Ussher's Reduced Episcopacy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Particular Baptist

Puritan Board Freshman
Has anyone ever read or thought about Ussher's idea for a reduced form of episcopacy? I believe that Richard Baxter agreed with this document and thought that bishops could be retained if they were reigned in to the limits they had in the early church.

Also, would this form of government be a high presbyterianism or a low episcopacy? This form of government seems similar to the episcopacy that Calvin articulates in the Institutes, when he says that the bishop was always viewed as of the same class among the presbyters but was the president of the presbyters and was chosen by the whole congregation. Is this correct?

The Reduction of Episcopacy

The Reduction of Episcopacy unto the form of Synodical Government Received in the Ancient Church: Proposed as an Expedient for the compromising of the now Differences, and the preventing of those Troubles that may arise about the matter of Church Government. 1656

Episcopal and Presbyteral Government conjoined.

By Order of the Church of England all Presbyters are charged (1) to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Realm hath received the same; and that they might the better understand what the Lord had commanded therein (2), the Exhortation of S. Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus is appointed to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination; Take heed unto your selves, and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to Rule (3) the Congregation of God, which he hath purchased with his blood.

Of the many Elders, who in common thus ruled the Church of Ephesus, there was on President; Whom our Saviour in his Epistle to that Church in a peculiar manner styles the Angel of the Church of Ephesus (Rev 2.1); and Ignatius, in another Epistle written about twelve years after unto the same Church, called the Bishop thereof, betwixt which Bishop and the Presbytery of that Church, what an harmonious consent there was in the ordering of the Church government, the same Ignatius doth fully there declare, by the Presbytery with St. Paul (1 Tim 4.14) understanding the Company of the rest of the Presbyters or Elders, who then had a hand not only in the deliverance of the Doctrine and Sacraments, but also in the administration of the Discipline of Christ, for further proof whereof, we have that known testimony of Tertullian in his Apology for Christians. (4)

In the Church are used exhortations, chastisements and divine censure. For judgment is given with great advice as among those who are certain that they are in the sight of God; and it is the chiefest foreshowing of the judgment which is to come, if any man have so offended that he be banished from the Communion of Prayer, and of the Assembly, and of all holy fellowship. The Presidents that bear rule therein are certain approved Elders, who have obtained this honour, not by reward, but by good report; were no other (as he himself elsewhere intimates) but those from whose hands they used to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist (5). For with the Bishop who was the chief President (and therefore styled by the same Tertullian in another place (6) Summus Sacerdos for distinction sake) the rest of the Dispensers of the Word and Sacraments joined in the common government of the Church; and therefore, where in matters of Ecclesiastical judicature Cornelius Bishop of Rome used the received form of gathering together the Presbytery (7); of what persons did consist, Cyprian, sufficiently declares, when he wishes him to read his letters (8) to the flourishing Clergy which there did preside or rule with him, the presence of the Clergy being thought to be so requisite in matters of Episcopal audience that in the fourth Council of Carthage, it was concluded, that the Bishop might hear no man’s cause without the presence of his Clergy, and that otherwise the Bishops sentence should be void, unless it were confirmed by the presence of the Clergy, which we find also to be inserted into the Canons of Egbert, who was Archbishop of York in the Saxons times, and afterwards into the Body of the Canon Law itself.

True it is, that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial government has been long disused, yet seeing it still professes, that every Pastor has a right to rule the Church (from when the name of Rector also was given at first unto him) and to administer the Discipline of Christ, as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the restraint of the exercise of that right proceeds only from the custom now received in this Realm, no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this Hindrance may be well removed: And how easily his ancient form of government by the united Suffrages of the Clergy might be revived again, and with what little show of alteration, the Synodical conventions of the Pastors of every Parish might be accorded with the presidency of the Bishops of each Diocese and Province; the impartial Reader may quickly perceive by the perusal of the ensuing Propositions.

1. In every parish the Rector or Incumbent Pastor together with the Churchwardens and Sidesmen may every week take notice of such as live scandalously in that Congregation, who are to receive such several admonitions and reproofs, as the quality of their offence shall deserve; and if by this means they cannot be reclaimed, they ay be presented unto the next monthly Synod; and in the mean time debarred by the Pastor from access to the Lord’s Table.

2. Whereas by a Statute in the 26 year of King Henry the eight (revived in the first of Queen Elizabeth) Suffragans are appointed to be erected in twenty six places of this Kingdom, the number of them might very well be conformed unto the number of the several rural Deaneries into which every Diocese is subdivided; which being done, the Suffragan (supplying the place of those who in the ancient Church were called Chorepiscopi) might every month assemble a Synod of all the Rectors, or Incumbent Pastors within the Precinct, and according to the Major part of their votes conclude all matters that should be brought into debate before them.

To this Synod the Rector and Churchwardens might present such impenitent persons, as by admonition and suspension from the Sacrament, would not be reformed; who if they should still remain contumacious and incorrigible, the sentence of Excommunication might be decreed against them by the Synod, and accordingly be executed in the Parish where they lived.

Hitherto also all things that concerned the Parochial Ministers might be referred, whether they did touch doctrine or their conversation; as also the censure of all new Opinions, Heresies, or Schisms, which did arise within that Circuit; with liberty of Appeal, if need so require, unto the Diocesan Synod.

3. The Diocesan Synod might be held once or twice in the year, as it should be thought most convenient: Therein all the Suffragans and the rest of the Rectors or Incumbent Pastors (or a certain select number) of every Deanery within that Diocese might meet, with whose consent, or the Major part of them, all things might be concluded by the Bishop or Superintendent (call him whither you will) or in his absence by one of the Suffragans whom he shall depute in his stead to be Moderator of that Assembly. here all matters of greater moment might be taken into consideration, and the Orders of the Monthly Synods revised, and (if need be) reformed: And if here also any matters of difficultly could not receive a full determination; it might be referred to the next Provincial or National Synod.



4. The Provincial Synod might consist of all the Bishops and Suffragans, and such other Clergy as should be elected out of every Diocese within the Province; The Primate of either Province might be Moderator of this meeting (or in his room, some one of the Bishops appointed by him) and all matters be ordered therein by common consent as in the former Assembly.

This Synod might be held every third year, and in the Parliament do then sit (according to the Act for A Triennial Parliament) both the Primates and Provincial Synods of the Land might join together, and make us a National Counsel: Wherein all appeals from inferior Synods might be received, all their Acts examined, and all Ecclesiastical constitutions which concern the state of the Church of the whole Nation established.

END.

The Form of Government here proposed, is not in any point repugnant to Scripture; and that the Suffragans mentioned in the Second Proposition, may lawfully use the power both of jurisdiction and Ordination, according to the Word of God, and the Practice of the ancient Church.

Church Society - Issues - History - Ussher - Episcopacy
 
When the historical situation is also considered, I think Ussher's purpose is made very plain; which, indeed, he spells out in his opening sentences.

His proposal is very much a national-church model, holding on to something akin to the organizational-structure/appearance of the English church, but oriented upward instead of downward. There is some similarity to the Scottish-Presbyterian reorganization; however, the Scots (If I recall correctly) were determined to do away with the office and power of the bishop (as a hierarchical ecclesial office).

My impression of the difference that might obtain between Ussher's suffragan-bishop (and higher) and the Scottish Superintendent is that, beside quite a few additional "layers" of organization, the office of the bishop seems very much one of appointment through the crown (thus an Erastian-style settlement). And further, that he has summary powers, which the lesser/lower orders do not delegate or elect him to perform (such as calling a council, and appointing an alternate moderator on his self-selection).

That is, Ussher's bishop stands very much in the monarchical-role, albeit he acts in matters of general moment with the counsel of all "his" ministers and congregations (lesser-clergy and other church-representatives). Note, how at times (in each order, beginning with the suffragans), this bishop acts as a one-man higher court, to hear appeals of church-discipline, and to ordain lesser-clergy. Judgments may be referred to the body over which he presides, and thence even higher. But he is a fair unitary "overseer" of church-discipline.

Even "high" Presbyterianism (as I comprehend it) does not assign to its Moderator/Superintendent more than administrative powers--at least as the function has come to be exercised. His authority to summon a council of the church is not reserved to himself (an authority of one), but several Presbyters must be banded together, in order to lawfully summon a council. And no church-discipline is entrusted to one, as judge; but though he alone exercise certain disciplinary duties (say, Word and Sacrament ministry), yet that ministry is overseen by the session. All formal corrective-discipline is conducted by a plurality of elders. And ordination is not of one, but of the authority of the whole Presbytery.

What makes "high-Presbyterianism" high, is chiefly that the minister is accounted a clergyman, and forms a separate class from the laity (of whom are the ordinary elders). High-Presbyterianism also would see each particular congregation as more of an extension of the Presbytery/Diocese, and more subject to regular (as opposed to occasional and extraordinary) acts of discipline.

So, in my estimation, there are a number of similarities and differences between Ussher's proposal, which looks to preserve the episcopal-system in greater degree; and Presbyterianism, which looks to minimize or limit the powers assigned or allowed to any single person.

As a post-script, I will point out the similarities between the notion of "Senior-pastor" (in a church with several ordained staff), or in the case of a single-elder/minister run congregational-church, and the monarchical bishop church organization. The only difference in principle between these constructions is the scope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top