The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 13
Sect. 13. II. Which is the next thing to be considered, viz. What Authority the Bishop hath, by virtue of his Consecration, in this Church? And that, I say, is what Mr. B. calls the ordinary parts of the Apostolical Authority; which lies in three things, Government, Ordination and Censures. And that our Church did believe our Bishops to succeed the Apostles in those parts of their Office, I shall make appear by these things. (1.) In the Preface before the Book of Ordination, it is said, That it is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture, and ancient Authours, that from the Apostles time, there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. What is the reason that they express it thus, from the Apostles time, rather than in the Apostles times, but that they believed, while the Apostles lived, they managed the affairs of Government themselves; but as they withdrew, they did in some Churches sooner, and in some later, as their own continuance, the condition of the Churches, and the qualification of Persons were, commit the care and Government of Churches to such Persons whom they appointed thereto? Of which, we have an uncontroulable evidence in the Instances of Timothy and Titus; for the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist; and all their removes do not invalidate this, because while the Apostles lived, it is probable there were no fixed Bishops, or but few. But as they went off, so they came to be settled in their several Churches. And as this is most agreeable to the sense of our Church, so it is the fairest Hypothesis for reconciling the different Testimonies of Antiquity. For hereby the succession of Bishops is secured from the Apostles times, for which the Testimonies of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Saint Cyprian, and others, are so plain; hereby room is left to make good all that Saint Ierom hath said; and what Epiphanius delivers concerning the differing settlements of Churches at first. So that we may allow for the Community of names, between Bishop and Presbyter, for a while in the Church, i. e. while the Apostles governed the Churches themselves; but afterwards, that which was then part of the Apostolical Office, became the Episcopal, which hath continued from that time to this, by a constant succession in the Church. (2.) Archbishop Whitgift several times declares that these parts of the Apostolical Office still remained in the Bishops of our Church.Defence of the Answer to the Admonit. p. 218. As for this part of the Apostles function, saith he, to visit such Churches as were before planted, and to provide that such were placed in them, as were vertuous and godly Pastours, I know it remaineth still, and is one of the chief parts of the Bishops function. And again, there is now no planting of Churches,p. 424. nor going through the whole world, there is no writing of new Gospels, no prophesying of things to come, but there is Governing of Churches, visiting of them, reforming of Pastours and directing of them, which is a portion of the Apostolical function.p. 427. Again, Although that this part of the Apostolical Office which did consist in planting and founding of Churches through the whole world is ceased; yet the manner of Government by placing Bishops in every City, by moderating and Governing them, by visiting the Churches, by cutting off schisms and contentions, by ordering Ministers remaineth still, and shall continue, and is in this Church in the Archbishops and Bishops, as most meet men to execute the same. Bishop Bilson fully agrees, as to these particulars. (1.) That the Apostles did not at first commit the Churches to the Government of Bishops,Perpetual Government of Christ's Church. ch. 12. p. 224. but reserved the chief power of Government in their own hands. (2.) That upon experience of the confusion and disorder which did arise through equality of Pastours, did appoint at their departures certain approved men to be Bishops.ch. 13 p. 244. (3.) That these Bishops did succeed the Apostles in the care and Government of Churches, as he proves at large; and therefore he calls their function Apostolick. Instead of many others, which it were easie to produce, I shall onelyonly add the Testimony of King Charles I. in his debates about Episcopacy, who understood the Constitution of our Church as well as any Bishop in it, and defended it with as clear and as strong a Reason. In his third Paper to Henderson, he hath these words, Where you find a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same (which I deny to be always so) it is in the Apostles times; now I think to prove the Order of Bishops succeeded that of the Apostles, and that the name was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour. In his first Paper at the Treaty at Newport, he thus states the case about Episcopal Government. I conceive that Episcopal Government is most consonant to the word of God, and of an Apostolical Institution, as it appears by the Scriptures to have been practised by the Apostles themselves, and by them committed and derived to particular persons as their substitutes or successours therein (as for ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, giving Rules concerning Christian Discipline, and exercising Censures over Presbyters and others) and hath ever since to these last times been exercised by Bishops in all the Churches of Christ, and therefore I cannot in conscience consent to abolish the said Government. In his Reply to the first Answer of the Divines, he saith, that meer Presbyters are Episcopi Gregis onelyonly, they have the oversight of the Flock in the duties of Preaching, Administration of Sacraments, publick Prayer, Exhorting, Rebuking, &c. but Bishops are Episcopi Gregis & Pastorum too, having the oversight of Flock and Pastours within their several precincts in the Acts of external Government. And that, although the Apostles had no Successours in eundem gradum as to those things that were extraordinary in them, as namely the Measure of their Gifts, the extent of their charge, the infallibility of their Doctrine, and the having seen Christ in the flesh: but in those things that were not extraordinary (and such those things are to be judged which are necessary for the service of the Church in all times, as the Office of Teaching and the Power of Governing are) they were to have and had Successours; and therefore the learned and godly Fathers and Councils of old times did usually stile Bishops the Successours of the Apostles without ever scrupling thereat. Many other passages might be produced out of those excellent Papers to the same purpose, but these are sufficient to discover that our Bishops are looked on as Successours to the Apostles, and therefore Mr. Baxter hath no reason to call our Episcopacy a new devised species of Churches, and such as destroys the being of Parochial Churches.