To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
THE purpose of our present Discourse is not directly to handle that much tossed Debate; if an Office in the Church for species or kind superiour to that of dispensing the Word and Sacraments hath any footing or warrant in the Word of God? Neither will this be judged necessary by any who call to mind that many Treatises disproving
the divine right of Episcopacy, as Altare Damascenum, and Rectius Instruendum, have had so good success that, for ought I know, they stand intirely without any shadow of an Answer. Yea the most learned that ever pleaded for the Lawfulness of Episcopacy, will not blame us, though we yeeld no Scripture-ground to it, but only consider it in it self as a thing indifferent; of which mind, among the Ancients, were, not only those who denyed not the exercise of his Office to be Lawfull, as Hierome; but also the very Bishops themselves, as Au∣gustine, all of them founding this Office, not upon Jus Dominicum, the Law of God in the Scriptures; but Ecclesiasticam consuetudinem, the pra∣ctice of the Church.
Add hereto that both Fathers and Councils equally in Opinion and Practice, stuck no less to the lawfulness of Patriarchat, than that of simple Episcopacy; and yet I believe few among real Protestants will either assert the Divine Right of this Office of Patriarchat, i. e. that it had any Warrant for it in the Word of God; or yet that those Fathers and Councils so believed. Which present Consideration furnisheth us with another Argument sufficient to evince that the ancient Ch••rch founded this Office only upon Custom; and, as they thought, Chri∣stian Prudence, and not at all upon the Books of the Old and New Te∣stament.
§. 2. Neither do the most Learned of the Modern Episcopals in the least swerve from this Opinion; amongst whom I reckon D. Forbes, who,a 1.1 having, for a while with the greatest tenderness and fear, handled this Matter, propones at length the Question, If Episcopacy be of Divine Right? And yet declares himself highly difficultated what to Answer; for absolutly deny it, he will not: and positively assert it he dares not: he therefore confounds it with a Synodical Moderatour∣ship, and then fairly tells us that it is of Divine: Right; because of the gene∣ral Scripture-Precepts of Church-Order and Decency. And indeed he car∣ries himself all along in this Matter with so much nice Caution, Ambi∣guity and Fear, that he evinces the desperation of the Episcopal Cause, to which so learned a Man could afford no better Defence, than really to destroy what he pretends to vindicat.
Neither is the most Learned Bishop Vsser of another mind, who has reduced it to a meer shadow, and nonentity.
Andb 1.2 Willet, though he says that a difference is needfull for Church-Policy, yet affirms, that this cannot be proved by the Word of God, and that in the Apostles times a Bishop and Presbyter were neither in Name nor Office distinguished. And he at large answers all Bellarmine's Arguments to the Contrary. See the Appendix to the second part of the forecited Question. Of this same Judgement is their applauded Hookerc 1.3 viz. that there is no ground for their Hierarchy in the word of God; while he declares himself against all particular Forms of Church-government, and acknowledges that nothing for Diocesan Prelacy can be brought therefrom. The necessity of Policy (saith hed 1.4) and regimen in all Churches may be held without holding any one certain Form to be necessary in them all. And the general Principles are such as do not particularly prescribe any one, but sundry Forms of Discipline may be equally consonant unto the ge∣neral Axioms of Scripture. It hath been told them that Matters of Faith, and in general, Matters necessarie unto Salvation are of a different Nature from Ceremonies, Order, and the kind of Church-Government, that the one are necessar to be expresly contained in the Word of God, or else manifestly col∣lected out of the same; the other not so, that it is necessarie not to receive the one unless there be something in Scripture for them, the other free if nothing be alledged against them. And the Learned D. Stilling fleet is at no smal pains to cashier and expunge, among the rest of peculiar Forms of Go∣vernment. This Diocesan Prelacy out of Scriptural-Articles; and not only acknowledges, but also,e 1.5 musters not a few Arguments, where∣by to Prove that it hath no Ground in Holy Scripture.
And, Dr. Morton,f 1.6 Though a zealous Defender of Episcopa∣cy: Asserts that Hierome made not the Difference between Bishop and Pres∣biter of Divine Institution; he ass••nts to Medina the Jesuite, and asserts, that there was no Difference in the matter of Episcopacy betwixt Hierome and Aerius: He averres further that not only the Protestants, but also all the pri∣mitive Doctors were of Hierome's mind And finally he concludes, that according to the Harmonious Consent of all Men in the Apostolick Age, there was no Difference between Bishop and Pesbyter, but was afterward introduced for the removal of Schism. And Jewel Bishop of Sarisburie (a Man for Piety, and Ability, Second, I am sure, to few that ever filled an Episco∣pal Chair) most expresly asserts the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter
Here (saithh 1.7 he) Mr. Harding findeth great fault, for that I have translated these words, ejusdem Sacerdotii, of the same Bishoprick, and not, as he would have it, of one Priesthood. God wott a very simple Quar∣rel. Let him take, whether he listeth best: if either-other of these words shall serve his turn. Erasmus saith, id temporis idem erat Episcopus, Sacerdos, & Presbyter: these three Names, viz. Bishop, Priest. and Presbyter at that time were all one. Andi 1.8 but what meant Mr. Harding here to come in with the Difference between Priests, or Presbyters and Bishops? Thinketh he, that Priests, and Bishops hold only by Tradition? Or is it so horrible an Heresie, as he maketh it, to say, that by the Scriptures of God, a Bishop, and a Priest are all one? Or knoweth he, how far, and unto whom, he reacheth the Name of an Heretick? Verily Chrysostom saith, Inter Episcopum, & Presbyterum interest ferme nihil; between a Bishop, and a Priest, (which is all one with Presbyter) in a manner there is no difference. St. Hierome saith, some∣what in a rougher sort, Audio Quendam &c. I hear say there is one become so Peevish, that he setteth Deacons before Priests, that is to say, before Bi∣shops: whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us that Priests, and Bishops be all one. Thus far Jewel.
The Bishops and Priests (saith the famous Bishop Cranmerk 1.9) were at one time, and were not two things, but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion. And, In the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest, needeth no Consecration by the Scripture; for Election or Appointing thereto sufficient.
In the same MS. (saith Dr. Stillingfleetl 1.10) it appears, that the Bishop of St. Asaph, Therleby, Redman, and Cox, were all of the same Opinion with the Arch-Bishop, that at first Bishops and Presbyters were the same; and the two latter expresly cite the Opinion of Jerome with Approbati∣on. Thus we see by the Testimony chiefly of him who was Instrumental in Our Reformation, that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct Order from Pres∣bytry but only as a prudent Constitution of the Civil Magistrat, for the better governing in the Church. And having proved that Whitgift, and with him the whole Body of the English Episcopal Divines were of the same Judgement, thus concludes;m 1.11 By which Principles the Di∣vine Right of Episcopacy as founded upon Apostolical Practice, is quite sub∣verted and destroyed.
Now judge if Dr. Sandersonen 1.12 spoke not without the allowance, ye acontrary to the express Mind of his Brethren, when he says that the Difference among the Advocats for Episcopacy is only Verbal, and that all of them, even those who yeeld that it is not of Divine Right, no less than the rest, assert that it is founded on the Example and Institution of Christ or his Apostles.
§. 3. This Discourse therefore shall weigh the Advantages alledged to flow from Episcopacy, that it may appear if it have such Effects as they Promise; As also inquire if the Hurt and Dammage does not pre∣ponderat all the Good they can pretend to be linked to their Hierarchy. Neither shall we neglect to examine, if what the most Learned of that Perswasion bring from Ecclesiastick Antiquity, be subservient to their Cause.
Iren. lib. 2. Caput 11.
Synop. pap. conti. 5. Quest. 3. Part 2.
Preface to his Ecclesiastical Policy▪ p. 2. 19. and 20.
P. 131.
In Iren.
Apologiae Cathol. lib. 1. p. 118. 119. 120.
Defence of the Apology of the Church of England. pag. 121.
page 248.
Stillingfleet Iren. pag. 392.
Iren. pag. 393.
pag. 395.
Episcopacy not prejudicial to regal Power. Page 13, 14, 15.