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
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
Christians to father every calamity that befel the publick if the Army had evil success or the Harvest prov'd scanty if pestilence or famine afflicted the Heathens the Christians were the cause of all this Mischief To the Lyons to the Stake with them It fares no better with the Bishops in Mr. B.'s History whatever is done amiss it is by their procurement Whose act soever that be a Princes or an Eunuchs or a Monks or a Womans yet still the blame is the Bishops And this is the cry which some men teach their Disciples to use If Trade fail O these Lordly Bishops spoyl all if a Brother shut up Shop and conveys himself away without evening his accounts the Bishops have undone him The truth is these men or their neighbours have great reason to pray the Bishops may always continue for this peevishness and gall which is so predominant in this party of men if it have not its ordinary vent will taint the blood and turn into Jaundice and other evil distempers or if it fly out it will disturb the peace of the family or of the neighbourhood or it may be of the Kingdome So necessary it is for this sort of men to have something to rail at and to exercise that freedom of speech upon which is part of their Liberty of Conscience In the next place our Author relates at large out of the fifth Action of the Council which he mistook for the fourth being deceiv'd by the running Title in Binius that is false Printed what pass'd between the Council and the Egyptian Bishops and this he did not think fit to Abridge because he did not conceive it much for the honour of the persons concern'd The debate it must be confess'd was something too warm but that heat was not altogether without reason The case in short was thus The Council had condemn'd Eutyches for a Heretick and Dioscorus for receiving him into Communion and for other Misdemeanours The Egyptian Bishops considering how far they were engag'd in the same crime and standing in a near Relation to Dioscorus began to be afraid that they might possibly be involv'd in the same punishment and therefore petition'd the Emperour declaring the uprightness of their faith and condemning all Heresies but not naming Eutyches This Petition was read before the Council which immediately made this exception Why did they not condemn Eutyches They answer'd that they condemn'd him or any body else that taught any thing against the faith This was look'd upon as a delusory answer and the Council began to press them closer At last they condemn'd Eutyches Having been brought thus far they were call'd upon to subscribe his condemnation This they scrupl'd which made the Council jealous of them upon the account of their dependance upon Dioscorus and of their behaviour in the second Ephesine Council and therefore they resolv'd to press the point home The Egyptians pretended they could not subscribe according to the custome of their Church without their Patriarch Their Tergiversation all along made the Bishops look upon this as a Trick yet at last when they understood the case they admitted of this expedient that they should give security that they should not leave Chalcedon before they had a New Metropolitan and so the debate ended If this business seem to have been manag'd with too much heat it is not much to be wondred at all circumstances consider'd and especially the injuries and provocations that several of the Council had receiv'd before from Dioscorus and his party Men will be men where-ever they are plac'd whether in a Council or in the Church or even at the Altar The next business says Mr. B. was with the Abbots of the Monks it would have been great news to have found Abbots of Seculars p. 106. sect 25. who had petition'd the Emperour for a Council to end their broyls and that without perturbations These petition'd that Dioscorus might be call'd He was call'd indeed several times before but he did not think fit to come but they would have him restor'd and the Council opposing them they began to talk impertinently about Religion Among these was Barsumas who had headed a great number of the same sort of Cattel at the Second Ephesine Council and had assisted in the murdering of Flavian encouraging his Monks to make sure work kill slay knock him on the head c. It is not unlikely but some of these if not all for some in this Council charge him with having headed 1000 Monks had been with him at Ephesus and it is not very material whether such giddy sanguinary fellows were satisfy'd with the Council or no. If the countenance of this sort of men signify'd any thing there was number enough that own'd the Council and give the Emperour thanks that his Christian Authority had cast out Eutyches Act. 5. who had spoke blasphemously against our Saviour and sow'd Tares in the Church At last says Mr. B. there was a dissention whether Leo 's phrase should be put into their Definition of Faith p. 107. sect 26. now drawn up anew There is no mention there of Leo 's phrases but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Contents of his Letter should be inserted into the Definition or Rule of Faith This inserting of it into their Definition was I believe no other than what we find in the larger Declaration of Faith drawn up in this Council where the Epistle of Leo is receiv'd together with those of Cyril to Nestorius as Expositions of the Faith deliver'd them by the Council of Nice Mr. B. says that Leo's Epistle was a while run down There was no such thing but only some said that their Rule of Faith was full enough without it It was not because they had any exception against the doctrine of it but because they would preserve their Rule as simple and with as little addition as they could But at last it was yielded to saith Mr. B. when the Illyrican Bishops had first slighted Rome and cryed Qui contradicunt Definitioni Nestoriani sunt qui contradicunt Romam ambulent He must be very captious that can interpret this for a slight And it does not appear that the Legates who were usually very apprehensive of slights put upon their See did take any notice of it I am not very much concerned whether it were or no I must confess I do not find in my self any great devotion for that See to vindicate it from any slights yet I believe this we now speak of was never intended as one Only our Author according to the usual success of his observations misunderstands the matter The Judges assisting in this Council propounded it as the Emperours direction Act. 5. that they should appoint select Bishops out of every Province to draw up their Confession of Faith or else that every Metropolitan in the name of his Province should make a Declaration of his Faith otherwise that the Emperour would call a General
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
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
titles are mentioned Besides the mentioning but these two sorts of Church Officers may be done only according to the distinction of the several imployments in the Church some being Ministerial others Governing though the latter may have a difference in the measure of their power in the administration of the same Government An evident instance of this we have in Clemens of Alexandria who notwithstanding he distribute the Clergy sometimes into Presbyters and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. strom l. 6. p. 283. Ed. Silburgii in 1 Tim. 1. as the Governing or Teaching and the Ministring Parts yet he does elsewhere acknowledg three Orders where he comes to speak more distinctly To the same effect are the words of the Greek Scholia collected out of the ancient Fathers that Bishops sometime in Scripture comprehend Presbyters too Because their offices are much alike 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sch. Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in 1 ad Tim. c. 3. Secundum Presbyterorum immo paene unum corum esse gradum Episcoperum they both administer the Sacraments they both teach and guide the Church and exercise discipline and the difference between them is not very great and what is that since they are both qualified for the same Acts Besides Ordination there iâ— hardly any thing but that they act in subordination to the Bishops in whom the principal Authority of Teaching and governing is placed and the Presbyters are the Assistants and supreâ—â— Council of the Bishop and both making as it were one Bench the directive governing part of the Church Salmasius would understand Chrysostom when he sayes the distance between Bishops and Presbyters was not great to speak of his own time only which is so impudent a construction that one would wonder how any man could be guilty of it since every one that has the curiosity to consult the place will discern the imposture and there is none of the Ancients that does more expresly distinguish between Bishops and Presbyters from the beginning than this eloquent Father and nothing can be more plain than that he speaks there of the constitution of Episcopacy and Presbytery without any regard to time for it is evident from him that he thought there was no difference in this particular between these orders of the Church in his time and that of the Apostles as any man may see that will but look into his comments upon Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. c. 1 Tom. 4. Ed. Savil. and c. 3. There are several other passages in that Epistle of Clemens that make mention of Presbyters appointed by the Apostles to guide the Church of the Presbyters of the Church of Corinth who were turned out by a faction but nothing that affords any argument against Episcopacy but such as the same answer may be extended to which I have given already to the allegations made from thence But to clear this business of the Church of Corinth as far as possible I will shew the state of it as it may be gathered from this Epistle and then take liberty to offer a conjecture concerning the form of its Government at that time and the occasion of the Schism The Church of Corinth in the first place is said here to be an Ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sound Church that for a long while had enjoyed all the benefits of peace and order and was had in great esteem and veneration of all those that knew it until at last having eat and drank and being enlarged and growing fat it lifted up the heel From this prosperity sprung all the evils of emulation and discord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaner sort setting themselves up against the better and silly men growing conceited and pragmatical set themselves against men of wisdom and experience But because in all the insolencies of the people against their Rulers there are commonly some persons of note that first animate the sedition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was no otherwise here a few ambitious discontented men and they too not very extraordinary Persons for knowledg or endowments instigated the common people against their Governours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having popular parts they knew how to insinuate themselves into the multitude and to manage the credulity and passions of the people to their own advantage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and prejudice of the publick Therefore Clemens aggravates this sedition by comparing it with that mentioned by St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they cryed some for him some for Cephas some for Apollos for they were two of them great Apostles and the other one highly esteemed by the Church But now sayes he consider by what manner of men you are perverted And now what could give occasion to all this disorder What would these troublesome men have this is not expresly set down but such hints are scattered as are sufficient to ground a probable conjecture 1. They are said to be great Zealots about things not material or requisite to salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hot disputants about such matters 2. They were such as magnified the power of the people and perswaded them that they had a right to turn out their Pastors therefore Clemens shews what course Moses took to establish the Priesthood and how the Apostles foreseeing there would be contentions about the name and office of a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointed chosen men which the people cannot with any justice turn out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. These men were ambitious disobedient despisers of their superiors and yet such as would bear rule themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and lift themselves up above their brethren and their discontents arising from the ill success or opposition their ambitious pretensions met with were probably the occasion of this Schism and therefore Clemens advises them to be content with their statition and chuse rather to be inconsiderable in the Church than to be never so great out of it than to be the heads and Bishops of a Faction From which Circumstances one may conjecture 1. That the Church of Corinth at this time had no Bishop the See being vacant by the death of the last or otherwise 2. That this sedition was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a contention about this Bishoprick 3. That the Clergy and people were divided about it the people setting up some they had a favour for whom the Clergy did not approve and when they could not be prevail'd with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people persisting in their kindness towards these persons broke out into extremities and turned out part of the Clergy that would not comply with their choice Which is yet further confirmed from the directions which Clemens gives upon this account that these men would go regularly to compass their design by just means that they would enter in at the right gate and
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
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
became the Church Government and I believe it will be found to have preserv'd those Churches in as great peace and Unity if not more than those had that were Governed without Bishops The Churches of Sweden and Denmark never knew what Schism or Heresie was but by reading or hear-say and those of Germany though something more disquieted yet it was seldom from within but by Projects of Union with other Churches under a different kind of Polity as well as of different opinions in some points of Religion It is to be wish'd that the Churches of the Ausburg Confession as they took care to preserve the Antient form of Church Governmet had been also a little more careful in the point of Ordination For their Bishops though they have the same authority with Diocesans yet were at first ordain'd but by Presbyters and the Principles of those Churches touching the right of ordination are so loose that I believe those of the Presbyterian Discipline will hardly allow them Hunnius defending their Ordinations says the power is in the Church diffusive and that it may be conveyed not only by Bishops or Presbyters but by Deacons or any body else if the Church think fit and I am afraid the Practice of some of those Churches is not otherwise to be justifi'd But before this Lutheran Reformation was that of the Bohemians not that of the Calixtins only but the Vnitas fratrum Bohemorum whose Churches were govern'd by Diocesan Bishops and where Discipline was so far from being Impossible Commenii Hist Eccles Slav. p. 32. notwithstanding the Dioceses were very large that they were perhaps the best Govern'd Churches in the world Bucer speaking of this Government says haec verò est Coelestis potius quam Ecclesiastica in Terris Hierarchia and Calvin was so taken with this Government as well as Discipline that he looks upon their Governing and ordaining Pastors as no inconsiderable blessing Ep. ad Pastor Bohem. Neque Vero parvo est estimandum quod tales habent Pastores a quibus Regantur Ordinentur and those were their Bishops as may be seen in that Account they gave of themselves in Ratio Disciplinae Ordinisque Ecclesiastici in Vnitate fratrum Bohemorum printed at Lesna 1632. and afterwards at the Hague by Commenius 1660. Whoever would know more of these Episcopal Diocesan Churches may consult Lasitius or the short Accout of Commenius the then only Remaining Bishop of those Churches And these had such Bishops as were not only invested with the full Authority of Diocesans over several Churches but such as had been ordain'd according to the Canons of the Ancient Church Stephanus accito Episcopo altero c. Commen Hist p. 24. by the Bishops of the Waldenses who derived themselves by an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles It is time now to Return to the Principal Design which was to shew how no other form of Government can secure the Church from Heresie Schism and Contention any more than Episcopacy and that those Churches which put themselvs under new Models of Government and discipline have been excercis'd with Schism Heresie and Sedition no less than those under Episcopacy The Churches which follow'd the Reformation of Zuinglius had at first no Government nor discipline that was properly Ecclesiastical All authority rested in the Civil Magistrate and the Ministers did only preach and administer the Sacraments without excluding any It was from this practice I suppose that the Divines of that way came to speak generally so loosely of the power of the Keys making it all to consist in preaching without any regard to Ecclesiastical discipline But the Licentiousness that followed this defect of Discipline and Government soon open'd the eyes of the Ministers who Complain'd passionately of the Increase of Libertinism under pretence of Reformation and endeavour'd to make the people sensible that there is more required to make a true Protestant than to Renounce the Pope and Transubstantiation and that the Notion of a Church did imply something more than a Company of sound believers met together to hear a Sermon Calvin a person of extraordinary Abilities was one of the first that observ'd and Complain'd of this defect in the Reformation and endeavour'd to Remedy it in the Church where he was Pastour by Establishing an Ecclesiastical Government Baza vit Calv. and that perhaps not such as he thought most perfect and absolute but such as the Circumstances of the place would bear The people of Geneva were sufficiently prejudic'd against Episcopacy having turn'd out their Bishop who had likewise a title to be their Prince and to have talk'd of Introducing a Bishop there would have sounded as harsh as the mention of a King would have done to the Romans after the expulsion of Tarquin But suppose they could have been Reconcil'd to the name and the office upon assurance it should not exceed its proper bounds it is possible Calvin might look upon it as too Invidious a proposal to his Church for fear of being understood to recommend himself and to affect dominion over his Brethren Episcopacy then seeming Impracticable in that place he devised a form of Government that should be more popular and consequently more acceptable the Ministers were to be all of equal Authority and were in the first place to govern the Church and with them a certain number out of the Laity under the Title of ruling Elders were to have a share in the Church Government and this mix'd Council without any Bishop was to exercise all Ecclesiastical Censures and Jurisdiction One would think this would be unexceptionable but it proved otherwise for this frame was no sooner begun but it was presently broken in pieces and the Author banish'd But his Reputation abroad made them reflect upon this Treatment with shame and desire him to return With him this Government was restor'd which was so far from remedying all disorders that it became the occasion of some very great ones and the State of that Church as it is discrib'd by Calvin in his letters to his friends and by Beza in his life was most lamentably distracted and this Government was made odious in the beginning of it by very harsh and rigorous proceedings The Expulsion of Castellio a man of Great and Polite Learning was too Invidious The opposing of the Senate in the Election of a Minister to such a point of heat and Contention Beza vit Calv. as to endanger the peace of the City wanted little of Sedition Calvins quarrels with Perinus came to that height that the Council of the City had almost cut one anothers throats about it Siquidem eousque semel in ipsâ curiâ deventum est coactis Diacosiis pene exertis jam Ensibus parum abfuerit quin mutuis caedibus ipsam Curiam cruentarent And what was the reason of so dangerous a Contention No Article of the Creed was in danger It was not for any part of the faith that they contended so
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