before the Council of Toledo writeth a Sermon for them the Bishops wherein he tells them that every Parish that have twelve Families must have their proper Governor i. e. a Presbyter Whereas that is not part of the King's Sermon as Mr. B. calls that Prince his Letter to the Council but a Canon of the Council it self For the King's Letter ends long before with a Formal Date Dat. die 70 faeliciter 60 Regni Toleto In the same Page Mr. B. to shew his Skill makes Willibrood and Wilfrid to be the same I wonder the more at this because Binius in this very place from whence Mr. B. takes his account of Willibrood and Wilfrid does plainly make them to be two persons but when Mr. B. goes to play the Critick this is constantly his Success But Binius leads him into a mistake p. 253. where he transcribes out of his Author That Ludovicus deprives him Pepin of his Kingdom of Italy and divideth it between his two Sons by the Second Wife Charles and Rodolphus It is great news to Historians to hear that Lewis had two Sons by his Second Wife since no mention is made of any other but Charles the Writer of that Emperor's Life speaks of no other nor Ammonius who transcribes him nor the following Chronicles Girard Vignier Mezeraye who reckon up Lewis his Children have no such person and say expresly that Judith had but one Son She had a Brother indeed nam'd Rodolphus but he had no share of the Empire But this Division of Pepin's Kingdom was between Lotharius and Charles as the Annal. Franc. before mentioned do deliver Nor was Italy the Kingdom of Pepin the Son of Lewis as Binius and Mr. B. tells us but Aquitain Lotharius had been a good while before made King of Italy and Crown'd by the Pope in the place of Bernard Mr. B. by way of Remark p. 342. says That it was no wonder that Pope Benedict and his Company should condemn Berengarius but Lanfrancus in his Book against Berengarius writes that Leo the Ninth was the first that condemn'd him some Years after the Death of Benedict Anno Dom. 1050. We have a Conjecture of Mr. B's p. 356. that is not unpleasant and that shews his profound Skill in History He cites an Epistle of Gregory the Seventh to the King of Denmark where among other things he invites him to send his Son with an Army to conquer a Maritine province not far from Rome possess'd by vile and sluggish Hereticks What Province he means says Mr. B. I am not certain unless it be the Waldenses It is pretty well guess'd For Gregory the Seventh died in the Year 1085. and P. Waldo from whom the Waldenses had their Denomination began to be taken notice of about the Year 1160. But Fourscore Years break no Square nor is our Author much more happy in his Geography than in his Chronology For p. 421. He tells us that there was a Council held at Vienna near France As if a Man should say the City of Sarum near England But there would be no end of instancing all the Oversights of this Church-History the Reader may dip at adventure and if he do not light upon Mistakes as Remarkable as any of these he has but ill Fortune He that takes any pleasure to trace Beveus and Mistakes may find here an endless Comedy of Errors 5. But I had almost forgot one Qualification very requisite for a Church-Historian which must not be omitted the Learned call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the want of which betrays a Writer sometimes when Fortune is not propitious into great Absurdities I will not be so bold with Mr. B. as to say this was the Occasion of a strange Misadventure of his p. 122. For speaking of the Canon of Scripture concluded upon in a Council at Rome under Pope Gelasius Mr. B. makes a wonderful Discovery that in the Canon they put a Book called ORDO HISTORIARVM And now let the Church of Rome value it self if it dare for having preserv'd the Canon of Scripture entire and undiminish'd since Mr. B. plainly discovers a Book to have been once in their Canon which is not now to be found in any of the Pope's Bibles A strange thing this that no body should ever discover this before But I wonder that he did not find out another Book in that Canon every whit as strange as this and that is Ordo Prophetarum For there it is as a General Title before the Prophets as this Ordo Historiarum is before some Historical Books This mistake is as if a Man should find a Chapter in the Bible call'd Contents or a Book call'd Apocrypha I have given these few Instances out of many of Mr. B's great Abilities in Church-History that the Reader may perceive how much this Infamous Libel against Bishops and Councils is to be depended upon and let any Man that has any acquaintance with these Mattters judge impartially whether this History do really disgrace Bishops or Councils or any body else so effectually as it does the Author And if this be the Effect of having made History ones long and hard Study even let us burn Binius and Baronius and go make Buttons We may with honest Application employ our time so to much better purpose I must detain the Reader a little longer with this Preface while I endeavor to clear some Passages of this Book which may seem to be answered already the Effect of them being said in behalf of Episcopacy and replied to on the part of the Dissenters For some part of this Book being Printed 8 or 9 Months ago and the Subject having been treated by several Hands it could not be but that several things should be said to the same effect in Answer to Mr. B's Allegations for the Congregational Way and in Confirmation of Diocesan Episcopacy with what is written here and being replied to there seem already to have receiv'd their Answer Wherefore I conceiv'd it necessary to take off such Exceptions as prevented any Passages in this Book and because it could not be done conveniently in the Book it self to reserve them for the Preface But upon Examination I found them to be fewer than I did at first imagine For Mr. Baxter since his Church-History and Treatise of Episcopacy has made no farther Impression into this Controversie I have examin'd some Chapters of that Book that pursu'd the Design of this History by the Addition of several Historical Passages to disgrace the Episcopal Government as the occasion of all Mischiefs in the Church As for the first part about the Order of Bishops it had too many particulars to be minutely considered but the Substance of it having been said in short in the first Chapter of his Church and more at large in his Disputation of Church Government has been examin'd in the beginning of this Book Dr. O. hath follow'd Mr. B. in the Congregational way and as for his Allegations out of Antiquity they
the number of Christians at his first Entrance was hardly enough to make a Congregation towards his latter end it was surely too great for one for the multitude of people in the City and the Country that belong'd to it Ubi supra it is said by Gregory Nysser to be infinite The Testimony of Tertullian Apolog. chap. 39. is as little to his purpose his words are these p. 93. Where a Body compacted by the Knowledge of the same Religion the Vnity of Discipline and the League of Hope do come together into one Congregation Conus ad deum Ed. Rigalty and not in caeum Congregationem to offer up Prayers to God we meet for the hearing of the holy Scriptures we feed our Faith with those holy words we raise up our hope we fix our Confidence 〈◊〉 confirm Discipline by the inculcating of 〈◊〉 â—ours Precepts there are likewise there Exhortations as being done in the presence of God that is lookt upon as an Anticipation of future Judgment if any one has so offended as to be banish'd from the Communion of Prayer and the Assembly and of all holy Commerce most approv'd Elders do preside Now let the Reader judge whether Mr. B. has Reason to be so confident of this Passage as to say pag. 94. If I be able to understand Tertullian it is here plain that each Church consisted of one Congregation and yet out of the words there can be nothing brought to favour it unless it be this that Christians used in those days to assemble for Prayer and reading of the Scriptures but whether one or more such Assemblies were under the Discipline of the Bishop and Presbytery is not signified in the least That Elders are said to preside does not at all prejudice the Right of the Bishop for either those are Bishops that are said to preside and so every particular Church will have many which if it be not against Mr B's Notion of Episcopacy is confessedly against the practice of the Church in those times when one Church had no more than one Bishop if they were Presbyters then 't is probable there was more than one Congregation But it appears by what follows that these Presidents were all the Officers of the Church where they are distinguish'd from the people and said to live out of the common Stock and the Deacons as well as Priests did assist at the Sacrament and the Bread and Wine was distributed by their hands aâ—â— shall endeavour to prove in due place 〈◊〉 cites out of the same Author De Corona Militis to put his meaning out of all doubt concludes nothing less than what he would have him to say his words are to this effect Presidentium c. 3. That we must receive the Eucharist at all times but from no other hand but those that preside That those were not Bishops appears from the next passage which he cites out of the same place This Mr. B. mistakes Ch. Hist p. 7. when he says that they took not the Lord's Supper but only Antistitis manu I suppose his Memory deceiv'd him 〈◊〉 where Tertullian speaking of Baptism mentions the form of renouncing the World and the Devil Sub manu Antistitis where we may observe that he uses another Word as well as another Number yet since it is said that Christians ought not to receive the Sacrament but from the hands of those Presidents we must not conceive the Bishop to be excluded but by that general Name to be comprehended together with his Bench of Presbyters but will not this Circumstance of Baptism serve to evince that a Bishop had then but one Congregation and every one to be baptized was to make his Renunciation under the Bishops Hand nothing less for many more might be baptized by a Bishop in the compass of few years than there are in the greatest Diocese in the World Paulinus could not well wish a greater number in his Diocess than he baptized in seven and thirty days Bed l. 2. chap. 14. Pamelius did labour to prove that Antistes is the same with Seniores Presidentes and that Presbyters might baptize as well as Bishops but that is not the thing in Question nor does this Passage suppose every baptism performed by the Bishop but the Renunciation of the Devil c. which was preparatory to it to have been made in his presence he might have a very large Diocess and be at Leisure for this especially when we consider that the generality of Christians in those times had such an awe of that Sacrament and the strict Obligation it lay upon them of more than ordinary Sanctity that they deferr'd it till the last and were baptized on their Death-bed and that not by the Bishop but by any other Presbyter or Deacon nor can we find in all the History of the times we now speak of that Children had any part in the solemn and publick Baptism but they might be privately baptized in case of Necessity and eminent danger of Death without the assistance of the Bishop And long after these times we find in the largest Dioceses where a great many Congregations are affirmed to be under the same Bishop One Baptistry to a Church sufficient for several Congregations there were but three days in the year appointed for solemn Baptism and the Bishops were so far from being unequal to the Multitude that they complain of the general Neglect of the Sacrament and of their not being fully employed at those times so that supposing this Antistes to be the Bishop and every one that was solemnly baptized past under his hand it is far from making out Mr. B's Notion that there was but one Congregation under him The next thing he makes use of to confirm his Conception of Congregational Church is the Consent of the people Disp 95. in the Margin Ch. Hist p. 7. as well in the Election of their Bishops as in several other Ecclesiastical Acts but this â—e rather hints by the Bye than insists upon and I suppose did not value much since he takes no care to improve it whoever will take the pains to examine those passages will find that the people never polled at the Election of their Bishops which was principally the act of the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but approved it commonly by a general and confused Voice of the Multitude that was present and the Phrase Vniversa Plebs does not denote every particular Christian of the Church but onely a general Assembly and Congregation of as many as could come together or of the most considerable Persons of the Diocese or rather as it is usually express'd all the People that were present at the Action Cornelius elected plebis quae tunc adfuit Suffragio Cypr. l. 4. c. 2. I shall not forget to answer this Argument more particularly hereafter when we shall meet with it confirmed by any Canon of Councils or other passages in his History Basil Ep.
Alex. Can. 4. Argument Canon such were never to be admitted to full Communion no not at the hour of Death Is any man like to find fault with this Bishop for being too indulgent Is this any great Encouragement to Apostates It would be strange after all this that men should depart from his Communion for being too much prostituted to the Betrayers of Religion If all this does not satisfie Mr. B. but that he will still believe those holy Martyrs as unmortified in Prison as the Priests and Jesuits heretofore were at Wisbich let him enjoy his Fancy and contempt of ancient Bishops and be bound to believe all the Stories in Epiphanius Mr. B. confesses that Epiphanius seems not to be very accurate in his Disputes nor his Narratives why then does he maintain him here against the Authority of Athanasius and all Sense and Reason He does acknowledge some Passages in this History to be mistaken as that the Meletians joyned with the Arrians before the Death of Alexander and in his Instance of the time of Arrius's death placing it before the Councel of Nice Besides these there are other Mistakes no less gross which Mr. B. swallows down as true History as first that Constantine the Great banish'd Athanasius into Italy where he remain'd twelve or fourteen years till after the Death of Constantine If Athanasius himself be to be believ'd or Socrates out of him Constantine banish'd him into Gallia and Treves was the place where he abode nor is there any Likelihood that he saw Italy during his first Banishment But the account of the time of it Euseb de Vit. Constant for twelve or fourteen years is intolerable for the Councel of Tyre was not assembled till the thirtieth year of Constantine Epist Praef. Marâ—ot Constantius and Albinus being Consuls which agrees with the three hundred thirty fifth year of our Saviour according to Baronius's Computation Athanasius his Banishment is plac'd the year after Constantine dyes the year ensuing and presently after his death Athanasius is recall'd Baronius places his return in the year 338 but Valesius proves from the style of Constantine junior's Letter in the behalf of Athanasius who was then but Caesar that Athanasius return'd the very same year that Constantine dyed So that the twelve or fourteen years do hardly amount to so many Months which I believe was the true writing of Epiphanius and that Years are put in instead of Months by the mistake of the Copies Theodoret computes his Banishment to be two whole Years and Baronius follows him There are several other things in the same Author no less absurd as that Athanasius is charged with the murther of Arsenius in Constantine's time that Eusebius baptized Valens the Emperour though Eusebius was dead many years before Valens came to the Empire that Constantine was the Son of Valerian that George was put into Athanasius's place in the time of his first Banishment that Achillas succeeded Alexanaer in the See of Alexandria Dallè l. 4. de Imagin p. 394. Epiphanius planè aliter Schisma Meletianum narrat quam rei veritas poscebat and many other such Oversights in History and one would wonder so great a man as Epiphanius could be guilty of or that any one that pretends to Church-History should follow him in those gross mistakes which they may correct out of any Historian that does but make mention of the same things and Times Mr. B. strangely confounds Gregory and George the Arrian Bishops of Alexandria for page 47 he tells us That when Constans had compell'd his Brother Constantius to restore him Athanasius he was again banish'd For George that had been made Bishop by the Arrians and by Constantius was kill'd by the Heathen People in Julian's time and his Corps burnt and the ashes scatter'd into the Wind which increased the suspition of Tyranny against Athanasius I hope George's murther in Julian's time did not bring Athanasius into suspition of Tyranny under Constantius But pag. 62. Sect. 45. this George is call'd Gregory Gregory the Bishop being as is aforesaid murther'd by the Heathen and burnt to ashes We no where read that this Gregory was either murder'd or burn't but that he was turn'd out of the See of Alexandria because he was odious to all and to the Arrians themselves and that George Socr. l. 2. c. 14. who was afterwards murther'd was put in his place Where he says Constans compell'd his Brother Constantius to restore Athanasius he mistakes Constans for his Brother Constantine who was the Author of Athanasius his first restauration for it was long after his first banishment and after the Council of Sardica that Constans threatned his Brother with War if he did not restore Athanasius and Paul into their Churches Page 48. § 4. He gives an account of the Heresie of Arrius and I think heartily condemns him if these words be his own He that denies the Deity of Christ denies his Essence and he that denies his Essence denies Christ and is no Christian Yet he excuses this Doctrine in comparison of Socinianism and that very justly At last after a short sum of the Arrian Doctrine he concludes this was the dangerous Heresie of Arrius I must confess he is so much given to Figures that I can't tell whether he be in earnest here or speaks only Ironically but sure I am that what he sayes in the next Paragraph is very much to the disadvantage of the Doctrine of the Trinity And to say truth Petavius has done it no great kindness by his Defence of it 'T is true that some of the Fathers before the Nicene Council seem'd to speak sometimes in favour of that Doctrine which was afterwards taken up by the Arrians but that they did cadem sentire is more than ought to be granted Before some Controversies have been started men have spoke less warily whom afterwards Disputation has brought to be more Cautious in their Expressions Dallè de usu Patr Dallè makes the Ancient Fathers to be of little Use in the Controversies between us and the Papists because though they may seem to favour sometimes one side sometimes another yet they speak loosly and without any regard to our Controversies which were not then in being Several Passages extolling Communion with the Bishop of Rome were little intended to set him up for an infallible Judge and others speaking with great Veneration of the Eucharist may seem to favour Transubstantiation c. If any such Opinion had then been in the Church their words in probability had been more decisive It is a commendable Charity of Mr. B. to say that it is enough to believe those Fathers to be saved p. 49. though we may not believe them to be without Errour Though that Errour by his confession is very dangerous as implying a denial of Christ yet he adds that God is merciful and requires not knowledge of all alike ibid. But for my part I believe they do
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