“For this cause left I [Paul] thee [Titus, an evangelist] in Crete, that thou shouldest…  ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.  If any be blameless…  For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God…”

Titus 1:5-7

“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the Church.  And when they were come to him, he said unto them…  ‘Take heed…  to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God…'”

Acts 20:17-18, 28

.

.

Order of Contents

Intro
Articles  6+
Books  4+
Quotes  2
For it
Historical  5

Episcopal Succession  3
Bishop: Not Necessary for Ordination  1
Bishops & Prelates are Unlawful, but Valid Gospel Ministers  2
May Receive Ordination by a Bishop  6+
Cooperation with Bishops  6+
Latin  3
Biblio  1

.

.

Intro

The Greek word in the New Testament for both ‘bishop’ and ‘overseer’ is episcopos, the roots of which word literally mean ‘over’-‘seer’.  Presbyterians recognize that Scripture uses these terms synonymously with ‘elder’, or presbyteros (Acts 20:17-18,28; Titus 1:5-7), they designating various characteristics of the same order of offices (including pastors, teachers and ruling elders).

Episcopalianism and Prelacy usually believe that bishops are a distinct office from pastors and have an authority of jurisdiction over pastors, such that bishops can ordain and exercise discipline of themselves over pastors and other bishops (a top-down Church government by a line of individuals).

Prelacy always entails episcopalianism, but episcopalianism does not always entail prelacy.  The 1638 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in the 2nd Reformation explicitly condemned prelacy, where bishops exercise jurisdictional authority over pastors and other bishops, and are not accountable to the other Church courts.  However, numerous ministers in the 1638 assembly, including Robert Baillie, held, in theory, to a limited episcopacy, that bishops might exist under the authority of the general assembly.   The assembly, while presbyterian in structure and mostly presbyterian in viewpoint, did not condemn limited episcopacy, nor did they explicitly and exclusively affirm a strict presbyterianism.‡

‡ That which had caused so much trouble in the previous decades were bishops, by the authority of the king, acting outside of and against the authority of the Church courts.  In consistency with the subsection below on this page, the bishops were yet considered to be valid Gospel ministers.  Hence most of them were defrocked and excommunicated by the assembly for their unrepented of sinful scandals.

.

.

Articles

1500’s

Bullinger, Henry – 3^rd Sermon, ‘Of the Ministry, & the Ministers of God’s Word; wherefore and for what end they are instituted of God; that the orders given by Christ unto the Church in times past were equal; whence and how the prerogative of ministers sprang and of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome’  in The Decades  ed. Thomas Harding  (1549; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850), vol. 4, 5^th Decade, pp. 93-128

Beza, Theodore – 29. Of Degrees which ought to be Among Ministers of the Word, according as they be Dissevered by Companies  in A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession  (London, 1562), Ch. 5

.

1600’s

Calderwood, David – The Altar of Damascus or the Pattern of the English Hierarchy & Church Policy Obtruded upon the Church of Scotland  ([Amsterdam?] 1621)  EEBO

ch. 2, ‘Of the High Commission’, pp. 21-39

These chapters are mostly a description of the subject as it existed in England, as Caldwerwood thought a mere description of the monstrosity was a sufficient refutation of it, per ‘To the Reader’.

ch. 3, ‘Of the Dignity & Power of Archbishops in England’, pp. 39-72

ch. 4, ‘Of the Dignity & Power of English Bishops’, pp. 72-129

ch. 5, ‘Of Archdeacons, Chancellors, Commissaries Officials & Vicars General’

Henderson, Alexander – The Unlawfulness & Danger of Limited Prelacy: or Perpetual Precedence in the Church, Briefly Discovered  (1641)  19 pp.

Durham, James – Lecture 3, ‘Concerning the Identity of Angel, Bishop & Presbyter’  in A Commentary upon the Book of the Revelation  (Edinburgh, 1658), pp. 223-33

“whereas to some, it appears that these ‘angels’ were some singular and eminent persons having jurisdiction and authority over other ministers, such as usually is given to bishops and prelates as contradistinct from the other [plain ministers]: and that therefore this exposition and application, which all alongst does confound bishops and ministers, as if there were no distinction amongst them, is not to be admitted.” – p. 223

“I know that even by some of the Fathers these two places, to wit, Eph. 4:11-12 and 1 Tim. 3:2 with 8, are adduced for the same end [for bishops]: because, in the first place, the apostle reckons out both extraordinary and ordinary preaching-officers, without making any mention of bishops: which could not be, if they were not the same with pastors that are named, as Ambrose on the place asserts.” – p. 224

“That this confounding both of the titles and offices of bishop and presbyter [as synonymous], will be found agreeable to the most pure primitive times.  It is true, within some few ages, difference was made between bishops and presbyters in the Church; yet was never that distinction counted by them to be jure divino, or by the Law of God; but as a thing belonging to order in the Church, and brought in by custom: which was, that he who was of greatest age and respect, and did preside in the meetings, was particularly called bishop, which afterward was established by some Councils…

not only Jerome was of that mind with Aerius (whose opinion was that the bishop and the presbyter were equal and the same) but also, that Ambrosius, Augustinus, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostomus, Theoderetus, Oecumenius and Theophilactus were of that same mind…

If it be asked, How this distinction [between presbyter and bishop] did enter?  He [Jerome] answers in that epistle [to Evagrius]…  that when afterward one came to be elected and preferred to the rest, it was done for the remedy of schism.” – p. 225

“From which testimonies [of Jerome], these things are clear:

1. That there was no difference betwixt the names and offices of bishops and presbyters in the days of the apostles;

2 That the difference was not begun by any apostolic constitution; but upon Church-custom, the decrees of Councils and such other grounds.

3. That although he acknowledges some difference for the time, as that bishops were to ordain, from which presbyters were restricted, yet that is clearly asserted by him not to flow from any divine constitution (for there can be none imagined after the apostles days) but from some human or Church constitution…” – p. 226

“The third consideration is that there is some footsteps of this identity of bishop and presbyter in the most corrupt writtings of the most impure schoolmen: which may appear in these three: 1. In that, generally, episcopacy is holden to be no distinct order from presbytery; and that presbytery, or priesthood (as they speak) is the highest order in all their hierarchy.  And this is current as the doctrine of Lombardus the Master of Sentences, Hugo, Aquinas, Thomas Waldensis, and generally of all the Thomists at least.  And though they seem to make bishops to be of a more eminent degree, yet by Estius and some others alleged by him, this is not thought sufficient to distinguish one office from another. ” – p. 227

“Because these places [of Scripture] do not only apply the titles indifferently, but do indifferently apply the duties, qualifications and every other thing that belongs to such officers and offices; and there is nothing spoken of the one in Scripture, but it is also spoken of the other, neither anything required as a qualification in, or duty from the one, but is also done in reference to the other, and that expressly.” – p. 228

“If what is spoken to ‘angels’ here, be to be appropriated to one bishop, then it behoved to be said that it were only the bishop that had the door opened to him in preaching, as in Philadelphia; that he only were commended for his labor and patience, as in Ephesus; that he only did convert souls, and in that peculiar sense, were said to have few unspotted persons under him, as in the epistle to Sardis, etc.  And if these things cannot be astricted to bishops, so understood, but must agree to all ministers in such cases, then must the title angel be so applied in these epistles.

We know these things are more fully and accurately made out by many others, to whom we refer the reader: and in particular, to that accurate piece of the ministers of the province of London, called Ius Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, and to the books that are frequently mentioned therein…” – p. 229

Voet, Gisbert – Ecclesiastical Politics  tr. by AI  (Amsterdam: Joannes à Waesberge, 1663–1676), vol. 3

‘On Cardinals’, pp. 793-816
‘On Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops & Deans’, ch. 3, pp. 816-32

Le Blanc de Beaulieu, Louis – 8. ‘Whether Christ conferred ecclesiastical jurisdiction directly to the Roman Pontiff alone, from whom it derives to other bishops?’  in Theological Theses Published at Various Times in the Academy  of Sedan  3rd ed.  tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica  (1675; London, 1683), Posthumous works, 3. Controversies on Church’s Governance and Roman Pontiff, pp. 1,011-13  Latin

Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr.  (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 3, 18^th Topic

16. ‘Should the government of the church be monarchical?  We deny against the Romanists.’  146

21. ‘Is the episcopate an order or grade of ecclesiastical hierarchy distinct from the presbyterate; and is it superior by divine right?  We deny.’  199

24. ‘Does the right of electing and calling pastors belong to bishops alone or to the church?  The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Romanists.’  223

.

.

Books

1500’s

Beza, Theodore – The Judgment of a Most Reverend & Learned Man from Beyond the Seas Concerning a Threefold Order of Bishops [of God, of Man, of the Devil], with a Declaration of Certain Other Weighty Points Concerning the Discipline & Government of the Church  ([London, 1585])  43 pp.  ToC

“A bishop ordained of God, or set up by the law of God, does declare nothing else but their calling, which by an other more special name, are called pastors, whom (says Luke [in Acts 20]) the holy Ghost has ap∣pointed bishops to feed the Church of God.  And either of these names of pastor or of bishop is proper to them in the New Testament, whereby the apostle does distinguish them from apostles, prophets, and evange∣lists, which were callings to endure for a time, Eph. 4:11, and from deacons, 1 Tim. 3 and Phil. 1:1, for otherwise they are everywhere called elders…  But they are called bishops in regard of the sheep committed unto them, as though a man should call them watchmen of [or?] overseers.

These now were one alone, as where any church had but one pastor, or more if the church had more than one.  And the meeting of them together jointly with their elders, whom Paul calls ‘governors’ [1 Cor. 12], of the other common name called, was the eldership.  Their duty was to attend on the word and prayer, both publicly and privately, and in common to governe the Church, as appears by many places of Scripture.
…

Of the Bishop that is of Man

The bishop that is of man, that is to say, brought into the Church by the alone wisdom of man, besides the express Word of God, is a certain power given to one certain pastor above his other fellows, yet limited with certain orders or rules provided against tyranny.  They which did bear this office of bishop, are called bishops in regard of their fellow elders and the whole clergy, as watchmen set over the clergy.

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 things ought to be done orderly in the Lord’s house, and therefore that some one should be president in every assembly…
…

The Answer to the First Question

Where as Satan’s bishop has been the overthrow of the Church and all Christian kingdoms, whose head is the Roman Antichrist, it is to be looked unto of all hands, especially of all godly princes, that they at once abolish it, if they mind the reformation of the Church and their own safety.  As for the bishop ordained by man and brought into the Church by little and little, whereby Satan made him a way for greater things, it had been tolerable…  experience of so many ages does teach us too well, that unless this root also be plucked up, it will come to pass that the same fruit will sprout and bud forth again.

Finally, seeing the Lord has so often decided this controversy of superiority among his own disciples, that He shut it clean out, seeing the rule both for doctrine and good order of the Church is to be sought for out of the very writings of the apostles: and it is manifested, the churches then prospered, when all this authority of one man over the rest, yet was not, but as that grew up, so all things fell to decay.  Finally, seeing where the remnants of this government by a few are not clean taken away, the work of the Lord, is openly hindered: Our judgement is that after the chasing away of this device of man, the churches shall be well provided for, if they may be repaired according to the writings of the apostles.”

.

1600’s

Baynes, Paul – The Diocesan’s Trial, wherein all the Sinews of Doctor Downame’s Defense are brought into Three Heads & Orderly Dissolved  (d. 1617; 1641)  89 pp.  ToC  Preface by William Ames

Baillie, Robert

The Unlawfulness & Danger of Limited Episcopacy, whereunto is Subjoined a Short Reply to the Modest Advertiser & Calm Examinator of that Treatise. As also the Question of Episcopacy Discussed from Scripture & Fathers  (1641)  47 pp.

An episcopal author responded to Henderson’s work above.  Baillie’s work responds to that response.

An Historical Vindication of the Government of the Church of Scotland from the manifold base calumnies which the most malignant of the Prelates did invent of old, and now lately have been published with great industry in two pamphlets at London. The one entitled ‘Issachar’s burden, etc.’ written and published at Oxford by John Maxwell, a Scottish prelate, excommunicated by the Church of Scotland, and declared an unpardonable incendiary by the parliaments of both kingdoms. The other falsely entitled ‘A declaration made by King James in Scotland, concerning Church-Government & Presbyteries’, but indeed written by Patrick Adamson, pretended Archbishop of St. Andrews, contrary to his own conscience, as himself on his death-bed did confess and subscribe before many witnesses in a write hereunto annexed  (London, 1646)  56 pp.

A Review of the Seditious Pamphlet Lately Published in Holland by Dr. Bramhell, Pretended Bishop of London-Derry, Entitled his, Fair-Warning Against the Scots’ Discipline. In which, his Malicious & most lying reports, to the great scandal of that Government are fully and clearly refuted. As also, the Solemn League & Covenant of the Three Nations Justified & Maintained  (1649)  64 pp.

.

1800’s

Miller, Samuel – Letters Concerning the Constitution & Order of the Christian Ministry… with a Prefatory Letter on the Episcopal Controversy  (1830)  558 pp.  The letters are systematically laid out in the ToC, starting with the testimony of scripture concerning church government, then the testimony of the history of the church, followed by the rise and progress of prelacy and its practical problems.

Miller became heavily involved in public debates about prelacy (top-down church government by bishops) due to the rise of the influence of Episcopalians in his area.  This is must reading for a defense of presbyterianism from scripture and history, and for showing the Biblical and historical errors of episcopalian government.

.

.

Quotes

Order of

London Presbyterians
Baxter

.

1600’s

London Provincial Assembly

A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pp. 23-25

“4. It [presbyterial government] is not a government that has lordships and great revenues annexed to it, as the prelatical had.  It is not gainful and profitable, but burdensome and troublesome.  What do the ruling elders gain by their office but reproach and contempt?  And is not the condition of the teaching elder worse in regard of maintenance, since he engaged in this discipline, than ever it was?  This is a government that has no outward advantages to induce men to accept of it.  It is conscience, and (as we hope) pure conscience, that engages any in it, and therefore it is that it has so few friends, because there are so few that are truly conscientious.
…

7. It is not a government that does rob and spoil particular congregations of their just power and privileges, but helps and strengthens them.  For it is not (as the prelatical was) extrinsical to the several congregations (which had no vote in the government, nor consent to it, but were sufferers only of it and under it).

Neither does it assume to itself the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction (as the prelatical likewise did, and in this was lordly and tyrannical over all particular congregations in each diocess).  But it is intrinsical to the congregation, consisting of the pastors and elders of every congregation, governing one another by their own officers: For we hold (which few of our adversaries will understand or consider) that all congregations are equal:  No one congregation over another; that all ministers are equal: No one Minister, by divine right, over another.

That which concerns all, must be managed by all.

We hold no mother-Church, on which all other Churches should depend.  But our government, so far as it is distinct from the congregational, consists of diverse sister-churches, combined by mutual concernment, and governing one another in matters of mutual concernment, by the common agreement of pastors and elders, according to that golden rule, Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet [That which concerns all, by all ought to be treated].  In the presbyterial government every congregation has a voice by the pastors and elders thereof, and so is governed by a power intrinsical to itself, which cannot in its own nature be tyrannical.  Though there is no power in the world so just but by abuse may prove tyrannical.

To illustrate this by a simile: The presbyterial government is like the government of the city by the common-council, wherein there are common-council-men sent from every ward to judge and determine of matters that concern the good of the whole city, which certainly in its own nature cannot be prejudical to the several wards, but very helpful and commodious; whereas the prelatical-government was just as if the city should be governed by a high-commission chosen of foreiners; and the Independent-government is just as if every ward should undertake to govern itself, divided from one another, and not at all to be under the power and authority of the common-council.”

.

Richard Baxter

Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity  (London: A.M., 1653), ‘Objections Answered’

“There are in England two sorts of episcopal divines. The one sort are Protestants, differing in nothing considerable from the rest of the Reformed Churches, save only in this matter of Church-government. These (if they be not ignorant, ungodly, negligent, insufficient) I shall heartily reverence and desire their union: And many of them the Church has had, and yet has, with whom I account myself unworthy to be once named: Such as were Jewel, Davenant, and many more formerly; and such as are Archbishop Ussher, Bishop Hall, Bishop Morton, Dr. Sanderson and many more at this day.

I am very confident that we have not in our Propositions agreed on any exercise of discipline which is not agreeable to the Principles of Protestant bishops to grant us; nay which Papists do not very many of them allow, where no bishops are. If therefore any of you that are our hearers, being not able to maintain your own conceits, or objections against us, will fly to the authority of episcopal divines; we must entreat you to go to the writings of Protestants only; and if you will inquire of any now living, let them be such as our old godly Protestant bishops were: Or else I must tell you we neither expect their conjunction with us, nor shall much be moved by their judgments.

For there is a second sort of episcopal divines of the last edition, and of the growth of about thirty years, who differ from us in greater matters than episcopacy, being indeed Cassandrian Papists, and levelling all their doctrines to the advancement of the Papal interest; If you will appeal to these episcopal divines, we should almost as soon consent to an appeal to Rome…

5. The late bishops [pre-1653], even in the judgment of all moderate men of their own party that ever I spoke with, did very many of them deserve to be put down, and more.  Read the articles against Wren, Pierce, Goodman, Laud, etc.”

.

The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued  (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), pp. 11-12, 15  The preface is dated 1683.

“But those [leading presbyterian and congregationalist ministers] that were called by the king, and one another, 1660 and 1661, to treat of concord, and that assembled at Sion College, and elsewhere about it, did openly make known their minds: And I think they meddled not against any of these things following, by any accusation of them as sinful:

…
XI. They spake not against episcopacy, as it is a presidency among and over presbyters differing in degree, and not in office, called ‘order’, and that in a Church of the lowest species.

XII. They opposed not archbishops as over many such Churches and bishops, nor diocesans, as archbishops ruling but by God’s Word [in the forementioned way].

XIII. They said nothing against metropolitans, patriarchs, lay-chancellors, commissaries, officials, surrogates, archdeacons, etc. as officers of the king, appointed to do nothing (besides the sacred ministry if they be clergymen) but what belongs to magistracy [according to circa sara].

XIV. They said nothing against any promise of obedience to them only in the capacities and in the exercise of the power forementioned.
…

XXXVI. We are not for men’s invading the ministry unordained, but believe that senior pastors or bishops are ordinarily the regular judges of the fitness of candidates for the ministry.”

.

.

Works for Episcopacy, or being able to Accommodate to it

Articles

1600’s

Ussher, James – Reduction of Episcopacy Unto the Form of Synodical Government Received in the Ancient Church  (1641)  in Works, vol. 12, p. 527 ff.

“In accordance with much previous opinion, including that of [Thomas] Cranmer, he [Ussher] believed that bishop and presbyter differ only in rank, not in order.  He was impressed by the recognition of this fact in the ancient Celtic church (to whose history he made a highly important contribution), and saw the advantages of the Scottish Presbyterian system with its distribution of authority.  In 1641, having left Ireland, he published his Reduction of Episcopacy Unto the Form of Synodical Government Received in the Ancient Church:

This compressed document, in four sections of paragraph length, projects a combination of the two systems.  Usher proposes the employment of the church-wardens and sidesmen to administer local discipline, carrying serious cases to a monthly synod.  He advocates the appointment, on the basis of an old statute, of suffragan bishops to the number of the rural deaneries (like the ancient chorepiscopi), under whose presidency is to be held a monthly synod of all the rectors who shall decide matters by vote.  From this body appeals would go to the diocesan synod.  The latter, to meet once or twice a year, would consist of the suffragans and some or all of the rectors in the diocese, and would have power to revise the acts of the district synods.

Above the diocesan synods would stand the provincial synod, of which the archbishop or his nominee would be moderator.  A national council, consisting for England of the combined Provincial Synods of Canterbury and York, might also sit every third year, when Parliament was in session.  Usher gives to his “suffragans,” who are the ministers of small areas, though not merely of single congregations, the power of jurisdiction and of ordination.  Without using the terminology of Presbyterianism, he makes, in some respects, an approach to that system.” – John McNeill, Unitive Protestantism, p. 284

Hall, Joseph – ‘A Modest Offer of some meet Considerations tendered to the Learned Prolocutor and to the rest of the Assembly of Divines met at Westminster’  (Oxford, 1644)  17 pp.  no ToC

Hall here humbly appeals to Westminster and argues for a low, divine-right episcopacy; he includes an interpretive survey of the early Church.  Hall on the one hand speaks of the harmony of bishops and presbyteries; on the other hand he survey’s how episcopal government works in its various levels (which is helpful), which yet doesn’t have ruling elders, their presbyteries and higher assemblies consisting of ministers and bishops.

Leighton, Robert – ‘A Modest Defence of Moderate Episcopacy, as Established in Scotland at the Restoration of King Charles II [1660]’  in The Whole Works  new ed.(London: Duncan, 1830), vol. 4, pp. 386-93

This article is not so much a positive defense of episcopacy as it is a defense that the SL&C does not prohibit episcopacy.

“Episcopal government, managed in conjunction with presbyters, presbyteries, and synods, is not contrary to the rule of Scripture, or the example of the primitive Church, but most agreeable to both.

Yea, it is not contrary to that new [Solemn League and] Covenant [1643]…  it is certainly most pertinent…  to declare the consistence of the present [Church] government even with that obligation…  As for our present model in Scotland, and the way of managing it, whatsoever is amiss (and it can be no wrong to make that supposition concerning any church on earth), the brethren that are dissatisfied had possibly better acquitted their duty by free admonitions and significations of their own sense in all things than by leaving their stations, which is the only thing that has made the breach…  But there is much charity due to those following their own consciences; and they owe, and I hope they pay, the same back again to those that do the same in another way…

That this difference should arise to a great height may seem somewhat strange to any man that calmly considers that there is in this Church no change at all, neither in the doctrine nor worship; no, nor in the substance of the discipline itself.  But when it falls on matter easily inflammable, a little sparkle, how great a fire will it kindle!…

After the same author saith, As we have Prelacy to be aware of, so we have the contrary extreme to avoid; and the Church’s peace, if it may be so procured; and as we must not take down the ministry lest it prepare men for Episcopacy, so neither must we be against any profitable use and exercise of the ministry, or desirable order amongst them, for fear of introducing Prelacy, etc…

And unless they can make it appear that the Episcopacy now in question with us in Scotland, is either contrary to the word of God, or to that mitigated sense of their own oath, it would seem more suitable to Christian charity and moderation, rather to yield to it, as tolerable at least, than to continue so inflexibly to their first mistakes, and excessive zeal for love of it, as to divide from the Church, and break the bond of peace.”

Baxter, Richard – in Five Disputations

.

Books

1600’s

Downame, George –

Baxter: “The same vndication of the Reformed Churches [as valid], and the [valid] ordination of their ministers without bishops, you may find in that learned, godly man, Bishop Downame, and that in his very writings for bishops, the strongest for episcopacy that ever I saw (not excepting the late ones) and very passionate against the opposers of episcopacy.  See his Consecratory Sermon and Defense of it, bk. 3, ch. 4, p. 108.” – Christian Concord, ‘Objections Answered’

Ussher, James –

Honyman, Andrew – The Seasonable Case of Submission to the Church-Government as now Re-established by Law, briefly stated and determined by a Lover of the Peace of this Church & Kingdom  (Edinburgh: Tyler, 1662)  45 pp.

“The exceeding great bitterness of the continued and increasing sad distractions amongst the people of God to the hindrance of their edification in faith and a godly life with charity and peace amongst themselves should put all the ministers of Christ to most serious thoughts in considering how far they may under the present dispensations of God, without sin, accommodate in following unquestionable duties with and under the established government of the Church.

And although as to a cordial allowance of the present change they cannot yet attain, something remaining, whether of scruple or affection, which makes it unpleasing, and their concurrence with it, to lie heavy upon their spirits, yet if there be found no manifest transgression in concurring under the same, in matters of unquestionable duty, they would wisely put difference between gravamen spiritus [heaviness of spirit] and ligamen conscientiae [a tie of conscience]: something in the will that renders them averse, and [differenced from] the prevailing clear light of a well-informed conscience (to which, how uneasy it is to attain in this point of controversy, they can tell who have truly tried it) binding them up from concurrence, as a thing in itself unlawful.

Men who walk in the fear of God and are zealous of His honor had need to be very jealous of their own zeal, that it carry them not to the rejecting of a real duty, which (to their apprehension) sits too near a sin…

It is their duty to advert, lest, at this time too great animosity contribute to the laying of the foundation of a woeful division to be entailed to the generations to come, the evil whereof will preponder all the good that any one form of Church-government can, of itself, produce, viz. the dishonor of God, the weakening of the cause of the true protestant religion against the common adversaries thereof, the destroying of true charity and love amongst the people of God, the hinderance of their profiting under the several ministries they live under, and the creating continual confusions and distractions in the commonwealth (the ordinary fruit of schism in the Church) as too lamentable experience (whereof we carry the sad marks to this day) has taught us.

1. That there may and ought to be a brotherly accommodation and concurrence in matters of practice which are undoubted duty (albeit brethren be of different judgments anent the constitution of meetings or capacity of persons that act in these duties), grave and learned men have put it out of question.  It is well known that in the [Westminster] Assembly of Divines at London, accommodation was mainly labored for (and far carried on) between presbyterians and independents, that they might concur in common actings for regulating the Church, with a reserve of liberty of their own several principles…

Also, several of the most eminent presbyterians in England, as Mr. [Richard] Vines, Mr. [Richard] Baxter and others, accounting of un-preaching [ruling] elders, as of a human device (as now the office of a bishop is accounted of by many brethren), yet, not being able to attain to the exercise of presbyterial government without the intermixture of these; yea, of them, double the number to preaching presbyters in each meeting (which gave them an overswaying power in the government), notwithstanding they did concur with them in matters of unquestionable duty.

Is it not also well known that amongst ourselves in this [Scottish] Church, [Resolutioner] brethren did ordinarily concur in synods and presbyteries, in doing their duties with these [the Protesters] whom they charged with a sinful schism? (a thing as much against the [Solemn League and] Covenant [1643], as that which is now pretended for withdrawing from the meetings of synods and presbyteries)…  it is affirmed that they homologate with the tenet and practice of Separatism, denying the lawfulness of concurrence in a lawful necessary duty because of the personal sin of fellow-actors in it…”

“and men would not be too peremptory in condemning episcopacy, if they seriously consider, that the ablest pens that ever engaged in this controversy, have found it a task too hard for them to demonstrate episcopacy to be in itself unlawful: and if we ask the judgments of the most eminent reformed divines, we shall find very few or none learned, sober and faithful in the point, who do judge it to be forbidden by God.” – p. 23

.

Quote

1600’s

Richard Baxter

Catholic Theology, Plain, Pure, Peaceable...  (London: White, 1675), Preface, n.p.

“But soon after a new acquaintance provoked me to a deeper study of the whole controversy than I had undertaken before; which left me persuaded that the use of liturgie and ceremonies was lawful in that case of necessity, except the baptismal use of the cross, and the subscription to all things, etc.

But in 1640 the oath called ‘Et Caetera’ being offered the ministry, forced me to a yet more searching study of the case of our diocesan prelacy (which else I had never been like to have gainsaid).  At a meeting of ministers to debate the case, it fell to Mr. Christopher Cartwright’s lot and mine to be the disputers; and the issue of all (that and my studies) was, that I setled in the approbation of the episcopacy asserted by Ignatius, yea, and Cyprian, but such a dissent from the English frame, as I have given account of in my Disputations of Church Government.”

.

.

Historical

On the Early Church

1600’s

London Provincial Assembly – Appendix  in Jus divinum ministerii evangelici, or the Divine Right of the Gospel-Ministry…  together with an Appendix, wherein the judgment and practice of antiquity about the whole matter of episcopacy, and especially about the ordination of ministers, is briefly discussed  (London: Legat, 1654), pt. 2, pp. 99-149

Propositions on the Antiquity of Prelacy:

1. That whatsoever may be said for prelacy out of antiquity, yet sure we are (as we hope has been sufficiently proved) that it has no foundation in the Scriptures

2. That there were many corruptions which crept into the Church in the very infancy of it and were generally received as apostolical traditions, which yet notwithstanding are not pleaded for by our episcopal men, but many of them [are] confessedly acknowledged to be errors and mistakes

3. That after Christ’s ascension into heaven, the Church of God for a certain space of time was governed by the common council of presbyters without bishops

4. That when it is said by Irenaeus, bk. 3, ch. 3, that the holy apostles made bishops in Churches, and particularly, that Polycarp was made bishop of Smyrna by the apostles, and that the apostles made Linus bishop of Rome, after whom succeeded Anacletus, and that Clemens was made the third bishop by the apostles; and when it is said by Tertullian, Book on Praescription, that Polycarp was made bishop of Smyrna by St. John, and Clement bishop of Rome by St. Peter, this will nothing at all advance the episcopal cause, unless it can be proved that by the word ‘bishop’ is meant a bishop as distinct from presbyters

5. That when the distinction between a bishop and presbyter first began in the Church of Christ, it was not grounded upon a Jus divinum, but upon prudential reasons and arguments.  And the chief of them was (as Jerome and diverse after him say)…  For the remedy of schism, and that the seeds of error might be rooted out of the Church.  Now that this prudential way (invented no doubt at first upon a good intention) was not the way of God…

6. That there is a wide and vast difference between the bishops of the primitive times, and the bishops of later times, as much as between ancient Rome, and Rome at this day.  A bishop at his first erection was nothing else but primus presbyter, or episcopus praeses (as a moderator in a Church-assembly, or a speaker in a parliament) that governed communi Concilio Presbyterorum, and had neither power of ordination, nor of jurisdiction, but in common with his presbyters.

7. That the great argument that is brought for episcopacy from the lineal succession of bishops from the apostles’ days to our day, has not that validity in it that is imagined.  Bishop Bilson and others take a great deal of pains to give us a catalogue of the bishops in Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch from the apostles’ days unto Constantine’s time.  But we desire the reader to consider…

8. That whatsoever may be said of episcopacy out of antiquity, yet notwithstanding it is an opinion generally received by the learned in all ages that there are but two orders of ministers in the Church of Christ, bishops and deacons, according to the saying of Paul to the Philippians, where he salutes the bishops and deacons [Phil. 1:1], that is, the presbyters and deacons.  Of this opinion is Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians and Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, as we have showed.  This also is the opinion of most of the Schoolmen.

Propositions on Ministerial Ordination in the Ancient Church:

1. That in the first and purest times, when the Church of Christ was governed by the Common Councel of Pres∣byters, There was Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters.

2. That after that bishops were admitted into the Church, yet notwithstanding, ordination by bishops without the assistance of his presbyters was always forbidden and opposed

3. That even according to the judgment of antiquity, presbyters have an intrinsic power and authority to ordain ministers, and when this power was restrained and inhibited, it was not propter legis necessitatem, but only propter honorem sacerdotii; It was not from the necessity of any divine law forbidding it, but only for the honor of episcopacy.  It was not from the canon of the Scriptures, but from some canons of the Church.

4. That even during the prevalency of episcopacy it was not held unlawful for a presbyter to ordain without a bishop.  A presbyter had not only an inherent power of ordination, but in some cases he did actually ordain.

5. That when Jerome says, Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter excepta ordinatione [What does a bishop make that a presbyter does not make except ordination]?  This passage cannot be understood as if Jerome had thought that ordination was by divine right appropriated to bishops and not to presbyters (as Bishop Bilson says); for in the very same epistle he tells us that by divine right a bishop and a presbyter are all one; and that in Alexandria for a long time the presbyters ordained their bishop.  But he must be understood of the practice of the Church in his days, and his meaning is, Quid facit episcopus secundum canones ecclesia quod non facit presbyter excepta ordinatione [What does a bishop make according to the ecclesiastical canons that a presbyter does not make except for ordination]?

6. That when Ischyras was deposed from being a presbyter because [he was] made [so] by Colluthus, that was but a presbyter himself and not a bishop, this was done not because the act of Colluthus was against the canon of the Scriptures, but only because it was against the canons of some council.

7. That Aerius was never condemned by any council of heresy for holding the identity of a bishop and a presbyter.  But on the contrary, the Council of Aachen (Aquisgranensis) under Emperor Louis the Pious, anno 816, has approved it for true divinity out of the Scripture that bishops and presbyters are equal, bringing the same texts that Aerius does…  We confess that he is called an heretic by Epiphanius and Augustine, but this was especially, if not only, because he was an Arran…

8. That even many, if not most of those that hold episcopacy and episcopal ordination to be divini juris, yet (as we in charity believe) they do not hold it to be so of divine institution as to be perpetually and immutably necessary in the Church of Christ; but they say that those Churches are true Churches that want [lack] bishops, and those ministers true ministers who are ordained by presbyters without bishops.

9. That our episcopal brethren that do so much inveigh against the presbyterians in all their writings for walking contrary to antiquity in the matter of ordination, do themselves fall under the same accusation in many particulars which we could easily name, if we did desire to recriminate.  We will instance only in two…

.

1800’s

Cunningham, William – ch. 8, ‘The Constitution of the Church’  in Historical Theology  (1863), vol. 1, pp. 227-66

.

On the Post-Reformation

On Calvin

Miller, Samuel – Appendix 2, ‘Calvin’s View of Prelacy’  in Thomas Smyth, The Life & Character of Calvin, the Reformer, Reviewed & Defended  (1844), pp. 87-114

.

On Scotland

Article

Campbell, Alexander – ‘Episcopacy in the Mind of Robert Baillie, 1637-1662’  The Scottish Historical Review, vol. 93, no. 236, pt. 1 (April 2014), pp. 29-55

Abstract:

“The covenanters are often considered to have been unrelenting opponents of episcopacy.  In the Glasgow Assembly of 1638, when nearly all covenanters voted to ‘remove and abjure’ episcopacy in the kirk, the Glaswegian minister Robert Baillie was the sole named dissenter.  Baillie’s subsequent conformity to the covenanting regime after 1638 and his ultimate acceptance of the restored episcopate after 1661 have led historians to claim that he was pliantly obeying those in power.

In order to offer an alternative explanation, this article explores the contours of Baillie’s writings on episcopacy in the periods 1637-9 and 1658-62.  His views were informed by hatred of the Laudian episcopate and his belief that Scripture described a lawful form of episcopacy similar to the superintendents of the post-Reformation kirk.  Whilst Baillie protested against the restored episcopate in 1661, the reasons for his subsequent submission suggest one explanation as to why many presbyterian ministers acquiesced in Charles II’s Erastian kirk settlement.”

“he was the only named dissenter to the vote for ‘abjuration and removal’ in 1638.  While he supported removal, he opposed abjuration.” – p. 30

“Although Baillie was fundamentally disenchanted with episcopacy after years of religious upheaval for which he blamed the Laudian episcopate, he had not abandoned the argument that a temporary episcopate could effectively restore unity to a fragmented and church.  It was Baillie’s overriding desire for a return to peace and normalcy that led him not to contest publicly Charles II’s reestablishment of episcopacy but this did not preclude Baillie from exhorting leading nobles and the new archbishop of Glasgow privately.

Ironically, this suggests that one of the explanations for the widespread conformity to the Erastian settlement of the post-restoration kirk may be found through analysis of the writings of one of the most strident proponents of a jure divino presbyterian polity.  Such a conclusion cases mid-century presbyterians in more moderate light than has hitherto been the case.” – p. 34

“Here he argued that when schism threatened the unity of a church a presbytery could appoint a temporary bishop, similar to the post-reformation superintendents.  This type of bishop would be subject to the jurisdiction of a provincial or national synod, acting in a capacity akin to that of a constant moderator…

For Baillie this temporary office was not ‘wicked in itself or contrair to the word of God;’ indeed, Baillie could not cite any ‘classic divine of the Reformed churches’ who maintained that such an episcopate was unlawful…  Temporary bishops were only instituted by ecclesiastical canon, implying that scriptural and patristic sources did not explicitly condemn such practice.” – p. 38

“During the proceedings [of the general assembly of 1638] to ‘abjure and remove’ the bishops, it appears that Baillie’s dissent may have reflected the opinion of a large but silent minority.” – p. 40

“According to Baillie, he had Argyll’s and Loudoun’s agreement that their support for the Act of Abjuration did not entail the abjuration of episcopacy, either as it stood simpliciter in the ancient church, or in its post-reformation model with superintendents.” – p. 41

“This distinct form of episcopacy appeared to correspond roughly with the superintendents of the post-reformation kirk, who Baillie argued, were temporary and subject to the jurisdiction of presbyteries.  This form of episcopacy, for instance, was distinct from the ‘reduced’ episcopacy of James Ussher, which Baillie denounced because it would have established a permanent episcopate…

The only ecclesiological tenet that Baillie deemed to be ‘immutable’ was the division of church officers into ministers, elders and deacons.  Baillie thus could argue that particulars of an ecclesiological settlement beyond this framework were not explicitly against Goďs word, albeit, as mentioned above, experience may deem particular arrangements inexpedient.  Christians could err in ‘the particulars about the nature of Episcopacie, of Presbyteries, Synods, Sessions, ruling Elders,’ as such elements of ecclesiology were unclear in scripture.” – p. 45

“Baillie’s Letters made clear his aversion to the re-established episcopate [of 1661]: he condemned the restored bishop both in admonitory correspondence to nobles and directly to the new Glaswegian metropolitan, Andrew Fairfoul.  Whilst Baillie did not quietly acquiesce to the restoration church settlement, his decision to accept the office of principal of Glasgow University suggests that he had decided to privilege public order over the pursuit of presbyterian reforms at all costs.” – p. 47

“As Baillie explained, there were certain cases of necessity in which a presbytery could deem it expedient to appoint a temporary bishop, either to prevent schism schism and preserve the unity of the national church or to preside over an ecclesiastical assembly as moderator…  The type of ‘superintendent’ of which Baillie approved in the ancient church was never granted powers of order or jurisdiction that were not also given to preaching presbyters…

Ordination was given by divine right to the presbytery of Ephesus–not just the meeting of presbyters but the ‘office and grade of presbyter’ as described by St Jerome and Calvin–which continued to exist even after the ordination of Timothy as a bishop; a delegation, rather than relegation of powers of jurisdiction.  Acts 20:17 and 28 both outlined the divine warrant of temporary, ambulatory pastors who were ‘given the power of determining doctrine and expelling heretics from the church by the Sacred Spirit’.  Yet Baillie quickly affirmed that the superiority maintained in these loci were during periods when the church’s polity was in flux.” – p. 49

“It is, therefore, insufficient to argue that Baillie’s conformity to the covenanting movement in 1639 and his later conformity to the restored episcopate were simply motivated by the desire to please those in power.” – p. 53

“Whilst covenanters, such as Baillie, may be correctly portrayed as dogmatic, jure divino presbyterians, this did not drive them to challenge the Stewart monarchy’s lawful power at every turn.” – p. 55

.

Book

Hamilton, Alan J. – In mitiorem partem: Robert Leighton’s Journey towards Episcopacy  PhD thesis  (University of Glasgow, 2012)  290 pp.

.

.

On Episcopal Succession

Order of

Article  1
Quote  1

.

Articles

1600’s

Rutherford, Samuel – pt. 1, pp. 185-89  under 3rd Question, ‘Whether or not Ordination of Elders may be by the Church of Believers Wanting all Elders or Officers’  in ch. 8, section 8, ‘Of Election of Officers’  in The Due Right of Presbyteries  (London, 1644)

Baxter, Richard – pp. 44-82  in ‘Objections Answered’  in Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity  (London: A.M., 1653)

.

Quote

1600’s

Richard Baxter

The Cure of Church Divisions…  (London, 1670), pt. 1, Direction 58, p. 292

“[It is superstition] that all the pastors of the protestant Churches abroad, who had only the election of the people and the ordination of parochial pastors, and not of diocesan bishops, are no true ministers of Christ, but laymen.

That therefore those Churches are no true Churches (in a political sense and as organized).

That therefore their baptism is unlawful and a nullity, and all those nations are no baptized Christians (though the Papists who hold the validity of laymen’s baptizing do here censure [these protestant episcopal men] more easily).

That it is not lawful to communicate in such Churches and receive the sacrament of the Lords supper from such ministers.

That those countries which are baptized by such should be rebaptized.

That those ministers who are ordained by such should be re-ordained.”

.

.

A Bishop is Not Necessary for a Valid Ordination

Article

1600’s

Baxter, Richard – pp. 44-82  in ‘Objections Answered’  in Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity  (London: A.M., 1653)

.

.

That Episcopal Bishops & Prelates are Unlawful but Valid Gospel Ministers

Quotes

Order of

Hildersham
Rutherford
London Presbyterians

.

1500’s

Arthur Hildersham

A Treatise of the Ministry of the Church of England, wherein is handled this Question: Whether it be to be separated from, or joined unto. Which is discussed in Two Letters, the one [for joining] written for it [by Hildersham], the other against it [by Francis Johnson]  (Low Countries, 1595), section 10, p. 117

“…being persuaded in my conscience that the Lord had a true Church in this Realm [of England]…  which, being assembled out of all the parts of the land in Parliament, did commit this authority to ordain ministers unto the bishops: and knowing out of the Word of God that every true Church has this power and authority to ordain ministers:

I considered with myself that though the Church offended in committing this power and authority unto them that by the Law of God were not capable of it, yet I might without sin seek and take the Church’s ordination at their hands: as I may reverence and take the benefit of the prince’s power and authority, which is of God, though it be committed unto and exercised by men that by the Law of God are not capable of it.

Secondly, seeing it is a thing not to be refused if a man entering into the ministry might have the approbation of all and every one of the ministers of the Gospel in the land:¹ it seems unto me the approbation of that bishop, that is also a minister and preacher of the Gospel, cannot be deemed to be merely unlawful.²

¹ [That such makes a valid ordination, see ‘The Implicit or Tacit Consent of Church Governors is Sufficient for the Power of Being an Office-Bearer’ and ‘That Persons who enter Church Office by Corruption, with the Standing Consent of the Rest of the Church Governors, is Valid’.]

² [Samuel Rutherford with much of the reformed likewise rightly argued that, while the office of a regular episcopal bishop is not Scriptural, nor do they have power, nor should be given power so that a single bishop could ordain a minister, yet the bishops did receive and maintain, with corruptions, the nature of the ministerial office: ‘That Episcopal Bishops & Prelates are Unlawful but Valid Gospel Ministers’.]

Thirdly, the authority of the Christian Magistrate (without whose liking and allowance a minister cannot be admitted to the ministry in peace) coming [joining] to the bishop by act of Parliament, I may more boldly come to him³ for his approbation in regard of the Law: not looking so much unto the man, [but] as regarding with reverence the power of the law and Christian magistrate.”

³ [Note that George Gillespie, though possibly agreeing with much of this, delayed his own ordination for several years, “having conscientious objections to receiving ordination from an episcopal bishop.” David Lachman, ‘Preface to New Edition’ in Aaron’s Rod Blossoming (1646; Sprinkle, 1985).]

.

1600’s

Samuel Rutherford

The Due Right of Presbyteries…  (London, 1644), pt. 1, pp. 204-8, 229, 235  irregular numbering

“4th Distinction.  A calling may be expressly and formally corrupt in respect of the particular intention of the ordainers and of the particular Church, ex intentione ordinaris et operantis [out of the intention of the ordainers and of the one working]. Thus Luther’s calling to be a monk was a corrupt calling, and eatenus, and ‘in that respect’ he could not give a calling to o­thers.  But that some calling may be implicitly and virtually good and lawful in respect of the intention of the Catholic Church and ex intentione operis & ipsius ordinationis [out of the intention of the work and the ordination itself], he was called to preach the Word of God.
…

7.  A calling to the ministry is either such:

[1.] as wants the es­sentials, as gifts in any messenger and the Church’s consent, or these who occupy the room of the Church, the Church consenting: such a minister is to be reputed for no minister; or

2. an entry to a calling, or a calling where diverse of the apostles’ requisites are wanting, may be a valid cal­ling, as if one enter as Caiphas, who entered by favor and mo­ney and contrary to the Law, was High-Priest but for a year: yet was a true High-Priest and prophesied as the High-priest [Jn. 11:49-51].

8.  If the Church approve by silence, or countenance the mi­nistry of a man who opened the Church door to himself by a silver key, having given the prelate a bud.  The ordinance of God is conferred upon him, and his calling ceases not to be God’s cal­ling because of the sins of the instruments both taking and giving.
…

11.  The question, if such a pastor be called lawfully, is a question of fact, not a question of law; [it is] as this [case]: if such an one be baptized and there be an invincible ignorance in a questi­on of fact which excuses.  And therefore we may hear a gifted pastor taken and supposed by the Church to have the Church’s calling, though indeed he received no calling from the Church at his entry.
…

3.  We are nowhere forbidden in God’s Word to hear tea­chers sent and called, but only wolves in sheep skins, void of all calling, and intruders: for pastors may be antichristian in the manner of the entry, as Caiaphas…  3. Yea, and brook an anti­christian calling, as prelates do and have done in Britain, and yet their ministry be valid.

For that the calling of a mi­nister be valid and his ministerial acts not null, it is suffici­ent that the governing Church give him a calling, either by themselves, their express call, their silence, or tacit consent, or their approbation communicating with him in his ministry, or by these to whom the Church resigned her power, or by these who stand in place of the Church, though prelates in­vade the place of the Church: yet:

[1.] because first they themselves be pastors and have power to teach and baptize as pastors called of Christ. Mt. 18:19.

2. Because they stand for the Church, the Church approving or someway by silence consenting (as in the case of Caiaphas’s entry to the priesthood) thereunto.  These who are baptized of them are not rebaptized, and these who are ordained pastors by them are not reordained, but have a cal­ling to the ministry and do validly confer a calling upon others.

Yea, many of great learning think that at the begin­ning of Reformation thousands being under popery bapti­zed by midwives and private persons, were never rebaptized, not that they think such baptism valid, but where the sacra­ment is wanting, ex invincibili ignorantia facti, ‘out of an invin­cible ignorance of a fact’, such that way [the] baptized do indeed want the Lord’s seal; but we cannot for that say that they are no better than infidels and unbaptized Turks and Jews, because:

1.  Their being born in the visible Church gives a federal holiness, as all of Jewish parents had a federal right to circumcision and were, eatenus, ‘insofar’, separated from the womb.

2.  Because their profession of that Covenant where­of baptism is a seal, separates them sufficiently from infidels, though they want the seal external.

But our divines esteem, and that justly, baptism administrated by women or such as have no calling, to be no baptism at all; for which let the reader see Calvin, Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 15, sect. 20; Epistle 326; Beza, Libel., Questione de Baptism; the learned Rivet, in Cathol. Orthod., tome 2, tract 2, q. 7.  We stand not for what Bellarmine, Maldonatus, Gretse­rus and other papists say on the contrary.”

.

London (Presbyterian) Provincial Assembly

A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry…  (London, 1650), pt. 2, pp. 124-25

“3. Because they were ordained by bishops, not as lord bishops or as a superior order by divine right above a presbyter, but as they were presbyters. For the understanding of which you must know:

1. That by Scripture a bishop and presbyter is all one, as appears by Acts 10:27-28; Tit. 1:5-8; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-2, etc. 1 Pet. 5:1-2, and by what is said by the authors quoted in the margin. (Smectymnuus, The Answer of Mr. Marshal, Mr. Vines, Mr. Caryl, Mr. Seaman returned to the late King in the Treaty at the Isle of Wight)

2. That the lordly dignities of bishops were mere civil additaments annexed to their bishoprics by kingly favor.

3. That this opinion, that bishops are a superior order of ministry by divine right above a presbyter is a late upstart opinion contrary to antiquity, as appears by the authors quoted in the margin. (Ambrose in ch. 4 to the Ephesians and in 1 Tim. 3; Jerome in Tit. 1 and to Evagrius; Augustine, Epistle 19; Chrysostom in 1 Tim. 3)

4. That the laws of this realm do account nothing divine in a bishop but his being a presbyter; and therefore the parliament in their ordinance for ordination tells us that they did ordain [them] as presbyters, not as bishops, much less as lord bishops.

As for their usurpation of the sole power of jurisdiction together with their lordly titles and dignities and dependances, we have renounced them in our Solemn League and Covenant [1643].  But we never did, nor never shall renounce them as presbyters, which by the consent of all sides are by divine right.”

.

.

Though a Single Bishop has No Rightful Power of Himself to Ordain, yet the Church’s Ordination may be Received through a Bishop

See also above on bishops being valid ministers, which also deals with this topic and ‘On Occasional & Partial Conformity without Sin, or Moderate Puritanism’.

.

Order of

Quotes  6
Articles  2

.

Quotes

Order of

Cartwright
Puritan Ministers
Edwards
Westminster
Pagitt
Voet
London Presbyterians
Baxter

.

1500’s

Thomas Cartwright

eds. Peel & Carlson, Cartwrightiana  (London: Halley Stewart, 1951), 3. ‘A Reproof of Certain Schismatical Persons,’ p. 228

“8. If any do dislike the superstitious and needless ceremonies in ordination and yet also acknowledge that the bishops may call, authorize, try, confirm and warrant by testimony the sufficiency of ministers, what grievous sin is it?”

.

1600’s

Partially Conforming English Puritan Ministers

A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)

p. 258

“…concerning ordination by eldership, this we answer [the Separatists from the episcopal Church of England] in particular:

First, that unless the eldership be held so essential a thing that there can be no true Church without it (which we are well assured of that our brethren themselves and all that have any knowledge will deny), ordination by the eldership cannot be absolutely necessary, albeit in the settled government of a Church we hold it of the essence of the calling of a minister that we have the substance of the ordination appointed in the Word.”

.

pp. 260-62

“Secondly, seeing it cannot be denied that the bishops are able to judge of such gifts as are required for the sufficiency of ministers; yea that many of them have been such ministers themselves, as to whose labors the Lord has set to his seal, and who have also suffered persecution for the truth; we are persuaded that (though it were not necessary, yet) it cannot be unlawful for him that enters into the ministry to be approved and authorized even by them…

Fourthly, the ordination we seek for from the bishops is not theirs but committed to the Church by Christ Himself: And seeing we have already proved that there was in England a true Church even then when this authority was first given by Parliament, to the bishops, and that the true Church (which, without a ministry, cannot possibly be continued) is never without power to ordain ministers: We may lawfully reverence and seek for the benefit of this power and privilege which God has given to his Church though it were conveyed unto us by men less capable of this authority than our bishops are.

And he that thinks Christ’s ordination the better for the man that bestows it, incurs (as we think) the danger of the curse denounced against him that ‘puts his trust in man and makes flesh his arm, and departs his heart from the Lord.’ Jer. 17:5.

Fifthly, if our bishops were not at all capable of this power to give ecclesiastical ordination, yet seeing the Christian magistrate’s approbation is not to be refused by him that exercises a ministry in the Church, and that cannot be had in our Church but by the hands of the bishops, we think that he who is fitted of God to the ministry and has also testimony of his fitness from such godly learned brethren as have made trial of his gifts and can judge of them, may lawfully accept and seek for this kind of approbation, if all other conditions be equal.

Sixthly, admit the bishops from whom we receive our ordination were indeed Antichristian or heretics (as we judge them not to be), yet why should we be bound to seek for any other ordination more than another baptism, than that which we have received from Popish priests in the time of ignorance; And seeing that [the early Separatists] Barrow and Greenwood, in the 54th page of their refutation, do not only account many to be true Christians that never had other outward baptism than that which they had from Popish priests, but plainly affirm that such neither need, nor ought to be baptized again; we wonder why they dare not account us true ministers because of this ordination received from the bishops.

Shall ordination be thought more necessary to the being of a minister than baptism is to the being of a Christian; or shall an error in ordination have more force to prove one no minister than an error in baptism has to prove one no Christian; or are our bishops worse than the Popish.  priests, or the corruption in the form of our ordination greater than those that are used in Popish baptism?”

.

Thomas Edwards

Antapologia, or a Full Answer to the Apologetical Narration (London: G.M., 1644), pp. 15-16

“Whether by ‘the sinful evil of those corruptions, in the public worship and government of this Church,’ you [Independent divines at Westminster] understand…  the Book of Common Prayer, the entrance into our ministry by ordination of bishops and living under the episcopal government?…

Now if you mean…  [this], that which usually was called, Old conformity, in opposition to the New [under Archbishop Laud]: So I deny that all do now generally acknowledge and decry that as sinfully evil; which appears thus: Because that remonstrance presented to the House of Commons in the beginning of the Parliament, subscribed by many hundred godly ministers, conformists, and non-conformists for reformation in worship, doctrine, government and discipline: The government, worship and ceremonies were impleaded, in respect of many inconveniences and evil consequents; but petitioning against them as sinfully evil and absolutely unlawful was declined: And there are many parliament men and ministers who have a great zeal to the present reformation in casting out the hierarchy and ceremonies, who are not yet convinced that all their former practice in the way of old conformity was sinful: But as those times were, do judge they did lawfully continue their standing in their places and in this Church: much less are they satisfied that either Episcopal government, or the Liturgy were sufficient grounds of forsaking our public assemblies and erecting new.

Amongst a cloud of learned and godly men, take the testimony of Gerson Bucerus in his learned answer to Doctor Downame (Dissert. de Guber. Eccl., p. 620), who for the point of Episcopacy allows not of schism in the Church, but vindicates himself and others who keep within the bounds of his opinion from being guilty in that kind. 

Which answer…  is not here given by me in the least to plead for the hierarchy, ceremonies or present Liturgy (for I heartily desire their removal), but only to show the Apologists’ mistake in asserting that all do now so generally acknowledge and decry them as sinfully evil…

We [be] as much abhorring bowing to altars, publishing the Declaration for Sports, etc. as you: and witnessing more frequently against them in our ministry than some of you.”

.

Westminster’s Form of Presbyterial Church Government  1645

The Directory for the Ordination of Ministers

“10. If a minister be designed to a congregation, who hath been formerly ordained presbyter according to the form of ordination which hath been in the church of England, which we hold for substance to be valid, and not to be disclaimed by any who have received it; then, there being a cautious proceeding in matters of examination, let him be admitted without any new ordination.”

.

Ephraim Pagitt

Heresiography, or a Description of the Heretics & Sectaries of these Latter Times  (London: Wilson, 1645), ‘Of the Brownists’, 15. ‘Except against our Ordination’, p. 60

“They [Brownists] except against our ministers because they receive their ordination from bishops.  To which I answer:

We have our ordination from Christ by bishops and clergymen; and for this kind of ordination by bishops and presbyters we have the universal consent of the primitive Church; by St. Paul, Timothy, and Titus were ordained.

And this has been the practice of all the Christian Churches of the universe until the time that Anabaptists crept into the world.

But they will allege that we have been ordained by Antichristian bishops, and therefore they conclude every action done by our ministers to be Antichristian.  To which I answer:

Why is not the ordination that our forefathers had from Antichristian bishops as effectual as the baptism that was administered by them to our forefathers?  Did ever any Reformed Church rebaptize them that were baptized by them?  And why should our ministers be reordained more than rebaptized?

Indeed our ministers being ordained by bishops and that by Protestant bishops, such as Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, who were holy martyrs, who renounced all superstition; what exceptions can be taken against them?

Neither can they find any shelter under that noted text, ‘neglect not the gift that is in thee by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery,’ which learned Mr. [John] Calvin expounds not of the men, but of the office, following herein Jerome, Anselm, Haimo, Lyra, referring it to the gift given him and to the bishops and presbyters, which has been the practice of the Church of England and all Christian Churches in the world until the Anabaptists.

To conclude, let the Brownists confess our bishops to be but Christians, which they cannot deny, and the ordination of our ministers will be lawful by their own rules: for if the ordination of their ministers by plebeian artificers be lawful, how much more is the ordination of our ministers by bishops and learned ministers, qualified with learning and wisdom and set apart to do the same?”

.

On Gisbert Voet

The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood…  (London, 1679), sect. 6, pp. 113-14

“LXVII. 21…  Christ having made a Law which confers the pastoral power on him that is made a due receiver (as the king’s charter does the power of the Lord Mayor on him that is duly chosen to it), it follows that no more is absolutely necessary to such reception of that power, but that the person be duly qualified and have consent and opportunity, and the best investiture which the time and place will afford: Of which Voetius, De desperata causa Papatus, and one of us in a Dispute of Ordination have long ago said that, which we suppose will never be well answered.

…The reason is because his office and power follows the law and charter of Christ that made it, and not of the investing ministerial ordainer if he would alter it or pronounce it otherwise.

LXVI. 22. Not to obey lay-chancellors where they govern the Church by the power of the keys, decreeing excommunications and absolutions, and performing the work of exploration and admonition belonging to bishops in order thereto, we take to be no schism, nor to refuse subscribing or swearing to such a government.”

[The difference here is that, though such lay persons have been delegated the tasks and functions by valid governors of the Church, yet they are fundamentally unqualified to carry out those functions.]

.

London (Presbyterian) Provincial Assembly

A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry…  (London, 1650), pt. 2, pp. 123-26

“You will reply: It is because they are ministers ordained by antichristian bishops; and therefore, before they have renounced their false ministry we cannot with a safe conscience hear them, nor expect a blessing from their ministry. This reply is, we confess, a great stumbling block to many godly people in this kingdom. For satisfaction to it we offer these particulars:

1. Many of you that make this reply hold that the election of the people is by God’s Word sufficient to make a man a true minister without ordination. Now it is certain that many public [Anglican] ministers have been chosen by the free and full consent of their congregations; and most of them have had an after consent, which was sufficient to make Leah Jacob’s wife (Subsequens consensus Jacobi in Leam, fecit eos conjuges. [David] Pareus, etc.), and why not (to use your own words) to marry a man to a people; and therefore according to your own judgments all such are lawful ministers.  For sinful superadditions do not nullify divine institutions.
…

3. We distinguish between a defective ministry and a false ministry, as we do between a man that is lame or blind and a man that is but the picture of a man.  We do not deny but that the way of ministers entering into the ministry by the bishops had many defects in it, for which they ought to be humbled.  But we add that, notwithstanding all the accidental corruptions, yet it is not substantially and essentially corrupted, as it is with baptism [not being substantially and essentially corrupted] in the Popish Church.  All orthodox divines account it valid, though mingled with much dross, because the party baptized is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  And therefore, when a Papist turns protestant, he is not baptized again, because the substance of baptism is preserved in Popery under many defects.  The like and much more may be said for the ordination of our ministers by bishops: It is lawful and valid for the substance of it, though mingled with many circumstantial defects.  And this appears:

1. Because when they were ordained, they were designed to no other office but to preach the Word and administer the sacraments according to the will of Christ.

2. Because since their ordination God has sealed the truth of their ministry (as has been said) by his blessing upon it. If they be antichristian ministers, how is your conversion Christian?

3. Because they were ordained by bishops, not as lord bishops or as a superior order by divine right above a presbyter, but as they were presbyters. For the understanding of which you must know:

1. That by Scripture a bishop and presbyter is all one, as appears by Acts 10:27-28; Tit. 1:5-8; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-2, etc. 1 Pet. 5:1-2, and by what is said by the authors quoted in the margin. (Smectymnuus, The Answer of Mr. Marshal, Mr. Vines, Mr. Caryl, Mr. Seaman returned to the late King in the Treaty at the Isle of Wight)

2. That the lordly dignities of bishops were mere civil additaments annexed to their bishoprics by kingly favor.

3. That this opinion, that bishops are a superior order of ministry by divine right above a presbyter is a late upstart opinion contrary to antiquity, as appears by the authors quoted in the margin. (Ambrose in ch. 4 to the Ephesians and in 1 Tim. 3; Jerome in Tit. 1 and to Evagrius; Augustine, Epistle 19; Chrysostom in 1 Tim. 3)

4. That the laws of this realm do account nothing divine in a bishop but his being a presbyter; and therefore the parliament in their ordinance for ordination tells us that they did ordain [them] as presbyters, not as bishops, much less as lord bishops.

As for their usurpation of the sole power of jurisdiction together with their lordly titles and dignities and dependances, we have renounced them in our Solemn League and Covenant [1643].  But we never did, nor never shall renounce them as presbyters, which by the consent of all sides are by divine right.

4. We shall add one thing more, that ministers do not receive their ministry from the people, or bishops, but immediately from Jesus Christ.  For they are ministers and ambassadors of Christ, not of the people.  Indeed they are ambassadors for the good of the people, but not ambassadors of the people.  All that the people or bishop does is but to choose and ordain a man, but it is Christ that gives him his power and authority, as when a wife chooses a husband and a town a mayor: the town does not give the mayor, nor the wife the husband the power they have, but the laws of God the one, and of man the other.  So it is here, it is Christ that gives the office and the call to the ministry; they are his servants and in his name execute their function. It is He that fits them with ability for their work; the people they consent, and the bishop as a presbyter with other presbyters ordain him; which though it had many corruptions mingled with it, when the bishop was in all his pomp and lordliness, yet for the substance of it, it was lawful and warrantable and therefore cannot without sin be renounced and abjured.”

.

Richard Baxter

The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood…  (London, 1679), sect. 6, p. 54

“If bishops would ordain presbyters by limiting words, restraining them from any essential or integral part of the office or power as instituted by Christ, and yet profess that they ordain them to the office which Christ has instituted, it is no schism for those presbyters afterward to claim (and execute in season) all the power which by Christ’s institution belongs to their office, though against the bishops’ wills:

Because the bishops are not the authors or donors of the office power, but only the ministerial deliverers and investers; and therefore it is Christ and not they that must describe it.”

.

Articles

1500’s

Cartwright, Thomas – II. Resolution of Doubts about Entering the Ministry’  in eds. Peel & Carlson, Cartwrightiana  (London: Halley Stewart, 1951), p. 47

Cartwright asks, “2. Whether having a right and lawful election, I may receive ordination from the bishops, either alone or jointly with others in the action?” and answers yes.

.

1600’s

London Provincial Assembly – Jus divinum ministerii evangelici, or the Divine Right of the Gospel-Ministry…  the second part containing a justification of the present ministers of England, both such as were ordained during the prevalency of episcopacy from the foul aspersion of anti-christianism...  (London: Legat, 1654), pt. 2

Preface

“The thesis we shall lay down is this: ‘That the ministers of the Church of England that now are, and have been since the reformation of religion, are lawfully called to their office, so as they need not renounce their ordination; nor have their people any just ground of separation from them in that respect.'”

1. 1st Proposition, and proving it by arguments drawn from the principles of our adversaries

“That the call to the office of the ministers, which some of our present ministers did receive during the prevalency of episcopacy was lawful and valid.”

2. Same Proposition is proved by arguments taken from our own principles

Henry, Matthew – pp. 44-47 (1687)  of ch. 4 in Memoirs of the Life, Character & Writings of the Rev. Matthew Henry, ed. J.B. Williams (1828)  in The Lives of Philip & Matthew Henry, ed. J.B. Williams, 2 vols. in 1 (Banner of Truth, 1974)

“The question is, ‘Whether it be advisable for one who has devoted himself to the work of the ministry, but is by no means satisfied with the terms of conformity, to choose ordination by episcopal hands (if it may be had without any oaths or subscriptions according to the forms prescribed) rather than ordination by presbyters, as some time practiced by those of that persuasion?’

The doubt is, not whether episcopal ordination be lawful, especially considering that the bishop may be looked upon therein as a presbyter, in conjunction with his com-presbyters (and the validity of such ordination is sufficiently vindicated by the presbyterians in their Jus Divinum), but whether it be advisable or no?” – p. 44

“That presbyterians allow episcopal ordination, but the episcopal party disown the validity of presbyterian ordination there is a reply ready…” – p. 46

.

.

On Material Cooperation with Bishops and/or on Oaths to them in things Lawful & Honest

See also ‘On Occasional & Partial Conformity without Sin, or Moderate Puritanism’ and ‘May One take an Oath of Allegiance or Otherwise to a Usurper?’.

.

Order of Contents

Articles  2
Quotes  6

.

Articles

1600’s

English Partially Conforming Puritans – A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists  (1604; RBO, 2025)

pt. 1, Objection 4: ‘They submit to false and Antichristian discipline by bishops’  230-33

pt. 2, Objection 3: ‘Their office’s administration is with vows of obedience to bishops’  262-68

.

2000’s

Fentiman, Travis – 3. “Principled Partial Conformity in Government:
The Church of Scotland under Erastianism & Episcopacy (1660–1688)”  in “Editor’s Extended Introduction”  in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists  (1604; RBO, 2025), pp. 94-159

.

Quotes

Order of

On Beza
Puritan Ministers
Ames
Honyman
Scottish Conformed Ministers
Henry

.

1500’s

On Beza

Andrew Honyman, The Seasonable Case of Submission to the Church-Government as now Re-established by Law, briefly stated and determined by a lover of the peace of this church and kingdom  (Edinburgh: Tyler, 1662), pp. 6-7

“If we will hearken to a man greatly learned and known to be no great friend to bishops, we shall hear him persuading to obedience and submission to them in things lawful.  Theodore Beza, being written to by some ministers in England who excepted against some customs in the discipline and order of that Church (their controversy had not then risen so high as to strike at the office of bishops, only some customs in discipline and ceremonies in external order were most stood upon).

He (Beza, Epistle 12) though disliking these things, yet plainly avers to them that these customs are not tanti momenti, as that for these they should leave their ministry, and by deserting their churches give advantage to Satan, who seeks occasion to bring in greater and more dangerous evils: He wishes them there to bear what they cannot amend, to beware of all bitterness: And albeit they could not come to be of the same mind with others, yet with a godly concord to resist Satan, who seeks all occasions of tumults and infinite calamities. 

And he does most gravely obtest the ministers (with tears, as he says) Ut Regiae Majestatis et omnibus Praesulibus suis ex animo obsequantur.  Beza pleads for hearty obedience (in things lawful) to the bishops, of whom he speaks honorably in that epistle, not hinting at the unlawfulness of their office, nor offering to persuade the ministers to do against their office: Sunt maximi viri (says he) qui singulari Dei Opt. Max. beneficio papisticis Episcopis successere: He accounts not them, nor their office popish, but says, By the singular mercy of the most great and good God, they have succeeded the popish bishops, or come in their place, even as by the singular mercy of God protestant ministers have come in the place and room of popish priests.

And how well he esteems of the office and of the men in the office (likely abating somewhat of his peremptoriness in the heat of dispute with some, as he had cause) may appear not only by what he says in that epistle, exhorrescimus ut contra Regiae Majestatis et Episcoporum voluntatem, ministri suo ministerio fungantur: But from his epistles to Grindal, Bishop of London, Epistle 23, commending Grindal’s Christian patience and lenity, adds, Majori posthac paena digni erunt qui authoritatem iuam aspernabuntur, closing his epistle, Deus te custodiat, & intan•• commisso tibi munere sancto suo spiritu regat, et magis a• magis confirmet.  And in his 58th Epistle, to that same bishop, he says, Dominus te istic (at London) speculatorem et judicem constituit. 

By all which it may appear that it would have been far from Beza‘s mind that ministers should give no obedience to bishops established by the laws of a kingdom, not so much as in things undoubtedly lawful, or that they should have refused concurrence with bishops in ordering the Church and acting in unquestionable duties.”

.

1600’s

Partially Conforming English Puritan Ministers

A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists  (1604; RBO, 2025), pp. 263-68

“First, that so long as the Christian magistrate [in England] requires we should yield obedience to the bishops (and that with this limitation, viz. only in things lawful and honest), we think it not unlawful for us to give obedience to them in those things they do by civil authority, though neither themselves, nor the magistrate might well require us to do [those things], for even our Saviour Himself yielded obedience to Caesar in such a thing wherein Caesar could not lawfully exact obedience of Him [Mt. 17:25-27].

As for the excommunication and suspensions, and such other censures as are merely ecclesiastical?  We answer:  As the true Church of God which from the Lord Jesus has received these keys of the Kingdom of Heaven did, though unadvisedly and unlawfully, deliver them over into the hands of the bishops: And the bishops being preachers of the Word, though they should not have this power wholly committed unto them, yet are they capable of it.  We see not how it should be utterly unlawful to reverence and yield to the censures of Christ’s Church being exercised and administered even by them, unless we will say that the Church presently looses her right and power to censure offenders when she commits it unto any such men as unto whom of right either not at all, or not of right, only it belongs.

Secondly, now as we may lawfully yield some obedience to the bishops in these things, so we may lawfully bind ourselves by oath to do it: if our oaths be required of us by the Christian Magistrate’s authority, especially seeing we do by oath binde ourselves to obey in regard of the civil authority which is committed to them by the Christian magistrate.

Thirdly, For our going to their Courts, this we answer. That see∣ing we doe testifie in our callings, our dislike to the vile, and odious cor∣ruptions of their Courts; And doe also utterly refuse to yeeld obedience to any o• their unlawfull decrees, we cannot justly bee condemned for appearing intheir Courts, or any other place whereunto we are by His Majesties authoritie summoned. And whereas the persons before whom wee appeare are judged usually corrupt, and enemies to that Re∣formation which wee desire, and some of them also, such as (being no ministers themselves) do by all meanes seeke the disgrace of our calling, and the utter discoutagement of such Christians, as in whom they per∣ceive any sparkes of true zeale) wee account this our appeating at their Courts, not onely for an abridgment of our libertie, but also for such a burthen, as wee have just cause to groane under, and to pray, that God would in His good time, move His Majesties heart, to eate us of it. And yet as the Apostle being free was content, for the Churches sake, not onely to become bound, in serving it with the labour of his hands, but also, by subjecting himselse to those Ceremonies, which in Christ were abolished, so may, and ought we for the Churches sake, to beare this burden, rather than to forsake, or refuse the ministerie, when the Lord hath called, and fitted us unto it.

For our yielding to the suspensions and deprivations, we answer:

That so long as the bishops suspend and deprive according to the Law of the land, we account of the action herein, as of the act of the Church, which we may and ought to reverence and yield unto; if they do otherwise, we have liberty given us by the Law to appeal from them.

If it be said that the Church is not to be obeyed when it suspends and deprives us for such causes as we in our consciences know to be insufficient, we answer that it lies in them to depose that may ordaine, and they may shut that may open.  And that as he may with a good conscience execute a ministry by the ordination and calling of the Church who is privy to himself of some unfitness (if the Church will press him to it), so may he who is privy to himself of no fault that deserves deprivation, cease from the execution of his ministry when he is pressed thereunto by the Church.

And if a guiltless person put out of his charge by the Church’s authority may yet continue in it, what proceedings can there be against guilty persons who in their owne conceit are always guiltless, or will at least pretend so to be, seeing they also will be ready always to object against the Church’s judgment that they are called of God and may not therefore give over the execution of their ministery at the will of man.

And yet admitting it were merely unlawful upon any respect to yield any new obedience at all to the censures of the bishops, yet how will it follow that this our unlawful yielding has force sufficient to make us (ipso facto) no true ministers, unless you will say that the high priests who were in Christ’s time, that took and left their offices at the will of tyrants and heathen princes,¹ were therefore not to be accounted priests…

¹ [Lk. 3:2; Jn. 18:13; Acts 4:6; Josephus, Antiquities, bk. 18, ch. 2, sect. 1-2; ch. 4, sect. 3; ch. 5, sect. 3; bk. 20, ch. 1, sect. 3; ch. 5, sect. 2; ch. 8, sect. 5, 8, 11; ch. 9, sect. 1-4, 7; ch. 10; Jewish War, bk. 4, ch. 3, sect. 6; ch. 4, sect. 4]

The speech of the apostles, which they are wont to object against us in this case [Acts 5:29, ‘We ought to obey God rather than man’], may easily appeare how unskilfully.  It is alleged to them that will consider these three differences between their case and ours:

First, they that inhibited the apostles were known and professed enemies to the Gospel.

Secondly, the apostles were charged not to teach in the name of Christ, nor to publish any part of the doctrine of the Gospel, which commandment might more hardly be yeelded unto than this of our bishops, who though they cannot endure them which teach that part of the truth that concerns the good government and reformation of the Church, yet are they not only content that the Gospel should be preached, but are also preachers of it themselves.

Thirdly, the apostles received not their calling and authority from men, nor by the hands of men, but immediately from God Himself; and therefore also might not be restrained or deposed by men; whereas we, though we exercise a function whereof God is the author, and we are also called of God to it, yet are we called and ordeined by the hand and ministery of men, and may therefore by men be also deposed and restrained from the exercise of our ministry.”

.

William Ames

A Second Manuduction for Mr. [John] Robinson. Or a confirmation of the former in an answer to his manumission  (Amsterdam, 1615)

pp. 6-7

“The demand was of the same man, who formerly did lawfully preach in a public assembly, if he should [now] obtain a license from the Lord bishop of the diocesse, without any unlawful condition for to continue in that his course [of public preaching], whether that leave or licence given does pollute the actions, seeing a man may ask leave of the great Turk to preach the gospel within his dominions?

His [John Robinson’s] answer is that the very obtaining and receiving of such a license is unlawful, because it is a real acknowledgement that such a bishop has a lawful power to grant it.  Which [in my judgment] is neither so nor so, for:

1. The asking and receiving of leave or license (which are both one) does not always imply an acknowledgement of his lawful authority from whom it is sought.  If any man of violence shall usurp a power to himself, of permitting or hindering the lawful and good offices that pertain unto honest men, so that without his licence a man could not buy or sell, or teach any science or trade of life; if an honest man whom these duties concern, should in that case take a licence from that usurper (though he were no better then a strong theif) no reasonable man will say that in so doing he did acknowledge such usurped power lawful.

The rulers of Jewish synagoges had no lawful power over the apostles of Christ in any part of their ministery, neither would Paul ever acknowledge so much: yet he and Barnabas accepted of such license or leave from them sometime as they did usually grant unto those that acknowledged themselves lawfully subject to their authority.  See an example, Acts 13:15.

Mr. Robinson himself has granted in the first demand that a man may preach by leave in a parochial assembly: which leave must be given by the parochial minister and church-wardens, whose authority he holds one with the bishops.  If therefore leave or license (whether in word or writing, that is all one) may be lawfully taken from them, without acknowledging any authority lawful which is unlawful, why not from the bishop?

2. There is some authority in the bishops derived from the king which may be acknowledged lawful.  Such is this of giving license, liberty and civil authority for men to do good.  The civil magistrate may do it himself, or appoint others to do it, 2 Chron. 17:7.  The abuse of this authority does not make it unlawful.”

.

p. 14

“A man may be in some sort called by another to exercise some power which is not his that so called him.  As when a physician is called by the civil magistrate or by a bishop to exercise such art as he has, among the people that are ruled by him.

For no man I think will say that such a physician in giving of a potion does exercise a kingly or an episcopal power.  So likewise is the case of a schoolmaster set in place by a bishops license and authority: in teaching of grammar, he does not exercise the power of a bishop.”

.

Andrew Honyman

The Seasonable Case of Submission to the Church-Government as now Re-established by Law, Briefly Stated & Determined by a Lover of the Peace of this Church & Kingdom  (Edinburgh: Tyler, 1662), p. 15

“…if Timorcus [who argued the continuing obligation of the covenants] (p. 37) may be believed (and he seems tender in the matter of others) there is no contradiction between the canonical oath and the [Solemn League and] Covenant [1643]; he maintains that the [Scottish] ministers who of old [in the early-1600’s] took the canonical oath, did not swear the contradictory thereto when they took the [Solemn League and] Covenant: whence it will follow necessarily that they who have taken the Covenant do not contradict that oath, if they should take the oath of canonical obedience:”

.

On Scottish Conformed Ministers at and after 1662

Travis Fentiman, “Editor’s Extended Introduction”, “Imposed Erastianism & Episcopacy”  in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists  (1604; RBO, 2025), p.

“The equivalent to the Great Ejection in Scotland in 1662 required a great amount less of the ministers than on the English side.  No oaths or subscribing [to a service-book] were mandatory, but every minister who had entered the ministry after 1649 was to (1) “obtain presentation,” or sanction from the patron (a local or regional civil officer), and (2) “have collation,” or confer with the regional bishop…

Collation with a bishop “usually meant taking an oath: either…  the oath of canonical obedience, or another oath drawn up by the kirk session or the presbytery.”  The oath of canonical obedience promised “canonical obedience in all things lawful and honest to the bishop.”  That phrase, of things “lawful and honest,” remained undefined
and was left open to interpretation.

Any minister not having obtained these two requirements was forbidden to preach and was to remove from his parish’s bounds by the given date.  Around 270 ministers (or more), about 30% of the ministry, did not comply with these two requisites and were therein civilly deprived.”

.

Philip Henry

Matthew Henry, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, pp. 129-30  in The Lives of Philip & Matthew Henry, ed. J.B. Williams, 2 vols. in 1 (Banner of Truth, 1974)

“All the power to be owned in bishops, is derived to them from the King; and, in those things wherein the King has power in church matters, in those things we may obey the bishops, as his delegates and substitutes…

the law calls the King patron-general of England.  His appointing me to preach [in the second indulgence], supposes I must have hearers, and those, of necessity, out of some parish or other.  What we do is to serve the present necessity, and not of choice.”

.

.

Latin

Articles

1600’s

Voet, Gisbert

Of Them which are either Tepid or Approve of Lukewarmness, Moderation & Toleration about the Government & Ceremonies, named Heirarchics [Formalists] in Disputes in England  in Syllabus of Theological Problems  (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 4   Abbr.

Ecclesiastical Politics  (Amsterdam: Waesberge, 1663)

vol. 1, pt. 1, bk. 1, tract 1, Of the Instituted Church

6. ‘Of Ecclesiastical Colleges, Cathedrals or Dioceses, Archbishops or Metropolitans, Patriarchs and Ecumenics’, p. 80 ff.

vol. 3, pt. 2, bk.4, tract 1

3. Of Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, Deans 816

4. A Delineation of a Brief Controversy about Episcopacy 832

5. Containing a Disquisition on Presbytery and Episcopacy 850

.           Part 1  851
.           Part 2  859
.           [Four] Consequences 869

6. Of Ecclesiastical Governments According to Ordinaries[?], Those put Forward[?], Archdeacons, Archpresbyters, Vicars, Counselors  869
.          Appendix to Ch. 6  876

.

Book

1600’s

Salmasius, Claudius – A Dissertation on Bishops & Presbyters contra the Jesuit Dionysius Petavius  (Leiden: Johann Maire, 1641)  476 pp.  ToC

.

.

Bibliography

Quote

1600’s

Richard Baxter

Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity  (London: A.M., 1653), ‘Objections Answered’

“I know that many heap up arguments and bring us long rolls of authorities for episcopacy.

And I know that Gersom, Bucer, Beza, [Calderwood’s] Altare Damascenum, Parker, Baynes, Salmasius, Blondel, Prynne (in his Catalogue of Writers against Bishops, and in his History of Bishops, pt. 2, ch. 3 and Unbishopping of Timothy and Titus), Dr. Reynolds and others do give us as long a train of arguments and authorities on the other side…

but, methinks all those men that have without prejudice read the authors that I have mentioned (especially Bucer, Parker, and Blondel, and Salmasius), yea, though they have read all that ever was writ on the other side, should be so apprehensive of a difficulty in the business as to be moderate and modest in the censure of their brethren, and not to degrade or excommunicate all that differ from them.
…

And to have cited Calvin, Beza, Chamier, Pareus, Musculus or any of those multitudes of foreign divines that are known to be against them would have been labor in vain; and so it would have been to have cited Reynolds, Whitaker, Dr. Humphrey and such like at home, who are some known to be against them, and some no fast friends to them.”

.

.

.

“The elders which are among you I [Peter] exhort, who am also an elder…  Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;”

1 Pet. 5:1-2

“Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons…”

Phil. 1:1

.

.

.

Related Pages

On Extraordinary Acts of Church Government under Necessity, Superintendents & Assessor Elders, etc.

Presbyterianism

Church Government