Concerning a Threefold Order of Bishops, Part 1 – Part 2
THE IVDGEMENT OF A MOST REVEREND AND LEARNED MAN FROM BEYOND THE SEAS, CONCERNING A THREEFOLD ORDER OF BISHOPS, WITH A DECLARATION OF CERTAINE OTHER WAIGHTIE POINTS, CONCERNING THE DISCIPLINE AND GOVERNEMENT OF THE CHVRCH.
THE IVDGMENT OF A MOST REVEREND AND LEARNED MAN FROM BEyond the ſeas, concerning a threefolde order of Biſhops: with a declaration of certaine other waightie pointes, concercerning the diſcipline and gouernement of the church.
We muſt needes make three biſhops.
1 Of God.
2 Of man.
3 Of the deuil.
A Biſhop ordained of God, or ſet vp by the law of God, doth declare nothing els but their calling, which by an other more ſpeciall name, are called Paſtoures, whome (ſaieth Luke) the holy Ghoſt hath appointed Etheto epiſcopon poykanein ten eccleſian tou theou.Biſhops to feede the Church of GOD. And either of theſe names of Paſtour or of Biſhop, is proper to them in the newe Teſtament, whereby the Apoſtle doeth diſtinguiſh them from Apoſtles, Prophets, and Euangeliſts, which were callings to endure for a tyme, Epheſ. 4. 11. and from Deacons, 1. Tim. 3. and Phil. 1. 1. for otherwiſe they are eueryevery where called Elders, & Paule doth call his Apoſtleſhip a Deaconſhip. Rom. 11. 13. But they are called Biſhops in regard of the ſheepe committed vntounto them, as though a man ſhould call them watchmen of ouerſeers.
Theſe now were one alone, as where any church had but one Paſtor, or more if the Church had more then one. And the meeting of them together ioyntly with their Elders, whom Paule calleth gouernours, of the other commō name …eureuſes Presbyte…ion.called, was the Elderſhip. Their duetie was to attend on the worde and praier, both publikely and priuately, and in common to gouerne the Church, as appeareth by many places of Scripture.
That the ſame were ſubiect to magiſtrates, though prophane, appeareth not onelyonly by the example of Chriſt the high Prieſt, and of the Apoſtles, but alſo by the expreſſe wordes of Paul, 1. Timoth. 2. and Luke 12. 13.
OF THE BISHOP THAT is of man.
THe Biſhop that is of man, that is to ſay, brought into the Church by the alone wiſedome of man, beſides the expreſſe word of God, is a certain power giuen to one certaine Paſtour aboue his other fellowes, yet limited with certain orders or rules prouided againſt tyranny. They which did beare this office of biſhop, are called biſhops in regard of their fellow Elders and the whole clergie, as watchmen ſet ouer the clergie.
That this calling was not brought in by the word, it is manifeſt by that, that there is not to be found in the new Teſtament, ſo much as one ſyllable, whereby there may be the leaſt ſurmiſe of any ſuch thing. For although we doubt not, but all thinges ought to be done orderly in the lordes houſe, and therfore that ſome one ſhould be preſident in eueryevery aſſembly, whom Iohn in the Reuelatiō ſeemeth to call the Angell of the Churches. And Auſten calleth the moderator Proeſtota, yet this moderator of actiōs of the Church, ſauyng this one thing, that he was the firſt in order in the cō pany; had no authority ouer his felows, neither did hee exerciſe any higher office. Therefore the author of the epiſtle to the Hebrewes, as Hierome noteth, doeth cal the whole company of the elders, Egoumenous. Hebr. 13.gouernours; not any one certayne man. Such a one was Peter many times in the very aſſembly of the Apoſtles, of a great authoritie ſurely amongſt the Apoſtles, who were all otherwiſe equall, and yet he himſelfe one of the company of the Apoſtles, ſent by his companions to Samaria with Iohn, Act. 8. 14. and in the aſſembly giuing an account of his miniſtery, to thoſe which were of the Circumciſion, Acts 11. 2. But if any ſuch biſhoplike authoritie of any one aboue the reſt, as there was afterwardes, had bin then, ſurely the apoſtles would hauehave ſet down their names euen at that tyme, in their letters which they ſent from one to another, eſpecially ſeeing Paule in his epiſtle to the Philip. doth name biſhops in the plural number, and Deacons: or there ſhould hauehave bene at leaſt ſome peculiar mention made of them. Which, ſeeing it is not done, it appeareth that amongeſt theſe gouerners, there was none in degree aboue their companions and fellow biſhops: but as occaſion ſerued, the Churches were gouerned by a fellowlike & equal authoritie, among the fellow-elders in their elderſhips, he onelyonly going before the reſt, whoſe godlines and authoritie, the company did moſt allow of.
Epiphanius againſt the Arrians, defending the contrary opinion: namely, the biſhop ordained by man, as ordained by God, doth bring forth three reaſons to the contrary. Two as it were out of the word of God: the third out of the hiſtory of thoſe tymes. The firſt place is, 1. Tim. 5. 1. Rebuke not an Elder, Presbyteron me … peplexen…&c. whereby he gathereth, that Timothie had ſome authoritie ouer the Elders, that is, the Paſtors of the church of Epheſus. But (be it ſpokē with the fauour of ſo woorthy a man) hee ſhould hauehave marked, that here an elder is called, he that is ſuch by age, not he that is a Paſtor, which is declared by the oppoſition next following of yong men.… reote….
An other place is out of the ſame Epiſtle, Receyue not an accuſation agaynſt an Elder, the firſt of Timothie 5. 19. Whereby he gathereth, that the Elders were ſubiect to the Biſhops and tribunall ſeate. But who will graunt hym that Timothie was Biſhop of Epheſus. For the hiſtory will eaſily re…ell that, which the fathers doe report as certayne. For no man can denie that Timothie was one that accompanied Paule, and therefore no biſhop aſſigned to any one certaine place, who was ſent one while to this place, an other to that, for the eſtabliſhing of the Churches: and finally, that he was an Euangeliſt, and not a biſhop of any one certayne flocke. I hauehave deſired thee (ſaieth hee) to abide at Epheſus, whileſt I went into Macedonia. And why ſo? namely, to looke to the Church which hee had begunne to eſtabliſh, vntill he were called for agayne, which he doth in the other epiſtle. What? and did the Apoſtle robbe the Epheſians of their Biſhop, without asking their church at the leaſt? Surely, when he went laſt to Ieruſalem, neuer mindyng to returne to Epheſus, eyther he would hauehave reſtored Timothie vntounto them, or the Epheſians would hauehave required him agayne of the Apoſtle, when hee put them in minde of ſo great danger at hand: or if another were to be put into his roume, hee would hauehave made expreſſe mention in that his diuine Sermon. But he is ſayd to hauehave ſent for the Elders onelyonly, and to hauehave warned them of the duetie belongyng to them all. Yet it need not ſeeme ſtraunge to any, that the Euangeliſt Timothie, a man indued with ſo many and ſo great giftes remainyng at Epheſus, did gouerne all thinges by his direction, as one in degree aboue the Elders, and by the Apoſtles authoritie appointed there for a tyme.
But let vsus graunt Epiphanius more then this, that Timothie had the authoritie of the laying on of handes out of theſe woordes of the Apoſtle, Laye not handes ſodainely vponupon any: Let vsus graunt this too, that theſe duties belōged to the gouernors, yet we deny that Timothie could hauehave had any authoritie therefore, ouer the Elders of Epheſus, except he had bin an Euangeliſt. For Paule himſelfe Tim. 4. 14. doth ſhew ſufficiently that the laying on of the hands was done, in the name of the Elderſhip it ſelfe, not by the authoritie of any ſuperior. Now the reaſons of the ſame Epiphanius are theſe: Biſhops (ſaieth hee) begette the fathers of the Church, but Elders the ſonnes, in aſmuch as biſhops and not Elders ordained biſhops. But what is this els, then to aske to hauehave that which is in queſtion: for it may be and ought to bee anſwered, that the biſhops tooke that authoritie vponupon them, without warrant of the word of God, and that the rule is falſe, which cōcerning this matter, doth attribute it to the Apoſtles, which may be ſhewed by the ordaining of Timothie by the Elderſhip. Againe, foraſmuch as election is the chiefe ground of church-offices, which dependeth of the voyces of the whole company, and not of the laying on of handes, which made not biſhops, but ſent them into their poſſeſſion after they had made them: we may more truly affirme with the Apoſtle, that the holy Ghoſt by the voices of the children themſelues, made the fathers, and not the biſhops.
An other of his reaſons is, a deprauing of places alleaged out of Paul, that the Church being new borne, biſhops could not be ſo eſtabliſhed euerywhere at the firſt, as is to be ſeene in the election of Deacons. Whom yet can Epiphanius perſwade, that it was for want of fit men onelyonly, that there were many biſhops in eueryevery Church? For that which not onelye Hierome, but Epiphanius againſt the Miletians alſo reporteth, concerning them of Alexandria: that is, Alexandria neuer had two biſhops, as the other cities, vponupon what ground Oupote… lexandr… duo epiſ… pous eich… os kai al… poleis.the men of Alexandria did it, & folowed not the examples of other churches, let them ſee to it.
Finally, that this kind of biſhop, which who ſo beareth it, is not the firſt in order amongſt his felow elders, but in degree aboue them, beyng the onelyonly man in his dioceſſe, is not ordeined by the word of God, but by cuſtome amongſt the fathers Hierome witneſſeth, as very many others long ſince hauehave obſerued: For theſe are his woordes in his epiſtle to Euagrius.
The Apoſtle (ſaieth hee) doeth teach plainely, that Elders and Biſhops are all one, &c. And where as one after was choſen to bee ſet ouer the reſt, that (ſaith he) was a remedy found out for remedy of ſchiſme, that eueryevery one drawyng Chriſt vntounto himſelfe, myght not rend the Church in ſunder. For at Alexandria alſo from the tyme of Marke the Euangeliſt, to the tyme of Heraclea and Dionyſius the Biſhop, the Elders placed one in a high degree or place, choſen by themſelues, whom they called a biſhop. Moreouer, vppon the firſt to Titus. An Elder and a Biſhop (ſaith hee) is all one, and before by the inſtigation of the deuill, there was pertakyng in religion, it was ſayd amongeſt the people: I am of Paule, of Apollos, and of Caephas: the Churches were gouerned by the common aduiſe of the Elders. But after that eueryevery one imagined, that thoſe whome he baptiſed were his owne, and not Chriſtes: it was decreed throughout the whole world, that one choſen of the Elders, ſhoulde bee ſet aboue the reſt; vntounto whome all the care of the church might appertayne, to the takyng away of the ſeedes of contentions. And a little after, As the Elders knowe that they ate ſubiect by the cuſtome of the Churche to the Biſhop that is ſet ouer them: ſo let the Biſhops knowe, that they are greater then the Elders, rather by cuſtome, then by any vertue of the Lordes appoyntment. Yea and Auguſtine alſo in his 19. epiſtle ſaieth, that according to the titles of honor, which the vſe of the Church hath gotten, the office of a biſhop is greater then the office of an Elder.
Chryſoſtome alſo witneſſeth, vponupon the firſt to Timothie and the 3. chapter, That the Biſhops differ from the Elders onelyonly in ordinatiō; that is (as Theophilact ſpeaketh more plainly) in the onelyonly ceremonie of conſecration. Theodoret writing vponupon the ſame place, ſaith, That in olde tyme they called the ſame men Elders and Biſhops, as though forſooth the thing it ſelfe had then bene onelyonly called by another name, and goeth about to prooue that, becauſe Paule calleth Epaphroditus the Apoſtle of the Philippians. This is of no weight at all. The names which are giuen of fellow labourer, and fellow ſouldiour, do declare that he was no biſhop in this kind of biſhop, but an Euangeliſt tied to no one citie, much leſſe to a dioceſſe, of the number of thoſe, whome the Apoſtles did keepe, to ſend to and fro, at the motiō of the ſpirit of God. The councell of Nice alſo, diſputing about the degrees of biſhops, alleageth ancient cuſtomes, whereof we minde to ſpeake anon. And where as Cyprian not in one place, calleth the biſhops ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles, whoſe authoritie is from God; and if we take it ſo, as though by the very commandement of God, theſe biſhops are the ſame, that in tyme paſt the Apoſtles, the thing it ſelfe doth refute that, ſeeyng there was alwayes a certain portion aſſigned to eueryevery biſhop. But the Apoſtles, by the direction of the ſpirite rite of God, though not confuſedlie, did exerciſe their miniſtery throughout the whole worlde. But if this be true, there ſhould hauehave beene more biſhops, in the Church of Rome it ſelfe: namely Peter and Paul, which yet afterwards was counted peculiar to one. And ſurely, ther cannot be mo, the cheefe in one and the ſame company at one time. And whereas the name of Byſhops, is ſayd of the Apoſtleſhip. Acte. 1. 20. It maketh nothing to the matter, except a man by a like reaſon woulde hauehave the Deacons to hauehave bin Apoſtles, becauſe Paul calleth his Apoſtleſhip a Deaconſhip or miniſtery. But we are to looke Did…nianinto that alſo, that Hierome mighte ſeeme to be of the mind, that this kinde of Byſhop begun thē, when as ſchiſmes aroſe vp in the Church. That this is not ſo, we may gather out of Paul him ſelf, who of purpoſe writing to the Corinthians about the ſame matter, doth not onelyonly paſſe ouer this remedy: but alſo as foreſeeing ſuch a matter, doth in the title of the epiſtle, ioyne vntounto him ſelfe Soſthenes, to teach by his example how carefully this Primacie is to be auoyded in aſſemblies of the Church, who (it is euident were not onelyonly the firſt in order next vntounto Chriſt, but alſo higheſt in degree) did execute their miniſterie in common. Wherefore, no not the ſame Paule alone would excommunicate the inceſtuous perſons by his Apoſtolicall authoritie, but by the authoritie of the whole Elderſhip, neither doeth Peter doubt to call himſelfe fellow elder.Sunproſbuteron.
Nay this is ſo farre off from being any good remedy, from ſtaying of ſchiſmes, that contrary wiſe there was neuer more bitter contention in the Church, then about this primacie which had neuer come to paſſe, if this preheminence aboue their fellowes had bene forbidden, or rather, if men had neuer brought it in. Whereupon we conclude, that this kind of biſhop which is not of order, but of ſuperioritie, was brought in of man, & as Hierome ſaith Tit. 1. by litle & litle, & that ſo as he is in deede thought, that the planets of diſſentions might be thereby plucked vp, all the care was committed to one man.
And whereas he ſayth in the ſame place, that it was decreed thoroughout all the world: We are to vnderſtand it no otherwiſe, then of a priuy cuſtome, brought in by little & little. And what ſoeuer is found in Ignatius, or other ancient Writers, when the byſhop of Sathan was not yet found out, touching the authority of the byſhops or ouerſeers (as Iuſtin ſpeaketh) is to be vnderderſtood of this kind of Biſhop.