owed him still the duty of Children notwithstanding his absence and lastly that he would come to them shortly by way of Apostolical visitation and examine the power of those that entred into competition with him For as far as his Line or Diocess or Province did extend so far he pretended a peculiar Authority to govern Rom 15.19 2 Cor. 10.13 to 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dioecesis sive certus Pastorum Ecâ—lesiarum numerus Unit. Frat. Bohem. Sect. de Antist Regulam vocat Ditionem praescriptum Praedicationis Terminum Salmeron and exercised Diocesan jurisdiction upon all within his Rule But when this Line was so far extended that he neither was able to visit every part himself and his communication by Letters would not answer all the occasions of those Churches he had planted 1. Tim. 1.3 18. c. 2.14 15. c. 4.12 14. c. 5.21.22 Tit. 1.5 c. 2.15 he provides for them not by leaving every Congregation Independent and resigning all Authority into the hands of every particular Presbytery but by sending Persons endued not only with extraordinary gifts but with Apostolical power to ordain Elders to end disputes to censure the unruly and irregular whether of the Clergy or People to confute Hereticks to preach the Gospel and in short by all means to provide for thee welfare of those Churches committed to them And now as the Apostle had before ordained assistant Elders in the several Churches which he had planted for the ordinary attendance of the Congregation so now he takes to himself Assistants of another sort Suffragans for the Service of his Province which he distributed as he found most expedient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 1. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod in 1 Tim. 3. Phil. 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acceperat in illis Apostolatus officium Hieron in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anonym 〈◊〉 Phot. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Timoth. and these in the Apostles time were sometimes called Apostles or Evangelists Bishops Presbyters Fellow Labourers Helpers Deacons c. but their successors leaving greater and more invidious titles contented themselves with the name of Bishops which was common to them with ordinary Presbyters at first though the Offices were alwayes distinct Of this kind we have several mentioned in Scripture of St. Pauls Province as Barnabas Timothy Titus Crescens Epaphraditus Sosthenes and some others that had no relation to him as James the Just Mark Linus Clemens c. These exercised Episcopal jurisdiction in that district where they were appointed Ordained Presbyters received accusations against them Reprov'd and censur'd them as there was cause and in short govern'd those Churches over which they were appointed by full Apostolical power which was transmitted to their successors But the extraordinary abilities of some of these men and the occasions of several other Churches made their residence less constant in the Diocess where they were plac'd 2 Tim. 4.9 than otherwise might have been expected Phil. 2. and therefore Timothy the Bishop and Apostle of Ephesus is called to Rome by St. Paul to be imployed as the necessities of the Church should require Titus is sent to Dalmatia though Crete were his first Province but this concludes no more against their being Diocesans than the Voyage of Germanus and Lupus into Brittain to oppose the Pelagian Heresy would conclude against their being Bishops Now what care was taken for those Churches which these Apostolick Diocesans left whether they returned again to their Provinces is not mentioned in Scripture But Ecclesiastical Records shew an uninterrupted Succession from the Bishops in several Churches Nor do we find that they were all so unfixed as they are represented by the adversaries of Episcopacy for Mark who was the first Bishop of Alexandria remained in that Province Euseb Hist l. 2. c. 16. Niceph. l. 2. c. 43. Gelas in Conc. Rom. in decr de lib. Auth. planting Churches in the Country round about and governing them by Apostolical Authority which after his Martyrdom there was derived to his successuors in the same charge Now this order being of perpetual use and necessity in the Church to ordain Presbyters and Deacons to exercise discipline to preserve unity they were multiplyed according as the Apostles found most expedient for the Church and the most eminent Cities became the Residence of these first Bishops not because God takes greater care of Cities than he does of lesser Towns and Villages but because the Apostles thought it the most natural way to follow the distribution that was then in the more civilz'd part of the world St. John a little while before his death mentions seven in the Lydian Asia under the name of Angels of the Churches nor is it probable there were any more in that Province The Seven Churches being the same with all the Churches mentioned in the next Chapter Rev. 1.20.2.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Andr. Caesar Ego puto simul inveniri posse Angelum hominem bonos Ecclesia Episcopos Origen in Lucam Hom. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut Collegas moneat Beza Ad Episcopum loci dirigitur Paraus and Carolus à Sancto Paulo concludes the same thing out of St. John Cum in Asia septem tantum hisce temporibus essent Episcopi ut in Apocalypsi legere est nec majorem corum numerum in Ponto tunc fuisse probalile est Geogr. Sacra p. 289. Dissert 4. c. 5. Quod si de Angelis superiorum Coelorum non de praepositis Ecclesie intelligi vellet non consequenter diceret Laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositas Ecclesiae Aug. Ep. 162. But Dr. Hammond makes all these Angels to be Metropolitans having several Bishops under them for the reasons I must refer the reader to his Dissertations Thus far the Scripture discovers the rise and progress of Diocesan Episcopacy which was the form of Church Government under the Apostles who had large Provinces to supervise and their suffragans such as are commonly called Evangelists had several Congregations to govern and this was undeniably the constitution of the Church in the first age the next thing we are to inquire is whether the Office expired with those Persons or was designed to be of perpetual use in the Church The Adversaries of Episcopacy are not all agreed as to this point the Presbyterians generally looking upon the offices of Apostles and Evangelists extraordinary as the persons were Mr. B. is something more scrupulous because he does not find any where that Christ design'd to have this alter'd and yet he condemns Diocesan Episcopacy as being altogether different from it I have said something to this already and therefore I shall answer here more briefly 1. That we have no reason to believe from Scripture that the Office of Apostles or Evangelists which concerned the Government of the Church was extraordinary and for a time only
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
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
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
them to be troublesome in any State or Circumstances yet there are some that qualifie them more for Mischief and others that dispose them for it There may be many wicked men that might be willing enough to make a disturbance but they may want parts and Abilities for the work Any man may pretend to a wicked opinion but every one cannot recommend it to others and there are few that care for being Hereticks by themselves But where Malice and an evil temper has the advantage of Natural and acquir'd endowments like Sulphur and Salt peter it does not only presently take fire but has likewise an extraordinary force and capacity to destroy It is observ'd by some of the Fathers that most of the Haeresiarchae the Authours of Heresies or Sects Aug. Com. in Psalm were men of great wit and accutness in Reasoning Non Enim putetis Fratres potuisse fieri Haereses per parvas quasdam animas non fecerunt Haereses nisi Magni Homines Do not think that Heresies were first rais'd by ordinary mean persons they were great men that set them up and within the same page he mentions several of them considerable men The same Observation St. Hierom makes Hieron Com. in Osâ—â— c. 9. Nullus enim potest Haeresim struere nisi qui Ardentis Ingenii est habet dona natura qua à Deo Artifice sunt Creata Talis Valentinus talis Marcion quos Doctissimos legimus Talis Bardesanes cujus etiam Philosophi admirantur Ingenium None but men of Great Parts are able to set up a Heresie Valentinus and Marcion we find were very learned men and Bardesanes was admired even by Philosophers Vincentius Lirinensis amplifies upon this subject with great art and passion he tells the great endowments of such as rais'd Heresie and reckons up particularly all the advantages they had to recommend themselves and their Doctrine and at last concludes they were a mighty Temptation enough almost to stagger the most confirm'd Orthodox Believe Vincent Lir. adv Haeres alluding I suppose to that of the Apostle that there must be Heresies that by that tryal or Temptation they who are approved might be made manifest It was a Question that puzzl'd the most understanding Heathen I think that ever was Cicer. how God should ever bestow Reason and wit upon such men as he foresaw would make use of the gifts against the Donor This Christian Religion renders more easie when it shews us the end of this permission the manifestation of those that are approv'd Now though these Qualifications of Malice and Wit where they are met in the same person do dispose and fit him for Disturbances yet he seldom breaks out into any extremity before some outward occasion of Discontent does inflame him There is indeed a Temper that no Fortune no Honours can content and render easy to it self or restrain from disturbing the world but this extravagancy is not Common and the Generality of men though not very quiet or peaceable in their Dispositions yet when they have gain'd their point and are possess'd of wealth and honour they are commonly willing to secure the enjoyment of those Possessions by letting things run in the ordinary course But if one of these men happens to labour under repulse and disappointments his patience is soon at an end Upon this account many of the Inferiour Clergy that have stood in Competition for a Bishoprick and lost it have broken off all Communion with their Bishops whose Competitors they were so Novatianus and several others became Hereticks sometimes growing impatient with waiting for the Death of their Bishop they have revolted against him and drawn the People after them Thus Arius and Macedonius became the heads of Sects sometimes despair of Promotion after long waiting and envy against those they saw preferr'd before them hath carri'd away unsteaddy men to set up for singularity and to make new Sects Thus Aetius Separated from the Arians and taught new Blasphemies of his own Sometimes vain men have been carri'd away with the applause and favour of the people that flock'd after them and through'd their Churches to set up themselves against their Bishop upon presumption of greater interest in the people This St. Austin makes a principal cause of Heresies Sic enim fiunt Haereses schismata Aug. de Bapt. cont Donat. prop. sin cum dicit plebs carnâ—lis quae in charitate dei fundate non est Ibo post Amatores meos cum quibus utique sive per fidei Corruptionem sive per elationem superbiae turpiter fornicantur Heresies and Schisms are caused by giddy People that have itching Ears and run after such Teachers as they fansie There is no doubt but these pretended greater Edification for an excuse of their Curiosity Yet this good Bishop did not like the reason and makes it the cause of all the mischiefs that befel the Church Nay the Apostle expresses no small dislike of those that heap themselves Teachers having Itching Ears Were that great Apostle and that Great Bishop alive now what would they say when they should hear men renounce all order and rule and profess to follow their fancy under the notion of greater Edification Yet this I must observe farther that how good soever the argument may be for separation It sounds not well from the Teachers whose Commendation is involv'd in the reason They might surely give the People leave to say it and that might have sav'd their Modesty without losing the argument To Conclude this Point Almost all the Heresies and Schisms that have distracted the Church have been no other than so many defections of the Discontented part of the Clergy and the more pragmatical part of the Laity from their Rightful Bishop Cyp Ep. 55 Non aliundè Haereses obortae sunt aut nata sunt Schismata quam inde quod Sacerdoti non Obtemperatur Ep. 69. Schisms and Heresies spring from no other cause than disobedience to the Bishop Inde Haereses obortae sunt dum Episcopus qui unus est Contemnitur All the disturbance of the Church is purely for want of observing that Precept of the Apostle Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they Watch for your souls as they that must give account i. e. Obey those that are Rightfully over you and submit to them not choosing your selves new Teachers and running after your own fancy Epad. Sâ—yr Which Ignatius seems to paraphrase as he is cited by Antiochus Let the people assemble where the Bishop is present The sheep ought not to go wandering whither they please but as the Shepherd leads them The people ought to follow the directions of their Bishop and conclude what he orders to be most pleasing to God And surely any one would think this the securest course Those that seduce the people into Faction they may have interests of their own to serve by making a breach and a
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
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
next neighbouring Bishop but the Chorepiscopi may send such as were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for friendly correspondence and concord And the next Canon about the power of Metropolitans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 9. where it is forbid any Bishop to do any thing of great moment that may concern the whole Province without the concurrence of the Metropolitan does notwithstanding allow that he may govern his own Church and all the Regions under his jurisdiction Another Canon supposes more than one City in a Diocess and therefore Orders That a Bishop shall not Ordain a Presbyter or a Deacon in another City than his own * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Can. 22. or that is not subject to him Concil Agrippin An. 346. Non opinione sed veritate cognovi pro finitimi loci conjuncta Civitate The Council of Colen discovers the Dioceses thereabout to be very large for the Bishops assembled had most of them their Seats at a great distance from Colen Sêrvatius Bishop of Tongres in his Subscription adds something concerning his own knowledg of Euphratas Bishop of Colen and he gives for his reason that he was his next neighbour and yet their Cities are fifty or sixty English miles distant one from the other and the extent of the Diocess of Colen appears from the same Council where not only the people of the City exhibite their complaint against him but of all the Towns of the second Germany Subscriptio Servatii Cumque recitata fuisset Epifiola plebis Agrippinensis sed omnium Castrorum Germaniae secundae Ap. Conc. acta Provincia Germaniae secundae Metropolis Civitas Agrippinens Colozia Libel Provinciar whereof Colen was Metropolis and most of them belonged to that Diocess The Council of Sardica considering what course the Arians took to strengthen their party by increasing the number of Bishops as the instance of Ischyras Presbyter of Mareotes shews who was Ordained Bishop of a Village by the Arian Council of Tyre thought fit to declare against such proceedings as derogating from the dignity of a Bishop and therefore Decree That no Village or inconsiderable City shall have a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. Sard. c. 6. or any place where a Presbyter may suffice and lest you may imagine this an innovation to favour the growing greatness of the Bishops they add immediately That the Bishops of a Province shall Ordain Bishops in those Cities where there were any before which supposes that there were several Cities after the Empire became Christian that had never yet had Bishops Nay they add farther That when a City grows very populous so as to be fit to receive a Bishop it may have one To the same purpose is the Decree of the Council of Laodicea held after that of Sardica and much later than is generally pretended That Bishops ought not to be made in Villages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Visitatores qui circumtant Isid Merca. or in the Country but Visitors who by the name they bear appear to be Diocesans because they have several Congregations under them which they are to visit and as for such Country Bishops as are already they must take care to act nothing of moment without the advice and privity of the City Bishops Yet all this while Dioceses do multiply against all means used to prevent it as we may perceive by the extraordinary numbers that met in Councils Acciti atque tracti 400 à mplius Episcopi Sul. Sev. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Synod ap Athan. de Synod exceeding very much the greatest of those that had gone before Extraordinary numbers met at Sirmium and Ariminum at the latter all the Bishops of the West are said to have met for the Emperperors Officers were sent all over Illyricum Italy Africk Spain France to summon the Bishops to meet at Ariminum and all the Bishops are said to come thither from all the Cities of the West And now as we may observe the number of Bishops and Dioceses to increase so we may make some judgment concerning the occasion from that little light that is left in this particular We have but a very obscure account of the erecting of Bishopricks how and when most of them were founded but those instances that are preserved are sufficient to make us comprehend how the numbers came to increase so sensibly after the breaking out of the Arian controversy and in Egypt some time before upon the occasion of the Meletian Schism Epiph. Her 68. Meletius having left the Communion of the Catholick Church formed a separate faction and Ordained Bishops and Presbyters in every Country and in every place through which he passed nor was he content to set up only one Altar against another but to erect several in the same Diocess Nor is there yet any end of dividing Dioceses but these increase in proportion to the divisions of the Church Meletius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Epiph. Haer. 68. and as the Meletian Schism multiplyed Bishops in Egypt the Author of that Sect Ordaining Bishops in every Region and in every place that he passed through several in the same Diocess and as the Arian Controversy made Bishops where there never were any before so it is not to be doubted but the Controversies which followed Athan. Ap. 2. multiplyed Dioceses no less than these But besides this the multiplying of Metropolitans by the Christian Emperors contributed no less to multiply Bishops We have an eminent instance of this in the Province of Cappadocia in the time of Basil the Great The province being divided between two Civil Metropoles the Bishop of Tyana the new Metropolis thought that accordingly all that part of the Country that belongeâ—â—o the Civil jurisdiction of his City became no less subject to him as his Ecclesiastical Province which occasioned great disputes and animosities between the two Metropolitans Basil complains of the Bishops of the second Cappadocia that they presently renounced him in a manner Ep. 259. and when he made any difficulty of Ordaining any Bishop belonging to his Province Anthimus was ready to admit him as it happened in the case of Faustus Therefore to oppose the power of this new Usurping Metropolitan he betakes himself to the ordinary relief of making more Suffragans that by this means he might have some remedy from a Provincial Synod Epist 58. 195. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. de Vit. suâ Ep. 22 23. To this purpose Sasima a small Town belonging to Caesarea is made an Episcopal Seat and Gregory Nazianzen is preferred to it much against his will as a Person that might be of use to him against his Antagonist which he complains of in his Epistles to Basil and in his account of his own life and so sensible was he of Basil's ingaging him in this quarrel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Or. de Basil that he cannot forbear expressing his resentments even
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
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
that are grounded upon a mistake for this is rather to be counted a Consultation than a Council and as if they had wanted Authority to determine any thing in that ticklish point of receiving the lapsed into Communion they only agreed this ap Cypr. Ep. 31. That nothing should be changed before the Election of their next Bishop as appears by their Letter to the Clergy of Carthage the Bishops that were here present were such as came to assist and advise the Roman Clergy in a time of so great danger and not to determine any thing authoritatively in Council much less to be presided and govern'd by the Roman Presbyters After this says he p. 35. § 26. there was another Council in Carthage two in Rome and one in Carthage about the same Controversie These he passes over very lightly and the Schism that was the occasion of some of them because it was impossible to charge it upon any Bishop Cyprian behaved himself like a prudent good man and an indulgent Father and yet all this could not prevent Schism and Conventicles Faelicissimus Priest of Carthage makes the first breach whom Mr. B. mistakes for Felicissimus the Deacon § 26. who joyn'd himself afterwards with Novatus against the good Bishop Cyprian Novatus an African Presbyter improved this difference and not content to disturb his own Church went to Rome and kindled Discord and Dissention there Baronius would have this Novatus to be a Bishop because he is said by Cyprian to have ordained Felicissimus a Deacon but it is plain as well out of Cyprian as the Chronicle of Eusebius that he was but Priest Novatus Presbyter Cypriani Romam veniens Ep. 49. c. saith Eusebius and Cyprian after he had shewed what manner oâ— man he was adds that being conscious of such horrid Crimes he must expect non 〈◊〉 Presbyterio excitari tantum sed Communicatione prohiberi and as for the Ordination oâ— Felicissimus Cyprian in the same Epistle shewâ— it to have been done against all Rule and Order because he says that he did it nec pâ—mittente me nec sciente but sua factione ambitione which plainly shews that Novatâ—â— was Cyprian's Presbyter and ought not to have ordained a Deacon unless it were in Conjunction with him or by his Permissionâ— whereas if he had been a Bishop his right to the ordaining of Deacons would have been unquestionable This was the Author of that Schism Mr. B. favours so much throughout his whole History and claims Kindred with them as the Puritans and Nonconformists of those Times yet having known what manner of man he had been he might have been ashamed of such a Progenitor who if Cyprian be to be believed was always restless arrogant proud perfidious a Flatterer and an Incendiary that carried a tempest with him wheresoever he went and was a sworn Enemy to Peace and Settlement he robb'd the Orphans cheated the Widows purloin'd the Treasures of the Church he suffer'd his Father to starve and would not as much as bury him when dead he kick'd his Wife being great with Child and caused sudden Abortion and this was the great Saint and Puritan that could find no Church no Bishop holy enough for his Communion this was the severe Judge that would not admit Repentance and represented God cruel and implacable as himself for it was really his Opinion as I shall shew in due place that there was no pardon for the lapsed no not with God and that Mr. B. mistakes when he affirms this Rigour to extend no farther than to refuse an outward Reconciliation with the Church The next is another Council of Carthage p. 36. under Cyprian where one Victor is condemned for making a Priest Guardian of his Children and intangling a man devoted to the Service of the Altar in the Affairs of this World All that he has to except against this is the Rigor of the Sentence that forbids his name to be mentioned in Prayer for the dead and that there should be no Oblation made for his Rest but this shews that the ancient praying for the dead was intended rather as an honourable Remembrance of them than any act of Charity toward the Soul departed else it is not likely so good and indulgent a man as St. Cyprian was would have been so cruel in his Intentions as to deprive a poor Soul of any Relief he had judg'd necessary for it p. â—5 § â—8 After this he gives a short account of several Councils called upon the subject of Rebaptization of Hereticks and here to do him Right he is just enough in his Remarks The Generality of the World was for rebaptizing Hereticks and considering what manner of men the first Hereticks were it is probable they had Tradition as well as Reason on their side However Mr. B. endeavours fairly to excuse these Differences and speaks of the Bishops with Honour and respect allowing them to be men of eminent Piety and Worth Had he used the same Candour towards others who were no less eminent it would have been no Disparagement to his Judgment or Sincerity but his contrary unequal Dealing is not much for the Reputation of his Charity and Modesty There is a mistake § 29. where he make Eus bius to speak that in his own Person 〈…〉 which he cites not of Dionysius Alexandrinus That he does not condemn the rebaptizing of Hereticks Euseb l. 7 c. 6. which was a Tradition of so great Antiquity The Councils of Antioch that condemn'd Paulus Samosatenus are in effect acquitted by Mr. B. when he acknowledges him that was rejected by those Councils a gross Heretick That infamous meeting of Traditors at Cyrta p. 36. § 37. A meeting of 12 evil men that were Bishops lib. 1. contra Parmen was rather a Conspiracy than a Council and I am sorry Mr. B. has not done that Right to the Catholick Church as to shew who these men were Opatus Milev reproaches his Donatist Adversary with these Progenitors amongst these was Donatus Masculitanus Victor Rusicciadiensis Marinus ab aquis Tibilitanis Donatus Calumensis and the Murtherer Purpurius Limatensis the great Promoters of the Schism of the Donatists and as it were the Apostles of that Sect yet these men tho they were confessed Traditors became of so tender Consciences soon after as to abhor Communion with Cecilianus because he was ordained by Felix whom they suspected of the same Crime that they had pardoned one another The Church is so unconcerned with the crimes of these men that they are in some measure her Vindication they went out from us because they were not of us and they left the Communion of the Church because their crimes made them despair of enjoying it The next Council he mentions c. 2. § 38. is that of Sinuessa one of the most nonsensical pieces of Forgery that ever I saw three hundred Bishops are said to meet together to judge Pope Marcellinus and could find no better
endeavouring to set up Now How these should be no Presbyterians who set up Presbytery how they were Episcopals that destroy'd Episcopacy is I must confess too hard a Riddle for a man of a plain understanding unless one may think that Mr. B. gives this Bishop-destroying Parliament the Title of Episcopal as the Romans honour'd several of their Generals with the Titles of those Nations they had overcome or else that Mr. B. speaks by a figure too frequent though not very decent in History call'd Fiction As to the particulars with which Mr. B. concludes this Chapter I have so long dwelt upon of the Parliaments Army Generals Lord Lieutenants Assembly of Divines being Episcopals and Conformists I had rather and body else should disprove than I not that it is so difficult a matter for who that can remember so long or can read English does not know the contrary But because I am unwilling to renew the memory of so unpleasant and odious things and heartily wish that as our Gracious King pass'd an Act of Oblivion for those matters so they who enjoy the benefit of that act of Grace would suffer us to forget the occasion of it or cease to presume that we have so far lost all memory and sense that we do not know the same things when we see them acted over again But however Mr. B. informs us of the Original of the late Rebellion I am sure there was a time when we had a very different account of things there was a time when the Presbyterians and Independents contended who should have the greatest share of the Glory of having carry'd on that cause and there is one who is very particular in this matter on the behalf of the Presbyterians Bastwick of Independ p. 624. seq to whom I refer the Reader for his satisfaction CHAP. I. A short View of the other Governments set up in opposition to Episcopacy IF eminent places or offices as they give authority and jurisdiction could likewise secure those that are possess'd of them from errors in Administration if any character or order could so Consecrate the person that bears it as to exempt him from the Common condition of Humane frailty and from a possibility of being wicked the world must needs be happy by submitting to such a constitution and then Schism and Sedition would have no Pretext But if after all the Accessions of authority and honour men retain their nature and their manners and are subject to passions as they were before it is no wonder if all degrees and Denominations can furnish Numerous instances of vice and infamy and the more eminent any order is the more frequent examples of evil men it commonly affords For the blemishes of such persons are more Conspicuous and expos'd to publick view and observation and the eyes of all men are fix'd upon them so as they will quickly discern what is amiss nor are they less forward to censure their miscarriages Besides it is possible that the Governing part may not always consist of the best men for ambition makes men Industrious in the pursuit of power and goes a shorter and generally a more effectual though less direct way to obtain it And when they are in possession they begin to discover that temper they before Artificially concealed and become more open since they have less restraint Lastly even Power it self is a great temptation and an eminent private virtue has often times lost it self in the Exercise of Authority as weak heads grow giddy when they are plac'd upon a height But however it comes to pass so it is that there is no sort of Government whether of Church or State which any one that has a mind to disgrace it may not shew to have been in the hands of very infamous Persons and that the best that have possess'd it were not without their faults If one have a mind to Reproach Monarchy there are Nero's and Caligula's enough nay Augustus and Trajan who are reckoned the best of that rank had great and some inexcusable faults If one he inclin'd to raile against Common-wealths the Ingratitude of Athene or Rome or Carthage towards their best friends and preservers will furnish him with Infinite matter If one would Disgrace Episcopaacy Church History is full of evil contentious Bishops Paulus Samosatenus Eusebius Nicomed Nestorius Dioscorus and innumerable others and the most Orthodox and holy were not without their blemishes Theophilus Cyril Epiphanius had very undecent heats Nay the Apostles themselves had a Judas and the rest of them were not free from misunderstandings which must needs give great offence to the Church What shall we do then in this case Shall we submit to no Government that has been prophan'd by evil administration shall we be of no Church that has any mixture of the world Shall we renounce Monarchy because we have read of Tyrants or throw down Episcopacy because some of that order have been unworthy of it By this reason we must have no Government or order at all or as the Apostle infers we must go out of the world But since our necessities require some kind of order and there can no number of men live by any Common Rule whether of Religion or Law without authority plac'd in some hands or other to enforce it and since God himself was pleased to appoint the kind of Government under which his Church was to be notwithstanding that evil men might creep into the office we remain still under an Obligation to submit our selves to it and it is not in our power to alter that constitution This Mr. B. and all the Dissenters will easily grant and therefore they say that they contend only for the Primitive Institution of Church Government Be it so yet this long deduction of reproach and accusation does not prove any thing to the prejudice of the office and this notwithstanding Episcopacy may be the Church Government of the Apostles setling for those things that fill Mr. B.'s Indictment against Bishops are the faults of the men not of the Office and the same miscarriages may be discover'd in other kinds of Church Government that are not Episcopal And since every project is more plausible and seems to have fewer inconveniencies in the Idea than in the use lest any one for want of experience or History may think Presbytery or any Church Government that is not Episcopal to be subject to no abuse or Disorders I will give a short account of the Rise and Progress of that form of Government that has obtain'd in such of the Reform'd Churches as have cast off their Bishops and shew that they have suffer'd under the same Calamities that had befallen Episcopal Churches and are guilty of most of the same things as requiring subscriptions Conformity c. as our Bishops against whom all this History and bitterness is directed It is not yet a Hundred and fifty years that the Church has known any other Government but Episcopal and
they believed they were Baptized both Men and Women Now the Apostles who remained in Jerusalem when they heard of this success send Peter and John thither who confirm the believers by imposition of hands and why could not Philip do this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphan he could dispossess unclean Spirits and heal all manner of diseases he could Preach powerfully so as to Convert in a manner a whole City and why could not he do all other Acts that were useful to the Church but that these Apostles must be taking Authority upon them in his Church it is something like Diocesan Prelacy to reserve any Acts of Order or Discipline to themselves yet so it was that the holy Ghost was not given 〈◊〉 by their hands and what kind of Government they established there Chrysost Oecumenius Theophylact. does not appear and some pretend to give reasons why they did not appoint a Clergy there as afterwards they did in other places because they say that Samaria was near enough to Jerusalem where the whole Council of the Apostles did reside and thither their Bishop or Presbyters might repair for more solemn Ordination And that we may not think meaner of the success of the Apostles Ministry than we ought and measure it by the progress of Sectaries as Anabaptists and Quakers as Mr. B. does with too much disparagement to the first Planters of Christian Religion St. Luke gives us a short account of loâ—e visitation of St. Peter that lets us see hoâ— wonderfully the Gospel prevail'd at first for when that Apostle passed through 〈◊〉 quarters and came to the Saints that dwelled at Lydda Acts 9.32 33. c. Saron Tractus quidam Regionis non procul à Caesaria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Antiq l. 20. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph de Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 37. Lydda Civitas Palestinae quae diospolis appellatur Hieron de 〈◊〉 Heb. and healed miraculously a Person that had been long bed-ridden 〈◊〉 that dwelled at Lydda and Saron saw him and turned unto the Lord and this Town anâ— Territory mentioned with it was large enough for a considerable Diocesan Church nor is there any likelyhood it was divided under several Church Governments Mr. B. confessing that no City with the villages aâ—joyning had any more than one Bishop 〈◊〉 a long time after this and in the time 〈◊〉 the Council of Nice It was an Episcopaâ— seat for we find Aetius Bishop of the place among the subscriptions of thâ— Council The next considerable Church that waâ— founded was that of Antioch the greated City of all the East and the Church dâ—â— soon bear a good proportion to the greatneâ—â— of the City Acts 11. â—1 For the hand of God was wâ—â— them the scattered Disciples and a greâ—â— number believed and turned unto the Lord anâ— when Barnabar had come from Jerusalem assist in this work v. 24. Much people was added unto the Lord and when Barnabas had brought Paul to Antioch they assembled themselves with the Church v. 26. and taught much people It is not unlikely that all these Proselytes mentioned hitherto were Jews or such as were Proselytes of the Gate and had reâ—ounced Idolatry and such must the Greeks be to whom those of Cyprus Preach'd the word at Antioch v. 20. for Paul and Barnabas sometime after tell the Church of Antioch as an extraordinary thing Acts 14.27 that God had opened the door of Faith to the Gentiles and there is no doubt but they were â—ncouraged by that success to Preach to the Gentiles at Antioch too while they abode â—here a long time with the Disciples and the â—ultitude of these Gentile Converts made â—equestion about Circumcision of so great â—â—portance as to require a determination of all the Apostles and the whole Church of Jerusalem assembled in Council for before that there were not only several Congregations probably but separate Churches and the people were not only distributed but diviâ—ed Gal. 2.12 compared with Acts 15.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rent into separate â—ssemblies unless we shall â—â—terpret this separation â—o be rather a scruple reâ—â—ting to Conversation and â—â—iet than to publick and Church Communiâ—â—â— as it is most likely though even this must â—ave likewise an evil influence upon their Communion too for it is not likely the Jews if they stood so much upon the Law about choice of meats should care much for the Communion of the Gentiles when they fansied to be prophane and polluted by the transgression of that Law Barnius makes two Bishops of Antioch together aâ— this time upon the account of these dissersions Martyrolog Rom. Feb. 1. Evodius and Ignatius the one choses by Paul the other by Peter but the misery is that the Author that gives this light is confessed to mistake Clemens Const l. 7. c. 46. Orat. in S. Ignat. by making Paul 〈◊〉 chuse Ignatius and Peter Evodius whereas Chrysostom sayes the contrary that Ignaâ—â—â— was ordained by Peter and to speak freely I believe this no better than what Barâ—â—â—â— would forbid his reader to imagine a fiâ—â—â—â— which he was forced to make shift with iâ— reconcile the contradictions of Eusebius aâ—â— Chrysostom Euseb Hist l. 3. c. 22. Ed. Valâ—sâ—i Euseb Chronicon the former making Peter to be dead before Evodius to whom he makes Ignatius to succeed the latter expressly afirming that Apostle to have ordained him For my part I believe that the traditionâ—â— Chronology of Eusebius and the preciâ—â— time of the Succession and Government 〈◊〉 the first Bishops was no otherwise known to him is not a Foundation firm enouâ—â— to build any Opinion upon Vid. Dissert Spanhemii Blond Praesat Apol. pro sent H. especiaâ—â— when we consider that the place as we as time of St. Peters Martyrdom is questioned not without some appearance 〈◊〉 Reason and the whole business is involveâ— in so many difficulties Blondel takes greaâ— pains to confute the conjecture of Baronius but advances another of his own more strange and improbable and what is yet worse draws important consequences from it and pretends by these seeming contradictions to discover the nature of Primitive Episcopacy and the ancient Law of Succession But all that is trifling It is plain of Chrysostom that he thought Ignatius the immediate successor of Peter and therefore makes no mention of Evodius at all unless one shall say that Peter might ordain Ignatius as he did Timothy or Titus as an Evangelist and that afterwards he became the fixed Bishop of Antioch though Chrysostoms words will hardly bear that sense and refer to the Episcopal Office at large But however it fare either with Baronius his divided Episcopacy or Blondel's Succession by seniority it is highly probable that the Bishop of Antioch even at this time was a Diocesan having the oversight of a Church that was distributed into several Congregations for if we reflect
upon the multitudes said to be converted the number of Apostles and extraordinary Labourers commonly residing in this City the conjunction of Jews and Gentiles under the common title and profession of Christianity we must conclude that the Church of Antioch was too great for one Congregation especially before the place of assembly can be imagin'd very capacious and I believe Mr. B. does not imagine such vast Cathedrals as Pauls to be very Primitive Orat de S. Ign. But what ever number of Christians there might be at that time Ignatius his Bishop-rick was never the less Diocesan in its constitution and design or else Chrysostom mistakes one Topick of his commendation He reckons five things that were much to his honour whereof two bring him under suspition of Diocesan Prelacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatness of his Authority or Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatness of the City whereof he was Bishop The first I suppose refers to his metropolitan Power the second to his peculiar Diocess but if this Bishop were to have but one Congregation what would the greatness of the City signifie how many more would have the same honour with him Or what so great difference is there between a full Congregation in the heart of the City and another as full in Chelsey at leastwise what honour does the greatness of the City do the Minister of that single Congregation And now to pass by the Church of Corinth where St. Paul Preach'd for a Year and six Months upon a Divine assurance of extraordinary success and that God had much people in that place Acts 18.8 9 10 11. and where many effectually believed and were Baptized where Peter and Apollos Preached with that effect as to leave many Disciples 1 Cor. 3. who called themselves by their names And to say nothing of Ephesus where a numerous Church is said to have been gathered by St. Paul who preached there for two years and not only they that dwelled at Ephesus but all that dwelt in Asia Acts 19.10 heard the word of the Lord and the progress of the Gospel was so considerable that the shrine-makers apprehended the ruine of their Trade when they saw and heard that Paul not only at Ephesus but throughout all Asia had perswaded and turned away much people v. 26. To pass by these and several other eminent Churches Let us consider the Diocess of Rome as it was yet in the Apostles time It is very uncertain who laid the first Foundations of this Church though certain it is that before Pauls coming there the Gospel was not only received Rom. 1.13 15 17. seq but their Church was very considerable for St. Paul in his Epistle written long before his coming there as he himself witnesses sayes that their Faith was spoken of through the whole World and by the multitude of salutations in the end of that Epistle he makes appear the numbers of Christians in that City Salute Priscilla and Aquila Rom. 16. Ostendit Congregationem Fidelium Ecclesiam nominari Hieron in loe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coetum Fidelium nec mirum est in tam am plâ Civitate distinctos fuisse Fidelium coetus Beza with the Church that is in their house This was one of the Congregations of that Church which is occasionly mentioned and it is not improbable that several that are mentioned with all the Saints that are with them may be the Officers of several Congregations For it appears that most of these were of the Ministry and such by whose means the Romans believed and that they were strangers come thither from other parts where Paul had known them Congregationem vert Eras Istos amats quos satutat intelligimus ex nominiâ—us suiffe peregrinos per quorum exemylum atque Doctrinam non absurde existimamus credidisse Romanes Hieron for as yet he had not seen Rome And this number was afterwards increased considerably by the coming of Paul who converted some of the Jews and afterwards received all that came whether Jews or Gentiles and Preach'd to them the Kingdom of God for the space of two whole years no man forbidding him And the progress of the Gospel in this City may be farther observed from the Persecution of Nero who is said to have put an infinite multitude of them to Death Ingens multitude hand perinde in Crimint ineendii quam odio bumani generis convicti sunt Tac. H. l. 15. upon pretence that they had fired Rome and the Heathen Historian sayes that they who confess'd were first laid hold on then a vast company were convicted by their indication where by the by besides the multitude of the sufferers we may take notice that the words seem to be mistaken generally as if the Christians some of them had confess'd the Fact and accused the rest Lipsius thus understanding the passage gives Tacitus the lye but he does not say they confessed the fact but they confessed without expressing the particulars but what did they confess then If it were this Crime that theâ— own'd themselves and charg'd others with how comes he to add that they were not convicted so much of this Crime by this Indication as by the hatred of all mankind therefore this confession was no more than owning themselves to be Christians and the hatred they were in made this sufficient conviction To these instances of the great numbers of Christians in some more considerable Cities Eccles Hist l. 2. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall add only the general account which Eusebius gives of the success of the Christian faith immediately after the first discovery of it That presently in all Cities and Villages Churches abounding with innumerable multitudes were assembled and the Granary of Christ was fill'd up to the top with the Wheat that was gather'd in Hitherto I have observ'd chiefly the growth of Christianity under the Apostles and that there was in some Cities such a number of Christians as could not meet together in one Assembly for personal Communion in Doctrine and Worship The next thing we must shew in order to Diocesan Episcopacy must be that such numbers of believers made but one Church Govern'd by one Bishop As to the Church of Jerusalem we have shew'd already from the most ancient Ecclesiastical writings that James the Just was Bishop of that Church i. e. of all the Believers in Jerusalem Nor is that Tradition without ground in the Scripture it self for St. Paul reckons James the Lords Brother among the Apostles of that Church Sal. 1.19 though he were none of the Twelve and in another place he mentions him as a person in Eminent place and authority there one that had sent several Brethren to Antioch before that certain Brethren came from James â— 12 Here we find the style of the Scripture to alter in favour of Episcopacy for hitherto the Messengers who were sent from one Church to another were
is said to contain many Churches by that Canon whereby it is provided that Equitius the Bishop of it is to be deposed and another put in his place and for the easier effecting of it it is said Ecclesiae ibi ab his retinentur qui Equitii facinorosam communionem declinaverunt The Diocess whereof Xantippus was Bishop must be supposed of good extent August Ep. 236. for Augustine complains to him of one Abundantius a Presbyter in fundo Strabonensi at a great distance from his Bishop and near it seems to Augustine as may be gathered from the nature and manner of the complaint in the same place there is 〈…〉 Presbyter Gippitanus who was neighbour to this Abundantius or rather they lived both together tho' they had several Cures Alypius Bishop of Tagastis id Ep. 289. had likewise the Church Thyana under him which probably was a considerable City as may be gathered from the Epistle of St. Augustin to Melania whose Son was forced by a tumult of the people of Hippo to take Orders Hippo Regia the Diocess of St. Augustin was very large Ep. 74.212 236. Ep. He mentions many Parochial Presbyters and Parishes in it as Presbyter Germaniciensis Armemansis Subsana where Timothy was ordained Reader which occasioned no small trouble Malliana Turres Ciran Vitalis c. And such was the number of Churches in his Diocess that he excuses himself to a friend whom he had promised to assist in some kind of Study that he could not be as good as his word because he was gone upon his Visitation which would hold a considerable time and therefore he remits him to one of his Presbyters Quoniam visitandarum Ecclesiarum ad meam curam pertinentium necessitate profectus sum But we have a clearer account of the extent of this Diocess than of any other in Africk id Ep. 261. Volens prodesse quibusdam in nostra vicinitate This Neighbourhood which Mr. B. sometimes argues from to shew the smallness of Dioceses then was not the next door or the next Town in his Letter to Celestinus Bishop of Rome where he mentions a place in his neighbourhood as he expresses it that belonged to his Diocess and had never had a Bishop of its own yet forty miles distant from Hippo the passage because it is something remarkable I will set down in St. Austins words Fussala dicitur Territorio Hipponensi confine Castellum antea ibi nunquam Episcopus fuit sed simul cum contigua sibi Regione ad Paroeciam Hipponensis Ecclesiae pertinebat i. e. Tâ—e place is called Fussala a Town adjoyning to the Territory of Hippo which never had a Bishop of it own but belonged to the Diocess of Hippo with the Country about it Sed quod ab Hippone memoratum castellum millibus quadraginta sejungitur because it is forty miles distant from Hippo and the miserable condition of that Church requiring the presence of a Bishop he ordained one for them which not proving as useful as he expected he sends this Letter to excuse himself Nor are we to imagine that the Diocess of Hippo was singularly great above all the rest of Africk Collat. Carth. 1.65 but that Carthage Cirta Milevis and many others of the more eminent Bishopricks had more Churches under the inspection of their Bishops and the Diocess of Milevis particularly had besides Towns and Villages Cities likewise belonging to it for besides Milevis Civitas Tuncensis belonged to that Bishop And now if Mr. B. and the Nonconformists in whose name he makes Diocesan Episcopacy a reason of Separation had lived in Africa in the time of Cyprian or Augustin they must have renounced their communion or must have renounced these principles they must have been Nonconformists there and abhorred the largeness of the Bishops Dioceses no less than the Donatists did the largeness of their Charity Augustin would have been reckoned for all his learning and holiness no better than an Antichristian Bishop and our Reformers must have had toleration to Separate from him and what is the sweetest liberty of all to discharge their gall and bitterness upon him So that this is our comfort that these men that are such irreconcileable enemies to our Church would have been no otherwise to the Prophets the holy Primitive Bishops that have gone before us And for the same reason they reproach us they must reproach the ancient renowned Churches of Christ Nay the Church Universal as will further appear by what follows Although it may seem sufficient for my design to have shewed the progress of Diocesan Episcopacy in Africk the Country that Mr. B. singles out as retaining the clearest footsteps of the Congregational form yet for farther satisfaction in this point I will briefly shew the progress of Diocesan Episcopacy in other Nations and shew how at first they were but few in comparison not only for want of Christians in all Cities and Villages but by choice and when they came afterwards to be multiplyed it was not so much from the increase of believers as from Schisms and divisions in the Church and from the increase of Metropoles by the Christian Emperors in order to which I shall proceed upon the same grounds I have done hitherto From the great number of Christians that were dispersed into all parts and Cities and the small number of Bishops that met in Councils especially Provincial where all were obliged to be present as also from some general expressions of the condition of some Bishops in the earliest times as it is to be presumed that in the earliest times of the Church the Provincial Synods were the majority at least of the Bishops in the several Provinces so the first Synod had so few Bishops that we must needs conclude their number then to be very small For instance therefore The Gallick Synod assembled at Lyons under Irenaeus Ex Libello Synod against Marcion and other Hereticks had but twelve Bishops in it The Synod of Hierapolis under Apolinarius against Montanus and Maximilla had twenty six Ibid. The Synod of Anchialus under Sotas had twelve or thirteen Bishops Ibid. And Eusebius having cited two or three subscriptions out of Serapions Epistle Hist â—ocl l. 5. c. 9. adds that there were the subscriptions of many more not naming the number perhaps because in his time it would have looked but inconsiderable all being but twelve The Synod of Ephesus under Polycrates about the time of Easter was probably more numerous than most of the Provincial Councils of this age as consisting not only of the Bishops of Asia but of those of the neighbouring Countries as we may conclude from Victors attempt to excommunicate them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 5. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Libà l Synod Polycrates in his Letter to Victor sayes they were a considerable number and if he should write down all their names it would seem a great multitude But no number is any where expressed