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
to reckon only since the Reformation for if a man be not blind he may see that this worshipful Church History is only design'd against Protestant Bishops under a general name They I suppose will receive ample Testimony from the Government of their faithfulness and Loyalty How many acts of Oblivion have been made for Bishops and their Party Where were they seen encouraging Rebels against their Prince with the hopes of Salvation What Reign have they disturb'd here with their Seditions or whose Government were they enemies to unless it were that of a Rebellious piece of a Parliament and Oliver Cromwel and his Son the David and Solomon of Mr. Baxter But Loyalty has hitherto been the greatest crime of our Bishops and long may they continue to fear God and the King more than the Insolence of any faction and I pray God they may always preserve Inviolable that great Treasure committed to them and the greatest next that of the Faith the honour of the most Loyal Church in the World Now although the Bishops of the Church of England since the Reformation need no defence in this particular the merit of their Loyalty being so well known and what other Bishops may do does not concern us yet because in this Treatise I have undertaken the defence of the Primitive Church and by consequence of our own it will be necessary to add something upon this subject by way of answer to such particulars as Mr. B. has brought together to shew the seditious Practices of the Bishops The first thing he takes to task Treatise of Episcop part c. 22. is an old Maxim of King James no Bishop no King which is represented here as if the Bishops were the Authors of it and if the Presbyterian had say'd no Prebyters no King you would have taken it for Treasonable as if they had threatned that the King shall not be King unless they may have their way and shall not the King be King unless you may be Bishops It is well for the Bishops that none of them was Author of that Dangerous saying else I perceive it might bear an impeachment and prove by little management at least Constructive Treason but the Authority of a King may excuse him of Treason against himself though the Scotch Presbyterians have declared him a Traytor to Jesus Christ and the Holy Kirk And surely that King had some reason to say it for it is not likely he should pass such a complement upon the Bishops and make them so necessary to Monarchy if he had not found some great suitableness in this Church government to that of the State The truth is that saying of King James was the Result of a long experience of a Turbulent Seditious ungovernable Presbytery in Scotland and how little he was a King while he was among them the Historians of those times as Spotswood Johnston and others do sufficiently shew Or if you would have a more particular description of the Insolencies and enchroachments of that Presbyterian Clergy look into the Burden of Isscahar and you will soon find reason enough for this Maxim But Mr. B. goes about gravely to Confute this as an affected fiction without proof Ch. H. p. 2. â— 2 c. 22. For 1. Heathen Emperors were without Bishops 2. follows the insinuation of Treason 3. What is in the nature of the Thing to Warrant this assertion They owne every Text and Article for Monarchy as well as Prelacy c. and the same reason Holland and Venice must have no Bishops Would not a man wonder that any one should make so great a stir about such a little saying Suppose it is not absolutely impossible but Kings may be without Bishops or Presbyters either what then Why then King James was mistaken in his Politicks when he said No Bishop no King There is no necessity of that neither for all Maxims in Morality and Policy are not to be used so unmercifully as to be judged according to the rigour of the letter He spoke this with regard to his own experience and his own case and the Anti-Episcopal men made his words good by destroying Bishops first and the King after when this or that sort of men is made either necessary or destructive to government the meaning is that either their Principles or Practices or interest do either support and assure or else overthrow and endanger the State and that their practices upon all occasions are generally suitable to their principles This will be clearer by these instances Popery is generally look'd upon as a Religion destructive of Civil power and not without reason Must there therefore be no government where there is Popery The Kingdoms of France Spain and Poland and several other Countreys do manifest the contrary The Jesuits are look'd upon as the great Incendiarys of the world and that no place can be at peace where they have any influence and yet they are entertain'd in all Popish Countries Is the general charge therefore of Sedition against these false and groundless No such matter Suppose then among Christians one should say with regard to us no Protestants no King I suppose there would be no such mighty absurdity in it Therefore if the Principles of those that were Anti-Episcopal were look'd upon by that wise King as Anti-Monarchical too and the Doctrine of the Bishops was much more safe to the Government it was ground enough for the saying And now to vindicate those Primitive Bishops from the imputation of Sedition that he has charg'd in this chapter with desturbing the Church and the world The first thing Mr. B. lays to the charge of Bishops is the Usurpation of Popish Prelacy Do you not know saith he that where Prelacy is at the highest there Kings and Emperors have been at the lowest Do you not know how the Papal Prelacy at present usurpeth one part of their Government and is ready to take away the other when ever Kings displease them c. Is it the Bishop or the Papist that is here to blame Is this the effect of their Order or of those pernicious principles they have inbib'd If it was the fault of the Bishops then we must find the same practice in other Ages or if the Popish Bishops are dangerous to Government are their Presbyters less to be fear'd The Jesuits before our Civil Wars us'd all the interest they had to prevent sending of Popish Bishops into England It was not I suppose out of any great affection to us or regard to the Peace of the Kingdom but because they thought Bishops unnecessary since Priests and Jesuits could do more mischief without them But the same reason that renders Popish Priests and Bishops so dangerous to Government renders the Presbyterians so too But first let us examine Mr. B.'s instances of more ancient Episcopal Sedition The first is at Alexandria in the time of Theophilus and Cyril which I have consider'd already I need say no more here than 1. That the Alexandrians
separation twenty years before seems to have made the first step towards this Congregational way Brown in the column intituled the state of Christians 50. Art 51. but he speaks of it something more obscurely Who have the grace and office of watching and guiding The Answer is Some have this Charge together which cannot be sundred Some have their several charge over many Churches some have charge but in one Church only 52. How have some their charge and office together Ans There be Synods or the meetings of sundry Churches where the weaker Churches seek for help to the stronger for deciding or redressing of matter or else the stronger look to them for redress Who have their several charge over many Churches Ans Apostles Prophets Helpers or Evangelists Nor does he determine whether any may succeed to this general inspection or no. Those that followed delivered themselves with greater clearness upon this point Confer with Egerton p. 43. Collection of certain Art 1590. Art 11. Barrow and Greenwood make all Ecclesiastical power to belong to every Congregation and call the Bishops Antichristian because they take upon them to oversee so many Pastors and Churches And in another treatise where they answer this Question whether the Queen may be excommunicated by the Presbyterie they say That they detest the power of any Person or Presbytery usurping Authority over the Church No Presbytery can do any thing of this kind without the consent of the whole Congregation but That the Congregation whereof the Prince is may Excommunicate him Ainsworth went the same way and declared himself in these words Ains Communion of Saints c. 24. We find no Authority committed to our Congregation over another for Excommunicating the same as every Church has over her own members Christ reserveth this power in his own hands Barrow affirms Bar. Refuttat of Gifford 137. that ordinary set Synods are as prejudicial to the Rights of the Church as the other i.e. Diocesan Episcopacy But Johnson was the first that cleared this point and treated of it particularly Johns Christian Plea Treat 3. He layes down two things as the foundation of Church Government and Unity 1. That all particular Churches with their Pastors do stand immediately under Jesus Christ their Arch Pastor without any other strange Ecclesiastical Power and Authority interposed between Whether of Prelates or their unlawful usurping Synods 2. That notwithstanding the estate and distinction aforesaid Treat 3. c. 6. p. 261.262 c. yet all the Churches and Ministers of them should be alwayes ready to advise and assist one another and in this manner might be had a lawful and profitable use of Synods classes c. Provided they do not usurp any unlawful jurisdiction or power over particular Churches This man goes yet farther and maintains Congregational Episcopacy and shews out of several places of Scripture and antiquity That there may be in a particular Church one Pastor or Angel of the Church properly and specially so called and divers teachers and ruling Elders joyned to this Pastor in the Ministry and Government of the same Church who may all of them generally be called Pastors yet so as one be specially distinguished from the rest in respect of place and function to be the Pastor so more particularly called under Jesus Christ the Arch Pastor Never did copy agree more exactly with the Original than Mr. Baxters doctrine about Church Government with this of Johnson the Brownist Vt sit tam fimilis sibi nec ipse It is easier to find a difference between Mr. B. and himself upon other occasions than to discern the least disagreement between him and Johnson in this Robinson whom Baylie makes the Father of the Independents though he left some tenets of the Brownists Diss p. 17. Robins Apol p. 17. continued still a separation in the Sacraments and Discipline and was as much for this Congregational way as any of the Brownists In his Apology he declares That every particular Congregation is intire without any relation to other Churches as Peter or Paul are perfect men without respect to others that these Congregations are Independent and under Christ only Therefore the Ancient bounds which the Apostles have laid are not to be removed under pretence of any human Prudence Antiquity or Vnity Upon this foundation the Independent Churches were built and continue to this day which though they may differ in points of Doctrine as their Pastors or leading men may be inclined yet this constitution of Government gives them a common Denomination And now having given this account of the Original of this way at leastwise in these last times the higher Antiquity of it we shall consider elsewhere I shall in the next place give some account of the success of this form of Government and shew what fruits of Peace and Truth it has yielded since its first planting by the Brownists Robert Brown Schoolmaster in Southwark Baylie diss Ch. 1. having seduced out of the Communion of the Church of England such a number of Disciples as made up a congregation for fear lest the severity of our Laws might dissipate this new Church resolved to remove it to a place of greater liberty and accordingly perswaded his followers to transport themselves and families into Middleborough Here they had not been long but they began to be shaken with intestine discords G. Johns Letter to Fran. Johns George Johnson sayes It was in great measure occasioned by Browns Wife and other Women of that banished Church which caused a mortal feud between Brown and Harison and some said it was the occasion of Harison 's death It was also the cause of Excommunicating Perriman And this new fashion'd Church in short broke all to pleces most turning Anabaptists and Brown at last seeing himself deserted returned with tears in his eyes into the Unity of the Church Conformed and was preferred to a living The next Congregation that was formed under this rule was by F. Johnson Diss p. 14. for Barrow was hanged before he could fill his Church and this finding the air of the English Government not to agree with it followed its Pastor to Holland and setled at Amsterdam a kind Soil for a young and tender sect But this Colony had no better success than that of Brown for in a little while it was diminished by the falling away of several to the Anabaptists who were Excommunicated by the Congregation they deserted But the dissensions that were raised among themselves afflicted them yet more for G. Johnson having disobliged his Brothers Wife by reproving her for the vanity of her Apparel and cited a Text of Scripture for it when he was candidate for the place of a Pastor in conjunction with his Brother G. Johnson discourse of some troubles c. 1603. was required to recant his Doctrine against fine Cloaths he on the other side drew Articles of Impeachment against the Busk Stomacher and Sleeves c.
said to be sent in the name of the Church in General as the Church of Jerusalem sent John and Peter to Samaria Act. 8. In like matter the Church sent Barnabas to Antioch v. 11. But now it seems they come from James and the Acts of the Church pass in the name of the Bishop only although after this we find this Style to vary again and sometimes the Church of such a place sends to another without the mention of the Bishop though the letter be pen'd by the Bishop himself as the inscription of Clemens his Epistle to the Corinthians does inform us and Iastly as the authority of James appears by sending to the Church of Antioch so it does likewise from his speech in the Council of Jerusalem where he seems to preside and determines the question in dispute Act. 5. in the name of the whole Assembly All this consider'd together with the Testimonies of Hegesippus and Clemens there can be as little doubt that Dâ—ocesan Episcopacy was setled by the Apostles in the Church of Jerusalem as there is of any thing that is not expresly set down in Scripture and it cannot be deni'd without resecting the most Authentick records of Church History It is to be confess'd that the Scriptures have not left so full and perfect account of the constitution and Government of the first Churches as might be wish'd for the Acts of the Apostles the only Scripture History of those time relate mostly the victories of Christian Religion how several Cities were converted By what miracles by what Argument or exhortation but before the Holy Pen-man comes to give an account of the settlement of those new Conquests he carries away the Reader from thence to follow the Apostles to some other place where they begin to lay the Foundations of another Church Thus we have no more notice of the Churches of Samarid and of Judea Jerusalem excepted than that such were founded by the Apostles but of their Government and constitution we are not the least information and the prospect left of Antioch in Scripture is very confus'd as of a Church in fieri where a great number of Eminent persons labour'd together to the building of it up but after what form does not appear but only from Ecclesiastical Writers Eusel l. 3. c. 22. Chronnon Chrysost Orat. de Ignatio who report that this Church when it was setled and digested was committed to the Government of Evodius and after him to Ignetius and the succeeding Bishops Nevertheless we are not left destitute of all light in this particular even from the Scriptures the History of St. Paul as it is deliver'd by St. â—â—ke in the Acts of the Apostles and by himself scatteringly in his own Epistles informing us in some measure of the from of the Primitive Church Government in the Apostles times This Apostle of the Gentiles did commonly use this method informing those Churches he had converted as may be seen by consulting the Citations in the Margin When he came to any place where the Gospel had not been preached and he did not affect much to build upon another was foundation He preached first in the Synâ—gogues of the Jews Rom. 15.20 1 Cor. 3.10 Acts 9.20 13 14. Acts 13.46 and if they rejected the grace of God he turn'd to the Gentiles Assoon as he had converted a competent number he took care to improve them in the knowledge of the truth 1 Cor. 3.2 and for that purpose taught them constantly either at his own house Acts 28.30.19.9.20.20 or at some publick School as that of Tyrannus or any other convenient place where a good number might assemble together These converts as they were made Partakers of the same common Doctrine and Faith so they were to be perpetually united by a Communion in worship in Prayer and the Sacrament for it was not with the School of the Apostles as with those of this World Acts. 11.26 Heb. 10.25 which the Disciples leave when they conceive themselves to have learn'd what they came for But there was an obligation upon all these Scholars to Assemble themselves together Rom. 12.5 1 Cor. 12.13.12.22 Phil. 2.12 till they came to a perfect man which was not consummated till after this life Nor was the Relation between Christians dissolved when the Congregation was dissmiss'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origâ—câ—â—â— â—â—s 1.8 in fine but they were united farther into one Society or Corporation into a holy City under the Government of Christ their King and under Apostles and such other Officers of his and their appointment and so far to act and determine all things within themselves that they were not to appear before any Heathen Magistrate upon any difference but to referr it to the Brethren or to the Apostle under whose direction they were Thus far we may consider a Church without any other Officer than the Apostle who converted them but their numbers increasing in that place and much of his time being taken up in disputing with and preaching to unbelievers and gainsayers or this Apostle being call'd away to preach the Gospel in other places Acts 9.29.17.17.19.8 9. it was necessary to ordain such Church Officers as might take care of this Church in the Doctrine and Discipline of it 6.4 Acts 14.23 Phil. 2.12.20.17 and others to take care of the poor lest that Office taking up much time might be a hinderance to those who were to guide the Assembly in Doctrine and Worship Now this constitution does not take away the relation that was between this Church and the Apostle that founded it and these Officerâ— act in subordination to him whether present or absent and St. Paul therefore looks upon himself as the Apostle or Bishop of the Corinihians though he could not hold personal Communion with them 1 Cor. 5.3 Acts 15.36 for sometimes he goes a Circular visitation to examine the State of those Churches which he had planted or if the distance and oceasions of that Church where he resided or his imprisonment and other outward Circumstances would not admit this personal visitation he sends his letters and orders what is to be done If any open Scandal be permitted he sends his Excommunication to be publish'd in that Church whereof the offender was a member 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Cum meo spiritu quipro me erat praesens sive in mearum literarum authoritate Hieroâ— he judges as though he were present he orders that when they are met together in his spirit they would deliver the Criminal to Satan And because some of the Teachers in the Church of Corinth began to set up themselves in opposition to the Apostle taking advantage of his absence 1 Cor. 4.18 19.9.1 2.5.19 and using all means to lessen him in the esteem of that people he is forced to assert his Authority and to justifie his Title to let them know that he was their Father their Apostle and that they
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
made most for his defence and taking that part which was most liable to Exception The Leading men says he lead us on as simple ignorant men that knew not the cause and frighted us by defaming us as Nestorian Hereticks Thus Mr. B. But the most considerable circumstances are omitted for Theodore says they were impos'd upon at first by such Acts as seem'd to speak favourably of Flavian that afterwards they were threatned by Dioscorus his party not only making them of near kin with Nestorius but adding Cut them in sunder that say two natures dividite interficite ejicite cleave them kill them cast them out They were forty two of one hundred and thirty which made up that Council who dissented from Dioscorus and his party at first but could have no free debate and these with this violent usage were soon reduc'd to fifteen and they at last were forc'd to subscribe a blank paper to save not only their Churches but their lives And Thus says Mr. B. they cry'd they were frighted p. 101. And surely they had great reason to be so Such as though it could not justifie them for acting against their Conscience yet might move pity in men that have any compassion of humane infirmity considering that they also are subject to the like let him that standeth have a care lest he fall The Egyptian Bishops answered that a Christian fears no man a Catholick Orthodox fears no man if men were fear'd there would be no Martyrs It is much easier to say than hold There have several gone to discover themselves to the Heathen Judges with the intention and confidence of Martyrs p. 101. that were yet so frighted as to renounce their Religion before they came away Upon the reading of the Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus it appear'd how things were carried Mr. B. makes the best use he can of them to disgrace the Bishops the first thing he takes notice of is Dioscorus his words Anathematizing any that should contradict or retract any thing held in the Nicence Synod There is a foul mistake for want of a little Latin and a little ingenuity for Dioscorus says not one word of contradicting or retracting the Council of Nice All the debate was whether the Council of Nice had explain'd the faith fully so as to need no farther authentick explication The Synod is for this and will have no Additions and let him be Anathema 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that goes beyond the bounds given by the Fathers and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let no man add or diminish Dioscorus adds what a fearful thing it will be to offend against God in this particular and that he is Anathema that shall presume to examine or discuss or revise the faith agreed on in the Council of Nice or here The Latin Translator has indeed retractat which Mr. B. translates retract as if it were the recantation of what was done in this Council that they provided against But the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. Labb T. 4. p. 32. Examining of a thing anew and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyn'd with it So that as to this point they were all agreed and so in the succeeding Councils likewise that nothing was to be added to the Nicene faith but since new opinions were daily started they might examine whether they agreed with that faith and did not directly or consequentially destroy it and all this does not add any thing but only apply emergent cases to the old unalterable Rule Here Eutyches his confession at Ephesus was read p. 101. sect 18. saith our Author But as we have mention'd before in the Council of C. P. under Flavian it was only the Nicene Creed without those additions that it afterwards generally receiv'd in opposition to Apollinaris and Macedonius c. How far this may secure the Church from Heresie the multitude of Heresies that sprung after whereof the greater part would willingly be try'd by the Nicence Creed do sufficiently shew Eutyches adds Ch. Hist p. 101. that he cleav'd to the Ephesine Council and to Cyril who presided disclaiming all additions and alterations professing that he had himself Copies in a book which Cyril himself had sent him and which is yet in his hands and that he stands to the definition of that Council together with that of Nice One may very well ask here what all this means What is this that Eutyches disclaims all additions to and alterations of What Copies are these that Eutyches had by him and what definition of that Council does he join with that of Nice Here is nothing but nonsense and confusion The case is thus Eutyches gave the Nicene Creed for his faith and acknowledg'd the Council of Ephesus and Cyril and farther adds that Cyril and the Council of Ephesus pass'd a decree that nothing should be added to the Nicene Creed and that he had a Copy of that decree by him Eusebius Doryl gives him the lye and says there was no such decree past The Truth is such a thing there was and is still extant in the Acts of that Council but not altogether to that purpose Conc. Lab. T. 3. p. 689. for which Eutyches does mention it The design of that decree is only this that the Nicene Creed shall be the only publick form and that no other be taught to such as are Converted from Jews or Hereticks or Infidels but that this form should stand unalter'd which is no more than if we should determine that no Article should be added to that which is call'd the Apostles Creed which is the common form of our solemn confession of faith and that no Bishop or Minister should devise new forms to be us'd in its stead This is the design of that Decree and Cyril could mean no otherwise for if any one should teach new doctrines that might not be absolutely contradictory to the express words of that Creed yet he should be condemn'd though he still own'd that Confession of Faith Nestorius his case was of that sort and therefore the Synod says Con. Eph. Act. 6. T. 3. p. 671. that since several do shelter themselves under the generals of this Creed and put their own construction upon the Articles they were to be confuted out of the Fathers and so Nestorius was condemn'd notwithstanding he profess'd to receive the Nicene Creed Our Author goes on p. 102. sect and tells his Reader When Basil Bishop of Seleucia is reproach'd by Dioscorus for having prevaricated and despis'd the saith for the fear of men He makes this Answer If I have been call'd to Martyrdome before the Judges I had endured it Act. 1. but he that is judged of a Father useth just means it is the contrary which that Bishop says justis non utitur does not make use even of all lawful means to vindicate himself After this the Eastern Bishops cry'd We have all sinned we all crave pardon and
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
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
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