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
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.
here Independency became an Vniting Principle and bound up all sorts of Errors and Blasphemies in one and would â—ot disown any that would enter into their Constitution or interest let them believe as they please or believe nothing all but as to the Sects that Sprung out of them let us â—â—ar Bastwick 2. part of Indep Postscript p. 37. Before the Independents Apâ—â—ition in our Horison there were but three 〈◊〉 four Sects known among us and they were 〈◊〉 in number and well conditioned But out of the â—â—dependents lungs are Sprung above 40 several â—â—ts of straglers which before their coming were never known among us J. Lilburn related it unto me and that in the presence of others that returning from the Wars to London he not forty new Sects and some so pernicious that he had much a do to keep his hands off them though he was in his judgment for a Toleration of all Religions There are innumerable and Diabolical Sects and so prodigiously Impious that it is not for a Christian to name their opinions And Lastly these Congregational Bishops men of humble pretences that would not aspire at first beyond a single Congregation nor desire to govern that any otherwise than in Conjunction with and by the advice of all the members These men when they had an opportunity exercis'd so great and extensive a Tyranny as this Church had never felt under the most Insolent of Diocesan Bishops for P. Nye and H. Petâ—r the Arch-Bishops of those times whâ—â— Govern'd the Committee of Tryers 〈◊〉 no Law no Canons but their owâ— pleasures they rejected whom they pleas'd without giving themselves the Trouble 〈◊〉 the sufferers the satisfaction of the least reason and there was no relief no Quare Iâ—â—pedit against these Church Governours and their proceedings were so arbritrary that some stil'd that Committee The Case of A. S. The English Inquisition And this is the fair fruit oâ— Congregational Episcopacy among us Confusion Regicide and Slavery in the Common wealth Heresie and endless Sects and more than Papal Tyranny in the Church But surely Mr. B. is not for this Congregational Independent way but for a Temperament or Mixture of Church Government made up of this and Presbytery and Episcopacy Mr. B. tells us that he has not chang'd â—is opinion these forty years Treatise of Episc praef and if we may judge of it by what he has written since it must be either Independency or something so like it that an ordinary Capacity cannot distinguish from it For if to declare 〈◊〉 Church of Christs constituting to be but â—â—e Congregation joyn'd in personal Comâ—â—â—ion of Prayer and Sacraments and that â—â—ery such Congregation is Independent â—â—d hath all sort of Ecclesiastical power â—â—en it immediatly by Christ If to say that 〈◊〉 usurp Authority over several of these â—â—â—ches and to assume the power of cenâ—â— over their Members is contrary to the â—â—â—tolick Institution and unchurches all â—â—â—â—e Congregations and that no Synods 〈◊〉 more than Bishops have any Superioriâ—â— over any one or more of these Churches 〈◊〉 that a Church for Discipline cannot â—â—prehend a greater number than a Church 〈◊〉 Worship if this be Independency Mr. B. â—â—â—ds it or else he either does not mean as 〈◊〉 speaks for all these things he plainly â—â—â—ms or speaks so as no body can make 〈◊〉 other meaning of his words Yet how can this be for he is not against â—â—â—â—es and Synods no more are the Indepenâ—â—â— they have not condemn'd the use of â—â—ods as I have shew'd out of F. Johnson and the Independents Assembled in a Synod declare in the Preface to their Confession that this neglect of Synods and Consociation was the cause of those endless divisions their Churches ran into but still this is no more than a Neighbourly consultation and has no proper authority to impose any rule upon National Churches But Mr. B. is for Episcopacy so is Johnson and Mr. B. is for no other For he does expresly disown any Bishop that is appointed over many Churches But he is for Bishop Vshers Episcopacy It is true Mr. B. says so in several places and that Bishop Vsher and he had agreed the point in a quarter of an hour What might have been the result of Mr. B.'s conversation with that Learned Primate I cannot tell But that which Mr. B. so often referrs us to for Bishop Vshers opinion shews there is as great a distance between him and Mr. B. in this point as there is between Mr. B. and the Church of England There is a small Paper that bears the name of that Bishop Entituled The Reduction of Episcopacy which Mr. B. often mentions I will Transcribe the second Article that the reader may see how well his notion of Episcopacy does agree with Mr. B.'s Whereas by a Statute in the 26 year of K. Henry the Eight reviv'd in the first of Queen Elizabeth Suffragans are appointed to be erected in Twenty six several places of this Kingdom p. 6. the number of them might very well be conform'd unto the number of the several Rural Deanries into which every Diocese is subdivided which being done the Suffragans supplying the place of those who in the Ancient Church were call'd Chorepiscopi might every month Assemble a Synod of all the Rectors or Incumbent Pastors within the Precinct and according to the major part of their voices conclude all matters that should be brought into Debate before them To this Synod the Rector and Church-wardens might Present such Impenitent persons as by admonition and suspension from the Sacrament would not be Reform'd who if they remain Contumacious and incorrigible the sentence of Excommunication might be decreed against them by the Synod and accordingly be executed in the Parish where they liv'd Hitherto also all things that concern'd Parochial Ministers may be referr'd whether they did touch their doctrine or their Conversation The Diocesans were to remain as now only to Govern by a Synod of Suffragans and incumbents and their Decrees if occasion were to be revised by Provincial and Metropolitical Synods presided by the Metropolitans Now let us compare this with Mr. B.'s Doctrine of Church Government First then the Sâ—ffragans here mention'd as the Bishops of the first and lowest order are Diocesan for every one is to rule a Rural Deanry which consists of about 40 or 50 or sometimes more Parishes is not this the same species of Government with Diocesan if a Diocese of 50 Parishes be specifically distinct from one of 80 or a Hundred we must have several species amongst us too according to the different proportions of our Bishopricks the Diocese of Lincoln will be specifically different from that of Bristol and by this way it is possible at last to make out Mr. B.'s Twelve sorts of Episcopacy which he reckons in his Disputation of Church Government in short what kind of Episcopacy does Mr. B. reject Diocesan he says Treatise of Episc part
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
For speaking of that Abominable Sect he has these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. They that pretend to be the Followers of Nicolas the Deacon do pervert a saying of his that the Flesh must be thus'd that is kept under But these Men like Goats abandoning themselves to all uncleanness understand and him to permit men to dishonour their bodies by indulging themselves in all their lusts And the same Author in another place gives a more particular vindication of Nicolas the Deacon Clem. Alex. l. 3. saying That Carpocrates gave out this story of him That he had a comely Wife and was Jealous of her for which he was reprehended by the Apostles But Nicolas to acquit himself of this Imputation brought her before them and offer'd to release her to any other that would marry her and that this action was suitable to his Maxim which we have mention'd before Whereupon Clemens adds that the Nicolaitans as they call'd themselves following this Doctrine and Action of the Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rashly and without Examination give themselves over to all manner of uncleanness and then goes on to vindicate Nicolas adding That he had understood by Tradition that he always preserv'd his faith to his Wife inviotable that his children that he had by this Wife were remarkable for their Chastity and all dy'd unmarry'd And concludes at last That this was to be look'd upon as an Instance of Mortification and the Words that those Hereticks insisted upon so much meant nothing else Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 29. Eusebius who cites this passage at large seems to be of the same opinion and therefore says only that these Hereticks gave out Nicolas for the Author of their Doctrine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they only cracked and boasted that it was so l. de Haeres S. Austin speaks with the same caution with Eusebius and says only ut perhibetur permisisse fertur though he says eâ qui vellet uteretur it cannot be understood of common prostitution for Carpocrates himself says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that she might be Married to any body that would have her Theodoret follows Clemens allows this relation about Nicolas to be true Theodor. l. 3. Haeret. Fabâ—l and excuses him by saying that He did not intend seriously to be as good as his word but only to haffle those that accus'd him of Jealousie and at last concludes From hence they the Nicolaitans are manifestly convicted to be Impostors and falsly to call themselves by that name Petavius does not know what to determine in this case Is Epiple since the Fathers are divided about is But I believe one needs not be so scrupulous The whole matter depends between the Authorities of Irenaus and Clemens Clemens is very particular and had examin'd the business it seems as far as he could the other speaks generally and perhaps look'd no further than the name nor could he so easily have an account of them as Clemens could who liv'd where the sect was most numerous Carpocrates who was the Father of it was an Alexandrian Besides the Words of Irenaus if they are examin'd do not positively affirm Nicolas to have been the Father of the Nicolaitans Magistrum habent Nicolaum are the words which may signifie no more than that they hold him to be so If the Greek Copy were extant it might have given more light perhaps he said no more than Eusebius does and the Word might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they boast that he is their Master I am to beg pardon for this Digression If it can relieve the Memory of a person whom the Scripture intimates to be a Man of Honest Report Act. 6.3 full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom I am content to bear the blame of the Impertinence But however it were it is some comfort and enough to my purpose that he was no Bishop The Gnosticks had no Bishop either for their founder or promoter that is yet known Clem. Alex. l. 3. Carpocrates was no Diocefan Prelate but his Sect pretended high indeed to something more than a Bishop to an Apostle They quoted Matthias for such another sentence as the Nicolaitans did Nicolas the Deacon and would have perswaded the World that they were his Disciples Cerinthus Clem. Alex. l. 6. Ebion Valentinus Secundus Epiphanes Isidorus Ptolemaus Marcus were they Bishops What Churches did Colarbasus or Heracleon or Cerdo govern Marcion indeed was a Bishops son but it does not appear that he was of the Clergy he was Excommunicated by his own Father for a Rape and when he could not obtain Absolution turn'd Heretick It were endless to reckon up all the Hereticks that gave names to Sects they were most of them bred up the Scholars of other Hereticks and differing in some things from their Masters set up for themselves and call'd their followers by their own names The 39th Christian Sect in Epiphanius is that of the Cathari or Puritans and these are the first that we find started by any of the Clergy Novatus an African Priest began this Sect I have given his History before and shewn how he seduced Novatianus a Roman Priest Epiph. Aug. Philastr c. or at leastwise joyn'd with him against his Bishop Theodotus whom St. Austin calls Theodotion was a learned man indeed and Orthodox at first and so was Bardesanes Syrus but neither of them was a Bishop Montanus became the Author of a Heresie because he could not obtain the highest place in the Church and turn'd down-right Fanatick saying he was the Holy Ghost In short the first Heretick Bishop that we find is Paulus Samosatenus who succeeded Demetrianus in the Bishoptick of Antioch in the year 262 Euseb in Chron. who fell into Heresie in the year 267. His is the 65th Sect in Epiphanius or the 45th Christian Heresie This Paulus was a very ill man and taught dangerous opinions that Christ was not God Euseb l. 7. c. 30. But though he was really a Heretick yet he was not the Author of this Heresie He is said by Eusebius and the rest out of him to have learn'd this from Artemas as he calls him or Artemon Epiph. c. as also from Theodotus who began to teach this doctrine and to gather him a Sect under Victor Bishop of Rome by whom he was excommunicated But Paulus Samosatenus is said to have reviv'd this Heresie It is true indeed but Eusebius in the place before cited makes it appear l. 7. c. 30. that the Sect of Artemas and Theodotus was then in being For the Council of Antioch in their Synodical Epistle sent to several Bishops where they desire them to receive Domnus whom they had made Bishop in the place of Paulus Samosatenus when he should send his Circular Epistles and then speaking of Paulus deridingly say Let him if he thinks fit write to Artemas and let those that follow Artemas communicate with him if they
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
here An. 1586. A National Synod was call'd to sit at the Hague by the order of the Earl of Leicester without the States and here they insisted upon their Ecclesiastical authority and excluded the Magistrate from any voyce in the chusing of Church Officers That a National Synod should meet every third year without the Magistrates leave and subscription was more strictly press'd upon the Ministers under pain of being turn'd out of their Churches But these were but slight differences in respect of that which follow'd that fatal Schism I mean occasion'd by the Arminian Controversie The seeds of it had lain in that Church from the beginning and Colhaes â—uyrhuis Herberts I'o â—hert and divers oâ—hers had declared themselves against the received confession and Catechism of those Churches long before Arminius But his authority and learning bore up against the Current of the contrary Doctrine that had overborn such as before that had oppos'd it See the preface to the Acts of the Synod of Dore. and now the condition of those Churches was most deplorable for several years together there was nothing but perpetual Dispute and Claâ—rour Conference after Conference and Synod after Synod Appeal upon Appeal At last it came to Tumult and Sedition to Confusion and blood-shed Ministers were turn'd out of their charges some Banish'd Vid. vit Episcopii others set upon by the Rabble and in danger to be torn in pieces Nothing can be imagined more distracted than the state of those Churches was for a long whâ—le together At last after all the interposing and good offices of other Reform'd Churches but without effect a general Synod was resolved upon where the Remonstrants were condemn'd and the Civil Magistrate seconded this sentence by another more severe whereby they Banish'd the Ministers that would not subscribe many of them were imprison'd and in short Bâ—shops could not have procur'd greater rigour and severity which here seem'd to be more grievous where every body else had liberty of Conscience and Jews were allow'd a publick exercise of their Religion And yet these very points in difference that not only rent these Churches in pieces but shook those of France who confirm'd the Decrees of the Synod of Dort and turn'd out such Ministers as favoured the condemn'd Doctrine and requir'd subscriptions to the contrary opinions of such as were to be admitted into the Clergy these points I say have not had the same unhappy influence upon some other Churches that were Episcopal Men in our Church have taught very differently of these matters and yet the Unity of the Church hath been still preserv'd notwithstanding this difference of opinions which shews that Episcopal government is not so subject to Schism as Mr. B. would make the world imagine and to say the truth ours has been troubled with no other such difference but what hath been made in opposition to the very form of Government it self and there is no wonder if it seems so difficult to heal it since the Church can no otherwise satisfie these men than by destroying the whole frame of its Government and order and it is strange any should expect it that did not believe all those under the rule of the Church to be Hypocrites These men talk much of Ceremonies and Liturgy but this is the least of the difference though it be most pretended because most useful to render the Governours of the Church odious for shutting men out of it for such Circumstances as these This makes most noise as a false Alarm commonly does but the real design is upon the Government Therefore those that fancy any Accomodation practicable upon any allowances in this part seem to my apprehension to mistake the disease for Alas It is not accomodation but Victory that these men aim at But to return to the Churches of Holland whose Schism gave occasion to this digression After the Synod of Dort though all means were us'd to suppress the Remonstrants yet they remain still in separate Assemblies and the unhappy breach continues to this day without any probability of being made up Vid. Spanbmite Ep. ad Amie When they had tir'd themselves and the world with this Controversie they were diverted with new matter of dispute the names of Voetius and Cocceius rather than any difference between their Doctrine disturb'd again the peace of those Churches And though the ground of the quarrel is scarce perceivable yet it is hardly to be imagin'd how great the Animosities are This indeed never came to a formal Schism yet it has divided those Churches into formal parties and in some occasions the quarrel seems of more than ordinary consequence and has great influence upon the Promotions of the Ministry and the Affections of several Cites are determin'd to this or that party And as these Presbyterian Churches have been afflicted with Schism and contentions so they have been sensible of the mischiefs of Heresie and labour more than any part of the Christian world under the Infamy of them Here the Ministers have no great Revenues nor dignities nor Power and here are no Patriarchs nor Bishops and yet Heresies makes a shift to thrive Arians Socinians Menonists Labadyists and diverse others they are neglected no general Councils disturb the enjoyment of their errors and yet they abound and are pertinacious Nor is it a wonder they take such deep root in Presbyterian Churches for of late like Storks they have affected a republican Church above all others and it is observable that in these last ages there have been no Hereticks that have not been likewise Anti-Episcopal and at the same time that they become enemies of the truth they declare war against the Bishops who are the Guardians of it If it be objected that our Country swarms with this Vermin too it ought to be considered from whence they came to be so rife among us It was the taking away of Episcopacy that opened such a door to errors and there were more Heresies started here in the space of four years after Bishops had been laid aside if Edwards reckons right than have been known in the Universal Church from the foundation of it to that time And those that fall into Herefie here do it commonly by degrees They begin with Schism and end in Enthusiasm and madness first they are Presbyterians and then if that dispensation be not spiritual enough they are improv'd in to Independents and from thence to the fifth Monarchy or Quakerism All the extravagant Heresies among us are but the spawns of the first Schism and the consequences of those Principles of Separation that draw them from the Communion of the Bishop The Church of Scotland has felt the Distractions occasion'd by this Parity of Ministers more than any of her Neighbours and though it has not been divided by a formal Schisin 'till of late yet from the first setting up of this Government it has been exercis'd with perpetual contentions and Tumults and Sedition about Church Discipline
Correspondence and Communication between them and this begetting a mutual knowledge of each others opinions and practice differences will arise and endanger their peace and what remedy is there since there is no common Court to put an end to it It must be a lamentable case when every quarrel becomes a War and there is no end but either Ruin or at last when they are tyr'd with contention their Voluntary Acquiescence But you will say there is the same Inconvenience in Episcopacy for if Bishops fall out about Religion who shall judge between them if you say Metropolitans and Synods suppose two Metropolitans then should differ or two Councils It were much better they would agree but if they will quarrel it is not quite so bad as if those that live in the same City and under the same Government should fall out suppose our Church could not adjust all Articles of Faith and Discipline with the Churches of France or Suitzerland good men would wish that it might be made up and that there were a perfect Harmony in our Confessions But in case this could not be effected yet the Controversie would remain pretty quiet within the books that should be written about it But if within the City of London those Controversies should be unhappily started and one Parish take one side of the Question and another the contrary it would be something more dangerous and an Intolerable defect in the constitution of our Church to have no effectual remedy to apply to the beginnings of this Division But what hurt is it you may say let both enjoy their own opinion if they would do so with Peace it were something but these little republick Churches like Descartes his Vortexes grate and make Impression one upon the other Some members of one Congregation may be seduc'd by the other and the whole perhaps in danger of being carried away with evil Doctrine or example what shall be done in this case They can submit to no Judge for they are immediately under Christ they must have no Diocesan no Classes no power to Controul them what then They must wrangle to the worlds end or Dissolve and come to nothing as many of their Congregations have done The Independents have been made very sensible of this by a sad experience of great and Irremediable dissensions and some of them have been so ingenuous as to confess it and enter'd into some measures for an effectual Prevention of these disorders by way of Consociation or Synods but neither can relieve them as long as they maintain the principles before mentioned i. e. as long as they are Independents For 1. What Consociation can there be between those bodies of men that cannot be United under any Common Government to which the particulars are to be subordinate Without any Laws to correct them without authority to execute them without any subordination of the Members what Permanent Consociation can be expected that must depend upon the pleasure of every Congregation of that Association that remains still Independent and under no obligation to submit any farther than it self thinks good This is the case of the Independents either there must be General Officers to take care of this Consociation as Bishops or Supervisors or some Committees any Synods and these must have some pow-over the particular Congregations under their Inspection or there must be no such Officers If that be allow'd it is no more Independence but Diocesan Episcopacy or Presbytery And overthrows the Fundamental principle that the Congregations immediately under Christ and that the constitution cannot be alter'd for any convenience If they have no Persons appointed over the Generality then wherein does this Consociation consist or how are they United But suppose they have Synods as they had one in the Savoy 1658. What can they be able to do They may advise and discourse the matter but if any particular Congregation be obstinate they cannot censure that Importing a Superiority which destroys the notion of Congregational Independence to make this clearer if possible suppose something like Hobbs his State of nature That Twenty men who can have no pretence of authority one over the other were cast upon an Island and their Common necessities would oblige them to live together and maintain some Commerce and agreement and that every one should believe firmly that God had not only made him free but that he had laid an obligation on him so to continue and never to subject himself to any Creature upon the pretence of any conveniences of life How should these men do They might consult and agree upon a rule they might make a distribution of proprieties and promise never to hurt or injure one the other But these men being subject to the same Appetites and disorders with others it is not to be expected they should live long without some bodies transgressing his duty And then what shall be done to preserve this Consociation of Kings Every one is sacred and cannot be called before any Tribunal but his own Conscience and that perhaps he may dispense with he must not submit to any one nor to all his associates together nor can they continuing in that opinion of Original Freedom usurp any Authorities over him What can such a Constitution produce Either their indignation or necessity must prevail over their principles and so they must submit to Government or else if they retain these fancies of Independant Soveraignity and freedom they must dissolve and break all to pieces and renounce all communication one with the other You will say that good men will agree and preserve such an union as their common necessities require without any superior power to inforce it But the Independents know by woful experience that all have not proved Saints that they have received for such though they were as punctilious in the admitting of them as the Pope in a Canonization besides this reason will destroy the discipline of Congregational as well as of associated Churches for every good man will do his duty and what need therefore of any power in the congregation to censure It is plain therefore that Congregational Churches unless they renounce the Principles of their Independence cannot enter into any solid and lasting union having no means to preserve it and all the union that their Principles will admit can be no other than that of a heap of sand where the parts are loose and unconnected and therefore unavoidably scattered and dissipated by the first Wind that shall arise Nor is this Congregational Constitution less pernicious to the Peace of Particular Churches than it is to a General union of many Congregations which I shall make appear by the following reasons First in General and then by examining the different forms there may be of Admininistring this Congregational power 1. He that lyeth under an unjust sentence of a Congregation has no relief for this being Independent there is 〈◊〉 Appeal left and this is the more griâ—rous by how much