# Ussher's Reduced Episcopacy



## Particular Baptist (Jun 7, 2011)

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
> 
> ...



Church Society - Issues - History - Ussher - Episcopacy


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 7, 2011)

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.


----------

