The Question

Whether Episcopacy be of divine right? That is, whether the Apostles ordained this government of the Church, that not only one should be placed over the people, but over presbyters and deacons, who should have the power of imposition of hands, or ordination, and the direction of ecclesiastical councils.

This was anciently denied by Aerius, as is related by Epiphanius, in his 75th heresy, and by John of Jerusalem, as appears by Jerome, in his Epistle to Pammachius. And there are not wanting in these days many learned and pious men, who, although they acknowledge Aerius to have erred, in that he should disallow of that manner of ecclesiastical government, which had been received by the whole world; yet in this they agree with him, that Episcopal government is not of divine right. From whose opinion why I should sever my judgment, I am moved by these strong reasons, famous examples, and evident authorities.

My judgment is this;

First, in the Apostles' Epistles the name of bishop did never signify anything different from the office of a presbyter. For a bishop, presbyter, and an apostle, were common names, as you may see (Acts 20), (Philippians 1:1), (Titus 1), (1 Peter 5:12), (Acts 1:20).

Next. In the chief Apostolic Church, the Church was governed by the common advice of presbyters; and that for some years in the time of the preaching of the Apostles. For first of all, companies must be gathered together, before we can define anything concerning their perpetual government.

Then, the Apostles, as long as they were present or near their Churches, did not place any bishop over them, properly so called, but only presbyters, reserving Episcopal authority to themselves alone.

Lastly, after the Gospel was far and near propagated, and that out of equality of presbyters, by the instinct of the Devil, schisms were made in religion, then the Apostles (especially in the more remote places) placed some over the pastors, or presbyters, which shortly after, by the disciples of the Apostles, Ignatius, and others, were only called bishops, and by this appellation, they were distinguished from presbyters and deacons.

Reasons moving me to this opinion? First, Jerome upon chapter 1 of the Epistle to Titus, writes, that a presbyter is the same with a bishop, and before that, by the instinct of the Devil, factions were made in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, but I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common council of presbyters: afterwards it was decreed in the whole world, that one chosen out of the presbyters, should be placed over the rest.

From where I thus argue.

When it began to be said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, but I of Cephas, then one chosen out of the presbyters, was placed over the rest.

But while the Apostles lived, it was so said among the people. As the first Epistle to the Corinthians, besides other of Saint Paul's Epistles, puts it out of doubt. Therefore, while the Apostles lived, one chosen out of the presbyters was placed over the rest.

Again, there can be no other term assigned, in which bishops were first made, than the time of the Apostles; for all the prime successors of the Apostles were bishops: witness the successions of bishops in the most famous Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, as it is in Eusebius, therefore, either the next successors of the Apostles, changed the force of ecclesiastical government, received from the Apostles, according to their own pleasure, which is very unlikely, or the Episcopal government came from the Apostles themselves.

Besides, even then in the time of the Apostles, there were many presbyters, but one bishop, even then in the time of the Apostles, [in non-Latin alphabet], he that was placed over the rest, which afterwards was called bishop, did impose hands, or ordain ministers of the Word, which presbyters alone did not presume to do. Even then, therefore, the calling of bishops was distinct from the office of presbyters.

If any desire the examples of Apostolic bishops, the books of the ancient are full of the Episcopal authority, of Timothy and Titus, either of which, however, first performed the office of an evangelist, yet notwithstanding, ceased to be an evangelist, after that Timothy was placed over the Church of Ephesus, and Titus over the Church of Crete; for evangelists did only lay the foundations of faith in foreign places, and then did commend the rest of the care to certain pastors, but they themselves went to other countries, and nations, as Eusebius writes in his third book of Ecclesiastical History, and chapter 34. But Paul taught sometimes in Ephesus and Crete and laid the foundations of faith there; therefore he commands Timothy to stay at Ephesus, and Titus at Crete, not as evangelists but as governors of the Churches.

And indeed, the Epistles, written to either of them, do evince the same; for in these, he does not prescribe the manner of gathering together a Church, which was the duty of an evangelist, but the manner of governing a Church, being already gathered together, which is the duty of a bishop; and all the precepts in those Epistles, are so conformable hereto, as that they are not referred in particular to Timothy, and Titus, but in general to all bishops, and therefore in no way, they suit with the temporary power of evangelists.

Besides, that Timothy and Titus, had Episcopal jurisdiction, not only Eusebius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, Jerome, Epiphanius, Oecumenius, Primasius, Theophylact, but also the most ancient writers, of any that write the history of the New Testament, whose writings are now lost, do sufficiently declare: Eusebius without doubt appealing to those, in his third book of Ecclesiastical History and chapter 4, Timothy (says he) in histories is written to be the first which was made bishop of the Church of Ephesus, as Titus was the first, that was made bishop of the Church of Crete.

But if John the Apostle, and not any ancient disciple of the Apostles, be the author of the Revelation, he suggests to us, those seven new examples of Apostolic bishops: for all the most learned interpreters interpret the seven angels of the Churches, to be the seven bishops of the Churches; neither can they do otherwise, unless they should offer violence to the text.

What should I speak of James, not the Apostle but the Brother of our Savior, the son-in-law of the Mother of our Lord: who by the Apostles, was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, as Eusebius, in his 2nd book of Ecclesiastical History, and 1st chapter, out of the 6th of the Hypotyposes of Clement, Jerome concerning Ecclesiastical writers, out of the 1st of the Comments of Hegesippus, relate, Ambrose upon the 1st chapter to the Galatians, Chrysostom in his 23rd Homily upon the 15th of the Acts, Augustine in his 2nd book and 37th chapter against Cresconius, Epiphanius in his 65th Heresy, The 6th Synod in Trullo, and 32nd Canon, all assenting thereto. For indeed, this is that James that had his first residence at Jerusalem, as an ordinary Bishop, whom Paul in his first, and last coming to Jerusalem, found in the City; almost all the Apostles preaching in other places (Galatians 1:19), and that concluded those things, which were decreed in the assembly of the Apostles (Acts 21). For he was with Chrysostom Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, from whom when certain came, Peter would not eat with the Gentiles (Galatians 2:12).

From examples, I pass to authorities, which Ignatius confirms by his own authority.

Whose axioms are these: The Bishop is he who is superior in all chieftaincy and power. The Presbytery is a holy company of counselors and assessors to the Bishop. The deacons are the imitators of angelic virtues, who show forth their pure and unblameable ministry. He who does not obey these is without God, impure, and contemns Christ, and derogates from his order and constitution, in his Epistle to the Trallians.

In another place, I exhort that you study to do all things with concord. The Bishop being president in the place of God. The Presbyters in place of the Apostolic Senate, the Deacons as those to whom was committed the Ministry of Jesus Christ, in his Epistle to the Magnesians.

And again, Let the Presbyters be subject to the Bishop, the Deacons to the Presbyters, the people to the Presbyters and Deacons, in his Epistle to those of Tarsus.

But Ignatius was the disciple of the Apostles — from where then had he this Hierarchy but from the Apostles?

Let us now hear Epiphanius in his 75th Heresy. The Apostles could not presently appoint all things: Presbyters and Deacons were necessary; for by these two, Ecclesiastical affairs might be dispatched. Where there was not found any fit for the Episcopacy, that place remained without a Bishop, but where there was need, and there were any fit for Episcopacy, they were made Bishops. All things were not complete from the beginning, but in tract of time all things were provided which were required for the perfection of those things which were necessary, the Church by this means receiving the fullness of dispensation.

But Eusebius comes nearer to the matter, and more strongly handles the cause, who in his third book of Ecclesiastical History, and 22nd chapter, as also in his Chronicle affirms that Evodius was ordained the 1st Bishop of Antioch in the year of our Lord 45, in the 3rd year of Claudius the Emperor: at which time, many of the Apostles were alive. Now Jerome writes to Evagrius, that at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist, to Heraclius and Dionysius the Bishop, the Presbyters called one, chosen out of themselves, and placed in a higher degree, the Bishop. But Mark died, as Eusebius and Bucholcerus testify, in the year of our Lord 64, Peter, Paul, and John, the Apostles, being then alive: therefore, it is clear that Episcopacy was instituted in the time of the Apostles, and good Jerome suffered some frailty, when he wrote that Bishops were greater than Presbyters, rather by the custom of the Church than the truth of the Lord's disposing; unless perhaps, by the custom of the Church, he understands the custom of the Apostles, and by the truth of the Lord's disposing, he understands the appointment of Christ, yet not so, he satisfies the truth of History. For it appears out of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd chapters of the Revelation, that the form of governing the Church by Angels or Bishops, was not only ratified and established in the time of the Apostles, but it was confirmed by the very Son of God. And Ignatius called that form the order of Christ.

And when Jerome writes that it was decreed in the whole world, that one chosen out of the Presbyters should be placed over the rest. And when I have demonstrated that in the lifetime of the Apostles, Bishops were superior to Presbyters in Ordination, and that each Church had one placed over it, do we not without cause demand: where, when, and by whom Episcopacy was ordained? Episcopacy therefore is of divine right. Which, how the Prelates of the Church of Rome, for almost 300 years, did adorn with the truth of Doctrine, innocency of life, constancy in afflictions, and suffering death itself for the honor of Christ; and on the other side, how in succeeding times, first by their ambition, next by their excessive pragmatical covetousness, scraping up to themselves the goods of this world, then by their heresy, last of all by their tyranny they corrupted it, that the Roman Hierarchy, at this day, has nothing else left but a vizard of the Apostolic Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and the lively image of the whore of Babylon, our Histories both ancient and modern do abundantly testify.

Therefore all Bishops are warned from here, that they thoroughly weigh within themselves the nature of Apostolic Episcopacy, of which they glory that they are the successors.

That Episcopacy had two things peculiar to it, the privilege of succeeding, and the prerogative of ordaining: all other things were common to them with the Presbyters. Therefore both Bishops and Presbyters should so exercise themselves in godliness, should so free themselves from contempt by their conversation, and so make themselves examples to their flock; not neglecting especially the gift of prophesying, received from above, but being wholly intent on reading, consolation, and teaching: to meditate on these things, to be wholly conversant in them; and so perpetually employed in this holy function and divine affairs, with this promise, that if they shall do these things, they shall both save themselves and their hearers, but if after the custom of some great ones, they follow the pride and luxury of this world, they shall both destroy themselves and those that hear them.

Finis.