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
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
owed him still the duty of Children notwithstanding his absence and lastly that he would come to them shortly by way of Apostolical visitation and examine the power of those that entred into competition with him For as far as his Line or Diocess or Province did extend so far he pretended a peculiar Authority to govern Rom 15.19 2 Cor. 10.13 to 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dioecesis sive certus Pastorum Ecâ—lesiarum numerus Unit. Frat. Bohem. Sect. de Antist Regulam vocat Ditionem praescriptum Praedicationis Terminum Salmeron and exercised Diocesan jurisdiction upon all within his Rule But when this Line was so far extended that he neither was able to visit every part himself and his communication by Letters would not answer all the occasions of those Churches he had planted 1. Tim. 1.3 18. c. 2.14 15. c. 4.12 14. c. 5.21.22 Tit. 1.5 c. 2.15 he provides for them not by leaving every Congregation Independent and resigning all Authority into the hands of every particular Presbytery but by sending Persons endued not only with extraordinary gifts but with Apostolical power to ordain Elders to end disputes to censure the unruly and irregular whether of the Clergy or People to confute Hereticks to preach the Gospel and in short by all means to provide for thee welfare of those Churches committed to them And now as the Apostle had before ordained assistant Elders in the several Churches which he had planted for the ordinary attendance of the Congregation so now he takes to himself Assistants of another sort Suffragans for the Service of his Province which he distributed as he found most expedient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 1. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod in 1 Tim. 3. Phil. 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acceperat in illis Apostolatus officium Hieron in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anonym 〈◊〉 Phot. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Timoth. and these in the Apostles time were sometimes called Apostles or Evangelists Bishops Presbyters Fellow Labourers Helpers Deacons c. but their successors leaving greater and more invidious titles contented themselves with the name of Bishops which was common to them with ordinary Presbyters at first though the Offices were alwayes distinct Of this kind we have several mentioned in Scripture of St. Pauls Province as Barnabas Timothy Titus Crescens Epaphraditus Sosthenes and some others that had no relation to him as James the Just Mark Linus Clemens c. These exercised Episcopal jurisdiction in that district where they were appointed Ordained Presbyters received accusations against them Reprov'd and censur'd them as there was cause and in short govern'd those Churches over which they were appointed by full Apostolical power which was transmitted to their successors But the extraordinary abilities of some of these men and the occasions of several other Churches made their residence less constant in the Diocess where they were plac'd 2 Tim. 4.9 than otherwise might have been expected Phil. 2. and therefore Timothy the Bishop and Apostle of Ephesus is called to Rome by St. Paul to be imployed as the necessities of the Church should require Titus is sent to Dalmatia though Crete were his first Province but this concludes no more against their being Diocesans than the Voyage of Germanus and Lupus into Brittain to oppose the Pelagian Heresy would conclude against their being Bishops Now what care was taken for those Churches which these Apostolick Diocesans left whether they returned again to their Provinces is not mentioned in Scripture But Ecclesiastical Records shew an uninterrupted Succession from the Bishops in several Churches Nor do we find that they were all so unfixed as they are represented by the adversaries of Episcopacy for Mark who was the first Bishop of Alexandria remained in that Province Euseb Hist l. 2. c. 16. Niceph. l. 2. c. 43. Gelas in Conc. Rom. in decr de lib. Auth. planting Churches in the Country round about and governing them by Apostolical Authority which after his Martyrdom there was derived to his successuors in the same charge Now this order being of perpetual use and necessity in the Church to ordain Presbyters and Deacons to exercise discipline to preserve unity they were multiplyed according as the Apostles found most expedient for the Church and the most eminent Cities became the Residence of these first Bishops not because God takes greater care of Cities than he does of lesser Towns and Villages but because the Apostles thought it the most natural way to follow the distribution that was then in the more civilz'd part of the world St. John a little while before his death mentions seven in the Lydian Asia under the name of Angels of the Churches nor is it probable there were any more in that Province The Seven Churches being the same with all the Churches mentioned in the next Chapter Rev. 1.20.2.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Andr. Caesar Ego puto simul inveniri posse Angelum hominem bonos Ecclesia Episcopos Origen in Lucam Hom. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut Collegas moneat Beza Ad Episcopum loci dirigitur Paraus and Carolus à Sancto Paulo concludes the same thing out of St. John Cum in Asia septem tantum hisce temporibus essent Episcopi ut in Apocalypsi legere est nec majorem corum numerum in Ponto tunc fuisse probalile est Geogr. Sacra p. 289. Dissert 4. c. 5. Quod si de Angelis superiorum Coelorum non de praepositis Ecclesie intelligi vellet non consequenter diceret Laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositas Ecclesiae Aug. Ep. 162. But Dr. Hammond makes all these Angels to be Metropolitans having several Bishops under them for the reasons I must refer the reader to his Dissertations Thus far the Scripture discovers the rise and progress of Diocesan Episcopacy which was the form of Church Government under the Apostles who had large Provinces to supervise and their suffragans such as are commonly called Evangelists had several Congregations to govern and this was undeniably the constitution of the Church in the first age the next thing we are to inquire is whether the Office expired with those Persons or was designed to be of perpetual use in the Church The Adversaries of Episcopacy are not all agreed as to this point the Presbyterians generally looking upon the offices of Apostles and Evangelists extraordinary as the persons were Mr. B. is something more scrupulous because he does not find any where that Christ design'd to have this alter'd and yet he condemns Diocesan Episcopacy as being altogether different from it I have said something to this already and therefore I shall answer here more briefly 1. That we have no reason to believe from Scripture that the Office of Apostles or Evangelists which concerned the Government of the Church was extraordinary and for a time only
and the extraordinariness of their gifts can be no argument against their continuance for notwithstanding they did many miraculous things yet they never could contrive to be in two places a the same time and as to their governing of several Congregations they were under the same inconveniences with their successors They visited from place to place they called the Presbyters of some Churches to them to give them directions they proceeded by information and legal evidence and what was possible to them to do in these cases is not become impossible to those that succeed them 2. All other offices had extraordinary men in those dayes and the same argument will hold against Presbyters and Deacons as against Bishops for the first Deacons that were elected were men full of the Holy Ghost 3. The unfixedness of these is no argument against the reason of their continuance and all that will follow from that is no more than this that if it was essential to their office to be unfixed they ought to be so still and not to cease to be at all 4. All of them were not unfixed and if they had been so it does not follow that the nature of their office requires it it might be no more than accidental 5. That they governed several Churches and were Arch-Bishops As to the notion of Church or Churches it is not very material whether we say Bishop of one or of many Churches for many worshipping Churches may make but one Governing Church and worshipping Churches may have their officers too as our Parishes but still in subordination to the Bishop as the several Churches under these Evangelists and Apostles were subordinated to them in matter of Discipline and Ordination But because many depend upon the title which these secondary Apostles have in Scripture as Timothy is commanded to do the werk of an Evangelist it is necessary to observe that it was not all their work to Preach and Propagate the Gospel but to settle Churches to govern them to ordain Officers to censure offenders these are the things particularly given in Charge that of Evangelists was common to them with divers others But ordination is made their peculiar right For why did Paul leave Timothy and Titus one in Ephesus the other in Crete to ordain Elders Were there not Presbyters in Ephesus already Might not they ordain Might not they receive Accusations and Excommunicate Why then was there one single Person left to do all this and in Crete it is not to be conceived but that since St. Paul had converted several to the faith in that Island he also had ordained some Church Officers in those places of the Island where he most resided Or what need had he to leave a Bishop behind him to ordain when he might by the ordination of a few Presbyters in one City provided sufficiently for ordination in the rest or lastly since this ordination is made so insignificant by Mr. B. why might not these Believers have appointed their own Teachers without any further circumstance and by an instance of their power have freed Posterity from the superstition of thinking Apostolical Ordination and succession so requisite to Authorize Pastors But since the Apostles ordained all Ecclesiastical Officers by themselves or their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Assistants their suffragan Bishops and left some of them on purpose to do this work it is plain that they conceived some kind of necessity for it and did not look upon the power so common or insignificant as later projectors of Church settlements would make us believe Now as the Scripture discovers no other sort of Episcopacy than such as we have discribed so the ancient Bishops knew of no other Original of their Office for they conceived themselves to be derived from the Apostles not as ordinary Presbyters or Deacon but to succeed them in such a preheminence of dignity and power as their first Assistants were endued with And Eusebius whose diligence nothing could escape and whose judgment was not easily imposed on aâ—ter all his search could find no other Original of Episcopacy and derives the Bishops of the most eminent Cities of the Empire from the Apostles and their Assistants whom they appointed as the first Bishops of the Church Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How many sayes he and who they were that followed the example of the Apostles and were thought worthy to govern those Churches which they founded is not easy to say besides these which St. Paul mentions in his Epistles he indeed had a great number of Assistants and as he calls them fellow Souldiers whose names are preserved in his Epistle And Luke in the Acts of the Apostles makes mention of some of them Among these Timothy is said to have been first Bishop of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Titus the Bishop of the Churches of Crete Crescens was sent to Gallatia as the present reading of St. Pauls Epistle is but as Eusebius read it to Gallia Linus whom he mentions in his second to Timothy was made Bishop of the Church of Rome next to Peter and Clemens who succeeded Linus is owned by Paul as his fellow labourer And Lastly Dionysius the Areopagite whom St. Paul mentions as the first Convert of Athens is reported to have been the first Bishop of that Church by another Dionysius a very Ancient writer and Bishop of Corinth This was the rise of Episcopacy according to Eusebius and the progress of it he takes care to shew by setting down the successours of these and other Bishops to his own time Ep. ad Smyrn ad Ephes ad Magn. Ignatius derives the Original of Episcopacy a little higher yet from Christ himself the Universal Bishop and compares the Bishop with his Bench of Presbyters to Christ sitting in the midst of his Apostles and is the most express and vehement of all the Ancients in setting out the dignity and preheminence of the Bishop Irenaus deduces the Episcopal Authority from the same Original and makes the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles to be his principal argument against the Hereticks and Schismaticks of his time and because it was endless to make a perfect enumeration of those who succeeded the Apostles in all the Churches of the World Valde longum esset in tali volumine enumerare Successiones l. 3. c. 3 he instances in that of Rome where Linus was first ordained Bishop Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecelesiae tradiderunt Apofloli ibid. Polycarpus ab Apostolis in eâ qua est Smyrnis constitutus Episcopus qui usque adbue successerunt Polycarpe ibid. then Clemens and so on to his own time and in another place proposes it as the only remedy against Heresy to obey those that have a due succession from the Apostles who though they are there called Presbyteri yet it is plain who he means by them when he adds that they are the same which he shewed before to have succeeded the
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
him which I wonder as much he should believe as that he be satisfied with another Friend's Computation of the Christians in Alexandria in Strabo's time 't is in short this That he though his Voice was none of the lowdest yet he preacht to a Congregation judg'd to be about ten thousand men 2 part of Ch. Hist in one place he has but 6000. but in another he comes up again to 10000. and that they all hear'd him I am afraid that this Friends Calculation exceeds as much as the other falls short for we reckon now that three thousand makes an extraordinary Congregation and it may be possible for a mighty Voice to speak to a thousand more but it may be that the World is degenerated since and that our Lungs are no more in Comparison with those of the times he speaks of than they were compared to those of the Eastern Preachers At last to make sure work he concludes that though Jerusalem might have many Assemblies and yet but one Church p. 81. 82. and after the dispersing of the Apostles but one Bishop yet this is no Precedent This I must needs say is something more than the Independents would adventure to say they minced the matter and told us that Jerusalem being the first born Church and nursed up by the joynt care of all the Apostles might arrive to an extraordinary Stature and look gigantick in Comparison of the rest yet they durst not say it had more than one Congregation and was no Precedent What shall we judge then That the Apostles built the Church of Jerusalem after one model and those of other Cities after another or if they did surely they were both lawful does that overthrow the Church and Discipline of Christ's Institution that is according to the practice of his own Apostles Or can a Conformity to the Discipline of the mother-Mother-church of Jerusalem become in it's self a Sin Wherein shall we be saved if the Imitation of the Apostles do not secure us But Mr. B. says the Office of a Bishop supposes him to have no more than one Congregation since he must hold personal Communion with all in Preaching and Administration of the Sacraments visiting the Sick relieving the Poor and the like but must all these Acts be performed by himself in Person Must he have no Assistance Is nothing to be done within his Congregation without his Presence May not he do all this occasionally as the Apostles and Evangelists did Every Bishop had Presbyters in the first times and if he were so indispensably oblig'd to do all himself what use were they of and yet appoint Elders for the ordinary and constant Performance of the Ministry whom he shall supervise and direct It is very strange that the Bishops should have been so many hundred years in an Office which it was impossible for them to discharge and yet this be never discover'd by themselves or others However the generality of Bishops you say for a long while after the Apostles had but one Congregation to govern what then If all the Believers in and about a City would hardly make a Congregation that is to be ascribed to the Condition of those times and not to be reckon'd essential to the Office all things have their Beginning but are not confin'd to the Measures of their Infancy and if the Beginnings of the Church were but small even the greatest Cities it cannot be a prejudice to the Governour of it if the number of Believers should increase since they are appointed in Clemens Opinion for the Government not only of those that have already Ep. ad Corinth but of such as shall afterwards believe The Practice of the universal Church is evidently on our side for who has ever heard of two Bishops in one City though it were never so great unless in time of Schism and it is strange when the number of Believers did encrease beyond all Possibility of personal Communion that none should ever discern the necessity of dividing into several Churches and learn this Wisdom from the Example of Bees But the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria by their Affectation of Empire became evil Examples to others by their first Corruption of Church Discipline It is strange then that among all the Quarrels of the Bishops and in all their Accusations of one another that this Crime of so high a Nature should never be objected that no good man could never complain of this Corruption that there should never be laid to their Charge this usurping of Authority over whole Cities and multitudes of Congregations But supposing this an Usurpation in the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria how is it credible that all the great Cities in the World should be carryed away with their Example that there should be not one honest Bishop left that understood the nature of his Office or the just bounds of his Diocess Or suppose the Bishops so far prejudiced with self-Interest as to have neglected a Duty that redounded so much to the Diminution of their Power yet were the People who in those times had some part in their Election ignorant of this great Secret would not they right themselves and not have suffer'd their several Congreations to become Chappelries c. Dependencies upon the Bishops Church Would not they have govern'd themselves rather than become as it were a Province to the Bishop or if the People were ignorant of this was there no Priest that was ambitious enough to be Bishop that could inform them of their Right in Expectation that they would be grateful to the Discoverer of their Priviledges And lastly was there no Schismatick learned enough to justifie his setting up of an Altar against an Altar by this Argument that there were more Believers than could hold personal Communion with the Bishops Altar that there was work enough for more Bishops than one and that in populous Cities there ought to be several Churches yet they were all so dull as never to think of this way but on the contrary every one pretended that there ought to be but one Bishop in a City and that himself had the Right and the other was the Usurper In short since the Nature of the Church requires that it should swarm when Believers grew too numerous for one Assembly and send out new Colonies under Independant-officers Is it not very strange that it should so far forget it's Nature as never to have done this and to leave not one poor instance upon whose Authority the Independency of Congregations might relye It is upon this that the present Question turns and not whether Bishops at first had but single Congregations for if there were no more Believers within or belonging to the City they could have no more but after they were multiplyed into several Congregations still they had but one Bishop and Mr. B. does not as much as pretend to any Evidence of History to the contrary unless it be when the Church was divided
Council in the West since they would not determine this present Controversie Upon which Cecropius Bishop of Sebaestopolis said We desire the Definition may be read and then those that will not subscribe and conform to rightful Determinations let them walk to Rome i. e. to that General Council which the Emperour threatened to call in the West And the Illyrican Bishops seconded this Motion Those that contradict are Nestorians let them walk to Rome What manner of slight this was is not easily guess'd at the worst these Bishops did no more slight Rome than Cecropius did the West whither he bid Dissenters walk to be satisfy'd In the next Paragraph our Author makes Theodoret speak what was never in his §. 26. thoughts nor indeed in any honest mans Theodoret said I take not my self to say true but I know I please God These are not Theodoret's but Mr. B.'s words and very applicable to himself and his Church History For as mean an opinion as I have of his knowledge in Church History I doubt not he can read Latin when he had the book before him and yet when he does that I am afraid that many times He takes not himself to say true But perhaps he may be of opinion that a pious fraud may be accepted and that by calumniating the Bishops whom he takes for Enemies to the Kingdom of Christ and gratifyers of the Devil he may please God Disp 1. of Ch. Gov. I cannot clear him of that in other places so well as in this Here our Authors fault was only ignorance of theodorets language or a mistake of his Latin Translation which I shall rectifie for it is pity the good Father should suffer by it His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in English In good truth I do not speak but as I know is pleasing to God The Latin Translation puzled our Author Vere i. e. reverà non dico nisi quomodo novi placere Deo The next words of our Author do as much wrong the sense though not so much the Reputation of Theodoret I would first satisfie you of my belief whereas Theodoret said only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. I would perswade you in the first place that I regard not preferment The Latin thus Priùs satisfactio vobis quia neque de civitate cogito c. And at last after a great deal of that debate about Theodoret our Author concludes do not these words here Translated out of Binius agree too well with Gregory Nazianzen 's character of Bishops and their Councils How well they may agree with Nazianzen is not so material but they should have agreed better either with the Original or at least with the Translation out of which our Author Translated them and yet for all this our Author will understand all these Greek Bishops better than they did one another or even themselves In the next place we have an account of Ibas Bishop of Edessa p. 108. sect 28. His Epistle to Maris against Cyril was acquitted at least the Bishop upon the reading of it It is a sad Narrative of the Calamitous Divisions which these Prelates and their Councils made In the first place there is no truth in what our Author says that this Epistle was acquitted for the Council says no such thing In the next place Ibas was not acquitted upon the reading of this Act. 10. Con. Chalc. any more than a prisoner is acquitted upon the reading of his Impeachment but he was upon the defence he made that he communicated with Cyril and receiv'd his Orthodox interpretation of those twelve Articles which before he thought to be full of Impiety Baronius An. 432. deceiv'd by Gregory the Great Gregor l. 7. Ep. 53. Act. 6. and the Acts of the Second Council of Nice concludes this Epistle to be forg'd and falsely father'd upon Ibas but Anno 448. he recants and owns it to be genuine The truth is Ibas himself never pretended to disown it neither at Tyre nor Berytus nor Chalcedon where this was objected against him but confessed that before Cyril explain'd himself he thought him a Heretick and follow'd the Judgement of the Eastern Bishops Some say this Epistle was written whilest Ibas was a Nestorian before the Reconciliation but the words of that letter are express to the contrary for it mentions the Union and Peace of the Churches by the means of Paulus Emissenus How then comes he to give such an odious account of Cyril and the proceedings of the Council of Ephesus The Truth is the Eastern Bishops were not so ingenuous and fair after their Reconciliation with Cyril as he was towards them however he goes in Mr. B.'s History under so odious a character Who ever reads his Letters to Nestorius and to John of Antioch and considers with what candour he acts must needs see that he had very hard measure from those whom he treated with great ingenuity and confidence The Eastern men are still upon the disparagement of Cyril's proceedings and the vindication of themselves with what Truth or Reason has been shew'd already and Ibas here pursues the same prejudices and would insinuate that his party had the Right and Cyril was their Convert But if here was any change of opinion on either side it was on theirs for first they joyn'd with Nestorius and afterwards condemn'd him Yet this Epistle of Ibas shews that there was a core left still In the eleventh Action p. 109. sect 29. two Bishops Bassia nus and Stephen strive for the Bishoprick of Ephesus And saith our Author while the Bishops were for one of them the Judges pass'd sentence to cast out both One would imagine here that the Judges pass'd sentence against the consent or inclination of the Bishops But there is no such matter it was not the Judges but the Bishops past this sentence Act. 11. When the cause of these two Bishops was examin'd the Judges propounded it to the Bishops to determine of the right that was in Dispute the Bishops answer'd that the right was on Bassianus his side let the Ganons take place for Bassianus was the first Possessour The Judges represented to them that in their opinion neither of them were fit to be continu'd Bishops yet referr'd the whole matter to the Council to determine as it should think fit And this Mr. B. calls passing a sentence while the Bishops were against it The Bishops finding that Stephen was not like to carry the cause for they had no great favour for him because he had been a very active Instrument of Dioscorus in the second Council of Ephesus willingly consented the other should be turn'd out too and were so extremely satisfy'd with this expedient that they cry'd it up presently and own'd it to be a Divine suggestion and so the Bishops who Mr. B. says were for one did indeed pass sentence against both Competitors At last our Author enquires after the success of all
For speaking of that Abominable Sect he has these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. They that pretend to be the Followers of Nicolas the Deacon do pervert a saying of his that the Flesh must be thus'd that is kept under But these Men like Goats abandoning themselves to all uncleanness understand and him to permit men to dishonour their bodies by indulging themselves in all their lusts And the same Author in another place gives a more particular vindication of Nicolas the Deacon Clem. Alex. l. 3. saying That Carpocrates gave out this story of him That he had a comely Wife and was Jealous of her for which he was reprehended by the Apostles But Nicolas to acquit himself of this Imputation brought her before them and offer'd to release her to any other that would marry her and that this action was suitable to his Maxim which we have mention'd before Whereupon Clemens adds that the Nicolaitans as they call'd themselves following this Doctrine and Action of the Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rashly and without Examination give themselves over to all manner of uncleanness and then goes on to vindicate Nicolas adding That he had understood by Tradition that he always preserv'd his faith to his Wife inviotable that his children that he had by this Wife were remarkable for their Chastity and all dy'd unmarry'd And concludes at last That this was to be look'd upon as an Instance of Mortification and the Words that those Hereticks insisted upon so much meant nothing else Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 29. Eusebius who cites this passage at large seems to be of the same opinion and therefore says only that these Hereticks gave out Nicolas for the Author of their Doctrine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they only cracked and boasted that it was so l. de Haeres S. Austin speaks with the same caution with Eusebius and says only ut perhibetur permisisse fertur though he says eâ qui vellet uteretur it cannot be understood of common prostitution for Carpocrates himself says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that she might be Married to any body that would have her Theodoret follows Clemens allows this relation about Nicolas to be true Theodor. l. 3. Haeret. Fabâ—l and excuses him by saying that He did not intend seriously to be as good as his word but only to haffle those that accus'd him of Jealousie and at last concludes From hence they the Nicolaitans are manifestly convicted to be Impostors and falsly to call themselves by that name Petavius does not know what to determine in this case Is Epiple since the Fathers are divided about is But I believe one needs not be so scrupulous The whole matter depends between the Authorities of Irenaus and Clemens Clemens is very particular and had examin'd the business it seems as far as he could the other speaks generally and perhaps look'd no further than the name nor could he so easily have an account of them as Clemens could who liv'd where the sect was most numerous Carpocrates who was the Father of it was an Alexandrian Besides the Words of Irenaus if they are examin'd do not positively affirm Nicolas to have been the Father of the Nicolaitans Magistrum habent Nicolaum are the words which may signifie no more than that they hold him to be so If the Greek Copy were extant it might have given more light perhaps he said no more than Eusebius does and the Word might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they boast that he is their Master I am to beg pardon for this Digression If it can relieve the Memory of a person whom the Scripture intimates to be a Man of Honest Report Act. 6.3 full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom I am content to bear the blame of the Impertinence But however it were it is some comfort and enough to my purpose that he was no Bishop The Gnosticks had no Bishop either for their founder or promoter that is yet known Clem. Alex. l. 3. Carpocrates was no Diocefan Prelate but his Sect pretended high indeed to something more than a Bishop to an Apostle They quoted Matthias for such another sentence as the Nicolaitans did Nicolas the Deacon and would have perswaded the World that they were his Disciples Cerinthus Clem. Alex. l. 6. Ebion Valentinus Secundus Epiphanes Isidorus Ptolemaus Marcus were they Bishops What Churches did Colarbasus or Heracleon or Cerdo govern Marcion indeed was a Bishops son but it does not appear that he was of the Clergy he was Excommunicated by his own Father for a Rape and when he could not obtain Absolution turn'd Heretick It were endless to reckon up all the Hereticks that gave names to Sects they were most of them bred up the Scholars of other Hereticks and differing in some things from their Masters set up for themselves and call'd their followers by their own names The 39th Christian Sect in Epiphanius is that of the Cathari or Puritans and these are the first that we find started by any of the Clergy Novatus an African Priest began this Sect I have given his History before and shewn how he seduced Novatianus a Roman Priest Epiph. Aug. Philastr c. or at leastwise joyn'd with him against his Bishop Theodotus whom St. Austin calls Theodotion was a learned man indeed and Orthodox at first and so was Bardesanes Syrus but neither of them was a Bishop Montanus became the Author of a Heresie because he could not obtain the highest place in the Church and turn'd down-right Fanatick saying he was the Holy Ghost In short the first Heretick Bishop that we find is Paulus Samosatenus who succeeded Demetrianus in the Bishoptick of Antioch in the year 262 Euseb in Chron. who fell into Heresie in the year 267. His is the 65th Sect in Epiphanius or the 45th Christian Heresie This Paulus was a very ill man and taught dangerous opinions that Christ was not God Euseb l. 7. c. 30. But though he was really a Heretick yet he was not the Author of this Heresie He is said by Eusebius and the rest out of him to have learn'd this from Artemas as he calls him or Artemon Epiph. c. as also from Theodotus who began to teach this doctrine and to gather him a Sect under Victor Bishop of Rome by whom he was excommunicated But Paulus Samosatenus is said to have reviv'd this Heresie It is true indeed but Eusebius in the place before cited makes it appear l. 7. c. 30. that the Sect of Artemas and Theodotus was then in being For the Council of Antioch in their Synodical Epistle sent to several Bishops where they desire them to receive Domnus whom they had made Bishop in the place of Paulus Samosatenus when he should send his Circular Epistles and then speaking of Paulus deridingly say Let him if he thinks fit write to Artemas and let those that follow Artemas communicate with him if they
endeavouring to set up Now How these should be no Presbyterians who set up Presbytery how they were Episcopals that destroy'd Episcopacy is I must confess too hard a Riddle for a man of a plain understanding unless one may think that Mr. B. gives this Bishop-destroying Parliament the Title of Episcopal as the Romans honour'd several of their Generals with the Titles of those Nations they had overcome or else that Mr. B. speaks by a figure too frequent though not very decent in History call'd Fiction As to the particulars with which Mr. B. concludes this Chapter I have so long dwelt upon of the Parliaments Army Generals Lord Lieutenants Assembly of Divines being Episcopals and Conformists I had rather and body else should disprove than I not that it is so difficult a matter for who that can remember so long or can read English does not know the contrary But because I am unwilling to renew the memory of so unpleasant and odious things and heartily wish that as our Gracious King pass'd an Act of Oblivion for those matters so they who enjoy the benefit of that act of Grace would suffer us to forget the occasion of it or cease to presume that we have so far lost all memory and sense that we do not know the same things when we see them acted over again But however Mr. B. informs us of the Original of the late Rebellion I am sure there was a time when we had a very different account of things there was a time when the Presbyterians and Independents contended who should have the greatest share of the Glory of having carry'd on that cause and there is one who is very particular in this matter on the behalf of the Presbyterians Bastwick of Independ p. 624. seq to whom I refer the Reader for his satisfaction CHAP. I. A short View of the other Governments set up in opposition to Episcopacy IF eminent places or offices as they give authority and jurisdiction could likewise secure those that are possess'd of them from errors in Administration if any character or order could so Consecrate the person that bears it as to exempt him from the Common condition of Humane frailty and from a possibility of being wicked the world must needs be happy by submitting to such a constitution and then Schism and Sedition would have no Pretext But if after all the Accessions of authority and honour men retain their nature and their manners and are subject to passions as they were before it is no wonder if all degrees and Denominations can furnish Numerous instances of vice and infamy and the more eminent any order is the more frequent examples of evil men it commonly affords For the blemishes of such persons are more Conspicuous and expos'd to publick view and observation and the eyes of all men are fix'd upon them so as they will quickly discern what is amiss nor are they less forward to censure their miscarriages Besides it is possible that the Governing part may not always consist of the best men for ambition makes men Industrious in the pursuit of power and goes a shorter and generally a more effectual though less direct way to obtain it And when they are in possession they begin to discover that temper they before Artificially concealed and become more open since they have less restraint Lastly even Power it self is a great temptation and an eminent private virtue has often times lost it self in the Exercise of Authority as weak heads grow giddy when they are plac'd upon a height But however it comes to pass so it is that there is no sort of Government whether of Church or State which any one that has a mind to disgrace it may not shew to have been in the hands of very infamous Persons and that the best that have possess'd it were not without their faults If one have a mind to Reproach Monarchy there are Nero's and Caligula's enough nay Augustus and Trajan who are reckoned the best of that rank had great and some inexcusable faults If one he inclin'd to raile against Common-wealths the Ingratitude of Athene or Rome or Carthage towards their best friends and preservers will furnish him with Infinite matter If one would Disgrace Episcopaacy Church History is full of evil contentious Bishops Paulus Samosatenus Eusebius Nicomed Nestorius Dioscorus and innumerable others and the most Orthodox and holy were not without their blemishes Theophilus Cyril Epiphanius had very undecent heats Nay the Apostles themselves had a Judas and the rest of them were not free from misunderstandings which must needs give great offence to the Church What shall we do then in this case Shall we submit to no Government that has been prophan'd by evil administration shall we be of no Church that has any mixture of the world Shall we renounce Monarchy because we have read of Tyrants or throw down Episcopacy because some of that order have been unworthy of it By this reason we must have no Government or order at all or as the Apostle infers we must go out of the world But since our necessities require some kind of order and there can no number of men live by any Common Rule whether of Religion or Law without authority plac'd in some hands or other to enforce it and since God himself was pleased to appoint the kind of Government under which his Church was to be notwithstanding that evil men might creep into the office we remain still under an Obligation to submit our selves to it and it is not in our power to alter that constitution This Mr. B. and all the Dissenters will easily grant and therefore they say that they contend only for the Primitive Institution of Church Government Be it so yet this long deduction of reproach and accusation does not prove any thing to the prejudice of the office and this notwithstanding Episcopacy may be the Church Government of the Apostles setling for those things that fill Mr. B.'s Indictment against Bishops are the faults of the men not of the Office and the same miscarriages may be discover'd in other kinds of Church Government that are not Episcopal And since every project is more plausible and seems to have fewer inconveniencies in the Idea than in the use lest any one for want of experience or History may think Presbytery or any Church Government that is not Episcopal to be subject to no abuse or Disorders I will give a short account of the Rise and Progress of that form of Government that has obtain'd in such of the Reform'd Churches as have cast off their Bishops and shew that they have suffer'd under the same Calamities that had befallen Episcopal Churches and are guilty of most of the same things as requiring subscriptions Conformity c. as our Bishops against whom all this History and bitterness is directed It is not yet a Hundred and fifty years that the Church has known any other Government but Episcopal and
became the Church Government and I believe it will be found to have preserv'd those Churches in as great peace and Unity if not more than those had that were Governed without Bishops The Churches of Sweden and Denmark never knew what Schism or Heresie was but by reading or hear-say and those of Germany though something more disquieted yet it was seldom from within but by Projects of Union with other Churches under a different kind of Polity as well as of different opinions in some points of Religion It is to be wish'd that the Churches of the Ausburg Confession as they took care to preserve the Antient form of Church Governmet had been also a little more careful in the point of Ordination For their Bishops though they have the same authority with Diocesans yet were at first ordain'd but by Presbyters and the Principles of those Churches touching the right of ordination are so loose that I believe those of the Presbyterian Discipline will hardly allow them Hunnius defending their Ordinations says the power is in the Church diffusive and that it may be conveyed not only by Bishops or Presbyters but by Deacons or any body else if the Church think fit and I am afraid the Practice of some of those Churches is not otherwise to be justifi'd But before this Lutheran Reformation was that of the Bohemians not that of the Calixtins only but the Vnitas fratrum Bohemorum whose Churches were govern'd by Diocesan Bishops and where Discipline was so far from being Impossible Commenii Hist Eccles Slav. p. 32. notwithstanding the Dioceses were very large that they were perhaps the best Govern'd Churches in the world Bucer speaking of this Government says haec verò est Coelestis potius quam Ecclesiastica in Terris Hierarchia and Calvin was so taken with this Government as well as Discipline that he looks upon their Governing and ordaining Pastors as no inconsiderable blessing Ep. ad Pastor Bohem. Neque Vero parvo est estimandum quod tales habent Pastores a quibus Regantur Ordinentur and those were their Bishops as may be seen in that Account they gave of themselves in Ratio Disciplinae Ordinisque Ecclesiastici in Vnitate fratrum Bohemorum printed at Lesna 1632. and afterwards at the Hague by Commenius 1660. Whoever would know more of these Episcopal Diocesan Churches may consult Lasitius or the short Accout of Commenius the then only Remaining Bishop of those Churches And these had such Bishops as were not only invested with the full Authority of Diocesans over several Churches but such as had been ordain'd according to the Canons of the Ancient Church Stephanus accito Episcopo altero c. Commen Hist p. 24. by the Bishops of the Waldenses who derived themselves by an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles It is time now to Return to the Principal Design which was to shew how no other form of Government can secure the Church from Heresie Schism and Contention any more than Episcopacy and that those Churches which put themselvs under new Models of Government and discipline have been excercis'd with Schism Heresie and Sedition no less than those under Episcopacy The Churches which follow'd the Reformation of Zuinglius had at first no Government nor discipline that was properly Ecclesiastical All authority rested in the Civil Magistrate and the Ministers did only preach and administer the Sacraments without excluding any It was from this practice I suppose that the Divines of that way came to speak generally so loosely of the power of the Keys making it all to consist in preaching without any regard to Ecclesiastical discipline But the Licentiousness that followed this defect of Discipline and Government soon open'd the eyes of the Ministers who Complain'd passionately of the Increase of Libertinism under pretence of Reformation and endeavour'd to make the people sensible that there is more required to make a true Protestant than to Renounce the Pope and Transubstantiation and that the Notion of a Church did imply something more than a Company of sound believers met together to hear a Sermon Calvin a person of extraordinary Abilities was one of the first that observ'd and Complain'd of this defect in the Reformation and endeavour'd to Remedy it in the Church where he was Pastour by Establishing an Ecclesiastical Government Baza vit Calv. and that perhaps not such as he thought most perfect and absolute but such as the Circumstances of the place would bear The people of Geneva were sufficiently prejudic'd against Episcopacy having turn'd out their Bishop who had likewise a title to be their Prince and to have talk'd of Introducing a Bishop there would have sounded as harsh as the mention of a King would have done to the Romans after the expulsion of Tarquin But suppose they could have been Reconcil'd to the name and the office upon assurance it should not exceed its proper bounds it is possible Calvin might look upon it as too Invidious a proposal to his Church for fear of being understood to recommend himself and to affect dominion over his Brethren Episcopacy then seeming Impracticable in that place he devised a form of Government that should be more popular and consequently more acceptable the Ministers were to be all of equal Authority and were in the first place to govern the Church and with them a certain number out of the Laity under the Title of ruling Elders were to have a share in the Church Government and this mix'd Council without any Bishop was to exercise all Ecclesiastical Censures and Jurisdiction One would think this would be unexceptionable but it proved otherwise for this frame was no sooner begun but it was presently broken in pieces and the Author banish'd But his Reputation abroad made them reflect upon this Treatment with shame and desire him to return With him this Government was restor'd which was so far from remedying all disorders that it became the occasion of some very great ones and the State of that Church as it is discrib'd by Calvin in his letters to his friends and by Beza in his life was most lamentably distracted and this Government was made odious in the beginning of it by very harsh and rigorous proceedings The Expulsion of Castellio a man of Great and Polite Learning was too Invidious The opposing of the Senate in the Election of a Minister to such a point of heat and Contention Beza vit Calv. as to endanger the peace of the City wanted little of Sedition Calvins quarrels with Perinus came to that height that the Council of the City had almost cut one anothers throats about it Siquidem eousque semel in ipsâ curiâ deventum est coactis Diacosiis pene exertis jam Ensibus parum abfuerit quin mutuis caedibus ipsam Curiam cruentarent And what was the reason of so dangerous a Contention No Article of the Creed was in danger It was not for any part of the faith that they contended so
see will be stiffly deny'd though the Scripture Testimonies already alledg'd are sufficient to perswade any reasonable man that the Church of Jerusalem was more than a Congregation and consequently the Bishop of it a Diocesan according to Mr. B.'s definition But besides we have as ancient Testimonies from Church History too of the greatness of that Church as of any other whatsoever For Hegesippus among several commendations of him sayes that several of the Jewish Sectaries who believed neither a Resurrection nor Judgment to come were converted by James And that when a great number of the Rulers and and principal men of the City Apud Euseb l. 2. c. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were by his Ministry brought to believe the Gospel the Jews made an uproar the Scribes and Pharisees saying that it was to be feared that all the people would turn Christians would they fansie themselves in so great danger if the Christians in so vast and populous a City should have but one single Congregation Suppose they had one Synagogue of four or five hundred is that such a dreadful proportion as to fright people out of their wits as if they were immediately to be overrun with Christianity and what should give them so great disturbance The Christians had alwayes had one Congregation there and surely a pretty full one from the time of Christs Death and if their meeting places were not increased and Synagogues with their Rulers and Officers had not deserted the Jewish Church and professed Christianity there had been no protence for such an apprehension as if all Jerusalem were about to change the Law for the Gospel it was more than a poor Congregational Church and Bishop that must give cause to these apprehensions It was not long ere this Church of Jerusalem that was grown so formidable to the Jews that they were afraid lest in a little while it might swallow up all their Synagogues was removed thence and by a special warning snatch'd from the destruction that was shortly to fall upon that wicked City There is an ancient Tradition that the Christians of Jerusalem forsook it before the last Siege and went to Pella Euseb Hist l. 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a City of beyond Jordan and because the obscurity of the place may make one suspect that the numbers of the Church of Jerusalem were not so great if this Town could receive them all We must understand that Town to be their Metropolis or seat of their Bishop but the believers were all scattered through that whole Country Epip Haer. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist l. 3. c. 11. as Epiphanius writes and his way of expressing himself makes Pella only the principal residence of the Church and here it is probable their Bishop liv'd for after the death of James and the Destruction of Jerusalem the Apostles and Disciples and such of our Savious kindred as remained met together to appoint a Successour to James when this Church was departed from Jerusalem and it must needs be more than an ordinary charge to occasion so solemn a meeting to consult about the Person that should succeed in it It was more surely than the oversight of one single Congregation Id. l. 3. c. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And his Government added yet greater numbers to that Church many thousands of the Circumcision receiving the Christian Faith at that time and among the rest Justus who succeeded in the Bishoprick of Jerusalem Now from this account of the Church of Jerusalem it appears manifestly 1. That it was Episcopal from the beginning and some of the Authors that attest it liv'd in that time when the Apostolical Church Government is pretended to be chang'd into Episcopacy by Blondel and it shews no less the vanity of Mr. B.'s conceit about the Original of Bishops 2. That the Bishops of Jerusalem were Diocesan's having the oversight of several Congregations which is necessarily inferr'd from the express numbers of Converts from general expressions of wonderful accessions from the jealousy of the Scribes and Pharisees who apprehended from the progress Christianity made that all Jerusalem would soon become Christians from the farther accounts of its increase and of the innumerable multitudes that were added to it and this is sufficient to shew the weakness of Mr. B.'s conjecture who makes Rome and Alexandria to be the first patterns of Diocesan Episcopacy and that not till after the beginning of the third Century Nor was the Church of Jerusalem singular in its constitution but all other Churches of the Apostles planting were of the same kind and design'd for the like and yet farther increase The beginnings of them as of all other things were but small the Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of Mustard Seed which is yet capable of prodigious improvement and the slip when first planted is but single yet afterwards it shoots out several branches which though never so mnumerous and at some distance one from the other yet communicate all in the same same body and root The design of the Gospel is not like those of the Authors of Sects or Religious orders to have only a select company of followers that are much at leisure but great and comprehensive and suited to the whole World There is no Sex no Capacity no condition but is design'd to be brought into the Church and to be digested the most commodiously that may be so that there may be one fold under one Shepherd Christ the Universal Pastor The Schools of the Philosophers and the Synagogues of the Jews were to narrow foundations for such a building as that of the Christian Church which are to be larger in proportion to the greatness of the Fabrick and it is no less the strength than beauty of the whole to have its Stones and Timber the parts of which it consists of something a greater magnitude than those of private and ordinary building nor can it yet stand without there be some kind of coherence and connection at least wise where the people that are members of the Church are likewise united in a political communion this connection ought particularly to be regarded which the Apostles in their first planting of the Gospel had an eye to as shall be observed farther in the course of Diocesan Episcopacy which after this digression I am going to pursue The first Persecution that was raised against the Church of Jerusalem was by the good Providence of God turned into the happy occasion of planting several other Churches and that storm which was designed to quench that fire that came down from Heaven scattered the sparks of it into all the Regions round about Samaria was the first place we read of that entertained the Gospel when it had been forced out of Jerusalem Acts 8.1 v. 4. v. 5 6. v. 12. Philip the Deacon Preached Christ unto them and the people with one accord gave heed to those things that were spoken by him and when
said to be sent in the name of the Church in General as the Church of Jerusalem sent John and Peter to Samaria Act. 8. In like matter the Church sent Barnabas to Antioch v. 11. But now it seems they come from James and the Acts of the Church pass in the name of the Bishop only although after this we find this Style to vary again and sometimes the Church of such a place sends to another without the mention of the Bishop though the letter be pen'd by the Bishop himself as the inscription of Clemens his Epistle to the Corinthians does inform us and Iastly as the authority of James appears by sending to the Church of Antioch so it does likewise from his speech in the Council of Jerusalem where he seems to preside and determines the question in dispute Act. 5. in the name of the whole Assembly All this consider'd together with the Testimonies of Hegesippus and Clemens there can be as little doubt that Dâ—ocesan Episcopacy was setled by the Apostles in the Church of Jerusalem as there is of any thing that is not expresly set down in Scripture and it cannot be deni'd without resecting the most Authentick records of Church History It is to be confess'd that the Scriptures have not left so full and perfect account of the constitution and Government of the first Churches as might be wish'd for the Acts of the Apostles the only Scripture History of those time relate mostly the victories of Christian Religion how several Cities were converted By what miracles by what Argument or exhortation but before the Holy Pen-man comes to give an account of the settlement of those new Conquests he carries away the Reader from thence to follow the Apostles to some other place where they begin to lay the Foundations of another Church Thus we have no more notice of the Churches of Samarid and of Judea Jerusalem excepted than that such were founded by the Apostles but of their Government and constitution we are not the least information and the prospect left of Antioch in Scripture is very confus'd as of a Church in fieri where a great number of Eminent persons labour'd together to the building of it up but after what form does not appear but only from Ecclesiastical Writers Eusel l. 3. c. 22. Chronnon Chrysost Orat. de Ignatio who report that this Church when it was setled and digested was committed to the Government of Evodius and after him to Ignetius and the succeeding Bishops Nevertheless we are not left destitute of all light in this particular even from the Scriptures the History of St. Paul as it is deliver'd by St. â—â—ke in the Acts of the Apostles and by himself scatteringly in his own Epistles informing us in some measure of the from of the Primitive Church Government in the Apostles times This Apostle of the Gentiles did commonly use this method informing those Churches he had converted as may be seen by consulting the Citations in the Margin When he came to any place where the Gospel had not been preached and he did not affect much to build upon another was foundation He preached first in the Synâ—gogues of the Jews Rom. 15.20 1 Cor. 3.10 Acts 9.20 13 14. Acts 13.46 and if they rejected the grace of God he turn'd to the Gentiles Assoon as he had converted a competent number he took care to improve them in the knowledge of the truth 1 Cor. 3.2 and for that purpose taught them constantly either at his own house Acts 28.30.19.9.20.20 or at some publick School as that of Tyrannus or any other convenient place where a good number might assemble together These converts as they were made Partakers of the same common Doctrine and Faith so they were to be perpetually united by a Communion in worship in Prayer and the Sacrament for it was not with the School of the Apostles as with those of this World Acts. 11.26 Heb. 10.25 which the Disciples leave when they conceive themselves to have learn'd what they came for But there was an obligation upon all these Scholars to Assemble themselves together Rom. 12.5 1 Cor. 12.13.12.22 Phil. 2.12 till they came to a perfect man which was not consummated till after this life Nor was the Relation between Christians dissolved when the Congregation was dissmiss'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origâ—câ—â—â— â—â—s 1.8 in fine but they were united farther into one Society or Corporation into a holy City under the Government of Christ their King and under Apostles and such other Officers of his and their appointment and so far to act and determine all things within themselves that they were not to appear before any Heathen Magistrate upon any difference but to referr it to the Brethren or to the Apostle under whose direction they were Thus far we may consider a Church without any other Officer than the Apostle who converted them but their numbers increasing in that place and much of his time being taken up in disputing with and preaching to unbelievers and gainsayers or this Apostle being call'd away to preach the Gospel in other places Acts 9.29.17.17.19.8 9. it was necessary to ordain such Church Officers as might take care of this Church in the Doctrine and Discipline of it 6.4 Acts 14.23 Phil. 2.12.20.17 and others to take care of the poor lest that Office taking up much time might be a hinderance to those who were to guide the Assembly in Doctrine and Worship Now this constitution does not take away the relation that was between this Church and the Apostle that founded it and these Officerâ— act in subordination to him whether present or absent and St. Paul therefore looks upon himself as the Apostle or Bishop of the Corinihians though he could not hold personal Communion with them 1 Cor. 5.3 Acts 15.36 for sometimes he goes a Circular visitation to examine the State of those Churches which he had planted or if the distance and oceasions of that Church where he resided or his imprisonment and other outward Circumstances would not admit this personal visitation he sends his letters and orders what is to be done If any open Scandal be permitted he sends his Excommunication to be publish'd in that Church whereof the offender was a member 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Cum meo spiritu quipro me erat praesens sive in mearum literarum authoritate Hieroâ— he judges as though he were present he orders that when they are met together in his spirit they would deliver the Criminal to Satan And because some of the Teachers in the Church of Corinth began to set up themselves in opposition to the Apostle taking advantage of his absence 1 Cor. 4.18 19.9.1 2.5.19 and using all means to lessen him in the esteem of that people he is forced to assert his Authority and to justifie his Title to let them know that he was their Father their Apostle and that they
Apostles which were those Bishops he had given a Catalogue of before And Lastly speaking of the Bishops to whom the Apostles committed the government of those Churches they had planted he makes them much ancienter than those Hereticks that disturbed the Church and draws an argument from their Apostolick institution and their constant succession in that office against those that brought in new Doctrines Tertullian makes use of the same Argument Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sant Presbyteris obandire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut oftendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma veritatis certum acceperunt l. 7. c. 42. and requires of the Hereticks a succession from the Apostles and Origen speaking of Bishops makes them likewise to succeed the Apostles in their office Omnes enim ii valde posterieres quam Episcopi quibus Episcope Ecclesias tradiderunt In short it was the opinion of all the Ancients And Aerius is looked upon by Epiphanius if not as a Heretick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. yet at least as an innovator for maintaining an equality between Bishops and Presbyters For if the Bishop were only the first Presbyter and the opinion of the Church was at that time that there was no Original difference between the Orders Haeres 75. Epiphanius could not have observed this as a singularity in Aerius therefore the common opinion then being contrary to this notion they must apprehend Episcopacy to be the Apostolical Order derived from the Apostles by a succession First to those Assistants we have been speaking of and from them to the Succeeding Bishops I shall conclude with the testimony of Theodoret whose judgment and knowledg of Ecclesiastical Antiquity was greater than ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also Clemens is said to be an Apostle by Clemens Alexand. Strom. l. 4. He makes Bishops at first to be called Apostles and Presbyters to be called Bishops and from such Apostles as Epaphroditus who was Bishop of Philippi Bishops are descended according to his opinion but that out of modesty the Succeeding Bishops changed the title of Apostles for that of Bishops and this for some time after was common to them with Presbyters though the offices then were manifestly distinct All this considered I cannot but wonder that the conjecture of St. Jerom concerning the Original of Episcopacy against all the sense of Antiquity and the traditions of particular Churches concerning the Succession of their Bishops gathered by Eusebius should obtain not only among the professed Adversaries of that Order but even among many that retain it therefore for a further Confirmation of what we have said concerning the Original of Bishops I shall indeavour to remove that prejudice which the Authority of Jerom has done it who has advanced a singular notion in this particular which I shall first set down as briefly as I can and afterwards examine the grounds of it St Jerom observing the name of Bishop and Presbyter used in Scripture promiscuously and without distinction concludes Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesiae gubernahantur Postquam vero unisquisque eos quos Baptizaverat suos put a bat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus caeteris superponeretur ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum Semina tollerentur Hieron in Titum c. 1. that the Office was not not then distinct but that Bishop and Presbyter were but two names to signifie the same order but when divisions were occasioned in the Church by this parity between the Presbyters the Churches who were governed before by a Colledg of Presbyters for to remedy that evil consented that one should be chosen out of the rest who should be set over them and be called more peculiarly their Bishop to whom the care of the whole Church should appertain that all the seeds and occasions of Schism might be taken away But that St. Paul and the Ancients make Bishops and Presbyters to signifie the same thing This is in short the opinion of St. Jerom I will in the next place examine the ground of it Apud veteres idem Episcopi Presbyteri erant idem Ep. ad Ocean Cum Apostolus perspicue doctat cosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos id Ep. ad Evagr. It is manifest by the allegations of Jerom in defence of his opinion that it was grounded chiefly upon those places of Scripture where Bishops are called Presbyters or Presbyters Bishops and then from the synonomy of the names concludes to an Identity of the Office and then he adds One may perhaps think this to be my sence and not that of the Scripture Phil. 1.1 let him read the Apostles words to the Philippians his salutation of that Church with the Bishops and Deacons which he confirms by Acts 20.27 28. Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 5.1 And now suppose all this is granted that Presbyters are called Bishops and they again Presbyters yet I am afraid it will hardly follow that they are the same and some of those texts cited by St. Jerom are sufficient proofs to the contrary for that of Peter The Elders or Presbyters among you who am my self an Elder 1 Pet. 1.5 if the reasoning of St. Jerom hold will prove likewise that Apostles were no more than ordinary Presbyters and if Peter were but a Presbyter we shall be at a great loss to find any Bishops in Scripture that were superior to Presbyters and to the same purpose Jerom cites those texts of St. John The Elder to the elect Lady 2 John 1. 3 John 1. The Elder to his beloved Gaius which plainly overthrows his Argument for if an Apostle were of an office superior to a Presbyter properly so called and yet is called Presbyter in Scripture then Bishops might be of a superior degree to Presbyters though they might some time be so called or if it be replyed that these Presbyters again are called Bishops it does not alter the case at all for so some Messengers of Churches are called Apostles as Andronicus and Junia who were of note among the Apostles Rom. 16. Besides there were several of the Fathers that observed this Synonomy of Bishop and Presbyter as well as Jerom but could not observe the necessity of his inference that therefore there were then no Bishops but Presbyters Chrysost in Ep. ad Phil. c. 1. Chrysostom confesses the titles were confounded but he takes notice likewise that all other Ecclesiastical titles were so as well as these that Bishops were sometimes called Deacons and that Timothy being a Bishop was commanded to fulfil his ministry or his Deaconship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor did he wonder at this at all since in his own time the Bishops when they wrote to Presbyters or Deacons
owned them as Brethren and called them their fellow Presbyters or fellow Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he did not take at all to derogate from the dignity of their Order no more than the modesty of the Apostles calling themselves Presbyters or Deacons could be a prejudice to the Preheminence of their Apostleship which they took care to vindicate when they were forced to it by the ambition of some teachers that entred into competition with them Theodor. ubi supra in Ep. ad Phil. ad Tim. Tit. Theodoret observ'd the same promiscuous use of Bishop and Presbyter but could yet see that there were Bishops then superior to Presbyters and in that time properly called Apostles The Greek Scholiast Theophylact and Oecumenus saw the same but were still of opinion that the Episcopal office was alwayes distinct from the Presbyters so that the ground upon which Jerom built his conjecture was rejected by the current of Ecclesiastical writers who could discern the preheminence of Bishops above Presbyters notwithstanding the names were confounded And yet this is the foundation upon which that conceit doth wholly stand all Jeroms allegations are to this effect all the additional confirmations of Salmasius and Blondel are no other than from the phrase of some of the Ancients who do not alwayes distinguish between Bishops and Presbyters but speak in the phrase of the Scriptures and yet there is nothing more evident than that at that time when these Authors writ Bishops and Presbyters were distinguished and excepting only Clemens Romanus Blondel and Salmasius do both acknowledg it But to return to Jerom Let us considet the account he gives of the Original of Episcopacy something more particularly Before there were factions in Religion the Church was governed by Presbyters of equal Authority But what factions were these that gave birth to Episcopacy What time was that when the Church was under Presbyterian government He informs us in the following words Before it was said I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas If we understand this according to the letter we must conclude this to be very early For this Epistle to the Corinthians where that division is mentioned was written in the year of Christ 52 And then this notion will do little service against Episcopacy for this will make it of Apostolick institution Besides I do not see how it can be true for the Church was now Governed by Apostles and not by Presbyters and if in most Cities there were no particular Bishop ordained yet it was because the Apostles were their Bishops and visited them to establish good order to ordain officers to punish the disorderly as they had opportunity and when they were not able to be present they sent their orders in writing and exercised Episcopal Authority at a distance But Blondel contends earnestly against the literal understanding of that passage and shews that Jerom could not mean this of the Church of Corinth but of some following Schism that sprung up after the example of this of Corinth His reason is that the passages whereby Jerom confirms his opinion of Bishops and Presbyters being the same were written after that Epistle to the Corinthians I have shewed before how probable it is that Jerom spoke without a figure and I need not repeat it here But these things you will say cannot cannot consist It may be so and it is not certain that Jerom when he wrote this passage did consider in what order of time St. Paul's Epistles were written what if it was an oversight for want of stating the Chronelogy of the New Testament If it be replyed that Jerom a man of that great learning and diligence and particular knowledg also in Chronology as we may conclude from his translating of Eusebius his Chronicon could hardly commit such a mistake It is to be considered that according to Blondels computation who makes him to speak of the second Century he will be as inconsistent with himself for suppose w◠should say that Jerom pointed to the year 135 as the precise time when the Presbyterian Government was changed how shall we reconcile Jerom to himself For in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers he reckons several Bishops long before that time he makes James to be Bishop of Jerusalem statim post Ascensionem presently after the Ascension of Christ He calls Timothy Bishop of Ephesus he makes Anianus to succeed Mark in Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero. How shall we make all these things to consist did he think James to be no more than a simple Presbyter or Timothy could he fansie him to have no superiority over the Elders he was to ordain or to govern it is not possible or shall we say that in these relations he only transcribes out of others and that he does not speak his own opinion Well suppose this Either he must have some Authority for his opinion greater than that of such Authors he follows in that Book or not if he had none why should we believe him against all Antiquity Nay why should we believe so uncharitably of him as that he would deliver those things he did not believe without the least warning to the reader or that he would believe any matter of fact against all the tradition and History of the Church and yet have no Authority for it Or if he had any Authority from Ecclesiastical writers to ground his opinion upon why are they not produc'd Nay we may be assured in this point that he had none from that Catalogue of writers we are speaking of since he had seen none but what Eusebius had seen before him and cites as we have shewed before for the contrary opinion to confirm Episcopacy to be Apostolical and to have begun long before this time which Blondel would have Jerom thought to assign for its Original So that what way soever Jerom be understood of the Original of Episcopacy he is either manifestly inconsistent with himself or with Scripture and Antiquity But his Scripture Authorities you will say do sufficiently prove that Episcopacy was not yet introduced into the Church Nothing less unless they can prove that those Presbyteries were not governed by the Apostle that established them or by some Assistant or Suffragan or unless they can make out that Timothy Titus and divers others of that rank were no more than simple Presbyters After this time whensoever it was St. Jerom adds It was decreed over all the world that one of the Presbyters who governed before in common should be set over the rest In what Church in the whole world was this Decree Registred Who ever heard of it before St. Jerom What general Council passed it What Authority made it Authentick Or by what means did all the Churches in the World agree to this change What was there no opposition made against this alteration of the Apostolical Government What did all the little Ecclesiastick Aristocracies submit without dispute to this innovation We
may as well believe that there was a time when all the Republicks in the world upon the consideration of their being obnoxious to Factions became Monarchies by mutual consent Nay this might with greater reason be believed for it is not impossible but that men who are satisfied of their power to set up what form of Government they please might agree to shake off together a form that they find very incommodious but that so many Societies as there were Churches in the World appointed by divine direction should so universally change what the Apostles had instituted without any noise or resistance and that by one common decree is altogether incredible and one may say with the same reason that they conspired at the same time to change their Creed Having examined St. Jeroms singular opinion concerning the rise of Episcopal Government I should now conclude that point if Clemens Romanus in his excellent Epistle to the Corinthians did not seem to favour this opinion therefore I think it necessary to consider such passages in it as are alledged against Episcopacy and from the whole to make a conjecture of the state of that Church when that Epistle was written The Inscription of it affords Blondel an argument against Episcopacy for it is not in the name of the Bishop or Clergy but of the whole Church that it is written The Church of God at Rome to the Church of God at Corinth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From whence Blondel infers that since there is no mention of the Clergy it follows that the Church was governed then not by the pleasure of one man but by the common Counsel of those that were set over it This way of reasoning I must confess to be very extraordinary Because there is no mention of the prerogative of the Roman Clergy Ubi cum nulla peculiaris vel scribentis mentio vel cleri Romani Praerogativa vel Corinthiaci Presbyterii a plebe discretio appareat sed omnes ad omnes confertim scripsisse compertum sit luce meridiana clarius clucescit tune temporis Ecclesias communi Praepositorum Consilio gubernatas non unius regi mini à cujus â—utu penderent omnes subjacuisse or of that of Corinth as distinguished from the Laity it 's clear nay clearer than the day that there was no Bishop It would be a very strange thing to see two men with their eyes open dispute fiercely whether it were noon-day or midnight and yet this is our case that consequence which to him is as clear as the Sun does not at all appear to others If he had said because there is no mention of the Clergy in the Inscription as the Governing part therefore there was no Clergy or the Clergy did not govern the inference would have appeared but what truth there would be in it I need not say Others inscribe Epistles in the same style to the Church of such a Place where notwithstanding there is a Bishop and a Clergy Dionys Corinth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet in the body of these Letters he mentions the Bishops of those Churches Irenaeus ubi supra Euseb l. 4. c. 23. And this Argument of Blondel may be justly suspected when we consider that the Ancients though they were well acquainted with this Epistle of Clemens and its Inscription yet they could by no means see this consequence that is now drawn from it Irenaeus had doubtless seen that Epistle for it was in his time commonly read in Churches and yet he thought Clemens who wrote it to be Bishop of Rome notwithstanding his name be not mentioned in it Dionysius Bishop of Corinth sayes it was read in his Church and yet he could not find any thing in it to perswade him that at that time there were no Bishops but on the contrary he was of opinion that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles and that Dionysius Areopagita was ordained by St. Paul the first Bishop of Athens so that these ancient writers it seems were as blind as we and could not observe either in the Inscription or body of this Epistle what Blondel at such a distance of time could perceive as clear as the noon day and yet those writers if they had suspected any such thing might have been easily satisfied by their Fathers who might have seen the state of the Church about which the difficulty was and so told them upon their own knowledge whether the Government was Episcopal or Presbyterian And therefore this is our comfort that if we cannot discern this light which Blondel talks of that those who lived nearer the East the rising of it could see no more than we But some men surely have glasses for distance of time as well as place and can see farther in the Apostolick times than the next Generation that followed them But to proceed Clemens owned but two orders in the Church of Apostolick Institution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops and Deacons which he sayes the Apostles ordained out of the first-fruits of the Gospel over those that should afterwards believe And these were appointed in Cities and the Country or Regions round about from whence Blondel draws many observations and out of him Mr. B. as 1. That in those days no body thought of what the Council of Sardica did afterwards decree that no Bishop should be made in any Village or small City lest the dignity of that office should be undervalued and grow cheap This is grounded as most of the rest of Blondels and Mr. B.'s Arguments from this Epistle upon a mistake and I fear a wilful one concerning the name of Bishop For if the Bishops of Clemens who he sayes were apponited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were only Presbyters then the Council of Sardica did not do any extraordinary thing by that prohibition of Bishops in little Dioceses for Presbyters were still allowed in the Country Villages by that Council and therefore if Episcopacy was an institution later than Clemens this Council has done nothing so contrary to this by forbidding Bishops properly so called and allowing Presbyters to reside in Country Villages Some there are that interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Provinces but there is no necessity at all for this though the phrase will very well bear it for these Bishops I believe with Blondel and Mr. B. were no other than Presbyters such as were first appointed to govern the Church but in subordination to the Apostles who were the proper Bishops of those Churches they founded and as they found occasion appointed others to succeed them in that eminence of Authority over such districts of the Apostolical Provinces as they judged most convenient for the edification and unity of the Church And this distribution of Church Officers by Clemens into Bishops and Deacons is the less to be depended upon as exact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esay 60.17 because it seems to be made only with allusion to a place in the Old Testament where those
are transcribed out of Mr. Baxter with little of Improvement or Addition One would think a diligent Man might find good Gleaning after Mr. B. but Dr. O's Book it seems is answered already by an unknown Hand But there is a later Book published under the Title of No Evidence for Diocesan Churches c. in the Primitive Times in Answer to the Dean of St. Paul 's Allegations out of Antiquity for such Churches c. But no Reply being yet made that I know of to those Exceptions I shall endeavor to take off such of them as may concern me 1. I have endeavored to prove that the Church of Carthage in Cyprian's Time was Diocesan and among other things urge for it the Multitude of Presbyters that belong'd to that Church even in the time of Persecution when the greatest part of the Clergy was fallen off The Author above-mentioned excepts against this where it is alleadg'd by the Dean of S. Paul's and offers two things in Answer 1. A Passage out of Bishop Downham That indeed at the first Conversions of Cities the whole Number of the People converted being sometimes not much greater than the Number of Presbyters plac'd among them were able to make but a small Congregation But this Allegation can be of little Vse because 1. This was not the Case of the Church of Carthage it was not a new converted Church but settled long before and in a flourishing Condition 2. Many more Presbyters may be ordain'd in a City than is necessary for the first Beginnings of a Church with respect to future Encrease and for the Service of such as afterwards should believe So that tho' there might be in a new gather'd Church almost as many Presbyters as there are People yet the Design of that number of Officers may be for several Congregations when the Believers of that place should become so numerous as not to be contain'd in one 3. The Multitude of Presbyters belonging to one Congregational Church might be occasioned by the uncertain Abode of most of the Apostles and their Commissioners who are the Principal if not the only Ordainers of Presbyters mentioned in Scripture Therefore they might ordain more than were just necessary for the present Occasions of a Church because they could not be present to ordain as often as the Increase of a Church or Vacancies or other Necessities of it should require But that any Church fix'd and settled having its Bishop always present should multiply Presbyters beyond Necessity in the Circumstances of the Primitive Christians before Constantine is altogether incredible For the necessary Expences of the Church were very great the Poor numerous the generality of Christians not of the Richest and the Estates they had being at the Discretion of their Enemies and ruin'd with perpetual Persecution Is it credible that persons in this Condition would multiply Officers without Necessity who were to be maintain'd out of the Public Stock as Cyprian affirms the Presbyters of Carthage were And lastly if this Opinion of Bishop Downham had any certain Ground in Antiquity We should probably hear of it with both Ears and we should have it recommended upon Ancienter Authority than His But the first which this Author cites is Nazianzen who complains of the Multitude of Presbyters in his Time This has been already alleadg'd by Mr. Baxter and has received Answer and he that cannot answer it to himself from the great difference between the Condition of the Church in Cyprian and in Nazianzen's Time has a fondness for the Argument beyond my Skill to remove The next Instance of the number of Presbyters belonging to the great Church of C. P. St. Sophia the greatest perhaps in the World will do as little Service as the complaint of Nazianzen Justinian says that Gentleman Observing that Officers in Churches were multiply'd beyond reason and measure takes order that they should be reduc'd to the numbers of the first Establishment but in the great Church at C. P. he would have the Presbyters brought down to Sixty And what follows from this That the Number of Presbyters was become extravagant in Justinian's Time but what is this to their Number in Cyprian's For this very Edict of Justinian shews that this multiplying of Church-Officers was an Innovation and therefore would have them reduc'd to the first Establishment but that first Establishment it seems admitted great Numbers for one Church had Sixty True but it must also be noted first that these sixty were to serve more than one Church For there were three more besides St. Sophia to be supply'd by those Presbyters as may be seen in the Constitution Nov. 3. c. 1. viz. St. Mary's Church and that of Theodorus the Martyr and that of Helena as some but of Irene as others read Yet after all there is no Argument to be drawn from this Number for these were Canons of a particular Foundation design'd for the Service of a Collegiate Church and no measure to be taken from hence concerning the Numbers of Presbyters belonging to the Diocess This is evident from the Preface of the said Novel whither I refer the Reader But I must confess that what this Gentleman adds concerning the Church of Constantinople is something surprizing No doubt says he they the Presbyters were more numerous in C. P. in Constantine's Time who endeavor'd to make that City in all things equal to Rome and built two Churches in it Soz. l. 2. c. 2. yet in the latter end of his Reign after the Death of Arrius the Christians there could all meet together for Worship It is said expresly that Alexander Bishop of that Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Constantine built two Churches in C. P. Sozomen does not say but that he built many and very great Churches there Soz. l. 2. c. 3. Ed. Vales. Euseb de vit Const l. 3. c. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the same manner Eusebius says that he adorn'd the City that he called after his own Name with many Churches and great Temples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some within the City and in the Suburbs of it Nor can we imagine that two Churches much less one could suffice all the Christians in C.P. when the City of Heliopolis being converted to Christianity requir'd more and Constantine built several for them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soc. l. 1. c. 18. i. e. Having built several Churches he ordered a Bishop but one for all those Churches and Clergy to be ordain'd there Socrates indeed says that Constantine built two Churches in C. P. and names them but does not say either that there were no more there in his Time or that he built no more but these being remarkable for the Magnificence of the Structure are perhaps upon that account only mention'd by this Author But we have shew'd already from other Writers of as good or better Credit That this Emperor built there very many and very Great Churches Nor were these only for State and
an extraordinary Zeal for Religion and that oftentimes made them take Alarme when it was not in any extream danger and if their Knowledge and Discretion were not always proportionable to their Zeal surely among Christians it might be allowed to the Frailty of Humane Nature and the Sincerity of a good meaning If they differ'd sometimes among themselves and were warmer than is fit in their Disputes consider that the Apostles themselves had their Misunderstandings and their Contentions sometimes Peter was to be blamed and Barnabas was carried away The Churches founded by the Apostles were immediately divided about Opinions which were presently determined in Council and yet we do not find that the Controversie was at an end Should any one therefore so abridge the History of the Apostles as to represent nothing of them but their unhappy Contention and leave them under the odious Characters of Disturbers of the World and Dividers of the Church would it not justly pass for a Libel against Christianity It were disingenious and base even in an Enemy in a Christian I know not how to call it Having paid this duty to the honour of Religion by a general Vindication of it from such Consequences as might be drawn from this Church History against the Intention of the Author I come now to his design which is laid down page 27. To shew the Ignorant so much of the matter of Fact as may tell them who have been the Cause of all Church-Corruption Heresies Schisms Seditions c. And whether such Diocesan Prelacies and Grandure be the Cure or ever was But surely this is not the way of cureing Church-divisions thus to exasperate These Reproaches cannot serve to heal but to fret and inflame the Wound I have some hopes that I shall be able to shew the Reader so much of the matter of Fact too as may let him see how much he has been imposed on by this History and that all Corruptions and Schisms are very injuriously and against all Truth of History charg'd upon the Bishops Yet suppose the Charge be true is it such a Wonder that men of great Talents and great Authority do sometimes abuse them and by that means become the Cause of Church-Corruptions Private men though neither better nor wiser than the Bishops have not the Opportunity of doing so much either Good or Hurt and their Mistakes or Vices do not draw after them so great Consequences This Accusation though it may serve to render Bishops odious is yet of use to prove their Authority and their ancient possession of the right of governing the Church like his who would prove that they have troubled the World ever since the Apostles time If the abuse of this Power be sufficient reason to take it away or to render it odious what will become of preaching and writing Books What will become of Scripture and Conscience Let him still exclaim the Bishops have been the Authors of all Corruption and Schism were they not Christians and Men as well as Bishops and if a Heathen or a Jew should not lay such a Stress upon the name of Bishop but put that of a Christian in it's place and then make a great Outery wicked Christians turbulent Christians would not this reasoning hold as well as Mr. B's or if some of the graver Beasts should recover the Conversation they had in Aesop's days and talk judicially might not they bray aloud Horrible men Abominable men that will never agree or understand one another and then conclude with the Ass in the Satyr Ma foy non plus que nous l'home n'est qu'une bête Be the Bishops whose History Mr. B. writes as bad as he will have them how will this concern the rest of that order unless they will follow their Examples and own their Corruptions Machiavel was of Opinion that the greatest part of men were Rogues and Knaves but what is that to You and I let every man bear his own Burden But Mr. B. is resolved to cut off this Retreat and to level his Charge not so much against the Persons as the office of Bishops and to this effect he explains himself p. 22. There is an Episcopacy whose very Constitution is a Crime and there is another that seems to me a thing convenient lawful and indifferent and there is a sort which I cannot deny to be of divine Right Here we have three sorts of Bishops and this is pretty reasonable and compendious but in another Book which he refers to in this he gives no less than twelve Disput of Ch. Government p. 14. dividing was much in Fashion at that time though commonly it was without a difference and as they could make a sort of Seekers that neither sought nor found so he gives several sorts of Bishops that were no more so than he or I nay in this Abridgment of the great Division I believe the Members will be concident and that it is but a little artificial Illusion of Mr. B. that makes them appear several take away the little corner'd glass and that great multitude of pieces we saw are in a moment reduced to one poor Six-pence well let us see then what this criminal sort of Episcopacy is and what Mr. B. has to lay to it's Charge That Episcopacy which I take in it self to be a Crime is such as is afore-mentioned p. 22. which in it's very Constitution overthrows the Office Church and Discipline which Christ by himself and his Spirit in his Apostles instituted this is criminal indeed and a thousand Pities it should stand one Moment But where shall we find this Abomination it is not far of if his Judgment may be taken for Such says he I take to be that Diocesan kind ibid. which has only one Bishop over many Score or Hundred fixt parochial Assemblies Is this then their Crime that they have many fixt parochial Assemblies under their Government Had not the Apostles Had not the Evangelists so too And was that Constitution criminal Had not the Bishops of St. Jerom's Notion several fixt Assemblies That Father did indeed maintain that the poor Bishop of Eugubium was as much a Bishop as he of Rome but he little thought that he was more so or that the Extent of the Roman Diocess had chang'd the very Species of it's Church Government Hieron Ep. ad Evagr. he thought they were both of the same sort and that the single and small Congregation of the one and the numerous Assembly under the Inspection of the other had made no difference at all in the nature or constitution of their Episcopacy he communicated with and submitted himself in Questions of the highest moment to the Bishop of Rome Vid Hier. Ep. ad Damas which considering the Temper of the man and his Contempt of the World he would hardly have done if he had judged him an Usurper but would rather have joyned himself to the poor Bishop of Eugubium and done all possible
their Elders do directly excommunicate and yet are lay-men It would be much to the Advantage as well as the Reputation of our Dissenters if they would first agree and correct those Abuses among themselves which they so sharply exclaim against in our Church 2. When they oblige the Magistrate to execute their Decrees by the Sword be they just or unjust § 55. and to lay men in Goals and ruine them because they are excommunicated by Bishops Chancellors c. This is the Law of the State and not of the Church and therefore is not to be charged upon Diocesan Episcopacy besides now there are few that have reason to complain of this there are those Evasions found that render that Law insignificant but the Threatning Princes and Magistrates with Excommunications if not Depositions p. 23. if they do communicate with those whom the Bishops have excommunicated belongs not at all to our Diocesan Episcopacy let the Papists who hold this Dostrine or the rigid Scotch Presbyterians who seem to have outdone the Popes in their Claim of Authority over Sovereign Princes answer it if they can 3. Or when they arrogate the Power of the Sword to themselves as Socrates says Cyril did § 55. How far Socrates is to be credited in his account of that Bishop we shall consider in due place in the mean time this does not concern Diocesan Episcopacy as it is with us for our Bishops do not arrogate that Power if the King confer upon them any Authority extrinsecal to their Office Mr. B. has declared himself p. 23. § 59. that shall make no difference and that he will submit to them notwithstanding The next Paragraph I am loth to meddle with it is little else but Biitterness and Railing and this I have neither Skill nor Inclination to answer yet because it is set down as the highest Aggravation of Diocesan Tyranny I must say something to it lest I should be thought to be ashamed of the Cause and to desert it It becomes much worse § 56. continues Mr. B. by tyrannical Abuse when being unable and unwilling to exercise true Discipline and so many hundred Parishes they have multitude of Atheists Infidels gross Ignorants and wicked Livers in Church Communion yea compel all in their Parishes to communicate upon pain of Imprisonment and Ruine and turn their Censures cruelly against godly persons that dare not obey them in all their Formalities Ceremonies and Impositions for fear of sinning against God I am afraid there are too many wicked men in all Communions and the Communion or as they call it the Religion of the State will have the most for Reasons I need not mention but it is oftentimes a hard thing to know them and until they are discovered it can be no Reproach to the Discipline of the Church that they are in outward Communion but all sorts of People and these with the rest are forced into our Communion They are indeed obliged to come to Church and to receive the Sacrament three times in the year but all this is upon the Supposition of their being Christians if they declare to the contrary they are immediately exempted from all Church-Jurisdiction and for the Civil let them deal with it as well as they can It is the duty of every Christian to come to Church and receive the Sacrament and because all that have been baptised and have not renounced the Faith are presum'd to be Christians it is doubtless lawful to quicken them to that which is their Duty by Penalties upon the neglect of it As for the Atheists and Infidels declared if they are admitted to Communion it is an unexcusable fault of Discipline yet such as is to be charged on the Minister of the Parish that receives them rather than the Bishop and for the being of any such men amongst us that is not so much to be imputed to the defect of present Discipline as to the licentiousness of the late unhappy times and the Offence that was given to light and unsteady minds by such pretended Saints as made Religion their Warrant for all their barbarous Villanies they committed But wicked Livers he adds are forced into Church-Communion by the Bishops § 56. This is a great Mistake for the Bishop forces no such into the Church but obliges the Minister and Church-wardens of every Parish to present such if any there be that they might be separated from Communion till they shall have given some Satisfaction to the Church by their Repentance and good Hopes of their future Amendment and lastly that gross Ignorants are admitted to the Communion can be charged upon no other than the Minister of that place whose Duty it is to instruct them in the Principles of their Religion and the Bishops are so far from obstructing the Exercise of this Duty that there is hardly any thing which they press with greater Earnesiness As to those godly persons who dare not obey the Orders of Bishops in point of Church-Communion and cannot bring their Conscience to comply with Ceremonies and Formalities Whether it be their Fault or Misfortune I pity them heartily but I believe this ought not to be charg'd upon the Constitution of our Episcopacy for if the King and the great Senate of the Nation after Experience of former Troubles should think fit to impose this as a Test upon such as they thought the Government not secure of what is all this to Diocesan Episcopacy The next Paragraph concludes the Arraignment of Diocesan Bishops § 57. not with any Argument but a great many hard Words which suppose the Proofs that have gone before to have amounted to full Evidence I am not willing to repeat them here let them stand or fall with those Arguments they depend upon Now least you should take Mr. B. for an Enemy to Bishops for one sort he rejects he receives two the first such as St. Jerom says Was brought into the Church for a Remedy against Schism the Bishop of this Constitution was it preside over Presbyters and without him nothing of Moment was to be done in the Church § 58. These Presbyters that were under the Bishop had they several Parishes or Congregations or the same with their President If several then this is the Diocesan Prelacy that is a Crime in it's Constitution if the same then what did they do there For by old Canons it appears and Mr. B. makes use of them to serve his own Turn that a Presbyter was not to preach in the Presence of the Bishop what then Shall they only read the Offices of the Church This is to fall into worse than Diocesan Episcopacy and to make Presbyters not Preaching but what sounds much meaner reading Curates only to the Bishops There is another sort of Bishops that he dares not deny to be of divine Institution § 60. And they are such as succeed the Apostles in the ordinary part of Church-Government while some senior Pastors have
the supervising Care of many Churches as the Visitors had in Scotland and are so far Episcopi Episcoporum and Arch-bishops having no constraining Power of the Sword but a Power to admonish and instruct the Pastors and to regulate Ordinations Synods and all great and common Circumstances that belong to Churches for if one Form of Government in which some Pastors had such extensive Work and Power as Timothy Titus and Evangelists as well us Apostles had we must not change it without Proof that Christ himself would have it changed Let us compare this with Diocesan Episcopacy and see whether for all this mincing of the matter they will not amount to the same thing this supervising of many Churches does it not sound like having many Parishes under them And if this be impossible for a Diocesan how comes it to be otherwise in an Evangelist or an Apostle Nay how comes it to be allowed in a Scotch Visitor or Super-intendent The regulating Ordinations is no other in Scripture-Phrase than to appoint and ordain Elders in every Church and in every City the Diocesan Bishops desire no more in that point than to have such a Regulation and that it should not be accounted an Ordination that is done without or in Opposition to them The Evangelists might sometimes ordain Elders by their own single hands without the Assistance of any Presbyter sometimes together with the Presbytery our Diocesan Bishops never ordain any to that Order without the Assistance of their Presbyters the Evangelists and Apostles had the Direction of Church-censures 1 Cor. 5. 2 Cor. 2.9 10 11. 1 Tim. 5.19 20 21. Tit. 2.15 as appears from frequent Instances in the new Testament as also an Authority or Elders as well as the People to admonish and rebuke and punish those that were negligent or disorderly The Bishops claim no more it is the same Authority it is the same Office hitherto and this is the same of what the Bishops in all Ages of the Church have pretended to succeed to they of the Presbyterian way make all this Power of the Apostles as extraordinary as their Gifts and to expire together with them but for this they never offer any Reason and if this Notion should obtain it would follow that neither Presbyters nor Deacons could be succeeded in their Offices because they also were inspired with extraordinary Gifts as well as the Apostles But Mr. B. allows all this and that they ought to be succeeded even in this Eminence and Extent of Work and Power Why then does he find Fault and exclaim against that which he cannot deny to be of divine Institution and of perpetual Use under the name of Diocesan Episcopacy From these men the ancient Bishops derived their Title to this Authority they pretended to succeed Act. Conc. Tholi Euseb l. 5. c. 24. Polycrates reckons himself the sixth from Timothy and Irenaeus gives us the succession of the Roman Bishops from St. Peter to his time and if it had been necessary to his Purpose did undertake to shew the same of the Governours of the most considerable Churches in the World which afterwards Eusebius has collected out of their several Registers Comment 1 Ep. ad Timoth. Schol. Graec. Theodoret does admirably explain the Original of this Title by shewing that the Apostolick Power was fully convey'd to their Successors Those that are now call'd Bishops says he were in the Beginning called Apostles and the name of Bishop and Presbyter were then of the same Signification but in Process of time the Title of Apostle was appropriated to those who were Apostles indeed that is to the 12. And the name of Bishops was taken up by those that were before called Apostles Walo Mess p. 35. sequent Salmasius a man that never looks behind him or regards any Consequence runs away with this Passage as if he had found the greatest Treasure in the World that Bishop and Presbyter signified the same thing in the Apostles time and is so transported that he cannot take any notice that at the same time there is a Distinction made between the Office of Presbyter and Bishop for the Name they anciently bore shews the Nature and Eminency of their Office that they were Apostles in Authority but the Title being too great and invidious they laid it down for an humbler name and were content with the Stile that was common to Presbyters in the Apostles time Hitherto we have an exact Agreement between these three sorts of Episcopacy and find the Members of Mr. B's most compendious Distinction to be without Difference But it must not be dissembled that there are some things in which they seem to disagree especially-these two first That the Evangelists or Apostles were unfixt but Bishops are determined to a certain Diocess Secondly That the Apostles and Evangelists had Bishops under their Jurisdiction which Bishops do not pretend to As to this Unsetledness of the Apostles there are some that look upon travelling to be so essential to their Office that their Commission is in danger to expire if they should reside any considerable time in any certain place Walo Mess de Epise Presb. And Salmasius makes so acute a Remark upon the Inscription of St. John's two latter Epistles as comes within a small matter of deposing him Before those Epistles he stiles himself John the Presbyter or the Elder or it may be in English no more than John the aged and what would you imagine so great a Critick would observe from this That St. John having fixt his Residence at Ephesus for some considerable time had lost the Eminence of his Apostleship and sunk into the common Level of Presbytery and therefore stiles himself Presbyter only as if he had been conscious his Apostleship had departed from him But how comes St. Paul to remain three years in the same place and remain his Title and much longer yet at Rome where he dyed in the Exercise of his Apostleship Clemens Alex. speaking of St. John tells us he went about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In some places he appointed Bishops where they were wanting and none but Apostolick men could do it and in some places he himself govern'd the Church entirely i. e. as their Bishop and probably appointed another when he left them to succeed in the Charge Vales did not see the Import of this Phrase but rendred it Partim ut ecclesias integras disponeret formaret The last is a Comment that destroys the Sence of Clement who by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not understand the setting of a Church under it's Officers which his former seems to imply but the ordering and governing of it by himself in Opposition to his setting up of Bishops in other places and though he had some Authority there by way of supervising the Bishops yet he did not take the Care of the whole which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now in whatsoever City they lived besides the general Care of
Truth is sometimes so miscall'd that no Doctrines are damnable because men have condemned one another for some that are not so Is there no Truth because Contradictions lay claim to it and because that every man honours his mistake under speciousness of that Title for all these confusions of terms the things are the same and a real Heresie is damnable and ought to be reproved and cast out of the Church nothwithstanding that under this pretence the greatest Truths have been discredited Mr. B. gives such an account of those Controversies that exercised the four first General Councils as seems in great measure to excuse those Heresies which were condemn'd by them and to blame their condemnation calling the Bishops in derision Hereticators and Damners because they pronounced Arrius Macedonius Nestorius c. Hereticks men of dangerous Principles and not to be tolerated in the Communion of the Church yet for all this I belive Mr. B's own Rule will absolve them for in his Book called The true and only way of Concord pag. 291. seq he makes a Catalogue of such Errours which men ought to be restrain'd from preaching and propagating now all those Errours condemn'd by the four first General Councils are laid down there not only in the Sense but in the very Terms they were condemn'd in these Doctrines are by him own'd to be dangerous and by no means to be suffered to be preach'd But what if men grow incorrigible and will preach them notwithstanding these Prohibitions and Restraints his Resolution is very moderate that every one should not be ejected or silenced that holdeth or preacheth any one such Errour what then must he be suffer'd to propagate the Infections and to teach these Opinions that are so confessedly dangerous nor that neither for there follows such an Exception in this Toleration as wholly overthrows it for those are to be cast out who consideratis considerandis are found to do more harm than good Now what if the Orthodox Bishops did find that consideratis considerandis those Hereticks they condemned did more hurt than good that they destroy'd with one hand much more than they edified with the other and that the propagating of one of these dangerous Doctrines was not compensated by all the other Truths that they preach'd there is no variety of wholsom food can countervail the Mischiefs of one envenom'd bit and that Physician is not to be trusted that puts in any one dangerous Ingredient though the rest of the Composition were very innocent and this was the Rule they went by the Hereticks in their Opinions were dangerous men they were obstinate in their Opinions industrious in propagating them and were mostly upon the vindication of these controverted Doctrines it was therefore necessary since they did more hurt than good that they should be cast out of the Church Nor is he less displeas'd with the Form than the Matter of this Condemnation and therefore he gives the Bishops the Titles of Hereticating Cursing Damning Bishops but what Antichristian words are these that can move a moderate healing-man to so great Indignation Anathema esto is the usual form of condemnation in Councils which he so frequently calls Cursing and Damning the word is St. Paul's 1 Corintâ— 16.22 If any one love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be Anathema-maran-atha and he had borrowed it from the Jews which signifies no more than the separation of any thing from common Use and is used sometimes in a good sometimes in a bad sense In the first he denotes any thing consecrated or devoted to God in the latter any thing which we abhorr and separate our selves from for fear of Pollution so that the addition of it to those Errours which they condemn is dangerous As for Instance If any man shall say that there was a time when Christ was not let him be Anathema imports no more than that we declare our abhorrence of such Doctrines and will have nothing common with those that profess them but Mr. B. I know not out of what Dictionary translates it God damn you and calls it the Religion of the Bishops and their Councils Nay though this did imply so much they may plead the Example of St. Paul even in that case since they do no more than apply his general Sentence which he repeats more than once Gal. 1 9. If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received let him be accursed And that you may not think that this other Gospel does directly overthrow that which he had preach'd and teach men to deny and renounce our Saviour Jesus Christ we must understand that all this relates to the Legal Observances which some would introduce into the Churches of Galatia and their compliance with those Teachers is by the same Apostle called a turning away unto another Gospel and the preaching of those men the Perverting of the Gospel and so warm is the same Apostle against those Disturbers of the Church that he wishes that they were even cut off which troubled them chap. 5.12 Yet the Councils did not go so far in their Anathema's they did but declare the Leprosie as the Priest under the Law turn'd out the Diseas'd and gave warning to all People of the danger of the Infection and it was but fit that such should remain without the Camp till the Disease was heal'd lest it should spread and the whole Church become an Abomination and Anathema to him whose Faith it had suffer'd to be corrupted This was the Design of the Bishops and their Councils to this end they directed their Anathema's and if they have not always met with the Success that were to be wish'd we must not judge uncharitably and undervalue or deride their Endeavours And now let us consider their Acts and see what it is that they have done The first Councils about the time of the Observation of Easter he passes over with only mentioning for there is little of them remaining Pope Victor was doubtless to be blam'd for endangering the Peace of the whole Church Euseb l. 5. c. 24. upon so light an occasion Ch. Hist p. 34. Whether Victor did actually excommunicate the Churches of Asia or only threatned and endeavour'd to do it is not very clear from the Relation of Eusebius Valesius is of opinion and it seems the most probable that this proceeded no farther than Letters of Accusation Vales in locum which he sent to most Churches to represent the Asiaticks as unworthy of Communion but the generality of Bishops not approving it and advising to Peace it is likely the business went no farther so Schism was avoided by the peaceable counsel and disposition of the Bishops The Councils of Carthage Labese under Agrippinus and that of Arabia under Origen he does but just mention that of Rome c. 2. p. 35. after the death of Fabian held by the Roman Clergy in the Vacancy he makes some Remarks upon
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
to find fault having given them leave to proceed But he coming to Ephesus shortly after and finding fault with the proceedings of Cyril became the occasion of great confusions which yet cannot be with any justice charg'd upon the Council John with his protesting Bishops countenanc'd the cause of Nestorius and condemn'd Cyril being drawn in by Candidianus who was a favourer of Nestorius Act. 1. prope finem and it is not unlikely that he had secret Orders from the Emperour to do Cyril all the ill offices that he could for the Emperour in his Letter to Cyril before this Council shews that he was not a little angry with him He pretends his writing to him Theodos Cyril p. 1. c. 31. and the Empresses about this question to have been the cause as if he had had a design to divide the Court as well as the Church and to sow discord in the Royal Family But whatever were the reason it is evident by his proceeding that he had a pique against Cyril who was oppos'd in every thing by the Emperours Officers A little Committee of about thirty Bishops with John and Candidianus at the head of them set up against the Council condemn'd Cyril and Memnon and gave the Emperour an account of what they had done he sent Johannes Comes with Order to depose Cyril Memnon and Nestorius This John gives a sad account of the confusion all things were in and of the heats of Bishops but is very much to be suspected For the tenour of his relation makes it evident that he was a partizan of the Eastern Bishops and therefore endeavours to lay all the blame upon Cyril and his party but sure I am that the confusion which he represents cannot be much greater than our Author makes in the sense of this John and the Bishops could not understand one another much worse than our Author did that Epistle They would have the Scriptures read says our learned Translator but they that favour'd Cyril said that the divine and terrible Scriptures were not to be read without Cyril the Bishops that were with John said that Cyril ought not to be present at the reading of the Scriptures One would imagine that this Officer would have read a Chapter of Job to recommend patience to these violent Bishops but it is quite another matter for these terrible Scriptures were nothing else but the Emperours Letter which in the language of those times was call'd Sacra and Sacra Scriptura in this place as every body knows that has any acquaintance with these times or has but read this Letter for the secret is discover'd within a few lines Augustarum literarum lectionem fecit in quibus depositi sunt Cyrillus Nestorius c. And now it is no wonder if all things were in confusion and all parties unless that small one of John of Antioch dissatisfy'd the Orthodox look'd upon the faith as involv'd in the condemnation of Cyril and to suffer in the same proscription with him and the greatest part of the Christian Church look'd upon it self as engag'd in the same cause therefore the Emperour considering better of it whether out of fear that all the world in a manner would oppose this sentence or being better inform'd concerning Cyril revok'd this decree but confirm'd the deposition and banishment of Nestorius and considering the party of John was but inconsiderable in respect of those that own'd the Council the Emperour who probably might have made use of them against Cyril commands them now to be reconcil'd to him to condemn Nestorius to receive the Council and Cyril was only desir'd to sacrifice his resentments of the injuries received at Ephesus to the peace and settlement of the Church and so at last Cyril and the Council of Ephesus prevail'd against all the little arts that were us'd to blast their reputation and by the means of Paulus Emissenus a perfect reconciliation was effected so sincere that the old contentions are chang'd into friendship and confidence and Cyril sends some of his books to John and Theodoret to revise and correct So far were they from thinking him a Fire brand and incendiary as long as they liv'd as our Author represents the matter But this reconciliation does as little please Mr. B. as their dissentions There is no thanks to the Bishops for this the Emperours threatning Letter cur'd them all of Heresie and good men they were all this while of one mind and did not know it It is some sign of good nature that they would submit to the powerful interposition of the Emperour but there is a temper which Mr. B. is acquainted with that is not to be prevail'd upon either by threats or promises from the Magistrate and seems to hate nothing so much as compliance with Superiours there are some that scorn to preach by the licence of the Government and place the Kingdom of Christ purely in opposition to Laws and Magistrates CHAP. VI. Councils about the Eutychian Heresie IT is the general weakness of our minds not to think we have sufficiently avoided one extreme unless we run into the other and to be still running away from what we dislike we care not whither without considering what inconveniences the contrary extreme may expose us to This is frequent among us not only in what relates to our passions and manners but to our faith Nestorius for fear of blasphemy dissolv'd the incomprehensible unity of the son and fell into blasphemy on the opposite side denying Christ to be Deus verus Anath 1 2. Eutyches abhorring this doctrine thought he was not safe till he had deny'd Christ to be verum hominem Brevic. de Hist Eutyc and this became the occasion of a great deal of stir and tumults in the Christian World This Eutyches who to our comfort was no Bishop but an Abbot having pleas'd himself some time with his notion concerning the person of Christ was not content to enjoy it himself but was ambitious to propagate it He therefore drew up a new Creed different from those which had been set forth by all the Councils before him and sent a Copy of this Confession into several Monasteries to desire Subscriptions Act. con C. P. This got wind and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum having notice of this practice advises Eutyches as a friend to desist from such dangerous enterprizes and to acquiesce in the decrees of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus Eutyches pursues his course and Eusebius reports the whole matter to Flavian who having called a small Convention of Bishops at C. P. sends for Eutyches thither He at first refuses to come but afterwards being encourag'd by a favourite Eunuch he comes to the Council as if he had been going to a war guarded not only with his Monks but with Souldiers and the Emperours guards where after some tergiversation he discover'd his Heresie and the Council having admonish'd him to retract but without effect condemn'd him as a Heretick Our
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
separation twenty years before seems to have made the first step towards this Congregational way Brown in the column intituled the state of Christians 50. Art 51. but he speaks of it something more obscurely Who have the grace and office of watching and guiding The Answer is Some have this Charge together which cannot be sundred Some have their several charge over many Churches some have charge but in one Church only 52. How have some their charge and office together Ans There be Synods or the meetings of sundry Churches where the weaker Churches seek for help to the stronger for deciding or redressing of matter or else the stronger look to them for redress Who have their several charge over many Churches Ans Apostles Prophets Helpers or Evangelists Nor does he determine whether any may succeed to this general inspection or no. Those that followed delivered themselves with greater clearness upon this point Confer with Egerton p. 43. Collection of certain Art 1590. Art 11. Barrow and Greenwood make all Ecclesiastical power to belong to every Congregation and call the Bishops Antichristian because they take upon them to oversee so many Pastors and Churches And in another treatise where they answer this Question whether the Queen may be excommunicated by the Presbyterie they say That they detest the power of any Person or Presbytery usurping Authority over the Church No Presbytery can do any thing of this kind without the consent of the whole Congregation but That the Congregation whereof the Prince is may Excommunicate him Ainsworth went the same way and declared himself in these words Ains Communion of Saints c. 24. We find no Authority committed to our Congregation over another for Excommunicating the same as every Church has over her own members Christ reserveth this power in his own hands Barrow affirms Bar. Refuttat of Gifford 137. that ordinary set Synods are as prejudicial to the Rights of the Church as the other i.e. Diocesan Episcopacy But Johnson was the first that cleared this point and treated of it particularly Johns Christian Plea Treat 3. He layes down two things as the foundation of Church Government and Unity 1. That all particular Churches with their Pastors do stand immediately under Jesus Christ their Arch Pastor without any other strange Ecclesiastical Power and Authority interposed between Whether of Prelates or their unlawful usurping Synods 2. That notwithstanding the estate and distinction aforesaid Treat 3. c. 6. p. 261.262 c. yet all the Churches and Ministers of them should be alwayes ready to advise and assist one another and in this manner might be had a lawful and profitable use of Synods classes c. Provided they do not usurp any unlawful jurisdiction or power over particular Churches This man goes yet farther and maintains Congregational Episcopacy and shews out of several places of Scripture and antiquity That there may be in a particular Church one Pastor or Angel of the Church properly and specially so called and divers teachers and ruling Elders joyned to this Pastor in the Ministry and Government of the same Church who may all of them generally be called Pastors yet so as one be specially distinguished from the rest in respect of place and function to be the Pastor so more particularly called under Jesus Christ the Arch Pastor Never did copy agree more exactly with the Original than Mr. Baxters doctrine about Church Government with this of Johnson the Brownist Vt sit tam fimilis sibi nec ipse It is easier to find a difference between Mr. B. and himself upon other occasions than to discern the least disagreement between him and Johnson in this Robinson whom Baylie makes the Father of the Independents though he left some tenets of the Brownists Diss p. 17. Robins Apol p. 17. continued still a separation in the Sacraments and Discipline and was as much for this Congregational way as any of the Brownists In his Apology he declares That every particular Congregation is intire without any relation to other Churches as Peter or Paul are perfect men without respect to others that these Congregations are Independent and under Christ only Therefore the Ancient bounds which the Apostles have laid are not to be removed under pretence of any human Prudence Antiquity or Vnity Upon this foundation the Independent Churches were built and continue to this day which though they may differ in points of Doctrine as their Pastors or leading men may be inclined yet this constitution of Government gives them a common Denomination And now having given this account of the Original of this way at leastwise in these last times the higher Antiquity of it we shall consider elsewhere I shall in the next place give some account of the success of this form of Government and shew what fruits of Peace and Truth it has yielded since its first planting by the Brownists Robert Brown Schoolmaster in Southwark Baylie diss Ch. 1. having seduced out of the Communion of the Church of England such a number of Disciples as made up a congregation for fear lest the severity of our Laws might dissipate this new Church resolved to remove it to a place of greater liberty and accordingly perswaded his followers to transport themselves and families into Middleborough Here they had not been long but they began to be shaken with intestine discords G. Johns Letter to Fran. Johns George Johnson sayes It was in great measure occasioned by Browns Wife and other Women of that banished Church which caused a mortal feud between Brown and Harison and some said it was the occasion of Harison 's death It was also the cause of Excommunicating Perriman And this new fashion'd Church in short broke all to pleces most turning Anabaptists and Brown at last seeing himself deserted returned with tears in his eyes into the Unity of the Church Conformed and was preferred to a living The next Congregation that was formed under this rule was by F. Johnson Diss p. 14. for Barrow was hanged before he could fill his Church and this finding the air of the English Government not to agree with it followed its Pastor to Holland and setled at Amsterdam a kind Soil for a young and tender sect But this Colony had no better success than that of Brown for in a little while it was diminished by the falling away of several to the Anabaptists who were Excommunicated by the Congregation they deserted But the dissensions that were raised among themselves afflicted them yet more for G. Johnson having disobliged his Brothers Wife by reproving her for the vanity of her Apparel and cited a Text of Scripture for it when he was candidate for the place of a Pastor in conjunction with his Brother G. Johnson discourse of some troubles c. 1603. was required to recant his Doctrine against fine Cloaths he on the other side drew Articles of Impeachment against the Busk Stomacher and Sleeves c.
1. c. vii and what is that By a Diocese we Nonconformists mean only a large Circuit of Ground with its Inhabitants containing many particular Parishes and by a Diocesan Church we mean all the Christians within this Circuit who have but one Bishop over them though they be of mary Parishes And what Episcopacy does Mr. B. approve Bishop Vshers Episcopacy Reduc'd and what is this It is a Bishop over many Parishes a Bishop of a Rural Deanry that contains a great many Parish Churches It is manifest therefore that Mr. B. says and unsays and Condemns himself in that which he approves 2. Bishop Vsher's Reduction overthrows the Foundations of Mr. B.'s Church the Essence and Individuation of it for he defines a Church by a Congregation for personal Communion in Worship and Discipline and denies that one Church can be any farther extended in respect of its Government and Discipline than it may in respect of Worship which he expresses thus I think many of them i e. the Presbyterians do with Rutterford distinguish between a Worshipping Church and a Govern'd Church And sadling the Horse for Prelacy to mount on do affirm that many about Twelve of these Worshipping Churches like our Parishes may make but one Govern'd or Presbyterial Church But Bishop Vshers Project makes 40 or 50 Worshipping Churches but one Govern'd Church 3. Bishop Vshers Reduction deposes Parish Bishops and turns their Churches into Chapels because they are allow'd no exercise of the Keys but only admonition and suspension from the Sacrament 'till the Bishop and Synod is made acquainted with it Art 1. and this any incumbent in the Church of England is allow'd to do But Mr. B. rejects Diocesan Episcopacy for this fault of turning Churches into Chapels and Pastors into Preaching Curats and yet approves all that he Condemns by yielding to Bishop Vshers Reduction It is something strange he should be a Non Conformist to himself as well as to Diocesan Episcopacy and upon the very same reasons too Lastly This Project of Church Government in which there is one thing not so agreeable to the practice of Antiquity which is the Major part of the Presbyters concluding the Bishop who alwayes had a Negative voice and nothing ever becoming an Act without his consent and Approbation this I say may perhaps be of some use to make an accommodation between Presbyterian Government by Classes and Synods c. and Diocesan Episcopacy but it wholly overthrows Mr. B.'s Congregational way however qualifi'd by the Independent Principles of Consociation beyond which Mr. B.'s Notion of Church Government and constitution does not extend Therefore to leave this Episcopacy of Bishop Vshers as destructive of Independence why may not they of the Congregational way prevent such inconveniences as they have fallen into by some quallifying Principles in favour of Consociation and some abatement in their Punctiliousness of admitting into full Communion and Church-membership And thus far no doubt Mr. B. does comply to which I answer That the Fundamental Principle of this Congregational way does dispose it to all manner of confusion which I undertook to shew in the last place I shall say nothing to such Principles of our Independents as have no necessary Connexion with the nature of their Church Government as those of separation from every defect in ordinances and the like they are besides my purpose and the mischief and unreasonableness of them have been shew'd already with so much light and advantage by the Incomparable Dean of Pauls as to be able to convince any men who did mistake in good earnest as to that part therefore I will suppose them satisfi'd in point of Conscience though not perhaps in point of Honour and consider only the mischiefs of their Government abstracted from their other opinions The Independent or Congregational constitution is founded upon these two Principles 1. That Christ and his Apostles instituted Congregational Churches and endued them with all the Power that is given the Church as of censures Excommunication and the like without any dependence one on another or of several upon one General Pastor and that the single Congregations planted at first in several Cities when they came to encrease beyond the possibility of Personal Communion were to Imitate Bee-hives and to send out Colonies under their proper Officers without any dependence on the mother Hive 2. That what was thus instituted by Christ and his Apostles must so continue it not being in the power of man or the Church to alter it This is the foundation of Independent Government and if you abate any thing of these Principles the whole Fabrick must fall to pieces If you deny the first that Christ or his Apostles did not institute such Churches the Congregational way has no pretence or if you will say that the first that were planted were indeed of this kind but accidentally there being no more believers in any City than might meet in one Congregation it equally destroys it for when Christians were multipli'd into several Congregations they might put themselves under another form more commodious for preserving Unity among them If you deny the second that though the Apostolical Churches were of this Model yet that it was not necessary and unalterable it will remove all just reason of contention about it for the Church having made use of its liberty in the change of that Government which it is suppos'd to have power to do as it saw occasion nothing can be more unreasonable than to tear it in pieces upon this occasion unless it has done something that it had no authority to do and so alter'd the Government Establish'd by Christ with out his leave in short if the Apostles did not found Congregational Churches there is no reason why we should set them up if they did found them at first but did design they should continue no longer than till the numbers of Christians should exceed one Congregation the success of the Gospel has chang'd that form If they were founded at first and then the matter left to the discretion of the Church to frame it self according to its best convenience the Church has already determin'd it there can be no Controversie So that if any of these Principles be deni'd the Congregational Government must fall of course Independency therefore being founded upon a firm belief of those Fundamental Principles which cannot be left but the whole frame must sink I shall proceed to shew the unavoidable mischiefs that belief exposes these Congregational Churches to 1. Of the mischiefs that this way occasisions by rendring any Union between particular Churches Impossible 2. The mischiefs it produces in particular Churches or Congregations 1. Of the Impossiblity of preserving any Unity between Independent Churches These Churches like so many little Soveraignties crowded together within the same Territory and a great number of them within the Walls of the same City their Vicinity and Cohabitation gives them opportunities and begets a necessity of a
surely never seen it with his eyes open That these gifts were not had in any so great esteem then Apologia pro sentent Hieron Praefat. but all went by seniority and of the Colledge of Presbyters the Senior was as it were the Bishop and when he dy'd the next by seniority took the chair without any more ado no Election or Ordination being necessary If this answer does not satisfie I must profess I cannot help it for want of Authors that speak particularly of these matters All that I can affirm is that the Ancients talk of Bishops in every age up to the Apostles times and make these Bishops their successours but of the occasions of their promotion there is not a word only St. Jerom a great while after their institution ascrib'd it to the inconveniences which parity produc'd But as to the time Mr. B. tells us Treat of Ep. Part 1. c 3. p. 15. Hieron Catalog Scr. in Marco Euseb Chr. Hieron Ep. ad Evagr. But as to the time Mr. B. tells us That if Hierom mistake not it began at Alexandria some years before the death of St. John the Apostle If Mr. B. do's not mistake St. Jerom which is almost impossible he must know that Mark dy'd in the eighth year of Nero which answers the 63. of our Lord. Several years not only before St. John's death but before St. Pauls and before almost any of the Apostles So ancient is Episcopacy at Alexandria according to St. Jerom. His words are these Nam Alexandria a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant i. e. from the Death of St. Mark which Jerom following Eusebius places in the eighth year of Nero to Dionysius and Heraclas the Presbyters elected their Bishops out of their own body And this some years i. e. almost forty before the death of St. John But does Jerom make this the first Original of Episcopacy surely Mr. B. mistakes him For he makes the divisions of the Church some saying I am of Paul and I am of Apollos and I of Cephas to be the first occasion of this institution and these divisions happened in the Church of Corinth many years before St. Marks death An. Chr. 52. and that we may not think Hierom speaks this by a figure to express such divisions as followed afterwards in imitation of those of Corinth he instances some particulars that require them to be understood of that particular dissension among the Corinthians for he adds After that every one thought those whom he Baptized to be his own and to belong peculiarly to himself Which St. Paul mentions and confutes and thanks God that he had Baptized but few lest they should say He Baptized in his own name Now this determination of the Apostle that Baptizing of Converts did not give the Baptizer any right to Govern them and that they ought not to bear any name of relation to him but his name only in which they were Baptized it is unlikely that this controversy should revive after so clear a determination and therefore the Original of Episcopacy in St. Jerom's opinion must be referred to those dissensions in the Church of Corinth For which he fancies this remedy to have been provided And I cannot but wonder at Blondel Apol. p. 3. who makes St. Jerom to speak in this place of things done almost a hundred years after An. 140. when but a few lines before this passage he shews Episcopacy to have been set up in Alexandria immediately after the death of St. Mark i. e about eleven years after this division in the Church of Corinth Having considered the summ of Mr. B.'s account of the Original of Episcopacy which is partly Fiction partly a mistaking or mincing of St. Hierom I shall proceed to give an Historical account of the rise of Diocesan Episcopacy out of the Scriptures and Antiquity as far as I am able to trace it hoping that some others better acquainted with the Ancients may some time or other give a more full and perfect Deduction Our Blessed Saviour a 1 Pet. 2.25 The Bishop of our Souls laid the first foundation of his Church by his own Preaching b Luke 4.15 Matth. 4.12 Mark 1.14 in the Synagogues of Galilee where he was approved and glorified by all that heard him and now having entred upon that great undertaking of reducing the World to the obedience of faith c Matt. 4.18 Luke 6.13 John 6.70 he made choice out of his followers and Disciples of such Persons as he thought fit to instruct more particularly in the knowledge and to commit to them the great work of the conversion of the World Whom he call'd Apostles d Matt. 13.11 Mark 4.11 Luk. 8.10 e Luke 5.11.28 Matt. 19.27.28 Mark 10.28 Luke 22.28 These as more specially devoted to him did constantly attend his Person and follow him whither ever he went f John 2.11.4.53.11.45 And after that he had converted several out of the great multitudes that followed him by the excellence of his Doctrine and the conviction of his Miracles he gave these Apostles g Joh. 21 15 16. Commission to take care of that Flock which was already gathered to increase it not only by finishing the Conversion of such as the found of his Gospel and the Fame of his miracles had already disposed to receive the Gospel but to propagate it to the ends of the Earth h Matt. 28.19 Mark 16.15 and to Preach to all Nations When he had justified his Doctrine as well as us by his death and resurrection The i Luke 1â— 32 flock of the Church was yet but very small and Peter though he were now allow'd to be universal â—â—stor might easily discharge his duty k 1 Cor. 15.6 The greatest number we read of between â—he Resurrection and Ascension is but â—oo l Actâ— 1.15 and at Jerusalem when they met toâ—ether they were but about a hundred and â—â—enty But it was not long before these â—â—all beginnings this grain of Mustard feed grew up with a prodigious and surprizing increase m Acts 2.41 for on the following Pâ—ntecost there were added unto them about three hundred Souls The first fruits of the Spirit who must be supposed to have been converted not all by the Sermon of St. Peter but by the n Acts 2.4 6 7 8. Ministry of the other Apostles and the number of the Converts makes it more probable that the multitude was divided into several Audiences since the o Acts. 1.13.2.2 upper Room where they were assembled could not hold so great an assembly This accession made the Church too big for the house where it first assembled and the Disciples having yet no publick places of meeting but obliged to p Acts 2.46 break bread from house to house they were by this means divided into several Congregations
But those of the Congregational way indeavour to diminish the numbers by making a great part of these new Converts to be strangers and to return home when the Feast was over To which I Answer 1. That the Scripture gives no countenance to this conjecture but sayes all those strange Nations were q Acts 2.5 14. Inhabitants of Jerusalem and the Original word inclines most on this side But 2. Suppose they were some of them Strangers yet how shall we be assured that they returned home The Scripture seems to say thâ— contrary v 47. For as soon as it sets down thâ— number it adds That they continued stâ—â—â— fastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in Prayers They i. e. the three thousand in the Verse going before besides there is no probability of their leaving the Apostles it is not suitable to the zeal and devotion of the first Converts who despised all Earthly concerns and left Houses and Land and Families for Christs sake And these Proselytes sold all and had all things in common which takes away the necessity of their returning home Nor did the Church cease to grow and multiply but proselytes came over every day For the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved But among these daily accessions some are very great and remarkable for not long after we find no less than five thousand more added to the Church at one time v. 47. Many of them that heard the word believed and the number of the men that is plainly of those that heard the word and believed was about five thousand Acts 4.4 and besides these that were Converted the generality of the people favoured the preaching of the Gospel so that the Magistrates durst not deal over rigorously because of the people v. 21. This general good disposition was improved by the Apostles into a perfect conversion of great numbers For believers were the more added to the Lord Acts 5.14 multitudes both of men and women And the Christian Congregations were now so thronged that they brought out their sick and laid them in the Sreets that the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them And now the Church of Jerusalem grew too numerous for the Apostles to take the whole charge of it upon them for when the Number of the Disciples was multiplyed c. 6.1 their arose a murmuring of the Grecians that their Widows were neglected and the Apostles desired the multitude to chuse seven men whom they might appoint over this matter And in the mean time they would give themselves up continually to prayer and the ministry of the Word and the twelve it seems had enough to do in this particular for they declare that they cannot look after Tables but they must neglect their more peculiar duty â— 2. leave the word of God And we do immediately find the success of this Counsel â— 7 The word of God increased and the number of the Disciples multiplyed in Jerusalem greatly and a great company of the Priests were obedient to the Faith And now after all these accessions Acts 8.1 we find but one Church in Jerusalem a great persecution is said to have been raised against that Church Now what manner of Church shall we imagine this to be a Congregational one shall all those thousands make but one Assembly for Communion in Prayer and the Sacraments It is incredible There was no place large enough no hold them and considering the opposition that was made against them they cannot be supposed to have the use of any publick meeting place the Synagogues were taken up by the Jews and if we may guess at their bigness by their number we must conclude they could not be very capacious since in Jerusalem there were as Sigonius delivers from the Records of the Jews no less than five hundred and eighty Car. Sigonius de Rep. Heb. l. 2. c. 8. Lightfoot Hor. Hebr. cap. 36. prooem Evang. Mat. the number more generally argeed is four hundred and eighty In short the multitude of Believers as it is represented by St. Luke must be granted to exceed the measure of one or two Congregations and considering their circumstances might probably make up more than twenty Congregations This Church then in the singular containing more than one Assembly was no other than a Diocess governed by the common Council of the Apostles in which Peter may be supposed to preside without doing the Pope any Service To this the Assertors of the Congregational way make several exceptions Grand Debate concerning Presb. and Independ in the Answer to the reasons of the Diss Breth and Mr. B. among the rest but so frivolous that I wonder after the Answers made to them by the Divines of the Assembly any can be so obstinate as to insist upon them They Except 1. That the first three thousand Converts were not all of Jerusalem but returned home after the Feast was over but of this no other proof than that there were dwelling in Jerusalem devour men of several Nations or as they render it sojourning and it is not very significant how we understand it since the Scripture sayes expresly that they continued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship But of this already 2. That the five thousand is not to be added to the other three but includes them There needs no other Answer to this than to refer them to the place which is clear enough of it self The miracle wrought on the Cripple that sate in the Gate of the Temple and the Sermon that seconded it was altogether occasional and there can be no reason to imagine the whole Church then to be met together in that place 3. That in those Countries there were much greater Congregations than can be with us as some of those that followed our Saviour who Preached to Myriads and the reason is offered because the air is more pure and thin That at Charenton the Congregation consists of many thousands This is manifestly to trifle and to Libel their own cause by reasons that are impertinent or ridiculous 4. Mr. B. Adds they had better Lungs in those times and places he might have said as well that they had better Ears and a quicker hearing or that they could understand a mans meaning by his gaping 5. They say that this being the first Church and under the joyn'd care of all the Apostles might soon arrive to the greatest measure of a Church What is this in effect but to yield the question How they came to that number we see well enough but the thing contended is that their number did exceed a Congregation besides they cannot be supposed so well to have multiplyed so very soon if the Ministry of these Apostles had not been divided and some Preached in one Assembly and others in another 6. They say there was liberty till Sauls persecution And what then Under that liberty the
Church might exceed the measure of a single Congregation in less time 7. Mr. B. sayes this is no precedent And why The Mother Church gathered and governed by all the Apostles together which is a circumstance that perhaps no other Church can boast of Why shou'd not this be a precedent The truth is it spoils a notion of Congregational Independent Churches and because it cannot be made to comply it must be protested against that it be not brought into a Precedent Besides these exception Acts 2.26.5.1.6.5 6. they offer testimonies to prove rhe Church of Jerusalem no more than could meet in one place because all the multitude is sometimes said to meet together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against these proofs there lies one great exception The number of Converts on one side are specified and it plainly thence appears that there was no possibility they should all meet together for all acts of worship but on the other side all the proof is in general expressions the whole multitude and the all may denote only those that were present and not all that believed as it is said Luke 1.10 The whole multitude of the people were without Praying i.e. not all the people of Jerusalem but the whole multitude that was present so the meeting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be said of several Congregations meeting for the same purpose as well as of one But the Independents in the Assembly of Divines did seem to give up this point and to grant that before the dispersion there might be more than one Congregation of Christians but that after they were scattered there remained no more than could meet in one place Suppose all this what advantage can it be to their cause if there were more once than might meet in one Assembly and so were forc'd to divide into several and this notwithstanding to retain the name but of one Church because under one common Government it follows that wheresoever the Christians should afterwards increase in the same manner they might likewise be governed after the same manner and in several Congregations still preserve the Unity of the Church If there were no more afterwards than one Congregation it is plain that it was only casual if I may so speak of the circumstances of the Church Nor is that true in fact which they affirm of the Church of Jerusalem after the dispersion for though they are all said to be scattered besides the Apostles Acts ◠1 yet it cannot be understood of all the Believers because afterwards we find Saul entring into houses and haling out Men and Women We find good men believers doubtless taking care of Stephens Funeral Hist Ecc. l. 2. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nid Lorin Cajet Calvin Bez. in Loc. and thus Eusebius understood it where he sayes all the Disciples i. e. the Disciples of Christ mentioned Acts 1. that conversed with Christ and so the generality of Expositors nor is it to be imagin'd that the Apostles should remain alone at Jerusalem when the whole Church had been forc'd thence and the fury of the Persecution was so great that there was no opportunity to Preach publickly Nor is it unlikely that the Preachers were more particularly mark'd out for destruction for in Stephen's case we find it was his publick Disputing and Preaching that brought him under the lash of that Persecution and his Indictment was made up of what was delivered by him in his publick Discourses though besides it cannot be deny'd but that other Converts Men and Women were also hal'd to Prison But whatsoever numbers were forc'd away by that Persecution it is likely they return'd most of them after it was over and it did not continue long for immediately after the the Conversion of St. Paul Acts 9.31 The Churches had rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria and were edified and multiplyed And it is a strange conceit of Baronius That these are the Jews of the Dispersion that St. Peter and James directed their Epistles to An. 35. and that they were scattered into all the Parts of the World After this Persecution the Church of Jerusalem Acts 8.14 Acts 11.22 as the metropolitan of the rest takes care of them sends some Apostles to Samaria and Barnabas to Antioch and these as soon as they had fulfilled their ministry return home to their Mother Church which could not but thrive much more in proportion than the rest whether we reflect upon the number and abilities of her Pastors or the advantage of its scituation For the place it self was a most convincing witness as of some very remarkable actions of our Saviour so particularly of his Death and Resurrection here the vail of the Temple was rent here Rocks cleft in sunder here the empty Sepulcher preach'd with no less efficacy than the Apostles and though they should hold their peace the Stones would become Apostles and be Witnesses of the Resurrection This Church being thus considerable in all its circumstances Apud Eusib Ecc. Hist l. 2. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Eusch l. 2. c. 23. when the Apostles were call'd away was committed to James the just the Brother of our Lord If not before for as Clemens reports the matter he was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem presently after our Savious Ascension and mentions it as an instance of the humility of the Apostles that would not contend about it but chose one that was no Apostle and Hegesippus one of the Ancientest Ecclesiastical Writers co-temporary with Justin Martyr and Athenagoras gives much the same account with Clemens as to the time of his promotion unless we shall take Jerom's Translation which if the words would bear it is much more commodious Hegesippus writes That James took upon him the Episcopacy of the Church of Jerusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the Apostles Post Apostolos Hieron Catal. in Jacobo Jerom renders it but against all Grammar and therefore Sophronius who translates him into Greek is forc'd to change the case and write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is very probable Jerom read so in his copy though Rufinus who translated the same passage confirm the Greek reading However certain it is that James was Bishop of Jerusalem whether with or after the Apostles is not so material not only from Hegesippus and Clemens Alex. but also from St. Paul who mentions him as one of the Apostles that he had conversed with in Jerusalem and it is likely there were no more there at that time but he and Peter But when they were at last dispersed Ecclesiastical History makes James the Ordinary Bishop and Diocesan of the place As for his Episcopacy it will not be disputed by any man that has left himself any freedom of understanding and belief and it is strange to see Salmasius run his head so violently against such solid Testimonies as those of Hegesippus and Clemens But for his Diocess that I
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
titles are mentioned Besides the mentioning but these two sorts of Church Officers may be done only according to the distinction of the several imployments in the Church some being Ministerial others Governing though the latter may have a difference in the measure of their power in the administration of the same Government An evident instance of this we have in Clemens of Alexandria who notwithstanding he distribute the Clergy sometimes into Presbyters and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. strom l. 6. p. 283. Ed. Silburgii in 1 Tim. 1. as the Governing or Teaching and the Ministring Parts yet he does elsewhere acknowledg three Orders where he comes to speak more distinctly To the same effect are the words of the Greek Scholia collected out of the ancient Fathers that Bishops sometime in Scripture comprehend Presbyters too Because their offices are much alike 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sch. Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in 1 ad Tim. c. 3. Secundum Presbyterorum immo paene unum corum esse gradum Episcoperum they both administer the Sacraments they both teach and guide the Church and exercise discipline and the difference between them is not very great and what is that since they are both qualified for the same Acts Besides Ordination there iâ— hardly any thing but that they act in subordination to the Bishops in whom the principal Authority of Teaching and governing is placed and the Presbyters are the Assistants and supreâ—â— Council of the Bishop and both making as it were one Bench the directive governing part of the Church Salmasius would understand Chrysostom when he sayes the distance between Bishops and Presbyters was not great to speak of his own time only which is so impudent a construction that one would wonder how any man could be guilty of it since every one that has the curiosity to consult the place will discern the imposture and there is none of the Ancients that does more expresly distinguish between Bishops and Presbyters from the beginning than this eloquent Father and nothing can be more plain than that he speaks there of the constitution of Episcopacy and Presbytery without any regard to time for it is evident from him that he thought there was no difference in this particular between these orders of the Church in his time and that of the Apostles as any man may see that will but look into his comments upon Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. c. 1 Tom. 4. Ed. Savil. and c. 3. There are several other passages in that Epistle of Clemens that make mention of Presbyters appointed by the Apostles to guide the Church of the Presbyters of the Church of Corinth who were turned out by a faction but nothing that affords any argument against Episcopacy but such as the same answer may be extended to which I have given already to the allegations made from thence But to clear this business of the Church of Corinth as far as possible I will shew the state of it as it may be gathered from this Epistle and then take liberty to offer a conjecture concerning the form of its Government at that time and the occasion of the Schism The Church of Corinth in the first place is said here to be an Ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sound Church that for a long while had enjoyed all the benefits of peace and order and was had in great esteem and veneration of all those that knew it until at last having eat and drank and being enlarged and growing fat it lifted up the heel From this prosperity sprung all the evils of emulation and discord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaner sort setting themselves up against the better and silly men growing conceited and pragmatical set themselves against men of wisdom and experience But because in all the insolencies of the people against their Rulers there are commonly some persons of note that first animate the sedition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was no otherwise here a few ambitious discontented men and they too not very extraordinary Persons for knowledg or endowments instigated the common people against their Governours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having popular parts they knew how to insinuate themselves into the multitude and to manage the credulity and passions of the people to their own advantage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and prejudice of the publick Therefore Clemens aggravates this sedition by comparing it with that mentioned by St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they cryed some for him some for Cephas some for Apollos for they were two of them great Apostles and the other one highly esteemed by the Church But now sayes he consider by what manner of men you are perverted And now what could give occasion to all this disorder What would these troublesome men have this is not expresly set down but such hints are scattered as are sufficient to ground a probable conjecture 1. They are said to be great Zealots about things not material or requisite to salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hot disputants about such matters 2. They were such as magnified the power of the people and perswaded them that they had a right to turn out their Pastors therefore Clemens shews what course Moses took to establish the Priesthood and how the Apostles foreseeing there would be contentions about the name and office of a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointed chosen men which the people cannot with any justice turn out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. These men were ambitious disobedient despisers of their superiors and yet such as would bear rule themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and lift themselves up above their brethren and their discontents arising from the ill success or opposition their ambitious pretensions met with were probably the occasion of this Schism and therefore Clemens advises them to be content with their statition and chuse rather to be inconsiderable in the Church than to be never so great out of it than to be the heads and Bishops of a Faction From which Circumstances one may conjecture 1. That the Church of Corinth at this time had no Bishop the See being vacant by the death of the last or otherwise 2. That this sedition was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a contention about this Bishoprick 3. That the Clergy and people were divided about it the people setting up some they had a favour for whom the Clergy did not approve and when they could not be prevail'd with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people persisting in their kindness towards these persons broke out into extremities and turned out part of the Clergy that would not comply with their choice Which is yet further confirmed from the directions which Clemens gives upon this account that these men would go regularly to compass their design by just means that they would enter in at the right gate and