Then I say that it is too too vnskilfully done, to separate order and discipline from then that haue the ministerie of the woorde in hand, as though the Church without Archbishops and Arch∣deacons▪ were acōfused heape and a disordered lumpe, when as S. Paule teacheth it to be without them, a bodie consisting of all his partes and members, comely knitte and ioyned together, wherein nothing wanteth, nor nothing is to much.
Order and discipline are not separated from the ministery of the worde, although all such* 1.1 as be ministers of the woorde haue not the like authoritie to execute them. For as it is sayd in that Latine booke, for order and policies sake more is graunted to the Arch∣bishop than to the Bishop, neither will any learned man so greatly maruayle at this, seing the practise thereof was in the Apostles time. For Paule had more large and ample authoritie than Timothie, and Timothie than the resse of the ministers of Ephesus.
What if the Church without Archbishops and Archdeacons were perfect in S. Paules time, and may be perfect at other times, doth it therefore follow that the Church in no time or stare may haue them, or rather that they be not necessarie at some time for the Churche? In S. Paules time Apostles, Prophets, workers of miracles, giftes of healing, diuersitie of tongs were counted necessarie, and principall partes of this body, which not with standing you confesse now to be cut of, and yet the bodie perfect: So that you see this is no reason at all, to say that the Church in S. Paules time was a perfect body without Archbyshops and Archdeacons: Ergo, they are not necessary in the Church of Christ. For I might as well reason thus: The Church of Christe in S. Paules time was not perfect without Apostles, Prophets, doers of miracles, giftes of healing, diuersitie of tongs, therefore it is not now perfect being without them. And likewise it was then perfect without Christian magistrates,* 1.2 Ergo, Christian magistrates are to be remoued from the Church. This kinde of rea∣soning, as it is vnskilfull, bicause it doth not distinguish the times of the Churche, neither considereth necessarie circumstances, so it is moste perilous and openeth a dore to Anabaptisme and confusion.
Moreouer I told you before, that although this name Archbishop is not expressed* 1.3 in the Scripture yet is the office and function, as it is euidently to be séene in the ex∣amples of Timothie, and Titus, yea and in the Apostles themselues, whose office of planting Churches thorough the whole world is ceassed, but their care for the good gouernment of those Churches which were planted, and their authoritie ouer those Pastors whom they placed, doth and must remayne in such places where there are Churches. And therefore M. Bucer writing vpon the fourth to the Ephesians sayth* 1.4 thus: Miletum Presbiteros Ecclesiae Ephesinae conuocat: tamen quia vnus inter eos praeerat alijs & primam Ecclesiaecuram habebat, in eo propriè residebat nomen Episcopi. In the Actes Paule calleth the same men Bishops and Elders, when as he called together the ministers of the Church of Ephesus vnto Miletum: yet bicause one amongst them did rule ouer the reste and had the chiefe care of the Churche, the name of Bishop did properly remayne in him So that this superioritie and iurisdiction which we speake of, was euen in the Apostles time, as it is more at large afterward proued.