not the only Bishop that had such a large Diocess for St. Chrysostom had one full as large and which contained as many Parishes he was Bishop of Constantinople and all the Territories thereto belonging and did not think it in his Conscience too large for if he did so good a Man as he would either have divided or quitted it And Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria and the Territories belong to it for he says Ap. p. 781 802. Maoretis is a Region belonging to Alexandria and all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria But because Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter Mr. Cotton and the rest have made choice of the Church of Carthage in Africk in St. Cyprian's time to make their appeals to Dr. Stillingfleet to avoid all Cavils as he tells us has chosen that very Church to be decided by as to the Episcopal Government now in dispute between us And therefore first he proves that there were a great number of Presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage at that time and therefore not likely to be one single Congregation And this he proves out of St. Cyprian's own Epistles in his Banishment Particularly in his 5 th Book Ep. 28. he complains that a great number of his Clergy were absent and the few that remain'd were hardly sufficient for their Work And that these Presbyters and the whole Church were under the particular care and government of St. Cyprian as their Bishop appears by his own words Lib. 3. Ep. 10 and 12. to the People of Carthage he complains to them of his Presbyters that they did not reserve to their Bishop that honour due to his place for that they received Penitents to Communion without Imposition of Hands by the Bishop c. And in his Epist 28. he threatens to Excommunicate those Presbyters that should do so for the future And all the other Bishops gave their approbation to St. Cyprian for so doing And the same St. Cyprian in his 3 Book Ep. 65. tells them that a Bishop in the Church is in the place of Christ and that Disobedience to him is the occasion of Schisms and Disorders See more fully concerning this matter in Dr. Stillingfleet's Mischiefs of Separation p. 228 229. c. And now since Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter and the rest have agreed to appeal to the Church of Carthage we must suppose they allow no Deviations in that Church from the Primitive Institution and what that was then any one may judge And St. Augustine was another Bishop in the African Church he was Bishop of Hippo Regia the Diocess of which extended at least Forty Miles as appears by St. Augustine's own Epist 262. 'T is true the African Church came most near the Congregational way of any other the Diocess being smaller by reason of the many Sectaries there the Donatists and many others And that is the Reason Mr. Baxter and the rest express so great an Esteem for it But that their Bishopricks were much too large to serve either the Presbyterians or Independents turn and that they never allowed more than one Bishop in the largest Cities sufficiently appears by what has been said And in the African Code there is a Canon that says expresly no Bishop shall leave his Cathedral Church and go to any other Church in his Diocess to reside there See Codex Eccl. Africae c. 71. Which shows that the Bishops Territories and Jurisdiction extended into distant Places from the City as well in the African Churches as in others I shall only add to this that Calvin look'd upon it as a Thing out of dispute among Learned Men that a Church did not only take in the Christians of a City in the Primitive Times but of the adjacent Country also See Calv. Instit l. 4. c. 4. n. 2. But though there were never more than one Bishop in a City in the Primitive Church * V. Conc. Eph. Part 2. Act. 1. yet some Bishops have had Two or more Cities in their Diocess Timothy was Bishop of Farmissus and Eudocias Athanasius was Bishop of Diveltus and Sozopolis And there have been some Bishopricks that have had no City at all in them but only Villages for there were some Countries that had no Cities in them so have we at this Day Bishops in Ireland and Wales that have no Cities in their Diocess But it cannot be prov'd that the Jurisdiction of the Bishop and the extent of his Diocess was confin'd to any single Village So far from that that by the Canon of Sardica VI. all the Bishops Assembled at Sardica agree That it shall by no means be lawful to Ordain any Bishops in Villages or small Cities that the Dignity of a Bishop may not be contemptible from the meanness of the Place But says Mr. Clarkson and the rest The Apostles Ordain'd Elders in every Church and then Mr. Clarkson names the places to wit Antioch Iconium Lystra and other Villages and these Elders or Presbyters they will have Bishops But first I say That during the Apostle's days the names Bishop and Presbyter were commonly used the one for the other but not after as shall be show'd hereafter and therefore these Elders or Presbyters here spoken of may be as well taken for ordinary Presbyters or Priests as for Bishops But allowing these Presbyters were Bishops what advantage will it be to them for first it does not appear that the Apostles confin'd their Authority to those places but the contrary is evident and unless they can prove this it will not serve their turn But Secondly these Cities over which the Apostles appointed Elders were large Cities at that time by much too great to come together in one Congregation Iconium was then a Metropolitan and had many other Cities under it And the rest were all large Cities But before I conclude this point I must make one Observation and that is That Mr. Clarkson to prove that a Bishop of a City had no more but one Congregation undertakes to shew how small some Cities were but 't is remarkable he quotes for his Authority some Author who speaks of them long before there were any Bishops and because they might have been small places then will needs have them to be so in the days of the Apostles which is very ridiculous for under the Roman Emperours both the Roman and the Grecian Cities were at their height and did very much surpass both for their magnificence and number of people any that have been before or since nor is this to be wonder'd at since our Cities do now stand upon much narrower Foundations as to their constitution our Cities have seldom any Liberties half a mile beyond their Walls and are generally but an Assembly of Trades-men whereas the Roman Cities had each a Territory as it were a County belonging to it which was under the jurisdiction of the City Magistrate and the Citizens were the Lords of the adjacent Country I have now shew'd that the Government of
Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. 14. But Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase on this Text says That these Presbyters here spoken of who ordain'd Timothy were Apostles That Timothy was ordain'd by St. Paul is most evident for St. Paul in his Second Epistle to Timothy ch 1. v. 6. says I put thee in mind that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the laying on of my hands And the Apostles might then have been likely enough call'd Presbyters for that during the Apostles time Bishops and Presbyters were the same and sometimes us'd the one for the other as appears plainly by comparing 1 Tim. 4. 14. with 2 Tim. 1. 6. In the former Verse St. Paul bids Timothy Neglect not the gift that is in him by laying on the hands of the Presbyters And in the latter he bids him Stir up the gift of God which is in you by the laying on of my hands For while the Apostles liv'd they manag'd the Affairs of Government in the Church themselves and therefore there were few or no Bishops in their days but as they withdrew they committed the Care and Government of Churches to such Persons as they appointed thereto of which we have an uncontroulable Evidence in Timothy and Titus So that although the Apostles left no Successors in Eodem gradu as to those things that were extraordinary in them as the Infallibility of their Doctrine and the writing New Gospels the Extent of their Power c. yet to other parts of their Apostolick Office they had Successors as in Teaching and Governing and such like things that were not extraordinary Which Power of Governing Ordaining c. being given to such particular Presbyters as the Apostles thought fit for it was properly the Episcopal Power And thus these who were but Presbyters in the Apostles days by the accession of this governing and ordaining Power became Bishops after their Decease or Departure And thus will all those seeming Differences between the words Presbyter and Bishop spoken of in Antiquity be reconcil'd And herewith agrees the Opinion of Archbishop Whitgift and Bishop Bilson and Dr. Stillingfleet in his Mischiefs of Separation p. 270. and many others See King Charles I. his Debates about Episcopacy more fully concerning this Matter But 't is plain that since the Apostles days Presbyters were not Bishops but a distinct Order from them And this is agreed by most Ancient and Modern Writers See among others Ignatius his Epistle ad Trall where he says That without Bishops Priests and Deacons it cannot be call'd a Church And Aerius who declar'd that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter was represented by Epiphanius as a Prodigy and his opinion Madness See Epiph. Haer. 74. n. 1. 3. So Ischyrus pretended to be a Presbyter because Coluthus had ordain'd him but Athanasius represents it as a Monster that one shou'd esteem himself a Presbyter who was ordain'd by one who died himself a Presbyter See Dr. Maur. Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy p. 451. And in the Primitive Church if a Bishop himself did Ordain any one against the Canons and Establish'd Discipline of the Church they did not stick at declaring such Ordination void and in some Cases to re-ordain See Can. Nicen. 9 10. 16. 19. and Can. Antioch 73. 10 c. What Sentence shall we think then they wou'd have pronounc'd against our Presbyterian Ordination as practis'd here in England contrary both to the Canons of the Church and the Laws of the Land too But besides all this the Plea which our Dissenters make for Separation upon this account that the Presbyters are totally depriv'd of their Power of Ordaining is false For by the Canons of the Church of England Four Presbyters are to assist the Bishop in giving Orders and after Examination to joyn in laying on of hands on the Person ordain'd See Can. 31. and 35. But another Objection which they make to the Church of England for want of Discipline is for that the Power of Excommunicating Notorious Offenders is taken away from the Parochial Minister and lodg'd only in the Bishop But sure they who make this Objection never read the 26th Canon which is one of them acknowledg'd to be the Authentick Church Canons For that Canon says expresly That no Minister shall admit any of his Flock to the Lâ—â—d's Supper who is known to be guilty 〈…〉 Scandalous Sin until he hath openl◠〈◊〉 that he has truly repented And 〈◊〉 â—ase the Offender continue obstinate he must give an account to the Ordnary within 14 Days who is then to proceed to greater Excommunication for the other is call'd a Penitential Excommunication So then it seems the Pastors are not totally depriv'd of the Power of censuring for Scandalous offences nay they have a greater and more absolute Power than is allow'd them in many other Reform'd Churches for indeed the exercise of Discipline is a Work of so much Prudence and Difficulty that the greatest Zealots for it have not thought fit to trust it in the Hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation Calvin himself says to do so is contrary to the Apostolick Practice See Calv. Ep. 136. And Beza speaking of the Discipline of Geneva in his Ep. 20. says The Parochial Ministers proceed no farther than Admonition but in case of Contumacy they certifie the Presbytery of the City who sit at certain times to hear all Censures relating to Discipline But allowing a Church wants true Discipline does it therefore lose its Being or justifie Separatio◠〈…〉 sure if so there were few 〈◊〉 Churches to be found in the 〈◊〉 many of them having no Discipâ—â—â—â— aâ— all among them for many years nor so much as the Lord's Supper administred in some parts of this Kingdom for ten or a dozen years together But now we come to the 4th Objection against the Constitution of our Church which is That the People are depriv'd of their right of choosing their own Ministers Pray let me ask them how this Original and inherent Right as Mr. Baxter calls it of choosing their own Ministers came to be lodg'd in the People Was there not a Church to be form'd in the beginning Did not Christ appoint Apostles and give them Authority for that end Where was the Church Power then lodg'd Was it not in the Apostles Did not they in all places as they planted Churches appoint Officers to teach and govern them And were not then the Pastors invested with a Power superior to that of the People How came they then to lose it â—or how came the People to pretend an original Right thereto Besides How cou'd the People make choice of Men for their fitness and abilities when at that time their abilities depen◠〈…〉 on the Apostles laying on of 〈◊〉 â—ands for then the Holy Ghost 〈…〉 them It seems then that this 〈◊〉 and inherent Right was not in the People in the Apostles days nor in the first Ages of the Church for if it had St.
the Church by Diocesan Bishops is agreeable to the practice of the best and purest Ages of the Church and to the Judgment of the wisest and holiest Fathers of it And that their Power and Jurisdiction was as absolute and extended as far or farther than any Bishops this day in England I shall shew hereafter that Episcopal Government as now settled in England has been and is at this day commended and approved of by all the most Eminent Divines beyond Seas Perhaps some may say if the Government of the Church by Diocesan Bishops be so agreeable to that of the Primitive Church and approved of by other reform'd Churches as we pretend it is how comes it that they all did not follow the pattern of England and become all Diocesan Churches I answer They may as well ask us Why all the Nations of the World that were subject to the Roman Emperors did not upon the decay of the Roman Empire when they resum'd their just Rights of Government to themselves become all Monarchies according to the Pattern of England Some Nations besides England Ireland and Scotland did assume Episcopal Government as Denmark Sweden c. but perhaps it was not consistent with the present Circumstances or Politick Constitution of all places at the time of the Reformation to set up Episcopal Government as indeed it was not And therefore since neither Episcopal nor any other particular kind of Government is so essential to a Church as that a true Church may not be without it in case of indispensible Necessity they put themselves some under one Form of Government some under another as was most agreeable to their present constitution but with this Caution every where That all Protestants of every whole Church be the Government what it will should be oblig'd to Conform to the Establish'd Church in which they liv'd For though every National or whole Church had a Power to chuse what kind of Government they pleased for themselves yet 't was never allow'd that particular scrupulous People among themselves had Power to do so too This Power of subdividing was never pretended to nor practis'd in any other Nation since the Reformation but in England So that though they do all allow the Antiquity and Usefulness of Episcopal Government yet since 't is not Essential to a true Church no more than that of the Presbyterian or Independent nor convenient at this time for all places some may refuse it and yet it does not follow that we in England should do so since 't is convenient for us and more agreeable to the Laws and Constitution of these Kingdoms and comes by much nearer the Practice of the Primitive Churches than any other whatsoever But they say we make Episcopal Government Essential to a true Church for that we will suffer none to execute the Office of a Minister here in England unless they be ordain'd by a Bishop To this I answer 'T is plain we do not make Episcopal Government Essential to a true Church For we allow all the Reform'd Churches to be true Churches and Communicate with them and yet some of them have no Diocesan Bishops 'T is true by the Laws of this Church and Nation none are to be admitted to execute the Office of a Minister in any Cathedral or Parish Church or Chapel nor to hold any Ecclesiastical Benefice within these Kingdoms but such as are willing to submit to the Orders and Government of this Church and the Laws of the Land And therefore since both the Laws of this Church and Nation do require that all Ministers who desire to serve in this Church shall declare publickly that they assent to and approve of our Form of Worship c. and are willing to use the same as the Church appoints and that they shall receive their Ordination and Licence to execute their Office from the Bishops 'T is but reasonable that such as want these Qualifications shou'd be refus'd the Liberty of executing their Office in these Kingdoms * The Church of England does not say absolutely that all those Ministers who want Episcopal Ordination are no true Ministers but only that none shall be accounted a lawful Bishop Priest or Deacon so as to execute their Function in the Church of England unless they be once Ordain'd by a Bishop as appears by the Preface to the Ordination But the reason we refuse them is not so much because that Presbyterian Ordination does not make them true Ministers according to God's Law as though no instance can be given of Ordination without a Bishop in Scripture or Antiquity but all to the contrary because they stubbornly refuse to submit to our Laws and Constitutions and contemn the lawful Authority under which God has plac'd them and commanded them that they should obey And this is evident from the Statute of 14 Car. 2. In which there is a particular Proviso That all Ministers of Foreign reform'd Churches who come into this Kingdom by the King's Permission are to be excepted out of and excus'd from the Penalties of that Act. And this Custom of requiring Conformity and Subscriptions from all who desire to be admitted to the Office of the Ministry is agreeable to the Practice of every settled Church that has been ever since Christ's days as will appear hereafter The 3d. Objection against the Constitution of our Church is That our * By National Churches are meant the whole Churches of such Nations as upon the decay of the Roman Empire resum'd their just Right of Government to themselves both in Church and State National Church which we call The Church of England has no Foundation and wants Discipline All being incroach'd and swallow'd up in the Bishops and the Pastors of every Parish who ought to have full Power to execute every part of it are depriv'd thereof But this is false for the Presbyters in our Church have as great Power in Ecclesiastical Matters as ever they had in the Primitive Church What Power are they depriv'd of by the Bishops that they had then By the Laws of our Church no Rules of Discipline no Articles of Doctrine no Form of Worship can be introduc'd by the Bishops or impos'd upon any without the consent of the whole Presbytery of the Nation in Convocation who appear either in Person or by Proxy The only Authority that the Bishops of the Church of England have above the Presbytes is Government Ordination and Censures which were all appropriated to the Apostles and Bishops in the Primitive Church St. Cyprian assures us it was so in the African Church in his Third Book Ep. 10. 12. 28. 27. And so it was in St. Augustine's Time See Cod. Eccl. Afr. c. 6 7 9 c. But say they the Power of Ordination is taken away from the Presbyters and lodg'd solely in the Bishops and 't is plain say they in the Apostles days the Presbyters did Ordain for Timothy was ordain'd by laying on the hands of the