Episcopacy by Divine Right Asserted, Part 2 · Section 4
§. 4.
The derivation of this power and majority from the Apostles to the ſucceeding Biſhops.
NOw therefore, that we have ſeene what ground our Saviour laid for a ſuperioritie in them: Let us ſee how they by his divine inſpiration erected it in others, who ſhould follow them; …hat was Apoſtolicall, this was Epiſcopall: It is true, as Cal…in ſaith, that at the firſt, all to whom the Diſpenſation of the Goſpell was committed, were called Presbyters, whether they were Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, Prophets, Paſtors and Doctors, as before the Apoſtles were commonly called by the name of Diſciples, in every Chapter, yet in degree ſtill above the 70; and we do ſtill ſay, one while Biſhops and Curats, comprehending all Presbyters and Deacons under that name, another while Biſhops, Paſtors, & Curats, not diſtinctly obſerving the difference of names. So they all were called Presbyters, yet not ſo, but that there was a manifeſt and full diſtinction betwixt the Apoſtles and Presbyters, as thriſe Act. the 15. They therefore, though out of humility they hold the common names with others, yet maintained their places of Apoſtles, and governed the Church at firſt, as it were, in common; And thus, as St. Ierome truly, All maine matters were done in the beginning by the common Councell, and conſent of the Presbyters; their conſent; but ſtill the power was in the Apoſtles, who in the nearer Churches (ſince they in perſon ordered Eccleſiaſticall affairs) ordained only Presbyters; in the remoter, Biſhops. This for the Conſummation of it, was an act of time; Neither was the ſame courſe held at once, in every Church (whiles it was in Fieri) ſome, which were nearer, being ſupplied by the Apoſtles preſence, needed not ſo preſent an Epiſcopacy, Others that were ſmall, needed not yet their full number of Offices, neither were there perhaps fit men for thoſe places of eminence, to be found every where; whence it is, that we finde in ſome Scriptures mention only of Biſhops and Deacons; in others, of Presbyters, not of Biſhops. This then was the Apoſtles courſe, for the plantation of the Church, and the better propagation of the Goſpel, where ever they came, they found it neceſſary to ordain meet aſsiſtants to them, and they promiſcuouſly imparted unto them all their owne ſtile (but Apoſtolicall) naming them Biſhops and Presbyters, and Deacons according to the familiarity and indifferency of their former uſage therein: But when they, having divided themſelves into ſeverall parts of the world, found that the number of Chriſtians (eſpecially in the greater Cities) ſo multiplied, that they muſt needs be divided into many Congregations, and thoſe Congregations muſt neceſſarily have many Presbyters, and thoſe many Presbyters, in the abſence of the Apoſtles, began to emulate each other, and to make parties for their own advantage; then (as St. Ierome truly notes) began the manifeſt and conſtant diſtinction betwixt the Office of Biſhops and Presbyters to be both known and obſerved. For now, the Apoſtles, by the direction of the Spirit of God, found it requiſite a d neceſſary for the avoyding of ſchiſme and diſorder that ſome eminent perſons ſhould every where be lifted up above the reſt, and ordained to ſucceed them in the ouer-ſeeing and ordering both the Church and their many Presbyters under them, who by an eminence, were called their Biſhops, Or, as the word ſignifies, Superviſors, and Governours. So as the Miniſters (foreign) Phil. 3.7. they foreign, (for as the Offices, ſo the names of Biſhop and Deacon, were of Apoſtolicall foundation) Theſe Biſhops therefore were the men whom they furniſhed with their own ordinary power, as Church-governors, for this purpoſe; Now the offi… es grew fully diſtinct, even in the Apoſtles daies, and under their own hands, although ſometimes the names, after the former uſe, were confounded.
All the queſtion then ſhortly, is, whether the Apoſtles of Chriſt ordained Epiſcopacie, thus ſtated, and thus fixedly-qualified with Imparitie and Iuriſdiction. For if we take a Biſhop for a parochiall Paſtor, and a Presbyter for a Lay-elder (as too many miſconſtrue the terms) it were no leſſe then madneſſe to doubt of this Superioritie: but we take Epiſcopacie in the proper, and fore-defined ſence; and Presbyterie according to the only, true and ancient meaning of the Primitive Church, viz for that which we call now Prieſthood; the other is a meerly new and uncouth deviſe, neither came ever within the Ken of antiquitie. As for the further ſubdiviſion of this quarrell, whether Epiſcopacy muſt be accounted a diſtinct Order, or but a ſeverall degree in the ſame Order, there is heer no need for the preſent, to enter into the diſcuſsion of it; Eſpecially ſince I obſerve that the wiſer ſort of our oppoſites are indifferent to both, ſo that whichſoever you take, may be granted them to be but Iuris humani; And I cannot but wonder at the toughneſſe of thoſe other oppoſites, which ſtand ſo highly upon this difference, to have it meerly but a degree; In the mean while never conſidering that thoſe among the Pontificiall Divines (which in this point are the greateſt Patrons of this their fancy) go all upon the ground of the Maſſe, according to which they regulate and conforme their opinions therein; Firſt making all Eccleſiaſticall power to have reference to the body of Chriſt;Bellarm. de ſacram. Ord n. l. 1. c. 9. (as Bellarmine fully) then every Prieſt, being able with them, to make his Maker, what poſsible power can be imagined, ſay they, to be above that? The Presbyter therefore conſecrating as well as the Biſhop, the Order (in their conceit) upon this ground, can be but one: So then theſe doughty Champions among us, do indeed, but plead for Baal, whiles they would be taken for the only pullers of him down. But for our ſelves, taking order in that ſenſe, in which our Oracle of learning, Biſhop Andrewes, Winton. Epiſt. ad Molin. 1.ci es it out of the School, qua poteſtas eſt ad actum ſpecialem; there can be no reaſon to deny Epiſcopacy to be a diſtinct order, ſince the greateſt detractors from it, have granted the power of Ordination of Prieſts & Deacons, and of Impoſition of hands for Confirmation, to Biſhops only: They are Chamiers owne words,Camer. de Oe cumen. Pontif. l. 10. c. 5. Accipere Epiſcopum novam poteſtatem, & Jurisdictionem non iverim inficias; I cannot denie that a Biſhop (as ſuch) receiveth a new power and juriſdiction: Moreover in the Church of England, every Biſhop receives a new Ordination (by way of Eminence, commonly called his Conſecration) which cannot be a void-Act, I trow, and muſt needs give more then a degree; and why ſhould that great and ancient Councell define it to be no leſſe than ſacriledge, to put down a Biſhop into the place of a Presbyter, if it were only an abatement of a degree? but howſoever this be, yet if it ſhall appear that there was by Apoſtolicall Ordination, ſuch a fixed imparity, and conſtant Iuriſdiction amongſt thoſe, who were intruſted with the teaching and governing Gods people, that is, of Biſhops above the other Clergie, as I have ſpoken, we have what we contend for, which whiles I ſee doubted, I cannot but wonder with what eies men read St. Paul in his Epiſtles to Timothy and Titus; Surely in my underſtanding the Apoſtle ſpeaks ſo home to the point, that if he were now to give direction to an Engliſh Biſhop, how to demean himſelfe in his place, he could not ſpeak more fully to the execution of this ſacred Office: For I demand what it is that is ſtood upon, but theſe two particulars, the eſpeciall power of Ordination, and power of the ruling and cenſuring of Presbyters; and if theſe two be not clear in the charge of the Apoſtle to thoſe two Biſhops, one of Crete, the other of Epheſus; I ſhall yield the cauſe, and confeſſe to want my ſenſes.