Apostles which were those Bishops he had given a Catalogue of before And Lastly speaking of the Bishops to whom the Apostles committed the government of those Churches they had planted he makes them much ancienter than those Hereticks that disturbed the Church and draws an argument from their Apostolick institution and their constant succession in that office against those that brought in new Doctrines Tertullian makes use of the same Argument Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sant Presbyteris obandire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut oftendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma veritatis certum acceperunt l. 7. c. 42. and requires of the Hereticks a succession from the Apostles and Origen speaking of Bishops makes them likewise to succeed the Apostles in their office Omnes enim ii valde posterieres quam Episcopi quibus Episcope Ecclesias tradiderunt In short it was the opinion of all the Ancients And Aerius is looked upon by Epiphanius if not as a Heretick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. yet at least as an innovator for maintaining an equality between Bishops and Presbyters For if the Bishop were only the first Presbyter and the opinion of the Church was at that time that there was no Original difference between the Orders Haeres 75. Epiphanius could not have observed this as a singularity in Aerius therefore the common opinion then being contrary to this notion they must apprehend Episcopacy to be the Apostolical Order derived from the Apostles by a succession First to those Assistants we have been speaking of and from them to the Succeeding Bishops I shall conclude with the testimony of Theodoret whose judgment and knowledg of Ecclesiastical Antiquity was greater than ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also Clemens is said to be an Apostle by Clemens Alexand. Strom. l. 4. He makes Bishops at first to be called Apostles and Presbyters to be called Bishops and from such Apostles as Epaphroditus who was Bishop of Philippi Bishops are descended according to his opinion but that out of modesty the Succeeding Bishops changed the title of Apostles for that of Bishops and this for some time after was common to them with Presbyters though the offices then were manifestly distinct All this considered I cannot but wonder that the conjecture of St. Jerom concerning the Original of Episcopacy against all the sense of Antiquity and the traditions of particular Churches concerning the Succession of their Bishops gathered by Eusebius should obtain not only among the professed Adversaries of that Order but even among many that retain it therefore for a further Confirmation of what we have said concerning the Original of Bishops I shall indeavour to remove that prejudice which the Authority of Jerom has done it who has advanced a singular notion in this particular which I shall first set down as briefly as I can and afterwards examine the grounds of it St Jerom observing the name of Bishop and Presbyter used in Scripture promiscuously and without distinction concludes Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesiae gubernahantur Postquam vero unisquisque eos quos Baptizaverat suos put a bat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus caeteris superponeretur ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum Semina tollerentur Hieron in Titum c. 1. that the Office was not not then distinct but that Bishop and Presbyter were but two names to signifie the same order but when divisions were occasioned in the Church by this parity between the Presbyters the Churches who were governed before by a Colledg of Presbyters for to remedy that evil consented that one should be chosen out of the rest who should be set over them and be called more peculiarly their Bishop to whom the care of the whole Church should appertain that all the seeds and occasions of Schism might be taken away But that St. Paul and the Ancients make Bishops and Presbyters to signifie the same thing This is in short the opinion of St. Jerom I will in the next place examine the ground of it Apud veteres idem Episcopi Presbyteri erant idem Ep. ad Ocean Cum Apostolus perspicue doctat cosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos id Ep. ad Evagr. It is manifest by the allegations of Jerom in defence of his opinion that it was grounded chiefly upon those places of Scripture where Bishops are called Presbyters or Presbyters Bishops and then from the synonomy of the names concludes to an Identity of the Office and then he adds One may perhaps think this to be my sence and not that of the Scripture Phil. 1.1 let him read the Apostles words to the Philippians his salutation of that Church with the Bishops and Deacons which he confirms by Acts 20.27 28. Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 5.1 And now suppose all this is granted that Presbyters are called Bishops and they again Presbyters yet I am afraid it will hardly follow that they are the same and some of those texts cited by St. Jerom are sufficient proofs to the contrary for that of Peter The Elders or Presbyters among you who am my self an Elder 1 Pet. 1.5 if the reasoning of St. Jerom hold will prove likewise that Apostles were no more than ordinary Presbyters and if Peter were but a Presbyter we shall be at a great loss to find any Bishops in Scripture that were superior to Presbyters and to the same purpose Jerom cites those texts of St. John The Elder to the elect Lady 2 John 1. 3 John 1. The Elder to his beloved Gaius which plainly overthrows his Argument for if an Apostle were of an office superior to a Presbyter properly so called and yet is called Presbyter in Scripture then Bishops might be of a superior degree to Presbyters though they might some time be so called or if it be replyed that these Presbyters again are called Bishops it does not alter the case at all for so some Messengers of Churches are called Apostles as Andronicus and Junia who were of note among the Apostles Rom. 16. Besides there were several of the Fathers that observed this Synonomy of Bishop and Presbyter as well as Jerom but could not observe the necessity of his inference that therefore there were then no Bishops but Presbyters Chrysost in Ep. ad Phil. c. 1. Chrysostom confesses the titles were confounded but he takes notice likewise that all other Ecclesiastical titles were so as well as these that Bishops were sometimes called Deacons and that Timothy being a Bishop was commanded to fulfil his ministry or his Deaconship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor did he wonder at this at all since in his own time the Bishops when they wrote to Presbyters or Deacons
owned them as Brethren and called them their fellow Presbyters or fellow Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he did not take at all to derogate from the dignity of their Order no more than the modesty of the Apostles calling themselves Presbyters or Deacons could be a prejudice to the Preheminence of their Apostleship which they took care to vindicate when they were forced to it by the ambition of some teachers that entred into competition with them Theodor. ubi supra in Ep. ad Phil. ad Tim. Tit. Theodoret observ'd the same promiscuous use of Bishop and Presbyter but could yet see that there were Bishops then superior to Presbyters and in that time properly called Apostles The Greek Scholiast Theophylact and Oecumenus saw the same but were still of opinion that the Episcopal office was alwayes distinct from the Presbyters so that the ground upon which Jerom built his conjecture was rejected by the current of Ecclesiastical writers who could discern the preheminence of Bishops above Presbyters notwithstanding the names were confounded And yet this is the foundation upon which that conceit doth wholly stand all Jeroms allegations are to this effect all the additional confirmations of Salmasius and Blondel are no other than from the phrase of some of the Ancients who do not alwayes distinguish between Bishops and Presbyters but speak in the phrase of the Scriptures and yet there is nothing more evident than that at that time when these Authors writ Bishops and Presbyters were distinguished and excepting only Clemens Romanus Blondel and Salmasius do both acknowledg it But to return to Jerom Let us considet the account he gives of the Original of Episcopacy something more particularly Before there were factions in Religion the Church was governed by Presbyters of equal Authority But what factions were these that gave birth to Episcopacy What time was that when the Church was under Presbyterian government He informs us in the following words Before it was said I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas If we understand this according to the letter we must conclude this to be very early For this Epistle to the Corinthians where that division is mentioned was written in the year of Christ 52 And then this notion will do little service against Episcopacy for this will make it of Apostolick institution Besides I do not see how it can be true for the Church was now Governed by Apostles and not by Presbyters and if in most Cities there were no particular Bishop ordained yet it was because the Apostles were their Bishops and visited them to establish good order to ordain officers to punish the disorderly as they had opportunity and when they were not able to be present they sent their orders in writing and exercised Episcopal Authority at a distance But Blondel contends earnestly against the literal understanding of that passage and shews that Jerom could not mean this of the Church of Corinth but of some following Schism that sprung up after the example of this of Corinth His reason is that the passages whereby Jerom confirms his opinion of Bishops and Presbyters being the same were written after that Epistle to the Corinthians I have shewed before how probable it is that Jerom spoke without a figure and I need not repeat it here But these things you will say cannot cannot consist It may be so and it is not certain that Jerom when he wrote this passage did consider in what order of time St. Paul's Epistles were written what if it was an oversight for want of stating the Chronelogy of the New Testament If it be replyed that Jerom a man of that great learning and diligence and particular knowledg also in Chronology as we may conclude from his translating of Eusebius his Chronicon could hardly commit such a mistake It is to be considered that according to Blondels computation who makes him to speak of the second Century he will be as inconsistent with himself for suppose w◠should say that Jerom pointed to the year 135 as the precise time when the Presbyterian Government was changed how shall we reconcile Jerom to himself For in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers he reckons several Bishops long before that time he makes James to be Bishop of Jerusalem statim post Ascensionem presently after the Ascension of Christ He calls Timothy Bishop of Ephesus he makes Anianus to succeed Mark in Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero. How shall we make all these things to consist did he think James to be no more than a simple Presbyter or Timothy could he fansie him to have no superiority over the Elders he was to ordain or to govern it is not possible or shall we say that in these relations he only transcribes out of others and that he does not speak his own opinion Well suppose this Either he must have some Authority for his opinion greater than that of such Authors he follows in that Book or not if he had none why should we believe him against all Antiquity Nay why should we believe so uncharitably of him as that he would deliver those things he did not believe without the least warning to the reader or that he would believe any matter of fact against all the tradition and History of the Church and yet have no Authority for it Or if he had any Authority from Ecclesiastical writers to ground his opinion upon why are they not produc'd Nay we may be assured in this point that he had none from that Catalogue of writers we are speaking of since he had seen none but what Eusebius had seen before him and cites as we have shewed before for the contrary opinion to confirm Episcopacy to be Apostolical and to have begun long before this time which Blondel would have Jerom thought to assign for its Original So that what way soever Jerom be understood of the Original of Episcopacy he is either manifestly inconsistent with himself or with Scripture and Antiquity But his Scripture Authorities you will say do sufficiently prove that Episcopacy was not yet introduced into the Church Nothing less unless they can prove that those Presbyteries were not governed by the Apostle that established them or by some Assistant or Suffragan or unless they can make out that Timothy Titus and divers others of that rank were no more than simple Presbyters After this time whensoever it was St. Jerom adds It was decreed over all the world that one of the Presbyters who governed before in common should be set over the rest In what Church in the whole world was this Decree Registred Who ever heard of it before St. Jerom What general Council passed it What Authority made it Authentick Or by what means did all the Churches in the World agree to this change What was there no opposition made against this alteration of the Apostolical Government What did all the little Ecclesiastick Aristocracies submit without dispute to this innovation We
offering themselves to death he sends them back again desiring them if they had such a passion to dye that they would hang themselves because he had not Executioners enough And at Carthage the number of Christians was so great that they could not have been destroyed without making the City desolate as Tertullian tells Stapula the Governour of the Province If thou shouldest go about to destroy the Christians here what wouldst thou do with so many thousands of people when men and women of all degrees of all ages should offer themselves to the Executioners how many Swords Tertull. l. ad Scap. c. 5. Hoc si placuerit hic furi quid facies de tantis millibus hominum tot viris ac foeminis omnis Sexus omnis â—tatis omnis dignitatis offerentibus se tibi quantis ignibus quantis gladiis opus erit paree tibi si non nobis parce Carthagini si non tibi what fires would be necessary for the Execution of so great a multitude Spare the City by sparing us Nor are we to imagin Carthage to abound more with Christians than the rest of the Empire for the same Author tells us that the whole world was oversprend with Believers and that the Heathen cryed that they had ever run the City and the Country Obsessm vociserantur Civitatem in agris in Castellis in Insulis Christianos omnem sexum 〈◊〉 aâ—â—m dignitatem transgredi ad hoc nomen quasi detrmento moerent Apol. c. 1. and every place was full of Christians that persons of all conditions sexes and age was over to this name Nay so great were their numbers that it was not want of strength but want of will that hindred them from becoming masters of the Empire Loyalty was part of their Religion and that was the reason why they did not force the Government to a Toleration of or a submission to it The barbarous Nations that over-ran the Empire were not near so numerous Plares nimirum Mauri Marcomanni ipsique Parthi omnia vestra implevimus urbes insulas castella municipia contillabula castra ipsa Tribus Decarias Palaâ—ium Senatum forum The Christians had filled all Places their Cities their Towns their Councils their Tribes the Court the Senate and what not and though they had been yet inferiour in number and force yet their contempt of death would render them a very formidable Enemy Nay without Rebellion we might easily ruine our Persecutors should we but withdraw Potuimus inermes nec Rebelles sed tantummodo discordes solius divortii invidia adversus vos dimicasse si enim tanta vis hominum in aliquem orbis remoti sinum abrupissemus à nobis suffudisset vestram dominationem tot qualiumcunque Civium amissio imo etiam ipsa destitutione punisset proculdubio expavissetis ad solitudinem vestram ad silentium rerum stuporem quendam quasi mortuae urbis quaesissâ—tis quibus in ea imperassetis plures bosles quam Civis remansissent nunc autem pauciores hostes habetis prae multitudine Christianorum pene Omnium Civium peâ—e Omnes Cives Christianos habeâ—do Apol. c. 37. and retire to any corner of the World the loss of so many subjects of any kind would unavoidably ruin the Government How you would be astonished at the strange solitude our departure should cause at the silence and stilness of your City as if it had expired by our departure you would be to seek for Subjects to govern and wore enemies than Citizens would remain with you but now your enemies are more inconsiderable by reason of the great multitude of Christians who are your Citizens and almost all your Citizns are Christians And because the Heathens complained that Christian Religion was an enemy to trade and that it would destroy the commerce of the East which depended upon the consumption of Frankincense and Spices in the Temples the Apologist answers that the Arabians sell more for the Christian funerals than they do to the Heathen Temples and the Christian Charity spent more in a street than the Heathen superstition did in a Temple Sciant Sabaei pluris charioris suas merces Christianis sepeliendis profligari quam diis fumigardis Interim plus misericordia nostra insumit vicatim quam vestra Religio Timplatim c. 42. Now the largeness of the Dioceses of those times will appear by comparing the vast multitude of Christians and the small number of Bishops and first no City how great soever had more than one Bishop this is so well known that it would be great impertinence to go about to prove it by instances and I have shewed already how the Fathers were of opinion that there ought to be no more Besides the Bishops of most Cities if not all had a considerable Territory belonging to their jurisdiction which was commonly the Country lying round about their City So Alexandria besides the Ager Alexandrinus which was of very large extent had likewise all the Region called Mareotes containing above an hundred and fifty Villages as Athanasius rightly understood computes them For every Presbyter had ten or more Villages under him Athan. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Singuli autem Presbyteri pâ—â—prios habent pages â—osque maxemos denos interdum aut plâ—res ex bis apparet singulâ—s Mareotice pages non habuisse snum Presbyterum sed unicum Presbyterum denos pages rexisse atque interdum plures Valesius and probably some Assistants or Curates to take care of some of them This Region alwayes belonged to the Diocess of Alexandria and never had as much as a Chorepiscopus But I have before given a particular account of Rome and Alexandria and therefore I shall say no more here than that there being but one Bishop in each of those Cities his Diocess must be very large and contain several distinct Congregations The African Dioceses which Mr. B. fansies to be no bigger than our Parishes were at first very large till the Schism of the Donatists had divided that Church into small pieces the manner and the reason of this change I shall shew in due place and even then it will appear that there were some very large Bishopricks in Africk Carthage in Tertullians time had an infinite multitude of Christians as we have shewed already and Cyprian who was made Bishop there not long after gives us hints enough of the greatness of his Diocess Tempestas maxima ex parts plebem nostram prostravit ita ut cleri portionem sua strage perstringeret Ep. 6. Multi adbuc de Clero absentes 28. Presbyteri qui illic apud confessores offerunt singuli cum singulis Diaconis per vices alternent quia mutatioâ—ersonarum vicissitudo convenientium minuit invidian Ep. 5. The number of the Clergy there even in time of persecution when he confesses several of them to have fallen away yet even then there were so many Presbyters left in the City that he advises them to
and one Parish has diverse Chappels for the aged and weak that are unfit for Travel Every one of these Churches then had one Bishop and was in his Opinion all the Diocess of apostolical and ancient Bishops If in any City or Town the number of Christians should exceed what might meet in one Congregation that then they were to imitate the Commonwealth of Bees who when they grow too numerous for one hive send out new Colonies commanded by their own Officers so when Christians grew too many for personal Communion in Doctrine and Worship they must resolve themselves into several Churches and have as many independent Bishops as they have Congregations But this model of a Church I am afraid is like to please no Party for the Dissenters are of Opinion we have too many Bishops already but this Project would make more Bishops in this one City than are now in the three Kingdoms Mr. B. has elsewhere endeavoured to take away this Prejudice Disp 1. of Ch. Gov. Ch. Hist part 2. by saying that those many Bishops he is for are not of the same sort with ours 't is true indeed Dioceses are not to be so large yet their Power within their own Church is to be equal to the others within their Diocess and the Church would fare no better in this Case than the Empire did in the times of Galienus when the People generally discontented with his Government because it was too remiss found themselves immediately enslaved by no less than thirty Tyrants The Presbyterians would never endure that the Power of their Classes and Synods should be settled in congregational Bishops and the Independent's Principles will as little admit this Project the Erastian Party will allow this Bishop no Power of Censures or Church Discipline Lewis Moulin Paraenesis who seems to speak in the name of all the English Independents explodes the use of Excommunication in a Christian State and will have no Ruler but the Civll and some of the greatest men of that party in their Recommendations before his Book though they speak something cautiously yet do not disapprove his Notion What some others of them have writ of the Nature of a Church is so mysterious and seraphical that one must be verè adeptus to understand it the plainest thing I believe can be made of it is that they are above Ordinances and that these Saints on Earth have as little need of Discipline and Censures as those in Heaven The Episcopal men are content with the present Form and do not desire the Bishops should be multiplyed at least not according to this Project for this in their Judgment would lie heavier than the Burden of Issachar So that I cannot see what party or principles this would suit besides the Authors own nor since he is so subject to Change is it likely to please him long However if it be the Primitive Platform it is Reason that all Churches notwithstanding their Prejudices should conform to it and therefore it is not equal it should be rejected though all the World were against it before that great Evidence of History which he alledges in Favour of it is consider'd For this Evidence he refers us to another Book of his 1 Disput of Ch. Government and Worship p 1659. and dedicated to R. Cromwel p. 87. Grotius his Opinion he rejects himself p 6. Edict Vossii Disp p. 88. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 22. where the Proofs are set down at large the first Authority he mentions there after the Scriptures is that of Clemens Romanus who mentions only Presbyters and Deacons but this is besides the present Question As for the Pseudo Clement which Mr. Thorndike mentions and is alledg'd by Mr. B. though it may be to the Purpose yet 't is of no Authority The next and the plainest as he confesses is Ignatius out of whom he cites several Passages the first out of his Epistle ad Smyrn Vbi itaque apparet Episcopus illic multitudo sit quemadmodum utique ubi est Christus Jesus illic Catholica Ecclesia as in B. Vshers old Translation with which Vossius's Greek Copy does agree from whence Mr. B. urges That this Plebs or Multitudo is the Church which he ruleth and not only one Congregation among many that are under him for this does without distinction bind all the people one as well as another to be where the Bishop is or appeareth viz. in the publick Assembly for Communion in Worship It is plain therefore there that there were not then many such Assemblies under him otherwise all save one must have necessarily disobey'd this Command To which I answer first That Antiochus cites this Passage quite differently and more at large than it is in the Text and to this Effect § Wherever the Bishop appears Antioch Ser. 124. there let the Multitude be as wheresoever the name of Christ is call'd there let a Church be assembled it is not permitted the Flocks of young Lambs to go whithersoever they please but whither the Sheepherds lead them those that remain out of the Flock the wild Beasts destroy and devour all that which goes astray which Words do not at all imply whether there were one or more Congregations under that Bishop and their design is to prove that Christians ought not to assemble themselves where they please without the Leave of or in Opposition to their Bishop this appears plainly from the Context to which Mr. B. does refer us these are the Words that immediately precede the Passage alledg'd Nullus sine Egiscopo aliquid operetur eorum quae conveniunt in Ecclesiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illa firma gratiarum actio reputetur quae sub ipso est vel quam utique ipse concesserit So that here is a plain distinction between a Congregation under the Bishop that is where he is personally present and a Congregation assembled by his Permission and Allowance and these Expressions of Ignatius can have no other Occasion than the Usage of the Church even in his time to have several Congregations under one Bishop The next Proof is out of Ignatius's Epist to the Philadelphians where he exhorts them to come all to the same Eucharist and these are his Motives Vna enim Caro Domini nostri Jesu Christi unus Calix in Vnionem Sanguinis ipsius unum altare unus Episcopus cum Presbyterio Diaconis conservis meis Disp p. 89. And thus the old Translation which is word for word according to the Florentine Greek Copy The Passage as Mr. B. cites it is in this Epistle interpolated but making more for his purpose he preferr'd it to the Genuine Reading where there is no mention of unus Panis unus Calix toti Ecclesiae but that which he lays his greatest stress upon is Vnum Altare unus Episcopus and this all Copies do agree in from whence he concludes Here it is manifest that the particular Church which in those dayes was
fiercely the greatest occasion of all this stir was some Recreations as Dancing which the People of Geneva were addicted to and Calvin forbad upon pain of Excomunication this bred the first discontents Perinus being Captain of the people and perhaps a lover of Liberty began to oppose this Tyranny and to charge Calvin with false Doctrine two of the Ministers joyn'd with him and were turn'd out as Scandalous and Seditious and so by degrees the Contention was improv'd to that desperate point that the Common Council of the City had almost destroyed one another I might add a great many more instances of the Tumults occasion'd by this Discipline and shew how distracted the condition of Geneva was during the time of Calvin meerly upon the account of this form of Ecclesiastical Government But whoever desires to see more may have Recourse to Calvin's life written by Beza But as to the Rigours of that Discipline I suppose the Highest Tyranny of Epilcopacay can hardly match them One was put to death at Geneva for Libelling Calvin I wish the Majesty of Kings were so Sacred to the men of this way Another was banished the City for preaching against Predestination a hard punishment for weakness of understanding Servetus was burn'd for Heresie by the Instigation of Calvin and the Minsters of Geneva and such others of the Neighbour hood as they could engage in that cause which occasioned no small disputes between them and some other more Moderate Divines the Case of Ithacius and the bloody Bishops as Mr. B. calls them was not half so odious for this Heretick Servetus was burn'd for opinions only the Priscillianists for lewd abominable Practices besides Nor did Geneva only feel the evil effects of this unepiscopal Government but it had in a little while an unhappy Influence upon the Neighbouring Churches of Suitzerland Erastus having published his Theses of Excommunication was confuted by Beza yet there remain'd still several Ministers dissatisfi'd as Bullinger Gualter and diverse others This occasion'd very great jealousies between the several Parties and it had almost come to a Rupture The Churches of the Palatinate were no less shaken with this new Controversie Vid. Bullingeri Epcum Erasti Thes Editas and the zealots for this Government and discipline took all occasions publickly to maintain them but the Prudence of that Prince prevented the mischiefs which threatned his Churches from this question Bullinger in a Letter dated March. 10. 1574. and Gualter in some Letters of his to the Bishops of London and Ely and several other eye-witnesses do sufficiently testifie the Lamentable condition of those Reformed Churches and the Confusion which Presbyterian Government brought upon them From Geneva this Government was brought into the Churches of France But what success it had there the Miserable distractions and wars that presently follow'd do sufficiently declare I do not charge all that Tragedy upon this Government but it seems it cannot prevent Tumults and Sedition and War any more than Episcopacy For with what violence the Reformation was carried on in many parts of that Kingdom is not unknown to any that has but look'd into the Histories of those times There were some very wise men who understood the condition of that Kingdom of opinion that had the Reformation there proceeded with more Moderation and been content to have left the Ancient Government and some observances of unquestionable Antiquity that Kingdom was in a great disposition to receive it and in probability all the following Wars and bloodshed about Religion would have been prevented That the Reformed Churches of France had no considerable differences between them is owing not so much to the Constitution of their Government as to their Common danger which United them closer than all the bands of Discipline and Government Besides when they obtained some Edicts in favour of their Religion they Extended them only to such as their Churches would own and so every dissenter from them was left to the Rigour of the Laws against Hereticks and enjoy'd no benefit of that Protection which the Reformed Churches were to have Upon this account the Lutherans of whom there were many in that Kingdom in the beginning of the Reformation were oblig'd either to Conform to the Rule of those Churches or to leave the Country and these necessities kept them along while Undivided Besides this the affairs of that Reformation were manag'd not so much by their Ministers as by the great Persons who were the Heads of that party and their Synods were imploy'd not so much in making Ecclesiastical Canons as in taking effectual measures for their mutual defence and preservation in receiving assurances of Protection from foreign Princes La vie de Mr. Dis Plesses Mornay p. 119 120 123 124 231 280 345. in making Alliances in providing for Peace and War so that they might be more properly call'd Parliaments than Synods although they had their Politick Assemblies besides And yet they were not without their differences about Religion among themselves Some Ministers starting new and unprofitable questions in Divinity their remedy was no other than that of the Ancients to condemn such opinions as they judged to be dangerous by the Authority of their Synods and they descended to take notice of very trifling subtilties some times such being unregarded would perhaps have died of themselves The Synod of Saumur condemned a Minister of Poictou for questioning the Humanity of Christ when he lay in the Grave and the same Assembly condemned the Doctrine of a Suiss not under their jurisdiction about justification by works after Regeneration a Controversie meerly about words another Synod at Gap declared against the Doctrine of Piscator about Justification which Alarm'd some of the Reformed Churches but the Prudence of Du Plessis prevented any mischief that might have ensu'd by stopping the proceedings of that Synod P. D. Moulin and Tilenus happen'd to have some difference of a dangerous nature about the Mystery of the Incarnation and notwithstanding these great Professours had learning and distinctions enough which Mr. B. says the Ancients that first mov'd this Controversie wanted yet they could by no means agree about it and disputes about Person Nature Properties had like to have endanger'd the peace of those Churches But how was it prevented The Litigants were too considerable to be pass'd by with Contempt and the subject of the difference was of so high a nature that it ought not to be left to the hazard of so slight a remedy How then was this Controversie decided Not by Niceness of Distinction noâ— by distingushing nature into 9 sorts or spliting of Notions But the wise Du Plessis having got their Papers into his hands burn'd them altogether and the fire without making distinction between the Orthodox and Heretical sence put an end to that Controversie Vidâ— Du Pless p. 388. But yet it was not quite ended for it began to revive afterwards oâ—â— of its own Ashes and so made some little
are transcribed out of Mr. Baxter with little of Improvement or Addition One would think a diligent Man might find good Gleaning after Mr. B. but Dr. O's Book it seems is answered already by an unknown Hand But there is a later Book published under the Title of No Evidence for Diocesan Churches c. in the Primitive Times in Answer to the Dean of St. Paul 's Allegations out of Antiquity for such Churches c. But no Reply being yet made that I know of to those Exceptions I shall endeavor to take off such of them as may concern me 1. I have endeavored to prove that the Church of Carthage in Cyprian's Time was Diocesan and among other things urge for it the Multitude of Presbyters that belong'd to that Church even in the time of Persecution when the greatest part of the Clergy was fallen off The Author above-mentioned excepts against this where it is alleadg'd by the Dean of S. Paul's and offers two things in Answer 1. A Passage out of Bishop Downham That indeed at the first Conversions of Cities the whole Number of the People converted being sometimes not much greater than the Number of Presbyters plac'd among them were able to make but a small Congregation But this Allegation can be of little Vse because 1. This was not the Case of the Church of Carthage it was not a new converted Church but settled long before and in a flourishing Condition 2. Many more Presbyters may be ordain'd in a City than is necessary for the first Beginnings of a Church with respect to future Encrease and for the Service of such as afterwards should believe So that tho' there might be in a new gather'd Church almost as many Presbyters as there are People yet the Design of that number of Officers may be for several Congregations when the Believers of that place should become so numerous as not to be contain'd in one 3. The Multitude of Presbyters belonging to one Congregational Church might be occasioned by the uncertain Abode of most of the Apostles and their Commissioners who are the Principal if not the only Ordainers of Presbyters mentioned in Scripture Therefore they might ordain more than were just necessary for the present Occasions of a Church because they could not be present to ordain as often as the Increase of a Church or Vacancies or other Necessities of it should require But that any Church fix'd and settled having its Bishop always present should multiply Presbyters beyond Necessity in the Circumstances of the Primitive Christians before Constantine is altogether incredible For the necessary Expences of the Church were very great the Poor numerous the generality of Christians not of the Richest and the Estates they had being at the Discretion of their Enemies and ruin'd with perpetual Persecution Is it credible that persons in this Condition would multiply Officers without Necessity who were to be maintain'd out of the Public Stock as Cyprian affirms the Presbyters of Carthage were And lastly if this Opinion of Bishop Downham had any certain Ground in Antiquity We should probably hear of it with both Ears and we should have it recommended upon Ancienter Authority than His But the first which this Author cites is Nazianzen who complains of the Multitude of Presbyters in his Time This has been already alleadg'd by Mr. Baxter and has received Answer and he that cannot answer it to himself from the great difference between the Condition of the Church in Cyprian and in Nazianzen's Time has a fondness for the Argument beyond my Skill to remove The next Instance of the number of Presbyters belonging to the great Church of C. P. St. Sophia the greatest perhaps in the World will do as little Service as the complaint of Nazianzen Justinian says that Gentleman Observing that Officers in Churches were multiply'd beyond reason and measure takes order that they should be reduc'd to the numbers of the first Establishment but in the great Church at C. P. he would have the Presbyters brought down to Sixty And what follows from this That the Number of Presbyters was become extravagant in Justinian's Time but what is this to their Number in Cyprian's For this very Edict of Justinian shews that this multiplying of Church-Officers was an Innovation and therefore would have them reduc'd to the first Establishment but that first Establishment it seems admitted great Numbers for one Church had Sixty True but it must also be noted first that these sixty were to serve more than one Church For there were three more besides St. Sophia to be supply'd by those Presbyters as may be seen in the Constitution Nov. 3. c. 1. viz. St. Mary's Church and that of Theodorus the Martyr and that of Helena as some but of Irene as others read Yet after all there is no Argument to be drawn from this Number for these were Canons of a particular Foundation design'd for the Service of a Collegiate Church and no measure to be taken from hence concerning the Numbers of Presbyters belonging to the Diocess This is evident from the Preface of the said Novel whither I refer the Reader But I must confess that what this Gentleman adds concerning the Church of Constantinople is something surprizing No doubt says he they the Presbyters were more numerous in C. P. in Constantine's Time who endeavor'd to make that City in all things equal to Rome and built two Churches in it Soz. l. 2. c. 2. yet in the latter end of his Reign after the Death of Arrius the Christians there could all meet together for Worship It is said expresly that Alexander Bishop of that Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Constantine built two Churches in C. P. Sozomen does not say but that he built many and very great Churches there Soz. l. 2. c. 3. Ed. Vales. Euseb de vit Const l. 3. c. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the same manner Eusebius says that he adorn'd the City that he called after his own Name with many Churches and great Temples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some within the City and in the Suburbs of it Nor can we imagine that two Churches much less one could suffice all the Christians in C.P. when the City of Heliopolis being converted to Christianity requir'd more and Constantine built several for them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soc. l. 1. c. 18. i. e. Having built several Churches he ordered a Bishop but one for all those Churches and Clergy to be ordain'd there Socrates indeed says that Constantine built two Churches in C. P. and names them but does not say either that there were no more there in his Time or that he built no more but these being remarkable for the Magnificence of the Structure are perhaps upon that account only mention'd by this Author But we have shew'd already from other Writers of as good or better Credit That this Emperor built there very many and very Great Churches Nor were these only for State and
Ornament but the Number of Believers in that City did require many Churches for their Assemblies And the Passage of Theodoret above cited does not import the contrary Therefore to clear this point I will endeavor to shew the State of the Church of C. P. about the later end of Constantine's Reign and how it was impossible for them to meet All in one place 2. I will shew that the words before cited do not conclude that all the Believers of C. P. were assembled in one Congregation with Alexander their Bishop 1. As to the State of this Church it could not but be very numerous when we consider what care the Emperor took to bring Inhabitants to it from all Parts some from Rome some from other Provinces and it is more than probable that much the greatest part of those that came to inhabit the first Christian Emperor's Favorite City were Christians 2. His care for rendering this City great and suitable to the Magnificence of so mighty a Prince had that Success that it did not only equal Old Rome but excell'd it as well in Greatness of its Wealth as the Multitude of its Inhabitants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Sozom. L. 2. c. 3. And the same Author adds that the Piety of the Emperor and of the Citizens and their Charity towards the Poor was the reason of its mighty Increase from the whence may be judg'd what Religion the Generality of the City did profess 3. The Success of that Charity did not only add to the Number of the Citizens but very considerably to the number of Christians For the same Author writes that it had so good effect there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. That many of the Jews and almost all the Heathens were converted and became Christians 4. The same Author to make it altogether a Christian City writes farther that it was never polluted with any Heathen Temples or Sacrifices unless it were in the Time of Julian the Apostate 5. The Provision which Constantine made for the Burial of the Dead shews the number of the Church of C. P. to be far too great for one Congregation For he alloted to that charitable Vse no less than Nine Hundred and Fifty Shops or Work-houses whose Profits were to be employed in burying the Poor decently which Shops were to be free from all Tax and Duty to the Prince As you may see by comparing these several places in the Body of the Civil Law N. 59. with N. 43. and with N. L. 12. And Honorius in the Year 409. considering the Number of the Decani the small Officers that attended Funerals to have grown inordinate reduces them to Nine Hundred and Fifty probably the first Establishment of Constantine the Great See Justinian's Code l. 1 T. 2 4. And if after all this all the Christians in C. P. could meet together in one Church towards the latter end of Constantine's Reign we must conclude some wonderful Mortality to have happen'd and that these Decani had had extraordinary Employment and bury'd in a manner the whole City But let them believe that can comprehend For my part I can as soon imagine that Homer with all his Scholiasts can be put into a Nut shell or that a Witch can turn her self in a Key-hole as that all the Christians in C. P. made but one Congregation But notwithstanding the Number of Christians in C. P. might be much too great for one Congregation yet the major part might be Hereticks or Schismaticks such as came not to the Bishops Church and therefore all that adher'd to him might be no more than could meet in one Assembly To which I answer towards the latter end of Constantine's Reign it was so far from being the Case of the Church that the number of Hereticks and Schismaticks was inconsiderable and most of those were forc'd to come to Church and that there may be no Difficulty remaining in this point I will give some farther account of the number of the Catholick Christians in comparison with Hereticks and Schismaticks Constantine the Great having set his Heart upon Christian Religion to settle and adorn it he thought nothing more effectual than the Vnity and Concord of Christians to promote which he resolv'd to proceed against all Hereticks and Dissenters by a severe Law and to reduce them to the Vnity of the Church The Doctrine of Arrius tho it began to be favour'd in several places had not yet made a formal Seperation L. 2. c. 32. says Sozomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. All came to Church and communicated together but the Novatians and some old Hereticks Against these the Emperour made an Edict whereby he took away their Churches and ordered them to be joyn'd to the Churches of the Catholicks He told them it was better for them to communicate with the Catholick Church and advis'd them to come over to it The Success of this Law we find in the very same place That by this means 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The memory of those Heresies was in a manner extinguish'd for they came all to Church for fear of that Law against their Conventicles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. And those that persisted in their Opinion having no opportunity to Conventicle nor to corrupt the minds of men died at last and left none to succeed them in their Opinions Only the Novatians remain'd who says the Author did not suffer much by this Edict being befriended by the Emperor who had an esteem for their Bishop of C. P. upon the account of his Holiness and therefore his Church there was not much endammag'd tho' the Historian speaks this very mincingly and says only that it was probable that so it was and likely had no other reason for it than the Opinion which the Novatians had of that Bishop and that their Church was not altogether extirpated then like those of other Hereticks But he confesses that every where else they suffer'd the same measure with others unless it were in Phrygia and some Bordering Provinces And now to allow the Novatians a Conventicle in Constantinople towards the later end of Constantine's Reign which is more than Sozomen durst affirm yet I hope the Catholicks will be still too numerous to meet all of them in one Congregation But Theodoret affirms they were no more than could meet in one Church and that they did actually do so I answer That Theodoret does not say so and that the Passage cited does not conclude it therefore to clear this difficulty let us examine it After the Death of Arrius says Theodoret those of Eusebius's Faction were much out of Countenance and bury'd him but on the other side L. 1. c. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Valesius renders thus B. autem Alexander cum gaudio totius Ecclesiae collectas celebravit piè orthodoxe simul cum Universis fratribus Deum orans impense glorificans Now he takes the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a
an extraordinary Zeal for Religion and that oftentimes made them take Alarme when it was not in any extream danger and if their Knowledge and Discretion were not always proportionable to their Zeal surely among Christians it might be allowed to the Frailty of Humane Nature and the Sincerity of a good meaning If they differ'd sometimes among themselves and were warmer than is fit in their Disputes consider that the Apostles themselves had their Misunderstandings and their Contentions sometimes Peter was to be blamed and Barnabas was carried away The Churches founded by the Apostles were immediately divided about Opinions which were presently determined in Council and yet we do not find that the Controversie was at an end Should any one therefore so abridge the History of the Apostles as to represent nothing of them but their unhappy Contention and leave them under the odious Characters of Disturbers of the World and Dividers of the Church would it not justly pass for a Libel against Christianity It were disingenious and base even in an Enemy in a Christian I know not how to call it Having paid this duty to the honour of Religion by a general Vindication of it from such Consequences as might be drawn from this Church History against the Intention of the Author I come now to his design which is laid down page 27. To shew the Ignorant so much of the matter of Fact as may tell them who have been the Cause of all Church-Corruption Heresies Schisms Seditions c. And whether such Diocesan Prelacies and Grandure be the Cure or ever was But surely this is not the way of cureing Church-divisions thus to exasperate These Reproaches cannot serve to heal but to fret and inflame the Wound I have some hopes that I shall be able to shew the Reader so much of the matter of Fact too as may let him see how much he has been imposed on by this History and that all Corruptions and Schisms are very injuriously and against all Truth of History charg'd upon the Bishops Yet suppose the Charge be true is it such a Wonder that men of great Talents and great Authority do sometimes abuse them and by that means become the Cause of Church-Corruptions Private men though neither better nor wiser than the Bishops have not the Opportunity of doing so much either Good or Hurt and their Mistakes or Vices do not draw after them so great Consequences This Accusation though it may serve to render Bishops odious is yet of use to prove their Authority and their ancient possession of the right of governing the Church like his who would prove that they have troubled the World ever since the Apostles time If the abuse of this Power be sufficient reason to take it away or to render it odious what will become of preaching and writing Books What will become of Scripture and Conscience Let him still exclaim the Bishops have been the Authors of all Corruption and Schism were they not Christians and Men as well as Bishops and if a Heathen or a Jew should not lay such a Stress upon the name of Bishop but put that of a Christian in it's place and then make a great Outery wicked Christians turbulent Christians would not this reasoning hold as well as Mr. B's or if some of the graver Beasts should recover the Conversation they had in Aesop's days and talk judicially might not they bray aloud Horrible men Abominable men that will never agree or understand one another and then conclude with the Ass in the Satyr Ma foy non plus que nous l'home n'est qu'une bête Be the Bishops whose History Mr. B. writes as bad as he will have them how will this concern the rest of that order unless they will follow their Examples and own their Corruptions Machiavel was of Opinion that the greatest part of men were Rogues and Knaves but what is that to You and I let every man bear his own Burden But Mr. B. is resolved to cut off this Retreat and to level his Charge not so much against the Persons as the office of Bishops and to this effect he explains himself p. 22. There is an Episcopacy whose very Constitution is a Crime and there is another that seems to me a thing convenient lawful and indifferent and there is a sort which I cannot deny to be of divine Right Here we have three sorts of Bishops and this is pretty reasonable and compendious but in another Book which he refers to in this he gives no less than twelve Disput of Ch. Government p. 14. dividing was much in Fashion at that time though commonly it was without a difference and as they could make a sort of Seekers that neither sought nor found so he gives several sorts of Bishops that were no more so than he or I nay in this Abridgment of the great Division I believe the Members will be concident and that it is but a little artificial Illusion of Mr. B. that makes them appear several take away the little corner'd glass and that great multitude of pieces we saw are in a moment reduced to one poor Six-pence well let us see then what this criminal sort of Episcopacy is and what Mr. B. has to lay to it's Charge That Episcopacy which I take in it self to be a Crime is such as is afore-mentioned p. 22. which in it's very Constitution overthrows the Office Church and Discipline which Christ by himself and his Spirit in his Apostles instituted this is criminal indeed and a thousand Pities it should stand one Moment But where shall we find this Abomination it is not far of if his Judgment may be taken for Such says he I take to be that Diocesan kind ibid. which has only one Bishop over many Score or Hundred fixt parochial Assemblies Is this then their Crime that they have many fixt parochial Assemblies under their Government Had not the Apostles Had not the Evangelists so too And was that Constitution criminal Had not the Bishops of St. Jerom's Notion several fixt Assemblies That Father did indeed maintain that the poor Bishop of Eugubium was as much a Bishop as he of Rome but he little thought that he was more so or that the Extent of the Roman Diocess had chang'd the very Species of it's Church Government Hieron Ep. ad Evagr. he thought they were both of the same sort and that the single and small Congregation of the one and the numerous Assembly under the Inspection of the other had made no difference at all in the nature or constitution of their Episcopacy he communicated with and submitted himself in Questions of the highest moment to the Bishop of Rome Vid Hier. Ep. ad Damas which considering the Temper of the man and his Contempt of the World he would hardly have done if he had judged him an Usurper but would rather have joyned himself to the poor Bishop of Eugubium and done all possible
as if it were to prevent such a Mistake as this Ad Fahiâ—â—n Anti. expresly tells us that these Officers were not useless and unnecessary but calls the Clergy To 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Necessity of them appears by what immediately follows because they had the Direction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a great and innumerable People and now with what Reason Mr. B. has retracted his Exception of the Roman Church let the Reader judge But the Church of Rome had long before outgrown the Stature of a Congregation for Euaristus the sixth from St. Peter is said to have divided Rome into Titles or Parishes the multitude being grown too numerous for one Assembly Ep. Pii ad Baron or if the Authority of the Pseudo Damasus be not to be depended upon we have the two Epistles of Pius to confirm it in the first we have mention of Euprepia that had given to the Poor Titulum Domus suae ubi nunc cum Pauperibus nostris commorantes missas agimus Several learned men do except against the Word Missa as not being yet in use in the Church Hospin de Temp. but it is a very hard matter to shew when it was first taken up certain it is that way of speaking was made use of not long after Remissa for Remissio being found in Tertullian and Cyprian in the second Epist we have these words Presbyter pastor titulum condidit dignè in Domino obiit I must needs say Blondel does not deal very ingeniously and equally with these Epistles for in his Pseudo Isidocus he endeavours to prove them suppositious tho they are not in Isidorus's Collection yet in his Apology for St. Jerom's Opinion concerning Bishops he vouchsafes to make use of one of them to prove that Bishop and Presbyter signified the same thing in Pius's days 't is a sad case that the Ancients shall have no farther Credit with us than they serve our Turn when they speak what men will not have them then they are false and Impostours let them give the same men but some little Countenance and then they are true men again The great Liberality of the Church of Rome is no small Argument of its Greatness for besides the maintenance of their own Clergy and Poor they were able to relieve most other Churches Euseb l. 14. c. 23. and it was their practice from the beginning to oblige all the Brethren by all manner of kindness and to send to a great many Churches that were establisht in every City the Necessaries of Life relieving the Necessity of those that were in want and sending necessary relief to those who were condemned to the Mines This was the ancient Liberality of the Roman Church and Soter is said not only to have continued but improv'd it Now if according to Mr. B's Notion of those Times not many Rich not many Noble were call'd the number of Believers must be by so much the Greater Euseb l. 7. c. 5. to be able to supply the Necessity almost of the Universal Church and Dionysius of Alexandria speaks of the Roman Church's Charity in his time in these words All the Provinces of Syria together with Arabia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you relieve every one The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is there Emphatical and implies an admiration of as it were the All-sufficiency of the Roman Church how it should be able to supply the wants of so many Churches and to furnish so Expensive a Charity Under the Reign of Commodus the Church is said to have enjoyed peaceable and happy Times and to have thriv'd so well that the whole World in a manner was reduc'd the words of Eusebius express a wonderful increase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that every Soul in a manner of every sort came over to the Christian Religion and at Rome particularly the increase was so great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that abundance of considerable Persons for their Nobility and Wealth came over with their whole Families and Relations Euseb l. 15. c. 21. Certain it is that the number of Christians at Rome was proportionably greater than in any part of the Empire for thither they fled for Refuge in times of Persecution and shelter'd themselves in a crowd and if Tertullian's account of the state of the Christians in his time makes it very probable that they made the better half of the Roman Empire if he boasts of multitudes and say that they had possessed themselves of the City and Countrey and every place was full of them but the Temples if they did in a manner besiege the Heathen in every part and were more beneficial to the Publick by the consumption of all sorts of Commodities and made Use of more Frankincense in One Street than the Heathen did in any one Temple it is evident that they were the major part every where but in Rome more eminently so See this urg'd farther by Mr. Dodwel in his Letter to Mr. B. Towards the middle of the Third Century they received a considerable Increase from the Countenance of Alexander Severus the greatest part of whose Family and that alone would make a good Congregation were Christians Euseb l. 6. c. 21.28 and this Favourer of Christianity reigned thirteen years Towards the latter end of that Age their condition was most flourishing and all the World in a manner had receiv'd the Faith let us observe in what glorious Expressions Eusebius represents the Church before the Persecution of Dioclesian Euseb l. 8. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who sayes he can describe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their full and innumerable Assemblies and the multitude of their Meetings in every City So that by this time not onely in Rome but almost in every City the Christians had several Congregations Valesius tho he corrects the old Translator yet it seems did not fully comprehend the meaning of this place nor see the Elegancy of Eusebius's Gradation for first he represents the many thousands that came together to make a Congregation then the number of such Assemblies that there were several of them and at last mentions the Places that receiv'd them that there was no Church no Chappel no Oratory but was full in those dayes About this time or not long after Rome had above forty Churches which we must not imagine to be built all at the same time but by degrees according as the number of Believers did require and in all probability there must be more than one or two even in the first and second Century And now I have mention'd this it will not be amiss to clear that Passage of Optatus about these forty Churches Optat. Mii. l. 2. contra Parmen from the Exceptions of Blondel whom Mr. B. follows in his mistake Optatus in that place traces the Donatists of Rome to their first Original If Macrobius says he were demanded whom he succeeds he must needs confess it is to Eucolpius if Eucolpius
that are grounded upon a mistake for this is rather to be counted a Consultation than a Council and as if they had wanted Authority to determine any thing in that ticklish point of receiving the lapsed into Communion they only agreed this ap Cypr. Ep. 31. That nothing should be changed before the Election of their next Bishop as appears by their Letter to the Clergy of Carthage the Bishops that were here present were such as came to assist and advise the Roman Clergy in a time of so great danger and not to determine any thing authoritatively in Council much less to be presided and govern'd by the Roman Presbyters After this says he p. 35. § 26. there was another Council in Carthage two in Rome and one in Carthage about the same Controversie These he passes over very lightly and the Schism that was the occasion of some of them because it was impossible to charge it upon any Bishop Cyprian behaved himself like a prudent good man and an indulgent Father and yet all this could not prevent Schism and Conventicles Faelicissimus Priest of Carthage makes the first breach whom Mr. B. mistakes for Felicissimus the Deacon § 26. who joyn'd himself afterwards with Novatus against the good Bishop Cyprian Novatus an African Presbyter improved this difference and not content to disturb his own Church went to Rome and kindled Discord and Dissention there Baronius would have this Novatus to be a Bishop because he is said by Cyprian to have ordained Felicissimus a Deacon but it is plain as well out of Cyprian as the Chronicle of Eusebius that he was but Priest Novatus Presbyter Cypriani Romam veniens Ep. 49. c. saith Eusebius and Cyprian after he had shewed what manner oâ— man he was adds that being conscious of such horrid Crimes he must expect non 〈◊〉 Presbyterio excitari tantum sed Communicatione prohiberi and as for the Ordination oâ— Felicissimus Cyprian in the same Epistle shewâ— it to have been done against all Rule and Order because he says that he did it nec pâ—mittente me nec sciente but sua factione ambitione which plainly shews that Novatâ—â— was Cyprian's Presbyter and ought not to have ordained a Deacon unless it were in Conjunction with him or by his Permissionâ— whereas if he had been a Bishop his right to the ordaining of Deacons would have been unquestionable This was the Author of that Schism Mr. B. favours so much throughout his whole History and claims Kindred with them as the Puritans and Nonconformists of those Times yet having known what manner of man he had been he might have been ashamed of such a Progenitor who if Cyprian be to be believed was always restless arrogant proud perfidious a Flatterer and an Incendiary that carried a tempest with him wheresoever he went and was a sworn Enemy to Peace and Settlement he robb'd the Orphans cheated the Widows purloin'd the Treasures of the Church he suffer'd his Father to starve and would not as much as bury him when dead he kick'd his Wife being great with Child and caused sudden Abortion and this was the great Saint and Puritan that could find no Church no Bishop holy enough for his Communion this was the severe Judge that would not admit Repentance and represented God cruel and implacable as himself for it was really his Opinion as I shall shew in due place that there was no pardon for the lapsed no not with God and that Mr. B. mistakes when he affirms this Rigour to extend no farther than to refuse an outward Reconciliation with the Church The next is another Council of Carthage p. 36. under Cyprian where one Victor is condemned for making a Priest Guardian of his Children and intangling a man devoted to the Service of the Altar in the Affairs of this World All that he has to except against this is the Rigor of the Sentence that forbids his name to be mentioned in Prayer for the dead and that there should be no Oblation made for his Rest but this shews that the ancient praying for the dead was intended rather as an honourable Remembrance of them than any act of Charity toward the Soul departed else it is not likely so good and indulgent a man as St. Cyprian was would have been so cruel in his Intentions as to deprive a poor Soul of any Relief he had judg'd necessary for it p. â—5 § â—8 After this he gives a short account of several Councils called upon the subject of Rebaptization of Hereticks and here to do him Right he is just enough in his Remarks The Generality of the World was for rebaptizing Hereticks and considering what manner of men the first Hereticks were it is probable they had Tradition as well as Reason on their side However Mr. B. endeavours fairly to excuse these Differences and speaks of the Bishops with Honour and respect allowing them to be men of eminent Piety and Worth Had he used the same Candour towards others who were no less eminent it would have been no Disparagement to his Judgment or Sincerity but his contrary unequal Dealing is not much for the Reputation of his Charity and Modesty There is a mistake § 29. where he make Eus bius to speak that in his own Person 〈…〉 which he cites not of Dionysius Alexandrinus That he does not condemn the rebaptizing of Hereticks Euseb l. 7 c. 6. which was a Tradition of so great Antiquity The Councils of Antioch that condemn'd Paulus Samosatenus are in effect acquitted by Mr. B. when he acknowledges him that was rejected by those Councils a gross Heretick That infamous meeting of Traditors at Cyrta p. 36. § 37. A meeting of 12 evil men that were Bishops lib. 1. contra Parmen was rather a Conspiracy than a Council and I am sorry Mr. B. has not done that Right to the Catholick Church as to shew who these men were Opatus Milev reproaches his Donatist Adversary with these Progenitors amongst these was Donatus Masculitanus Victor Rusicciadiensis Marinus ab aquis Tibilitanis Donatus Calumensis and the Murtherer Purpurius Limatensis the great Promoters of the Schism of the Donatists and as it were the Apostles of that Sect yet these men tho they were confessed Traditors became of so tender Consciences soon after as to abhor Communion with Cecilianus because he was ordained by Felix whom they suspected of the same Crime that they had pardoned one another The Church is so unconcerned with the crimes of these men that they are in some measure her Vindication they went out from us because they were not of us and they left the Communion of the Church because their crimes made them despair of enjoying it The next Council he mentions c. 2. § 38. is that of Sinuessa one of the most nonsensical pieces of Forgery that ever I saw three hundred Bishops are said to meet together to judge Pope Marcellinus and could find no better
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
where in a short time Sabbatius a Convert Jew ordain'd Priest by Marcianus the Novatian Bishop of C. P. began to favour the Jewish time of observing Easter established in the Council of Pazus and for this and the pretence of greater Purity began to separate from the Church He is call'd upon to shew the Reasons of his Separation and declares his greatest Grievance is about Easter The Novatian Bishops perceiving this was but a Pretence and that his real Disease was the desire of being a Bishop were resolv'd to take away this Excuse and leave it indifferent for every one to observe Easter when he thought fit And what was the Issue He seem'd to be satisfied for some time till he found he had some Followers and an Opportunity to set up a Congregation for himself and then notwithstanding his Compliance turn'd Schismatick so little good does Concession do with men that are set upon Separation So that though you should take away all Rule and all Order yet there is a sort of men that a Wantonness of Spirit has made restless that would never be satisfied the Disease is fed by Concession and then it is most violent when they know not what they would have A great Council says our Historian was call'd at Hippo p. 73. § 25. and Augustin yet a Presbyter was there Good men will do well and most of the African Councils were the best in all the World And why would you judge Because their Bishopricks were but like our Parishes and they strove not who should be the Greatest or domineer I am content he should like any Councils or Bishops but I am afraid this good Opinion will not continue long for the Reason of his good Liking is a great Mistake that they were Bishops according to his own Model Whose Dioceses were no bigger than our Parishes But surely this cannot be for all Africa from Tangier to Aegypt had but four hundred sixty six Bishopricks Notitia Affr. which were thus divided according to the Provinces 1. Proconsularis 54. 2. Numidia 125. 3. Provincia Bizac 107. Sees without Bishops 006. 4. Maurit Caesar 120. without Bishops 006. 5. Maurit Sitifens 044. 6. Tripolis 005. 7. Sardinia 008. There is some Difference between the Sum in gross and the Particulars which will not agree though you should deduct the twelve vacant Sees for then the Particulars will not come up to the Sum of four hundred sixty six And now judge whether the African Bishopricks were not bigger than our Parishes by comparing the vast Extent of Africk with our England which is not near so big as some of those Provinces and yet the Bishopricks of Africk were multiply'd thus occasionally as we shall shew hereafter and cannot prescribe to other Countreys Nor could the Churches of Africk notwithstanding the Multitude of their Bishops and Narrowness of their Dioceses keep themselves in Peace any more than their Neighbours but were divided as soon as any and their Divisions were as long and irremediable as their Neighbours And indeed Schism came over from hence into the other parts of the World with Novatus and who taught the Roman Presbyters first to set up against their Bishops In short there was no where a greater Breach nor more extravagant Schismaticks who oppos'd themselves not only against the Discipline of the Church but the Civil Government too Now lest this may put our Author out of Conceit with the Bishops and Councils of Africk as well as the rest I must put him in mind of his own Remark That good men will do well whether they be Bishops or not whether they have large or small Dioceses and a very good man in a very great Diocess will do an extraordinary deal of good A Donatist Council at Bagai S 29. p. 73. had three hundred and ten Bishops who condemn'd Maximianus and upon this Council Mr. B. makes two observations 1. How great a number the Donatists were and upon what Pretence as over-voting them they call'd others Hereticks and Schismaticks Very unjustly no doubt for they were Hereticks and Schismaticks themselves still notwithstanding their Increase Multitude may render a Sect formidable but it is but a poor Argument of Right 2. How small Bishopricks then were the number tells us not so small as our Parishes though the Donatists did use all means in the World to multiply them and to strengthen their Party The Council of Turin order'd p. 74. § 30. That Communion should not be deny'd Felix one of Ithacius his Party and not the contrary according as the false Reading of Binnius Vid. Conc. Sirm. So Sirmond in loc Male enim in vulgatis qui Felici non communicant abest enim in Manuscriptis Negatio Another Carthage Council § 31. call'd the second which Binnius saith was the last is plac'd next and so our Author takes it This Mistake Binnius takes from Baronius Conc. T. 2. p. 1158. as Labbe shews Erravit post Baronium Binnius verè enim hoc Concilium celebratum fuit Anno 390. Sub Genethlio decessore Aurelii cujus nomen necnon Alypii exulat à MS. optimae notae The Canons that Mr. B. instances from hence in favour of his Congregational Church will not comply with his Design ibid. That the Bishops only had the Power of making Crisme and all the Priests were to receive it from him that the Bishop alone was to reconcile Penitents publickly this may consist with a great many Congregations and the Canon Can. 3. Reconciliare quemquam in publicâ Missâ Presbytero non licere may probably extend only to the Cathedral Service and that the Priest should not do this in the Presence of the Bishops as he is forbid several other Acts which he is supposed to do apart and in the Bishops Absence but with the Supposition of his Consent Can. 4. The fourth Canon expresses the Absolution of Penitents by Reconciliare sacris Altaribus the plural tho it must be confess'd it is improper for there was but one principal Altar that was properly so call'd though several Communion-Tables depending upon the great Altar there might be in the same Diocess unless the reconciling to one Church be reckon'd a Reconciling to all other parts of the Catholick Church The fifth Canon is disingeniously cited by Mr. B. thus Can. 5. When Christians were multiply'd they that desir'd a Bishop in a place that had none before might have one but he leaves out the Consent of the Bishop out of whose Diocess that other is taken which is made absolutely necessary Dioeceses quae nunquam Episcopos habucrunt non habeant illa Dioecesis quae aliquando habuit habeat proprium si accedente tempore crescente fide Dei populus multiplicatus desideraverit proprium habere rectorem ejus videlicet voluntate in cujus potestate est Dioecesis constituta habeat Episcopum Which is confirm'd by the third Council of Carthage where it is added
Blasphemers put to death according to the Laws which then were and for ought I know are still in force But had the Bishops had as much zeal for God and his truth as they had for their own greatness they had obtain'd such a law as this is if not in all the particulars Presbyterian Toleration yet in most of them long ago and thereby prevented many of those monstrous opinions which have of late been vented among us to the great dishonour of God and our Kingdom and the mischief to Souls but they were cast out for their lukewarmness and let others take heed of the like How shall the Bishops do to please these men Sometimes when they are in authority they are Hereticators and Persecutors and Instigators of the Civil Magistrate against men for Conscience sake Sometimes they are lukewarm and negligent for not providing Laws severe enough and for not putting men to death for errours in Religion If I were worthy to advise our Author I would desire him for the honour of Presbytery to level his spiteful reflections a little more justly lest whilest he le ts fly with a good will against Bishops the Brethren of the Holy Discipline be not hurt and lest what he designs against Councils fall unhappily upon the Reverend Assembly Answer to Dr. Stillingst for which he expresses no small esteem elsewhere although Bishops and their Councils are so abominable in his sight But enough of this for our purpose I will leave our Author to the judgement of his Brethren and only crave the Readers Pardon for this digression We are now come to the Council of Ephesus §. 9. which was occasion'd by Nestorius his denying the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of that person that was God this doctrine was broach'd by his favourite Priest Anastasius though Nestorius being the more eminent person carry'd away the name and reputation of it Our Author says This set all the City in a division disputing of they well knew not what Nestorius was suspected by some to deny the Godhead of Christ but he was of no such opinion It is true he did not directly deny the Godhead of Christ but consequentially he did as we shall shew hereafter The Emperour weary of this stir p. 89. sect 9. calls a Council and yet our Author forgets himself not many pages after where he will have his Reader believe that Cyril made all this stir to please the Court. The truth of it is the obstinacy of Nestorius oblig'd the Emperour to assemble this Council for Cyril had try'd all the moderate ways in the world to reclaim him before this was thought of Nothing can be more modest than Cyril's Letter to Nestorius Ep. ad Nest though he had receiv'd several personal provocations from him and after this another written with the same Spirit Secunda Ep. ad Nest but Nestorius took all this brotherly admonition for reproach and endeavour'd to maintain his opinion and to secure himself in equivocal and doubtful expressions sometimes seeming to speak the same thing with Cyril that Christ had two natures in one person sometimes considering Christ as a double person and always denying Mary to be the Mother of God by any means This was the unhappy Controversie that divided the world Several being deceiv'd by the Equivocations of Nestorius took his part at first but finding him obstinate in denying the Virgin to be the Mother of that person that was God they at last deserted him and joyn'd with Cyril in his condemnation It had been happy for the Church if the mysteries of our Religion had never been curiously disputed But when busie troublesome men have started a new dangerous doctrine and endeavour to propagate it with all industry imaginable it is not fit that the Governours should sit as unconcern'd Spectators but that they should oppose vigorously all such remedies as God has put into their hands i. e. advise admonish rebuke and if these means prove ineffectual to stop the course of evil doctrine they must proceed according to the Apostles advice a Heretick after admonition reject This method therefore of proceeding against Heresies and the Authors of them cannot be disallowed by any reasonable man But this case of Nestorius it seems yields a further debate and the merit of the cause is yet disputed Derodon makes Nestorius Orthodox and Cyril the Heretick our Author believes both Orthodox but that they did not understand one another and so by words that themselves did not understand they set all the world on fire As for Derodon he manifestly condemns Nestorius in a little Treatise De Supposito printed with several other Philosophical Tracts of his and approves Cyril the truth is he has a singular notion of a person there which seems to approach Nestorianism which he endeavours to confirm by the authority of Cyril and other Fathers but this which our Author cites I have not yet seen nor can I find that it has been yet publish'd however since the minutes of his arguments are set down by our Author I will endeavour to shew the mistake of that learned man by giving the true state of the question between Cyril and Nestorius Nestorius did first recede from the allow'd expressions of the Fathers who did all occasionally call the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God and therefore was justly suspected to recede from their doctrine Cyril admonishes him of this dangerous innovation and explains himself concerning the Incarnation of the son of God Nestorius endeavours to confute it and now let us see what it was that they both maintain'd I will begin with the Doctrine of Cyril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word united the flesh to himself hypostatically or personally Ep. 2. ad Nestor and a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. i. e. distinct natures concurring to make a real Unity of both which consists one Christ and one Son not that the difference of the natures are taken away by that Unity but that the divinity and humanity combin'd by an unspeakable manner of Union make one Christ and one Son Ibid. And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uniting the manhood hypostatically to himself and as to the order of this Union he explains himself farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He was not first a meer man that was born of the Holy Virgin which the Divinity afterwards did assume but the Word being united to the Man from the very Womb is said to have undergone a carnal generation And that this Union does not destroy the difference of natures in Christ he shews expresly in that same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He became man but did not therefore cease to be God but after the assumption of Flesh remain'd still the same that he was before And to the same purpose in another place after the assumption of Flesh he remain'd very God Ep. ad Eulog and suffer'd death upon the Cross i. e. the Flesh
different natures very unlike and disproportionable were joyn'd together in the person of Christ but never thought that one of the particulars united before that union had any separate existence nay his words are express to the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. 2. ad Nestor he was not first born an ordinary meer man of the Holy Virgin and the word came afterwards into him but being united from the womb he is said so to have undergone a carnal generation It was the luck or the cunning of Eutyches not to engage far in disputes about his doctrines or to explain himself much in publick there he seem'd Orthodox enough but when he instructed his Monks in private then he discover'd himself more fully But the circumspection of the Church and the zeal of good men did not suffer it to go on long undiscover'd or uncensur'd This is no unusual thing with Hereticks to be reserv'd in publick and promiscuous audiences and to use greater freedom in select meetings This was much practis'd amongst us in the late unhappy times though there was licence enough to say any thing in publick yet the teachers Spirit it seems was under some restraint in the Church as some men think evil spirits are in consecrated places and were not free to reveal the mysteries of their sect of this we have several instances in Edwards his Gangrâ—na which I would recommend to the reading of such as are so fond of Toleration and if the effects of it in those times as they were represented there do not cure them of that mistaken charity nothing will but a too late experience of those evils when they are past remedy Having given this short account of the doctrine of Eutyches which they that condemned it understood much better than we can and could doubtless distinguish from such expressions of their own that sounded like it We will proceed to the history of its condemnation The Synod of Constantinople having condemn'd Eutyches he made his application first to Leo Bishop of Rome and being rejected there apply'd himself to the Emperour by the means of his old friend Chrysaphius Niceph. l. 14. c. 47. an Eunuch in great favour and credit at Court He obtain'd a review of the acts of the former Synod before Florentius and most of the same Bishops that had condemn'd him Florentius was a person of great integrity and the Bishops after a second hearing and after the cause of Eutyches had been pleaded by three Monks his Advocates and all things diligently fifted persever'd in the same opinion and the issue of this appeal was not a little to the disadvantage of Eutyches and increas'd the suspicion of his crime This way failing him Niceph. l. 14. c. 47. Lib. Synod in Syn. Eph. Diosc he makes use of the Eunuchs authority to call a General Council that should be so contriv'd that Eutyches might be acquitted and Flavian depos'd This Flavian had incurr'd the Eunuchs displeasure before by sending him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Benedictions in Bread and not in Gold therefore he was glad of any opportunity to do him ill offices and he had such an influence upon the Emperour who was too much addicted to this kind of Vermin Suidas as to set him upon the ruine of this Good Bishop In order to which he dispatches several Letters to summon Bishops and others to a Council at Ephesus Conc. Chalc. Par. 1. Sacrae ad Dioscor ad Elpid Comit c. Pars 1. which sufficiently shew his bitterness against Flavian intimating that the Nestorian Heresie was springing again and that there were several favourers of it he forbids Flavian and the Bishops that condemn'd Eutyches to sit in the Council he complains against Flavian that he had call'd a Synod against his will and prosecuted Eutyches and disturb'd the Church notwithstanding all his advice and orders to the contrary and in short the Letters that call'd this Council suggested sufficiently what it was to do and that their only business was to condemn a Bishop the Emperour did not care for though without any just ground nay for his honesty if Nicephorus relate the business truly There is no doubt but the Emperour or rather this Eunuch who contriv'd all this mischief knew how to choose Bishops for the purpose and the President did admirably suit with such a design who besides his emulation against the Bishops of Constantinople was if half be true that is said of him one of the most wicked profligate wretches in the World This Synod in short did the business it was call'd for and that not without force for they us'd all the violence imaginable to fright poor conscientious men to a concurrence with them and if any one should offer to speak for Flavian or Eusebius the next word was da comites you shall go the same way if you be troublesome Act. 1. Conc. Chalc. T. 4. p. 135. Eutyches brought in his confession of faith which was no other than the Nicene Creed and added only that he condemn'd all Hereticks but when Sozon would have put him to explain himself concerning the incarnation Dioscorus and his party would not suffer it for fear he should betray himself And upon that he was absolv'd Act. 1. Chalc. T. 4. p. 134. As if a Socinian were call'd to a Synod to answer for his doctrines and would make a confession of his faith in the Apostles Creed and when any one should desire him to explain himself farther moderate comprehending men should cry this contains all that is necessary there is no need of a farther Test And thus some Synods in Poland were so moderate as to be impos'd upon which occasion'd great mischief to those Reformed Churches there now almost extinguish'd under the notion of Socinians How bad soever Dioscorus and this Council were yet they are in my judgement to be look'd upon rather as favourers of Heresie than as Hereticks for although they did threaten to cleave him in sunder that durst say there are two natures in Christ yet they were not of Eutyches his opinion for all that but follow'd the meaning I believe as well as the words of Cyril And it is observable that Anatolius in the Council of Chalcedon after Dioscorus's condemnation Act. 5. T. 4. p. 558. says expresly that he was not condemn'd for Heresie but Misdemeanors The Judges said for this reason Dioscorus condemn'd Flavian because he said there were two natures in Christ Anatolius said Dioscorus was not condemned for Heresie but because he excommunicated Leo and being cited to appear before the Council refus'd to obey The Instrument of his Deposition gives the same reason and all the subscriptions that mention any reasons at all only that of Paschasinus charges him with not only receiving Eutyches but of being of his opinion But because this Council chose two natures Act. 3. p. 458. as the most safe way of expressing the Oeconomy of Christs incarnation
Council in the West since they would not determine this present Controversie Upon which Cecropius Bishop of Sebaestopolis said We desire the Definition may be read and then those that will not subscribe and conform to rightful Determinations let them walk to Rome i. e. to that General Council which the Emperour threatened to call in the West And the Illyrican Bishops seconded this Motion Those that contradict are Nestorians let them walk to Rome What manner of slight this was is not easily guess'd at the worst these Bishops did no more slight Rome than Cecropius did the West whither he bid Dissenters walk to be satisfy'd In the next Paragraph our Author makes Theodoret speak what was never in his §. 26. thoughts nor indeed in any honest mans Theodoret said I take not my self to say true but I know I please God These are not Theodoret's but Mr. B.'s words and very applicable to himself and his Church History For as mean an opinion as I have of his knowledge in Church History I doubt not he can read Latin when he had the book before him and yet when he does that I am afraid that many times He takes not himself to say true But perhaps he may be of opinion that a pious fraud may be accepted and that by calumniating the Bishops whom he takes for Enemies to the Kingdom of Christ and gratifyers of the Devil he may please God Disp 1. of Ch. Gov. I cannot clear him of that in other places so well as in this Here our Authors fault was only ignorance of theodorets language or a mistake of his Latin Translation which I shall rectifie for it is pity the good Father should suffer by it His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in English In good truth I do not speak but as I know is pleasing to God The Latin Translation puzled our Author Vere i. e. reverà non dico nisi quomodo novi placere Deo The next words of our Author do as much wrong the sense though not so much the Reputation of Theodoret I would first satisfie you of my belief whereas Theodoret said only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. I would perswade you in the first place that I regard not preferment The Latin thus Priùs satisfactio vobis quia neque de civitate cogito c. And at last after a great deal of that debate about Theodoret our Author concludes do not these words here Translated out of Binius agree too well with Gregory Nazianzen 's character of Bishops and their Councils How well they may agree with Nazianzen is not so material but they should have agreed better either with the Original or at least with the Translation out of which our Author Translated them and yet for all this our Author will understand all these Greek Bishops better than they did one another or even themselves In the next place we have an account of Ibas Bishop of Edessa p. 108. sect 28. His Epistle to Maris against Cyril was acquitted at least the Bishop upon the reading of it It is a sad Narrative of the Calamitous Divisions which these Prelates and their Councils made In the first place there is no truth in what our Author says that this Epistle was acquitted for the Council says no such thing In the next place Ibas was not acquitted upon the reading of this Act. 10. Con. Chalc. any more than a prisoner is acquitted upon the reading of his Impeachment but he was upon the defence he made that he communicated with Cyril and receiv'd his Orthodox interpretation of those twelve Articles which before he thought to be full of Impiety Baronius An. 432. deceiv'd by Gregory the Great Gregor l. 7. Ep. 53. Act. 6. and the Acts of the Second Council of Nice concludes this Epistle to be forg'd and falsely father'd upon Ibas but Anno 448. he recants and owns it to be genuine The truth is Ibas himself never pretended to disown it neither at Tyre nor Berytus nor Chalcedon where this was objected against him but confessed that before Cyril explain'd himself he thought him a Heretick and follow'd the Judgement of the Eastern Bishops Some say this Epistle was written whilest Ibas was a Nestorian before the Reconciliation but the words of that letter are express to the contrary for it mentions the Union and Peace of the Churches by the means of Paulus Emissenus How then comes he to give such an odious account of Cyril and the proceedings of the Council of Ephesus The Truth is the Eastern Bishops were not so ingenuous and fair after their Reconciliation with Cyril as he was towards them however he goes in Mr. B.'s History under so odious a character Who ever reads his Letters to Nestorius and to John of Antioch and considers with what candour he acts must needs see that he had very hard measure from those whom he treated with great ingenuity and confidence The Eastern men are still upon the disparagement of Cyril's proceedings and the vindication of themselves with what Truth or Reason has been shew'd already and Ibas here pursues the same prejudices and would insinuate that his party had the Right and Cyril was their Convert But if here was any change of opinion on either side it was on theirs for first they joyn'd with Nestorius and afterwards condemn'd him Yet this Epistle of Ibas shews that there was a core left still In the eleventh Action p. 109. sect 29. two Bishops Bassia nus and Stephen strive for the Bishoprick of Ephesus And saith our Author while the Bishops were for one of them the Judges pass'd sentence to cast out both One would imagine here that the Judges pass'd sentence against the consent or inclination of the Bishops But there is no such matter it was not the Judges but the Bishops past this sentence Act. 11. When the cause of these two Bishops was examin'd the Judges propounded it to the Bishops to determine of the right that was in Dispute the Bishops answer'd that the right was on Bassianus his side let the Ganons take place for Bassianus was the first Possessour The Judges represented to them that in their opinion neither of them were fit to be continu'd Bishops yet referr'd the whole matter to the Council to determine as it should think fit And this Mr. B. calls passing a sentence while the Bishops were against it The Bishops finding that Stephen was not like to carry the cause for they had no great favour for him because he had been a very active Instrument of Dioscorus in the second Council of Ephesus willingly consented the other should be turn'd out too and were so extremely satisfy'd with this expedient that they cry'd it up presently and own'd it to be a Divine suggestion and so the Bishops who Mr. B. says were for one did indeed pass sentence against both Competitors At last our Author enquires after the success of all
please But the best of it is that if God permitted a Bishop of so eminent a Church as that of Antioch to fall into Heresie he on the other hand rais'd up Godly and Orthodox Bishops to oppose him and to vindicate not only the Christian Religion but the Order of Episcopacy also which he had dishonour'd For the Neighbour Bishops assembled in the Second Council of Antioch Condemn'd and Depos'd him Dionysius of Alexandria being now very old and unfit for Travel could not be there but writ to him says Theodoret Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 1. Eus l. 7. c. 30. Eusebius cites the Epistle of this Synod that expresly denys that saying that Dionysius of Alexandria had writ to the Council but had not vouchsafed so much as to salute Paulus From which passage Valesius concludes that the Letter of Dionysius to that Heretick Bishop in the Bibliotheca Patrum is forg'd Vales Annot in Eus l. 7. c. 30. notwithstanding Baronius receives it for genuine Now because Mr. B. promises to shew not only Who have been the cause of Heresies c. but also How It will not be impertinent to shew briefly how this Bishop also fell into Heresie It was in short by the way of Comprehension for Zenobia Queen of Palmyrene after her Husbands death being very considerable in the East and being Proselyted to the Jewish Religion for which reason likely Lâ—nginus her Favourite speaks so favourably of Moses this Paul Bishop of Antioch thought that by reducing Christ to be a meer man he might reconcile both Religious and take away the Partition-wall that divided the Jews and Christians nothing being so great an offence to the Jews as that Christ was own'd by his Disciples to be God And thus compliance and vain projects of Comprehension made this man a Heretick But Philastrius is not to be regarded Phil. Haer. 17. Ap. Biblieth Patr. who charges this Bishop with being turn'd Jew and teaching Circumcision and bringing over Zenobia to Judaism Before this time there is another Bishop reckon'd by some Collectors of Heresies as the Author of one Nepos Nepos an Egyptian Bishop who taught out of the Revelation of St. John as he pretended Euseb Hist l. 7. Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 3. that the Saints should live a Thousand years of pleasure here on Earth If this be a Heresie it was much older than this Nepos Just Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 307. Ed. Par. For it was so ancient and so general an opinion that Justin Martyr did not believe they were perfectly Christians that did not believe it For all that were Orthodox did look for the Restauration of Jerusalem and that Christ should reign there gloriously with his Saints a thousand years which he endeavours to prove out of the Revelations and the Book of the Prophet Isaiah Iren. l. 5. c. 33 34 35. Ireneus endeavours to prove the same thing at large and derives the Doctrine from Papias and by him from St. John the Beloved Apostle So that if Nepos prove Heretick for this he is like to find very good company but Author of it he cannot be It is some favour to him that Epiphanius and Philastrius pass him by for I do not remember that either of them mention him However you will say that though he was not the first that taught this Doctrine yet he was the first that divided the Church about it And that is a heavy fault that Mr. B. charges upon the Bishops that they divide the Church about unnecessary nice Speculations But this Nepos is as far if not farther from the Imputation of Schism than that of Heresie For Dionyfius charges him not with Schism but only with writing a book for the Millenary opinion which others afterwards laid a great stress upon and by that means several Churches were divided and some entirely carried away and all this after Nepos his death They might have done the like with Justin Martyr or Irenaeus if they had pleas'd and made the same stir and yet those Fathers not at all concern'd in the Schism this is manifestly the present case there is no account of any Schism made about this point till after this Nepos his death And Dionysius who writes against him thinks himself oblig'd to make his Apology before hand saying that he honour'd the man for many great good qualities and was sorry that he was forc'd to write against his Brother in the defence of Truth And as to the matter of fact it was thus He found in the Region of Arsinoe several Churches distracted about this matter so that they began to make Schisms in several places The Bishops surely must be concern'd where there is any Schism or Heresie they must have a hand in it But here by good fortune no such thing appears Euseb l. 7 here is mention only of Presbyters and Teachers whom this Bishop assembled Presbyters of the Villages and these after some Dispute he at last perswaded to Peace But what became of the Bishop of that Region will you say It may be he was dead and that this Nepos was the man unless one may imagine the Diocess of Alexandria to extend so far for the Country adjoyning to the Lake Mareotes and call'd by that name was part of the Alexandrian Diocess as we have shew'd before out of Athanasius and the Arsinoeites was the next Region to that But however this be our point is sufficiently clear'd that this Nepos was neither Heretick nor Schismatick Nor does it appear that any Bishop was concern'd in that difference save only Dionysius of Alexandria who by his Prudence and Authority did compose it To conclude For the first three hundred years after Christ there is but one Bishop found who was the Author or rather the Reviver of a Heresie and yet Mr. B. looks upon it as a strange thing that there should be a Heresie rais'd by one that was No Bishop The following Ages were not so happy but as Christians generally degenerated so did the Clergy too but yet not so much as our Author would make it appear The beginning of the fourth Century was very unhappy to the Church not only by reason of a most violent Persecution rais'd against it from without but also of Heresies and Schisms from within Meletius an Egyptian Bishop Meletius and the first of that Order that began a Schism forsook the Communion of the Church because they that fell from the Faith under Persecution were receiv'd into it Epiph. as Epiphanius tells his story though others of better Authority give other Reasons that this Bishop had himself deny'd the Faith and being condemn'd by a Synod of Bishops he set up a Schism But of this we have said enough elsewhere Athan. Ap. 2. About the same time started up the Schism of the Donatists Donatus named so from one of their Bishops Aug. de Haeâ—es that lived a good while after the rise of that Faction this was carried
Prophet and such a one as spake immediately from God The Christian people of Thessalonica says Mr. B. rose and kill'd some of Theodosius his officers Theod. l. 5. c. 17. which provok'd him by his Souldiers to kill seven thousand of them for which Ambrose brought him to do open Penance The Christian people are much oblig'd to Mr. B. for giving them the honour of this Sedition But Theodoret whom he cites for this story says not one word of the mutineers being Christians Ruff. l. 1. c. 30. Ruffinus who is particular enough in relating it says nothing of their being Christians but has some circumstances that make for the contrary Niceph. Hist l. 32. c. 40. The occasion of this Sedition was about a Charioteer who had lewdly attempted one of the Governours Pages and was put in Prison for it but being expert at his calling the people interceded for his release to entertain them at the Publick races It is not likely the Christians would have concern'd themselves for such a villain or for his Performance at those publick spectacles It being forbidden by the Canons of the Church to be present at them and extremely declaim'd against by the Bishops of those times 2. It is not likely they were Christians if we consider the method Theodosius took to revenge this outrage for as these Chariot Races were the occasion of the Sedition so he made them the opportunity of his revenge for having got a great number together to that sight the Souldiers put his orders in execution and slew 7000. in Ludis Circensibus Ruffin l. 11. c. 30. says Ruffinus 3. That the Generality of those that came to these spectacles and consequently of those that were there slain were not Christians may be gather'd from the arguments us'd by St. Ambrose to aggravate the Cruelty where there is not a word of their being Christians and his brethren but only of their bearing the Image of God and being men 4. Zosimus Theod. ubi sup Niceph. l. 12. c. 41. who omits nothing that is to the reproach of the Christians does not mention this Sedition which if it had been theirs he would have hardly pass'd But the Christians it seems are more beholden to that Heathen and profess'd enemy than to Mr. B. Lastly since there are so many Authors Christian and Heathen that mention this Sedition and not one of them say the Christians were concern'd in it Mr. B. is inexcusable for charging such a Barbarous Sedition upon those of our Religion as if he affected without any authority to render Christianity odious And though all this had been the fault of the Christians it is but an accidental Tumult and the Bishops are no way concern'd in it Our Author adds that to mention all the Bloodshed in Rome as at Damasus Election and else and at Constantinople and Alexandria would be tedious even that which was shed on the account of Bishops It cannot be deny'd but there were great and bloody Tumults upon the account of Bishops but there were not many Bishops that encourag'd them but on the contrary they us'd all means possible to prevent and remedy them by withdrawing by quitting their right and going into voluntary Banishment But almost all these Tumults were occasion'd by the Popular elections of Bishops which Mr. B. out of his love to peace doubtless and to save effusion of Christian blood would restore by his Reformation of Episcopacy Lucius he would say Lucifer Calaritanus was a pious Bishop says Mr. B. but so hot for separation from those that had been Arians that he is numbr'd for it with the Hereticks though an Orthodox Bishop And what is all this to Sedition The Novatians were Episcopal and so were the Donatists says Mr. B. and yet how have they been judged of for their Schism I need not tell They are very much to blame that say the Presbyterians or Independents troubl'd the Primitive Church It was impossible for them to be troublesome before they were at all it seems all the Sects and Schisms of that time thought they had no right to pretend to be a Church unless they had Bishops But these Anti-Episcopal Separatists were reserved it seems for the last times as the severest curse and judgment that could befal the Church Those Episcopal Schismaticks indeed divided the Church but these quite dissolve it Besides these Episcopal Schismaticks Mr. B. gives a small list of Bishops that were Anti-Hereticks Apollinaris father and son Paulus Samosatenus Nestorius Dioscorus Eusebius of Nicomedia Theodorus of Mopsuestia have been Arch-Hereticks and the cause of Tumults and Dissension There is much of this that is not true and some of it that Mr. B. does not believe to be so For 1. Apollinaris the Father was no Bishop Hieron de Script Apoll. Laodic Syria Ep. Patre Presbytero l. 6. c. 25. Gregor Nyss Ephr. Syrus Philost l. 8.15 Gottoffred Dissert in Philost and this was he that was the Arch-Heretick as Zozomen informs us and as much may be gathered from Gregory Nyssen who makes Apollinaris a very old man when he should have disputed with Ephraim Syrus Apollinaris the younger is said to have been a Bishop by Philostorgius though Photius adds that he knows not whence he had it But Jerom is express and that is the Common opinion Yet whether he were the Author of this Heresie or his father he was a Heretick before he was a Bishop while he was yet reader of the Church of Laodicea Socrat. l. 2. c. 46. and from Socrates and Athanasius writing against his Heresie it is plain that it was long before the younger Apollinaris was made Bishop if ever he were so Nicephorus makes the repulse of Apollinaris at Antioch which seems to be after he may be presum'd to have been Bishop from some expressions of that Historian Niceph. l. 12. c. 4. to have been the occasion of his Heresie but this manifestly contradicts all ancienter Historians and indeed the very story contradicts it self for Flavian upon the place convicts him of having been a Heretick before Sandius thinks he was not Bishop of Laodicea till after the Council of C. P. because Pelagius is found Bishop of Laodicea in the subscriptions of that Council though I believe this reason of small moment and the Acts of that Council shew him to have been Bishop of that place before However manifest it is that whether the father nor the son were Author of that Heresie he was not a Bishop at that time Nestorius Mr. B. himself has taken great pains to prove Orthodox yet now it seems his mind is changed The same he does with Dioscorus He was on their side against the Councils that condemn'd them but now from Advocate he is turn'd Accuser Eusebius of Nicomedia was no Heretick in the judgment of Valesius but if he were he was not an Heretick because he did not begin the arch-Heresie but followed Arius Theodorus of Mopuestia was an Orthodox Bishop as
Mr. B. owns out of Derodon and as Facundus proves at large though he had the ill fortune â—o be condemn'd by Later Councils upon 〈◊〉 misunderstanding this case I have discuss'd more Particularly in another place where Theodore Tarsensis his Doctrine was examin'd At last Bishops failing Mr. B. mentions Aerius who spake against Bishops because himself could not be Bishop so Pestilent a thing the desire of such Bishopricks have been And who can help it if men will be Ambitious and aspiring must there be no Government because it is the aim of ambition or may be the Possession of an evil man So there must be no Kings because many times a Crown became the occasion of Civil Wars There must be no reputation because Ambitious men affect it and grow Seditious to become Popular After this we have little hints of quarrels which were far enough from Sedition as that of Theodotus and Basil and of Eusebius and Basil the former was a particular humour and had no consequence Of the latter because Mr. B. says it was sad and scandalous I will give a more particular-relation that the Reader may discern the difference between the Temper of those good men that are here scandalously represented and that of our Separatists that Mr. B. compares with and prefers before them A difference happen'd between Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea and St. Basil then Presbyter of that Church Nazianz. Orat. de Basilio how or upon what occasion Gregory Nazian Was not willing to discover â—â—nking it not much for the honour of Reâ—â—gon to rip up the faults of Bishops But he says indeed that Eusebius though he was a very good man yet was in fault and seems to say that he envi'd Basil But when the falling out was known the Monks took Basils Part and drew many of the people with them and would have done him right upon his Bishop but this good man though he knew the Merit of his cause and of his person yet for peace's sake retir'd into the Widerness He might have said to his Monks that the people must stand by them and considering his Learning and Eloquence he might have presum'd to have edified more in a Coventicle than the Bishop could in the Church yet this good man had in humbler opinion of his gifts than to endanger the peace of the Church rather than forbear the exercise of them And after a long Banishment and silence he was not grown so resty and Irreconcileable but that when his Church was threatned by the Arian Pest he return'd voluntarily to assist his Bishop without desiring the Church Walls i. e. the Order and Discipline of it to be broken down that he might enter Triumphantly like a Conquerour He came of his own accord submitted to his Bishop and liv'd with him 'till he dy'd not only in peace and Charity but in the most entire friendship and confidence The Application of the Parable of the merciful Samaritan is not improper here Go thou and do likewise The contention between Basil and Euthomius Anthimus I suppose he means about the extent of their Diocese was no less Scandalous Any unreasonable Usuper may bring the meekest man upon earth into odious Debates so Saint Paul himself was put upon an Invidious vindication of his Authority and Jurisdiction The People of Casarea would have torn in pieces Eusebius the Emperor's the Empress he would have said own unkle for Basils sake if he had not hindred them And does not this shew the Loyalty Greg. Nazianz Orat 19. de Basil as well as the Authority of this Bishop But the People were Episcopal all people especially those of the meaner sort as these were are apt to be mov'd into disorder but it is much for the Honour of the Bishops authority and their Duty that they obey'd him so readily surely they are much more Tolerable than those that Assassin Bishops The difference between those of Neo Caesarea and Basil is not worth the mentioning because it contains nothing like Sedition and is only a quarrel about Psalmody and some new orders introduc'd among them The Antiochians for a Tax under Theodosius the Great did Tumultuate and kill the Magistrates and destroy'd the Statues of Flacilla the good Empress And what then What is this to the Bishops It does not appear that these mutineers were Christians The Heathens indeed were very Turbulent in this Emperors Reign because he had Order'd their Idols should be destroy'd Zozim l. 4. c. 38. and that they were the men principally concern'd in this uproar we may understand by the choice of their Delegates whom they sent to carry their submission to the Emperor Zozim l. 4. c. 42. Lybanius and Hilarius both Heathens The Church of Antioch I suppose was not in such want as to be forc'd to charge the enemies of their Religion with so great a trust nor could they have been so absurd as to commit their cause to such hands as they could not be assur'd of and they could not think they would be so acceptable to a zealous Christian Emperor who had so lately put out such severe Edicts against the Heathen superstition It shews a strange temper when a man to render Bishops odious will not stick to raise false accusations against Christians and charge them with the Sedition of Heathens In the worst says Mr. B. Good Ambrose at Milan was not silenc'd as we are but by an Orthodox Emperor desir'd and Commanded to deliver the Arians possession but of one Church and he refus'd to do it and to forsake that Church c. Whereas we left all our Churches at a word It is strange Mr. B. should take such delight to compare us with the Arians surely he would have his Reader believe we are as unsound in the Faith as those Hereticks or else all this discourse is but to amuse and impose upon him But there is great reason to value the peacable Resignation of the Nonconformists when we consider by what Usurpation and violence they were brought in and what a number of worthy Learned Ministers of the Church of England were turned out to make vacancies for these Men who were to instruct the people in new Mysteries of Religion which their old Pastours had not the Conscience or ability to Teach them that is of the Lawfulness of Rebellion We have several other instances of St. Ambrose his zeal against the Arians and some of his Charity in rescuing some of them from the fury of the multitude of his popularity c. But not a word of his sedition or his forcible resistance of the Emperour The harshest thing he did was the shutting of the Church against the Officers of the Emperour who would have delivered it to the Arians for a place to Blaspheme Christ under pretence of Worshipping him But at length after long straining Mr. B. has found out some Bishops in the same fault of owning and flattering Tyrants and Usurpers with himself and this because it
is home to the purpose and seems to parallel his Dedications to R. Cromwel We have the story at length and set out with all the advantage of Remarks and comparisons and thus it begins And because the late Revolutions in England are made by some Prelates The pretence for the Silencing of 1800 Ministers of whom one in ten never meddled with Wars being fallen again on this case of Maximus Let it be Noted how like he was to Cromwel saving that it was not the Sectaries but the Bishops that he studied to please and rise by How just the pretence was Mr. B. can tell better than I if he would speak-out And whether he will or no others perhaps will have the Courage and the Honesty to do it How like Cromwel was to Maximus I do not find by Mr. B. though he desires it should be Noted They were both Usurpers but as unlike in their circumstances as they could well be imagined For First Cromwel Usurped a Kingdom setled in one Family by a long and unquestionable Descent upon a King of undoubted right Maximus Usurped an Elective Empire at the disposal of Armies being chosen by his own Army and that of Gratian Sulp. Sev. de vit Mart. c. 23. Aur. vict Socr. Sozom as he said against his will Gratian against whom Maximus Rebelled was kill'd indeed by Andragathius an Officer of this Tyrant by his order as most suppose but as he himself protested without his knowledg However it was in pursuit in open Field in a posture of Resistance and at the head of some of his Troops Zozim l. 4. c. 37. But Cromwel murdered the late King in cold blood after the formality of a Tryal with all the pomp and ostentation of insolence and cruelty Maximus when he had done this though he entred by Treason Ambr. ep 27. Sozom. l. 7. c. 13. Zozim ubi supra yet afterwards had his Title confirmed by Treaties concluded with Valentinian and Theodosius the great who ordered their names should be joyned together in all publick forms and that his Statues should be every where set up So that those who lived in the Provinces under Maximus could not now reject him without Rebellion He being their Prince and no other having any right or making any claim And had he been contented with his first conquest it is not likely Theodosius had ever armed against him But Cromwel as he entred without any colour of right according to the constitution of this Kingdom so while he enjoyed it the right Heir was still in being to whom he and all the people in Conscience still owed Allegiance and whose interest the invincible Loyalty of some of his subjects did still promote and therefore they were not so excusable that complyed with this Tyrant as those that closed with Maximus Lastly Maximus did pretend something of Title by Descent as being related to Constantine the Great Baron An. 383.1 But Cromwel never pretended to be of the Royal Family So that here was a vast difference between these two persons before us But Mr. B. can find no difference but this That Maximus studied to please the Bishops and rise by them and not by the Sectaries If there had been any Sectaries in those dayes of the same Principles with some of ours He understood his interest too well to have neglected them But how is it the Bishops fault that he studied to please them That he studied to rise by them is more than any body has said before Mr. B. And if Maximus had such a design upon the Bishops he was surely disappointed for we do not find any where that any Bishop did ever contribute in the least to the raising of him But besides to what would he rise He was Emperour already before we find him take the least notice of the Bishops And if after this success of his Army to establish himself in his new conquest he indeavoured to oblige all sorts of people and amongst the rest the Bishops who were popular men in those dayes I cannot understand how it can be any great reproach to them Sometimes wicked Men may reverence that Vertue and goodness in others that they will not practise themselves Sometimes their guilty Consciences and their just fear of reproof makes them stand in awe of men of severe conversation and to indeavour to please them Sometimes their interest leads them to oblige those that have any influence or Authority over the people And one would think this would hardly be objected by way of reproach to them that innocently received the obligation Well But what did this Usurper do to please the Bishops And how far were they instrumental to his advancement Mr. B. tells us When Gratian the Emperour befriended the Priscillianists Maximus to please the Bishops persecuted them to death But by this if he pleased some Bishops he displeased several others who were extreamly dissatisfied with these proceedings although they all were of opinion those Hereticks were not fit to live Sulp. Sev. l. 2. in sin And in the account which Severus gives of this proceeding he intimates that the Bishops were generally dissatisfied that Ithacius to avoid their prosecution did lay down his Bishoprick that Theognostus and a Synod condemned him for it Yet another Synod to prevent a Schism in all likelihood received him into their Communion But to proceed saith Mr. B When Valentinian Sulp. Sev. de vit mar Baron Ar. 385.29 by Justina the Empresses's means did persecute or trouble Ambrose for refusing to deliver a Church to the Arians and also other Orthodox Bishops as well as Ambrose Maximus gave to Ambrose and the Bishops the honour of keeping him out of Italy and wrote his Letters to Valentinian for the Orthodox Bishops telling him how grievous a thing it is to persecute the Ministers of God and when under his Father they went for faithful Ministers Vpon this message of Maximus he saith that Valentinian being afraid of him the persecution ceased and Ambrose must be sent upon an Embassage to Maximus to stop him As to the when Mr. B. mistakes the time in the first place Soâ—r l. 5. c. 1. l. Soâ—â—◠〈…〉 with Socrates and Sozomen Socrates makes this persecution of Ambrose to be before the Death of Gratian which that Historian sayes so frighted Justina that she left off troâ—â—â—â— that good Bishop any longer But Ambrose himself contradicts it Ep. 33. Baron An. 383.19 and shews plainly that this happened after his first Embassy and after his obtaining a peace of Maximus In the next place Maximus is said to have given Ambrose and the Bishops the honour of keeping him out of Italy It was certainly a great Honour to Ambrose for other Bishops there were none concerned in it But I much question whether ever Maximus designed it as such Gloriosum est mihi hoc pro salute pupilli Imperatoris Amb. Ep. 27. who as we shall shew presently not out of
Mr. B. tells us that Treatise of Episc p. 1. p. 164. The Church of Scotland is an Eminent instance that Churches which have no Bishops have incomparably less Heresie Schism wickedness and more concord than we have here For the concord of that Church it was much greater while it continu'd under Superintendents and Bishops than it has been since Andrew Melvil diiturli'd it with the Perfection of the Geneva Discipline and Government For a long time after all the Disputes about Religion were reduc'd into one point of Ecclesiastical sovereign jurisdiction which they disputed against the King and the Government with such perpetual Seditions and Treasons as at last engag'd three Kingdoms in most unnatural and bloody Wars which ended in the slavery of them all and particularly of those that were the first Incendiaries through the wise and just judgment of God What Schism there arose in the late times between the disciplinarians and the rest and what disturbances the same sort of men have given of late is too well known to need a relation and the field Conventieles still witness But because Mr. B. would perswade us that there is such great concord to be found in Anti-Episcopal Churches and particularly in this I will give one Instance that shall let the reader see how far this way is from establishing a lasting Concord and withal how this parity that is pretended is really no more than a pretence the leading men against Bishops commonly assuming greater authority and exercising it with greater Absoluteness and more Impatient of being oppos'd and contradicted than any Bishops who are legally Invested with power There happen'd a great division in the Presbytery of St. Spotswood H. of Scot. 1.6 Andrews about preferring a Minister to the Church of Luchars There were two pretenders and Melvil with a few more was for one and the rest who were three times as many in number were for the other Melvil looking upon himself as an Apostle and disdaining to be overrul'd by the Majority of the Presbytery left the place and with his six Presbyters that follow'd him made another Synod by himself and both these Presbyters like Anti. Popes Issu'd out their several pleasures The Gentlemen of the Parish upon this were divided into factions some holding with one and some with the other which occasioned great scandal and the heats grew to that height that the Presbytery was forc'd to be divided one part of it to sit at St. Andrews the other at Couper the one under the Influence of Melvil and the other under that of Th. Buchanan so hard it was for one Presbyterial Diocese to hold two Topping Presbyters The observation that follows the relation of this difference in Spotswood is very remarkable Thus was that great strife pacifi'd which many held to be Ominous p. 386. and that the Government which in the beginning did break forth into such Schisms could not long continue for this every man noted That of all men none could worse endure Parity and lov'd more to Command than they who had introduc'd it into the Church This sort of men did afterwards make not only a formal Schism and insurrection against those Bishops plac'd over them by authority but after that Episcopacy was abolish'd in Scotland could be as little at peace among themselves They were in the first place divided about the receiving the King and the Conditions to be Impos'd upon him and in this they proceeded even to the Excommunication of one another After his Majesties Restauration when Episcopacy was again establish'd in the Church the Presbyterians who separated from the Communion of the Bishops were divided yet among themselves some accepting the Kings Indulgence and Licence to Preach others renouncing it as derogatory to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ and upon this they parted Communion Nor could these resolute Renouncers of Indulgence agree yet among themselves about the measure of their Contempt of authority some were content to Conventicle and Preach against the Kings order and carry their Contempt no farther the others under Cameron were more fiercely Zealous and thought themselves oblig'd by the Covenant to attempt the deposing of the King as they manifested besides their several Writings to that effect by two formal Rebellions These are the fruits this the Peace and Unity that Presbytery and the Scotch Covenant produc'd the Covenant so much Idolz'd once by our Presbyterians of England and which notwithstanding all the Mischiefs that attended it here and do still issue from it in Scotland they are yet loth to renounce though required so to do by all the Authority in the Nation But what is all this to Congregational Episcopacy It is not Presbytery but this that Mr. B. Contends for He is for Bishops and would only pare off the superfluities of their Dioceses and reduce them to their first bounds To which I answer First That Mr. B.'s Congregational Bishop and Parish Presbyter is all one and he has taken so much pains to prove it in his Treatise of Episcopacy that it were an injury to his sincerity to question his opinion of it But Secondly That there was some necessity to say all this of Presbyterian Governments being subject to Heresies and Schisms as well as Episcopal because Mr. B. himself had made the comparison between them and charg'd all Schisms and Heresies upon Diocesan Episcopacy as the fault of the constitution it was therefore necessary to see how all sorts of Governments of the Church as well as of the State may be disturb'd by evil and factious men and are subject to great inconveniences when they fall into evil hands But then what Schisms can be imputed to this Congregational way This cannot well be answered without asking a question was this Congregational Episcopacy ever establish'd in any Churches If not it will be as hard a matter to shew what mischief it has occasion'd as it is to discover what Civil Wars happen'd in Plato's Common-wealth or to reckon the Differences of Sects of Philosophers in the College of Atlantis If this Government has been set up any where it is but naming the time and place and it may be that some account may be given of the Schisms and Heresies that molested it Mr. B. contends it was the first Apostolical and Scripture constitution and shews at large that a Church was but one Congregation and a Bishop could have but one Church Well but there were Schisms and Heresies then and St. Paul makes frequent complaints of them Or if this sort of Government continu'd for some Centuries after as Mr. B. would make it appear it must be likewise granted that there never were greater and more Blasphemous Heresies than in those times and for Schisms they could not be avoided it seems and though a Diocese were but one Congregation the Presbyters could not agree who should govern that but divided it into separate Assemblies But to this Mr. B. Answers 2 Dispute about Ordination p. 329. That
here Independency became an Vniting Principle and bound up all sorts of Errors and Blasphemies in one and would â—ot disown any that would enter into their Constitution or interest let them believe as they please or believe nothing all but as to the Sects that Sprung out of them let us â—â—ar Bastwick 2. part of Indep Postscript p. 37. Before the Independents Apâ—â—ition in our Horison there were but three 〈◊〉 four Sects known among us and they were 〈◊〉 in number and well conditioned But out of the â—â—dependents lungs are Sprung above 40 several â—â—ts of straglers which before their coming were never known among us J. Lilburn related it unto me and that in the presence of others that returning from the Wars to London he not forty new Sects and some so pernicious that he had much a do to keep his hands off them though he was in his judgment for a Toleration of all Religions There are innumerable and Diabolical Sects and so prodigiously Impious that it is not for a Christian to name their opinions And Lastly these Congregational Bishops men of humble pretences that would not aspire at first beyond a single Congregation nor desire to govern that any otherwise than in Conjunction with and by the advice of all the members These men when they had an opportunity exercis'd so great and extensive a Tyranny as this Church had never felt under the most Insolent of Diocesan Bishops for P. Nye and H. Petâ—r the Arch-Bishops of those times whâ—â— Govern'd the Committee of Tryers 〈◊〉 no Law no Canons but their owâ— pleasures they rejected whom they pleas'd without giving themselves the Trouble 〈◊〉 the sufferers the satisfaction of the least reason and there was no relief no Quare Iâ—â—pedit against these Church Governours and their proceedings were so arbritrary that some stil'd that Committee The Case of A. S. The English Inquisition And this is the fair fruit oâ— Congregational Episcopacy among us Confusion Regicide and Slavery in the Common wealth Heresie and endless Sects and more than Papal Tyranny in the Church But surely Mr. B. is not for this Congregational Independent way but for a Temperament or Mixture of Church Government made up of this and Presbytery and Episcopacy Mr. B. tells us that he has not chang'd â—is opinion these forty years Treatise of Episc praef and if we may judge of it by what he has written since it must be either Independency or something so like it that an ordinary Capacity cannot distinguish from it For if to declare 〈◊〉 Church of Christs constituting to be but â—â—e Congregation joyn'd in personal Comâ—â—â—ion of Prayer and Sacraments and that â—â—ery such Congregation is Independent â—â—d hath all sort of Ecclesiastical power â—â—en it immediatly by Christ If to say that 〈◊〉 usurp Authority over several of these â—â—â—ches and to assume the power of cenâ—â— over their Members is contrary to the â—â—â—tolick Institution and unchurches all â—â—â—â—e Congregations and that no Synods 〈◊〉 more than Bishops have any Superioriâ—â— over any one or more of these Churches 〈◊〉 that a Church for Discipline cannot â—â—prehend a greater number than a Church 〈◊〉 Worship if this be Independency Mr. B. â—â—â—ds it or else he either does not mean as 〈◊〉 speaks for all these things he plainly â—â—â—ms or speaks so as no body can make 〈◊〉 other meaning of his words Yet how can this be for he is not against â—â—â—â—es and Synods no more are the Indepenâ—â—â— they have not condemn'd the use of â—â—ods as I have shew'd out of F. Johnson and the Independents Assembled in a Synod declare in the Preface to their Confession that this neglect of Synods and Consociation was the cause of those endless divisions their Churches ran into but still this is no more than a Neighbourly consultation and has no proper authority to impose any rule upon National Churches But Mr. B. is for Episcopacy so is Johnson and Mr. B. is for no other For he does expresly disown any Bishop that is appointed over many Churches But he is for Bishop Vshers Episcopacy It is true Mr. B. says so in several places and that Bishop Vsher and he had agreed the point in a quarter of an hour What might have been the result of Mr. B.'s conversation with that Learned Primate I cannot tell But that which Mr. B. so often referrs us to for Bishop Vshers opinion shews there is as great a distance between him and Mr. B. in this point as there is between Mr. B. and the Church of England There is a small Paper that bears the name of that Bishop Entituled The Reduction of Episcopacy which Mr. B. often mentions I will Transcribe the second Article that the reader may see how well his notion of Episcopacy does agree with Mr. B.'s Whereas by a Statute in the 26 year of K. Henry the Eight reviv'd in the first of Queen Elizabeth Suffragans are appointed to be erected in Twenty six several places of this Kingdom p. 6. the number of them might very well be conform'd unto the number of the several Rural Deanries into which every Diocese is subdivided which being done the Suffragans supplying the place of those who in the Ancient Church were call'd Chorepiscopi might every month Assemble a Synod of all the Rectors or Incumbent Pastors within the Precinct and according to the major part of their voices conclude all matters that should be brought into Debate before them To this Synod the Rector and Church-wardens might Present such Impenitent persons as by admonition and suspension from the Sacrament would not be Reform'd who if they remain Contumacious and incorrigible the sentence of Excommunication might be decreed against them by the Synod and accordingly be executed in the Parish where they liv'd Hitherto also all things that concern'd Parochial Ministers may be referr'd whether they did touch their doctrine or their Conversation The Diocesans were to remain as now only to Govern by a Synod of Suffragans and incumbents and their Decrees if occasion were to be revised by Provincial and Metropolitical Synods presided by the Metropolitans Now let us compare this with Mr. B.'s Doctrine of Church Government First then the Sâ—ffragans here mention'd as the Bishops of the first and lowest order are Diocesan for every one is to rule a Rural Deanry which consists of about 40 or 50 or sometimes more Parishes is not this the same species of Government with Diocesan if a Diocese of 50 Parishes be specifically distinct from one of 80 or a Hundred we must have several species amongst us too according to the different proportions of our Bishopricks the Diocese of Lincoln will be specifically different from that of Bristol and by this way it is possible at last to make out Mr. B.'s Twelve sorts of Episcopacy which he reckons in his Disputation of Church Government in short what kind of Episcopacy does Mr. B. reject Diocesan he says Treatise of Episc part
they believed they were Baptized both Men and Women Now the Apostles who remained in Jerusalem when they heard of this success send Peter and John thither who confirm the believers by imposition of hands and why could not Philip do this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphan he could dispossess unclean Spirits and heal all manner of diseases he could Preach powerfully so as to Convert in a manner a whole City and why could not he do all other Acts that were useful to the Church but that these Apostles must be taking Authority upon them in his Church it is something like Diocesan Prelacy to reserve any Acts of Order or Discipline to themselves yet so it was that the holy Ghost was not given 〈◊〉 by their hands and what kind of Government they established there Chrysost Oecumenius Theophylact. does not appear and some pretend to give reasons why they did not appoint a Clergy there as afterwards they did in other places because they say that Samaria was near enough to Jerusalem where the whole Council of the Apostles did reside and thither their Bishop or Presbyters might repair for more solemn Ordination And that we may not think meaner of the success of the Apostles Ministry than we ought and measure it by the progress of Sectaries as Anabaptists and Quakers as Mr. B. does with too much disparagement to the first Planters of Christian Religion St. Luke gives us a short account of loâ—e visitation of St. Peter that lets us see hoâ— wonderfully the Gospel prevail'd at first for when that Apostle passed through 〈◊〉 quarters and came to the Saints that dwelled at Lydda Acts 9.32 33. c. Saron Tractus quidam Regionis non procul à Caesaria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Antiq l. 20. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph de Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 37. Lydda Civitas Palestinae quae diospolis appellatur Hieron de 〈◊〉 Heb. and healed miraculously a Person that had been long bed-ridden 〈◊〉 that dwelled at Lydda and Saron saw him and turned unto the Lord and this Town anâ— Territory mentioned with it was large enough for a considerable Diocesan Church nor is there any likelyhood it was divided under several Church Governments Mr. B. confessing that no City with the villages aâ—joyning had any more than one Bishop 〈◊〉 a long time after this and in the time 〈◊〉 the Council of Nice It was an Episcopaâ— seat for we find Aetius Bishop of the place among the subscriptions of thâ— Council The next considerable Church that waâ— founded was that of Antioch the greated City of all the East and the Church dâ—â— soon bear a good proportion to the greatneâ—â— of the City Acts 11. â—1 For the hand of God was wâ—â— them the scattered Disciples and a greâ—â— number believed and turned unto the Lord anâ— when Barnabar had come from Jerusalem assist in this work v. 24. Much people was added unto the Lord and when Barnabas had brought Paul to Antioch they assembled themselves with the Church v. 26. and taught much people It is not unlikely that all these Proselytes mentioned hitherto were Jews or such as were Proselytes of the Gate and had reâ—ounced Idolatry and such must the Greeks be to whom those of Cyprus Preach'd the word at Antioch v. 20. for Paul and Barnabas sometime after tell the Church of Antioch as an extraordinary thing Acts 14.27 that God had opened the door of Faith to the Gentiles and there is no doubt but they were â—ncouraged by that success to Preach to the Gentiles at Antioch too while they abode â—here a long time with the Disciples and the â—ultitude of these Gentile Converts made â—equestion about Circumcision of so great â—â—portance as to require a determination of all the Apostles and the whole Church of Jerusalem assembled in Council for before that there were not only several Congregations probably but separate Churches and the people were not only distributed but diviâ—ed Gal. 2.12 compared with Acts 15.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rent into separate â—ssemblies unless we shall â—â—terpret this separation â—o be rather a scruple reâ—â—ting to Conversation and â—â—iet than to publick and Church Communiâ—â—â— as it is most likely though even this must â—ave likewise an evil influence upon their Communion too for it is not likely the Jews if they stood so much upon the Law about choice of meats should care much for the Communion of the Gentiles when they fansied to be prophane and polluted by the transgression of that Law Barnius makes two Bishops of Antioch together aâ— this time upon the account of these dissersions Martyrolog Rom. Feb. 1. Evodius and Ignatius the one choses by Paul the other by Peter but the misery is that the Author that gives this light is confessed to mistake Clemens Const l. 7. c. 46. Orat. in S. Ignat. by making Paul 〈◊〉 chuse Ignatius and Peter Evodius whereas Chrysostom sayes the contrary that Ignaâ—â—â— was ordained by Peter and to speak freely I believe this no better than what Barâ—â—â—â— would forbid his reader to imagine a fiâ—â—â—â— which he was forced to make shift with iâ— reconcile the contradictions of Eusebius aâ—â— Chrysostom Euseb Hist l. 3. c. 22. Ed. Valâ—sâ—i Euseb Chronicon the former making Peter to be dead before Evodius to whom he makes Ignatius to succeed the latter expressly afirming that Apostle to have ordained him For my part I believe that the traditionâ—â— Chronology of Eusebius and the preciâ—â— time of the Succession and Government 〈◊〉 the first Bishops was no otherwise known to him is not a Foundation firm enouâ—â— to build any Opinion upon Vid. Dissert Spanhemii Blond Praesat Apol. pro sent H. especiaâ—â— when we consider that the place as we as time of St. Peters Martyrdom is questioned not without some appearance 〈◊〉 Reason and the whole business is involveâ— in so many difficulties Blondel takes greaâ— pains to confute the conjecture of Baronius but advances another of his own more strange and improbable and what is yet worse draws important consequences from it and pretends by these seeming contradictions to discover the nature of Primitive Episcopacy and the ancient Law of Succession But all that is trifling It is plain of Chrysostom that he thought Ignatius the immediate successor of Peter and therefore makes no mention of Evodius at all unless one shall say that Peter might ordain Ignatius as he did Timothy or Titus as an Evangelist and that afterwards he became the fixed Bishop of Antioch though Chrysostoms words will hardly bear that sense and refer to the Episcopal Office at large But however it fare either with Baronius his divided Episcopacy or Blondel's Succession by seniority it is highly probable that the Bishop of Antioch even at this time was a Diocesan having the oversight of a Church that was distributed into several Congregations for if we reflect
may as well believe that there was a time when all the Republicks in the world upon the consideration of their being obnoxious to Factions became Monarchies by mutual consent Nay this might with greater reason be believed for it is not impossible but that men who are satisfied of their power to set up what form of Government they please might agree to shake off together a form that they find very incommodious but that so many Societies as there were Churches in the World appointed by divine direction should so universally change what the Apostles had instituted without any noise or resistance and that by one common decree is altogether incredible and one may say with the same reason that they conspired at the same time to change their Creed Having examined St. Jeroms singular opinion concerning the rise of Episcopal Government I should now conclude that point if Clemens Romanus in his excellent Epistle to the Corinthians did not seem to favour this opinion therefore I think it necessary to consider such passages in it as are alledged against Episcopacy and from the whole to make a conjecture of the state of that Church when that Epistle was written The Inscription of it affords Blondel an argument against Episcopacy for it is not in the name of the Bishop or Clergy but of the whole Church that it is written The Church of God at Rome to the Church of God at Corinth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From whence Blondel infers that since there is no mention of the Clergy it follows that the Church was governed then not by the pleasure of one man but by the common Counsel of those that were set over it This way of reasoning I must confess to be very extraordinary Because there is no mention of the prerogative of the Roman Clergy Ubi cum nulla peculiaris vel scribentis mentio vel cleri Romani Praerogativa vel Corinthiaci Presbyterii a plebe discretio appareat sed omnes ad omnes confertim scripsisse compertum sit luce meridiana clarius clucescit tune temporis Ecclesias communi Praepositorum Consilio gubernatas non unius regi mini à cujus â—utu penderent omnes subjacuisse or of that of Corinth as distinguished from the Laity it 's clear nay clearer than the day that there was no Bishop It would be a very strange thing to see two men with their eyes open dispute fiercely whether it were noon-day or midnight and yet this is our case that consequence which to him is as clear as the Sun does not at all appear to others If he had said because there is no mention of the Clergy in the Inscription as the Governing part therefore there was no Clergy or the Clergy did not govern the inference would have appeared but what truth there would be in it I need not say Others inscribe Epistles in the same style to the Church of such a Place where notwithstanding there is a Bishop and a Clergy Dionys Corinth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet in the body of these Letters he mentions the Bishops of those Churches Irenaeus ubi supra Euseb l. 4. c. 23. And this Argument of Blondel may be justly suspected when we consider that the Ancients though they were well acquainted with this Epistle of Clemens and its Inscription yet they could by no means see this consequence that is now drawn from it Irenaeus had doubtless seen that Epistle for it was in his time commonly read in Churches and yet he thought Clemens who wrote it to be Bishop of Rome notwithstanding his name be not mentioned in it Dionysius Bishop of Corinth sayes it was read in his Church and yet he could not find any thing in it to perswade him that at that time there were no Bishops but on the contrary he was of opinion that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles and that Dionysius Areopagita was ordained by St. Paul the first Bishop of Athens so that these ancient writers it seems were as blind as we and could not observe either in the Inscription or body of this Epistle what Blondel at such a distance of time could perceive as clear as the noon day and yet those writers if they had suspected any such thing might have been easily satisfied by their Fathers who might have seen the state of the Church about which the difficulty was and so told them upon their own knowledge whether the Government was Episcopal or Presbyterian And therefore this is our comfort that if we cannot discern this light which Blondel talks of that those who lived nearer the East the rising of it could see no more than we But some men surely have glasses for distance of time as well as place and can see farther in the Apostolick times than the next Generation that followed them But to proceed Clemens owned but two orders in the Church of Apostolick Institution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops and Deacons which he sayes the Apostles ordained out of the first-fruits of the Gospel over those that should afterwards believe And these were appointed in Cities and the Country or Regions round about from whence Blondel draws many observations and out of him Mr. B. as 1. That in those days no body thought of what the Council of Sardica did afterwards decree that no Bishop should be made in any Village or small City lest the dignity of that office should be undervalued and grow cheap This is grounded as most of the rest of Blondels and Mr. B.'s Arguments from this Epistle upon a mistake and I fear a wilful one concerning the name of Bishop For if the Bishops of Clemens who he sayes were apponited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were only Presbyters then the Council of Sardica did not do any extraordinary thing by that prohibition of Bishops in little Dioceses for Presbyters were still allowed in the Country Villages by that Council and therefore if Episcopacy was an institution later than Clemens this Council has done nothing so contrary to this by forbidding Bishops properly so called and allowing Presbyters to reside in Country Villages Some there are that interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Provinces but there is no necessity at all for this though the phrase will very well bear it for these Bishops I believe with Blondel and Mr. B. were no other than Presbyters such as were first appointed to govern the Church but in subordination to the Apostles who were the proper Bishops of those Churches they founded and as they found occasion appointed others to succeed them in that eminence of Authority over such districts of the Apostolical Provinces as they judged most convenient for the edification and unity of the Church And this distribution of Church Officers by Clemens into Bishops and Deacons is the less to be depended upon as exact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esay 60.17 because it seems to be made only with allusion to a place in the Old Testament where those
happy are those that enter that way behaving themselves peaceably For let a man be faithful let him be never so powerful a Preacher let him be never so wise and discerning holy in his life yet by how much he seems to excel others by so much ought he to behave himself more humbly and seek the common good of all and not his own particular Besides this the passionate expostulation of Clemens with the Ringleaders of this sedition makes this conjecture yet more probable Who is there among you generous and charitable Let him say if this Schism and Sedition has been raised upon my account I will withdraw I will be gone withersoever ye please only let the Fold of Christ live in unity and peace with the Presbyters that are over it and to incourage them to this generous resignation he tells them of many Kings that have offered themselves a Sacrifice for the safety of their Countrys How many to put an end to sedition have left their own Cities Apud Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 45. with more to that effect which Dionysius of Alexandria borrows out of this Epistle and sends it as an exhortation to Novatus to put an end to that Schism he had caused and what is there so proper against a Schismatick Bishop we may judge not without reason to have been applyed by the first Author upon the same occasion And thus much of the state of the Church of Corinth at the writing of this Epistle The last thing I shall observe out of Clemens is a passage that seems to favour the distribution of the Clergy into three Orders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop Priests and Deacons The High-Priest sayes he hath his proper office the Priests have a proper place appointed for them and the Levites have their peculiar Ministry and the Lay-man is obliged to keep himself within the bounds of his own station Brethren let every one of you glorifie God in his own place and keep himself within his own line not breaking over the bounds of his own Office and Ministry Having now given an account of the Original of Diocesan Episcopacy out of Scripture and Antiquity and examined the singular opinion of St. Jerom concerning it I come now to give a short view of the progress and advancement of it The first Bishops after the Apostles according to the opinion of Rabanus Maurus In 1 Tim. 4. had very large Dioceses Primis temporibâ—â— Episcopi Provincias integras regebant Apostâ—lorum nomine nuncupati i. e. In those first times Bishops governed whole Provinces being called then Apostles and this conformable to Theodoret who affirms not only the same thing of the first Bishops being called Apostles Is Argumento Ep. ad Tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. in 1 Tim. 3. but also that they had large Dioceses too for speaking of Titus he calls him Bishop of Crete though it were a very great Island and in another place he sayes that Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians Titus of the Cretians and Timothy of the Asians i. e. In his language their Bishops and the Canons of the Apostles signifie as much where they order every Bishop to medale only with his own Diocess and the Regions that belong to it Can. Ap. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But as Christians were multiplyed in the World so the number of Bishops increased every considerable City with the Country about becoming Dioceses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil 1. Chrysost in loc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oecum Theoph. nor â—â—iâ— una in urbe plures Episcopi esse potuissent Hieron It could not be It was against the design of the institution Loci ipsius Episcâ—â—o scribendum esset non duobus aut tribus Ambr. in Loc. so Asia towards the latter end of St. John had seven Bishops and by proportion we may conjecture of other Countries and the first advances of Christianity being very wonderful and the success of our Religion giving occasion to envy and persecution the condition of those times seems to have proportioned the distribution of the Church and to multiply Dioceses For in those troublesome times it being very difficult to maintain such a communication as ought to be between a Bishop and all the parts of his Diocese it was found necessary to multiply Churches and that every City with some Portion of Countrey belonging to it should have its own Bishop who though his flock might at first be but small and not exceed a Congregation yet was he properly the Bishop of the place i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that afterwards should believe Whatever accessions were made to this Church though the whole City and Country should be converted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cornel. ap Eâ—seb l. 6. c. 43. Episcope cedunt they accrue to the Bishop of the place into how many Congregations soever they might after be distributed and therefore the Church of a Bishop retained still the singular number though distributed into several Congregations and in such a Church they contended there ought to be but one Bishop though it had never so many Presbyters as that of Rome had when Cornelius pretended there ought to be but one Bishop and Novatus did not contradict him but the dispute was about this which of them were the rightful Bishop Episcopacy being setled upon these foundations with a regard to the future increase as well as the first condition and small beginnings of the Church we do not find that for the first three Centeries the number of Bishops was near so great as it became afterwards although in a little while the multitude of believers was so great that there was no Country no City no village in several Provinces of the Roman Empire where there was not a good number of Christians Before the persecution of Trajan they were so increased that in the Province of Bithynia as Pliny complains the Heathen Temples were become desolate Prope jam desolata Templa coepisse celebrari Sacra Solemnia diu intermissa repetl paffimque venire victimas quarum ad huâ— rarissimus emptor inveniebatur ex quo facile est opinari quae turba hominum emendati possit Yet after the Apostasy of so many the numbers are still great Visa est mihi res consultations digna maxime proper periclitantiam numerum multi enim omnis aetatis omnis or diâ—is utriusque sexus neque enim Civitates tantum sed vicos agros superstitionis istius contagio pervagata est Plin. Ep. l. 10. Ep. 100. the Sacrifices neglected and laid aside and notwithstanding the severity of that persecution made great numbers fall off yet those that remained unshaken and resolved to dye Martyrs for their Religion were exceeding numerous Not long after Arrius Antoninus found so many of them in Asia that it was an endless thing to put them to death though they made no resistance and when they thronged so much about his Tribunal
go to the Confessours in Prison by turns to Administer the Communion to them that the changing of the Persons and the seeing of new faces daily may render it less envied or observed Besides when four of his Presbyters and those probably living at some distance from Carthage had writ to him about something relating to the Church he tells his Clergy that he was resolved from the time he was made Bishop Ad id vero quod scripserunt mihi Compresbyteri nostri Donatus Fortunatus Gordias Novatus solus rescribere nihil potui quando à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis meae privatae sententia gerere sed cum ad vos venere in commune tractabimus Ep. 6. Decipientes quosdam fratres ex plebe nostra Ep. 28. to determine nothing without advising with his Clergy which intimates that they were not of the Clergy residing at Carthage for it is not likely that four persons would pretend to write to their Bishop about any publick concern of the Church without consulting their Brethren if they lived together with them and met daily at the same Altar and Cyprian's speaking of them with this strangeness makes it improbable that they were among this Clergy to whom he wrote concerning them Besides we have express mention of one Country Presbyter and Deacon belonging to the Diocess of Carthage Gaius Diddensis Presbyter who from several passages of that Epistle appears to have been near the City and under its jurisdiction and it is not improbable that this is one of those Presbyters Cyprian complains of in another place for their presumption in receiving the lapsed into communion Quorundam immoderata praesumptio plebis universae tranquillitatem turbare conetur aliqui de Presbyteris nec sibi praepositum Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est cum contumelia contemptu Prapositi totum sibi vendicent Interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos apud confessores ipsos apud universam plebem causam suam Ep. 10. without consulting their Bishop or the Clergy and the nature of their fault makes it evident that there were several Congregations now in Carthage for this could never have been done by a few in the Episcopal Church in the presence of all the Presbytery it is not probable they would have indured it or if they had then they had been all in equal fault which Cyprian does by no means lay to their charge but layes it upon a few and orders they should be suspended from their office by the rest of the Presbyters and their cause reserved to be tryed before him and the whole Church at his return Beside this the Charity of the Diocess of Carthage towards the redemption of the Numidian Captives was so considerable that it cannot be supposed to be gathered in one oâ— a few Congregations Misimus autem Sestertia centum millia nummum quae istic in Ecclesia cui de Domini indulgentia praesuâ—us cleri plebis apud nos consistentis collatione collecta sunt And if the like should happen again he makes no doubt but his Diocess will relieve them libenter largiter Subsidia praestare ad hoc opus tam necessarium Fratres Sorores prompte libenter operati sunt Ep. 60. LL. S. centum millia LL. centum as Pamelius corrects it though without the Authority of any MS S. Potest inter caeteros qui alimentis Ecclesia sustinentur hujus Histrionis necessitas adjuvari Si illic Ecclesia non sufficit ut laborantibus prâ—stet alimenta poterit se ad nos transferre hic quod sibi ad victum vestitum necessarium fuerit accipere especially when we consider that Cyprian when he sends it to the Bishops of Numidia with a Letter and particulars does not take notice of it as any extraordinary matter and all the observation he makes of the Contributions of his flock is that they were done prompte libenter readily and willingly and he promises that they will be as ready upon any such occasion 2. The Ordinary charge of that Church was so great for the support of the Bishop Presbyters and a very numerous Clergy besides poor who were plentifully relieved and especially in dangerous times besides the maintenance of such as when they became Christians were obliged to quit their former callings as inconsistent with that holy profession and the extraordinary charge of Messengers that passed perpetually between them and other Churches This ordinary charge was so great that the summ collected in this Diocess for the redemption of those Câ—ptives at the lowest computation must suppose a considerable Diocess to furnish it especially so soon after a terrible persecution as that which this is supposed to follow Lastly the Diocess of Carthage is not extraordinary in all these circumstances but the rest of Africk were some of them distributed into several Parishes For Caldonius an African Bishop makes mention of one Felix Faelix qui Presbyterium subministrabat sub Decimo proximus mihi vicinus plenius câ—gnevi â—â—ndem Cum ergo universi pacem preterent quamvis mihi videaâ—tur debere pacem accipere tamen ad consultum vestrum â—â—s dimisi â—e videar aliquid temere praesumere Caldon Ep. ad Cypr. 19. who did the office of a Presbyter under one Decimus another Presbyter of Caldoniuâ—'s Diocess as will appear from some passages of that Epistle though Goulartius be of opinion this Decimus was a Bishop and Felix his Presbyter But Pamelius his conjecture is much better grounded who makes him the Vicar or Curate of Decimus For 1. If he and his wife Victoria had belonged to another Bishop why do they make their Application to Caldonius to reconcile them to the Church Why do not they go to their own Bishop Decimus or if he were dead and no other yet ordained in his place Why not to the Presbytery there who ought to have reconciled them and in a vacance took care of Ecclesiastical Discipline as the Clergy of Rome declare that at such a time they are to take care of the Church Cum nobis incumbat Ap. Cypr. ep 3. qui praepositi esse videmur vice Pastoris custodire gregem But their making their application to Caldonius makes it clear that he was their Diocesan that the Cure in which Felix officiated was in his Diocess 2. Caldonius his remitting them to Cyprian as the first Bishop makes it probable that he was their Ordinary for what else had he to do to meddle with or remit the cognizance of any persons belonging to another Church to any other than their own Clergy and let them remit them to the Primate if they judged the case difficult Therefore it is much more probable that Caldonius was the Bishop of the Suppliants and that the Priest mentioned exercised his charge in some Village or Town in
his Diocess But since there is no Record left as Ancient as the times we speak of that gives the just extent of any Diocess and what we mentioned already are only accidental hints we must take some other way to make more just observations of the magnitude of those Stars and of the Orbs in which they moved And since most of the Remains of Ancient writings do either concern Religion in general and are taken up in the defence of it against Idolatry and Blasphemous Heresies or else in giving some account of the general administration of the Church by Bishops met in Councils we must try whether we may not ground a probable computation of the Bishopricks of those times in some Provinces upon the number of Bishops that usually met there to determine such things as concerned the general Union and the peace not only of the Churches within such a district but also the Church Universal Now the Church of Africk at this distance of time stands in the best light of any which is owing to the excellent writings of Cyprian who gives several particulars concerning the state of the Churches of that part of the world in and before his time The first Council mentioned there was under Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage about rebaptizing of Hereticks but the number is not mentioned which if it had been any thing extraordinary Cyprian would not have forborn to alledge to add weight and Authority to the precedent he cites in favour of his own opinion Cypr. Ep. 71. Agrippinus bonae memoriae vir cum caeteris Coepiscopis suis qui illo tempore in Provincia Africa Numidia Ecclesiam Dei gubernabant The next we find is at Lambese against one Privatus of that place where there were present ninety Bishops the most numerous Council we read of in Africk before the Schism of the Donatists Ep. 55. compared with 30. nor is it to be wondred there should be so many Bishops met together in a Provincial Synod since the Province of Cyprian contained Africa properly so called Numidia and the two Mauritania's Latius fusa est nostra Provincia habet enim Numidiam Mauritanias duas sibi cohaerentes Ep. 45. and we find several Councils composed of the Bishops of all these Provinces less numerous than this against Privatus Nanc cum in unum convenissemus tam Provinciae Africaequam Numidiae Episcopi numero 71. Ep. 73. However this passage of Cyprian of Provincia nostra whether it be understood here of the Civil or Ecclesiastical Province yet it was usual for the Bishops of those Provinces in Cyprians time to meet at Carthage to consult as the occasions of the Church did require Cum in unum Cartheâ—ini Convenissent Kal. Sept. Episcopi plurimi ex Provincia Africa Numidia Mauritâ—nia Sententiae Episc ap Cypr. T. 2. ed Goulart And it is further observable that there is a great difference in the number of the Councils of Africa properly so called and the other more general ones of the several Provinces united all the Bishops of that Country or the greatest part coming together upon extraordinary occasions as we shall shew presently from the simplicity of their constitution which continued longer in that Church than in any other of the Christian World and the strict obligations every particular Bishop had of coming to the Synods which here were more indispensable because there were no Metropolitans to represent the Suffragans of their Province but of this hereafter After the persecution that forced Cyprian from Carthage was ceased a Council was assembled to settle the Discipline of the Church relating to the laps'd Cum quies tranquillitas data esset Episcopis in unum convenire indulgentia divina permitteret tune communicate librato de omnium collatione consilio statueremque quid fieri oporteret Si quis vero ante concilium nostrum ante sententiam de omnium Consilio statutam lapsis temere communicareâ— â—yseâ—â— communionâ— arceatur Persecutione sâ—pita copiâ—sus Episcoporum numerus quos integros incolumes fides sua Domini tutela protexit Ac si minus sufficiâ—â—s iâ— Africa Episcâ—porum numerus etiam Râ—mam c. Ep. 52. Epigraph Ep. 54. Cypriaâ—uâ— liberalis c. Numero 42. or such as had fallen away in time of Temptation and since Cyprian in his recess would never determine any thing concerning it before the storm were over and all the Bishops permitted to come together to establish a general rule concerning it it is to be imagined that all that could possibly come together would meet upon this occasion where they were all concerned and so no doubt they did and Cyprian intimates as much where he says that all that had stood and persevered under that persecution came together and their number did hardly exceed forty it is likely that only the Bishops of the Province of Africk appeared here the business requiring some speedy remedy and all of that Province that had not lapsed doubtless came together and Cyprian with regard to the number of Bishops in the Province calls this a great number of Bishops Another Syned is said to be called shortly after by the Author of the Libellus Synodicus in the cause of Novatian which appears to be after that which we have mentioned last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. Synod Sed cum statuissemus Collegae complures qui in unum conveneramus perhaps in Hadrumettina Colonia legatis ad vos coepiscopis nostris omnia interim in t egrasuspenderentur ut tâ— universi nostri Collega communicationem tuam i. e. Catholicae Ecclesie unitatem probarent firmiter ac tenerent and these universi Collegae it seems were the 84. above mentioned who came from Africk Numidia and the two Mauritaniâ—'s for the Union and consent of all these was designed by Cyprian in order to which some Bishops were sent to Rome to inform them of the whole matter Cypr. Ep. 45. as well from the number which was eighty four and supposed the Church in a peaceable condition as from Cyprians Letter to Cornelius about the Clergy in Hadrumettina Colonia which though it be placed in the order of Pamelius before the Synod of Carthage about the lapsed yet from several circumstances I conceive was written some time after For 1. From the Epistle of the Synod last mentioned it appears that it was the first after the Persecution 2. It makes no mention at all of Novatian 3. The Letter of Cyprian about Polycarp and his Clergy gives the reason why they deferred to determine the difference between Cornelius and Novatian because they staid for an account of the whole matter from those Bishops they had sent to Rome that the cause of Cornelius might want no advantage of evidence to justifie and clear it though he Cyprian was well enough satisfied of the justice of it and had communicated with Cornelius before All this he sayes in the same place was done
est curam Parochiae habere Hispani Episcopi docent Baptizare posse Mendoza where it is ordered That if a Deacon who has the government of a Congregation or Parish without a Bishop or Presbyter shall Baptize any the Bishop shall perfect it by Confirmation or if in the mean time the party dyes we are to hope well of him The Council of Neocaesarea in like manner does signifie the same distribution of Dioceses into several Parishes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Conc. Neocaes c. 13. where the Country Presbyters are distinguished from those of the City and the former are forbid to officiate in the Citie 's Cathedral in the presence of the Bishops or Presbyters belonging to them Now when Constantines conversion had made so great and happy a change in the affairs of the Church when the Civil power that hitherto used all means possible to destroy it took it not only into its protection but to special favour and kindness and studyed all means possible to render it great and honourable the number of Bishops and Dioceses were so far from being diminished that they soon after were exceedingly encreased partly by the Emperors multiplying Metropoles partly by the unhappy Divisions that soon after afflicted the Church as will appear by the progress of this deduction When Constantine Indicted the Council of Nice it appears from Eusebius that he us'd all means to have as great an Assembly of Bishops as could well come together Euseb â—e vita Constant l 3. c. 6. for which purpose he furnish'd many of them especially such as were at a great distance with convenience for Travail and there is no doubt but as many as could have any means of going would be carri'd thither by their curiosity to see and enjoy the Presence of a Christian Emperor that new Miracle that God had wrought in favour of his Church and accordingly they came from all parts of the Roman Empire and some from the Nations beyond it The Countries that lay next to Nice did doubtless send the greatest part of their Bishops as may be inferr'd by comparing the subscriptions of the Bishops of Palestine Phoenice Coelosyria Egypt and some other Countries either with the Ancient Notiâ—â—â— of the Dioceses of those Countries or the subscriptions of following Councils and it is observable that the Province of Bithynia where this Council was held had but 13 Bishops Present though the principal Bishop of the Province were extreamly concern'd and at last condemned by this Synod therefore we cannot but conclude that that Province had very few more Yet after all this care to make a full assembly the number of Bishops scarce exceeded 250. as Eusebius who was present does affirm 232. according to the MS. cited by Mr. Selden in Eutich 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Sandius takes to be Sabinus often mention'd by Socrates and one that exposed this Council as consisting of poor Illiterate men and Eustatius Bishop of Antioch reckons but 20 more though the Common opinion reckons 318. and yet how small a number is this in comparison of some succeeding Councils where we find without half the Apparatus that belong'd to the Nicene Council double the number meet together The Council of Sardica on the part of the Catholicks had near 300. the Hereticks had great numbers at the same time in Philippopolis the Arrian Council of Sirmium had 300 Western Bishops besides those of the East that of Ariminum had 400. Bishops from the Western parts of the Empire for in the East there was another Council called at Seleucca and lastly that of Chalcedon had no less than 600. There can be no reasonable account given of this difference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb vit Const l. 3.17 but that the multitude of Dioceses was strangely increas'd for Constantine design'd the Council of Nice to be as great and Magnificent as was possible and yet it was nothing in comparison with those that followed nay was outdone by some Provincial Councils of Africk And as the number of the Council of Nice shews that Dioceses in those times were not so many nor small as they became afterwards so the Canons of the same Council do suppose Bishopricks to be very large and forbid the dividing of them for one Canon orders that every Bishop should be ordained by all the Bishops of his Province Can. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And considering how large Ecclesiastical Provinces were then they cannot suppose all the Pastours of every Congregation to meet nor indeed the Ministers of every good Town or substantial Village which in several Provinces would amount to several thousands without making such an Assembly more numerous than any general Council that ever was in the world Can. â— another Canon provides against the dividing of Dioceses in case a Novatian Bishop shall happily be willing to be reconcil'd to the Church but that he should be content with the place of Presbyter unless the Catholick Bishop should think fit to leave him the title of a Bishop if not Inveniat eâ— locum ut sit in Parochia Chorepiscopus then to make him a Chorepiscopus i. e. the Rector of a Country Parish in his Diocese or a City Presbyter lest there should be two Bishops in the same City The African Councils took another course as we have seen and divided the Diocese in such a Case but when they consider'd the Authority of this Council we find them changing their Practice for Augustin when he had design'd his Successour yet would not suffer him to be ordain'd in his life time because he would not violate this Canon although his Predecessor had permitted his Ordination while he was alive August Ep. but Augustin makes his excuse that he did not know of this Canon then and yet his Diocese was large enough to hold two but he understood this one City with all its dependencies and thought that by vertue of this Canon there ought not to be two Bishops together in the Diocese of Hippo that was above forty miles in length The Diocese of Constantinople to which Constantine was so great a Patron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb vit Const l. 3. c. 46. was very considerable in his time for it had so far outgrown the measure of one Congregation that the Emperor thought it necessary to build a great many Churches and very large Temples or Martyria because they were dedicated to the memory of Martyrs and this not only within the City but in the Suburbs that is in the language of that time the Territory belonging to it And it is great pity there was no Bishop or Presbyter that could inform the welmeaning Emperor that this was mistaken devotion to submit all these Churches to one Bishop The Council of Antioch supposes Bishops to have large Dioceses An. Ch. 341. Can. 8. and therefore provides that Country Presbyters shall not give Canonical Epistles not so much as to the
next neighbouring Bishop but the Chorepiscopi may send such as were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for friendly correspondence and concord And the next Canon about the power of Metropolitans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 9. where it is forbid any Bishop to do any thing of great moment that may concern the whole Province without the concurrence of the Metropolitan does notwithstanding allow that he may govern his own Church and all the Regions under his jurisdiction Another Canon supposes more than one City in a Diocess and therefore Orders That a Bishop shall not Ordain a Presbyter or a Deacon in another City than his own * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Can. 22. or that is not subject to him Concil Agrippin An. 346. Non opinione sed veritate cognovi pro finitimi loci conjuncta Civitate The Council of Colen discovers the Dioceses thereabout to be very large for the Bishops assembled had most of them their Seats at a great distance from Colen Sêrvatius Bishop of Tongres in his Subscription adds something concerning his own knowledg of Euphratas Bishop of Colen and he gives for his reason that he was his next neighbour and yet their Cities are fifty or sixty English miles distant one from the other and the extent of the Diocess of Colen appears from the same Council where not only the people of the City exhibite their complaint against him but of all the Towns of the second Germany Subscriptio Servatii Cumque recitata fuisset Epifiola plebis Agrippinensis sed omnium Castrorum Germaniae secundae Ap. Conc. acta Provincia Germaniae secundae Metropolis Civitas Agrippinens Colozia Libel Provinciar whereof Colen was Metropolis and most of them belonged to that Diocess The Council of Sardica considering what course the Arians took to strengthen their party by increasing the number of Bishops as the instance of Ischyras Presbyter of Mareotes shews who was Ordained Bishop of a Village by the Arian Council of Tyre thought fit to declare against such proceedings as derogating from the dignity of a Bishop and therefore Decree That no Village or inconsiderable City shall have a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. Sard. c. 6. or any place where a Presbyter may suffice and lest you may imagine this an innovation to favour the growing greatness of the Bishops they add immediately That the Bishops of a Province shall Ordain Bishops in those Cities where there were any before which supposes that there were several Cities after the Empire became Christian that had never yet had Bishops Nay they add farther That when a City grows very populous so as to be fit to receive a Bishop it may have one To the same purpose is the Decree of the Council of Laodicea held after that of Sardica and much later than is generally pretended That Bishops ought not to be made in Villages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Visitatores qui circumtant Isid Merca. or in the Country but Visitors who by the name they bear appear to be Diocesans because they have several Congregations under them which they are to visit and as for such Country Bishops as are already they must take care to act nothing of moment without the advice and privity of the City Bishops Yet all this while Dioceses do multiply against all means used to prevent it as we may perceive by the extraordinary numbers that met in Councils Acciti atque tracti 400 à mplius Episcopi Sul. Sev. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Synod ap Athan. de Synod exceeding very much the greatest of those that had gone before Extraordinary numbers met at Sirmium and Ariminum at the latter all the Bishops of the West are said to have met for the Emperperors Officers were sent all over Illyricum Italy Africk Spain France to summon the Bishops to meet at Ariminum and all the Bishops are said to come thither from all the Cities of the West And now as we may observe the number of Bishops and Dioceses to increase so we may make some judgment concerning the occasion from that little light that is left in this particular We have but a very obscure account of the erecting of Bishopricks how and when most of them were founded but those instances that are preserved are sufficient to make us comprehend how the numbers came to increase so sensibly after the breaking out of the Arian controversy and in Egypt some time before upon the occasion of the Meletian Schism Epiph. Her 68. Meletius having left the Communion of the Catholick Church formed a separate faction and Ordained Bishops and Presbyters in every Country and in every place through which he passed nor was he content to set up only one Altar against another but to erect several in the same Diocess Nor is there yet any end of dividing Dioceses but these increase in proportion to the divisions of the Church Meletius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Epiph. Haer. 68. and as the Meletian Schism multiplyed Bishops in Egypt the Author of that Sect Ordaining Bishops in every Region and in every place that he passed through several in the same Diocess and as the Arian Controversy made Bishops where there never were any before so it is not to be doubted but the Controversies which followed Athan. Ap. 2. multiplyed Dioceses no less than these But besides this the multiplying of Metropolitans by the Christian Emperors contributed no less to multiply Bishops We have an eminent instance of this in the Province of Cappadocia in the time of Basil the Great The province being divided between two Civil Metropoles the Bishop of Tyana the new Metropolis thought that accordingly all that part of the Country that belongeâ—â—o the Civil jurisdiction of his City became no less subject to him as his Ecclesiastical Province which occasioned great disputes and animosities between the two Metropolitans Basil complains of the Bishops of the second Cappadocia that they presently renounced him in a manner Ep. 259. and when he made any difficulty of Ordaining any Bishop belonging to his Province Anthimus was ready to admit him as it happened in the case of Faustus Therefore to oppose the power of this new Usurping Metropolitan he betakes himself to the ordinary relief of making more Suffragans that by this means he might have some remedy from a Provincial Synod Epist 58. 195. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. de Vit. suâ Ep. 22 23. To this purpose Sasima a small Town belonging to Caesarea is made an Episcopal Seat and Gregory Nazianzen is preferred to it much against his will as a Person that might be of use to him against his Antagonist which he complains of in his Epistles to Basil and in his account of his own life and so sensible was he of Basil's ingaging him in this quarrel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Or. de Basil that he cannot forbear expressing his resentments even
Countenance to that Primitive and Apostolick Constitution of Episcopacy But let St. Jerom think as he pleases Mr. B. is of another Opinion and now let us consider his Reasons By this means says he parochial Assemblies are made by them the Bishops no Churches p. 22. § 55. as having no ruling Pastors that have the Power of judging who to baptize or admit to Communion or Refuse but only of Chappels having Preaching Curates But must every Parish be an independent Church and exercise all Authority and Jurisdiction within it's self May not several Parishes associate under the Discipline of the same Bishop but that they must be unchurch'd If it be no Church that has no Bishop what will become of all Presbyterian Churches that are subject to Classes do not they unchurch Parishes as well as Bishops But they are made no Churches for want of governing Pastors this is a great Mistake every Parish with us has a governing Pastor but it is in Subordination to the Bishop and with Exception to some Acts that concern the general Union of all the Parishes associated Is he no Governour because he is not Independent Is he no Officer that is subordinate At this rate every Constable should be a King and every Captain a General But our Pastors Mr. B. says have not the Power of judging whom to Baptize this is a Calumny that has not the least Shadow of Truth and the contrary is notorious That they have no power to admit to Communion or Refuse is not true they have Power to admit any one that is not excommunicated or naturally incapable and they may likewise refuse the Communion to such as they judge notoriously unfit but must afterwards approve their reasons to the Bishop Several have used their Liberty and Discretion in this point without Offence however it is but fit that since the peace of the Church does greatly depend upon the right Application of Church-censures there should be a Restraint laid upon ordinary Ministers in this particular yet there is no Church-censure can have any effect without the Consent of the Minister of that Parish where he lives against whom it is directed The Ministers Refusal indeed may expose him to great Inconveniences and it is but just when his Refusal is only the effect of Opposition yet he has time and opportunity to produce his Reasons and why should he despair in a just Canse of convincing his Ordinary However though the Power of Church-censures be not allowed Parish Presbyters under Diocesan Episcopacy it is no Diminution of the right for neither under the Apostles nor the Primitive Bishops did they ever exercise it as principals or independent 2. Mr. B's second Reason against Diocesan Episcopacy is p. 22. That all the first Order of Bishops in single Churches is depos'd as if the Bishop of Antioch should have put down a thousand Bishops about him and made himself the sole Bishop of the Churches This reason goes upon the same Supposition with the other that every single Congregation had a Bishop the proof of which we will examine in due place The Bishops of great Cities had several Parishes or Congregations under them in the first times which never had any other Bishops but themselves and it was not this but the contrary that was the fault of great Bishops and Metropolitans of old for instead of deposing little Bishops they multiply'd them to strengthen their Party in Councils Vid. Collat. Carthag when they began to vye with one another in number of Suffrages as if the Archbishop of York should make every Town under his Jurisdiction an Episcopal Seat that he might have as many Suffrages as the Arch-bishop of Canterbury This I hope to prove in due place and to shew the Reader how far Mr. B. is mistaken in the Causes of Schism and that nothing contributed more to some of them than the multiplying the number of the lesser Bishops by their Metropolitans 3. His third Reason is That the Office of Presbyters is changed to Semi-presbyters What then is the Office of a Presbyter Is it not to preach and to be the mouth of the Congregation in publick Worship to administer the Sacraments to exhort to admonish to absolve the penitent to visit the sick This all Presbyters in the Church of England have full liberty to do and I wish all would take care to execute their Function as fully as it is permitted them 4. Discipline is made impossible p. 22. as it is for one General without inferiour Captains to rule an Army But are there not subordinate Officers in the Church as well as in the Camp How then is Discipline impossible If the General reserve to himself certain Acts of Jurisdiction does he by that means supersede the Commissions of all inferiour Commanders Mr. B. is much upon the point of Discipline's being impossible under Diocesan Episcopacy because one man he thinks cannot govern so many Parishes Admit in all things he may not nor is it necessary he should but in such Acts of Government that are reserved to him it is possible enough and has been practised from the days of the Apostles to this present time This Point you may find excellently discuss'd by Mr. Dodwel in his second Letter to Mr. B. which Mr. B. confutes briefly Cb. Hist 2. part by telling the Reader that if he will believe those reasons he has no hopes of him a short way of confuting and one would wonder that he that makes use of it should write so many and great Books of Controversie Yet this I must add that if it be impossible now 't is fit to let the World know who has made it so the Dissenters themselves have first weakned the Authority and obstructed the Execution of Discipline and when the subordinate Officers agitated caballed against their Superiour Commanders it is not wonder if Government be made impracticable However the Accusation sounds ill from those men by whose Mutiny and seditious Practises things have been brought to that evil Pass Mr. B. pursues his point further § 55. and adds Much more does it become then unlawful when first deposing all Presbyters from Government by the Keys of Discipline they put the same Keys even the Power of decretive Excommunication and Absolution into the hands of Laymen called Chancellors and set up Courts liker to the Civil than Ecclesiastical It is a Question I cannot easily resolve whether it be the King or the Bishop that governs by the Chancellor but whoever governs by them they neither have no nought to have the Power of Decisive Excommunication or the Power of the Keys but act only as Assistants and judges of matter of Fact and apply the Canons which determine what Offences are to be punish'd with Excommunication if they do any more I neither undertake the Defence nor will I suppose those that employ them own their Actions any farther However the Presbyterians fall under the same Censure with our Diocesans for