end, that the language and manner of phrase in the Scripture, and the Scripture itself, also might so be made better known and more familiar to the people. For within one year they read over all the Bible to the people, whereas they which shall expound the Scriptures are not able to perform more than some one part, and that not great neither, in one year’s space. And meanwhile by the only reading of the Holy Bible to the people, the knowledge of all the principles of our salvation was wonderfully confirmed. For the same are still again and again repeated in each of the holy books, and are declared by other and other words, so that the people might often, by the following readings, learn that which by the former they could not so well conceive. And by this very means the peoples’ judgment was strengthened, as well in religion as also in the expositions of Scriptures, and in all doctrine which was brought unto them either by the lawful curates and teachers of the church, or by others. For this cause this office of only reading the Scriptures to the people was greatly esteemed in the ancient churches. Neither were any chosen for this ministry unless they were commended for singular piety. Which we may know as well by other monuments of the ancient fathers, as especially by two epistles of Saint Cyprian, as the five epistles of Aurelius the reader ordained, and the fifth and third epistles, book 2, of Saturus, and in the fourth book of Celerinus, Celestinus. To these readers were afterwards also added queristers or singing men, which ordered and directed the singing of the psalms and hymns. For the reading of the Holy Scriptures, it is by God’s grace, very well appointed in the churches of England; if so be that there were meet men ordained which might add a gravity and a religion worthy the divine ministry in the holy readings. Let them therefore diligently weigh and consider whose mouth they make themselves, which read the holy books unto the people in their sacred assemblies; even the mouth of the Lord Almighty, as also of what force and of what dignity the words at [are] which are read, which be the words and precepts of eternal life. Lastly, unto what manner of men and for what purpose the readers of the divine Scriptures ought to serve; for they serve to administer the Word even to the children of God, for whose salvation the first begotten Son of God powered out His precious blood; and to whom, by them, the same salvation is more and more declared and made perfect. All which things, whosoever weigheth with himself in true faith, what gravity, decency, religiousness, can be used in any action, which such a reader may overslip? And this they, whosoever be appointed for that office, ought evermore to have in the sight of their mind; that the things which are read, must effectually serve for the edification of faith in the hearers; which is then done when the same things are well understood and received as the very words of God. To both which is requisite, a pronunciation, very plain, discreet, grave, and religious. Hereby it is known, that they are not Christ’s ministers who do so read the Holy Scriptures as if only this were to be required, that as little tarrying as may be, might be made in rehearsing the same.

Now another duty is, the interpretation of the doctrine which is to be disposed, namely, a more plain declaration of the words and sentences. This office was performed by bishops and elders, and sometime by them of the order of deacons and subdeacons; sometime also they employed unto this function some of the laity whom they found by the Holy Ghost to be made fit for the profitable executing of the same. So Origen, also a layman, was called unto this office in the church at Caesarea in Palestine, by Alexander, bishop of Hierusalem [Jerusalem ?], and by Theoctist, bishop of the same church at Caesarea. So Evelpis (?) was called by Neonus, bishop of Larandi; and Paulinus by Ceifus, bishop of Iconium, and Theodorus of Atticus, bishop of Sinadi. This we read in Eusebius, his sixth book of his ecclesiastical story, chapter 20; and out of the epistle of those two bishops, Alexander of Hierusalem, and Theoctist of Caesarea in Palestine, unto Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, who had reprehended the deed of these two bishops concerning Origen, as a thing never heard of, that a layman, where bishops were present, should speak to the people in the congregation. But this, the same bishops manifestly affirmed, was not true but that godly bishops had ever used to exhort such as they knew meet men among the laity to profit the people by interpreting the Scriptures and by teaching, to execute this duty, even when themselves were present. And therefore this second and third part of the holy ministry, namely, interpretation and teaching, the bishops and elders did administer by themselves; yet if they knew or found any among the inferior orders, and of the lay sort also, that were fit for that duty, they joined them as fellow workers with themselves. In the same manner also the bishops and elders did execute the fourth part of the delivery of the doctrine, which is, out of the Scriptures expounded to make exhortations to the duties of piety and dehortations [discouragements ?] from sin and from all things which might never so little hinder and stop the course of a godly and holy life; to reprehend them which sinned and to comfort the penitent. This function was chiefly performed by the bishops and elders because it requireth an especial authority (1 Timothy 5:1-25). The fifth part, catechizings, they committed to elders or deacons, or sometimes to ministers of inferior orders, even as everyone was thought most fit for that kind of teaching. So Origen was also a catechist at Alexandria, as we may read in the sixth book of Eusebius, his story of the church, chapter thirteen and twenty. The sixth part also, the holy disputations, they appointed to those that seemed meetest; albeit for the most part the bishops themselves ordered the same. The seventh part, private conference and admonition, the bishops also themselves had a special care to look unto, and also evermore exhorted the elders, and the graver sort of the inferior orders to do the same (1 Thessalonians 5:1-28). Therefore this ministry must be executed by readers in rehearsing the Holy Scriptures, and by bishops in expounding and teaching, exhorting, disputing, and private conferring; as also in reading and catechizing, if there be not particular readers and catechists. But the catechizings they committed to certain elders and deacons, or some specially chosen for that purpose out of the inferior orders; like as they did also employ in these duties of interpreting, teaching, and disputing, whomsoever they found meet for the same, in any order of the ministry, and also in the laity, as we said. And this was diligently marked and considered in them all; that the Holy Ghost did so impart these gifts of teaching among men, that to one He giveth a gift and a singular faculty to interpret the Holy Scriptures, and explain the same, to whom notwithstanding He giveth not the gift so readily and profitably to teach and confirm the principles and grounds of our opinions out of the Holy Scriptures, or to defend the same by disputation. To another also He giveth a peculiar and notable skill to make exhortations out of the Holy Scripture, or admonitions, or reprehensions; also to catechize, and to instruct privately, to whom notwithstanding are not given the other parts of teaching. This variety and diversity of the gifts of the Holy Ghost we have daily experience of in those which teach publicly the people of Jesus Christ, which are the true churches of Christ, and do suffer themselves to be wholly governed by the Holy Ghost. Such do religiously observe what spiritual gifts are given to each one in the church; and do employ everyone in his own function according to the same gifts so much as in them lieth. Wherefore to all the points of teaching, they appoint several ministers, if among their own they find such as be singularly qualified and furnished by the Lord to every several part of teaching. But because it is requisite for the salvation of God’s people that not any church should omit any of these seven parts of teaching which I have reckoned, every one of the ministers and laymen also in what place soever [whatsoever place ?] of the church he be placed ought, so far forth as he is able, to perform all these parts of teaching--both reading, interpreting, teaching, exhorting, catechizing, disputing, and private conferring. For each one must take unto himself in administering these duties, so much of each one of them as he findeth himself furnished and made fit for by the Holy Ghost. Let us weigh and consider the example of a household well sorted and ordered, in which the master or husband executeth some duties, the housewife or matron, other duties; the sons other, and the daughters other; the menservants other, and the maidservants other. Here while they be all at home and in health, everyone fulfilleth his own duty; but if any of the family be from home or be sick, yet (if the necessity of that service so urgeth) they must all needs supply that want, so that oftentimes the men must discharge womens’ duties, and women mens’; the masters their servants, and servants their masters.

Also concerning clergy discipline. The third part of clergy discipline is a peculiar subjection, wherein clerks and ministers of inferior degrees do subject themselves to them which are in the superior orders and ministry. This part of discipline the Lord taught us, also by His own example; who ordained His disciples to be teachers of God’s chosen throughout the whole world, giving them a certain government or domestical [domestic] discipline, peculiar for this office; whom the apostles imitating, had also every one His disciples, whom He instructed to the right performance of that holy ministry. For every difficult and hard course of life requireth also a peculiar and perpetual teaching, instruction, and watchfulness over it, as we see in the studies of philosophy, and in military discipline. Which Lycurgus considering, so instituted (as Xenophon reporteth) the commonwealth of the Lacaedemonians; that there should not be one sort or order in the commonwealth, but should have a government in it. Also Plato in his laws and commonwealth requireth that among citizens there should be nothing without guard. Hereupon our Lord also, desirous that all that be His, should so be settled and agree together, as the members in a body are settled and knit one to another, doth make every one of His to be in subjection unto others by whom they may be maintained, moved and governed, as by members having a more large and ample power and efficacy than others have. The same is commanded by the Holy Ghost, Be subject "one to another in the fear of God" (Ephesians 5:1-33). The holy fathers therefore, in times past thus considering these matters, so appointed this order in the clergy, that all the rest of the clerks should be maintained and guided of the presbytery or elders with singular care and diligence. And that among the elders, the bishop, as a consul among the senators of a commonwealth, should bear the chiefest care and governance both of the whole church, and also peculiarly of the whole order of the clergy. And in all the greatest and most populous congregations they ordained bishops, and to each of them they committed the next congregations, which were in little towns and villages, and decreed that the elders and curates of those congregations whom they called chorepiscopi, country or petty bishops, should every one harken and obey the bishop and presbytery next unto them. These those superior bishops did call together, and all their whole clergy, and did instruct them in knowledge, and the diligent execution of their office. But whereas it was the Lord’s will that His people should mutually love among themselves, and should mutually care one for another, even as far and wide as might be possible (for all Christians are one body), the holy fathers ordained that the bishops of each province (for then all the Roman jurisdictions were distributed into provinces) should meet together with their presbyteries, so often as the necessity of the churches required, but always twice in the year, and there they should inquire concerning Christ’s doctrine and discipline, how the same was administered, and how it prospered in the churches; that where they found any default, they might correct it; that which they knew to be well, they might confirm and set forward. And that these Synods might also be ordered aright and orderly, they would have the Metropolitaine [metropolitan], the bishops of every mother city to be the chief directors, to call them together and to guide them. For in each province, the head city, wherein was the mansion or seat of the chief governor, was called metropolis, or the mother city. And therefore they enjoined unto these metropolitaine [metropolitan] bishops a certain care and charge over all the churches throughout their province, that if they should understand of anything taught or done amiss either of the ministers of the churches or of the common sort, that they should give warning thereof in time. And if by their admonitions they could not amend the same, then for the correction thereof they should call a Synod of bishops; for it was not granted unto them that they should execute any judgment upon their own authority, over churches which had bishops of their own; for the power of judgment over both clergy and laity was only in the hands of the bishop and elder of the same place. And the bishops themselves were judged by the Synods. Therefore when there were any bishops to be ordained for churches, it was decreed that they should assemble at the same church with all, (if it might without hurt of the churches) if not with some, at the least two or three of the bishops of their own province, which (if he were not already elected) should guide and govern in the election of the bishop, and the election being done should examine it, and inquire of the man elected most severely, and make due proof of his whole life and of his skill and ability to perform the office and duty of a bishop; and then at last should invest him in his bishop’s function. All which things were instituted and served to this end, that there might be as much knowledge and mutual care between churches and the ministers thereof as could be possible, both for the removing and expelling of all scandals of doctrine and life, and also to the earnester [more earnest] and more effectual maintaining, provoking and increasing of the edification of faith, and a life worthy of Christ our Lord. Insomuch as if anyone did loiter or neglect their own duty, the other bishops might be ready to help, yea, even so far forth as to the suspending of the obstinate, and utter casting them out of their bishop’s function. We should consider what Saint Cyprian writeth to Stephan the Roman bishop concerning Martian bishop of Arelatensis, who fell into the sect of Novatian, book 2, epistle 13, and which he writes in his third epistle and first book, "Of a certain flock distributed unto every one of the shepherds," and which he spake in the counsel of Carthage, as he wrote to Quitinus.

Now further when the world began to be full of churches and that the Metropolitanes had also need of their peculiar care,(for not all, there beginning now to grow very many, had other skill enough or watchfulness enough for their place; forever and in all orders of men there be few that do excel) the care of some provinces was committed to certain bishops of the chief churches, as to the bishop of Rome, of Constantinople, of Antioch and Alexandrea, and afterwards of Caesarea, and Cappadocia, and certain others, as by reason of the great increase of churches of the faithful necessity did require. But notwithstanding, these primate bishops, (whom afterward they called patriarchs) had no authority over the other bishops or churches, more than (as I said before) the Metropolitanes had over the bishops and churches of their provinces. Everyone did owe a special care and diligence to that portion of the churches that belonged to him. It was his duty also to admonish the bishops in time if any had offended or neglected his duty; and if admonition prevailed not, then to add the authority of a counsel. Among these the first place was given to him of Rome, both for the reverence of S. Peter, and also for the majesty of the city. Which reason the fathers afterward following, gave the second place to him of Constantinople, as being a second Rome, and the bishop of the emperial sea; whereas Antioch before, had obtained the second place among these patriarchs. But as the nature of man depraved by ambition, did ever labor more, that his rule might stretch far, then to govern well, these patriarchs by occasion of this general care of the churches committed unto them, drew unto themselves, first the ordaining of their neighbor bishops; and by that ordaining, they crept by little and little, and at last confirmed a jurisdiction over such bishops, and their churches; which mischief, when it grew to be very great, there began a grievous contention for a universal rule over all churches; which the first that labored to get unto himself was one John bishop of Constantinople, under the emperor, Mauricius; concerning which contention there are extant many epistles, among the epistles of S.Greg. booke 5.6.7.10. At length under Phocas, he of Rome obtained this title of universal bishop, which the bishops of that sea began more and more by degrees to abuse, even until by occasion, first by division of the Empire under Charles the Great, afterwards by dissentions of princes and nations, whereby the tore and rent the power of the emperors of the west, and other kings. They exalted themselves into that anti-Christian power which now they brag of; having oppressed the powers first of bishops, and then of all kings and emperors. Thus therefore hath Satan overthrown the wholesome obedience and government of the clergy orders. For the Roman antichrist got to himself an immediate rule over all both clergy and laity; and hath dissolved and broken the care and charge of bishops, such as were good bishops, over those that were committed to their trust. But seeing it must needs be that all orders of clerks must have their governors and overseers, therefore the power of bishops must be restored, as also of Archdeacons and all others by what name soever they be called, to whom any portion of governing and keeping the clergy is committed. And also a watchfulness and inquiry that there be none in this order unguarded or unlooked unto. Thus far Bucer, not only rehearsing, but also commending the custom of the ancient church, ordaining divers orders of ecclesiastical functions, whereof we before spake.

I should also have had consideration of those churches which, albeit they embrace the gospel of Christ Jesus, yet they still retain their bishops and archbishops both in deed and name.

What? that in the churches even of the Protestants, neither bishops indeed, nor archbishops are wanting. Whom, having turned the names out of good Greek into bad Latin, they call superintendents and general superintendents? Yea, there also, where neither those old names in good Greek, nor these new in ill Latin, are used at all. Yet their are wont to be some superior persons in whose hands is almost the whole authority. The controversy then hath been about the names; but seeing we agree about the thing, why should we contend about the names? By the way, as I did not disallow the fathers in that matter, whereupon the questions is, so can I not but love the zeal of our men which do therefore hate those names because they are afraid, least with the names, the old ambition and tyranny should be brought in again to the destruction of the church.

Aphorism 12. For neither did Christ ordain any such head. Neither would the fathers admit thereof, because it was not expedient for the church; but contented themselves with the four patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, all which, were of an equal authority and power; and every of them contained within his own bounds, as also it was decreed in the Council at Nice, and confirmed in others. And that not without many and very weighty causes, whereof in my judgment this was not one of the least, least there should be a door set open to tyranny in the church. But rather if that anyone durst attempt anything against the sound doctrine of Christ, and against the liberty of the church, then the other archbishops with their bishops of no less authority might oppose themselves against him and suppress his insolency and cut off his tyranny. The church in respect of Christ is a kingdom; in respect of men which are in it, and either rule or be ruled, it is an aristocracy.

Aphorism 21.

These be two questions far different: Whether bishops may also be princes, and princes bishops, keeping also their principalities in their hands. And, whether they which are both bishops and princes, besides their ecclesiastical authority, may also have civil power over those that are their subjects, and so, whether their subjects must obey them as princes, or not. In my aphorism, I spake not one word of the former question, for it was not needful, but only of the latter. Now who seeth not, how I showed by apparent demonstrations, that princes must be wholly obeyed, howsoever, rightfully or wrongfully, they be made princes? For why should not they that are subject both to the princes and archbishops of Colone, Mentz, and Trevers, in matters that are not repugnant to Christian piety, be obedient unto them? Surely it were mere sedition in them not to obey them. And if to these, why should not they also, which are within the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, in the same matters and for the same cause obey him? For there is one and the same reason of them all. Of the former question (as I say) I spake not at all. Neither purposed I now in this brief confession to discourse thereof, knowing that all are not herein of one opinion, and much may be said to and fro both ways. That place in Matthew 20:1-34, ("...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you...") some expound it one way, of the apostles only, and ministers of the Word; others another way, of all Christ’s disciples and all Christians.