all the Churches they lookt upon that as their peculiar Charge and govern'd not as ordinary Presbyters but by Apostolick Authority as a Metropolitan who although he has the supervising of all the Diocesses within his Province yet may have his proper Diocess which he governs as a particular Bishop And the Office of an Apostle does not essentially consist in the governing of more Churches than one else St. Paul would never have vindicated his Apostleship from the particular Right he had over the Corinthians 1 Cor. 9.2 If I be not an Apostle to others yet doubtless I am to you for the Seal of my Apostleship are ye in the Lord. So that though he had had no more Churches to govern yet his Apostolick Authority might have been still exercised over that particular one of Corinth The Provinces of the Evangelists were not yet so large as those of the Apostles for these were either sent to such Cities or Parts whither the Apostles themselves could not go or left where they could not stay The Church of Ephesus was the Diocese of Timothy from whence although the greater Occasions of other Churches might call him away and require his Assistance yet his Authority was not Temporal nor would it have expired if he had resided a longer while at Ephesus so that these Apostolick men were not so because they were unfixt but because they had that Eminence of Authority which they might exercise in one or more Churches according as their Necessities did require or as the Spirit signified and that they did not settle in one place is to be ascribed to the Condition of their Times and not to the nature of their Office for the Harvest was now great and such Labourers as these were but few and therefore their Presence was required in several Places And as this Unsetledness is not essential to Apostolick Authority no more is it essential to Episcopacy to be determined to a certain Church Every Bishop is Bishop of the Catholick Church and that his Authority is confined to a certain district is only the positive Law of the Church that forbids one Bishop any Exercise of his Office within the Diocess of another and St. Paul seems to have given them the occasion who would not build upon another mans Foundation However in any case of Necessity this Positure Law is superseeded and a Bishop may act in any place by virtue of a general Power he has received in his Ordination so that this first Exception of the Apostles and the Evangelists being unfixt and Bishops determined to a particular Church can make no essential Difference As to the Visitors of the Church of Scotland they make evidently against Mr. B's Notion of an essential Difference between Bishops and Evangelists for first of all the Residence was fixt to certain Cities and their Jurisdiction confin'd within certain Provinces as the Superintendent of the Country of Orkney was to keep his Residence in the Town of Keirkwall Spotswood Hist Scot. l. 3. p. 158. he of Rosse in the Channory of Rosse and so the rest in the Towns appointed for their Residence Their Office was to try the Life Diligence and Behaviour of the Ministers the Order of their Churches and the Manners of the People how the Poor were provided and how the Youth were instructed they must admonish where Admonition needed and dress all things that by good Counsel they were able to compose finally they must take note of all hainous Crimes that the same may be corrected by the Censures of the Church So far of their Constitution as we find it in Mr. Knox's first Project of Church-polity Spotswood p. 258. and their practice was altogether the same with that of Diocesan Episcopacy as Bishop Spotswood describes it The Superintendents held their Office during Life and their Power was Episcopal for they did elect and ordain Ministers they presided in Synods and directed all Church Censures neither was any Excommunication pronounced without their Warrant And now let the Reader judge how the Constitution of Diocesan Episcopacy becomes a Crime and yet these Visitors of the Church of Scotland conformable to divine Institution As to the second Exception that the Apostles and Evangelists were Episcopi Episcoporum and had Bishops under their Jurisdiction which our Diocesans who are the Bishops but of particular Churches do not pretend to This makes no Difference at leastwise no essential one for the same person may have the Charge of a particular Church or Diocess and yet have the supervising Power over several others But in this point Mr. B. does but equivocate and impose upon his Reader for by his Episcopus gregis he means only a Presbyter and a particular Bishop may have Jurisdiction over such without any Injury or Prejudice done to the Office which from it's first Institution has been under the Direction of a superiour Apostolical Power if therefore these Presbyters do retain all that Power which essentially belongs to them under a Diocesan Bishop how are they degraded In short either this Order of Congregational Episcopacy is different from Presbytery or the same with it if the same how is it abrogated by Diocesan Episcopacy since Presbyters are still in the full Possession and Exercise of their Office If they are distinct how then comes Mr. B. to confound them as he does § 16. where he says That the Apostles themselves set more than one of these Elders or Bishops in every Church So then those Apostolick men as Bishops of the particular Churches wherin as they resided had Authority over Presbyters within the Extent of their Diocess and a general Supervising Care of several other Churches and so they were Episcopi Episcoporum in the first they are succeeded by Diocesan Bishops in the latter by Metropolitans which yet were never lookt upon as two orders essentially distinct But after all this we shall never come to a right Understanding of Mr. B's Episcopacy unless we take along with it his Notion of a particular Church which he sets down p. 6. § 19. There is great Evidence of History p. 6. that a particular Church of the Apostles setling was essentially only a Company of Christians Pastors and People associated for personal holy Communion and mutual help in holy Doctrine Worship Conversation and Order therefore it never consisted of so few or so many or so distant as to be uncapable of such personal Help and Communion but was ever distinguished as from accidental Meetings so from the Communion of many Churches or distant Christians which was held but by Delegates Synods of Pastors or Letters and not by personal Help in Presence Not that all these must needs always meet in the same place but that usually they did so or at due times at least and were no more nor more distant than could so meet sometimes Persecution hindred them sometimes the Room might be too small even independent Churches among us sometimes meet in diverse Places
Pelusuim l. 2. Ep. 126. into which it was brought by the covetousness and ambition of one Martinianus a Presbyter If. Pel. l. 2. Ep. 126. O thou best of men it belongs to thy Wisdom and Authority to rescue the poor Church of Pelusium from the Hands of evil Governours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor is this only a general complement but he goes on to mention particular instances of his integrity against this Martinianus who after he had robb'd the Church of Pelusium sent some part of the money to Alexandria to endeavour to procure himself the Bishoprick Cyril having intimation of this practice rebukes him sharply and threatens if he go on any further in this base course so dishonourable to Religion that he will not only excommunicate but have him banish'd Whereupon Isidore applys himself to him in expressions of the greatest admiration of his integrity and does not know how to call him by a title good enough What Compe'lation shall I use that may be suitable to so great worth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whoever is the least acquainted with the Spirit and temper of Isidore will hardly suspect him of flattery but that he was the real Convert of this great Bishop and by these commendations of him endeavoured to make honourable amends and to wash off the dirt he had before rashly cast upon his name If I should take the pains to gather the hands of the Fathers and to set down the glorious testimonials they give of Cyril I believe few Saints could shew greater evidence of their merit towards the Church Gloriosissimus fidei Catholicae Defensor Prosper contra collat c. 41. Celest Ep. ad Nest §. 5. and Cyrillus Alexandriae Episcopus vir omni sapientia Sanctitatis exemplo clarissimus probatissimus Sacerdos c. But Theodoret it seems was never truly reconcil'd to him for in his Epistle to Johannes Antioch he looks upon the death of Cyril as a deliverance of the Church from a turbulent enemy of Peace But God only knows says our Author Yes sure there are men that know it too though not Mr. Baxter They that are a little more vers'd in the writings of the Fathers know very well Baron An. 44016. that this Epistle is spurious and that John to whom it was directed was dead four years before which Theodoret could not but know And it is very well known that the Nestorians forg'd several Letters in the name of Theodoret. Leont de Sect. Sect. 5. In short nothing can be a plainer confutation of this Fiction than Theodorets own Letter to Dioscorus the successor of Cyril where besides that he does shew John to be dead seven years before the time of the writing of that Letter Theod. Ep. ad Diosc he does also make it appear that there was a full and sincere reconciliation between him and Cyril before his death That Cyril when he had written his Books against Julian the Apostate and another about the Scape-Goat before he publish'd them sent them to John Bishop of Antioch to communicate them with the greatest Scholars of the East He sent them to me says Theodoret and I read them and sent him an account of them and I received Letters from him after that Ad Flavian which I have still by me And the same man in another Letter gives an account of this to Dioscorus that he had sent to him to acquaint him that he persevered still in that league that had been made between Cyril of happy memory and the Eastern Churches And now let any man judge whether this forg'd Letter that goes under the name of Theodoret be not as great an injury to him as it is to Cyril But with our Author that weeds Church-History any fiction or imposture is authentick that does but contain some scandalous reflections upon great Bishops and this seems to be the mark that directs his choice all along I have been more particular in the Vindication of this great Bishop from those calumnies our Author raked out of all the Libels of his Enemies because all this seems to be brought in on purpose to lessen the reputation of the Council of Ephesus that was chiefly directed by the authority of Cyril and that you may not take this for an uncertain conjecture of his design he explains himself But pardon truth or be deceived still ignorance and pride p. 94. sect 20. and envy and faction and desire to please the Court made Cyril and his party by quarrelsome Heretication to kindle that lamentable flame in the world Can any man that has any ingenuity or knowledge of those times affirm this How could this gratifie the Court since the Emperour was so highly offended with the contention that he ordered Cyril to be imprison'd and was extreamly dissatisfy'd with both parties Or how can that be the effect of Cyril's Envy or Ambition which he himself did endeavour to prevent by all the amicable methods imaginable as may be seen by his Letters to Nestorius But if the Reader will not blindly engage in all the groundless jealousies and malicious suggestions of our Author then he has much ado to forbear calling him Fool but however he dismisses him with that which is equivalent Let him be deceived still as if every one that had any more charitable opinion of Bishops and Councils than he that seems to have read little more than what Binnius has of them lov'd to be deceiv'd and shut his Eyes against the greatest evidence in the World Before we enter upon the Council of Ephesus it is fit some notice should be taken of our Authors account of Nestorius The worst thing he can say of him is That he was hot against Hereticks and desired the assistance of the Civil Magistrate to suppress them that he went about to pull down the Church of the Arians and they set it on fire themselves and then call'd him Firebrand when themselves were the Incendiaries he vex'd the Novatians c. After all we have this Remark Thus Turbulent Hereticators must have the Sword do the work of the Word When our Author lays about him he never minds where the blow falls and deals alike to friends and foes What Hereticators were hotter than the Presbyterians in the year 1646 the Inquisition is not more severe than their Ordinance against Heresies Ordinance against Heresie and Blasphemy presented to the House of Commons which they desir'd should be made Felony and punish'd by death And of other opinions that were to be punish'd by imprisonment were there not many that are yet in dispute between the Reformed themselves Nay he that vindicates that Bloody Ordinance as the Independents call'd it does complain against the Bishops for not being severe enough in the eradication of Heresies Vindication of the Ordin against Heresie p. 23. Impr. James Cranford I will set down the words because they are something remarkable In the Bishops times there were some Arians and
they believed they were Baptized both Men and Women Now the Apostles who remained in Jerusalem when they heard of this success send Peter and John thither who confirm the believers by imposition of hands and why could not Philip do this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphan he could dispossess unclean Spirits and heal all manner of diseases he could Preach powerfully so as to Convert in a manner a whole City and why could not he do all other Acts that were useful to the Church but that these Apostles must be taking Authority upon them in his Church it is something like Diocesan Prelacy to reserve any Acts of Order or Discipline to themselves yet so it was that the holy Ghost was not given 〈◊〉 by their hands and what kind of Government they established there Chrysost Oecumenius Theophylact. does not appear and some pretend to give reasons why they did not appoint a Clergy there as afterwards they did in other places because they say that Samaria was near enough to Jerusalem where the whole Council of the Apostles did reside and thither their Bishop or Presbyters might repair for more solemn Ordination And that we may not think meaner of the success of the Apostles Ministry than we ought and measure it by the progress of Sectaries as Anabaptists and Quakers as Mr. B. does with too much disparagement to the first Planters of Christian Religion St. Luke gives us a short account of loâ—e visitation of St. Peter that lets us see hoâ— wonderfully the Gospel prevail'd at first for when that Apostle passed through 〈◊〉 quarters and came to the Saints that dwelled at Lydda Acts 9.32 33. c. Saron Tractus quidam Regionis non procul à Caesaria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Antiq l. 20. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph de Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 37. Lydda Civitas Palestinae quae diospolis appellatur Hieron de 〈◊〉 Heb. and healed miraculously a Person that had been long bed-ridden 〈◊〉 that dwelled at Lydda and Saron saw him and turned unto the Lord and this Town anâ— Territory mentioned with it was large enough for a considerable Diocesan Church nor is there any likelyhood it was divided under several Church Governments Mr. B. confessing that no City with the villages aâ—joyning had any more than one Bishop 〈◊〉 a long time after this and in the time 〈◊〉 the Council of Nice It was an Episcopaâ— seat for we find Aetius Bishop of the place among the subscriptions of thâ— Council The next considerable Church that waâ— founded was that of Antioch the greated City of all the East and the Church dâ—â— soon bear a good proportion to the greatneâ—â— of the City Acts 11. â—1 For the hand of God was wâ—â— them the scattered Disciples and a greâ—â— number believed and turned unto the Lord anâ— when Barnabar had come from Jerusalem assist in this work v. 24. Much people was added unto the Lord and when Barnabas had brought Paul to Antioch they assembled themselves with the Church v. 26. and taught much people It is not unlikely that all these Proselytes mentioned hitherto were Jews or such as were Proselytes of the Gate and had reâ—ounced Idolatry and such must the Greeks be to whom those of Cyprus Preach'd the word at Antioch v. 20. for Paul and Barnabas sometime after tell the Church of Antioch as an extraordinary thing Acts 14.27 that God had opened the door of Faith to the Gentiles and there is no doubt but they were â—ncouraged by that success to Preach to the Gentiles at Antioch too while they abode â—here a long time with the Disciples and the â—ultitude of these Gentile Converts made â—equestion about Circumcision of so great â—â—portance as to require a determination of all the Apostles and the whole Church of Jerusalem assembled in Council for before that there were not only several Congregations probably but separate Churches and the people were not only distributed but diviâ—ed Gal. 2.12 compared with Acts 15.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rent into separate â—ssemblies unless we shall â—â—terpret this separation â—o be rather a scruple reâ—â—ting to Conversation and â—â—iet than to publick and Church Communiâ—â—â— as it is most likely though even this must â—ave likewise an evil influence upon their Communion too for it is not likely the Jews if they stood so much upon the Law about choice of meats should care much for the Communion of the Gentiles when they fansied to be prophane and polluted by the transgression of that Law Barnius makes two Bishops of Antioch together aâ— this time upon the account of these dissersions Martyrolog Rom. Feb. 1. Evodius and Ignatius the one choses by Paul the other by Peter but the misery is that the Author that gives this light is confessed to mistake Clemens Const l. 7. c. 46. Orat. in S. Ignat. by making Paul 〈◊〉 chuse Ignatius and Peter Evodius whereas Chrysostom sayes the contrary that Ignaâ—â—â— was ordained by Peter and to speak freely I believe this no better than what Barâ—â—â—â— would forbid his reader to imagine a fiâ—â—â—â— which he was forced to make shift with iâ— reconcile the contradictions of Eusebius aâ—â— Chrysostom Euseb Hist l. 3. c. 22. Ed. Valâ—sâ—i Euseb Chronicon the former making Peter to be dead before Evodius to whom he makes Ignatius to succeed the latter expressly afirming that Apostle to have ordained him For my part I believe that the traditionâ—â— Chronology of Eusebius and the preciâ—â— time of the Succession and Government 〈◊〉 the first Bishops was no otherwise known to him is not a Foundation firm enouâ—â— to build any Opinion upon Vid. Dissert Spanhemii Blond Praesat Apol. pro sent H. especiaâ—â— when we consider that the place as we as time of St. Peters Martyrdom is questioned not without some appearance 〈◊〉 Reason and the whole business is involveâ— in so many difficulties Blondel takes greaâ— pains to confute the conjecture of Baronius but advances another of his own more strange and improbable and what is yet worse draws important consequences from it and pretends by these seeming contradictions to discover the nature of Primitive Episcopacy and the ancient Law of Succession But all that is trifling It is plain of Chrysostom that he thought Ignatius the immediate successor of Peter and therefore makes no mention of Evodius at all unless one shall say that Peter might ordain Ignatius as he did Timothy or Titus as an Evangelist and that afterwards he became the fixed Bishop of Antioch though Chrysostoms words will hardly bear that sense and refer to the Episcopal Office at large But however it fare either with Baronius his divided Episcopacy or Blondel's Succession by seniority it is highly probable that the Bishop of Antioch even at this time was a Diocesan having the oversight of a Church that was distributed into several Congregations for if we reflect
upon the multitudes said to be converted the number of Apostles and extraordinary Labourers commonly residing in this City the conjunction of Jews and Gentiles under the common title and profession of Christianity we must conclude that the Church of Antioch was too great for one Congregation especially before the place of assembly can be imagin'd very capacious and I believe Mr. B. does not imagine such vast Cathedrals as Pauls to be very Primitive Orat de S. Ign. But what ever number of Christians there might be at that time Ignatius his Bishop-rick was never the less Diocesan in its constitution and design or else Chrysostom mistakes one Topick of his commendation He reckons five things that were much to his honour whereof two bring him under suspition of Diocesan Prelacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatness of his Authority or Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatness of the City whereof he was Bishop The first I suppose refers to his metropolitan Power the second to his peculiar Diocess but if this Bishop were to have but one Congregation what would the greatness of the City signifie how many more would have the same honour with him Or what so great difference is there between a full Congregation in the heart of the City and another as full in Chelsey at leastwise what honour does the greatness of the City do the Minister of that single Congregation And now to pass by the Church of Corinth where St. Paul Preach'd for a Year and six Months upon a Divine assurance of extraordinary success and that God had much people in that place Acts 18.8 9 10 11. and where many effectually believed and were Baptized where Peter and Apollos Preached with that effect as to leave many Disciples 1 Cor. 3. who called themselves by their names And to say nothing of Ephesus where a numerous Church is said to have been gathered by St. Paul who preached there for two years and not only they that dwelled at Ephesus but all that dwelt in Asia Acts 19.10 heard the word of the Lord and the progress of the Gospel was so considerable that the shrine-makers apprehended the ruine of their Trade when they saw and heard that Paul not only at Ephesus but throughout all Asia had perswaded and turned away much people v. 26. To pass by these and several other eminent Churches Let us consider the Diocess of Rome as it was yet in the Apostles time It is very uncertain who laid the first Foundations of this Church though certain it is that before Pauls coming there the Gospel was not only received Rom. 1.13 15 17. seq but their Church was very considerable for St. Paul in his Epistle written long before his coming there as he himself witnesses sayes that their Faith was spoken of through the whole World and by the multitude of salutations in the end of that Epistle he makes appear the numbers of Christians in that City Salute Priscilla and Aquila Rom. 16. Ostendit Congregationem Fidelium Ecclesiam nominari Hieron in loe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coetum Fidelium nec mirum est in tam am plâ Civitate distinctos fuisse Fidelium coetus Beza with the Church that is in their house This was one of the Congregations of that Church which is occasionly mentioned and it is not improbable that several that are mentioned with all the Saints that are with them may be the Officers of several Congregations For it appears that most of these were of the Ministry and such by whose means the Romans believed and that they were strangers come thither from other parts where Paul had known them Congregationem vert Eras Istos amats quos satutat intelligimus ex nominiâ—us suiffe peregrinos per quorum exemylum atque Doctrinam non absurde existimamus credidisse Romanes Hieron for as yet he had not seen Rome And this number was afterwards increased considerably by the coming of Paul who converted some of the Jews and afterwards received all that came whether Jews or Gentiles and Preach'd to them the Kingdom of God for the space of two whole years no man forbidding him And the progress of the Gospel in this City may be farther observed from the Persecution of Nero who is said to have put an infinite multitude of them to Death Ingens multitude hand perinde in Crimint ineendii quam odio bumani generis convicti sunt Tac. H. l. 15. upon pretence that they had fired Rome and the Heathen Historian sayes that they who confess'd were first laid hold on then a vast company were convicted by their indication where by the by besides the multitude of the sufferers we may take notice that the words seem to be mistaken generally as if the Christians some of them had confess'd the Fact and accused the rest Lipsius thus understanding the passage gives Tacitus the lye but he does not say they confessed the fact but they confessed without expressing the particulars but what did they confess then If it were this Crime that theâ— own'd themselves and charg'd others with how comes he to add that they were not convicted so much of this Crime by this Indication as by the hatred of all mankind therefore this confession was no more than owning themselves to be Christians and the hatred they were in made this sufficient conviction To these instances of the great numbers of Christians in some more considerable Cities Eccles Hist l. 2. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall add only the general account which Eusebius gives of the success of the Christian faith immediately after the first discovery of it That presently in all Cities and Villages Churches abounding with innumerable multitudes were assembled and the Granary of Christ was fill'd up to the top with the Wheat that was gather'd in Hitherto I have observ'd chiefly the growth of Christianity under the Apostles and that there was in some Cities such a number of Christians as could not meet together in one Assembly for personal Communion in Doctrine and Worship The next thing we must shew in order to Diocesan Episcopacy must be that such numbers of believers made but one Church Govern'd by one Bishop As to the Church of Jerusalem we have shew'd already from the most ancient Ecclesiastical writings that James the Just was Bishop of that Church i. e. of all the Believers in Jerusalem Nor is that Tradition without ground in the Scripture it self for St. Paul reckons James the Lords Brother among the Apostles of that Church Sal. 1.19 though he were none of the Twelve and in another place he mentions him as a person in Eminent place and authority there one that had sent several Brethren to Antioch before that certain Brethren came from James â— 12 Here we find the style of the Scripture to alter in favour of Episcopacy for hitherto the Messengers who were sent from one Church to another were
said to be sent in the name of the Church in General as the Church of Jerusalem sent John and Peter to Samaria Act. 8. In like matter the Church sent Barnabas to Antioch v. 11. But now it seems they come from James and the Acts of the Church pass in the name of the Bishop only although after this we find this Style to vary again and sometimes the Church of such a place sends to another without the mention of the Bishop though the letter be pen'd by the Bishop himself as the inscription of Clemens his Epistle to the Corinthians does inform us and Iastly as the authority of James appears by sending to the Church of Antioch so it does likewise from his speech in the Council of Jerusalem where he seems to preside and determines the question in dispute Act. 5. in the name of the whole Assembly All this consider'd together with the Testimonies of Hegesippus and Clemens there can be as little doubt that Dâ—ocesan Episcopacy was setled by the Apostles in the Church of Jerusalem as there is of any thing that is not expresly set down in Scripture and it cannot be deni'd without resecting the most Authentick records of Church History It is to be confess'd that the Scriptures have not left so full and perfect account of the constitution and Government of the first Churches as might be wish'd for the Acts of the Apostles the only Scripture History of those time relate mostly the victories of Christian Religion how several Cities were converted By what miracles by what Argument or exhortation but before the Holy Pen-man comes to give an account of the settlement of those new Conquests he carries away the Reader from thence to follow the Apostles to some other place where they begin to lay the Foundations of another Church Thus we have no more notice of the Churches of Samarid and of Judea Jerusalem excepted than that such were founded by the Apostles but of their Government and constitution we are not the least information and the prospect left of Antioch in Scripture is very confus'd as of a Church in fieri where a great number of Eminent persons labour'd together to the building of it up but after what form does not appear but only from Ecclesiastical Writers Eusel l. 3. c. 22. Chronnon Chrysost Orat. de Ignatio who report that this Church when it was setled and digested was committed to the Government of Evodius and after him to Ignetius and the succeeding Bishops Nevertheless we are not left destitute of all light in this particular even from the Scriptures the History of St. Paul as it is deliver'd by St. â—â—ke in the Acts of the Apostles and by himself scatteringly in his own Epistles informing us in some measure of the from of the Primitive Church Government in the Apostles times This Apostle of the Gentiles did commonly use this method informing those Churches he had converted as may be seen by consulting the Citations in the Margin When he came to any place where the Gospel had not been preached and he did not affect much to build upon another was foundation He preached first in the Synâ—gogues of the Jews Rom. 15.20 1 Cor. 3.10 Acts 9.20 13 14. Acts 13.46 and if they rejected the grace of God he turn'd to the Gentiles Assoon as he had converted a competent number he took care to improve them in the knowledge of the truth 1 Cor. 3.2 and for that purpose taught them constantly either at his own house Acts 28.30.19.9.20.20 or at some publick School as that of Tyrannus or any other convenient place where a good number might assemble together These converts as they were made Partakers of the same common Doctrine and Faith so they were to be perpetually united by a Communion in worship in Prayer and the Sacrament for it was not with the School of the Apostles as with those of this World Acts. 11.26 Heb. 10.25 which the Disciples leave when they conceive themselves to have learn'd what they came for But there was an obligation upon all these Scholars to Assemble themselves together Rom. 12.5 1 Cor. 12.13.12.22 Phil. 2.12 till they came to a perfect man which was not consummated till after this life Nor was the Relation between Christians dissolved when the Congregation was dissmiss'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origâ—câ—â—â— â—â—s 1.8 in fine but they were united farther into one Society or Corporation into a holy City under the Government of Christ their King and under Apostles and such other Officers of his and their appointment and so far to act and determine all things within themselves that they were not to appear before any Heathen Magistrate upon any difference but to referr it to the Brethren or to the Apostle under whose direction they were Thus far we may consider a Church without any other Officer than the Apostle who converted them but their numbers increasing in that place and much of his time being taken up in disputing with and preaching to unbelievers and gainsayers or this Apostle being call'd away to preach the Gospel in other places Acts 9.29.17.17.19.8 9. it was necessary to ordain such Church Officers as might take care of this Church in the Doctrine and Discipline of it 6.4 Acts 14.23 Phil. 2.12.20.17 and others to take care of the poor lest that Office taking up much time might be a hinderance to those who were to guide the Assembly in Doctrine and Worship Now this constitution does not take away the relation that was between this Church and the Apostle that founded it and these Officerâ— act in subordination to him whether present or absent and St. Paul therefore looks upon himself as the Apostle or Bishop of the Corinihians though he could not hold personal Communion with them 1 Cor. 5.3 Acts 15.36 for sometimes he goes a Circular visitation to examine the State of those Churches which he had planted or if the distance and oceasions of that Church where he resided or his imprisonment and other outward Circumstances would not admit this personal visitation he sends his letters and orders what is to be done If any open Scandal be permitted he sends his Excommunication to be publish'd in that Church whereof the offender was a member 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Cum meo spiritu quipro me erat praesens sive in mearum literarum authoritate Hieroâ— he judges as though he were present he orders that when they are met together in his spirit they would deliver the Criminal to Satan And because some of the Teachers in the Church of Corinth began to set up themselves in opposition to the Apostle taking advantage of his absence 1 Cor. 4.18 19.9.1 2.5.19 and using all means to lessen him in the esteem of that people he is forced to assert his Authority and to justifie his Title to let them know that he was their Father their Apostle and that they
owned them as Brethren and called them their fellow Presbyters or fellow Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he did not take at all to derogate from the dignity of their Order no more than the modesty of the Apostles calling themselves Presbyters or Deacons could be a prejudice to the Preheminence of their Apostleship which they took care to vindicate when they were forced to it by the ambition of some teachers that entred into competition with them Theodor. ubi supra in Ep. ad Phil. ad Tim. Tit. Theodoret observ'd the same promiscuous use of Bishop and Presbyter but could yet see that there were Bishops then superior to Presbyters and in that time properly called Apostles The Greek Scholiast Theophylact and Oecumenus saw the same but were still of opinion that the Episcopal office was alwayes distinct from the Presbyters so that the ground upon which Jerom built his conjecture was rejected by the current of Ecclesiastical writers who could discern the preheminence of Bishops above Presbyters notwithstanding the names were confounded And yet this is the foundation upon which that conceit doth wholly stand all Jeroms allegations are to this effect all the additional confirmations of Salmasius and Blondel are no other than from the phrase of some of the Ancients who do not alwayes distinguish between Bishops and Presbyters but speak in the phrase of the Scriptures and yet there is nothing more evident than that at that time when these Authors writ Bishops and Presbyters were distinguished and excepting only Clemens Romanus Blondel and Salmasius do both acknowledg it But to return to Jerom Let us considet the account he gives of the Original of Episcopacy something more particularly Before there were factions in Religion the Church was governed by Presbyters of equal Authority But what factions were these that gave birth to Episcopacy What time was that when the Church was under Presbyterian government He informs us in the following words Before it was said I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas If we understand this according to the letter we must conclude this to be very early For this Epistle to the Corinthians where that division is mentioned was written in the year of Christ 52 And then this notion will do little service against Episcopacy for this will make it of Apostolick institution Besides I do not see how it can be true for the Church was now Governed by Apostles and not by Presbyters and if in most Cities there were no particular Bishop ordained yet it was because the Apostles were their Bishops and visited them to establish good order to ordain officers to punish the disorderly as they had opportunity and when they were not able to be present they sent their orders in writing and exercised Episcopal Authority at a distance But Blondel contends earnestly against the literal understanding of that passage and shews that Jerom could not mean this of the Church of Corinth but of some following Schism that sprung up after the example of this of Corinth His reason is that the passages whereby Jerom confirms his opinion of Bishops and Presbyters being the same were written after that Epistle to the Corinthians I have shewed before how probable it is that Jerom spoke without a figure and I need not repeat it here But these things you will say cannot cannot consist It may be so and it is not certain that Jerom when he wrote this passage did consider in what order of time St. Paul's Epistles were written what if it was an oversight for want of stating the Chronelogy of the New Testament If it be replyed that Jerom a man of that great learning and diligence and particular knowledg also in Chronology as we may conclude from his translating of Eusebius his Chronicon could hardly commit such a mistake It is to be considered that according to Blondels computation who makes him to speak of the second Century he will be as inconsistent with himself for suppose w◠should say that Jerom pointed to the year 135 as the precise time when the Presbyterian Government was changed how shall we reconcile Jerom to himself For in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers he reckons several Bishops long before that time he makes James to be Bishop of Jerusalem statim post Ascensionem presently after the Ascension of Christ He calls Timothy Bishop of Ephesus he makes Anianus to succeed Mark in Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero. How shall we make all these things to consist did he think James to be no more than a simple Presbyter or Timothy could he fansie him to have no superiority over the Elders he was to ordain or to govern it is not possible or shall we say that in these relations he only transcribes out of others and that he does not speak his own opinion Well suppose this Either he must have some Authority for his opinion greater than that of such Authors he follows in that Book or not if he had none why should we believe him against all Antiquity Nay why should we believe so uncharitably of him as that he would deliver those things he did not believe without the least warning to the reader or that he would believe any matter of fact against all the tradition and History of the Church and yet have no Authority for it Or if he had any Authority from Ecclesiastical writers to ground his opinion upon why are they not produc'd Nay we may be assured in this point that he had none from that Catalogue of writers we are speaking of since he had seen none but what Eusebius had seen before him and cites as we have shewed before for the contrary opinion to confirm Episcopacy to be Apostolical and to have begun long before this time which Blondel would have Jerom thought to assign for its Original So that what way soever Jerom be understood of the Original of Episcopacy he is either manifestly inconsistent with himself or with Scripture and Antiquity But his Scripture Authorities you will say do sufficiently prove that Episcopacy was not yet introduced into the Church Nothing less unless they can prove that those Presbyteries were not governed by the Apostle that established them or by some Assistant or Suffragan or unless they can make out that Timothy Titus and divers others of that rank were no more than simple Presbyters After this time whensoever it was St. Jerom adds It was decreed over all the world that one of the Presbyters who governed before in common should be set over the rest In what Church in the whole world was this Decree Registred Who ever heard of it before St. Jerom What general Council passed it What Authority made it Authentick Or by what means did all the Churches in the World agree to this change What was there no opposition made against this alteration of the Apostolical Government What did all the little Ecclesiastick Aristocracies submit without dispute to this innovation We
may as well believe that there was a time when all the Republicks in the world upon the consideration of their being obnoxious to Factions became Monarchies by mutual consent Nay this might with greater reason be believed for it is not impossible but that men who are satisfied of their power to set up what form of Government they please might agree to shake off together a form that they find very incommodious but that so many Societies as there were Churches in the World appointed by divine direction should so universally change what the Apostles had instituted without any noise or resistance and that by one common decree is altogether incredible and one may say with the same reason that they conspired at the same time to change their Creed Having examined St. Jeroms singular opinion concerning the rise of Episcopal Government I should now conclude that point if Clemens Romanus in his excellent Epistle to the Corinthians did not seem to favour this opinion therefore I think it necessary to consider such passages in it as are alledged against Episcopacy and from the whole to make a conjecture of the state of that Church when that Epistle was written The Inscription of it affords Blondel an argument against Episcopacy for it is not in the name of the Bishop or Clergy but of the whole Church that it is written The Church of God at Rome to the Church of God at Corinth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From whence Blondel infers that since there is no mention of the Clergy it follows that the Church was governed then not by the pleasure of one man but by the common Counsel of those that were set over it This way of reasoning I must confess to be very extraordinary Because there is no mention of the prerogative of the Roman Clergy Ubi cum nulla peculiaris vel scribentis mentio vel cleri Romani Praerogativa vel Corinthiaci Presbyterii a plebe discretio appareat sed omnes ad omnes confertim scripsisse compertum sit luce meridiana clarius clucescit tune temporis Ecclesias communi Praepositorum Consilio gubernatas non unius regi mini à cujus â—utu penderent omnes subjacuisse or of that of Corinth as distinguished from the Laity it 's clear nay clearer than the day that there was no Bishop It would be a very strange thing to see two men with their eyes open dispute fiercely whether it were noon-day or midnight and yet this is our case that consequence which to him is as clear as the Sun does not at all appear to others If he had said because there is no mention of the Clergy in the Inscription as the Governing part therefore there was no Clergy or the Clergy did not govern the inference would have appeared but what truth there would be in it I need not say Others inscribe Epistles in the same style to the Church of such a Place where notwithstanding there is a Bishop and a Clergy Dionys Corinth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet in the body of these Letters he mentions the Bishops of those Churches Irenaeus ubi supra Euseb l. 4. c. 23. And this Argument of Blondel may be justly suspected when we consider that the Ancients though they were well acquainted with this Epistle of Clemens and its Inscription yet they could by no means see this consequence that is now drawn from it Irenaeus had doubtless seen that Epistle for it was in his time commonly read in Churches and yet he thought Clemens who wrote it to be Bishop of Rome notwithstanding his name be not mentioned in it Dionysius Bishop of Corinth sayes it was read in his Church and yet he could not find any thing in it to perswade him that at that time there were no Bishops but on the contrary he was of opinion that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles and that Dionysius Areopagita was ordained by St. Paul the first Bishop of Athens so that these ancient writers it seems were as blind as we and could not observe either in the Inscription or body of this Epistle what Blondel at such a distance of time could perceive as clear as the noon day and yet those writers if they had suspected any such thing might have been easily satisfied by their Fathers who might have seen the state of the Church about which the difficulty was and so told them upon their own knowledge whether the Government was Episcopal or Presbyterian And therefore this is our comfort that if we cannot discern this light which Blondel talks of that those who lived nearer the East the rising of it could see no more than we But some men surely have glasses for distance of time as well as place and can see farther in the Apostolick times than the next Generation that followed them But to proceed Clemens owned but two orders in the Church of Apostolick Institution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops and Deacons which he sayes the Apostles ordained out of the first-fruits of the Gospel over those that should afterwards believe And these were appointed in Cities and the Country or Regions round about from whence Blondel draws many observations and out of him Mr. B. as 1. That in those days no body thought of what the Council of Sardica did afterwards decree that no Bishop should be made in any Village or small City lest the dignity of that office should be undervalued and grow cheap This is grounded as most of the rest of Blondels and Mr. B.'s Arguments from this Epistle upon a mistake and I fear a wilful one concerning the name of Bishop For if the Bishops of Clemens who he sayes were apponited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were only Presbyters then the Council of Sardica did not do any extraordinary thing by that prohibition of Bishops in little Dioceses for Presbyters were still allowed in the Country Villages by that Council and therefore if Episcopacy was an institution later than Clemens this Council has done nothing so contrary to this by forbidding Bishops properly so called and allowing Presbyters to reside in Country Villages Some there are that interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Provinces but there is no necessity at all for this though the phrase will very well bear it for these Bishops I believe with Blondel and Mr. B. were no other than Presbyters such as were first appointed to govern the Church but in subordination to the Apostles who were the proper Bishops of those Churches they founded and as they found occasion appointed others to succeed them in that eminence of Authority over such districts of the Apostolical Provinces as they judged most convenient for the edification and unity of the Church And this distribution of Church Officers by Clemens into Bishops and Deacons is the less to be depended upon as exact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esay 60.17 because it seems to be made only with allusion to a place in the Old Testament where those
the supervising Care of many Churches as the Visitors had in Scotland and are so far Episcopi Episcoporum and Arch-bishops having no constraining Power of the Sword but a Power to admonish and instruct the Pastors and to regulate Ordinations Synods and all great and common Circumstances that belong to Churches for if one Form of Government in which some Pastors had such extensive Work and Power as Timothy Titus and Evangelists as well us Apostles had we must not change it without Proof that Christ himself would have it changed Let us compare this with Diocesan Episcopacy and see whether for all this mincing of the matter they will not amount to the same thing this supervising of many Churches does it not sound like having many Parishes under them And if this be impossible for a Diocesan how comes it to be otherwise in an Evangelist or an Apostle Nay how comes it to be allowed in a Scotch Visitor or Super-intendent The regulating Ordinations is no other in Scripture-Phrase than to appoint and ordain Elders in every Church and in every City the Diocesan Bishops desire no more in that point than to have such a Regulation and that it should not be accounted an Ordination that is done without or in Opposition to them The Evangelists might sometimes ordain Elders by their own single hands without the Assistance of any Presbyter sometimes together with the Presbytery our Diocesan Bishops never ordain any to that Order without the Assistance of their Presbyters the Evangelists and Apostles had the Direction of Church-censures 1 Cor. 5. 2 Cor. 2.9 10 11. 1 Tim. 5.19 20 21. Tit. 2.15 as appears from frequent Instances in the new Testament as also an Authority or Elders as well as the People to admonish and rebuke and punish those that were negligent or disorderly The Bishops claim no more it is the same Authority it is the same Office hitherto and this is the same of what the Bishops in all Ages of the Church have pretended to succeed to they of the Presbyterian way make all this Power of the Apostles as extraordinary as their Gifts and to expire together with them but for this they never offer any Reason and if this Notion should obtain it would follow that neither Presbyters nor Deacons could be succeeded in their Offices because they also were inspired with extraordinary Gifts as well as the Apostles But Mr. B. allows all this and that they ought to be succeeded even in this Eminence and Extent of Work and Power Why then does he find Fault and exclaim against that which he cannot deny to be of divine Institution and of perpetual Use under the name of Diocesan Episcopacy From these men the ancient Bishops derived their Title to this Authority they pretended to succeed Act. Conc. Tholi Euseb l. 5. c. 24. Polycrates reckons himself the sixth from Timothy and Irenaeus gives us the succession of the Roman Bishops from St. Peter to his time and if it had been necessary to his Purpose did undertake to shew the same of the Governours of the most considerable Churches in the World which afterwards Eusebius has collected out of their several Registers Comment 1 Ep. ad Timoth. Schol. Graec. Theodoret does admirably explain the Original of this Title by shewing that the Apostolick Power was fully convey'd to their Successors Those that are now call'd Bishops says he were in the Beginning called Apostles and the name of Bishop and Presbyter were then of the same Signification but in Process of time the Title of Apostle was appropriated to those who were Apostles indeed that is to the 12. And the name of Bishops was taken up by those that were before called Apostles Walo Mess p. 35. sequent Salmasius a man that never looks behind him or regards any Consequence runs away with this Passage as if he had found the greatest Treasure in the World that Bishop and Presbyter signified the same thing in the Apostles time and is so transported that he cannot take any notice that at the same time there is a Distinction made between the Office of Presbyter and Bishop for the Name they anciently bore shews the Nature and Eminency of their Office that they were Apostles in Authority but the Title being too great and invidious they laid it down for an humbler name and were content with the Stile that was common to Presbyters in the Apostles time Hitherto we have an exact Agreement between these three sorts of Episcopacy and find the Members of Mr. B's most compendious Distinction to be without Difference But it must not be dissembled that there are some things in which they seem to disagree especially-these two first That the Evangelists or Apostles were unfixt but Bishops are determined to a certain Diocess Secondly That the Apostles and Evangelists had Bishops under their Jurisdiction which Bishops do not pretend to As to this Unsetledness of the Apostles there are some that look upon travelling to be so essential to their Office that their Commission is in danger to expire if they should reside any considerable time in any certain place Walo Mess de Epise Presb. And Salmasius makes so acute a Remark upon the Inscription of St. John's two latter Epistles as comes within a small matter of deposing him Before those Epistles he stiles himself John the Presbyter or the Elder or it may be in English no more than John the aged and what would you imagine so great a Critick would observe from this That St. John having fixt his Residence at Ephesus for some considerable time had lost the Eminence of his Apostleship and sunk into the common Level of Presbytery and therefore stiles himself Presbyter only as if he had been conscious his Apostleship had departed from him But how comes St. Paul to remain three years in the same place and remain his Title and much longer yet at Rome where he dyed in the Exercise of his Apostleship Clemens Alex. speaking of St. John tells us he went about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In some places he appointed Bishops where they were wanting and none but Apostolick men could do it and in some places he himself govern'd the Church entirely i. e. as their Bishop and probably appointed another when he left them to succeed in the Charge Vales did not see the Import of this Phrase but rendred it Partim ut ecclesias integras disponeret formaret The last is a Comment that destroys the Sence of Clement who by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not understand the setting of a Church under it's Officers which his former seems to imply but the ordering and governing of it by himself in Opposition to his setting up of Bishops in other places and though he had some Authority there by way of supervising the Bishops yet he did not take the Care of the whole which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now in whatsoever City they lived besides the general Care of
Diocesan Prelacy a distinction without ground or foundation as I have already shew'd and will be yet more fully made out The main design or Mr. B.'s History is 1. To charge the Bishops with all Schisms Heresies Corruptions c. 2. To shew p. 27. §. 7.4 that Diocesan Prelacy and grandeur is not the Cure nor ever was And to this purpose are level'd all the particulars of his Church-History In this Chapter I will endeavour to take off the first general Charge That some Bishops have abus'd their Office and Authority and have been the cause of Heresie or Schism cannot be deny'd but Priests Deacons and Laymen have been so too and therefore if the miscarriage of any particular man becomes a prejudice to his Office and the Order must suffer for the personal faults of those that are of it we must have neither Priests nor Deacons in the Church since some of them have been Authours of Heresies c. But this is not all our Author tho' he speaks indefinitely that â—he will shew the ignorant and he must be very ignorant that knows no better who have been the cause of Church Corruptions Heresies Schisms Sedition yet he means they were the Authors of all these evils as he is pleas'd to explain himself p. 72. Next we have a strange thing a Heresie rais'd by one that was no Bishop and then as if that were impossible he shews that was no Heresie and so the Bishops remain under the whole charge of raising all Heresies I wish he had left Schism and Sedition out of this charge for if he can perswade the Ignorant Readers that the Bishops were the cause of all these too they will never be perswaded that any Presbyterians are to be found in Church-History For if they had been in the world they must have had their share with the Bishops in Schism and Sedition It is a heavy charge to accuse the Bishops of all the Heresies and Schisms that have afflicted the Church and if it were true would go near to stagger the Reverence that one might have for the Order For though Bishops as well as other men may be subject to Miscarriages they might be allowâ—d the frailty of Humane nature from which no dignity can exempt us But to be found the cause of All the Evils that have befallen the Church would argue such a malignity in the Constitution as would shew plainly that God never design'd them for good But I believe this can be no more prov'd against them by matter of fact than that Bishops invented Gun-powder or Hand-Granadoes or were the Authors of the Scotch Covenant or the late Rebellion of the Field Conventiclers in Scotland Let us then trace the Heresies and Schisms that have torn the Church in pieces in several ages of it to their first original and examine who were the Authors of them and if it appear out of Church-History that Bishops rais'd them All or the greatest part I will give up the Cause and believe every thing in Mr. B.'s History and for penance read over all the fourscore Books that he tells us he has written Where then shall we begin If the Bishops should be convicted by the first Instance it would be ominous However because it shall appear that I deal impartially I will begin with the first All Ecclesiastical Writers do agree that Simon Magus was the Author of the first Heresie in Christian Religion Simon Magus Epiphanius indeed reckons up about a score of Heresies before this Epiph. Haer. 21. but they are Heathen or Jewish Heresies and I hope Mr. B. will be so kind as to allow that the Bishops had nothing to do with these That Simon was a Heretick all are agreed in though the Scripture say no such thing and though Epiphanius confess that his Sect cannot truly be reckon'd among Christians Haer. 21. p. 55. Ed Pet. This man did teach very strange and if there be any such damnable doctrines But that he was a Bishop no man ever yet affirm'd Justin Martyr thought he had seen an Inscription at Rome to this Simon which own'd him a God though it is possible this might be a mistake But that ever any Writing or Tradition called him a Bishop I have not heard It is true indeed he had a great mind to be a Bishop that is to have power of Confirmation and that every one on whom he should lay his hands should receive the Holy Ghost And he bid fair for it For he offer'd Peter Money says the Text And the Repulse perhaps disgusted him so that he resolv'd to leave the Communion of the Church since he could not be a Bishop in it and it has been the disease of several other Hereticks to scorn to be any other Member of the body but the Head The next that Epiphanius mentions is Menander Menander Epiph. Har. 22. who as Irenaeus and out of him the rest says was Simon Magus his Disciple but neither Irenaeus nor Eusebius nor Epiphanius nor Philastrius nor Theodoret and in short no man that has given any account of Hereticks or any Historian whatsoever that has been yet heard of has given the least Intimation that he was a Bishop Saturnius Basilides Iren. l. 1. c. 22 23. Epiph. Her 23 24. Euseb l. 4. c. 7. August Ep. ad Quodlib Philastâ— Haer. 3 4. Theod Haer. Fab. l. 1. 〈…〉 Saturninus and Basilides follow next and neither of them were either Bishops or of any other Order in the Church that we can find The next is the Heresie of the Nicolaitans which is generally fathered upon Nicolas the Deacon Irenaeus l. 1. c. 27. seems to he positive in this Nicolaitâ— autem Magistrum quidem habent Nicolaum unum ex septem qui primi ad Diaconium ab Apostolis Ordinati sunt Nicolas one of the seven Deacons was the Master of the Nicolaitans or at leastwise they look'd upon him as their Master Epiph. Haer. 2â— Epiphanius follows Irenans and enlarges the story shewing how he was a good man at first and did contribute much to the futherance of the Gospel but that afterward the Devil enter'd into him Philastr Haer. 5. Bibl. Patr. M. de la Rigne T. 4. p. 10. Philastrius follows the Authority of Epiphanius But for all this I believe Nicolas the Deacon may be acquitted of this imputation for there are Witnesses of very good Antiquity that endeavour to Absolve him 1. Ignatius Interpolated in two several places warning those he writes to Ign. Ep. ad Trall Philadelph Interpol to have a care of the Nicolaitans calls 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—uns and 〈◊〉 i. e. those that falsâ—y call themselves by the name of Nicolas Sycophants and Impostors The old Latin Interpreter explains this farther and adds Non 〈◊〉 talis fuit Apostolorum Minister Nicolaus Clemens of Alexandria is more particular in the Vindication of Nicolas Clem. Alex. l. 2. Strom. c. 3. whose name these Gnosticks abus'd to countenance their lewdness
For speaking of that Abominable Sect he has these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. They that pretend to be the Followers of Nicolas the Deacon do pervert a saying of his that the Flesh must be thus'd that is kept under But these Men like Goats abandoning themselves to all uncleanness understand and him to permit men to dishonour their bodies by indulging themselves in all their lusts And the same Author in another place gives a more particular vindication of Nicolas the Deacon Clem. Alex. l. 3. saying That Carpocrates gave out this story of him That he had a comely Wife and was Jealous of her for which he was reprehended by the Apostles But Nicolas to acquit himself of this Imputation brought her before them and offer'd to release her to any other that would marry her and that this action was suitable to his Maxim which we have mention'd before Whereupon Clemens adds that the Nicolaitans as they call'd themselves following this Doctrine and Action of the Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rashly and without Examination give themselves over to all manner of uncleanness and then goes on to vindicate Nicolas adding That he had understood by Tradition that he always preserv'd his faith to his Wife inviotable that his children that he had by this Wife were remarkable for their Chastity and all dy'd unmarry'd And concludes at last That this was to be look'd upon as an Instance of Mortification and the Words that those Hereticks insisted upon so much meant nothing else Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 29. Eusebius who cites this passage at large seems to be of the same opinion and therefore says only that these Hereticks gave out Nicolas for the Author of their Doctrine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they only cracked and boasted that it was so l. de Haeres S. Austin speaks with the same caution with Eusebius and says only ut perhibetur permisisse fertur though he says eâ qui vellet uteretur it cannot be understood of common prostitution for Carpocrates himself says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that she might be Married to any body that would have her Theodoret follows Clemens allows this relation about Nicolas to be true Theodor. l. 3. Haeret. Fabâ—l and excuses him by saying that He did not intend seriously to be as good as his word but only to haffle those that accus'd him of Jealousie and at last concludes From hence they the Nicolaitans are manifestly convicted to be Impostors and falsly to call themselves by that name Petavius does not know what to determine in this case Is Epiple since the Fathers are divided about is But I believe one needs not be so scrupulous The whole matter depends between the Authorities of Irenaus and Clemens Clemens is very particular and had examin'd the business it seems as far as he could the other speaks generally and perhaps look'd no further than the name nor could he so easily have an account of them as Clemens could who liv'd where the sect was most numerous Carpocrates who was the Father of it was an Alexandrian Besides the Words of Irenaus if they are examin'd do not positively affirm Nicolas to have been the Father of the Nicolaitans Magistrum habent Nicolaum are the words which may signifie no more than that they hold him to be so If the Greek Copy were extant it might have given more light perhaps he said no more than Eusebius does and the Word might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they boast that he is their Master I am to beg pardon for this Digression If it can relieve the Memory of a person whom the Scripture intimates to be a Man of Honest Report Act. 6.3 full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom I am content to bear the blame of the Impertinence But however it were it is some comfort and enough to my purpose that he was no Bishop The Gnosticks had no Bishop either for their founder or promoter that is yet known Clem. Alex. l. 3. Carpocrates was no Diocefan Prelate but his Sect pretended high indeed to something more than a Bishop to an Apostle They quoted Matthias for such another sentence as the Nicolaitans did Nicolas the Deacon and would have perswaded the World that they were his Disciples Cerinthus Clem. Alex. l. 6. Ebion Valentinus Secundus Epiphanes Isidorus Ptolemaus Marcus were they Bishops What Churches did Colarbasus or Heracleon or Cerdo govern Marcion indeed was a Bishops son but it does not appear that he was of the Clergy he was Excommunicated by his own Father for a Rape and when he could not obtain Absolution turn'd Heretick It were endless to reckon up all the Hereticks that gave names to Sects they were most of them bred up the Scholars of other Hereticks and differing in some things from their Masters set up for themselves and call'd their followers by their own names The 39th Christian Sect in Epiphanius is that of the Cathari or Puritans and these are the first that we find started by any of the Clergy Novatus an African Priest began this Sect I have given his History before and shewn how he seduced Novatianus a Roman Priest Epiph. Aug. Philastr c. or at leastwise joyn'd with him against his Bishop Theodotus whom St. Austin calls Theodotion was a learned man indeed and Orthodox at first and so was Bardesanes Syrus but neither of them was a Bishop Montanus became the Author of a Heresie because he could not obtain the highest place in the Church and turn'd down-right Fanatick saying he was the Holy Ghost In short the first Heretick Bishop that we find is Paulus Samosatenus who succeeded Demetrianus in the Bishoptick of Antioch in the year 262 Euseb in Chron. who fell into Heresie in the year 267. His is the 65th Sect in Epiphanius or the 45th Christian Heresie This Paulus was a very ill man and taught dangerous opinions that Christ was not God Euseb l. 7. c. 30. But though he was really a Heretick yet he was not the Author of this Heresie He is said by Eusebius and the rest out of him to have learn'd this from Artemas as he calls him or Artemon Epiph. c. as also from Theodotus who began to teach this doctrine and to gather him a Sect under Victor Bishop of Rome by whom he was excommunicated But Paulus Samosatenus is said to have reviv'd this Heresie It is true indeed but Eusebius in the place before cited makes it appear l. 7. c. 30. that the Sect of Artemas and Theodotus was then in being For the Council of Antioch in their Synodical Epistle sent to several Bishops where they desire them to receive Domnus whom they had made Bishop in the place of Paulus Samosatenus when he should send his Circular Epistles and then speaking of Paulus deridingly say Let him if he thinks fit write to Artemas and let those that follow Artemas communicate with him if they
endeavouring to set up Now How these should be no Presbyterians who set up Presbytery how they were Episcopals that destroy'd Episcopacy is I must confess too hard a Riddle for a man of a plain understanding unless one may think that Mr. B. gives this Bishop-destroying Parliament the Title of Episcopal as the Romans honour'd several of their Generals with the Titles of those Nations they had overcome or else that Mr. B. speaks by a figure too frequent though not very decent in History call'd Fiction As to the particulars with which Mr. B. concludes this Chapter I have so long dwelt upon of the Parliaments Army Generals Lord Lieutenants Assembly of Divines being Episcopals and Conformists I had rather and body else should disprove than I not that it is so difficult a matter for who that can remember so long or can read English does not know the contrary But because I am unwilling to renew the memory of so unpleasant and odious things and heartily wish that as our Gracious King pass'd an Act of Oblivion for those matters so they who enjoy the benefit of that act of Grace would suffer us to forget the occasion of it or cease to presume that we have so far lost all memory and sense that we do not know the same things when we see them acted over again But however Mr. B. informs us of the Original of the late Rebellion I am sure there was a time when we had a very different account of things there was a time when the Presbyterians and Independents contended who should have the greatest share of the Glory of having carry'd on that cause and there is one who is very particular in this matter on the behalf of the Presbyterians Bastwick of Independ p. 624. seq to whom I refer the Reader for his satisfaction CHAP. I. A short View of the other Governments set up in opposition to Episcopacy IF eminent places or offices as they give authority and jurisdiction could likewise secure those that are possess'd of them from errors in Administration if any character or order could so Consecrate the person that bears it as to exempt him from the Common condition of Humane frailty and from a possibility of being wicked the world must needs be happy by submitting to such a constitution and then Schism and Sedition would have no Pretext But if after all the Accessions of authority and honour men retain their nature and their manners and are subject to passions as they were before it is no wonder if all degrees and Denominations can furnish Numerous instances of vice and infamy and the more eminent any order is the more frequent examples of evil men it commonly affords For the blemishes of such persons are more Conspicuous and expos'd to publick view and observation and the eyes of all men are fix'd upon them so as they will quickly discern what is amiss nor are they less forward to censure their miscarriages Besides it is possible that the Governing part may not always consist of the best men for ambition makes men Industrious in the pursuit of power and goes a shorter and generally a more effectual though less direct way to obtain it And when they are in possession they begin to discover that temper they before Artificially concealed and become more open since they have less restraint Lastly even Power it self is a great temptation and an eminent private virtue has often times lost it self in the Exercise of Authority as weak heads grow giddy when they are plac'd upon a height But however it comes to pass so it is that there is no sort of Government whether of Church or State which any one that has a mind to disgrace it may not shew to have been in the hands of very infamous Persons and that the best that have possess'd it were not without their faults If one have a mind to Reproach Monarchy there are Nero's and Caligula's enough nay Augustus and Trajan who are reckoned the best of that rank had great and some inexcusable faults If one he inclin'd to raile against Common-wealths the Ingratitude of Athene or Rome or Carthage towards their best friends and preservers will furnish him with Infinite matter If one would Disgrace Episcopaacy Church History is full of evil contentious Bishops Paulus Samosatenus Eusebius Nicomed Nestorius Dioscorus and innumerable others and the most Orthodox and holy were not without their blemishes Theophilus Cyril Epiphanius had very undecent heats Nay the Apostles themselves had a Judas and the rest of them were not free from misunderstandings which must needs give great offence to the Church What shall we do then in this case Shall we submit to no Government that has been prophan'd by evil administration shall we be of no Church that has any mixture of the world Shall we renounce Monarchy because we have read of Tyrants or throw down Episcopacy because some of that order have been unworthy of it By this reason we must have no Government or order at all or as the Apostle infers we must go out of the world But since our necessities require some kind of order and there can no number of men live by any Common Rule whether of Religion or Law without authority plac'd in some hands or other to enforce it and since God himself was pleased to appoint the kind of Government under which his Church was to be notwithstanding that evil men might creep into the office we remain still under an Obligation to submit our selves to it and it is not in our power to alter that constitution This Mr. B. and all the Dissenters will easily grant and therefore they say that they contend only for the Primitive Institution of Church Government Be it so yet this long deduction of reproach and accusation does not prove any thing to the prejudice of the office and this notwithstanding Episcopacy may be the Church Government of the Apostles setling for those things that fill Mr. B.'s Indictment against Bishops are the faults of the men not of the Office and the same miscarriages may be discover'd in other kinds of Church Government that are not Episcopal And since every project is more plausible and seems to have fewer inconveniencies in the Idea than in the use lest any one for want of experience or History may think Presbytery or any Church Government that is not Episcopal to be subject to no abuse or Disorders I will give a short account of the Rise and Progress of that form of Government that has obtain'd in such of the Reform'd Churches as have cast off their Bishops and shew that they have suffer'd under the same Calamities that had befallen Episcopal Churches and are guilty of most of the same things as requiring subscriptions Conformity c. as our Bishops against whom all this History and bitterness is directed It is not yet a Hundred and fifty years that the Church has known any other Government but Episcopal and
owed him still the duty of Children notwithstanding his absence and lastly that he would come to them shortly by way of Apostolical visitation and examine the power of those that entred into competition with him For as far as his Line or Diocess or Province did extend so far he pretended a peculiar Authority to govern Rom 15.19 2 Cor. 10.13 to 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dioecesis sive certus Pastorum Ecâ—lesiarum numerus Unit. Frat. Bohem. Sect. de Antist Regulam vocat Ditionem praescriptum Praedicationis Terminum Salmeron and exercised Diocesan jurisdiction upon all within his Rule But when this Line was so far extended that he neither was able to visit every part himself and his communication by Letters would not answer all the occasions of those Churches he had planted 1. Tim. 1.3 18. c. 2.14 15. c. 4.12 14. c. 5.21.22 Tit. 1.5 c. 2.15 he provides for them not by leaving every Congregation Independent and resigning all Authority into the hands of every particular Presbytery but by sending Persons endued not only with extraordinary gifts but with Apostolical power to ordain Elders to end disputes to censure the unruly and irregular whether of the Clergy or People to confute Hereticks to preach the Gospel and in short by all means to provide for thee welfare of those Churches committed to them And now as the Apostle had before ordained assistant Elders in the several Churches which he had planted for the ordinary attendance of the Congregation so now he takes to himself Assistants of another sort Suffragans for the Service of his Province which he distributed as he found most expedient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 1. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod in 1 Tim. 3. Phil. 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acceperat in illis Apostolatus officium Hieron in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anonym 〈◊〉 Phot. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Timoth. and these in the Apostles time were sometimes called Apostles or Evangelists Bishops Presbyters Fellow Labourers Helpers Deacons c. but their successors leaving greater and more invidious titles contented themselves with the name of Bishops which was common to them with ordinary Presbyters at first though the Offices were alwayes distinct Of this kind we have several mentioned in Scripture of St. Pauls Province as Barnabas Timothy Titus Crescens Epaphraditus Sosthenes and some others that had no relation to him as James the Just Mark Linus Clemens c. These exercised Episcopal jurisdiction in that district where they were appointed Ordained Presbyters received accusations against them Reprov'd and censur'd them as there was cause and in short govern'd those Churches over which they were appointed by full Apostolical power which was transmitted to their successors But the extraordinary abilities of some of these men and the occasions of several other Churches made their residence less constant in the Diocess where they were plac'd 2 Tim. 4.9 than otherwise might have been expected Phil. 2. and therefore Timothy the Bishop and Apostle of Ephesus is called to Rome by St. Paul to be imployed as the necessities of the Church should require Titus is sent to Dalmatia though Crete were his first Province but this concludes no more against their being Diocesans than the Voyage of Germanus and Lupus into Brittain to oppose the Pelagian Heresy would conclude against their being Bishops Now what care was taken for those Churches which these Apostolick Diocesans left whether they returned again to their Provinces is not mentioned in Scripture But Ecclesiastical Records shew an uninterrupted Succession from the Bishops in several Churches Nor do we find that they were all so unfixed as they are represented by the adversaries of Episcopacy for Mark who was the first Bishop of Alexandria remained in that Province Euseb Hist l. 2. c. 16. Niceph. l. 2. c. 43. Gelas in Conc. Rom. in decr de lib. Auth. planting Churches in the Country round about and governing them by Apostolical Authority which after his Martyrdom there was derived to his successuors in the same charge Now this order being of perpetual use and necessity in the Church to ordain Presbyters and Deacons to exercise discipline to preserve unity they were multiplyed according as the Apostles found most expedient for the Church and the most eminent Cities became the Residence of these first Bishops not because God takes greater care of Cities than he does of lesser Towns and Villages but because the Apostles thought it the most natural way to follow the distribution that was then in the more civilz'd part of the world St. John a little while before his death mentions seven in the Lydian Asia under the name of Angels of the Churches nor is it probable there were any more in that Province The Seven Churches being the same with all the Churches mentioned in the next Chapter Rev. 1.20.2.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Andr. Caesar Ego puto simul inveniri posse Angelum hominem bonos Ecclesia Episcopos Origen in Lucam Hom. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut Collegas moneat Beza Ad Episcopum loci dirigitur Paraus and Carolus à Sancto Paulo concludes the same thing out of St. John Cum in Asia septem tantum hisce temporibus essent Episcopi ut in Apocalypsi legere est nec majorem corum numerum in Ponto tunc fuisse probalile est Geogr. Sacra p. 289. Dissert 4. c. 5. Quod si de Angelis superiorum Coelorum non de praepositis Ecclesie intelligi vellet non consequenter diceret Laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositas Ecclesiae Aug. Ep. 162. But Dr. Hammond makes all these Angels to be Metropolitans having several Bishops under them for the reasons I must refer the reader to his Dissertations Thus far the Scripture discovers the rise and progress of Diocesan Episcopacy which was the form of Church Government under the Apostles who had large Provinces to supervise and their suffragans such as are commonly called Evangelists had several Congregations to govern and this was undeniably the constitution of the Church in the first age the next thing we are to inquire is whether the Office expired with those Persons or was designed to be of perpetual use in the Church The Adversaries of Episcopacy are not all agreed as to this point the Presbyterians generally looking upon the offices of Apostles and Evangelists extraordinary as the persons were Mr. B. is something more scrupulous because he does not find any where that Christ design'd to have this alter'd and yet he condemns Diocesan Episcopacy as being altogether different from it I have said something to this already and therefore I shall answer here more briefly 1. That we have no reason to believe from Scripture that the Office of Apostles or Evangelists which concerned the Government of the Church was extraordinary and for a time only
and the extraordinariness of their gifts can be no argument against their continuance for notwithstanding they did many miraculous things yet they never could contrive to be in two places a the same time and as to their governing of several Congregations they were under the same inconveniences with their successors They visited from place to place they called the Presbyters of some Churches to them to give them directions they proceeded by information and legal evidence and what was possible to them to do in these cases is not become impossible to those that succeed them 2. All other offices had extraordinary men in those dayes and the same argument will hold against Presbyters and Deacons as against Bishops for the first Deacons that were elected were men full of the Holy Ghost 3. The unfixedness of these is no argument against the reason of their continuance and all that will follow from that is no more than this that if it was essential to their office to be unfixed they ought to be so still and not to cease to be at all 4. All of them were not unfixed and if they had been so it does not follow that the nature of their office requires it it might be no more than accidental 5. That they governed several Churches and were Arch-Bishops As to the notion of Church or Churches it is not very material whether we say Bishop of one or of many Churches for many worshipping Churches may make but one Governing Church and worshipping Churches may have their officers too as our Parishes but still in subordination to the Bishop as the several Churches under these Evangelists and Apostles were subordinated to them in matter of Discipline and Ordination But because many depend upon the title which these secondary Apostles have in Scripture as Timothy is commanded to do the werk of an Evangelist it is necessary to observe that it was not all their work to Preach and Propagate the Gospel but to settle Churches to govern them to ordain Officers to censure offenders these are the things particularly given in Charge that of Evangelists was common to them with divers others But ordination is made their peculiar right For why did Paul leave Timothy and Titus one in Ephesus the other in Crete to ordain Elders Were there not Presbyters in Ephesus already Might not they ordain Might not they receive Accusations and Excommunicate Why then was there one single Person left to do all this and in Crete it is not to be conceived but that since St. Paul had converted several to the faith in that Island he also had ordained some Church Officers in those places of the Island where he most resided Or what need had he to leave a Bishop behind him to ordain when he might by the ordination of a few Presbyters in one City provided sufficiently for ordination in the rest or lastly since this ordination is made so insignificant by Mr. B. why might not these Believers have appointed their own Teachers without any further circumstance and by an instance of their power have freed Posterity from the superstition of thinking Apostolical Ordination and succession so requisite to Authorize Pastors But since the Apostles ordained all Ecclesiastical Officers by themselves or their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Assistants their suffragan Bishops and left some of them on purpose to do this work it is plain that they conceived some kind of necessity for it and did not look upon the power so common or insignificant as later projectors of Church settlements would make us believe Now as the Scripture discovers no other sort of Episcopacy than such as we have discribed so the ancient Bishops knew of no other Original of their Office for they conceived themselves to be derived from the Apostles not as ordinary Presbyters or Deacon but to succeed them in such a preheminence of dignity and power as their first Assistants were endued with And Eusebius whose diligence nothing could escape and whose judgment was not easily imposed on aâ—ter all his search could find no other Original of Episcopacy and derives the Bishops of the most eminent Cities of the Empire from the Apostles and their Assistants whom they appointed as the first Bishops of the Church Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How many sayes he and who they were that followed the example of the Apostles and were thought worthy to govern those Churches which they founded is not easy to say besides these which St. Paul mentions in his Epistles he indeed had a great number of Assistants and as he calls them fellow Souldiers whose names are preserved in his Epistle And Luke in the Acts of the Apostles makes mention of some of them Among these Timothy is said to have been first Bishop of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Titus the Bishop of the Churches of Crete Crescens was sent to Gallatia as the present reading of St. Pauls Epistle is but as Eusebius read it to Gallia Linus whom he mentions in his second to Timothy was made Bishop of the Church of Rome next to Peter and Clemens who succeeded Linus is owned by Paul as his fellow labourer And Lastly Dionysius the Areopagite whom St. Paul mentions as the first Convert of Athens is reported to have been the first Bishop of that Church by another Dionysius a very Ancient writer and Bishop of Corinth This was the rise of Episcopacy according to Eusebius and the progress of it he takes care to shew by setting down the successours of these and other Bishops to his own time Ep. ad Smyrn ad Ephes ad Magn. Ignatius derives the Original of Episcopacy a little higher yet from Christ himself the Universal Bishop and compares the Bishop with his Bench of Presbyters to Christ sitting in the midst of his Apostles and is the most express and vehement of all the Ancients in setting out the dignity and preheminence of the Bishop Irenaus deduces the Episcopal Authority from the same Original and makes the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles to be his principal argument against the Hereticks and Schismaticks of his time and because it was endless to make a perfect enumeration of those who succeeded the Apostles in all the Churches of the World Valde longum esset in tali volumine enumerare Successiones l. 3. c. 3 he instances in that of Rome where Linus was first ordained Bishop Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecelesiae tradiderunt Apofloli ibid. Polycarpus ab Apostolis in eâ qua est Smyrnis constitutus Episcopus qui usque adbue successerunt Polycarpe ibid. then Clemens and so on to his own time and in another place proposes it as the only remedy against Heresy to obey those that have a due succession from the Apostles who though they are there called Presbyteri yet it is plain who he means by them when he adds that they are the same which he shewed before to have succeeded the
Apostles which were those Bishops he had given a Catalogue of before And Lastly speaking of the Bishops to whom the Apostles committed the government of those Churches they had planted he makes them much ancienter than those Hereticks that disturbed the Church and draws an argument from their Apostolick institution and their constant succession in that office against those that brought in new Doctrines Tertullian makes use of the same Argument Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sant Presbyteris obandire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut oftendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma veritatis certum acceperunt l. 7. c. 42. and requires of the Hereticks a succession from the Apostles and Origen speaking of Bishops makes them likewise to succeed the Apostles in their office Omnes enim ii valde posterieres quam Episcopi quibus Episcope Ecclesias tradiderunt In short it was the opinion of all the Ancients And Aerius is looked upon by Epiphanius if not as a Heretick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. yet at least as an innovator for maintaining an equality between Bishops and Presbyters For if the Bishop were only the first Presbyter and the opinion of the Church was at that time that there was no Original difference between the Orders Haeres 75. Epiphanius could not have observed this as a singularity in Aerius therefore the common opinion then being contrary to this notion they must apprehend Episcopacy to be the Apostolical Order derived from the Apostles by a succession First to those Assistants we have been speaking of and from them to the Succeeding Bishops I shall conclude with the testimony of Theodoret whose judgment and knowledg of Ecclesiastical Antiquity was greater than ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also Clemens is said to be an Apostle by Clemens Alexand. Strom. l. 4. He makes Bishops at first to be called Apostles and Presbyters to be called Bishops and from such Apostles as Epaphroditus who was Bishop of Philippi Bishops are descended according to his opinion but that out of modesty the Succeeding Bishops changed the title of Apostles for that of Bishops and this for some time after was common to them with Presbyters though the offices then were manifestly distinct All this considered I cannot but wonder that the conjecture of St. Jerom concerning the Original of Episcopacy against all the sense of Antiquity and the traditions of particular Churches concerning the Succession of their Bishops gathered by Eusebius should obtain not only among the professed Adversaries of that Order but even among many that retain it therefore for a further Confirmation of what we have said concerning the Original of Bishops I shall indeavour to remove that prejudice which the Authority of Jerom has done it who has advanced a singular notion in this particular which I shall first set down as briefly as I can and afterwards examine the grounds of it St Jerom observing the name of Bishop and Presbyter used in Scripture promiscuously and without distinction concludes Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesiae gubernahantur Postquam vero unisquisque eos quos Baptizaverat suos put a bat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus caeteris superponeretur ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum Semina tollerentur Hieron in Titum c. 1. that the Office was not not then distinct but that Bishop and Presbyter were but two names to signifie the same order but when divisions were occasioned in the Church by this parity between the Presbyters the Churches who were governed before by a Colledg of Presbyters for to remedy that evil consented that one should be chosen out of the rest who should be set over them and be called more peculiarly their Bishop to whom the care of the whole Church should appertain that all the seeds and occasions of Schism might be taken away But that St. Paul and the Ancients make Bishops and Presbyters to signifie the same thing This is in short the opinion of St. Jerom I will in the next place examine the ground of it Apud veteres idem Episcopi Presbyteri erant idem Ep. ad Ocean Cum Apostolus perspicue doctat cosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos id Ep. ad Evagr. It is manifest by the allegations of Jerom in defence of his opinion that it was grounded chiefly upon those places of Scripture where Bishops are called Presbyters or Presbyters Bishops and then from the synonomy of the names concludes to an Identity of the Office and then he adds One may perhaps think this to be my sence and not that of the Scripture Phil. 1.1 let him read the Apostles words to the Philippians his salutation of that Church with the Bishops and Deacons which he confirms by Acts 20.27 28. Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 5.1 And now suppose all this is granted that Presbyters are called Bishops and they again Presbyters yet I am afraid it will hardly follow that they are the same and some of those texts cited by St. Jerom are sufficient proofs to the contrary for that of Peter The Elders or Presbyters among you who am my self an Elder 1 Pet. 1.5 if the reasoning of St. Jerom hold will prove likewise that Apostles were no more than ordinary Presbyters and if Peter were but a Presbyter we shall be at a great loss to find any Bishops in Scripture that were superior to Presbyters and to the same purpose Jerom cites those texts of St. John The Elder to the elect Lady 2 John 1. 3 John 1. The Elder to his beloved Gaius which plainly overthrows his Argument for if an Apostle were of an office superior to a Presbyter properly so called and yet is called Presbyter in Scripture then Bishops might be of a superior degree to Presbyters though they might some time be so called or if it be replyed that these Presbyters again are called Bishops it does not alter the case at all for so some Messengers of Churches are called Apostles as Andronicus and Junia who were of note among the Apostles Rom. 16. Besides there were several of the Fathers that observed this Synonomy of Bishop and Presbyter as well as Jerom but could not observe the necessity of his inference that therefore there were then no Bishops but Presbyters Chrysost in Ep. ad Phil. c. 1. Chrysostom confesses the titles were confounded but he takes notice likewise that all other Ecclesiastical titles were so as well as these that Bishops were sometimes called Deacons and that Timothy being a Bishop was commanded to fulfil his ministry or his Deaconship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor did he wonder at this at all since in his own time the Bishops when they wrote to Presbyters or Deacons
or Deacons that were ordained in their Dioceses without their consent and that by simple Presbyters who were never Chorepiscopi or had any character to distinguish them from other Presbyters Therefore the case ought not to be reckoned so hard as it is commonly represented by the more moderate Nonconformists who pretend this point of Reordination the only bar that keeps them out of the Church since there was never any other Church not any in Ancient times would have received them upon any other terms and they must have remained Nonconformists under Basil Athanasius and all the ancient Bishops whose names are and alwayes have been had in veneration with all Christians not one of these would have ever been perswaded to own a Pastor that his Presbyters had ordained in opposition to him nay hardly could they have been prevailed with to admit such as any other Bishop should Ordain within their Diocess so extream punctilious they were in this matter and there is hardly any one thing that caused so frequent and dangerous contentions between them as the point of Ordination Nor was this Province singular in the extent of its Bishopricks or the manner of their Administration but all the parts of the Christian World went by the same Rule as to Diocesan Episcopacy and most of them had much larger Dioceses than these we have been speaking of The Frontier Provinces of the Empire towards the East being more remote from the contentions that afflicted the Church were not cantoned into so small Dioceses as other Countries and being likewise less divided in their Civil Condition because it might render them less defensible against Invasion the Ecclesiastical Dioceses likewise remained intire in the the measure of their first Constitution The Diocess of Edessa seems to be of extraordinary extent Conc. Chal. Act. 10. even at the time of the Council of Chalcedon when the ambition of some Metropolitans and the contentions of Hereticks and Schismaticks had reduced Bishopricks to be very small For 1. some of the misdemeanors charged upon Ibas Bishop of this place shew that Diocess to be extreamly rich 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Collection for redemption of Captives amounted to fifteen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and tho' it is not easy to reduce that summ to our money yet we must conclude it to be a considerable sum when we reflect upon another accusation of Daniel Brother to Ibas as if he had bestowed on Calloa the money of the Church for she had let out to use two or three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must be a considerable summ since it 's taken notice of as an argument of her wealth Besides the Church of Edessa had six thousand more of these Numismata besides its ordinary Revenues and one of its Mannors called Lafargaritha is mentioned there and two hundred pound weight of Church Plate 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The City of Battina was in the Diocess of Edessa for Ibas is accused of having endeavoured to make one John Bishop of it who was suspected of Magick But Ibas his Arch-Deacon of that place opposed it 3. Maras who was one of Ibas his accusers was Excommunicated by another Arch-Deacon of his 4. The Clergy of the City of Edessa was above two hundred persons not reckoning that of the Country within his Diocess and this was a Diocesan Bishop to purpose who besides a large Diocess had Excommunicating Arch-Deacons and a great Revenue And if Mr. B. or his Brethren had been of that Diocess we might have found them among his accusers The Diocess of Cyrus whereof Theodoret was Bishop was yet larger Theodor. Ep. 113. containing eight hundred Churches as he writes to Leo Bishop of Rome The exceptions which Mr. B. makes against this Epistle are so fully answered by the incomparable Dean of Pauls that nothing can be added But if Mr. B. should quarrel with any writings of this time for mentioning great Dioceses we must have a new Critick and disgrace a great deal of the Fathers that have hitherto been received by a general consent It is a very hard matter to convince men that imagine all that time for them whereof we have little or no account and reckon silence of Antiquity for consent and then if any thing shall appear against what they have once fanfi'd though it be never of so good credit it is spurious it is all Imposture because it makes against them who would ever be convicted if it shall be Defence enough to say the Evidence is a Lye Petavius mistaking a passage in Epiphanius Not. in Epiph Haeres Arr. Epiph. Ep. ad Joh. Hieros ap Hieron thought the Dioceses of Cyprus to be very small but from Epiphanius his Letter to John Bishop of Jerusalem it appears that his Diocess was of good extent John had a quarrel with him for having Ordained a Presbyter in his Diocess though it was only for the use of a Monastery and he excuses himself by shewing how common a thing this was and how frequently it was done in his own Diocess and he was so far from taking offence at it that he thought himself obliged to some of his neighbouring Bishops for using that liberty and therefore commends the good nature and meekness of the Cyprian Bishops who never quarrelled with one another upon this account and then adds That many Bishops of our Communion have Ordained Presbyters in our Province that we could not take because they fled from us on purpose to avoid that honour which was the modesty of those times Nay I my self desired Philo of blessed memory and Theophorbus that they would Ordain Presbyters in those Churches of Cyprus which were near them O vere benedicta Episcoporum Cypri mansuetudo bonitas multi Episcopi communionis nostrae Presbyteros in nostra ordinaverunt Provincia quos nos comprehendere non poteramus ipse cohortatus slim b. m. Philonem sanctum Theophorbum ut in Ecclesiis Cypri quae juxta se grant ad meae autem Parochiae videbantur Ecclesiam pertinere to quod grandis esset late patens Provincia ordinarent Presbyteros and belonged to my Diocess because my Province i.e. my Docess was very large Now that this Province which is here said to be of so large extent was no other than his Diocess appears from the nature of the thing For if we shall imagine that it was his Province as Metropolitan the words will have no sense for then are not there Bishops enough dispersed through this great Province who may Ordain within their respecture Dioceses and to them belonged the Ordination of Presbyters and not to the Metropolitan If we shall take this Province for a Civil division there will be yet greater absurdity for there may be other Metropolitans as well as he and by what Authority could he dispose of their Dioceses or Provinces In short there he gives leave to Ordain Presbyters where the right of Ordaining them belonged to
him and that being in his particular Diocess only it follows that this great Province was no other than his own Diocess or Parochia as he calls it also in the same passage Nor were the Dioceses of the West generally any thing inferior to those we have been speaking of Italy indeed had the smallest not only by reason of the great multitude of Cities there but by the policy of the Bishops of Rome who having alwayes had some Authority over the greatest part of the Country strengthened themselves by making as many Bishops as they could within the dependance of their City and by that means secured themselves from all such dangers as might threaten them from general Councils having a strong party of Bishops at hand to send whither the Popes occasions should require their service What effect this policy of multiplying Bishops in Italy had we see in the History of the Council of Trent whither several Bishops came from France Spain and Germany with design of reforming most of the grossest abuses in the Church and to moderate if not wholly to remove that insupportable Yoke of the Papacy But the Italian Pensioners being too many for the well-meaning Bishops that Yoke was setled more grievous than before and weight added to the oppression No remedy being left but vain complaints and Dudithius makes a very lamentable one to the Emperor and then submission Yet after all this the Italian Dioceses were never reduced to a single Congregation and some of them remain still of a very considerable extent The Bishopricks of Spain were at first very large as may be observed from the small numbers of Bishops that met in the Councils of that Country The Council of Eliberis had but nineteen Bishops and the first of Toledo had the same number Hinc colligo Nationale fuisse Concilium cum to tempore sedeâ— Toletana tot Suffraganeos non haberet Episcopos Similiter de Eliberitano statuo cum eodem Episcoporum numero fuisset celebratum adde etiam quod in subscriptionibus Marcellus subscribit qui suit Episcopus Hispalensis Gar. Loyasa from whence Garsias Loyasa infers that these were general Councils of all Spain because the Province of Toledo sayes he had not so many Suffragans at that time and that Marcellus Bishop of Sevil who was a Metropolitan of another Province was there But the extent of the Spanish Dioceses does appear not only from the number of Bishops in their Councils but also from the Canons made in them As that of the Council of Toledo is very express about the making of Chrism that it belonged only to the Bishop Quamvis paene ubique custodiatur ut absque Episcopo Chrisma nemo conficicat tamen quia in aliquibus locis vel Provinciis Presbyteri dicuntur Chrisma conficere placuit ex hac die nullum alium nisi Episcopum Chrisma facere per Dioecesin destinare ita ut de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum ante Diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere Conc. Tolet. 1. Can. 20. Fratri autem Ortygie Ecclesias de quibus pulsus fuerat pronunciavimus esse reddendas Exemplar Defin. sent and that all the Churches of his Diocess should send before Easter every year for it to the Bishop who was to be put in mind of it by the Arch Deacon And in the same Council there is a definitive sentence whereby Ortygius is restored to his Bishoprick out of which he had been unjustly ejected that shews that his Diocess consisted of several Churches for so the Sentence runs That he be restored to his Churches Nor can any one think it strange that these should be general Councils of all Spain when he considers the numbers that usually met in Provincial Synods of that Country For the Council of Saragossa had but twelve and that number is extraordinary compared with some following Councils Concilium Gerundense had but seven Bishops that of Ilerda eight whereof one was present but by Proxy that of Valentia seven And lest we may imagine the Bishops of Spain neglected their Synods the sixth Canon of the Council of Arragon which consisted of ten Bishops Orders That if any Bishop having received Summons from his Metropolitan Si quis Episcoporum commonitus à Metropolitano ad Synodum nulla gravi intercedente necessitate Corporali venire contempserit sicut statuta Patrum sanxierunt usque ad futurum Concilium cunctorum Episcoporum Charitatis Communione privetur Conc. Tarracon c. 6. shall neglect to come to Council being not hindred by sickness shall according to the Decrees of the Ancient Fathers be excluded the communion of the other Bishops untill the next Council following And the same Council by another Canon signifies the extent of the Dioceses in Spain Multorum casuum experientia magistrante reperimus non nullas Dioecesanas Ecclesias esse destitutas ob quam rem hac constitutione decrevimus ut Antiquae consuetudinis Ordo servetur annis vicibus ab Episcopo Dioeceses visitentur siqua Basilica reperta fuerit destituta Ordiâ—atione ipsius reparari praecipiatur c. Can. 8. where it Orders every Bishop once in a year to visit his Dioceses according to the ancient usage of that Church and see what Churches there were out of repair and ordered them to be repaired out of the Revenues of those Churches there being a third part reserved for that purpose by ancient custom and tradition and the thirteenth Canon of the same Council makes a distinction between the Presbyters of the Cathedral and those of the Diocess Non solum è Cathedralis Ecclesiae Presbyteris verum etiam de Dioecesanis ad Concilium trabant Can. 13. and that the Metropolitan take care to summon some of both sorts to the Council of the Province And this was the state of the Dioceses in Spain from the time of the first Council of Nice to the latter end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth Century The Churches of France as they had a near correspondence with those of Spain in several other things Bona de Reb. Litur l. 1. c. 12. and as Bona conjectures had anciently the same Liturgy before Pipin's time so they were not unlike in the extent of their Dioceses For Gallia before the time of the Council of Nice seems to have had but very few Bishopricks although it is to be supposed the number of Christians there was much greater than in any other part of the Empire Constantius the Father of Constantine the Great having favoured the Christians in the Provinces under his Government Euseb de vit Const l. 1. c. 13. while his Collegues used all manner of Violence and Arts to root them out every where else vid. Conc. Arelat 1. apud Sirmond Conc. Gall. Yet when Constantine the Great called a Council at Arles to resume the cause of the Donatists the Gallican