of the Novatians That they had their Bishops successively to Cyril's Time Soc. l. 7. c. 7. Socrates does not say in the place alleadg'd but only that Cyril had taken from him all that he had and Successively from what time had they their Bishops there That is not said It may be they began there after this time For there is little account in Church-History that I know of any Novatians in Alexandria before Athanasius The next Instance is pregnant and comprising many at once as the Gentleman tells us it is that of Valerius and St. Augustin who were Bishops of Hippo together and the Bishops of those Parts assured Austin that this was usual and prov'd it by Examples both in the Africane and Transmarine Churches as Possedonius tells us But suppose all this true that this might be maintain'd by the Examples of several Churches What is it That two Bishops may be in one Church No that is not the Matter but that a Bishop when he grows Old may appoint or ordain his Successor to prevent the Mischiefs that are usually produc'd by popular Elections and to secure the Succession to some Extraordinary Man and this was not thought to violate that Rule that allow'd but one Bishop to a City For this Provision for a Successor does not destroy that Rule For Instance I believe no man will deny but that this Government is Monarchical in its Constitution and that it ought to be in the hands of a Single Person or if Royallists word be not Authority enough the Worthy Gentlemen that would have convinc'd Cromwell's Conscience about is I hope will satisfie And yet after that this Succession had been a little interrupted by the Vsurpation of King Stephen Henry the Second thought it convenient to make his Eldest Son King in his Life Time and to have him Crowned to secure the Succession Yet for all this and tho some more Instances may be fetch'd of the same Nature from neighboring Kingdoms yet I belive it will be true enough that it is the Rule of these several Kingdoms to have but one King And this as far as I am able to perceive is the utmost that can be made of all those Instances of two Bishops in one Church As for the last Reason of the Rule about dividing the Revenue I suppose it is added only out of Gayety and might have been left to Mr. Baxter who is us'd to supply his Want of Learning with a double Portion of Spight But I have too much respect for this Person who shews more Learning than any of the Advocates for Dissenters to make any Reflection upon it This Rule is likewise pag. 15. oppugn'd by Exceptions from the Conference at Carthage but of this I have spoke so particlarly in the following Book that I think it unnccessary to add any more The next thing I find concerns any thing alleadg'd by me is p. 23. where the Bishoprick of Hippo is consider'd I have shew'd the Names of a good number of Parishes in it which were under the Care of their Presbyters and among others alleadg'd the Town of Fussala the Gentleman Translates it a Castle I suppose to diminish it but these Castles were Garrison-Towns with a good dependance of Villages belonging to them and this particularly is so represented It was Forty miles from Hippo and was in St. Austin's Diocess and never had a Bishop of its own This the Gentleman answers by saying That the reason why it had a Bishop no sooner is signify'd by St. Augustin when he saith there were no Catholicks at all in it St Augustin says indeed the Town or Castle it self had none but the County belonging to it had some Paucos habebat illa Terra Catholicos And there were several Presbyters belonging to those Catholicks Presbyteri qui eis Congregandis à nobis primitùs sunt Constituti But I believe the reason alleadg'd for their having a Bishop no sooner will hardly hold For first St. Austin says that this Town when he set upon the Reduction of it to the Vnity of the Church had then no Catholicks but that it never had any he does not say nor is the thing probable But as for a Bishop he expresly says that it never had any but that it formerly had Catholicks we may conclude by Mr. Baxter's reasoning because it belong'd heretofore to the Diocess of Hippo. Simul cum contigua sibi regione ad paroeciam Hipponensis Ecclesiae pertinuit Now Mr. B. would ask what did belong to the Bishop of Hippo the Stones or the Timber of the Town since none of the People did ever own him Nor can it be imagin'd how a Town so distant should be judg'd to belong to that Diocese where yet there never was one Man that own'd the Jurisdiction So that I conceive this reason will not hold for its having no Bishop of its own since the same reason destroys its dependance upon the Diocese of Hippo which is exprefly affirm'd As to St. Austin's Excuse that it was too far and that he could not look after the inconsiderable Reliques of the Donatists there It is to be ascrib'd to his Modesty since he discharg'd the Office of a Bishop towards it in much more difficult Times while the Presbyters he employ'd were barbarously used and the generality of the People were against him The Towns in St. Austin's Diocese mention'd by the D. of St. Pauls this Gentleman finds to have had B shops of their own or some other Towns that had Names like them which yet may not be the same but here I am unconcern'd having as I remember mention'd none of these places but divers others But I cannot pass by what he offers p. 26. That St. Austin had only Episcopalem Sarcinam Hipponensem the Episcopal Charge of Hippo as if he had been Bishop of the Town only Nay but of part of that neither For the Donatists had their Bishop there too This will strangely diminish the Bishoprick of St. Austin which at first appear'd so large To which I answer That for the Donatists having a Bishop there it signifies little to our present purpose since he was but an Vsurper and the whole Diocess did of right belong to the Catholick Bishop As to the Insinuation that St. Austin was only Bishop of the Town let us believe himself Hoc Ecclesiae Catholicae aut ut modum dispensationis meae non supergrediar Ep. 159. hoc Ecclesiae ad Hipponensium Regionem pertinenti prodesse contestor Which plainly signifies that all the Church belonging not only to the Town but also to the Region of Hippo belong'd to him There is but one thing more which I shall observe concerning the Diccess of Hippo and that is a Passage cited out of St. Austin Ep. 68. to shew that there were many Bishops in that Region Ecce interim Episcopos nostros qui sunt in Regione Hipponensi ubi a vestris tanta mala patimur convenire To which I answer that
that as Mr. B. sayes a Bishop had the priviledge of a had Physician he might murder and not be hang'd c. This Decree is I believe hardly so ancient as the fore-mention'd Epistle for we have only the Authority of Gratian for it a man little to be depended upon unless he find Vouchers that are ancienter than himself but any thing will serve Mr. B's turn that will give him occasion to ease his Spleen against Bishops CHAP. V. Of the First Council of Ephesus c. OUr Author in the beginning of this Chapter p. 84. §. 3. to prejudice his Reader beforehand against the Acts of the Council of Ephesus gives the worst account of Cyril who was the President of it that he could patch up out of all the libels and accusations of his Enemies The first thing he is charged with is the oppression of the Novatians This was enough with Socrates or Sozomen to paint him as ugly as men do the Devil Socr. l. 7 or Antichrist and therefore there is no great credit to be given them in these relations as manifestly espousing the cause and quarrels of the Novatians But suppose he had us'd severity towards these Schismaticks it may be they deserved it and being Schismaticks and Alexandrians it is not unlikely that they were very troublesome and seditious Socrates makes it part of his charge that he took upon him the government of temporal affairs Socr. l. 7. c. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a little before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was not the usurpation of the Bishop but the indulgence of the Emperour and the Truth is that the Church and State being now united and the Schisms of the one causing inevitable seditions in the other the Civil Magistrates for the greater security of their Government did think it expedient to invest the Bishop with a coercive power since their Spiritual authority was contemn'd to the dishonour of Religion and no less to the disturbance of the State And it was it seems a crime in Cyril to accept this Commission or to act in pursuance of it though our Author elsewhere professes that he shall not dishonour such p. 23. sect 59. nor disobey them But besides the suppressing of the Novatian Conventicles he is charged with executing some Jews and banishing others which Orestes took ill as an incroachment upon his office who was Governour of the Province Socr. l. 7. c. 13. But as to this he cannot be very much blamed for the Jews conspired against the Christians and resolved to destroy them all in one night they gave the alarm that one of their Churches was on fire and as the Christians ran out to quench the fire they were murdred by those Villains Perhaps Cyril did not think this a time to complement the Governour to the assistance of the Christians when the danger they were in was sufficient to call him away but animated the people to make their defence and to go in quest of these Murderers and it was a sign of his Moderation that there were but some executed and that all were not put to the Sword after so barbarous an attempt This or something else offended the governour Socr. l. 7. c. 14. so that he became irreconcileable to Cyril The Bishop like a good man endeavoured by all means to procure a reconciliation but without effect and why is a Bishop to be worse thought of if a man of quality become his implacable enemy without cause Five hundred Monks came from Mount Nitria in a fit of wild zeal to take the Bishops part and Socrates cannot say that he sent for them they light on the governour and assault him he is wounded and hardly escapes with life But how could Cyril help this or how can he be charg'd with the extravagance of those Monks that he had no knowledge of till they had committed it But one of those Mutineers says Socrates that wounded the governour being executed for his crime was honour'd by Cyrill as a Martyr I do very much suspect this story from the circumstance of changing the criminals name to Thaumasius and the most probable conjecture that I can make of it if there be any ground at all for the story is that the memory of a Martyr of that name might be honoured by him which his enemies interpreted to be the Criminal But this changing of name is a thing without precedent and without reason for either this disguise was put on that it might not be observ'd and he was ashamed of doing it openly and then it will not be easie to be certain that this Thaumasius was that Ammonius who was executed or if he was the same and Cyril confest it then it is impossible to imagine a reason why he should use that disguise But there are men in the world that honour such as Martyrs that were executed not for Wounding a Governour but Murdering a King after a most unexampled manner witness the worthy Martyrologies of Harrison Speeches and Prayers Printed A. D. 1660. Carew Cook Peters c. and of Barkstead Okey Corbett with this Motto in the Frontispiece these dyed all in Faith and innumerable other things that justifie their horrid crimes and make them Martyrs by the cause of their suffering Printed 1662. I hope they were neither Bishops nor Episcopal men that were so fond of Canonizing these Murderers for Martyrs Another thing which our Author cites from the professed enemies of Cyril to render him odious was the Murder of Hypatia the famous She-Philosopher She it seems was barbarously murder'd but by whom or upon what occasion is not certain Socrates makes the occasion to have been this Socr. l. 7. c. 15. That she being frequently with the Governour was suspected to do Cyril evil offices and to disswade the Governour from being reconciled to him therefore some Zealots watched her and barbarously Murder'd her among whom was one Peter a Reader of the Church and an admirer of Cyril And this continues the same Historian brought a great reproach upon Cyril and the Church of Alexandria But he cannot charge the Bishop of being by any means conscious to it and though it were done upon his account by violent heady Zealots yet he could be no further guilty than he contributed to it by his countenance or consent Suidas in Damascius Damascius in the life of Isidore the Husband of this Hypatia charges Cyril directly with this Murder but his credit signifies very little as being in the first place a Heathen and a violent enemy of the Christians and secondly being more remote from these times for he liv'd in the reign of Justinian Vales Annot in Socr. l. 7. c. 15. Valesius cites the passage at large out of him and promises to publish much more of him than we have had hitherto This is taken out of Suidas who I believe cites the whole out of this Author In the beginning he makes it dubious
but one son but how one in dignity and title only as we have shew'd before but that unity was of persons i. e. really distinct according to his notion taking person properly for an intelligent subsistence and not for a notional unity of two things really distinct in the participation of the same common name or title which was really the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Nestorius And Mr. B. is so confident of this notion of his as to conclude with his defiance to all gain-sayers This is true whatsoever faction shall say against it If it were a Faction that spoke against this truth it was a mighty strong and general Faction and was never oppos'd by any person before Mr. B. For then all sides granted they disagreed one from the other and succeeding ages were of the same opinion and all the factions in the world agreed in this that Nestorius and those that oppos'd him spoke absolute contradictions to each other The next remarkable thing that our Author cites out of the debate of this Council p. 104. is that about the words of Cyril which in the next Paragraph he calls Eutychian words they are these We must not conceive two natures in Christ but one Incarnate These words may sound harsh to one that is not acquainted with Cyril's manner of expressing himself But they are not yet Eutychians For Eutyches his opinion is condemn'd by Eustathius who cites these words of Cyril immediately after He that says there is but one nature so as to deny Christs flesh which is consubstantial with us So Mr. B. translates indeed out of the Latin Translator who mistook the sense of this place The words of Eustathius were these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that affirms one nature to the taking away of the consubstantiality of Christs flesh to ours or to the denying that his flesh is of the same substance with ours let him be accurs'd Which was the doctrine of Eutyches whereof he was convicted by several Witnesses in the Council of C. P. and Basil Seleuc. Act. 2. one of the clearest men in all this Council makes a wide difference between saying one nature incarnate or of the word incarnate and one nature absolutely which was the errour of Eutyches as he affirm'd Though in the Council of C. P. Eutyches makes use of the same expression unless we may think those Acts corrupted by the Council of Ephesus in favour of Eutyches as Flavian complains they were to render his opinion more plausible I have shew'd before how ill the notion of Cyril about the Incarnation did agree with that of Eutyches Mr. B. had great reason to note the Impudence of Binius in calling this allegation of Eustathius out of Cyril to be Wicked and Heretical since he does no more than cite Cyril's words but this remark is left out of latter Editions After this Mr. B. brings in Dioscorus defending himself by the authority of Cyril p. 104. sect 22. who maintains one nature incarnate and then concludes I am condemn'd with the Fathers they say the same that I do I must repeat therefore once more what I had said before that Dioscorus was not condemn'd for Heresie but for condemning and murdering Flavian c. p. 104. And although our Author seems to be dissatisfy'd that when Dioscorus offers satisfaction to God and you i. e. Eusebius Doryl his repentance was not accepted yet I suppose he is not in earnest for upon other occasions he is inexorable in much lesser matters and surely if any Misdemeanours may depose a Bishop that has nothing to plead but the Orthodoxness of his belief Dioscorus was justly condemn'd and yet our Author observes that a verbal quarrel was turn'd to personal revenge because Eusebius Doryl reply'd upon Dioscorus that he must satisfie the law Mr. B. concludes his citations out of the first Action of this Council with the subscriptions of the Bishops in the Council of Ephesus whereby they absolv'd Eutyches which being read in the Council of Chalcedon the Bishops concern'd had no excuse but to cry Omnes peccavimus Our Author it seems takes great delight in repeating as often as he can this recantation of those Bishops looking upon it I suppose as a great undervaluing and reproach to confess an errour The Spirit of Schism is very nice in point of honour and reckons nothing so great a disgrace as the acknowledgement of a mistake where it is once engag'd no conviction shall be able to reclaim it though it be in the most indefensible thing in the World And though interest and conscience should oblige to return yet in honour he must not recede nor recant what no Rhetorick is able to palliate Recantation whether they be in the right or the wrong appears equally infamous A late brisk defender of Non-conformity out of fondness for a smart saying in Religio Medici has dropp'd an unlucky truth that he is not so much afraid as asham'd of Conformity I have charity enough to believe him that he is indeed asham'd of owning that which he has so fiercely oppos'd not so much by his reasoning as by his ill manners and scurrility For my part I do not envy these men this inflexible stiffness of Spirit but do sincerely pity them although the witty Author just now mention'd has derided Compassion no less than Mr. B. has Repentance and Recantation However I had rather be found among those Bishops that cry'd Peccavimus after a fault which yet had all the excuses that can be made from violence and compulsion than to maintain a Schism upon a point of honour and for shame of confessing to have been in the wrong In the third Action among many things p. 104. our Abridger of Church-History fastens upon the law of Theodosius for the confirming of the second Ephesine Council and the Condemnation of Nestorius and of Flavianus Domnus c. One would expect here that our Historian being tir'd with throwing dirt at the Bishops and their Councils should divert the outragious Spirit by giving him one loose at Emperours and Courts But no such matter he scorns to change his game and therefore charges the Bishops with the faults of the Magistrate and lays all the blame upon them So far says he could fierce and factious Prelates prevail with a pious and peaceable Prince by the pretences of opposing Heresie and Schism And what authority has our Author to ground this observation upon What if the Eunuchs and Courtiers prevail'd upon the Emperour Niceph. l. 14. Synod Eph. Dios◠Elib Synodico and the Emperour prevail'd upon some Bishops by fair means upon others by force to condemn those persons as Hereticks and to make way for his Edict against them what then will you say no extraordinary matter Only Mr. B. when he comes to make observations mistakes the Fact and the more bitter and malicious he endeavours to be the greatest oversights he usually commits It was once the hard fortune of the
to reckon only since the Reformation for if a man be not blind he may see that this worshipful Church History is only design'd against Protestant Bishops under a general name They I suppose will receive ample Testimony from the Government of their faithfulness and Loyalty How many acts of Oblivion have been made for Bishops and their Party Where were they seen encouraging Rebels against their Prince with the hopes of Salvation What Reign have they disturb'd here with their Seditions or whose Government were they enemies to unless it were that of a Rebellious piece of a Parliament and Oliver Cromwel and his Son the David and Solomon of Mr. Baxter But Loyalty has hitherto been the greatest crime of our Bishops and long may they continue to fear God and the King more than the Insolence of any faction and I pray God they may always preserve Inviolable that great Treasure committed to them and the greatest next that of the Faith the honour of the most Loyal Church in the World Now although the Bishops of the Church of England since the Reformation need no defence in this particular the merit of their Loyalty being so well known and what other Bishops may do does not concern us yet because in this Treatise I have undertaken the defence of the Primitive Church and by consequence of our own it will be necessary to add something upon this subject by way of answer to such particulars as Mr. B. has brought together to shew the seditious Practices of the Bishops The first thing he takes to task Treatise of Episcop part c. 22. is an old Maxim of King James no Bishop no King which is represented here as if the Bishops were the Authors of it and if the Presbyterian had say'd no Prebyters no King you would have taken it for Treasonable as if they had threatned that the King shall not be King unless they may have their way and shall not the King be King unless you may be Bishops It is well for the Bishops that none of them was Author of that Dangerous saying else I perceive it might bear an impeachment and prove by little management at least Constructive Treason but the Authority of a King may excuse him of Treason against himself though the Scotch Presbyterians have declared him a Traytor to Jesus Christ and the Holy Kirk And surely that King had some reason to say it for it is not likely he should pass such a complement upon the Bishops and make them so necessary to Monarchy if he had not found some great suitableness in this Church government to that of the State The truth is that saying of King James was the Result of a long experience of a Turbulent Seditious ungovernable Presbytery in Scotland and how little he was a King while he was among them the Historians of those times as Spotswood Johnston and others do sufficiently shew Or if you would have a more particular description of the Insolencies and enchroachments of that Presbyterian Clergy look into the Burden of Isscahar and you will soon find reason enough for this Maxim But Mr. B. goes about gravely to Confute this as an affected fiction without proof Ch. H. p. 2. â— 2 c. 22. For 1. Heathen Emperors were without Bishops 2. follows the insinuation of Treason 3. What is in the nature of the Thing to Warrant this assertion They owne every Text and Article for Monarchy as well as Prelacy c. and the same reason Holland and Venice must have no Bishops Would not a man wonder that any one should make so great a stir about such a little saying Suppose it is not absolutely impossible but Kings may be without Bishops or Presbyters either what then Why then King James was mistaken in his Politicks when he said No Bishop no King There is no necessity of that neither for all Maxims in Morality and Policy are not to be used so unmercifully as to be judged according to the rigour of the letter He spoke this with regard to his own experience and his own case and the Anti-Episcopal men made his words good by destroying Bishops first and the King after when this or that sort of men is made either necessary or destructive to government the meaning is that either their Principles or Practices or interest do either support and assure or else overthrow and endanger the State and that their practices upon all occasions are generally suitable to their principles This will be clearer by these instances Popery is generally look'd upon as a Religion destructive of Civil power and not without reason Must there therefore be no government where there is Popery The Kingdoms of France Spain and Poland and several other Countreys do manifest the contrary The Jesuits are look'd upon as the great Incendiarys of the world and that no place can be at peace where they have any influence and yet they are entertain'd in all Popish Countries Is the general charge therefore of Sedition against these false and groundless No such matter Suppose then among Christians one should say with regard to us no Protestants no King I suppose there would be no such mighty absurdity in it Therefore if the Principles of those that were Anti-Episcopal were look'd upon by that wise King as Anti-Monarchical too and the Doctrine of the Bishops was much more safe to the Government it was ground enough for the saying And now to vindicate those Primitive Bishops from the imputation of Sedition that he has charg'd in this chapter with desturbing the Church and the world The first thing Mr. B. lays to the charge of Bishops is the Usurpation of Popish Prelacy Do you not know saith he that where Prelacy is at the highest there Kings and Emperors have been at the lowest Do you not know how the Papal Prelacy at present usurpeth one part of their Government and is ready to take away the other when ever Kings displease them c. Is it the Bishop or the Papist that is here to blame Is this the effect of their Order or of those pernicious principles they have inbib'd If it was the fault of the Bishops then we must find the same practice in other Ages or if the Popish Bishops are dangerous to Government are their Presbyters less to be fear'd The Jesuits before our Civil Wars us'd all the interest they had to prevent sending of Popish Bishops into England It was not I suppose out of any great affection to us or regard to the Peace of the Kingdom but because they thought Bishops unnecessary since Priests and Jesuits could do more mischief without them But the same reason that renders Popish Priests and Bishops so dangerous to Government renders the Presbyterians so too But first let us examine Mr. B.'s instances of more ancient Episcopal Sedition The first is at Alexandria in the time of Theophilus and Cyril which I have consider'd already I need say no more here than 1. That the Alexandrians
for his Banishment Theod. l. 4. c. 13. tells him If the people should know it they would drown him in the-river Euphrates What would they say if our Churches were such as this Orthodox Episcopal Church was What ever they would say of the people they must needs commend your Ministers But the case is very much alter'd Here a Bishop leaves his people rather than occasion any disorder With you the Pastors perswade the people that notwithstanding all the laws to the contrary they must not desert their Pastors Here the People were incensed with the apprehension of Arianism which overthrew the Foundation of the Faith with you there is no such reason since you all confess we are agreed in the Substantials of Religion and yet the Teachers press their Congregatios to stand by them against the Government Here a good Bishop would not be prevailed upon by any intreaties to return against the Emperors command to the manifest endangering of the publick peace and desire them to have patience and submit to Authority The Presbyterians Teachers when they had opportunity did inflame the people against the Government and by their seditious preaching kindled the late Rebellion What would we say then if you were like this Church of Samosata that lovded their Bishop and would be govern'd by him and take his advice when he disswaed them from tumult and sedition We would say then that tho' the first heats were not warantable yet that you would be much better than you are and the Government could be much more secure of you than it is Mr. B. pursues this instance farther and adds Theod. l. 4. c. 14. When the Emperors Arian Bishop was set over them not one of all the people would come to the Church as they were used to do Would not wash in the same water c. do our hearers deal as harshly as this How shall a man deal with those that have no Conscience but against Ceremonies and Episcopacy Is there any resemblance between our case and this The Arians as Mr. B. confesses deny'd by direct consequence the Being of Christ and is it any wonder that Orthodox Believers should have such abhorrence of these men If any of our Bishops Nay if an Angel from Heaven should preach such Doctrine as this let him be Anathema and be abhorr'd as much as you please In the mean time they are but in evil case that depend upon the Authority of your instances for Separation and will believe they are moderate Men because they do not use Orthodox rightful Bishops as harshly as the Orthodox did the Arian Usurpers Although they have no great reason to boast of their civility upon this account it being easy to shew out of their writings and Sermons to say nothing of their common conversation such Language as a Christian ought to be ashamed of But these good men are too much mortified to blush and keep their blood so much in subjection that they never suffer it upon any provocation to flush into their faces After this we have another story of the Virgins that sung in reproach of Julian the Apostate Who can help Libels Theod. l. 3. c. 13. and Lampoons from stealing out against one that is generally hated Did any of the Christians enter into any combination against him or declare it lawful to Rebel Presently we have another story of the Church of Edessa that would assemble notwithstanding the Emperors commands to the contrary And what is all this to the purpose Did not the Primitive Christians do so too and suffer'd Martyrdom for it But did they ever enter into Covenants and Practices against the State No here is mention of a poor Woman that made hast to the Assembly when she knew it would be disturb'd by Souldiers and in probability be massacred but what to do to see how manfully a field Conventicle would be have it self or to plunder the Baggage of the assailants when they should be put to the rout No such thing but with a design to suffer Martyrdom and to dye tamely with the rest for the profession of the Faith In the next place We have Basil 's answer to the Prefect Theod. Hist l. 4. c. 19. when he offered him the Emperours favour upon condition he would turn Arian which our Author with great ingenuity forgets This sayes he may take with Children c. And as for the Emperors friendship I much value it joyned with Godliness but if it want that I say it is pernicious Upon this our Author remarks In one of us this Answer would have been enough to make us seem as bad as it made Basil esteemed good I must ask your pardon if in this point I am not of your Opinion For when your circumstances are the same with Basils I believe you may follow his example and they are unreasonable men that will find fault that when any King or Emperors fayour upon Earth is offered you upon condition to betray the Faith you should reject it with indignation But the difference between the substance and indifferent circumstances of Religion strangely alters the case There is a great deal more to this effect of the Orthodox refusing to conform to and keeping separate assemblies from the Arians which as they do not prove Sedition against those that were then Non conformists so they do not excuse ours And this must be added that in all these lamentable distractions of the Church we find no Orthodox Bishop animate the people against the government what persecution soever they suffer'd but on the contrary restraining all Tendencies to Rebellion and withdrawing themselves when the Popular favour towards them grew inordinate and uncontroulable whereas too many of our Schismatical Presbyters have kindled and fomented Sedition Mr. B. saith Audas a Bishop in Persia demolish'd their Temple or Pyreum by violence for which the Emperor of Persia kill'd him Theodor. l. 5. c. 39. and destroy'd all the Christian Churches And Audas was very much to blame and the fact was disowned generally and Theodoret condemns it and antiquity never approv'd it But who follows the example of this Zealot Bishop I am sure our Episcopal men are far enough from any such imputation But there are men in the world that Mr. B. knows who have not destroy'd Pagan Temples but Christian Churches and some were so zealous as to move for the pulling of them all down as polluted with superstition What Theodoret says of Julian calling him Tyrant which Mr. B. takes notice of was after Julian's Death and therefore could not tend to Sedition But whoever animated the people to resist him His Apostacy indeed being inexcuseable people took the Liberty to give him such a Character as he deserv'd when he was dead and his successours were not at all concern'd in it as having no relation to him Isaak as Mr. B. observes l. 4. c. 34. spake to Valens with great boldness but it was with the assurance of a
reverence to Ambrose but for fear of Valentinian's preparation accepted a Peace But this Vsurper faith Mr. B. wrote Letters to Valentinian in favour of the Orthodox Bishops and St. Ambrose Who can help it if a busy Usurper will be forward to concern himself in matters that do not belong to him But lest the Reader may suspect any treacherous correspondence between those Bishops and this Usurper Amb. Ep. 27. I will give a brief account of Ambrose his negotiation with him When Maximus had seised that part of the Western Empire that Gratian was possessed of Valentinian fearing lest the Tyrant should invade his Countries sends St. Ambrose to mediate a peace Maximus having understood that Valentinian was making some preparations against him and had entertained the Huns and other Auxiliaries began to incline to an accommodation looking upon the Invasion of Italy as too hazardous an attempt Therefore he sent some of his Officers to meet Ambrose and to offer him a peace which afterwards was concluded upon these Terms That Maximus should be owned Emperour and retain all the Countries he was possessed of This was the first Embassy of Ambrose in which negotiation it was not so much to do Honour to Ambrose as out of fear of Gratians preparations that Maximus did forbear invading Italy But when this Usurper perceived that Valentinians affairs were not in so good a posture as he imagined at first he was vexed that he had let so fair an opportunity slip of adding the Dominions of Valentinian to his other Conquests Upon this he begins to pick quarrels with Valentinian to take the part of the Orthodox Bishops nay of the Heathens and every one that had reason of discontent calling himself Procuratorem Reipublicae Valentinian jealous of his designs sends Ambrose a second time to desire Gratians body and likely to sound Maximus This good Bishop was entertained this time but very coldly The Usurper reproached him with having imposed upon him before and keeping him out of Italy The Bishop replyed that it was not he but his own fears that prevailed with him and in short when Ambrose would not communicate with him nor his Bishops because he looked upon him as a man of blood He was sent back without having been able to effect any thing and with no better answer than that Maximus would consider of it This is the summ of this negotiation as Ambrose himself and Paulinus in his life gives an account of it And now if any disloyalty can be suspected in Ambrose and the Orthodox Bishops it must be such a secret as was never yet revealed Whereas nothing is more evident from these Relations than the integrity of that Bishop and his extraordinary affection towards his Prince and Country For from what has been already said we may observe 1. That Ambrose was not only a dutiful Subject but as himself sayes though without vanity the Father or Guardian of his Prince 2. The confidence his Prince had in his integrity when after so great and fresh Provocations he would trust him with his life and Empire and that although he had been provoked in the most tender part by his Princess indeavours for the introducing of Arianism Others perhaps if they had been in his condition would have looked upon this Tyrants declaring for the Truth as such an opportunity that Providence had offered for the preservation of the Faith and since the Empress was of a false Religion and the Emperour was Governed by her why should noâ— they set up this Maximus as the Protector of the true Faith But Ambrose and the Bishops were of another mind They knew what it was to Dye for their Religion but did not understand what it was to brigue or to resist I have thus far observ'd with Mr. B. what this Usurper Maximus did in favour of the Bishops how he studied to please and rise by them The next thing we ought to enquire after is what success his Design upon the Bishops produced and whether they answer'd his kindnesses by forming any interest to support his Pretensions or by declaring in his favour Mr. B. gives a full account of it in these words and the said Maximus and the Bishops did so close that only one Hyginus a Bishop is mention'd and Theognostus besides Ambrose and Martin that rejected Maximus I shall grant Mr. B. here more than he desires The truth is that even those Bishops that he says rejected Maximus did Really own him for Emperor as having all the Confirmation the Laws of that time did require and it is a mistake of Mr. B. before where he tells us that Ambrose would not Communicate with the Bishops because they own'd Maximus whereas all the quarrel of St. Martin and Theognostus was against his proceedings with the Priscillianists and his Murdering of Gratian if he Murder'd him But for all that they own'd him to be Emperor as much as those did that Communicated with him Ambrose would not Communicate with Theodosius upon the like account but never disown'd his Authority as Emperor all that while what Hyginus did Mr. B. cannot tell without Revelation he was bannish'd by Maximus as St. Ambrose tells us but the Reason is not express'd Well then if all this be true Mr. B's Observation will be so too That Bishops can comply with Vsurpers that will be for them as well as Presbyters What they can do is not our Question but this instance of Maximus I am sure does not discover in them any great inclination to it for how I pray did these Bishops comply with that Usurper Were any of them instrumental to his Advancement did they Preach up his cause and the lawfulness of his Revolt Did they ever press the people to bring in their Plate and Contributions Or after his successes and the Murder of Gratian did any of these Bishops justifie the Usurpers Proceedings and preach and print in defence of that Barbarous Regicide did they flatter him as the Preserver of Religion the David the Champion of Israel I believe one much better vers'd in Antiquity than Mr. B. will find it a hard task to find out any Books or Dedications of Bishops to this effect But Mr. B. can tell who Printed and Preach'd and gathered subscriptions for the Approbation of the most execrable Regicide committed under the Sun and others can say something though at present it is not necessary to be particular Well But as to the Bishops that own'd Maximus what sort of compliance was theirs What did they do so much in favour of the Usurper When he had Conquer'd the Countrys where they liv'd and been own'd by both the Emperors Reigning then they submitted to him that is they did not think themselves oblig'd to Rebel or to stir up the People against him that was none of their business and therefore they meddled not with it And in short we do not find they studied any other complyance than only to be quiet and to do their own business
Mr. B. tells us that Treatise of Episc p. 1. p. 164. The Church of Scotland is an Eminent instance that Churches which have no Bishops have incomparably less Heresie Schism wickedness and more concord than we have here For the concord of that Church it was much greater while it continu'd under Superintendents and Bishops than it has been since Andrew Melvil diiturli'd it with the Perfection of the Geneva Discipline and Government For a long time after all the Disputes about Religion were reduc'd into one point of Ecclesiastical sovereign jurisdiction which they disputed against the King and the Government with such perpetual Seditions and Treasons as at last engag'd three Kingdoms in most unnatural and bloody Wars which ended in the slavery of them all and particularly of those that were the first Incendiaries through the wise and just judgment of God What Schism there arose in the late times between the disciplinarians and the rest and what disturbances the same sort of men have given of late is too well known to need a relation and the field Conventieles still witness But because Mr. B. would perswade us that there is such great concord to be found in Anti-Episcopal Churches and particularly in this I will give one Instance that shall let the reader see how far this way is from establishing a lasting Concord and withal how this parity that is pretended is really no more than a pretence the leading men against Bishops commonly assuming greater authority and exercising it with greater Absoluteness and more Impatient of being oppos'd and contradicted than any Bishops who are legally Invested with power There happen'd a great division in the Presbytery of St. Spotswood H. of Scot. 1.6 Andrews about preferring a Minister to the Church of Luchars There were two pretenders and Melvil with a few more was for one and the rest who were three times as many in number were for the other Melvil looking upon himself as an Apostle and disdaining to be overrul'd by the Majority of the Presbytery left the place and with his six Presbyters that follow'd him made another Synod by himself and both these Presbyters like Anti. Popes Issu'd out their several pleasures The Gentlemen of the Parish upon this were divided into factions some holding with one and some with the other which occasioned great scandal and the heats grew to that height that the Presbytery was forc'd to be divided one part of it to sit at St. Andrews the other at Couper the one under the Influence of Melvil and the other under that of Th. Buchanan so hard it was for one Presbyterial Diocese to hold two Topping Presbyters The observation that follows the relation of this difference in Spotswood is very remarkable Thus was that great strife pacifi'd which many held to be Ominous p. 386. and that the Government which in the beginning did break forth into such Schisms could not long continue for this every man noted That of all men none could worse endure Parity and lov'd more to Command than they who had introduc'd it into the Church This sort of men did afterwards make not only a formal Schism and insurrection against those Bishops plac'd over them by authority but after that Episcopacy was abolish'd in Scotland could be as little at peace among themselves They were in the first place divided about the receiving the King and the Conditions to be Impos'd upon him and in this they proceeded even to the Excommunication of one another After his Majesties Restauration when Episcopacy was again establish'd in the Church the Presbyterians who separated from the Communion of the Bishops were divided yet among themselves some accepting the Kings Indulgence and Licence to Preach others renouncing it as derogatory to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ and upon this they parted Communion Nor could these resolute Renouncers of Indulgence agree yet among themselves about the measure of their Contempt of authority some were content to Conventicle and Preach against the Kings order and carry their Contempt no farther the others under Cameron were more fiercely Zealous and thought themselves oblig'd by the Covenant to attempt the deposing of the King as they manifested besides their several Writings to that effect by two formal Rebellions These are the fruits this the Peace and Unity that Presbytery and the Scotch Covenant produc'd the Covenant so much Idolz'd once by our Presbyterians of England and which notwithstanding all the Mischiefs that attended it here and do still issue from it in Scotland they are yet loth to renounce though required so to do by all the Authority in the Nation But what is all this to Congregational Episcopacy It is not Presbytery but this that Mr. B. Contends for He is for Bishops and would only pare off the superfluities of their Dioceses and reduce them to their first bounds To which I answer First That Mr. B.'s Congregational Bishop and Parish Presbyter is all one and he has taken so much pains to prove it in his Treatise of Episcopacy that it were an injury to his sincerity to question his opinion of it But Secondly That there was some necessity to say all this of Presbyterian Governments being subject to Heresies and Schisms as well as Episcopal because Mr. B. himself had made the comparison between them and charg'd all Schisms and Heresies upon Diocesan Episcopacy as the fault of the constitution it was therefore necessary to see how all sorts of Governments of the Church as well as of the State may be disturb'd by evil and factious men and are subject to great inconveniences when they fall into evil hands But then what Schisms can be imputed to this Congregational way This cannot well be answered without asking a question was this Congregational Episcopacy ever establish'd in any Churches If not it will be as hard a matter to shew what mischief it has occasion'd as it is to discover what Civil Wars happen'd in Plato's Common-wealth or to reckon the Differences of Sects of Philosophers in the College of Atlantis If this Government has been set up any where it is but naming the time and place and it may be that some account may be given of the Schisms and Heresies that molested it Mr. B. contends it was the first Apostolical and Scripture constitution and shews at large that a Church was but one Congregation and a Bishop could have but one Church Well but there were Schisms and Heresies then and St. Paul makes frequent complaints of them Or if this sort of Government continu'd for some Centuries after as Mr. B. would make it appear it must be likewise granted that there never were greater and more Blasphemous Heresies than in those times and for Schisms they could not be avoided it seems and though a Diocese were but one Congregation the Presbyters could not agree who should govern that but divided it into separate Assemblies But to this Mr. B. Answers 2 Dispute about Ordination p. 329. That
are transcribed out of Mr. Baxter with little of Improvement or Addition One would think a diligent Man might find good Gleaning after Mr. B. but Dr. O's Book it seems is answered already by an unknown Hand But there is a later Book published under the Title of No Evidence for Diocesan Churches c. in the Primitive Times in Answer to the Dean of St. Paul 's Allegations out of Antiquity for such Churches c. But no Reply being yet made that I know of to those Exceptions I shall endeavor to take off such of them as may concern me 1. I have endeavored to prove that the Church of Carthage in Cyprian's Time was Diocesan and among other things urge for it the Multitude of Presbyters that belong'd to that Church even in the time of Persecution when the greatest part of the Clergy was fallen off The Author above-mentioned excepts against this where it is alleadg'd by the Dean of S. Paul's and offers two things in Answer 1. A Passage out of Bishop Downham That indeed at the first Conversions of Cities the whole Number of the People converted being sometimes not much greater than the Number of Presbyters plac'd among them were able to make but a small Congregation But this Allegation can be of little Vse because 1. This was not the Case of the Church of Carthage it was not a new converted Church but settled long before and in a flourishing Condition 2. Many more Presbyters may be ordain'd in a City than is necessary for the first Beginnings of a Church with respect to future Encrease and for the Service of such as afterwards should believe So that tho' there might be in a new gather'd Church almost as many Presbyters as there are People yet the Design of that number of Officers may be for several Congregations when the Believers of that place should become so numerous as not to be contain'd in one 3. The Multitude of Presbyters belonging to one Congregational Church might be occasioned by the uncertain Abode of most of the Apostles and their Commissioners who are the Principal if not the only Ordainers of Presbyters mentioned in Scripture Therefore they might ordain more than were just necessary for the present Occasions of a Church because they could not be present to ordain as often as the Increase of a Church or Vacancies or other Necessities of it should require But that any Church fix'd and settled having its Bishop always present should multiply Presbyters beyond Necessity in the Circumstances of the Primitive Christians before Constantine is altogether incredible For the necessary Expences of the Church were very great the Poor numerous the generality of Christians not of the Richest and the Estates they had being at the Discretion of their Enemies and ruin'd with perpetual Persecution Is it credible that persons in this Condition would multiply Officers without Necessity who were to be maintain'd out of the Public Stock as Cyprian affirms the Presbyters of Carthage were And lastly if this Opinion of Bishop Downham had any certain Ground in Antiquity We should probably hear of it with both Ears and we should have it recommended upon Ancienter Authority than His But the first which this Author cites is Nazianzen who complains of the Multitude of Presbyters in his Time This has been already alleadg'd by Mr. Baxter and has received Answer and he that cannot answer it to himself from the great difference between the Condition of the Church in Cyprian and in Nazianzen's Time has a fondness for the Argument beyond my Skill to remove The next Instance of the number of Presbyters belonging to the great Church of C. P. St. Sophia the greatest perhaps in the World will do as little Service as the complaint of Nazianzen Justinian says that Gentleman Observing that Officers in Churches were multiply'd beyond reason and measure takes order that they should be reduc'd to the numbers of the first Establishment but in the great Church at C. P. he would have the Presbyters brought down to Sixty And what follows from this That the Number of Presbyters was become extravagant in Justinian's Time but what is this to their Number in Cyprian's For this very Edict of Justinian shews that this multiplying of Church-Officers was an Innovation and therefore would have them reduc'd to the first Establishment but that first Establishment it seems admitted great Numbers for one Church had Sixty True but it must also be noted first that these sixty were to serve more than one Church For there were three more besides St. Sophia to be supply'd by those Presbyters as may be seen in the Constitution Nov. 3. c. 1. viz. St. Mary's Church and that of Theodorus the Martyr and that of Helena as some but of Irene as others read Yet after all there is no Argument to be drawn from this Number for these were Canons of a particular Foundation design'd for the Service of a Collegiate Church and no measure to be taken from hence concerning the Numbers of Presbyters belonging to the Diocess This is evident from the Preface of the said Novel whither I refer the Reader But I must confess that what this Gentleman adds concerning the Church of Constantinople is something surprizing No doubt says he they the Presbyters were more numerous in C. P. in Constantine's Time who endeavor'd to make that City in all things equal to Rome and built two Churches in it Soz. l. 2. c. 2. yet in the latter end of his Reign after the Death of Arrius the Christians there could all meet together for Worship It is said expresly that Alexander Bishop of that Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Constantine built two Churches in C. P. Sozomen does not say but that he built many and very great Churches there Soz. l. 2. c. 3. Ed. Vales. Euseb de vit Const l. 3. c. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the same manner Eusebius says that he adorn'd the City that he called after his own Name with many Churches and great Temples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some within the City and in the Suburbs of it Nor can we imagine that two Churches much less one could suffice all the Christians in C.P. when the City of Heliopolis being converted to Christianity requir'd more and Constantine built several for them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soc. l. 1. c. 18. i. e. Having built several Churches he ordered a Bishop but one for all those Churches and Clergy to be ordain'd there Socrates indeed says that Constantine built two Churches in C. P. and names them but does not say either that there were no more there in his Time or that he built no more but these being remarkable for the Magnificence of the Structure are perhaps upon that account only mention'd by this Author But we have shew'd already from other Writers of as good or better Credit That this Emperor built there very many and very Great Churches Nor were these only for State and
an extraordinary Zeal for Religion and that oftentimes made them take Alarme when it was not in any extream danger and if their Knowledge and Discretion were not always proportionable to their Zeal surely among Christians it might be allowed to the Frailty of Humane Nature and the Sincerity of a good meaning If they differ'd sometimes among themselves and were warmer than is fit in their Disputes consider that the Apostles themselves had their Misunderstandings and their Contentions sometimes Peter was to be blamed and Barnabas was carried away The Churches founded by the Apostles were immediately divided about Opinions which were presently determined in Council and yet we do not find that the Controversie was at an end Should any one therefore so abridge the History of the Apostles as to represent nothing of them but their unhappy Contention and leave them under the odious Characters of Disturbers of the World and Dividers of the Church would it not justly pass for a Libel against Christianity It were disingenious and base even in an Enemy in a Christian I know not how to call it Having paid this duty to the honour of Religion by a general Vindication of it from such Consequences as might be drawn from this Church History against the Intention of the Author I come now to his design which is laid down page 27. To shew the Ignorant so much of the matter of Fact as may tell them who have been the Cause of all Church-Corruption Heresies Schisms Seditions c. And whether such Diocesan Prelacies and Grandure be the Cure or ever was But surely this is not the way of cureing Church-divisions thus to exasperate These Reproaches cannot serve to heal but to fret and inflame the Wound I have some hopes that I shall be able to shew the Reader so much of the matter of Fact too as may let him see how much he has been imposed on by this History and that all Corruptions and Schisms are very injuriously and against all Truth of History charg'd upon the Bishops Yet suppose the Charge be true is it such a Wonder that men of great Talents and great Authority do sometimes abuse them and by that means become the Cause of Church-Corruptions Private men though neither better nor wiser than the Bishops have not the Opportunity of doing so much either Good or Hurt and their Mistakes or Vices do not draw after them so great Consequences This Accusation though it may serve to render Bishops odious is yet of use to prove their Authority and their ancient possession of the right of governing the Church like his who would prove that they have troubled the World ever since the Apostles time If the abuse of this Power be sufficient reason to take it away or to render it odious what will become of preaching and writing Books What will become of Scripture and Conscience Let him still exclaim the Bishops have been the Authors of all Corruption and Schism were they not Christians and Men as well as Bishops and if a Heathen or a Jew should not lay such a Stress upon the name of Bishop but put that of a Christian in it's place and then make a great Outery wicked Christians turbulent Christians would not this reasoning hold as well as Mr. B's or if some of the graver Beasts should recover the Conversation they had in Aesop's days and talk judicially might not they bray aloud Horrible men Abominable men that will never agree or understand one another and then conclude with the Ass in the Satyr Ma foy non plus que nous l'home n'est qu'une bête Be the Bishops whose History Mr. B. writes as bad as he will have them how will this concern the rest of that order unless they will follow their Examples and own their Corruptions Machiavel was of Opinion that the greatest part of men were Rogues and Knaves but what is that to You and I let every man bear his own Burden But Mr. B. is resolved to cut off this Retreat and to level his Charge not so much against the Persons as the office of Bishops and to this effect he explains himself p. 22. There is an Episcopacy whose very Constitution is a Crime and there is another that seems to me a thing convenient lawful and indifferent and there is a sort which I cannot deny to be of divine Right Here we have three sorts of Bishops and this is pretty reasonable and compendious but in another Book which he refers to in this he gives no less than twelve Disput of Ch. Government p. 14. dividing was much in Fashion at that time though commonly it was without a difference and as they could make a sort of Seekers that neither sought nor found so he gives several sorts of Bishops that were no more so than he or I nay in this Abridgment of the great Division I believe the Members will be concident and that it is but a little artificial Illusion of Mr. B. that makes them appear several take away the little corner'd glass and that great multitude of pieces we saw are in a moment reduced to one poor Six-pence well let us see then what this criminal sort of Episcopacy is and what Mr. B. has to lay to it's Charge That Episcopacy which I take in it self to be a Crime is such as is afore-mentioned p. 22. which in it's very Constitution overthrows the Office Church and Discipline which Christ by himself and his Spirit in his Apostles instituted this is criminal indeed and a thousand Pities it should stand one Moment But where shall we find this Abomination it is not far of if his Judgment may be taken for Such says he I take to be that Diocesan kind ibid. which has only one Bishop over many Score or Hundred fixt parochial Assemblies Is this then their Crime that they have many fixt parochial Assemblies under their Government Had not the Apostles Had not the Evangelists so too And was that Constitution criminal Had not the Bishops of St. Jerom's Notion several fixt Assemblies That Father did indeed maintain that the poor Bishop of Eugubium was as much a Bishop as he of Rome but he little thought that he was more so or that the Extent of the Roman Diocess had chang'd the very Species of it's Church Government Hieron Ep. ad Evagr. he thought they were both of the same sort and that the single and small Congregation of the one and the numerous Assembly under the Inspection of the other had made no difference at all in the nature or constitution of their Episcopacy he communicated with and submitted himself in Questions of the highest moment to the Bishop of Rome Vid Hier. Ep. ad Damas which considering the Temper of the man and his Contempt of the World he would hardly have done if he had judged him an Usurper but would rather have joyned himself to the poor Bishop of Eugubium and done all possible
Countenance to that Primitive and Apostolick Constitution of Episcopacy But let St. Jerom think as he pleases Mr. B. is of another Opinion and now let us consider his Reasons By this means says he parochial Assemblies are made by them the Bishops no Churches p. 22. § 55. as having no ruling Pastors that have the Power of judging who to baptize or admit to Communion or Refuse but only of Chappels having Preaching Curates But must every Parish be an independent Church and exercise all Authority and Jurisdiction within it's self May not several Parishes associate under the Discipline of the same Bishop but that they must be unchurch'd If it be no Church that has no Bishop what will become of all Presbyterian Churches that are subject to Classes do not they unchurch Parishes as well as Bishops But they are made no Churches for want of governing Pastors this is a great Mistake every Parish with us has a governing Pastor but it is in Subordination to the Bishop and with Exception to some Acts that concern the general Union of all the Parishes associated Is he no Governour because he is not Independent Is he no Officer that is subordinate At this rate every Constable should be a King and every Captain a General But our Pastors Mr. B. says have not the Power of judging whom to Baptize this is a Calumny that has not the least Shadow of Truth and the contrary is notorious That they have no power to admit to Communion or Refuse is not true they have Power to admit any one that is not excommunicated or naturally incapable and they may likewise refuse the Communion to such as they judge notoriously unfit but must afterwards approve their reasons to the Bishop Several have used their Liberty and Discretion in this point without Offence however it is but fit that since the peace of the Church does greatly depend upon the right Application of Church-censures there should be a Restraint laid upon ordinary Ministers in this particular yet there is no Church-censure can have any effect without the Consent of the Minister of that Parish where he lives against whom it is directed The Ministers Refusal indeed may expose him to great Inconveniences and it is but just when his Refusal is only the effect of Opposition yet he has time and opportunity to produce his Reasons and why should he despair in a just Canse of convincing his Ordinary However though the Power of Church-censures be not allowed Parish Presbyters under Diocesan Episcopacy it is no Diminution of the right for neither under the Apostles nor the Primitive Bishops did they ever exercise it as principals or independent 2. Mr. B's second Reason against Diocesan Episcopacy is p. 22. That all the first Order of Bishops in single Churches is depos'd as if the Bishop of Antioch should have put down a thousand Bishops about him and made himself the sole Bishop of the Churches This reason goes upon the same Supposition with the other that every single Congregation had a Bishop the proof of which we will examine in due place The Bishops of great Cities had several Parishes or Congregations under them in the first times which never had any other Bishops but themselves and it was not this but the contrary that was the fault of great Bishops and Metropolitans of old for instead of deposing little Bishops they multiply'd them to strengthen their Party in Councils Vid. Collat. Carthag when they began to vye with one another in number of Suffrages as if the Archbishop of York should make every Town under his Jurisdiction an Episcopal Seat that he might have as many Suffrages as the Arch-bishop of Canterbury This I hope to prove in due place and to shew the Reader how far Mr. B. is mistaken in the Causes of Schism and that nothing contributed more to some of them than the multiplying the number of the lesser Bishops by their Metropolitans 3. His third Reason is That the Office of Presbyters is changed to Semi-presbyters What then is the Office of a Presbyter Is it not to preach and to be the mouth of the Congregation in publick Worship to administer the Sacraments to exhort to admonish to absolve the penitent to visit the sick This all Presbyters in the Church of England have full liberty to do and I wish all would take care to execute their Function as fully as it is permitted them 4. Discipline is made impossible p. 22. as it is for one General without inferiour Captains to rule an Army But are there not subordinate Officers in the Church as well as in the Camp How then is Discipline impossible If the General reserve to himself certain Acts of Jurisdiction does he by that means supersede the Commissions of all inferiour Commanders Mr. B. is much upon the point of Discipline's being impossible under Diocesan Episcopacy because one man he thinks cannot govern so many Parishes Admit in all things he may not nor is it necessary he should but in such Acts of Government that are reserved to him it is possible enough and has been practised from the days of the Apostles to this present time This Point you may find excellently discuss'd by Mr. Dodwel in his second Letter to Mr. B. which Mr. B. confutes briefly Cb. Hist 2. part by telling the Reader that if he will believe those reasons he has no hopes of him a short way of confuting and one would wonder that he that makes use of it should write so many and great Books of Controversie Yet this I must add that if it be impossible now 't is fit to let the World know who has made it so the Dissenters themselves have first weakned the Authority and obstructed the Execution of Discipline and when the subordinate Officers agitated caballed against their Superiour Commanders it is not wonder if Government be made impracticable However the Accusation sounds ill from those men by whose Mutiny and seditious Practises things have been brought to that evil Pass Mr. B. pursues his point further § 55. and adds Much more does it become then unlawful when first deposing all Presbyters from Government by the Keys of Discipline they put the same Keys even the Power of decretive Excommunication and Absolution into the hands of Laymen called Chancellors and set up Courts liker to the Civil than Ecclesiastical It is a Question I cannot easily resolve whether it be the King or the Bishop that governs by the Chancellor but whoever governs by them they neither have no nought to have the Power of Decisive Excommunication or the Power of the Keys but act only as Assistants and judges of matter of Fact and apply the Canons which determine what Offences are to be punish'd with Excommunication if they do any more I neither undertake the Defence nor will I suppose those that employ them own their Actions any farther However the Presbyterians fall under the same Censure with our Diocesans for
their Elders do directly excommunicate and yet are lay-men It would be much to the Advantage as well as the Reputation of our Dissenters if they would first agree and correct those Abuses among themselves which they so sharply exclaim against in our Church 2. When they oblige the Magistrate to execute their Decrees by the Sword be they just or unjust § 55. and to lay men in Goals and ruine them because they are excommunicated by Bishops Chancellors c. This is the Law of the State and not of the Church and therefore is not to be charged upon Diocesan Episcopacy besides now there are few that have reason to complain of this there are those Evasions found that render that Law insignificant but the Threatning Princes and Magistrates with Excommunications if not Depositions p. 23. if they do communicate with those whom the Bishops have excommunicated belongs not at all to our Diocesan Episcopacy let the Papists who hold this Dostrine or the rigid Scotch Presbyterians who seem to have outdone the Popes in their Claim of Authority over Sovereign Princes answer it if they can 3. Or when they arrogate the Power of the Sword to themselves as Socrates says Cyril did § 55. How far Socrates is to be credited in his account of that Bishop we shall consider in due place in the mean time this does not concern Diocesan Episcopacy as it is with us for our Bishops do not arrogate that Power if the King confer upon them any Authority extrinsecal to their Office Mr. B. has declared himself p. 23. § 59. that shall make no difference and that he will submit to them notwithstanding The next Paragraph I am loth to meddle with it is little else but Biitterness and Railing and this I have neither Skill nor Inclination to answer yet because it is set down as the highest Aggravation of Diocesan Tyranny I must say something to it lest I should be thought to be ashamed of the Cause and to desert it It becomes much worse § 56. continues Mr. B. by tyrannical Abuse when being unable and unwilling to exercise true Discipline and so many hundred Parishes they have multitude of Atheists Infidels gross Ignorants and wicked Livers in Church Communion yea compel all in their Parishes to communicate upon pain of Imprisonment and Ruine and turn their Censures cruelly against godly persons that dare not obey them in all their Formalities Ceremonies and Impositions for fear of sinning against God I am afraid there are too many wicked men in all Communions and the Communion or as they call it the Religion of the State will have the most for Reasons I need not mention but it is oftentimes a hard thing to know them and until they are discovered it can be no Reproach to the Discipline of the Church that they are in outward Communion but all sorts of People and these with the rest are forced into our Communion They are indeed obliged to come to Church and to receive the Sacrament three times in the year but all this is upon the Supposition of their being Christians if they declare to the contrary they are immediately exempted from all Church-Jurisdiction and for the Civil let them deal with it as well as they can It is the duty of every Christian to come to Church and receive the Sacrament and because all that have been baptised and have not renounced the Faith are presum'd to be Christians it is doubtless lawful to quicken them to that which is their Duty by Penalties upon the neglect of it As for the Atheists and Infidels declared if they are admitted to Communion it is an unexcusable fault of Discipline yet such as is to be charged on the Minister of the Parish that receives them rather than the Bishop and for the being of any such men amongst us that is not so much to be imputed to the defect of present Discipline as to the licentiousness of the late unhappy times and the Offence that was given to light and unsteady minds by such pretended Saints as made Religion their Warrant for all their barbarous Villanies they committed But wicked Livers he adds are forced into Church-Communion by the Bishops § 56. This is a great Mistake for the Bishop forces no such into the Church but obliges the Minister and Church-wardens of every Parish to present such if any there be that they might be separated from Communion till they shall have given some Satisfaction to the Church by their Repentance and good Hopes of their future Amendment and lastly that gross Ignorants are admitted to the Communion can be charged upon no other than the Minister of that place whose Duty it is to instruct them in the Principles of their Religion and the Bishops are so far from obstructing the Exercise of this Duty that there is hardly any thing which they press with greater Earnesiness As to those godly persons who dare not obey the Orders of Bishops in point of Church-Communion and cannot bring their Conscience to comply with Ceremonies and Formalities Whether it be their Fault or Misfortune I pity them heartily but I believe this ought not to be charg'd upon the Constitution of our Episcopacy for if the King and the great Senate of the Nation after Experience of former Troubles should think fit to impose this as a Test upon such as they thought the Government not secure of what is all this to Diocesan Episcopacy The next Paragraph concludes the Arraignment of Diocesan Bishops § 57. not with any Argument but a great many hard Words which suppose the Proofs that have gone before to have amounted to full Evidence I am not willing to repeat them here let them stand or fall with those Arguments they depend upon Now least you should take Mr. B. for an Enemy to Bishops for one sort he rejects he receives two the first such as St. Jerom says Was brought into the Church for a Remedy against Schism the Bishop of this Constitution was it preside over Presbyters and without him nothing of Moment was to be done in the Church § 58. These Presbyters that were under the Bishop had they several Parishes or Congregations or the same with their President If several then this is the Diocesan Prelacy that is a Crime in it's Constitution if the same then what did they do there For by old Canons it appears and Mr. B. makes use of them to serve his own Turn that a Presbyter was not to preach in the Presence of the Bishop what then Shall they only read the Offices of the Church This is to fall into worse than Diocesan Episcopacy and to make Presbyters not Preaching but what sounds much meaner reading Curates only to the Bishops There is another sort of Bishops that he dares not deny to be of divine Institution § 60. And they are such as succeed the Apostles in the ordinary part of Church-Government while some senior Pastors have
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
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
194. ad Pleb Nicop As for Nynius's History of St. Patrick and the three hundred and sixty five Bishops which he planted in Ireland I suppose 't was invented by some learned Monk to fill up the Irish Calender and to leave no day in the year so forlorn but that the name of one of these Bishops could vindicate it from Prophaneness That which follows of Scotlands having no Bishops before Palladius Disp 1.97 Yet England had Bishops long before as may be seen in the Subscriptions of the Councils of Orleance and Nice but that the people there were instructed by Priests and Monks makes nothing at all to our present purpose though the Authority of Henricus Major and Johannes Fordorius were unquestionable for there is no account of setled Churches or Discipline but only that some good men out of their Zeal for Religion did endeavour to propagate it among the Scots and that these were not Bishops But Buchanan stretches this point higher than it will bear and will have it that the Churches of Scotland were governed by Presbyters and Monks the first time I believe in Story we meet with Monks amongst the Orders of Church-Government but I believe that the Story it self may be easily disproved and we may expect shortly a fuller account of this and other things relating to the ancient British Church by the hand of one of the greatest Masters of Antiquity in this Nation The last part of Mr. B's Evidence has some of the Canons of ancient Councils but I must needs say he does not cite with that accuracy that one would expect from a person that advances so singular a notion The first is the fourteenth of the Council of Adge Can 1. the Sum of it is this that if any man should desire a Chappel of Ease for the benefit of his Family he might be gratified in it but with this Proviso that upon the most solemn Feasts he should hear divine Service in Parochiis aut Civitatibus Mr. B. makes Parochia signifie a Diocese because the word is used frequently in that sense by Eusebius and other Ancients but does not consider that the Import of it is changed by this time and is taken for a Parish in the fifty third Canon of the Council of Adge whose Title is de Presbyteris parochianis rei Ecclesiae distrahentibus cap. 2. vass 3. There is express Difference made where a Presbyter is allow'd to preach Non solum in Civitatibus sed in omnibus Parochiis 47. The next is the thirtieth Canon of the same Council Benedictionem super plebem fundere aut poenitentem in Ecclesia benedicere presbytero poenitus non licebit to which he adds the thirty first 47. Missas die dominico saecularibus totas audire speciali ordine praecipimus ita ut ante benedictionem sacerdotis egredi populus non presumat quod si fecerit ab Episcopo publicè confundatur From whence he infers that all the people were oblig'd to come to the Bishops Church because they were to stay till the Benediction which it was lawful for the Bishop only to give but if Mr. B. had considered these two Canons he must have observed that either they contradict one another or the same thing is not meant by the Benediction of the Priest and the Bishop by the first which is reserv'd to the Bishop Confirmation must in all probability be understood By the second the Priests Benediction that which is pronounced at the dismissing the Congregation or if he will understand a Bishop by Sacerdos the Canon forbids it in making a Distinction between them ab Episcopo confundatur whereas if by Sacerdos they would have understood a Bishop it is not likely they would have either chang'd the Term or repeated it but have added ab eo confundatur But why should we insist upon this since nothing can be more notorious than that Presbyters had Churches now distinct from Bishops and every Diocess almost a great number of Parishes and there are few Councils of that Age but oblidge the Bishop to visit all these Churches once a year To these he adds the thirty eighth Canon of the same Council Disp p. 99. Cives qui superiorum solemnitatum id est Paschae Natalis Domini vel Pentecostes festivalibus cum Episcopis interesse neglexerint quum in Civitatibus communionis vel Benedictionis accipiendae causa positos se nosse debeant triennio communione priventur Ecclesiae It is not to be denyed but it was the ancient Custom for all the Parishes or places depending upon any Episcopal Church on certain times to repair to it not so much for personal Communion as for Homage but we are not therefore to conceive that every Soul under a Bishops Charge was to appear before him on those solemn times but only the most considerable persons of every Division and this Canon means no more Sirmond could never find any more than 47 Canons of this Council the rest were taken out of Conc. Epaonense from whence the true Reading of this Canon is to be sought for there is Cives superiorum natalium not solennitatum and so it is corrected in the best Edition of the Council of Agde and Communionis is left out which restoring of this Canon overthrows all the use that M. B. would make of it since all are neither obliged to be present nor to personal Communion but what Cives superiorum Natalium signifies we must learn from other Councils of this Age in the 14 chap. of the Councel of Arvern we have it thus explained that together with all the Presbyters and Deacons of a Diocese Quicunque sunt etiam Cives natu majores pari modo in Vrbibus ad Pontifices suos in praedictis Civitatibus veniant And the third Canon of the fourth Council of Orleans obliges onely the Principal Citizens to assist the Bishops on these Solemn Times Quisquis de prioribus Civibus Pascha extra Civitatem tencre voluerit sciat sibi à cuncta Synodo esse prohibitum which is no other than if the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen the Liveries and most considerable Citizens were obliged on certain High Festivals to come to Church to St. Pauls The next of the Canons he produces are either to the same effect with what he has already alledged or not directly to his purpose so that I believe upon a Review he will judge as well as I that there is no necessity of a Reply Mr. B. has heretofore excepted the Churches of Rome and Alexandria Ch. Hist p. 7. § 23. and has despair'd of bringing them ever to comply with his Model but now it seems he has found a means to reduce them to a Congregation he revokes his former Concessions and declares that he finds no reason to believe that ever the two chief Cities of the Empire had so long that is for two hundred years after Christ more than some London Parishes or near half so
him which I wonder as much he should believe as that he be satisfied with another Friend's Computation of the Christians in Alexandria in Strabo's time 't is in short this That he though his Voice was none of the lowdest yet he preacht to a Congregation judg'd to be about ten thousand men 2 part of Ch. Hist in one place he has but 6000. but in another he comes up again to 10000. and that they all hear'd him I am afraid that this Friends Calculation exceeds as much as the other falls short for we reckon now that three thousand makes an extraordinary Congregation and it may be possible for a mighty Voice to speak to a thousand more but it may be that the World is degenerated since and that our Lungs are no more in Comparison with those of the times he speaks of than they were compared to those of the Eastern Preachers At last to make sure work he concludes that though Jerusalem might have many Assemblies and yet but one Church p. 81. 82. and after the dispersing of the Apostles but one Bishop yet this is no Precedent This I must needs say is something more than the Independents would adventure to say they minced the matter and told us that Jerusalem being the first born Church and nursed up by the joynt care of all the Apostles might arrive to an extraordinary Stature and look gigantick in Comparison of the rest yet they durst not say it had more than one Congregation and was no Precedent What shall we judge then That the Apostles built the Church of Jerusalem after one model and those of other Cities after another or if they did surely they were both lawful does that overthrow the Church and Discipline of Christ's Institution that is according to the practice of his own Apostles Or can a Conformity to the Discipline of the Mother-church of Jerusalem become in it's self a Sin Wherein shall we be saved if the Imitation of the Apostles do not secure us But Mr. B. says the Office of a Bishop supposes him to have no more than one Congregation since he must hold personal Communion with all in Preaching and Administration of the Sacraments visiting the Sick relieving the Poor and the like but must all these Acts be performed by himself in Person Must he have no Assistance Is nothing to be done within his Congregation without his Presence May not he do all this occasionally as the Apostles and Evangelists did Every Bishop had Presbyters in the first times and if he were so indispensably oblig'd to do all himself what use were they of and yet appoint Elders for the ordinary and constant Performance of the Ministry whom he shall supervise and direct It is very strange that the Bishops should have been so many hundred years in an Office which it was impossible for them to discharge and yet this be never discover'd by themselves or others However the generality of Bishops you say for a long while after the Apostles had but one Congregation to govern what then If all the Believers in and about a City would hardly make a Congregation that is to be ascribed to the Condition of those times and not to be reckon'd essential to the Office all things have their Beginning but are not confin'd to the Measures of their Infancy and if the Beginnings of the Church were but small even the greatest Cities it cannot be a prejudice to the Governour of it if the number of Believers should increase since they are appointed in Clemens Opinion for the Government not only of those that have already Ep. ad Corinth but of such as shall afterwards believe The Practice of the universal Church is evidently on our side for who has ever heard of two Bishops in one City though it were never so great unless in time of Schism and it is strange when the number of Believers did encrease beyond all Possibility of personal Communion that none should ever discern the necessity of dividing into several Churches and learn this Wisdom from the Example of Bees But the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria by their Affectation of Empire became evil Examples to others by their first Corruption of Church Discipline It is strange then that among all the Quarrels of the Bishops and in all their Accusations of one another that this Crime of so high a Nature should never be objected that no good man could never complain of this Corruption that there should never be laid to their Charge this usurping of Authority over whole Cities and multitudes of Congregations But supposing this an Usurpation in the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria how is it credible that all the great Cities in the World should be carryed away with their Example that there should be not one honest Bishop left that understood the nature of his Office or the just bounds of his Diocess Or suppose the Bishops so far prejudiced with self-Interest as to have neglected a Duty that redounded so much to the Diminution of their Power yet were the People who in those times had some part in their Election ignorant of this great Secret would not they right themselves and not have suffer'd their several Congreations to become Chappelries c. Dependencies upon the Bishops Church Would not they have govern'd themselves rather than become as it were a Province to the Bishop or if the People were ignorant of this was there no Priest that was ambitious enough to be Bishop that could inform them of their Right in Expectation that they would be grateful to the Discoverer of their Priviledges And lastly was there no Schismatick learned enough to justifie his setting up of an Altar against an Altar by this Argument that there were more Believers than could hold personal Communion with the Bishops Altar that there was work enough for more Bishops than one and that in populous Cities there ought to be several Churches yet they were all so dull as never to think of this way but on the contrary every one pretended that there ought to be but one Bishop in a City and that himself had the Right and the other was the Usurper In short since the Nature of the Church requires that it should swarm when Believers grew too numerous for one Assembly and send out new Colonies under Independant-officers Is it not very strange that it should so far forget it's Nature as never to have done this and to leave not one poor instance upon whose Authority the Independency of Congregations might relye It is upon this that the present Question turns and not whether Bishops at first had but single Congregations for if there were no more Believers within or belonging to the City they could have no more but after they were multiplyed into several Congregations still they had but one Bishop and Mr. B. does not as much as pretend to any Evidence of History to the contrary unless it be when the Church was divided
place than a Cave where they could meet but fifty at a time like the Prophets that were fed by Obadiah in the time of Jezebel's Persecution and these Judges when they came together durst not be so presumptuous as to judge a Pope but desired him to condemn himself and when the poor man is perswaded to pass his own Sentence Melchiades pronounces these Words Justè ore suo condemnatus est nemo enim unquam judicavit Pontificem nec praesul sacerdotem suum quoniam prima sedes non judicatur à quoquam and yet for all this Mr. B. declares that whether this be true or forg'd is too hard a Controversie Just as hard as that concerning St. Vrsula and her eleven thousand Virgins or the travelling Chappel of Loretto or the History of the seven Champions The Council of Illiberis follows next that has many very good Canons and some have need of a favourable Interpretation it is very severe in some cases denying Communion even at the hour of Death but this is not the thing which was condemn'd in the Novatians as we shall shew hereafter The Council of Carthage follow'd that began the Schism of the Donatists p. 39 § 40. upon the occasion of Cecilianus his Election Thus says he the doleful Tragedy of the Donatists began by Bishops divided about the Carthage Bishop Tho it cannot be denyed but that Bishops had a hand in carrying on this Schism Opt. lib. 1. contra Parmen yet 't is not true that it was begun by them for Optatus makes Botrus and Caeleusius the first Authors of this Schism for these desiring themselves to be Bishops of Carthage and disappointed of their Hopes by the unanimous Election of Cecilianus left the Communion of the Church and drew Lucilla a rich and potent Lady into their Party Et sic tribus convenientibus causis personis factum est ut malignitas haberet effectum Schisma igitur illo tempore confusâ mulieris iracundia peperit ambitus nutrivit avaritia roboravit These three invited those Traditors of the Council of Cyrta to Carthage to judge the cause of Cecilianus who they pretended was ordained by a Traditor and these inveigled a great many others by a plausible pretence of Zeal against the Betrayers of Religion so Cecilianus was condemn'd and Majorinus put into his place The Donatists says Mr. B. were so call'd from Donatus § 40. a very good Bishop of Carthage heretofore and not from Donatus à Casis nigris 'T is true the former gave them the name but I wonder where Mr. B. finds that he was so good a Bishop (a) De script Eccles in Donat. St. Jerom makes him an Arrian (b) Optat. lib. 3. contra Parmen Optatus represents him as the most arrogant proud man that ever was that he exacted such a Submission even from Bishops as to make them worship him with no less Regard than God himself that he suffer'd men to swear by his name (c) Aust in Joh. tract 3. prop. Friem St. Austin makes him an Impostor that he made his party believe that when he pray'd God answer'd him from Heaven and the civil Magistrate found him no less turbulent than the Church his contumelious Language to the Emperours and their Lieutenants shewing sufficiently what Spirit he was of Gregori Macula Senatus dedecus Praefectorum Lastly He mistakes the time of this Council with Binnius and Baroneus placing it in the year of Christ 306. But Optatus making this Election of Cecilianus subsequent of the Toleration granted the African Churches by Maxentius who had not reduced Africa Valesius de Schismate Donatist c. 1. § 41. till about five years after it is clear that this Council could not be before An. 308. Another Council was held at Carthage where no less than two hundred and seventy Donatist-Bishops The Bishops now begin to multiply Schism the occasion for Moderation agreed to communicate with penitent Traditors without rebaptizing them and so did for forty years This looks liker a piece of Policy than Moderation for it had no tendence to Peace but to strengthen the Schism For the number of Bishops in this Council we have only the Authority of Tychonius Aug. Epist ad Vincentiam a Donatist who probably as the humour of those Schismaticks was might magnifie the strength of his Party and stretch it a point beyond what it really was The time of this Council is likewise very much mistaken as appears by what we have said of the Council going before and it is probable that it was held in the time of Donatus Vales de Schism Donat. c. 3. Schismatick Bishop of Carthage and immediate Successor of Majorinus St. Jerom in his Chronicle sets his Promotion in the year 331. Donatus agnoscitur à quo per Africam Donatiani And it cannot be well imagin'd that Schism should spread so suddenly as in the very beginning of it to have two hundred and seventy Bishops of their Party especially considering that Constantine the Great used all his Endeavours to suppress them It is observable that before this time we do not meet any very numerous Councils either in Africk or any where else the greatest falling much short of a hundred which shews that Bishops were not yet so much multiplied and that their Bishopricks were of a larger Extent but these Schismaticks having divided the Church made Bishops in every Village to strengthen their Party and to out-number the Orthodox besides that they had set up an Altar p. 4. § 44. and made them Bishops in every City where they could get the least Congregation to joyn with them Mr. B. complains upon this Occasion That some Popish Persons liken the Separatists among us to the Donatists who those Popish Persons are I will not pretend to ghess However this I am sure that the word Heresie of old was never worse abus'd than that of Popery is now for whomsoever men have a mind to render odious to the People it is sufficient to call him Popish and then he is baited under that infamous name as the Christians anciently were in the Skins of Beasts But if a man had a mind to make odious Comparisons Mr. B's Defence of our Separatists from the Imputation of being like the Donatists would render them but little Service For his first Exception of our Separatists having no Bishops which the Donatists had makes them differ not only from that Sect but from all the Sects and Churches in the World◠till the last Age and his second Exception of their being the lesser number signifies as little for so were the Donatists at first and so may they long continue or rather may the name of Separation cease and all return into one Flock under one Shepherd But the Donatists divided the Unity of the Church appointed Bishops against Bishops and Altar against Altar pretended to a greater Purity than the Orthodox and boasted that their Church
Alex. Can. 4. Argument Canon such were never to be admitted to full Communion no not at the hour of Death Is any man like to find fault with this Bishop for being too indulgent Is this any great Encouragement to Apostates It would be strange after all this that men should depart from his Communion for being too much prostituted to the Betrayers of Religion If all this does not satisfie Mr. B. but that he will still believe those holy Martyrs as unmortified in Prison as the Priests and Jesuits heretofore were at Wisbich let him enjoy his Fancy and contempt of ancient Bishops and be bound to believe all the Stories in Epiphanius Mr. B. confesses that Epiphanius seems not to be very accurate in his Disputes nor his Narratives why then does he maintain him here against the Authority of Athanasius and all Sense and Reason He does acknowledge some Passages in this History to be mistaken as that the Meletians joyned with the Arrians before the Death of Alexander and in his Instance of the time of Arrius's death placing it before the Councel of Nice Besides these there are other Mistakes no less gross which Mr. B. swallows down as true History as first that Constantine the Great banish'd Athanasius into Italy where he remain'd twelve or fourteen years till after the Death of Constantine If Athanasius himself be to be believ'd or Socrates out of him Constantine banish'd him into Gallia and Treves was the place where he abode nor is there any Likelihood that he saw Italy during his first Banishment But the account of the time of it Euseb de Vit. Constant for twelve or fourteen years is intolerable for the Councel of Tyre was not assembled till the thirtieth year of Constantine Epist Praef. Marâ—ot Constantius and Albinus being Consuls which agrees with the three hundred thirty fifth year of our Saviour according to Baronius's Computation Athanasius his Banishment is plac'd the year after Constantine dyes the year ensuing and presently after his death Athanasius is recall'd Baronius places his return in the year 338 but Valesius proves from the style of Constantine junior's Letter in the behalf of Athanasius who was then but Caesar that Athanasius return'd the very same year that Constantine dyed So that the twelve or fourteen years do hardly amount to so many Months which I believe was the true writing of Epiphanius and that Years are put in instead of Months by the mistake of the Copies Theodoret computes his Banishment to be two whole Years and Baronius follows him There are several other things in the same Author no less absurd as that Athanasius is charged with the murther of Arsenius in Constantine's time that Eusebius baptized Valens the Emperour though Eusebius was dead many years before Valens came to the Empire that Constantine was the Son of Valerian that George was put into Athanasius's place in the time of his first Banishment that Achillas succeeded Alexanaer in the See of Alexandria Dallè l. 4. de Imagin p. 394. Epiphanius planè aliter Schisma Meletianum narrat quam rei veritas poscebat and many other such Oversights in History and one would wonder so great a man as Epiphanius could be guilty of or that any one that pretends to Church-History should follow him in those gross mistakes which they may correct out of any Historian that does but make mention of the same things and Times Mr. B. strangely confounds Gregory and George the Arrian Bishops of Alexandria for page 47 he tells us That when Constans had compell'd his Brother Constantius to restore him Athanasius he was again banish'd For George that had been made Bishop by the Arrians and by Constantius was kill'd by the Heathen People in Julian's time and his Corps burnt and the ashes scatter'd into the Wind which increased the suspition of Tyranny against Athanasius I hope George's murther in Julian's time did not bring Athanasius into suspition of Tyranny under Constantius But pag. 62. Sect. 45. this George is call'd Gregory Gregory the Bishop being as is aforesaid murther'd by the Heathen and burnt to ashes We no where read that this Gregory was either murder'd or burn't but that he was turn'd out of the See of Alexandria because he was odious to all and to the Arrians themselves and that George Socr. l. 2. c. 14. who was afterwards murther'd was put in his place Where he says Constans compell'd his Brother Constantius to restore Athanasius he mistakes Constans for his Brother Constantine who was the Author of Athanasius his first restauration for it was long after his first banishment and after the Council of Sardica that Constans threatned his Brother with War if he did not restore Athanasius and Paul into their Churches Page 48. § 4. He gives an account of the Heresie of Arrius and I think heartily condemns him if these words be his own He that denies the Deity of Christ denies his Essence and he that denies his Essence denies Christ and is no Christian Yet he excuses this Doctrine in comparison of Socinianism and that very justly At last after a short sum of the Arrian Doctrine he concludes this was the dangerous Heresie of Arrius I must confess he is so much given to Figures that I can't tell whether he be in earnest here or speaks only Ironically but sure I am that what he sayes in the next Paragraph is very much to the disadvantage of the Doctrine of the Trinity And to say truth Petavius has done it no great kindness by his Defence of it 'T is true that some of the Fathers before the Nicene Council seem'd to speak sometimes in favour of that Doctrine which was afterwards taken up by the Arrians but that they did cadem sentire is more than ought to be granted Before some Controversies have been started men have spoke less warily whom afterwards Disputation has brought to be more Cautious in their Expressions Dallè de usu Patr Dallè makes the Ancient Fathers to be of little Use in the Controversies between us and the Papists because though they may seem to favour sometimes one side sometimes another yet they speak loosly and without any regard to our Controversies which were not then in being Several Passages extolling Communion with the Bishop of Rome were little intended to set him up for an infallible Judge and others speaking with great Veneration of the Eucharist may seem to favour Transubstantiation c. If any such Opinion had then been in the Church their words in probability had been more decisive It is a commendable Charity of Mr. B. to say that it is enough to believe those Fathers to be saved p. 49. though we may not believe them to be without Errour Though that Errour by his confession is very dangerous as implying a denial of Christ yet he adds that God is merciful and requires not knowledge of all alike ibid. But for my part I believe they do
Vid. loc they ought to consider the Justice of the Cause and he that is already Bishop ought to continue so if they have nothing material to lay to his Charge and that be not evidently proved so we see plainly that this Disagreement is only between the People who have no Power to depart from the rightful Bishop and factiously to set up another against him but that the People should stand by their Pastor when he is canonically ejected by his Superiours assembled in Synod is very far from being any meaning of this Canon though Mr. B. would force it to that purpose Besides all this though any of these Arabick Canons should directly favour either his Notion of a Church or the cause of Dissenters or disallow the Practice of our Church in any thing they scruple it would give them but very small Relief since there is no Church and much less ours that ever receiv'd them nor were they ever heard of till the last Age. 7. Those ordained by Meletius were to be received into the Ministry where others dyed if by the Suffrage of the People they were judged fit and the Bishop of Alexandria design'd them Whither this tends is not hard to conjecture but it would spoil the Drift if one should observe maliciously First That these Meletians were Episcopally ordain'd Secondly That they were receiv'd into the Ministry upon the Supposal of their Submission to the Canons and Orders of the Church Thirdly That in that same place Sozomen declares in the Name of the Council that it is not lawful for the People to elect whom they please Page 53. l. 1. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cir. Ath. Ep. ad Strap The Council of Gangrae he has nothing to object against that of Tyre is manifestly Arrian and abhorr'd by the Catholick Church that of Jerusalem is of the the same Stamp but here Mr. B. goes along with the common Mistake that Arrius was here receiv'd into Communion whereas Athanasius affirms him to have died out of the Communion of the Church And it is plain that comparing Socrates Sozomen and Athanasius Arrius the Author of that Heresie was dead before the Council of Jerusalem and it is observable that Athanasius in his account of that Council every where expresses himself thus Ep. Synod Con. Hiero◠ap Athan. l. de Synod That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were there receiv'd into Communion See Vales his Annot. Ecclesiast in Socrat. Sozom. The next of any Note p. 54. § 21. is the Council of Antioch of near a hundred Bishops of which thirty six were Arrians the most Orthodox and the holy James of Nisybis one yet they depos'd Athanasius and the Arrians it 's like by the Emperour's Favour carry'd it Thus far Mr. B. Many have wonder'd how the major part of this Council being Orthodox Athanasius should be condemn'd by it Mr. B. who does not seem much to favour him because he was not kind to the Nonconformist Meletians insinuates a base complyance of these Orthodox Bishops with the Emperours Inclination a moderate man and always for the most charitable Construction However Pope Julius's Letter is express that he was condemn'd but by thirty six Bishops whether they were Arrians or no he does not say Athanasius reckons ninety Hilary ninety seven Sozomon ninety nine and be they never so many it seems the lesser number carry'd it and if the Emperour made that a Law the Orthodox Dissenters ought to be absolved Certain it is that this Council lay under the Imputation of Arrianisin for when it was objected to Chrysostom that he resum'd his Place after that he had been ejected without the Authority of a Synod to restore him which the Canons of this Council did require his Defence was that this was not a Canon of the Church but of the Arrians Sozomen makes them all Arrians The Faction of Eusebius saith he with several others that favour'd that Opinion in all ninety seven Bishops assembled at Antioch from several places under Colour of consecrating a Church but indeed as the Event prov'd to abrogate the Decrees of the Nicene Council Athanasius rejects them as sworn Enemies to him and the Faith so that there is no likely-hood that the majority was Orthodox since Constantius and Eusebius had the contriving of this Synod and by it's means the Ruine of Athanasius But how came this Opinion of thirty six only being Arrians and yet carrying the Cause Some say that they acted secretly and did not admit the Orthodox to vote with them for so the Condemnation of Athanasius past at Tyre or that they might be impos'd upon by their specious Pretence of disowning Arrius but because there is no account of any Difference between the Arrians and Orthodox in this case no Protestation enter'd nay if any such thing had been it cannot be imagin'd but that Sozomen must have mention'd it where he speaks of the Bishop of Jerusalem absenting himself on purpose lest he should be drawn in a second time to subscribe to the Condemnation of Athanasius we must conclude That these were all of a Party and pack'd together upon that design And perhaps the reading of thirty six in Julius's Epistle may be a mistake of Transcribers it being easie to mistake the Greek figure of 90 for 30 unless we shall judge the contrary to be the true Reading for the two ancient Latin Translations of Dionysius Exiguus and Isidorus Mercator conclude consenserunt subscripserunt 30 Episcopi and the Greek Synodical Epistle wants but one of just thirty Subscriptions Sozomen mentions another Synod at Antioch of just thirty Bishops and confounds the Acts of it with those of this first but whether it be his mistake or the old Translators that might confound the second with the first I am not able to determine and the matter is too confus'd to be extricated here Though the Authority of this Council was not great yet it seems the Canons of it were so wisely suited to the condition of a distracted Church and to the depressing of Schism that they were adopted afterwards by General Councils Mr. B. mentions several that are most of them levell'd against Dissenters and yet they are such as the Dissenters themselves that own any Discipline cannot find fault with and when they are in any Power find necessary to observe The fifth forbids any Priest or Deacons to gather Churches or Assemblies against the Bishop's will and if any did and did not desist upon admonition he was to be deposed and if he went on to be opprest by the exteriour Power as seditious The word opprest it seems is Emphatical and has indeed an old Version to favour it but what may be Oppression in his sense with the Council was Legal Punishment and the Greek word it uses signifies not so much the Penalty as the End for which it was to be inflicted the reduction of Schismaticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And
the Secret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blabs out his Author I have heard says he from a credible Person who was acquainted with these Monks The Relation shews sufficiently he was of the Party and that he had it from them and if a Monk cannot tell his Story sufficiently to his own Advantage and to the Prejudice of his Enemy let him be irregular and to say Truth without this Intimation one might taste something of a Monkish Invention and Spirit the whole Story is so marvelously gross Besides that Socrates and Sozomen are not so credible in this Particular because they every where espouse the Cause of the Novatians to whom Theophilus was no great Friend reason enough to incur a very odious Character in their History as many other good men have done upon the same account But other Historians and more credible than Socrates or Sozomen discover sufficiently the Vanity of this Fiction Posthumianus was in Alexandria immediately after these things happen'd and let us hear what account he gives of this Affair After seven days Sulp. Sever Dial. l. 1. we came to Alexandria where there was a foul Contention between the Bishops and the Monks about the Books of Origen those condemning and forbidding the reading of them because of many dangerous Errors contain'd in them the other Party charging this upon the Hereticks that had corrupted the Works of Origen The Contention in short grew very high and the Bishops according to the Authority they had forbid all good and bad because there were Ecclesiastical Writers enough that might be read with as much Benefit and much less Danger and then instanc'd in several places of Origen that were very extravagant but this could not satisfie the Favourers of Origen who began to be in an Uproar which when the Authority of the Bishops could not appease the Civil Magistrate is forc'd to take the Church-Discipline into his own hands Saevo Exemplo says the Author Upon this the Monks were terrified and made their Escape whither they could and the Edicts of the Magistrates pursued them This person it seems was no Favourer of Theophilus and yet there is nothing he finds fault with but the too great Rigour and the taking of the Governour to supply the defect of Church-Discipline yet it seems there was absolute Necessity for it for these Monks had mutiny'd and rais'd a Sedition and then surely it is time for the Magistrate to look about him 2. The same Historian represents this not as any sudden surprizing Oppression of the Origenists for he mentions several Synods that had been assembled for this purpose 3. He does not make this the Effect of any particular Quarrel between the Monks and Theophilus but makes the Controversie to be between the Monks and the Bishops and which of them had most right to govern the Church and appoint what Books were or were not fit to be read But to return to our Author he tells us farther Sever. The Bishop of that place entertain'd him very courteously and beyond what he could have expected he made him a kind Invitation that he would stay and live with him but that he refus'd thinking it not fit to stay in a place ubi fraterna Cladis tam recens fervebat invidia Then he adds That though the Monks ought likely to have obey'd the Bishops yet on the other side they ought not to have us'd so great a Rigor Here is not a word of Theophilus his Crimes which he would not have dissembled having so fair an Occasion to mention to mention them and they would have been very proper Reasons for his Refusal to stay at Alexandria and would have very much aggravated the Envy of persecuting those Monks Theophilus But here is not a word of Him which the other Bishops are not as nearly concern'd in as himself and lastly here is a plain Confutation of that pretty Story of Socrates That the Origenists were persecuted for believing God to be incorporeal whereas they were the Errors of Origen as that Christ had dyed to save the Devils and such like that the Bishops objected And to say Truth that was a pretty Suggestion that they should be call'd Origenists for holding God incorporeal Was Origen singular in that point Did not every one that ever had any Reason with his Sense teach the same thing And therefore the other Story of the Anthropomorphites urging Theophilus to condemn Origen upon the same Account comes under the same Suspition for by the same Reason they must have forc'd him to condemn all the Ecclesiastical Writers in the World Yet such was the Impudence of these mutinous Monks that they were not asham'd to tell it all the World that all those that were against them were Anthropomorphites Hieron Johan And Chrysostom was so credulous as to believe them and to charge Epiphanius with that Error to which no man was a more bitter Enemy Whereas the Controversie was indeed whether Origen's Works were to be read and this was started sometime before Theophilus was concern'd in it Ep. ad Tranquil 76. Edic Mar. Victorii as appears by St. Hierom who in a Letter to Tranquillinus condemns the passionate Haters and admires of Origen he allows him to be read sometimes for his great Learning as Tertullian Novatus Arnobius Apollinaris but with Caution that we choose the Good and avoid the Evil But if these Passionate Friends and Enemies of Origen will be in the Extream and will either reject the whole as Faustinus or receive and approve the whole and admit no mean his Determination is Libentius piam rusticitatem quam doctam blasphemiam Eligam which shews the Controversie between the Orthodox and the Origenists and serves likewise to vindicate St. Hierom from the Imputation of having prevaricated in this case Sulp. Sev. D. 1. Ruffin Inv. as he is charg'd by Posthumianus and Ruffinus as if once he had been an Origenist himself and that this Letter was writ before the Troubles about that Question in Alexandria is clear from the fathering of that Opinion upon Faustinus which he would never have done if it had so great Patrons as Theophilus and the Authority of several Synods to confirm it And whereas Theophilus is represented so odiously by credible Socrates and the Character is believ'd by credulous Mr. B. it will not be amiss to see what other as credible men as any of his Enemies say of him whether in general or with Relation to the Condemnation of the Origenists St. Hierom blames him for his too great Moderation in this Particular Ep. 68. Super Nefaria haeresi quod multam patientiam geris putas Ecclesiae visceribus incubantes tuâ posse corrigi lenitate multis sanctis displicet ne dum paucorum paenitentiam praestolaris nutrias audaciam perditorum factio robustior fiat This does by no means agree with Mr. B's Authors who intimate as if he had circumvented and surpriz'd them And in another
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
Blasphemers put to death according to the Laws which then were and for ought I know are still in force But had the Bishops had as much zeal for God and his truth as they had for their own greatness they had obtain'd such a law as this is if not in all the particulars Presbyterian Toleration yet in most of them long ago and thereby prevented many of those monstrous opinions which have of late been vented among us to the great dishonour of God and our Kingdom and the mischief to Souls but they were cast out for their lukewarmness and let others take heed of the like How shall the Bishops do to please these men Sometimes when they are in authority they are Hereticators and Persecutors and Instigators of the Civil Magistrate against men for Conscience sake Sometimes they are lukewarm and negligent for not providing Laws severe enough and for not putting men to death for errours in Religion If I were worthy to advise our Author I would desire him for the honour of Presbytery to level his spiteful reflections a little more justly lest whilest he le ts fly with a good will against Bishops the Brethren of the Holy Discipline be not hurt and lest what he designs against Councils fall unhappily upon the Reverend Assembly Answer to Dr. Stillingst for which he expresses no small esteem elsewhere although Bishops and their Councils are so abominable in his sight But enough of this for our purpose I will leave our Author to the judgement of his Brethren and only crave the Readers Pardon for this digression We are now come to the Council of Ephesus §. 9. which was occasion'd by Nestorius his denying the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of that person that was God this doctrine was broach'd by his favourite Priest Anastasius though Nestorius being the more eminent person carry'd away the name and reputation of it Our Author says This set all the City in a division disputing of they well knew not what Nestorius was suspected by some to deny the Godhead of Christ but he was of no such opinion It is true he did not directly deny the Godhead of Christ but consequentially he did as we shall shew hereafter The Emperour weary of this stir p. 89. sect 9. calls a Council and yet our Author forgets himself not many pages after where he will have his Reader believe that Cyril made all this stir to please the Court. The truth of it is the obstinacy of Nestorius oblig'd the Emperour to assemble this Council for Cyril had try'd all the moderate ways in the world to reclaim him before this was thought of Nothing can be more modest than Cyril's Letter to Nestorius Ep. ad Nest though he had receiv'd several personal provocations from him and after this another written with the same Spirit Secunda Ep. ad Nest but Nestorius took all this brotherly admonition for reproach and endeavour'd to maintain his opinion and to secure himself in equivocal and doubtful expressions sometimes seeming to speak the same thing with Cyril that Christ had two natures in one person sometimes considering Christ as a double person and always denying Mary to be the Mother of God by any means This was the unhappy Controversie that divided the world Several being deceiv'd by the Equivocations of Nestorius took his part at first but finding him obstinate in denying the Virgin to be the Mother of that person that was God they at last deserted him and joyn'd with Cyril in his condemnation It had been happy for the Church if the mysteries of our Religion had never been curiously disputed But when busie troublesome men have started a new dangerous doctrine and endeavour to propagate it with all industry imaginable it is not fit that the Governours should sit as unconcern'd Spectators but that they should oppose vigorously all such remedies as God has put into their hands i. e. advise admonish rebuke and if these means prove ineffectual to stop the course of evil doctrine they must proceed according to the Apostles advice a Heretick after admonition reject This method therefore of proceeding against Heresies and the Authors of them cannot be disallowed by any reasonable man But this case of Nestorius it seems yields a further debate and the merit of the cause is yet disputed Derodon makes Nestorius Orthodox and Cyril the Heretick our Author believes both Orthodox but that they did not understand one another and so by words that themselves did not understand they set all the world on fire As for Derodon he manifestly condemns Nestorius in a little Treatise De Supposito printed with several other Philosophical Tracts of his and approves Cyril the truth is he has a singular notion of a person there which seems to approach Nestorianism which he endeavours to confirm by the authority of Cyril and other Fathers but this which our Author cites I have not yet seen nor can I find that it has been yet publish'd however since the minutes of his arguments are set down by our Author I will endeavour to shew the mistake of that learned man by giving the true state of the question between Cyril and Nestorius Nestorius did first recede from the allow'd expressions of the Fathers who did all occasionally call the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God and therefore was justly suspected to recede from their doctrine Cyril admonishes him of this dangerous innovation and explains himself concerning the Incarnation of the son of God Nestorius endeavours to confute it and now let us see what it was that they both maintain'd I will begin with the Doctrine of Cyril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word united the flesh to himself hypostatically or personally Ep. 2. ad Nestor and a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. i. e. distinct natures concurring to make a real Unity of both which consists one Christ and one Son not that the difference of the natures are taken away by that Unity but that the divinity and humanity combin'd by an unspeakable manner of Union make one Christ and one Son Ibid. And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uniting the manhood hypostatically to himself and as to the order of this Union he explains himself farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He was not first a meer man that was born of the Holy Virgin which the Divinity afterwards did assume but the Word being united to the Man from the very Womb is said to have undergone a carnal generation And that this Union does not destroy the difference of natures in Christ he shews expresly in that same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He became man but did not therefore cease to be God but after the assumption of Flesh remain'd still the same that he was before And to the same purpose in another place after the assumption of Flesh he remain'd very God Ep. ad Eulog and suffer'd death upon the Cross i. e. the Flesh
this p. 109 110 111. sect 32 c. What Concard did these late Councils procure to the Churches From that time most of the Christian World was distracted into Factions Hereticating and killing one another The Alexandrians murder'd Proterius their Bishop chosen by the Council of Chalcedon And to aggravate the cruelty Mr. B. says they spar'd not to tast his Entrails with their Teeth like Dogs Gustare more Canum The miracle of tasting with Teeth would be much greater than the cruelty and go a great way to justifie the barbarity of the Action if it were true But what shall we say to these lamentable consequences of these Councils Was it the misfortune or the fault of these only not to be able to heal the differences of the Church Or else was the defect in the Councils or the blame to be imputed to those obstinate men that oppos'd the Rule establish'd by them These were not the first Councils that have miscarried as to their design of Universal Reconciliation The Council of Jerusalem under the Apostles that determined the Controversie about Circumcision did not presently silence all Disputes about that Question For the Church of Galatia was presently after divided about it The Council of Nice though it quieted the Arian Controversie for a while yet it was not able to prevent those lamentable Contentions which the same question afterwards occasioned Or if Bishops and their Councils could provide no effectual Remedies for the violent distempers of the Church let us see what Presbyterian Synods have done The Synod of Dort condemn'd the Arminians and Subscrib'd certain Articles declaring their Doctrine in the points in Controversie yet the disease was so far from abâ—ting that it grew more violent and the Civil Magistrate was oblig'd to second the determinations of the Synod by inflicting Imprisonment and Exile upon such as would not subscribe and yet all this would not do for the same breach remains unclos'd unto this day Our Author in his meek Answer to the Dean of Pauls Sermon says very kind things of the Assembly of Divines and yet these with their Catechisms Directory and Annotations and Overthrowing of the Episcopal Church Government upon which they charg'd all the Miscarriages and Divisions of the Church were so far from Reconciling the people that after this they were distracted into innumerable Schisms Never was there so lamentable a face of things never such variety of Heresie and such wantonness and Extravagance in Blaspheming God under pretence of Religion and Conscience and this is the state whither the same manner of Men are driving again Experience they say is the Mistriss of Fools but they are Fools to be begg'd whom even experience so dearly purchas'd is not able to make wiser But to return to the success of these Councils Now since Councils whether of Bishops or Presbyters have oftentimes so bad success what is to be done What other remedies shall we find more effectual The Papists have left the use of General Councils of late He who had among them the chief authority of summoning such Councils being grown jealous of that way and the Condition of the Ecclesiastical Roman Empire has been for some ages not unlike that in which Livy represents the Heathen Roman Empire in his time nec vitia nostra ferre possumus nec remedia At last a great part of the Western Church weary of expecting relief by a General Council from that Tyranny and Corruption under which it labour'd was forc'd to use extraordinary means to reform themselves and what they could not do all together they did severally as they had Opportunity It was the good fortune of our Church to Reform it self with the countenance and assistance of the Civil Magistrate and therefore they could do it by degrees and with greater Moderation than other Churches who must contend with the Civil power about it and who had no other strength than the zealand Resolution of the People As soon as this Reformation began to take root deep enough here the Clergy Assembled in a National Synod establish'd a rule for Unity and peace and to prevent disputes as much as was possible This rule comprehended the Doctrine Worship and Discipline of this Church which was at first receiv'd with universal joy and approbation None but Papists opposing it But some time after some few discontented men under pretence of Zeal against Popery took the part of the Papists against this rule and it is observable that as one faction grew up and gather'd strength so did the other that one's right and left hand can hardly grow in evener proportion so that one would fancy that either they advanc'd by some secret consent or were nourish'd from the same Common Stomach It may be from him that Palavicini calls the Stomach as well as the Head of the Church the Pope And what shall be at last done for these Protestants as they call themselves Shall every one be left to himself without any rule The effect of this will be that in a little time we shall have no Religion at all Shall this rule be alter'd We can have no assuance that when it is alter'd we shall find any Conformity to it then more than now and this as it is has the advantage of any innovation if for nothing else yet for its standing and that it is an Antient Establishment In short these that Cry out against this rule seem to have a great respect for the Protestants of Queen Elizabeths time and that Reign is counted the Golden age of this Kingdom Let us consider then what was 〈…〉 their Rule whether 36 or 39 Articles and that Rule that made them so happy may if preserv'd entire keep us so still CHAP. VII Of the Authors of Heresies Schisms and Corruptions and whether they were all Bishops I Have hitherto gone along with Mr. B. step by step conceiving it necessary to make a more particular Vindication of the Church in these times as well because they were the best that the Christian World has had for true piety and zeal as also because our Church Professes to receive the four first General Councils and lastly because all sober moderate Christians have always had and still retain a great esteem and veneration for many of those persons that are represented so odiously in Mr. B. 's Church-History I do not pretend to justifie every thing that was done by all the Bishops and Councils of those times There have been wicked men and wicked Bishops in all times and the Church under the Apostles nay their own Order was not so happy as to have none but good men of it But I hope I have shewed sufficiently that things were not as Mr. B. represents them and that most of his particular Accusations are void of all truth and ingenuity I must deal with him hereafter more Summarily and Answer the drift and design of his Book which is to render Episcopacy Odious under the more invidious name 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
please But the best of it is that if God permitted a Bishop of so eminent a Church as that of Antioch to fall into Heresie he on the other hand rais'd up Godly and Orthodox Bishops to oppose him and to vindicate not only the Christian Religion but the Order of Episcopacy also which he had dishonour'd For the Neighbour Bishops assembled in the Second Council of Antioch Condemn'd and Depos'd him Dionysius of Alexandria being now very old and unfit for Travel could not be there but writ to him says Theodoret Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 1. Eus l. 7. c. 30. Eusebius cites the Epistle of this Synod that expresly denys that saying that Dionysius of Alexandria had writ to the Council but had not vouchsafed so much as to salute Paulus From which passage Valesius concludes that the Letter of Dionysius to that Heretick Bishop in the Bibliotheca Patrum is forg'd Vales Annot in Eus l. 7. c. 30. notwithstanding Baronius receives it for genuine Now because Mr. B. promises to shew not only Who have been the cause of Heresies c. but also How It will not be impertinent to shew briefly how this Bishop also fell into Heresie It was in short by the way of Comprehension for Zenobia Queen of Palmyrene after her Husbands death being very considerable in the East and being Proselyted to the Jewish Religion for which reason likely Lâ—nginus her Favourite speaks so favourably of Moses this Paul Bishop of Antioch thought that by reducing Christ to be a meer man he might reconcile both Religious and take away the Partition-wall that divided the Jews and Christians nothing being so great an offence to the Jews as that Christ was own'd by his Disciples to be God And thus compliance and vain projects of Comprehension made this man a Heretick But Philastrius is not to be regarded Phil. Haer. 17. Ap. Biblieth Patr. who charges this Bishop with being turn'd Jew and teaching Circumcision and bringing over Zenobia to Judaism Before this time there is another Bishop reckon'd by some Collectors of Heresies as the Author of one Nepos Nepos an Egyptian Bishop who taught out of the Revelation of St. John as he pretended Euseb Hist l. 7. Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 3. that the Saints should live a Thousand years of pleasure here on Earth If this be a Heresie it was much older than this Nepos Just Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 307. Ed. Par. For it was so ancient and so general an opinion that Justin Martyr did not believe they were perfectly Christians that did not believe it For all that were Orthodox did look for the Restauration of Jerusalem and that Christ should reign there gloriously with his Saints a thousand years which he endeavours to prove out of the Revelations and the Book of the Prophet Isaiah Iren. l. 5. c. 33 34 35. Ireneus endeavours to prove the same thing at large and derives the Doctrine from Papias and by him from St. John the Beloved Apostle So that if Nepos prove Heretick for this he is like to find very good company but Author of it he cannot be It is some favour to him that Epiphanius and Philastrius pass him by for I do not remember that either of them mention him However you will say that though he was not the first that taught this Doctrine yet he was the first that divided the Church about it And that is a heavy fault that Mr. B. charges upon the Bishops that they divide the Church about unnecessary nice Speculations But this Nepos is as far if not farther from the Imputation of Schism than that of Heresie For Dionyfius charges him not with Schism but only with writing a book for the Millenary opinion which others afterwards laid a great stress upon and by that means several Churches were divided and some entirely carried away and all this after Nepos his death They might have done the like with Justin Martyr or Irenaeus if they had pleas'd and made the same stir and yet those Fathers not at all concern'd in the Schism this is manifestly the present case there is no account of any Schism made about this point till after this Nepos his death And Dionysius who writes against him thinks himself oblig'd to make his Apology before hand saying that he honour'd the man for many great good qualities and was sorry that he was forc'd to write against his Brother in the defence of Truth And as to the matter of fact it was thus He found in the Region of Arsinoe several Churches distracted about this matter so that they began to make Schisms in several places The Bishops surely must be concern'd where there is any Schism or Heresie they must have a hand in it But here by good fortune no such thing appears Euseb l. 7 here is mention only of Presbyters and Teachers whom this Bishop assembled Presbyters of the Villages and these after some Dispute he at last perswaded to Peace But what became of the Bishop of that Region will you say It may be he was dead and that this Nepos was the man unless one may imagine the Diocess of Alexandria to extend so far for the Country adjoyning to the Lake Mareotes and call'd by that name was part of the Alexandrian Diocess as we have shew'd before out of Athanasius and the Arsinoeites was the next Region to that But however this be our point is sufficiently clear'd that this Nepos was neither Heretick nor Schismatick Nor does it appear that any Bishop was concern'd in that difference save only Dionysius of Alexandria who by his Prudence and Authority did compose it To conclude For the first three hundred years after Christ there is but one Bishop found who was the Author or rather the Reviver of a Heresie and yet Mr. B. looks upon it as a strange thing that there should be a Heresie rais'd by one that was No Bishop The following Ages were not so happy but as Christians generally degenerated so did the Clergy too but yet not so much as our Author would make it appear The beginning of the fourth Century was very unhappy to the Church not only by reason of a most violent Persecution rais'd against it from without but also of Heresies and Schisms from within Meletius an Egyptian Bishop Meletius and the first of that Order that began a Schism forsook the Communion of the Church because they that fell from the Faith under Persecution were receiv'd into it Epiph. as Epiphanius tells his story though others of better Authority give other Reasons that this Bishop had himself deny'd the Faith and being condemn'd by a Synod of Bishops he set up a Schism But of this we have said enough elsewhere Athan. Ap. 2. About the same time started up the Schism of the Donatists Donatus named so from one of their Bishops Aug. de Haeâ—es that lived a good while after the rise of that Faction this was carried
Incompetible there might have been an end of the Arian Heresie but the Church is never distracted more by any thing than projects of Moderation And because the calamities that enfu'd upon the Arian Controversie are to be dated from Constantine's recalling of Arius It is some Justification of the Bishops that their authority and credit with the Emperour did not effect it Socr. l. 1. c. 25. But it was an Arian Priest that insinuated himself into the favour of Constantia and by her Intercession prevail'd with the Emperour to admit of Arius his delusory Recantation Constantius succeeding his Father in the East and taking part with the Arians it is no wonder if in a little while they grew uppermost not so much by the compliance of the Bishops with the Inclinations of the Prince which Mr. B.'s charity does so often suggest as by the violence that was us'd by deposing and banishing and killing all those that durst be active in the defence of the Faith And what was worse than all this by condemning men for other things than their Faith and so taking away from them the reputation of Martyrdom Socr. l. 1. c. 28 29. Sozom. l. 2. c. 25. by accusing good Bishops of the most heinous crimes and suborning Villains and Strumpets to swear the charge by imposing upon the simpler sort by plausible pretences And so at last as Vincentius Lirinensis expresses it by force and fraud the whole World in a manner was turn'd Arian partim vi partim fraude factus est Arianus But of this I have said enough already to shew with what little reason or humanity the Bishops are charg'd with compliance in the case of the Arians The Sects that sprung out of Arianism were most of them begun by those that were no Bishops Sozom. l. 3.18 id l. 5.12 Socr. l. 2.29 Philost l. 3. Aetius who thought not Arius to blaspheme enough and added to his Heresie further disparagements and diminutions of the son of God was first a Physician and then began to teach Heresie afterwards was made Deacon by Leontius Bishop of Antioch an Arian which is the highest Degree we find him arrive to in the Church he was at last excommunicated by the Arians themselves as being too mad for their company Eunomius was his Scholar Socr. l. 4. c. 7. and his Clerk bred a Heretick and by that merit Hereticks prevailing he came to be Bishop It were well indeed if all Bishops had the priviledge the Pope pretends to to be Infallible as soon as he is set in his Chair It were well if that Order were a preservative against Heresie But since it is in vain to hope that it is no wonder to see a Bishop a Heretick that was so when he was a Lay-man and brought the same disease along with him into the Office Macedonius his case is the very same He was a Heretick long before he was Bishop and was for that reason chose by the Arians after the death of Eusebius Vid. Athan. Apol. 2. id Ep. ad Sol. Socr. l. 2.6 Sozom. l. 3. c. 3. and not after the death of Alexander as Socrates and Sozomen seem to say For at the Synod of Tyre this Macedonius who at the death of Alexander was but a Deacon is said by Athanasius to have been a Presbyter belonging to Paulus Bishop of C. P. and to have accused his Bishop which Sozomen likewise confirms Vid. Vales Observ Eccles ad Socr. Soz. He is said to have been recommended together with Paulus by Alexander on his death-bed to the people of Constantinople for their Bishop but the character is not great Socrates says only for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an outward shew of gravity which Sandius takes for true piety and so amends the character But Sozomen says that Alexander recommended him only for a man of business and acquainted with the ways of the world This man it is likely turn'd Arian when he was Priest under Eusebius who remov'd from Nicomedia to Constantinople and by that means so ingratiated himself to the party Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 3. that after the death of that Arian Bishop that party set him up against Paul who was turn'd out by Eusebius Epiph. Haer. 77. Another improver of Arianism and leader of a new Sect was Aerius but he was No Bishop and for that reason turn'd Heretick For Eustathius and he having been fellow Students and Eustathius having the better fortune to be preferr'd to a Bishoprick This good man although oblig'd by all the promotion his friend could give him yet could not be contented and began to disparage that Order and Authority of Bishops since he had not the fortune to arrive at it This was the Cartwright of those times and the Father of the Presbyterian parity a Notion brought into the world by the ambitious discontents of one who when he could not be Bishop himself yet scorn'd to seem inferiour to any Bishop There is another Division of the Arians mention'd by Theodoret which were call'd Psatyriani or Tapsuriani who had no Bishop for their Leader but one that prepar'd a certain food well relish'd in those times the Criticks are not agreed whether it were Custard or Pudding-Pyes What this leading man was for a Scholar I cannot learn though I believe not inferiour to the Weavers and Plowmen of Kedderminster whom Mr. B. preferrs before the Ancient Fathers all that can be said for this man is that he had too much learning to follow his calling and nothing would serve his turn but mending of Religion But if I should joyn with him Theodotus the Tanner who liv'd indeed a good while before Mr. B.'s Weavers and Plow-men might be hard put to it and reconcil'd to their Trades again The Audians were a Sect sprung up much about the same time with the Arians Epiph. Haer. 70. headed by one Audius an Anthropomorphite but no Bishop till after he had made this division and then as the design of all Hereticks generally is he was made Bishop of his Party Epiphanius gives him and his followers a very fair Character which St. Austin seems to suspect Ep. ad Quodvult de Haeres and observes partiality and favour in the Relation But Theodoret who had most reason to know them represents this man as a heady fellow of extravagant conceits Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 4. and his followers as great Hypocrites These it is probable were the Anthropomorphites of Egypt that were so violent against the followers of Origen in Epiphanius his time who he says communicated with the Catholick Church and for that reason it may be he speaks so favourably of them The Errours of Origen as they were pertinaciously maintain'd by the Monks of Nitria became a Heresie but the Bishops had no hand but in condemuing those gross mistakes and when the Monks began to mutiny and raise tumults about them threaten to kill the Bishop and when they grew insupportably troublesome then
disturbance but all that love peace should surely cleave to their Bishop For his interest as well as duty oblige him to maintain peace and Unity for he is unavoidably a loser by the Quarrel and cannot rationally be suppos'd to have any design but to preserve things as they are But the Pretences of others though never so plausible are to be suspected of design where the separation is manifestly to the prejudice of the people as well as of the Bishop and to the advantage of him only that perswades it Now as the Bishops are under the least Temptation to make a disturbance and what Governour will raise a Sedition against himself so in fact likewise they are sound to be very few that being Bishops have rais'd any Heresie or Schism Let any man consult the Catalogues of Ancient Heresies and Compute how many of the 60 reckon'd by Epiphanius or of the 88. of St. Austin or of the greater number of Philastius and the more confus'd account of Theodoret How many of them I say were Bishops when they turn'd Hereticks and he shall find very few if any one in all those numbers But if any after they had Debauch'd the people from their Rightful Pastors were by subreption made Bishops of their Party They were never look'd upon as Bishops but only as heads of a Faction So that I believe the reader may by this time easily perceive what truth there is in Mr. B.'s General Charge that the Bishops were the causes of the Heresie and Schism and that it was so wonderful a thing that a Heresie should be begun by one that was no Bishop Besides this charge of Heresie and Schism Mr. B. accuses the Bishops of having been the cause of Church corruptions and Sedition As to the first if he means that the Bishops first introduc'd these corruptions into the Church I believe he will be never able to prove it as to the latter we shall examine it in due place The Corruptions of Christian Religion whether in Doctrine or Worship have crept unperceivably into the Church and by such degrees that it is a hard matter to ace their Original and we are so far from nowing the first Authors of them that we are ignorant even of the age wherein some of them were introduc'd Mr. B. charges considently but proves nothing But the most probable conjecture I think can be made of the rise and Progress of these is 1. That most of the corruptions in Doctrine crept in together with the Heathen Philosophy For great Philosophers especially the followers of Plato turning Christians still retain'd something of their former Notions which not appearing to be any way prejudicial to Christianityl but on the Contrary rendering it more acceptable to the wiser part of Heathens were by degrees own'd among the more learned sort in their Disputations with Heathens and pass'd without contradiction But afterwards busie men building farther consequences upon this foundation Improv'd the corruption till at last it grew Gross and intolerable Hence came the Invocation of Saints and Angels Plat. Pot. l. 5. Orig. adv câ—ll l. 8. Hieron descript Eccl. in Orig. Euseb Praep. Ev. l. 12. Virg. Georg. 6. Somn. Scip. c. and the opinion of their knowledge of Humane affairs Hence Prayer for the Dead and the opinion of Purgatory Hence proceeded many other curious Questions about the nature of God and his Attributes of the Fatal determination of events of free will and the like And as to the more sordid superstitious corruptions in Worship If any one sort of men are to be charg'd with them I believe the Monks will bid fairest The Cross and Reliques that came first from Judea are owing as far a I can observe to Melania and her Monks Paulin Epad Sulp. Sever. and I do believe the story of the finding of the Cross is of no ancienter standing Who has fill'd all the world with fictitious Reliques and fabulous Revelations concerning them Who Debauch'd the reason and common sense of men by their fulsome Legends and fictions of Miracles By whose means in short had Superstition overspread the face of the Christian world Were not the Monks the manifest Authors and Promoters of all this Superstition was born and brought up first in Monasteries and as Monks came into the Church they brought it along with them and the opinion the people had of the piety of these Retir'd men made every thing current that they advanc'd What so devoted Instruments had the Papal usurpation as the Monks that pretended exemption from the jurisdiction of their Bishops and subjected the Episcopal Authority to it And for Transubstantiation though the Grossness of the conceit were enough to prove it Monkish yet besides it is found by matter of fact to be theirs Paschasius Radbertus being the first that broach'd this Doctrine All this that I have but just mentioned in the General may be made out by a deduction of the rise and Progress of Superstition but a particular account would exceed too much the Proportion of this book This I must add that the Bishops who are charg'd with these Corruptions by Mr. B. were the only opposers of them that we find in Antiquity as we may see in the Canons of the African Church and that of Spain and other Countreys The first Picture we read of in a Christian Church was torn in pieces by Epiphanius a Bishop the first Councils about Images condemn'd the Idolatrous use of them with great zeal but at last superstition being still advanc'd by the Popularity of the Monks and the ignorance of the Age and some of the Emperors joyning with them prevail'd against the Bishops and so Idolatry was brought for a help to Christian Devotion And if at last the Bishops joyn'd in the superstitions it is no more a wonder than that they were engag'd in Heresie For when any number of people are corrupted whether with superstition or false Doctrine they will find Teachers to their own mind not that their Bishops will comply with every popular wind of doctrine but because men will make themselves Pastors after their own hearts and as long as there is a Heretick or an Ambitious man who will be any thing for applause or preferment they will never want Bishops and heads of their faction or if the Clergy have no Judas they will find Teachers amongst themselves and give them what Titles they please The last branch of the Charge is Sedition and this is as grievous as any of the other Suppose the matter of fact in the first place true that several Bishops had been Seditious does this proceed from their Constitution or any Principle the Bishops maintain that is inconsistent with the people where they live This I suppose cannot be pretended Or is Diocesan Episcopacy such an enemy to the peace of the Government We have had the experience of it for many ages and find but few that were so troublesome But because as the case stands now we are
Mr. B. owns out of Derodon and as Facundus proves at large though he had the ill fortune â—o be condemn'd by Later Councils upon 〈◊〉 misunderstanding this case I have discuss'd more Particularly in another place where Theodore Tarsensis his Doctrine was examin'd At last Bishops failing Mr. B. mentions Aerius who spake against Bishops because himself could not be Bishop so Pestilent a thing the desire of such Bishopricks have been And who can help it if men will be Ambitious and aspiring must there be no Government because it is the aim of ambition or may be the Possession of an evil man So there must be no Kings because many times a Crown became the occasion of Civil Wars There must be no reputation because Ambitious men affect it and grow Seditious to become Popular After this we have little hints of quarrels which were far enough from Sedition as that of Theodotus and Basil and of Eusebius and Basil the former was a particular humour and had no consequence Of the latter because Mr. B. says it was sad and scandalous I will give a more particular-relation that the Reader may discern the difference between the Temper of those good men that are here scandalously represented and that of our Separatists that Mr. B. compares with and prefers before them A difference happen'd between Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea and St. Basil then Presbyter of that Church Nazianz. Orat. de Basilio how or upon what occasion Gregory Nazian Was not willing to discover â—â—nking it not much for the honour of Reâ—â—gon to rip up the faults of Bishops But he says indeed that Eusebius though he was a very good man yet was in fault and seems to say that he envi'd Basil But when the falling out was known the Monks took Basils Part and drew many of the people with them and would have done him right upon his Bishop but this good man though he knew the Merit of his cause and of his person yet for peace's sake retir'd into the Widerness He might have said to his Monks that the people must stand by them and considering his Learning and Eloquence he might have presum'd to have edified more in a Coventicle than the Bishop could in the Church yet this good man had in humbler opinion of his gifts than to endanger the peace of the Church rather than forbear the exercise of them And after a long Banishment and silence he was not grown so resty and Irreconcileable but that when his Church was threatned by the Arian Pest he return'd voluntarily to assist his Bishop without desiring the Church Walls i. e. the Order and Discipline of it to be broken down that he might enter Triumphantly like a Conquerour He came of his own accord submitted to his Bishop and liv'd with him 'till he dy'd not only in peace and Charity but in the most entire friendship and confidence The Application of the Parable of the merciful Samaritan is not improper here Go thou and do likewise The contention between Basil and Euthomius Anthimus I suppose he means about the extent of their Diocese was no less Scandalous Any unreasonable Usuper may bring the meekest man upon earth into odious Debates so Saint Paul himself was put upon an Invidious vindication of his Authority and Jurisdiction The People of Casarea would have torn in pieces Eusebius the Emperor's the Empress he would have said own unkle for Basils sake if he had not hindred them And does not this shew the Loyalty Greg. Nazianz Orat 19. de Basil as well as the Authority of this Bishop But the People were Episcopal all people especially those of the meaner sort as these were are apt to be mov'd into disorder but it is much for the Honour of the Bishops authority and their Duty that they obey'd him so readily surely they are much more Tolerable than those that Assassin Bishops The difference between those of Neo Caesarea and Basil is not worth the mentioning because it contains nothing like Sedition and is only a quarrel about Psalmody and some new orders introduc'd among them The Antiochians for a Tax under Theodosius the Great did Tumultuate and kill the Magistrates and destroy'd the Statues of Flacilla the good Empress And what then What is this to the Bishops It does not appear that these mutineers were Christians The Heathens indeed were very Turbulent in this Emperors Reign because he had Order'd their Idols should be destroy'd Zozim l. 4. c. 38. and that they were the men principally concern'd in this uproar we may understand by the choice of their Delegates whom they sent to carry their submission to the Emperor Zozim l. 4. c. 42. Lybanius and Hilarius both Heathens The Church of Antioch I suppose was not in such want as to be forc'd to charge the enemies of their Religion with so great a trust nor could they have been so absurd as to commit their cause to such hands as they could not be assur'd of and they could not think they would be so acceptable to a zealous Christian Emperor who had so lately put out such severe Edicts against the Heathen superstition It shews a strange temper when a man to render Bishops odious will not stick to raise false accusations against Christians and charge them with the Sedition of Heathens In the worst says Mr. B. Good Ambrose at Milan was not silenc'd as we are but by an Orthodox Emperor desir'd and Commanded to deliver the Arians possession but of one Church and he refus'd to do it and to forsake that Church c. Whereas we left all our Churches at a word It is strange Mr. B. should take such delight to compare us with the Arians surely he would have his Reader believe we are as unsound in the Faith as those Hereticks or else all this discourse is but to amuse and impose upon him But there is great reason to value the peacable Resignation of the Nonconformists when we consider by what Usurpation and violence they were brought in and what a number of worthy Learned Ministers of the Church of England were turned out to make vacancies for these Men who were to instruct the people in new Mysteries of Religion which their old Pastours had not the Conscience or ability to Teach them that is of the Lawfulness of Rebellion We have several other instances of St. Ambrose his zeal against the Arians and some of his Charity in rescuing some of them from the fury of the multitude of his popularity c. But not a word of his sedition or his forcible resistance of the Emperour The harshest thing he did was the shutting of the Church against the Officers of the Emperour who would have delivered it to the Arians for a place to Blaspheme Christ under pretence of Worshipping him But at length after long straining Mr. B. has found out some Bishops in the same fault of owning and flattering Tyrants and Usurpers with himself and this because it
the newer Models of Church Polity have obtain'd but in a small part even of the Reform'd Churches and that in some places under Persecuting Princes who more effectually keep under the Tares in the field of the Church prevent excesses and Unite the suffering Church than any sort of Church Government or Discipline whatsoever yet the Histories even of these Churches can furnish too many instances of Tumult and disorder of Heresies Schisms and contentions of Wars and Desolations and if this cannot be drawn into any argument against the Presbyterian way there is less reason it should be urg'd against Episcopacy that for so long time obtain'd over the Universal Church which under this constitution had pass'd through fire and water and then was brought into a wealthy place through distresses and Persecutions through all the encouragements of wealth and power And in short through all the Tryals that can be made by all the differences of outward condition and Circumstances They who fancy a time when the Church had no Bishops do represent it as then full of discord and Distraction I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Cephas So that as they say it was necessary for the preservation of peace and Unity to appoint one person over the rest and if the Presbyterian parity had any place in the Primitive times as some do imagine it must needs have been an intolerable kind of Government since all on the sudden it was Universally abolish'd it must have given strange occasion of offence when all the Christian Churches in the world should conspire to Abrogate this Polity and to destroy all the memory and footsteps of it so that in the lamentable distractions which the Church fell into afterwards under Bishops none should so much as propose this way of relief by returning to their Ancient Government and the people that were so harrass'd with perpetual contentions about their Bishops must either think that there could be no Church where there was no Bishop or else that Presbyterian parity or a Popular Church Government would occasion yet greater mischiefs than those they suffer'd That the inconveniences are not less will appear from the experience of such Churches as have cast off Episcopacy some of which at leastwise a good number of very understanding men in them do at time this wish that they might be govern'd by Bishops and conceive it to be the only remedy for their divisions Beza in vitâ Calvini J. Lassitius de Discip Frat. Bohem. Calvin Ep. ad fratr Bohem. Eccles Bohem ad Ang. Paraenes In the beginning of the Reformation those Eminent Instruments whom God was pleas'd to employ in that work were so wholly taken up with preaching and writing against those gross errors and superstitions which had cover'd the face of Christianity that they had little or no leisure to look after Discipline or Government and did do the work of Evangelists rather than Governours of the Church But when they saw to what mischiefs the want of Government and discipline expos'd the Reform'd Churches and were thereby convinced that there must be building up as well as pulling down then they began seriously to consider of some Ecclesiastical Polity For many had joyn'd with them in pulling down Superstition and Papal Tyranny who when they began to discover their opinions more particularly became intolerable and advanc'd such doctrines as did not only destroy Christianity but all Government and society Muntzer Swenckfeld c. These by good providence were neither Bishops nor Episcopal men but against all sort of Church Government and order and while there is any of this leaven remaining let what sort of Government you please obtain there will never be an end of Schism and Sedition For if Episcopacy be Abolish'd what ever is establish'd in its Room will be accounted by such men every whit as Antichristian and Presbyterian Glasses and Synods or Congregational Episcopacy will have no fairer quarter for these will admit no Government no Law but that which will permit every one to do what he pleases and that will set up a State of Grace just like Hobbs his state of nature It is very much to be fear'd that this is the most prevailing principle among our Anti-Episcopal Dissenters And if out of such inconsiderable beginnings they increas'd so fast when the fences of our Church had been once taken away as not only to ruin all projects of unity and Establishment but to possess themselves of the Government what may we expect now when they are form'd into considerable parties and out-number those of the Classical and Parochial Presbyterians that is all that are for any sort of settlement that may be suited to the Circumstances of this Nation What may we not have Reason to fear if the Laws which give check to their Insolences were once taken away And if they should be taken in under the Notion of Protestants A dishonour from which it has pleas'd God hitherto to preserve that name according to the prayers of the first Reformers who dreaded the growth of Sects no less than the return of Popery it self But besides that Heresie may spring where there are no Bishops as there were none in the Reformation when those Monsters first appear'd There can be also bitter contentions about Religion where Bishops have nothing to do Luther and Carolostadius were no Bishops M. Adams in vit Carolost and yet they could quarrel and disturb the Reformation they had in hand with their Jarres Carolostadius in Luthers Absence Reform'd the Church of Wittenborg took away Images Auricular Confession c. Which Luther took offence at as being done without his Authority or advice which was the beginning of the Sacramentarian War and M. Adams blames them both in these words visus est uterque cupidior Gloria Luther was angry that any body should set up himself a new master in a place where he was so much concerned and could not indure Ordinationes suas in Populo pressâ mea authoritate erigi And this contention was so Exasperated that after a Conference Carolostadius was Banished from Turingia by the Elector of Saxonie's order and the instigation of Luther and some other Ministers were turn'd out of their places upon the same Account and the sufferer did not spare to render all this Treatment as Invidious as he could and therefore writes a Letter to the people of Orlamund Subscribed A. Bodenstein non Auditus non Convictus à Martino Luthero Ejectus If Bishops or their Councils had been concern'd in this what Bitter Reflections should we have upon the Prelatical persecuting Spirit But it seems other men as well as Bishops have passions and may disturb the Church Yet we are not to aggravate but to cover as much as we can the frailties of great persons and to retain still a Reverence for the Authority of their Offices and their Personal Excellences But whereever the Lutheran Reformation was received Diocesan Episcopacy soon
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
the Multitude of Sects and Heresies that sprung up in the first and second and third ages of the Church was no dishonour to the form of Government then us'd in the Church as should encourage any man to dislike or change it Why then does he endeavour to dishonour Diocesan Episcopacy upon this very reason and why does he reproach it with the Schisms and Heresies that happen'd under that government But no man can reason against Mr. B. better than himself does in the very same Paragraph it is but taking away the word Prelacy and putting in the stead of it Congregational Episcopacy and then nothing can be more full to our purpose If it was Congregational Episcopacy that was us'd then Swarms of Sects and Heresies may come in notwithstanding Congregational Episcopacy even in better hands than yours But if it was not Congregational Episcopacy that was then the Government but Diocesan Episcopacy Heresies are no more a shame to that Government now I wish Mr. B. had consider'd this place when he conceiv'd the first design of his Church History perhaps he might have seen the Inconsequence of his design to dishonour Bishops and their Councils from a long deduction of Schisms and Heresies which he lays at their door and have forborn giving this just offence to all that have any real concern for the Honour of Christian Religion which is no less concern'd in all these disgraces than Episcopacy Yet I shall willingly discharge Congregational Episcopacy from any Imputation of those evils that disturb'd the Church in the first times and be content Mr. B. should lay it all to the account of Diocesan Government which I shall shew at large in the next Chapter to have been the Constitution of the Primitive Churches in the mean time I must enquire a little farther after the Glorious fruit of this Congregational Episcopacy If the Ancient Church was quite a stranger to this kind of Episcopacy it will be a harder matter to find it in latter ages since Mr. B. tells us that Bishopricks were enlarged so enormously in process of time that several Cathedrals were turn'd into Chapels and instead of one Congregation every Bishop had several Scores and Hundreds And the Reformation where it retain'd Bishops made them all Diocesans and set them over several Congregational Churches thus the Bohemians Denmark Sweden and some parts of Germany besides these three Kingdoms Where they Abolish'd Episcopal Government they threw away the Titles too so that if Mr. B.'s kind of Episcopacy obtain'd any where it must be under another name therefore that we may discover it it will be necessary to give a short desoription of it and then we may possibly find it to have acted under the disguise of another name This Congregational Bishop then Treatise of Ep. which Mr. B. makes so much a do about is the same thing with an Elder as he tells us and takes great pains to prove it 2. This Elder has no necessity of any ordination by any Bishop or Elders but having abilities and inclination to exercise them in the service of the Church 2. Disp p. 164.165 he may Interpret it to be sufficient authority to preach Administer the Sacraments c. Nay is oblig'd to do the Office of a Bishop or Elder 1. Disp 〈◊〉 throughout Treatise of Ep. p. 33. 3. That this Elder can Govern but one Congregation and there may be more than one of such Bishops belonging to that one Congregation 4. That this Congregation is not to be so great as that of Israel that had 600000 men but is to be restrain'd to the compass of personal Communion in hearing praying and receiving the Sacraments 5. That this Church and Bishop is independent and is invested with all Ecclesiastical power within it self 3. Disp p. 347. So that no other Bishop or Synod has any power or Superiority over it but by its own consent and then consequently no particular Congregation is obli'd to enter into any association at all but may refuse to submit to any Synod nay if it be left in this liberty and Independence by Christ it ought not to engage with any associations as should be prejudicial to that original liberty and consequently set and determin'd Synods are to be avoided and since they are only prudential means of preserving good correspondence between neighbour Churches it is enough they should be occasional And what is all this but the Picture of Independency and the Congregational Episcopacy upon Examinations proves nothing else but Congregational Eldership What a Healing constitution this is I shall shew first by matter of fact Secondly I shall shew the natural tendence of such a Government to endless discord and division that the Schisms and Heresies that it has hatch'd were not accidental but proceeded from the nature of the Government it self 1. Some derive this Congregational way from Socinus Case of the Church of Engl. p. 249. who perhaps thought it the most suitable to his design of spreading the poyson of his Heresie and to prevent all dangers that might threaten it from the condemnation of Synods Especially considering the late Union that had been made between all the Reform'd Churches of the Greater and lesser Poland in the Synod of Sendomiria Others deduce it from Ramus and Morellus who plac'd all Ecclesiastical authority in the people and by making the Government of the Church to be a Democracy made way for Congregational Independence This put the French Churches to the trouble of several Synods Thorndykes right of the Ch. p. 67. which condemned this Doctrine as pernicious to the Unity of Christian Churches and derogating from the honour of Religion Mr. Thorndyke conjectures that it came over hither with Ramus his Philosophy And that his credit in our Vniversities was the first means to bring this conceit in Religion among us For about the time that he was most cryed up in them Brown and Barrow published it And R. Baly who indeavours to relieve the English Presbyterians from the imputation of having begot this ill-faced Child Disswasive p. 12.13 as he calls it would fain also Father it upon Morellius who as he thinks learned from the Disciples of Munster this Ecclesiastical Anarchy But whoever were the Authors of it and none of those yet named can give it any great reputation it is certain that the Fruits of it are to be found only amongst our selves where it happened to take root and grow up into something considerable The Brownists or those of the separation laid the first Foundations of Independency among us and though they had so few followers at first not exceeding one Congregation so as not to have any occasion of entering into any measures of a general Unity yet they declared for the independence of Congregations and that no Diocesan Prelacy or Presbytery had any Authority over Congregational Churches Rob. Brown who gave the name to the Brownists though Bolton had led that way to
separation twenty years before seems to have made the first step towards this Congregational way Brown in the column intituled the state of Christians 50. Art 51. but he speaks of it something more obscurely Who have the grace and office of watching and guiding The Answer is Some have this Charge together which cannot be sundred Some have their several charge over many Churches some have charge but in one Church only 52. How have some their charge and office together Ans There be Synods or the meetings of sundry Churches where the weaker Churches seek for help to the stronger for deciding or redressing of matter or else the stronger look to them for redress Who have their several charge over many Churches Ans Apostles Prophets Helpers or Evangelists Nor does he determine whether any may succeed to this general inspection or no. Those that followed delivered themselves with greater clearness upon this point Confer with Egerton p. 43. Collection of certain Art 1590. Art 11. Barrow and Greenwood make all Ecclesiastical power to belong to every Congregation and call the Bishops Antichristian because they take upon them to oversee so many Pastors and Churches And in another treatise where they answer this Question whether the Queen may be excommunicated by the Presbyterie they say That they detest the power of any Person or Presbytery usurping Authority over the Church No Presbytery can do any thing of this kind without the consent of the whole Congregation but That the Congregation whereof the Prince is may Excommunicate him Ainsworth went the same way and declared himself in these words Ains Communion of Saints c. 24. We find no Authority committed to our Congregation over another for Excommunicating the same as every Church has over her own members Christ reserveth this power in his own hands Barrow affirms Bar. Refuttat of Gifford 137. that ordinary set Synods are as prejudicial to the Rights of the Church as the other i.e. Diocesan Episcopacy But Johnson was the first that cleared this point and treated of it particularly Johns Christian Plea Treat 3. He layes down two things as the foundation of Church Government and Unity 1. That all particular Churches with their Pastors do stand immediately under Jesus Christ their Arch Pastor without any other strange Ecclesiastical Power and Authority interposed between Whether of Prelates or their unlawful usurping Synods 2. That notwithstanding the estate and distinction aforesaid Treat 3. c. 6. p. 261.262 c. yet all the Churches and Ministers of them should be alwayes ready to advise and assist one another and in this manner might be had a lawful and profitable use of Synods classes c. Provided they do not usurp any unlawful jurisdiction or power over particular Churches This man goes yet farther and maintains Congregational Episcopacy and shews out of several places of Scripture and antiquity That there may be in a particular Church one Pastor or Angel of the Church properly and specially so called and divers teachers and ruling Elders joyned to this Pastor in the Ministry and Government of the same Church who may all of them generally be called Pastors yet so as one be specially distinguished from the rest in respect of place and function to be the Pastor so more particularly called under Jesus Christ the Arch Pastor Never did copy agree more exactly with the Original than Mr. Baxters doctrine about Church Government with this of Johnson the Brownist Vt sit tam fimilis sibi nec ipse It is easier to find a difference between Mr. B. and himself upon other occasions than to discern the least disagreement between him and Johnson in this Robinson whom Baylie makes the Father of the Independents though he left some tenets of the Brownists Diss p. 17. Robins Apol p. 17. continued still a separation in the Sacraments and Discipline and was as much for this Congregational way as any of the Brownists In his Apology he declares That every particular Congregation is intire without any relation to other Churches as Peter or Paul are perfect men without respect to others that these Congregations are Independent and under Christ only Therefore the Ancient bounds which the Apostles have laid are not to be removed under pretence of any human Prudence Antiquity or Vnity Upon this foundation the Independent Churches were built and continue to this day which though they may differ in points of Doctrine as their Pastors or leading men may be inclined yet this constitution of Government gives them a common Denomination And now having given this account of the Original of this way at leastwise in these last times the higher Antiquity of it we shall consider elsewhere I shall in the next place give some account of the success of this form of Government and shew what fruits of Peace and Truth it has yielded since its first planting by the Brownists Robert Brown Schoolmaster in Southwark Baylie diss Ch. 1. having seduced out of the Communion of the Church of England such a number of Disciples as made up a congregation for fear lest the severity of our Laws might dissipate this new Church resolved to remove it to a place of greater liberty and accordingly perswaded his followers to transport themselves and families into Middleborough Here they had not been long but they began to be shaken with intestine discords G. Johns Letter to Fran. Johns George Johnson sayes It was in great measure occasioned by Browns Wife and other Women of that banished Church which caused a mortal feud between Brown and Harison and some said it was the occasion of Harison 's death It was also the cause of Excommunicating Perriman And this new fashion'd Church in short broke all to pleces most turning Anabaptists and Brown at last seeing himself deserted returned with tears in his eyes into the Unity of the Church Conformed and was preferred to a living The next Congregation that was formed under this rule was by F. Johnson Diss p. 14. for Barrow was hanged before he could fill his Church and this finding the air of the English Government not to agree with it followed its Pastor to Holland and setled at Amsterdam a kind Soil for a young and tender sect But this Colony had no better success than that of Brown for in a little while it was diminished by the falling away of several to the Anabaptists who were Excommunicated by the Congregation they deserted But the dissensions that were raised among themselves afflicted them yet more for G. Johnson having disobliged his Brothers Wife by reproving her for the vanity of her Apparel and cited a Text of Scripture for it when he was candidate for the place of a Pastor in conjunction with his Brother G. Johnson discourse of some troubles c. 1603. was required to recant his Doctrine against fine Cloaths he on the other side drew Articles of Impeachment against the Busk Stomacher and Sleeves c.
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
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
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
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
his Diocess But since there is no Record left as Ancient as the times we speak of that gives the just extent of any Diocess and what we mentioned already are only accidental hints we must take some other way to make more just observations of the magnitude of those Stars and of the Orbs in which they moved And since most of the Remains of Ancient writings do either concern Religion in general and are taken up in the defence of it against Idolatry and Blasphemous Heresies or else in giving some account of the general administration of the Church by Bishops met in Councils we must try whether we may not ground a probable computation of the Bishopricks of those times in some Provinces upon the number of Bishops that usually met there to determine such things as concerned the general Union and the peace not only of the Churches within such a district but also the Church Universal Now the Church of Africk at this distance of time stands in the best light of any which is owing to the excellent writings of Cyprian who gives several particulars concerning the state of the Churches of that part of the world in and before his time The first Council mentioned there was under Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage about rebaptizing of Hereticks but the number is not mentioned which if it had been any thing extraordinary Cyprian would not have forborn to alledge to add weight and Authority to the precedent he cites in favour of his own opinion Cypr. Ep. 71. Agrippinus bonae memoriae vir cum caeteris Coepiscopis suis qui illo tempore in Provincia Africa Numidia Ecclesiam Dei gubernabant The next we find is at Lambese against one Privatus of that place where there were present ninety Bishops the most numerous Council we read of in Africk before the Schism of the Donatists Ep. 55. compared with 30. nor is it to be wondred there should be so many Bishops met together in a Provincial Synod since the Province of Cyprian contained Africa properly so called Numidia and the two Mauritania's Latius fusa est nostra Provincia habet enim Numidiam Mauritanias duas sibi cohaerentes Ep. 45. and we find several Councils composed of the Bishops of all these Provinces less numerous than this against Privatus Nanc cum in unum convenissemus tam Provinciae Africaequam Numidiae Episcopi numero 71. Ep. 73. However this passage of Cyprian of Provincia nostra whether it be understood here of the Civil or Ecclesiastical Province yet it was usual for the Bishops of those Provinces in Cyprians time to meet at Carthage to consult as the occasions of the Church did require Cum in unum Cartheâ—ini Convenissent Kal. Sept. Episcopi plurimi ex Provincia Africa Numidia Mauritâ—nia Sententiae Episc ap Cypr. T. 2. ed Goulart And it is further observable that there is a great difference in the number of the Councils of Africa properly so called and the other more general ones of the several Provinces united all the Bishops of that Country or the greatest part coming together upon extraordinary occasions as we shall shew presently from the simplicity of their constitution which continued longer in that Church than in any other of the Christian World and the strict obligations every particular Bishop had of coming to the Synods which here were more indispensable because there were no Metropolitans to represent the Suffragans of their Province but of this hereafter After the persecution that forced Cyprian from Carthage was ceased a Council was assembled to settle the Discipline of the Church relating to the laps'd Cum quies tranquillitas data esset Episcopis in unum convenire indulgentia divina permitteret tune communicate librato de omnium collatione consilio statueremque quid fieri oporteret Si quis vero ante concilium nostrum ante sententiam de omnium Consilio statutam lapsis temere communicareâ— â—yseâ—â— communionâ— arceatur Persecutione sâ—pita copiâ—sus Episcoporum numerus quos integros incolumes fides sua Domini tutela protexit Ac si minus sufficiâ—â—s iâ— Africa Episcâ—porum numerus etiam Râ—mam c. Ep. 52. Epigraph Ep. 54. Cypriaâ—uâ— liberalis c. Numero 42. or such as had fallen away in time of Temptation and since Cyprian in his recess would never determine any thing concerning it before the storm were over and all the Bishops permitted to come together to establish a general rule concerning it it is to be imagined that all that could possibly come together would meet upon this occasion where they were all concerned and so no doubt they did and Cyprian intimates as much where he says that all that had stood and persevered under that persecution came together and their number did hardly exceed forty it is likely that only the Bishops of the Province of Africk appeared here the business requiring some speedy remedy and all of that Province that had not lapsed doubtless came together and Cyprian with regard to the number of Bishops in the Province calls this a great number of Bishops Another Syned is said to be called shortly after by the Author of the Libellus Synodicus in the cause of Novatian which appears to be after that which we have mentioned last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. Synod Sed cum statuissemus Collegae complures qui in unum conveneramus perhaps in Hadrumettina Colonia legatis ad vos coepiscopis nostris omnia interim in t egrasuspenderentur ut tâ— universi nostri Collega communicationem tuam i. e. Catholicae Ecclesie unitatem probarent firmiter ac tenerent and these universi Collegae it seems were the 84. above mentioned who came from Africk Numidia and the two Mauritaniâ—'s for the Union and consent of all these was designed by Cyprian in order to which some Bishops were sent to Rome to inform them of the whole matter Cypr. Ep. 45. as well from the number which was eighty four and supposed the Church in a peaceable condition as from Cyprians Letter to Cornelius about the Clergy in Hadrumettina Colonia which though it be placed in the order of Pamelius before the Synod of Carthage about the lapsed yet from several circumstances I conceive was written some time after For 1. From the Epistle of the Synod last mentioned it appears that it was the first after the Persecution 2. It makes no mention at all of Novatian 3. The Letter of Cyprian about Polycarp and his Clergy gives the reason why they deferred to determine the difference between Cornelius and Novatian because they staid for an account of the whole matter from those Bishops they had sent to Rome that the cause of Cornelius might want no advantage of evidence to justifie and clear it though he Cyprian was well enough satisfied of the justice of it and had communicated with Cornelius before All this he sayes in the same place was done
in order to establish a general consent about communicating with Cornelius which was to be done in a full Council of all the Provinces the same that we have set down here from the Libellus Synodicus Another African Council whose Epistle to Fidus about the Baptism of Infants is still extant Ap. Cypr. Ep. 59. Aug. â—â—â—tr duâ—â— Ep. â—th l. 4. c. â— had sixty six Bishops as St. Augustine reports and names the number as extraordinary to add greater Authority to their Testimony That concerning Basilides and Martialis had but a very small number and the first about the validity of Baptism by a Heretick had no great number as we may conclude from the Inscription of it which shews that the Bishops of Numidia were not there and that it consisted only of the Province of Africa properly so called Cyp. Ep. 68.70 Ep. ad Januarium caeteros Episcopos Numidas And Cyprian though he mentions this Council in several places yet he sayes nothing of the number nay though he mentions it in the very same period with that which followed upon the same account yet he does not say any thing of the multitude of Bishops there but expresses that of the other because he thought it remarkable considering the number of Bishops at that time when we had met together the Bishops of Africa and Numidia seventy one in number Quid in Concilio cum complures adessemus decreverimus Et nunc quoque cum in unum convenissemus tam Provinciae Africae quam Numidiae Episcopi septuaginta unus Ep. 73. And this Council as if it had not been full enough is confirmed by another of greater extent and number Cum in unum convenissent Episcopi plurimi ex Provincia Africa Numidia Mauritania Sententiae 87. Episâ—c ap Cypr. T. 2. c. 15 consisting of eighty seven Bishops assembled out of the Provinces of Africa Numidia Mauritania and of these eighty seven two left their suffrages with Proxies and this is the most numerous of all the Councils in Cyprians time and the last of that Country we have any account of in that age This was the state of the Church of Africk and the number of their Bishops which if we compare with the vast increase of Christians there described by Tertullian and the Accession we may probably conceive to have been made after by the care and ministry of those good Bishops that governed that Church we must conclude the African Dioceses to be very large and to contain each of them not only a very great number of Believers but those also dispersed throughout a great extent of Country But it may be objected that all the Bishops of Africk might not meet in these Councils and therefore there is no computation to be made of their number from this observation To which I answer first that it is possible every individual Bishop might not be present yet the greatest part was and none was to absent himself without absolute necessity as of sickness or the like and the number of such would be inconsiderable And the Canons of that Church are very strict in this point in after times Codex Canon Afric c. 53. vid. Conc. Carth. 3. c. 43. and give strange incouragements to such as have otherwise but ill titles to their Bishopricks to hold them to the prejudice of him who has the juster title if the one frequent their Councils and the other neglect them On the otherside neglect of duty in this particular is made liable to deprivation Carth. 4. c. 21. Episcopus ad Synodum irâ— non sine satis gravi necessitate inhibâ—atur fic tamen ut in sua persona â—egatum mittat 2. In Cyprians time when the African Bishops had no dependance one upon another and no subordination to Metropolitans and the Decrees of their Synods did and could oblige only such as were present and consented to them it was necessary that all should come together or send their Proxy in order to establish that Unity among them which was the design of these Councils and yet all the number even of their most solemn Councils is not great 3. The practice of the African Church within half an à ge after this time confirms this inference from the number of the Bishops at Councils to the number of Dioceses in that Country for we find presently as Bishopricks were multiplyed by the Schism of the Donatists so Councils became much more numerous and whereas ninety was the greatest number that ever met there before this Schism afterwards we find several hundreds But however this inference will hold it is some comfort to find some others of great knowledge and judgement in antiquity to hold the conclusion that the number of Bishopricks was not great in Cyprians time which is assigned as a reason why his Province was so large Aucto numero sedium Episcopalium adeo ut omnibus invigilare haud facile esset Carthagâ—nensi Episcâ—po Carol. à S. Paulo Geogr. sacr p. 84. But to make this point clear beyond all exception I will indeavour to shew from unquestionable testimonies how Bishopricks came to be multiplyed in Africk more than in any other part and then notwithstanding this I will make it evident that those Bishops were Diocesans and some of them after the crumbling of that Church into small pieces had yet very large Dioceses not inferiour to most of ours for extent of Territory The Schism of the Donatists though it broke not forth with any violence till after Caecilianus was made Bishop of Carthage yet it was hatching long before in the time of Mensurius Aug. Ep. 163. when the faction was kept up under hand and had its Agents in several places But being grown ripe it took occasion from the promotion of Caecilianus to declare it self Secundus Tisnigensis being called to Carthage with his Numidian Bishops to set up another He came accordingly with about seventy Bishops all the strength he could make and perhaps more than his own Province could afford him These declare they would not communicate with Caecilianus and therefore set up Majorinus against him and in like manner where ever they could make the least party imaginable they appointed a Schismatical Bishop and not content to equal the number of the Catholicks they divided the ancient Dioceses and erected several new Episcopal seats that by the number of their Bishops at least they might appear to be Catholicks as they afterwards laid claim to the title upon that account It was not long after this breach Aug. Ep. 48. but we hear of unusual numbers of Bishops met in Council and one of the Donatists of Carthage according to Tychonius his relation vid. Valesii Dissert de Schism Donat had no less than two hundred and seventy Bishops which if it be true shews this change to have been very sudden though it cannot be so soon as Balduinus and out of him Baronius would understand it to be but of this I have
But a Synod held at Rome about the same subject had but fourteen Bishops and several other Synods about this Controversy had not many more That of Jerusalem under Narcissus had but fourteen Papa Victor direxit Authoritatem not the language of that time Praecepta it aque authoritate praedictus Episcopus nonsolum de sua Provincia sed de diversis Regionibus omnes Episcopos evocavit And the famous Council under Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea had but twelve besides him Eusebius makes but one of both these Bede represents it as an extraordinary great Assembly for the Preface to it I conceive to be his he makes him to assemble not only the Bishops of his own Province but from several other parts The Council of Lyons under Irenaeus made up but fourteen That of Corinth under Bachillus eighteen That under Pasna or Palma the same number That of Osroena eighteen but the President of it is not known That of Mesapotamia which follows had the same number and it may be was the same Synod as that of Rome which follows is it may be the same with that which is mentioned before to have had the like number and the occasion of such mistakes as these is that when men find a Synod cited upon several accounts although it might be the same meeting that determined several things they are apt to conclude they were several Synods However it is plain from hence that there were but few Bishops in comparison of what they grew to within an hundred years after and that I take to be an argument of the largeness of their Dioceses But you will say there were but few Christians in these Parts The countrary is notorious to all the Word for these parts where most of these Councils were held were the best planted and furnished with Christians of any in the World But it may be there were but few in the world at this time It is not long after this that Tertullian wrote his Apology and what number of Christians there were then we have shewed already How then can this be imagined for every City if it have a Church must have a Bishop there is no absolute necessity of that that it should have its peculiar Bishop for we have seen already one Bishop as that of Milevis had more Cities than one in his Diocess and it had been so from ancient time or rather from the beginning antiquitus pertinuit And in this time we are now speaking of it is likely the Apostolick constitution of Bishopricks which in the beginning as Rabanus Maurus observed were very large did hold and it was the best suited to the infancy of the Church when one general visit our should take care of several Churches scattered as yet and incoherent and because a persecution might overthrow these little beginnings it was necessary there should be one whose office it should be to cultivate these new Plantations and where they were rooted up to set anew and to confirm those that were shaken with a competent district But when Christians multiplyed every where and most Cities had such numbers belonging to them as must be distributed into several Congregations the Diocess of the first constitution became too great and every City with some of the Territory belonging to it became a Diocess and had its proper Bishop And this seems to be most agreeable both to the Scripture History of the Church which we have made a deduction of before and to the progress of the Church in succeeding ages and particularly to the numbers of Bishops which are found in the first Synods But to proceed The Synod at Rome under Victor wherein Novatus was condemned was much more numerous than any mentioned before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 43. and consisted of sixty Bishops besides Priests and Deacons and Eusebius speaking of this observes the number to be very extraordinary consisidering the circumstances of those times and the numbers assembled in foregoing Synods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Libellus Synodicus reckons but eighteen which it may be was a small Synod previous to this greater one mentioned by Eusebius The Eastern Synods about Rebaptizing Hereticks were reckoned as for those times very numerous Euseb l. 7. c 5. Plurimi tractavimus Firmil Ep. ad Cypr. contra Crescon l. 3. c. 3. and yet that of Iconium the greatest of those of the East consisted of but fifty Bishops and these met together out of several Countries as Galatia Cappadocia Cilicia and other neighbouring Provinces St. Augustin despises the smalness of their numbers though Dionysius confesses these were mighty Synods in his time or rather before his time for they seem to be earlier than Baronius places them But what were these against so many thousand Bishops as were in the world then sayes Augustin I believe it would have been a very hard matter to have found so many thousand Bishops at that time I am sure the Acts of the Church discover no such multitudes of them and they must be very negligent if they should be so many and yet suffer things to be carried any way in Councils by a very few persons that Father judged of former ages by his own when Dioceses were exceedingly multipyed even to be the grievance and complaint of the African Church But Baronius goes to mend the matter by telling us that this opinion could find but fifty to countenance it among all the Bishops of the East One would imagine by this that the Councils of Iconium and Synadae An. Ch. 258 were but a small number of Bishops protesting against the general suffrage of their neighbour Bishops But if this were true Stephen Bishop of Rome had acted very extravagantly and upon ill information when upon the account of those publick resolutions taken by fifty Bishops he goes to excommunicate all the Bishops of Cilicia Galatia Euseb l. 7. c. 5. Cappadocia and the bordering Nations What number of Bishops France had at this time appears from the Council Vita 5. Pauli ap Bosquet Hist Eccl. Gal. par 2. where Paul Bishop of Narbonne was accused of in continence Evocatis paucis Episcopis Galliae quia nondum erant plures having called a few Bishops together for at that time Gallia had not many Nor do we find that Dioceses were much multiplyed in Spain as yet the famous Council of Illiberis which decreed so many things relating to Communion and such as all the Churches there must be supposed to consent to had but nineteen Bishops a number so small that Baronius takes occasion from hence to despise the Authority of the Assembly But what ever may be inferred from the smalness of their number surely one must infer that their Dioceses were Divided into Parishes from Canon seventy seven Siquis Dia conus regens plebem sine Episcopo vel Presbytero aliquns baptizaverit c. Conc. Illib c. 77. Hic regere posse plebem Diaconum hoc
est curam Parochiae habere Hispani Episcopi docent Baptizare posse Mendoza where it is ordered That if a Deacon who has the government of a Congregation or Parish without a Bishop or Presbyter shall Baptize any the Bishop shall perfect it by Confirmation or if in the mean time the party dyes we are to hope well of him The Council of Neocaesarea in like manner does signifie the same distribution of Dioceses into several Parishes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Conc. Neocaes c. 13. where the Country Presbyters are distinguished from those of the City and the former are forbid to officiate in the Citie 's Cathedral in the presence of the Bishops or Presbyters belonging to them Now when Constantines conversion had made so great and happy a change in the affairs of the Church when the Civil power that hitherto used all means possible to destroy it took it not only into its protection but to special favour and kindness and studyed all means possible to render it great and honourable the number of Bishops and Dioceses were so far from being diminished that they soon after were exceedingly encreased partly by the Emperors multiplying Metropoles partly by the unhappy Divisions that soon after afflicted the Church as will appear by the progress of this deduction When Constantine Indicted the Council of Nice it appears from Eusebius that he us'd all means to have as great an Assembly of Bishops as could well come together Euseb â—e vita Constant l 3. c. 6. for which purpose he furnish'd many of them especially such as were at a great distance with convenience for Travail and there is no doubt but as many as could have any means of going would be carri'd thither by their curiosity to see and enjoy the Presence of a Christian Emperor that new Miracle that God had wrought in favour of his Church and accordingly they came from all parts of the Roman Empire and some from the Nations beyond it The Countries that lay next to Nice did doubtless send the greatest part of their Bishops as may be inferr'd by comparing the subscriptions of the Bishops of Palestine Phoenice Coelosyria Egypt and some other Countries either with the Ancient Notiâ—â—â— of the Dioceses of those Countries or the subscriptions of following Councils and it is observable that the Province of Bithynia where this Council was held had but 13 Bishops Present though the principal Bishop of the Province were extreamly concern'd and at last condemned by this Synod therefore we cannot but conclude that that Province had very few more Yet after all this care to make a full assembly the number of Bishops scarce exceeded 250. as Eusebius who was present does affirm 232. according to the MS. cited by Mr. Selden in Eutich 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Sandius takes to be Sabinus often mention'd by Socrates and one that exposed this Council as consisting of poor Illiterate men and Eustatius Bishop of Antioch reckons but 20 more though the Common opinion reckons 318. and yet how small a number is this in comparison of some succeeding Councils where we find without half the Apparatus that belong'd to the Nicene Council double the number meet together The Council of Sardica on the part of the Catholicks had near 300. the Hereticks had great numbers at the same time in Philippopolis the Arrian Council of Sirmium had 300 Western Bishops besides those of the East that of Ariminum had 400. Bishops from the Western parts of the Empire for in the East there was another Council called at Seleucca and lastly that of Chalcedon had no less than 600. There can be no reasonable account given of this difference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb vit Const l. 3.17 but that the multitude of Dioceses was strangely increas'd for Constantine design'd the Council of Nice to be as great and Magnificent as was possible and yet it was nothing in comparison with those that followed nay was outdone by some Provincial Councils of Africk And as the number of the Council of Nice shews that Dioceses in those times were not so many nor small as they became afterwards so the Canons of the same Council do suppose Bishopricks to be very large and forbid the dividing of them for one Canon orders that every Bishop should be ordained by all the Bishops of his Province Can. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And considering how large Ecclesiastical Provinces were then they cannot suppose all the Pastours of every Congregation to meet nor indeed the Ministers of every good Town or substantial Village which in several Provinces would amount to several thousands without making such an Assembly more numerous than any general Council that ever was in the world Can. â— another Canon provides against the dividing of Dioceses in case a Novatian Bishop shall happily be willing to be reconcil'd to the Church but that he should be content with the place of Presbyter unless the Catholick Bishop should think fit to leave him the title of a Bishop if not Inveniat eâ— locum ut sit in Parochia Chorepiscopus then to make him a Chorepiscopus i. e. the Rector of a Country Parish in his Diocese or a City Presbyter lest there should be two Bishops in the same City The African Councils took another course as we have seen and divided the Diocese in such a Case but when they consider'd the Authority of this Council we find them changing their Practice for Augustin when he had design'd his Successour yet would not suffer him to be ordain'd in his life time because he would not violate this Canon although his Predecessor had permitted his Ordination while he was alive August Ep. but Augustin makes his excuse that he did not know of this Canon then and yet his Diocese was large enough to hold two but he understood this one City with all its dependencies and thought that by vertue of this Canon there ought not to be two Bishops together in the Diocese of Hippo that was above forty miles in length The Diocese of Constantinople to which Constantine was so great a Patron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb vit Const l. 3. c. 46. was very considerable in his time for it had so far outgrown the measure of one Congregation that the Emperor thought it necessary to build a great many Churches and very large Temples or Martyria because they were dedicated to the memory of Martyrs and this not only within the City but in the Suburbs that is in the language of that time the Territory belonging to it And it is great pity there was no Bishop or Presbyter that could inform the welmeaning Emperor that this was mistaken devotion to submit all these Churches to one Bishop The Council of Antioch supposes Bishops to have large Dioceses An. Ch. 341. Can. 8. and therefore provides that Country Presbyters shall not give Canonical Epistles not so much as to the
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
Bishops it seems were so few that we find but eight of them subscribe in that Council The Council of Valence had twenty one Bishops and this is very extraordinary for the Province of one Metropolitan in these times and therefore it is more probable that it was a general one of several Provinces or of all Gallia For there is an Epistle of this Synod directed to all the Bishops and Churches of Gallia by way of Preface to the Canons of it a thing never assumed by the particular Synods of a Province and this will appear yet more probable by comparing this with other Councils that followed The Council of Regium or Riez consisted but of thirteen Bishops personally present and one Presbyter who was Proxy for a Bishop The first Council of Orange had but sixteen personally present and one Proxy And that we may not imagine the Gallican Bishops to be so negligent as not to attend these Provincial Synods let us but consider the eighteenth and nineteenth Canons of the second Council of Arles which provide against this neglect There it s ordered That if any Bishop be hindred by sickness he shall not fail to send his Proxy But if any Bishop shall neglect to come or depart before the conclusion of the Assembly let him know that he is shut out of his brethrens communion and so to continue until the next Synod shall restore him Yet for all this injunction the Synod of Anger 's assembled the year following had but eight Bishops and the third Council of Arles within three years after had but thirteen Bishops The Synod of Tours ten whereof one subscribed by Proxy and another subscribed being absent the Canons being sent to him The Council of Vennes Venetum had but six Bishops and there were but two more in the whole Province as appears by the Epistle of that Synod to those two that were absent desiring their confirmation of such Canons as they had made And Lastly another Council at Arles about Predestination had but twelve subscriptions From whence it appears how large the Dioceses of Gallia were at that time The Ancient Notitia Galliae published by Sirmond and written as is conjectured in the time of Honorius and Arcadius reckons in all the seventeen Provinces of Gallia one hundred and fifteen Cities taking in all the Country between the Rhine and the Brittish Sea Carolus à Sancto Paulo will by no means allow this to be an Ecclesiastical Notitia Geogr. sacra Galliae p. 124. because there are several Cities mentioned in it that never were Episcopal seats and several Episcopal Sees are omitted indeed the Ancient Notitia of the Gallican Bishopricks published by that Author reckons about one hundred twenty and six in all that vast tract of Country nor are they so few at this day taking in Savoy Suitzerland Alsace and all the Countries bordering upon the Rhiâ—â— to Cologn and the Country of Cleaves besides all the Spanish Netherlands all reckoned within the Ancient Gallia which will afford very fair Dioceses But the Acts of the ancient Gallick Councils do make yet clearer proof of the largeness of the Dioceses there Proculus Bishop of Marseilles layes claim to several Churches as having been anciently Parishes of his Dioceses Con. Taurin c. 1. Easdem Ecclesias vel Parochias suas fuisse vel Episcopos à se in ilsdem Ecclesiis ordinatos and left that the ambiguity of the word Parochia may make the sense doubtful he layes claim in the same place to others as depending upon his Metropolis and where he had Ordained Bishops The Council of Regium Orders That if one be Ordained against his will Bishop of any City by fewer than three Bishops Liceat ei unam Parochiarum Ecclesiam cedere nec uâ—quam duarum Ecclesiarum gubernationem obtineat or without the consent of the Metropolitan that he may be made Rector of one Parish in the Diocess if the Bishop thinks fit but is to have the government of no more than one Parish and the City Bishop to Ordain all his Assistants The First Council of Orange appoints That if a Bishop shall build a Church in another Bishops Territory Gon. Arans 1. Can. 10. the Ordination of Minister to serve it shall belong to the Bishop in whose Territory it is but the right of Presentation and Patronage shall be in the Founder of that Church which supposes a Diocess of more Congregations than one The Council of Vaison Vasense enjoyns all the Ministers of Parishes within every Diocess to repair to their Proper Bishop for Chrism every year before Easter Per singula Territoria Presbyâ—eri vel Ministri ab Episcopis non prout libitum fuerit vicinioribus sed à suis propriis per annos singulos chrisma petant appropinquante solemnitate Paschali Con. vas c. 3. and not to go to other Bishops that may be nearer to them There would be no end of instances of this kind within the space of five hundred years after Christ but this is sufficient for our present design which is only to give a view of Diocesan Episcopacy of the Rise and Propress of it in several parts of the Christian World As to our own Country of Brittain for whose use Mr. B.'s Church History is more especially calculated and against whose Bishops all the Venom is directed it is certain indeed that we had Bishops betimes for we find some of their Subscriptions to the great Council of Arles A. D. 314. Sulp. Sever. l. 2. And there were some of them present about forty years after in the Council of Ariminum But how large their Bishops were then will be a very hard matter to demonstrate Hist Brittan l. 2. c. 1. ed Ascens Jeffrey of Monmouth reckons twenty eight Bishops and three Arch-Bishops in Lucius his time set up in the place of so many Flamins and Arch-Flamins who were the directours of the Heathen Religion here Vid. usser de Primord Eccl. Brit. p. 57. Gild. bis denis bisque quaternis Civt tibus munita Bede Hist l. 1. c. 1. Bede l 2. c. 2 and this it seems he had from Gildas de Victoria Aurelii Ambrosii But all this I suppose has no other foundation than a passage out of Gildas de exidio Britanniae where he mentions twenty eight Cities in Brittian and another out of Bede who follows Gildas The Flamins I suppose were added for ornament afterwards by some imposture under the name of Gildas But all the account that I know of the number of Bishops here is in Bede who sayes That in a Synod assembled in Worcestershire about the receiving Augustine the Monk there were seven Brittish Bishops present and probably all the Bishops in the Country were there this being the second Synod assembled upon that subject and that wherein the matter in controversy was to be finally decided the Bishops that were present in the first Conference pretending they had not sufficient Authority to make an