No; in the might of his genius he called up a spirit which he has in vain endeavored to lay, or exorcise from the conviction.
Ib.
p. xvii.
For episcopacy relies not upon the authority of Fathers and Councils, but upon Scripture, upon the institution of Christ, or the institution of the Apostles, upon a universal tradition, and a universal practice, not upon the words and opinions of the doctors: it hath as great a testimony as Scripture itself hath, &c.
We must make allowance for the intoxication of recent triumph and final victory over a triumphing and victorious enemy; or who but would start back at the aweless temerity of this assertion? Not to mention the evasion; for who ever denied the historical fact, or the Scriptural occurrence of the word expressing the fact, namely,
episcopi, episcopatus?
? What was questioned by the opponents was,
- Who and what these episcopi were; whether essentially different from the presbyter, or a presbyter by kind in his own ecclesia, and a president or chairman by accident in a synod of presbyters:
- That whatever the episcopi of the Apostolic times were, yet were they prelates, lordly diocesans; were they such as the Bishops of the Church of England? Was there Scripture authority for Archbishops?
- That the establishment of Bishops by the Apostle Paul being granted (as who can deny it?) — yet was this done jure Apostolico for the universal Church in all places and ages; or only as expedient for that time and under those circumstances; by Paul not as an Apostle, but as the head and founder of those particular churches, and so entitled to determine their bye laws?