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
the supervising Care of many Churches as the Visitors had in Scotland and are so far Episcopi Episcoporum and Arch-bishops having no constraining Power of the Sword but a Power to admonish and instruct the Pastors and to regulate Ordinations Synods and all great and common Circumstances that belong to Churches for if one Form of Government in which some Pastors had such extensive Work and Power as Timothy Titus and Evangelists as well us Apostles had we must not change it without Proof that Christ himself would have it changed Let us compare this with Diocesan Episcopacy and see whether for all this mincing of the matter they will not amount to the same thing this supervising of many Churches does it not sound like having many Parishes under them And if this be impossible for a Diocesan how comes it to be otherwise in an Evangelist or an Apostle Nay how comes it to be allowed in a Scotch Visitor or Super-intendent The regulating Ordinations is no other in Scripture-Phrase than to appoint and ordain Elders in every Church and in every City the Diocesan Bishops desire no more in that point than to have such a Regulation and that it should not be accounted an Ordination that is done without or in Opposition to them The Evangelists might sometimes ordain Elders by their own single hands without the Assistance of any Presbyter sometimes together with the Presbytery our Diocesan Bishops never ordain any to that Order without the Assistance of their Presbyters the Evangelists and Apostles had the Direction of Church-censures 1 Cor. 5. 2 Cor. 2.9 10 11. 1 Tim. 5.19 20 21. Tit. 2.15 as appears from frequent Instances in the new Testament as also an Authority or Elders as well as the People to admonish and rebuke and punish those that were negligent or disorderly The Bishops claim no more it is the same Authority it is the same Office hitherto and this is the same of what the Bishops in all Ages of the Church have pretended to succeed to they of the Presbyterian way make all this Power of the Apostles as extraordinary as their Gifts and to expire together with them but for this they never offer any Reason and if this Notion should obtain it would follow that neither Presbyters nor Deacons could be succeeded in their Offices because they also were inspired with extraordinary Gifts as well as the Apostles But Mr. B. allows all this and that they ought to be succeeded even in this Eminence and Extent of Work and Power Why then does he find Fault and exclaim against that which he cannot deny to be of divine Institution and of perpetual Use under the name of Diocesan Episcopacy From these men the ancient Bishops derived their Title to this Authority they pretended to succeed Act. Conc. Tholi Euseb l. 5. c. 24. Polycrates reckons himself the sixth from Timothy and Irenaeus gives us the succession of the Roman Bishops from St. Peter to his time and if it had been necessary to his Purpose did undertake to shew the same of the Governours of the most considerable Churches in the World which afterwards Eusebius has collected out of their several Registers Comment 1 Ep. ad Timoth. Schol. Graec. Theodoret does admirably explain the Original of this Title by shewing that the Apostolick Power was fully convey'd to their Successors Those that are now call'd Bishops says he were in the Beginning called Apostles and the name of Bishop and Presbyter were then of the same Signification but in Process of time the Title of Apostle was appropriated to those who were Apostles indeed that is to the 12. And the name of Bishops was taken up by those that were before called Apostles Walo Mess p. 35. sequent Salmasius a man that never looks behind him or regards any Consequence runs away with this Passage as if he had found the greatest Treasure in the World that Bishop and Presbyter signified the same thing in the Apostles time and is so transported that he cannot take any notice that at the same time there is a Distinction made between the Office of Presbyter and Bishop for the Name they anciently bore shews the Nature and Eminency of their Office that they were Apostles in Authority but the Title being too great and invidious they laid it down for an humbler name and were content with the Stile that was common to Presbyters in the Apostles time Hitherto we have an exact Agreement between these three sorts of Episcopacy and find the Members of Mr. B's most compendious Distinction to be without Difference But it must not be dissembled that there are some things in which they seem to disagree especially-these two first That the Evangelists or Apostles were unfixt but Bishops are determined to a certain Diocess Secondly That the Apostles and Evangelists had Bishops under their Jurisdiction which Bishops do not pretend to As to this Unsetledness of the Apostles there are some that look upon travelling to be so essential to their Office that their Commission is in danger to expire if they should reside any considerable time in any certain place Walo Mess de Epise Presb. And Salmasius makes so acute a Remark upon the Inscription of St. John's two latter Epistles as comes within a small matter of deposing him Before those Epistles he stiles himself John the Presbyter or the Elder or it may be in English no more than John the aged and what would you imagine so great a Critick would observe from this That St. John having fixt his Residence at Ephesus for some considerable time had lost the Eminence of his Apostleship and sunk into the common Level of Presbytery and therefore stiles himself Presbyter only as if he had been conscious his Apostleship had departed from him But how comes St. Paul to remain three years in the same place and remain his Title and much longer yet at Rome where he dyed in the Exercise of his Apostleship Clemens Alex. speaking of St. John tells us he went about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In some places he appointed Bishops where they were wanting and none but Apostolick men could do it and in some places he himself govern'd the Church entirely i. e. as their Bishop and probably appointed another when he left them to succeed in the Charge Vales did not see the Import of this Phrase but rendred it Partim ut ecclesias integras disponeret formaret The last is a Comment that destroys the Sence of Clement who by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not understand the setting of a Church under it's Officers which his former seems to imply but the ordering and governing of it by himself in Opposition to his setting up of Bishops in other places and though he had some Authority there by way of supervising the Bishops yet he did not take the Care of the whole which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now in whatsoever City they lived besides the general Care of
not stand in need of that Charity Some of them spoke loosely in compliance with a Platonick Notion of the Trinity not fore-seeing what Consequences might be drawn from their Expressions or how narrowly they should come afterwards to be examin'd Certain it is that the Fathers that followed the Nicene Council Athan. ad Afros Hist Tripart l. 2. c. 7. Socr. l. 5. c. 10. Sozom. l. 7. c. 12. took all the Ecclesiastical Writers before their time to be of their Opinion and Sisinnius the Novatian Reader afterwards Bishop is said to have confounded all the Arrian Disputants by putting the matter to this issue Whether they would stand to the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers in the Interpretation of such places of Scripture as were controverted between them Eusebius no Enemy to the Arrians Ep. ad Caesar Hist Tripart l. 2. acknowledges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be used by some Ecclesiastical Writers long before the Council of Nice the Creed of the Council of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus has it Vid. Conâ— Antioch and several other things that shew how much the Doctrine of the Church at that time differ'd from that of the Arrians It would be a great Service to the Truth that seems now to labour under some Prejudice if some learned hand would take the Pains to shew which I believe is not impossible how Petavius has betray'd the constant Tradition of this Doctrine to establish it by the Authority of the Church and relieve the Memories of those holy Martyrs that he leaves charg'd with the Suspition of blasphemous Opinions concerning our Saviour Having done with the Nicene Council p. 50. §. 7. and all that related to it Mr. B. thinks it worth his labour to add the Sum of the History of the Audians out of Epiphanius Epiph. Haeres Audian That the World may percieve what Spirit the hereticating Prelates were then of and how some called Hereticks were made such or defamed as such and who they were that did divide the Churches and break their Peace The Author of this Sect was Audius a man severe in his Life and sound in his Principles but one that took great Liberty of Speech and reproved sharply whatsoever he found amiss though it were in the Bishops they in Revenge persecuted him and turn'd him out of the Church He is made Bishop of his own Sect and so exasperated as to abhor all Communion with the Bishops of the Catholick Church If all things were as Epiphanius represents them Audius had very hard Measure but it seems from Epiphanius his own account that there was not wanting just occasion against him for he held that God had Humane Shape a Doctrine if obstinately maintain'd and such bold men are not easily reclaim'd altogether intolerable But I am afraid Epiphanius had this Story from as bad hands as that of the Meletians for this Schism happening in a remote part of the World and being scatter'd afterwards into several Parts it is likely that some Audian might impose upon him l 4. Haeret. â—ah For it looks like the Story of one party and the more likely because Theodoret a man that lived in that Country where they first sprung gives an infamous Character of them That they held some of the Doctrines of the Manichees That God was not the Author of Fire and Darkness that they exercised Usury that they cohabited with Women without Marriage that they were great Hypocrites of a proud Pharisaical Spirit that cried Touch me not for I am holier than thou If Audius were like his Followers I know nothing so like him and them as Labady and his Disciples See Labady's Epist against Reformation This was a man very free in his Reproofs too he spoke sharply against the Vices of the Clergy where he lived though there were no Bishops amongst them and it may be one of his Followers may be able to perswade a learned man in Constantinople that he was banish'd only for his Liberty of Reprehension and out of Envy to his Virtue Page 52. Section 14. we have several shrewd Remarks upon some Canons of the Council of Nice As first That no Patriarchs are named there Secondly That they nullifie the Ordination of scandalous and uncapable men Can. 9.10 Which will justifie Pope Nicholas forbidding any to take the Mass of a fornicating Priest This fornicating Priest of Pope Nicholas is no other than a married one and whatsoever will justifie that Prohibition cannot but condemn Mr. B. who is himself married As for deposing scandalous Ministers there is none but wishes it but not in the manner he seems to insinuate by the Sentence of the people but by their lawful Superiors which these two Canons do suppose 3. That Rural Bishops were then in Vse and allowed by the Council Can. 8. And what can he infer from hence Not surely That every Country Parish had a Bishop but that such Cities as had larger Territories belonging to them had Ecclesiastical Visitors under the city-City-Bishop which were called Chorepiscopi Can. 57. Conc. Laodic Whether they were Bishops indeed or Priests with a delegated Episcopal Power is not agreed amongst Learned men Sure it is that they had this Obligation common to them with other Presbyters not to do any thing of Moment without the Advice and Approbation of the Bishop Conc. Carthag 4. 4. That no Bishop was to remove from one Church to another yet some other Councils allow this Translation and Gelasius understands it only of such as out of Covetousness or Ambition and by indirect means shall endeavour to translate themselves and the Practice of the Church was never very conformable to this Canon the most eminent Bishops in the World Socr. l. 7. c. 36. having transgres'd it 5. The Arabick Canons the fourth Si pâ—pulo placebit is a Condition of every Bishops Election Newer Translations render this Concurrence of the People Cum consensu Pepuli Populo consersum praevente which implies little more than that the Bishop ought to be such as the People should have nothing material to object against and not that they were to please themselves and to indulge their Fancies in the Election of their Bishops for that did belong to the Clergy Vid. loâ— ap Synod Bâ—â—â—r â—0 and particularly to the Metropolitan as the â—â—â—th Arabick Canon does expressly inform us 6. The fifth Arabick Canon in case of Discord among the People who shall be their Bishop or Priest refers it to the People to consider which is most blameless and no Bishop or Priest must be taken into anothers place if the former was blameless so that if Pastors be wrongfully cast out the People must not forsake them nor receive the obtruded Nothing can be more disingenuous than this Dealing The design of that Canon is that there should be but one Bishop in every City but if the People disagree and one party stand up for one and another for another
all the Churches they lookt upon that as their peculiar Charge and govern'd not as ordinary Presbyters but by Apostolick Authority as a Metropolitan who although he has the supervising of all the Diocesses within his Province yet may have his proper Diocess which he governs as a particular Bishop And the Office of an Apostle does not essentially consist in the governing of more Churches than one else St. Paul would never have vindicated his Apostleship from the particular Right he had over the Corinthians 1 Cor. 9.2 If I be not an Apostle to others yet doubtless I am to you for the Seal of my Apostleship are ye in the Lord. So that though he had had no more Churches to govern yet his Apostolick Authority might have been still exercised over that particular one of Corinth The Provinces of the Evangelists were not yet so large as those of the Apostles for these were either sent to such Cities or Parts whither the Apostles themselves could not go or left where they could not stay The Church of Ephesus was the Diocese of Timothy from whence although the greater Occasions of other Churches might call him away and require his Assistance yet his Authority was not Temporal nor would it have expired if he had resided a longer while at Ephesus so that these Apostolick men were not so because they were unfixt but because they had that Eminence of Authority which they might exercise in one or more Churches according as their Necessities did require or as the Spirit signified and that they did not settle in one place is to be ascribed to the Condition of their Times and not to the nature of their Office for the Harvest was now great and such Labourers as these were but few and therefore their Presence was required in several Places And as this Unsetledness is not essential to Apostolick Authority no more is it essential to Episcopacy to be determined to a certain Church Every Bishop is Bishop of the Catholick Church and that his Authority is confined to a certain district is only the positive Law of the Church that forbids one Bishop any Exercise of his Office within the Diocess of another and St. Paul seems to have given them the occasion who would not build upon another mans Foundation However in any case of Necessity this Positure Law is superseeded and a Bishop may act in any place by virtue of a general Power he has received in his Ordination so that this first Exception of the Apostles and the Evangelists being unfixt and Bishops determined to a particular Church can make no essential Difference As to the Visitors of the Church of Scotland they make evidently against Mr. B's Notion of an essential Difference between Bishops and Evangelists for first of all the Residence was fixt to certain Cities and their Jurisdiction confin'd within certain Provinces as the Superintendent of the Country of Orkney was to keep his Residence in the Town of Keirkwall Spotswood Hist Scot. l. 3. p. 158. he of Rosse in the Channory of Rosse and so the rest in the Towns appointed for their Residence Their Office was to try the Life Diligence and Behaviour of the Ministers the Order of their Churches and the Manners of the People how the Poor were provided and how the Youth were instructed they must admonish where Admonition needed and dress all things that by good Counsel they were able to compose finally they must take note of all hainous Crimes that the same may be corrected by the Censures of the Church So far of their Constitution as we find it in Mr. Knox's first Project of Church-polity Spotswood p. 258. and their practice was altogether the same with that of Diocesan Episcopacy as Bishop Spotswood describes it The Superintendents held their Office during Life and their Power was Episcopal for they did elect and ordain Ministers they presided in Synods and directed all Church Censures neither was any Excommunication pronounced without their Warrant And now let the Reader judge how the Constitution of Diocesan Episcopacy becomes a Crime and yet these Visitors of the Church of Scotland conformable to divine Institution As to the second Exception that the Apostles and Evangelists were Episcopi Episcoporum and had Bishops under their Jurisdiction which our Diocesans who are the Bishops but of particular Churches do not pretend to This makes no Difference at leastwise no essential one for the same person may have the Charge of a particular Church or Diocess and yet have the supervising Power over several others But in this point Mr. B. does but equivocate and impose upon his Reader for by his Episcopus gregis he means only a Presbyter and a particular Bishop may have Jurisdiction over such without any Injury or Prejudice done to the Office which from it's first Institution has been under the Direction of a superiour Apostolical Power if therefore these Presbyters do retain all that Power which essentially belongs to them under a Diocesan Bishop how are they degraded In short either this Order of Congregational Episcopacy is different from Presbytery or the same with it if the same how is it abrogated by Diocesan Episcopacy since Presbyters are still in the full Possession and Exercise of their Office If they are distinct how then comes Mr. B. to confound them as he does § 16. where he says That the Apostles themselves set more than one of these Elders or Bishops in every Church So then those Apostolick men as Bishops of the particular Churches wherin as they resided had Authority over Presbyters within the Extent of their Diocess and a general Supervising Care of several other Churches and so they were Episcopi Episcoporum in the first they are succeeded by Diocesan Bishops in the latter by Metropolitans which yet were never lookt upon as two orders essentially distinct But after all this we shall never come to a right Understanding of Mr. B's Episcopacy unless we take along with it his Notion of a particular Church which he sets down p. 6. § 19. There is great Evidence of History p. 6. that a particular Church of the Apostles setling was essentially only a Company of Christians Pastors and People associated for personal holy Communion and mutual help in holy Doctrine Worship Conversation and Order therefore it never consisted of so few or so many or so distant as to be uncapable of such personal Help and Communion but was ever distinguished as from accidental Meetings so from the Communion of many Churches or distant Christians which was held but by Delegates Synods of Pastors or Letters and not by personal Help in Presence Not that all these must needs always meet in the same place but that usually they did so or at due times at least and were no more nor more distant than could so meet sometimes Persecution hindred them sometimes the Room might be too small even independent Churches among us sometimes meet in diverse Places
Diocesan Prelacy a distinction without ground or foundation as I have already shew'd and will be yet more fully made out The main design or Mr. B.'s History is 1. To charge the Bishops with all Schisms Heresies Corruptions c. 2. To shew p. 27. §. 7.4 that Diocesan Prelacy and grandeur is not the Cure nor ever was And to this purpose are level'd all the particulars of his Church-History In this Chapter I will endeavour to take off the first general Charge That some Bishops have abus'd their Office and Authority and have been the cause of Heresie or Schism cannot be deny'd but Priests Deacons and Laymen have been so too and therefore if the miscarriage of any particular man becomes a prejudice to his Office and the Order must suffer for the personal faults of those that are of it we must have neither Priests nor Deacons in the Church since some of them have been Authours of Heresies c. But this is not all our Author tho' he speaks indefinitely that â—he will shew the ignorant and he must be very ignorant that knows no better who have been the cause of Church Corruptions Heresies Schisms Sedition yet he means they were the Authors of all these evils as he is pleas'd to explain himself p. 72. Next we have a strange thing a Heresie rais'd by one that was no Bishop and then as if that were impossible he shews that was no Heresie and so the Bishops remain under the whole charge of raising all Heresies I wish he had left Schism and Sedition out of this charge for if he can perswade the Ignorant Readers that the Bishops were the cause of all these too they will never be perswaded that any Presbyterians are to be found in Church-History For if they had been in the world they must have had their share with the Bishops in Schism and Sedition It is a heavy charge to accuse the Bishops of all the Heresies and Schisms that have afflicted the Church and if it were true would go near to stagger the Reverence that one might have for the Order For though Bishops as well as other men may be subject to Miscarriages they might be allowâ—d the frailty of Humane nature from which no dignity can exempt us But to be found the cause of All the Evils that have befallen the Church would argue such a malignity in the Constitution as would shew plainly that God never design'd them for good But I believe this can be no more prov'd against them by matter of fact than that Bishops invented Gun-powder or Hand-Granadoes or were the Authors of the Scotch Covenant or the late Rebellion of the Field Conventiclers in Scotland Let us then trace the Heresies and Schisms that have torn the Church in pieces in several ages of it to their first original and examine who were the Authors of them and if it appear out of Church-History that Bishops rais'd them All or the greatest part I will give up the Cause and believe every thing in Mr. B.'s History and for penance read over all the fourscore Books that he tells us he has written Where then shall we begin If the Bishops should be convicted by the first Instance it would be ominous However because it shall appear that I deal impartially I will begin with the first All Ecclesiastical Writers do agree that Simon Magus was the Author of the first Heresie in Christian Religion Simon Magus Epiphanius indeed reckons up about a score of Heresies before this Epiph. Haer. 21. but they are Heathen or Jewish Heresies and I hope Mr. B. will be so kind as to allow that the Bishops had nothing to do with these That Simon was a Heretick all are agreed in though the Scripture say no such thing and though Epiphanius confess that his Sect cannot truly be reckon'd among Christians Haer. 21. p. 55. Ed Pet. This man did teach very strange and if there be any such damnable doctrines But that he was a Bishop no man ever yet affirm'd Justin Martyr thought he had seen an Inscription at Rome to this Simon which own'd him a God though it is possible this might be a mistake But that ever any Writing or Tradition called him a Bishop I have not heard It is true indeed he had a great mind to be a Bishop that is to have power of Confirmation and that every one on whom he should lay his hands should receive the Holy Ghost And he bid fair for it For he offer'd Peter Money says the Text And the Repulse perhaps disgusted him so that he resolv'd to leave the Communion of the Church since he could not be a Bishop in it and it has been the disease of several other Hereticks to scorn to be any other Member of the body but the Head The next that Epiphanius mentions is Menander Menander Epiph. Har. 22. who as Irenaeus and out of him the rest says was Simon Magus his Disciple but neither Irenaeus nor Eusebius nor Epiphanius nor Philastrius nor Theodoret and in short no man that has given any account of Hereticks or any Historian whatsoever that has been yet heard of has given the least Intimation that he was a Bishop Saturnius Basilides Iren. l. 1. c. 22 23. Epiph. Her 23 24. Euseb l. 4. c. 7. August Ep. ad Quodlib Philastâ— Haer. 3 4. Theod Haer. Fab. l. 1. 〈…〉 Saturninus and Basilides follow next and neither of them were either Bishops or of any other Order in the Church that we can find The next is the Heresie of the Nicolaitans which is generally fathered upon Nicolas the Deacon Irenaeus l. 1. c. 27. seems to he positive in this Nicolaitâ— autem Magistrum quidem habent Nicolaum unum ex septem qui primi ad Diaconium ab Apostolis Ordinati sunt Nicolas one of the seven Deacons was the Master of the Nicolaitans or at leastwise they look'd upon him as their Master Epiph. Haer. 2â— Epiphanius follows Irenans and enlarges the story shewing how he was a good man at first and did contribute much to the futherance of the Gospel but that afterward the Devil enter'd into him Philastr Haer. 5. Bibl. Patr. M. de la Rigne T. 4. p. 10. Philastrius follows the Authority of Epiphanius But for all this I believe Nicolas the Deacon may be acquitted of this imputation for there are Witnesses of very good Antiquity that endeavour to Absolve him 1. Ignatius Interpolated in two several places warning those he writes to Ign. Ep. ad Trall Philadelph Interpol to have a care of the Nicolaitans calls 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—uns and 〈◊〉 i. e. those that falsâ—y call themselves by the name of Nicolas Sycophants and Impostors The old Latin Interpreter explains this farther and adds Non 〈◊〉 talis fuit Apostolorum Minister Nicolaus Clemens of Alexandria is more particular in the Vindication of Nicolas Clem. Alex. l. 2. Strom. c. 3. whose name these Gnosticks abus'd to countenance their lewdness
became the Church Government and I believe it will be found to have preserv'd those Churches in as great peace and Unity if not more than those had that were Governed without Bishops The Churches of Sweden and Denmark never knew what Schism or Heresie was but by reading or hear-say and those of Germany though something more disquieted yet it was seldom from within but by Projects of Union with other Churches under a different kind of Polity as well as of different opinions in some points of Religion It is to be wish'd that the Churches of the Ausburg Confession as they took care to preserve the Antient form of Church Governmet had been also a little more careful in the point of Ordination For their Bishops though they have the same authority with Diocesans yet were at first ordain'd but by Presbyters and the Principles of those Churches touching the right of ordination are so loose that I believe those of the Presbyterian Discipline will hardly allow them Hunnius defending their Ordinations says the power is in the Church diffusive and that it may be conveyed not only by Bishops or Presbyters but by Deacons or any body else if the Church think fit and I am afraid the Practice of some of those Churches is not otherwise to be justifi'd But before this Lutheran Reformation was that of the Bohemians not that of the Calixtins only but the Vnitas fratrum Bohemorum whose Churches were govern'd by Diocesan Bishops and where Discipline was so far from being Impossible Commenii Hist Eccles Slav. p. 32. notwithstanding the Dioceses were very large that they were perhaps the best Govern'd Churches in the world Bucer speaking of this Government says haec verò est Coelestis potius quam Ecclesiastica in Terris Hierarchia and Calvin was so taken with this Government as well as Discipline that he looks upon their Governing and ordaining Pastors as no inconsiderable blessing Ep. ad Pastor Bohem. Neque Vero parvo est estimandum quod tales habent Pastores a quibus Regantur Ordinentur and those were their Bishops as may be seen in that Account they gave of themselves in Ratio Disciplinae Ordinisque Ecclesiastici in Vnitate fratrum Bohemorum printed at Lesna 1632. and afterwards at the Hague by Commenius 1660. Whoever would know more of these Episcopal Diocesan Churches may consult Lasitius or the short Accout of Commenius the then only Remaining Bishop of those Churches And these had such Bishops as were not only invested with the full Authority of Diocesans over several Churches but such as had been ordain'd according to the Canons of the Ancient Church Stephanus accito Episcopo altero c. Commen Hist p. 24. by the Bishops of the Waldenses who derived themselves by an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles It is time now to Return to the Principal Design which was to shew how no other form of Government can secure the Church from Heresie Schism and Contention any more than Episcopacy and that those Churches which put themselvs under new Models of Government and discipline have been excercis'd with Schism Heresie and Sedition no less than those under Episcopacy The Churches which follow'd the Reformation of Zuinglius had at first no Government nor discipline that was properly Ecclesiastical All authority rested in the Civil Magistrate and the Ministers did only preach and administer the Sacraments without excluding any It was from this practice I suppose that the Divines of that way came to speak generally so loosely of the power of the Keys making it all to consist in preaching without any regard to Ecclesiastical discipline But the Licentiousness that followed this defect of Discipline and Government soon open'd the eyes of the Ministers who Complain'd passionately of the Increase of Libertinism under pretence of Reformation and endeavour'd to make the people sensible that there is more required to make a true Protestant than to Renounce the Pope and Transubstantiation and that the Notion of a Church did imply something more than a Company of sound believers met together to hear a Sermon Calvin a person of extraordinary Abilities was one of the first that observ'd and Complain'd of this defect in the Reformation and endeavour'd to Remedy it in the Church where he was Pastour by Establishing an Ecclesiastical Government Baza vit Calv. and that perhaps not such as he thought most perfect and absolute but such as the Circumstances of the place would bear The people of Geneva were sufficiently prejudic'd against Episcopacy having turn'd out their Bishop who had likewise a title to be their Prince and to have talk'd of Introducing a Bishop there would have sounded as harsh as the mention of a King would have done to the Romans after the expulsion of Tarquin But suppose they could have been Reconcil'd to the name and the office upon assurance it should not exceed its proper bounds it is possible Calvin might look upon it as too Invidious a proposal to his Church for fear of being understood to recommend himself and to affect dominion over his Brethren Episcopacy then seeming Impracticable in that place he devised a form of Government that should be more popular and consequently more acceptable the Ministers were to be all of equal Authority and were in the first place to govern the Church and with them a certain number out of the Laity under the Title of ruling Elders were to have a share in the Church Government and this mix'd Council without any Bishop was to exercise all Ecclesiastical Censures and Jurisdiction One would think this would be unexceptionable but it proved otherwise for this frame was no sooner begun but it was presently broken in pieces and the Author banish'd But his Reputation abroad made them reflect upon this Treatment with shame and desire him to return With him this Government was restor'd which was so far from remedying all disorders that it became the occasion of some very great ones and the State of that Church as it is discrib'd by Calvin in his letters to his friends and by Beza in his life was most lamentably distracted and this Government was made odious in the beginning of it by very harsh and rigorous proceedings The Expulsion of Castellio a man of Great and Polite Learning was too Invidious The opposing of the Senate in the Election of a Minister to such a point of heat and Contention Beza vit Calv. as to endanger the peace of the City wanted little of Sedition Calvins quarrels with Perinus came to that height that the Council of the City had almost cut one anothers throats about it Siquidem eousque semel in ipsâ curiâ deventum est coactis Diacosiis pene exertis jam Ensibus parum abfuerit quin mutuis caedibus ipsam Curiam cruentarent And what was the reason of so dangerous a Contention No Article of the Creed was in danger It was not for any part of the faith that they contended so
separation twenty years before seems to have made the first step towards this Congregational way Brown in the column intituled the state of Christians 50. Art 51. but he speaks of it something more obscurely Who have the grace and office of watching and guiding The Answer is Some have this Charge together which cannot be sundred Some have their several charge over many Churches some have charge but in one Church only 52. How have some their charge and office together Ans There be Synods or the meetings of sundry Churches where the weaker Churches seek for help to the stronger for deciding or redressing of matter or else the stronger look to them for redress Who have their several charge over many Churches Ans Apostles Prophets Helpers or Evangelists Nor does he determine whether any may succeed to this general inspection or no. Those that followed delivered themselves with greater clearness upon this point Confer with Egerton p. 43. Collection of certain Art 1590. Art 11. Barrow and Greenwood make all Ecclesiastical power to belong to every Congregation and call the Bishops Antichristian because they take upon them to oversee so many Pastors and Churches And in another treatise where they answer this Question whether the Queen may be excommunicated by the Presbyterie they say That they detest the power of any Person or Presbytery usurping Authority over the Church No Presbytery can do any thing of this kind without the consent of the whole Congregation but That the Congregation whereof the Prince is may Excommunicate him Ainsworth went the same way and declared himself in these words Ains Communion of Saints c. 24. We find no Authority committed to our Congregation over another for Excommunicating the same as every Church has over her own members Christ reserveth this power in his own hands Barrow affirms Bar. Refuttat of Gifford 137. that ordinary set Synods are as prejudicial to the Rights of the Church as the other i.e. Diocesan Episcopacy But Johnson was the first that cleared this point and treated of it particularly Johns Christian Plea Treat 3. He layes down two things as the foundation of Church Government and Unity 1. That all particular Churches with their Pastors do stand immediately under Jesus Christ their Arch Pastor without any other strange Ecclesiastical Power and Authority interposed between Whether of Prelates or their unlawful usurping Synods 2. That notwithstanding the estate and distinction aforesaid Treat 3. c. 6. p. 261.262 c. yet all the Churches and Ministers of them should be alwayes ready to advise and assist one another and in this manner might be had a lawful and profitable use of Synods classes c. Provided they do not usurp any unlawful jurisdiction or power over particular Churches This man goes yet farther and maintains Congregational Episcopacy and shews out of several places of Scripture and antiquity That there may be in a particular Church one Pastor or Angel of the Church properly and specially so called and divers teachers and ruling Elders joyned to this Pastor in the Ministry and Government of the same Church who may all of them generally be called Pastors yet so as one be specially distinguished from the rest in respect of place and function to be the Pastor so more particularly called under Jesus Christ the Arch Pastor Never did copy agree more exactly with the Original than Mr. Baxters doctrine about Church Government with this of Johnson the Brownist Vt sit tam fimilis sibi nec ipse It is easier to find a difference between Mr. B. and himself upon other occasions than to discern the least disagreement between him and Johnson in this Robinson whom Baylie makes the Father of the Independents though he left some tenets of the Brownists Diss p. 17. Robins Apol p. 17. continued still a separation in the Sacraments and Discipline and was as much for this Congregational way as any of the Brownists In his Apology he declares That every particular Congregation is intire without any relation to other Churches as Peter or Paul are perfect men without respect to others that these Congregations are Independent and under Christ only Therefore the Ancient bounds which the Apostles have laid are not to be removed under pretence of any human Prudence Antiquity or Vnity Upon this foundation the Independent Churches were built and continue to this day which though they may differ in points of Doctrine as their Pastors or leading men may be inclined yet this constitution of Government gives them a common Denomination And now having given this account of the Original of this way at leastwise in these last times the higher Antiquity of it we shall consider elsewhere I shall in the next place give some account of the success of this form of Government and shew what fruits of Peace and Truth it has yielded since its first planting by the Brownists Robert Brown Schoolmaster in Southwark Baylie diss Ch. 1. having seduced out of the Communion of the Church of England such a number of Disciples as made up a congregation for fear lest the severity of our Laws might dissipate this new Church resolved to remove it to a place of greater liberty and accordingly perswaded his followers to transport themselves and families into Middleborough Here they had not been long but they began to be shaken with intestine discords G. Johns Letter to Fran. Johns George Johnson sayes It was in great measure occasioned by Browns Wife and other Women of that banished Church which caused a mortal feud between Brown and Harison and some said it was the occasion of Harison 's death It was also the cause of Excommunicating Perriman And this new fashion'd Church in short broke all to pleces most turning Anabaptists and Brown at last seeing himself deserted returned with tears in his eyes into the Unity of the Church Conformed and was preferred to a living The next Congregation that was formed under this rule was by F. Johnson Diss p. 14. for Barrow was hanged before he could fill his Church and this finding the air of the English Government not to agree with it followed its Pastor to Holland and setled at Amsterdam a kind Soil for a young and tender sect But this Colony had no better success than that of Brown for in a little while it was diminished by the falling away of several to the Anabaptists who were Excommunicated by the Congregation they deserted But the dissensions that were raised among themselves afflicted them yet more for G. Johnson having disobliged his Brothers Wife by reproving her for the vanity of her Apparel and cited a Text of Scripture for it when he was candidate for the place of a Pastor in conjunction with his Brother G. Johnson discourse of some troubles c. 1603. was required to recant his Doctrine against fine Cloaths he on the other side drew Articles of Impeachment against the Busk Stomacher and Sleeves c.
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
an extraordinary Zeal for Religion and that oftentimes made them take Alarme when it was not in any extream danger and if their Knowledge and Discretion were not always proportionable to their Zeal surely among Christians it might be allowed to the Frailty of Humane Nature and the Sincerity of a good meaning If they differ'd sometimes among themselves and were warmer than is fit in their Disputes consider that the Apostles themselves had their Misunderstandings and their Contentions sometimes Peter was to be blamed and Barnabas was carried away The Churches founded by the Apostles were immediately divided about Opinions which were presently determined in Council and yet we do not find that the Controversie was at an end Should any one therefore so abridge the History of the Apostles as to represent nothing of them but their unhappy Contention and leave them under the odious Characters of Disturbers of the World and Dividers of the Church would it not justly pass for a Libel against Christianity It were disingenious and base even in an Enemy in a Christian I know not how to call it Having paid this duty to the honour of Religion by a general Vindication of it from such Consequences as might be drawn from this Church History against the Intention of the Author I come now to his design which is laid down page 27. To shew the Ignorant so much of the matter of Fact as may tell them who have been the Cause of all Church-Corruption Heresies Schisms Seditions c. And whether such Diocesan Prelacies and Grandure be the Cure or ever was But surely this is not the way of cureing Church-divisions thus to exasperate These Reproaches cannot serve to heal but to fret and inflame the Wound I have some hopes that I shall be able to shew the Reader so much of the matter of Fact too as may let him see how much he has been imposed on by this History and that all Corruptions and Schisms are very injuriously and against all Truth of History charg'd upon the Bishops Yet suppose the Charge be true is it such a Wonder that men of great Talents and great Authority do sometimes abuse them and by that means become the Cause of Church-Corruptions Private men though neither better nor wiser than the Bishops have not the Opportunity of doing so much either Good or Hurt and their Mistakes or Vices do not draw after them so great Consequences This Accusation though it may serve to render Bishops odious is yet of use to prove their Authority and their ancient possession of the right of governing the Church like his who would prove that they have troubled the World ever since the Apostles time If the abuse of this Power be sufficient reason to take it away or to render it odious what will become of preaching and writing Books What will become of Scripture and Conscience Let him still exclaim the Bishops have been the Authors of all Corruption and Schism were they not Christians and Men as well as Bishops and if a Heathen or a Jew should not lay such a Stress upon the name of Bishop but put that of a Christian in it's place and then make a great Outery wicked Christians turbulent Christians would not this reasoning hold as well as Mr. B's or if some of the graver Beasts should recover the Conversation they had in Aesop's days and talk judicially might not they bray aloud Horrible men Abominable men that will never agree or understand one another and then conclude with the Ass in the Satyr Ma foy non plus que nous l'home n'est qu'une bête Be the Bishops whose History Mr. B. writes as bad as he will have them how will this concern the rest of that order unless they will follow their Examples and own their Corruptions Machiavel was of Opinion that the greatest part of men were Rogues and Knaves but what is that to You and I let every man bear his own Burden But Mr. B. is resolved to cut off this Retreat and to level his Charge not so much against the Persons as the office of Bishops and to this effect he explains himself p. 22. There is an Episcopacy whose very Constitution is a Crime and there is another that seems to me a thing convenient lawful and indifferent and there is a sort which I cannot deny to be of divine Right Here we have three sorts of Bishops and this is pretty reasonable and compendious but in another Book which he refers to in this he gives no less than twelve Disput of Ch. Government p. 14. dividing was much in Fashion at that time though commonly it was without a difference and as they could make a sort of Seekers that neither sought nor found so he gives several sorts of Bishops that were no more so than he or I nay in this Abridgment of the great Division I believe the Members will be concident and that it is but a little artificial Illusion of Mr. B. that makes them appear several take away the little corner'd glass and that great multitude of pieces we saw are in a moment reduced to one poor Six-pence well let us see then what this criminal sort of Episcopacy is and what Mr. B. has to lay to it's Charge That Episcopacy which I take in it self to be a Crime is such as is afore-mentioned p. 22. which in it's very Constitution overthrows the Office Church and Discipline which Christ by himself and his Spirit in his Apostles instituted this is criminal indeed and a thousand Pities it should stand one Moment But where shall we find this Abomination it is not far of if his Judgment may be taken for Such says he I take to be that Diocesan kind ibid. which has only one Bishop over many Score or Hundred fixt parochial Assemblies Is this then their Crime that they have many fixt parochial Assemblies under their Government Had not the Apostles Had not the Evangelists so too And was that Constitution criminal Had not the Bishops of St. Jerom's Notion several fixt Assemblies That Father did indeed maintain that the poor Bishop of Eugubium was as much a Bishop as he of Rome but he little thought that he was more so or that the Extent of the Roman Diocess had chang'd the very Species of it's Church Government Hieron Ep. ad Evagr. he thought they were both of the same sort and that the single and small Congregation of the one and the numerous Assembly under the Inspection of the other had made no difference at all in the nature or constitution of their Episcopacy he communicated with and submitted himself in Questions of the highest moment to the Bishop of Rome Vid Hier. Ep. ad Damas which considering the Temper of the man and his Contempt of the World he would hardly have done if he had judged him an Usurper but would rather have joyned himself to the poor Bishop of Eugubium and done all possible
their Elders do directly excommunicate and yet are lay-men It would be much to the Advantage as well as the Reputation of our Dissenters if they would first agree and correct those Abuses among themselves which they so sharply exclaim against in our Church 2. When they oblige the Magistrate to execute their Decrees by the Sword be they just or unjust § 55. and to lay men in Goals and ruine them because they are excommunicated by Bishops Chancellors c. This is the Law of the State and not of the Church and therefore is not to be charged upon Diocesan Episcopacy besides now there are few that have reason to complain of this there are those Evasions found that render that Law insignificant but the Threatning Princes and Magistrates with Excommunications if not Depositions p. 23. if they do communicate with those whom the Bishops have excommunicated belongs not at all to our Diocesan Episcopacy let the Papists who hold this Dostrine or the rigid Scotch Presbyterians who seem to have outdone the Popes in their Claim of Authority over Sovereign Princes answer it if they can 3. Or when they arrogate the Power of the Sword to themselves as Socrates says Cyril did § 55. How far Socrates is to be credited in his account of that Bishop we shall consider in due place in the mean time this does not concern Diocesan Episcopacy as it is with us for our Bishops do not arrogate that Power if the King confer upon them any Authority extrinsecal to their Office Mr. B. has declared himself p. 23. § 59. that shall make no difference and that he will submit to them notwithstanding The next Paragraph I am loth to meddle with it is little else but Biitterness and Railing and this I have neither Skill nor Inclination to answer yet because it is set down as the highest Aggravation of Diocesan Tyranny I must say something to it lest I should be thought to be ashamed of the Cause and to desert it It becomes much worse § 56. continues Mr. B. by tyrannical Abuse when being unable and unwilling to exercise true Discipline and so many hundred Parishes they have multitude of Atheists Infidels gross Ignorants and wicked Livers in Church Communion yea compel all in their Parishes to communicate upon pain of Imprisonment and Ruine and turn their Censures cruelly against godly persons that dare not obey them in all their Formalities Ceremonies and Impositions for fear of sinning against God I am afraid there are too many wicked men in all Communions and the Communion or as they call it the Religion of the State will have the most for Reasons I need not mention but it is oftentimes a hard thing to know them and until they are discovered it can be no Reproach to the Discipline of the Church that they are in outward Communion but all sorts of People and these with the rest are forced into our Communion They are indeed obliged to come to Church and to receive the Sacrament three times in the year but all this is upon the Supposition of their being Christians if they declare to the contrary they are immediately exempted from all Church-Jurisdiction and for the Civil let them deal with it as well as they can It is the duty of every Christian to come to Church and receive the Sacrament and because all that have been baptised and have not renounced the Faith are presum'd to be Christians it is doubtless lawful to quicken them to that which is their Duty by Penalties upon the neglect of it As for the Atheists and Infidels declared if they are admitted to Communion it is an unexcusable fault of Discipline yet such as is to be charged on the Minister of the Parish that receives them rather than the Bishop and for the being of any such men amongst us that is not so much to be imputed to the defect of present Discipline as to the licentiousness of the late unhappy times and the Offence that was given to light and unsteady minds by such pretended Saints as made Religion their Warrant for all their barbarous Villanies they committed But wicked Livers he adds are forced into Church-Communion by the Bishops § 56. This is a great Mistake for the Bishop forces no such into the Church but obliges the Minister and Church-wardens of every Parish to present such if any there be that they might be separated from Communion till they shall have given some Satisfaction to the Church by their Repentance and good Hopes of their future Amendment and lastly that gross Ignorants are admitted to the Communion can be charged upon no other than the Minister of that place whose Duty it is to instruct them in the Principles of their Religion and the Bishops are so far from obstructing the Exercise of this Duty that there is hardly any thing which they press with greater Earnesiness As to those godly persons who dare not obey the Orders of Bishops in point of Church-Communion and cannot bring their Conscience to comply with Ceremonies and Formalities Whether it be their Fault or Misfortune I pity them heartily but I believe this ought not to be charg'd upon the Constitution of our Episcopacy for if the King and the great Senate of the Nation after Experience of former Troubles should think fit to impose this as a Test upon such as they thought the Government not secure of what is all this to Diocesan Episcopacy The next Paragraph concludes the Arraignment of Diocesan Bishops § 57. not with any Argument but a great many hard Words which suppose the Proofs that have gone before to have amounted to full Evidence I am not willing to repeat them here let them stand or fall with those Arguments they depend upon Now least you should take Mr. B. for an Enemy to Bishops for one sort he rejects he receives two the first such as St. Jerom says Was brought into the Church for a Remedy against Schism the Bishop of this Constitution was it preside over Presbyters and without him nothing of Moment was to be done in the Church § 58. These Presbyters that were under the Bishop had they several Parishes or Congregations or the same with their President If several then this is the Diocesan Prelacy that is a Crime in it's Constitution if the same then what did they do there For by old Canons it appears and Mr. B. makes use of them to serve his own Turn that a Presbyter was not to preach in the Presence of the Bishop what then Shall they only read the Offices of the Church This is to fall into worse than Diocesan Episcopacy and to make Presbyters not Preaching but what sounds much meaner reading Curates only to the Bishops There is another sort of Bishops that he dares not deny to be of divine Institution § 60. And they are such as succeed the Apostles in the ordinary part of Church-Government while some senior Pastors have
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
him which I wonder as much he should believe as that he be satisfied with another Friend's Computation of the Christians in Alexandria in Strabo's time 't is in short this That he though his Voice was none of the lowdest yet he preacht to a Congregation judg'd to be about ten thousand men 2 part of Ch. Hist in one place he has but 6000. but in another he comes up again to 10000. and that they all hear'd him I am afraid that this Friends Calculation exceeds as much as the other falls short for we reckon now that three thousand makes an extraordinary Congregation and it may be possible for a mighty Voice to speak to a thousand more but it may be that the World is degenerated since and that our Lungs are no more in Comparison with those of the times he speaks of than they were compared to those of the Eastern Preachers At last to make sure work he concludes that though Jerusalem might have many Assemblies and yet but one Church p. 81. 82. and after the dispersing of the Apostles but one Bishop yet this is no Precedent This I must needs say is something more than the Independents would adventure to say they minced the matter and told us that Jerusalem being the first born Church and nursed up by the joynt care of all the Apostles might arrive to an extraordinary Stature and look gigantick in Comparison of the rest yet they durst not say it had more than one Congregation and was no Precedent What shall we judge then That the Apostles built the Church of Jerusalem after one model and those of other Cities after another or if they did surely they were both lawful does that overthrow the Church and Discipline of Christ's Institution that is according to the practice of his own Apostles Or can a Conformity to the Discipline of the Mother-church of Jerusalem become in it's self a Sin Wherein shall we be saved if the Imitation of the Apostles do not secure us But Mr. B. says the Office of a Bishop supposes him to have no more than one Congregation since he must hold personal Communion with all in Preaching and Administration of the Sacraments visiting the Sick relieving the Poor and the like but must all these Acts be performed by himself in Person Must he have no Assistance Is nothing to be done within his Congregation without his Presence May not he do all this occasionally as the Apostles and Evangelists did Every Bishop had Presbyters in the first times and if he were so indispensably oblig'd to do all himself what use were they of and yet appoint Elders for the ordinary and constant Performance of the Ministry whom he shall supervise and direct It is very strange that the Bishops should have been so many hundred years in an Office which it was impossible for them to discharge and yet this be never discover'd by themselves or others However the generality of Bishops you say for a long while after the Apostles had but one Congregation to govern what then If all the Believers in and about a City would hardly make a Congregation that is to be ascribed to the Condition of those times and not to be reckon'd essential to the Office all things have their Beginning but are not confin'd to the Measures of their Infancy and if the Beginnings of the Church were but small even the greatest Cities it cannot be a prejudice to the Governour of it if the number of Believers should increase since they are appointed in Clemens Opinion for the Government not only of those that have already Ep. ad Corinth but of such as shall afterwards believe The Practice of the universal Church is evidently on our side for who has ever heard of two Bishops in one City though it were never so great unless in time of Schism and it is strange when the number of Believers did encrease beyond all Possibility of personal Communion that none should ever discern the necessity of dividing into several Churches and learn this Wisdom from the Example of Bees But the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria by their Affectation of Empire became evil Examples to others by their first Corruption of Church Discipline It is strange then that among all the Quarrels of the Bishops and in all their Accusations of one another that this Crime of so high a Nature should never be objected that no good man could never complain of this Corruption that there should never be laid to their Charge this usurping of Authority over whole Cities and multitudes of Congregations But supposing this an Usurpation in the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria how is it credible that all the great Cities in the World should be carryed away with their Example that there should be not one honest Bishop left that understood the nature of his Office or the just bounds of his Diocess Or suppose the Bishops so far prejudiced with self-Interest as to have neglected a Duty that redounded so much to the Diminution of their Power yet were the People who in those times had some part in their Election ignorant of this great Secret would not they right themselves and not have suffer'd their several Congreations to become Chappelries c. Dependencies upon the Bishops Church Would not they have govern'd themselves rather than become as it were a Province to the Bishop or if the People were ignorant of this was there no Priest that was ambitious enough to be Bishop that could inform them of their Right in Expectation that they would be grateful to the Discoverer of their Priviledges And lastly was there no Schismatick learned enough to justifie his setting up of an Altar against an Altar by this Argument that there were more Believers than could hold personal Communion with the Bishops Altar that there was work enough for more Bishops than one and that in populous Cities there ought to be several Churches yet they were all so dull as never to think of this way but on the contrary every one pretended that there ought to be but one Bishop in a City and that himself had the Right and the other was the Usurper In short since the Nature of the Church requires that it should swarm when Believers grew too numerous for one Assembly and send out new Colonies under Independant-officers Is it not very strange that it should so far forget it's Nature as never to have done this and to leave not one poor instance upon whose Authority the Independency of Congregations might relye It is upon this that the present Question turns and not whether Bishops at first had but single Congregations for if there were no more Believers within or belonging to the City they could have no more but after they were multiplyed into several Congregations still they had but one Bishop and Mr. B. does not as much as pretend to any Evidence of History to the contrary unless it be when the Church was divided
Vid. loc they ought to consider the Justice of the Cause and he that is already Bishop ought to continue so if they have nothing material to lay to his Charge and that be not evidently proved so we see plainly that this Disagreement is only between the People who have no Power to depart from the rightful Bishop and factiously to set up another against him but that the People should stand by their Pastor when he is canonically ejected by his Superiours assembled in Synod is very far from being any meaning of this Canon though Mr. B. would force it to that purpose Besides all this though any of these Arabick Canons should directly favour either his Notion of a Church or the cause of Dissenters or disallow the Practice of our Church in any thing they scruple it would give them but very small Relief since there is no Church and much less ours that ever receiv'd them nor were they ever heard of till the last Age. 7. Those ordained by Meletius were to be received into the Ministry where others dyed if by the Suffrage of the People they were judged fit and the Bishop of Alexandria design'd them Whither this tends is not hard to conjecture but it would spoil the Drift if one should observe maliciously First That these Meletians were Episcopally ordain'd Secondly That they were receiv'd into the Ministry upon the Supposal of their Submission to the Canons and Orders of the Church Thirdly That in that same place Sozomen declares in the Name of the Council that it is not lawful for the People to elect whom they please Page 53. l. 1. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cir. Ath. Ep. ad Strap The Council of Gangrae he has nothing to object against that of Tyre is manifestly Arrian and abhorr'd by the Catholick Church that of Jerusalem is of the the same Stamp but here Mr. B. goes along with the common Mistake that Arrius was here receiv'd into Communion whereas Athanasius affirms him to have died out of the Communion of the Church And it is plain that comparing Socrates Sozomen and Athanasius Arrius the Author of that Heresie was dead before the Council of Jerusalem and it is observable that Athanasius in his account of that Council every where expresses himself thus Ep. Synod Con. Hiero◠ap Athan. l. de Synod That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were there receiv'd into Communion See Vales his Annot. Ecclesiast in Socrat. Sozom. The next of any Note p. 54. § 21. is the Council of Antioch of near a hundred Bishops of which thirty six were Arrians the most Orthodox and the holy James of Nisybis one yet they depos'd Athanasius and the Arrians it 's like by the Emperour's Favour carry'd it Thus far Mr. B. Many have wonder'd how the major part of this Council being Orthodox Athanasius should be condemn'd by it Mr. B. who does not seem much to favour him because he was not kind to the Nonconformist Meletians insinuates a base complyance of these Orthodox Bishops with the Emperours Inclination a moderate man and always for the most charitable Construction However Pope Julius's Letter is express that he was condemn'd but by thirty six Bishops whether they were Arrians or no he does not say Athanasius reckons ninety Hilary ninety seven Sozomon ninety nine and be they never so many it seems the lesser number carry'd it and if the Emperour made that a Law the Orthodox Dissenters ought to be absolved Certain it is that this Council lay under the Imputation of Arrianisin for when it was objected to Chrysostom that he resum'd his Place after that he had been ejected without the Authority of a Synod to restore him which the Canons of this Council did require his Defence was that this was not a Canon of the Church but of the Arrians Sozomen makes them all Arrians The Faction of Eusebius saith he with several others that favour'd that Opinion in all ninety seven Bishops assembled at Antioch from several places under Colour of consecrating a Church but indeed as the Event prov'd to abrogate the Decrees of the Nicene Council Athanasius rejects them as sworn Enemies to him and the Faith so that there is no likely-hood that the majority was Orthodox since Constantius and Eusebius had the contriving of this Synod and by it's means the Ruine of Athanasius But how came this Opinion of thirty six only being Arrians and yet carrying the Cause Some say that they acted secretly and did not admit the Orthodox to vote with them for so the Condemnation of Athanasius past at Tyre or that they might be impos'd upon by their specious Pretence of disowning Arrius but because there is no account of any Difference between the Arrians and Orthodox in this case no Protestation enter'd nay if any such thing had been it cannot be imagin'd but that Sozomen must have mention'd it where he speaks of the Bishop of Jerusalem absenting himself on purpose lest he should be drawn in a second time to subscribe to the Condemnation of Athanasius we must conclude That these were all of a Party and pack'd together upon that design And perhaps the reading of thirty six in Julius's Epistle may be a mistake of Transcribers it being easie to mistake the Greek figure of 90 for 30 unless we shall judge the contrary to be the true Reading for the two ancient Latin Translations of Dionysius Exiguus and Isidorus Mercator conclude consenserunt subscripserunt 30 Episcopi and the Greek Synodical Epistle wants but one of just thirty Subscriptions Sozomen mentions another Synod at Antioch of just thirty Bishops and confounds the Acts of it with those of this first but whether it be his mistake or the old Translators that might confound the second with the first I am not able to determine and the matter is too confus'd to be extricated here Though the Authority of this Council was not great yet it seems the Canons of it were so wisely suited to the condition of a distracted Church and to the depressing of Schism that they were adopted afterwards by General Councils Mr. B. mentions several that are most of them levell'd against Dissenters and yet they are such as the Dissenters themselves that own any Discipline cannot find fault with and when they are in any Power find necessary to observe The fifth forbids any Priest or Deacons to gather Churches or Assemblies against the Bishop's will and if any did and did not desist upon admonition he was to be deposed and if he went on to be opprest by the exteriour Power as seditious The word opprest it seems is Emphatical and has indeed an old Version to favour it but what may be Oppression in his sense with the Council was Legal Punishment and the Greek word it uses signifies not so much the Penalty as the End for which it was to be inflicted the reduction of Schismaticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And
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
that as Mr. B. sayes a Bishop had the priviledge of a had Physician he might murder and not be hang'd c. This Decree is I believe hardly so ancient as the fore-mention'd Epistle for we have only the Authority of Gratian for it a man little to be depended upon unless he find Vouchers that are ancienter than himself but any thing will serve Mr. B's turn that will give him occasion to ease his Spleen against Bishops CHAP. V. Of the First Council of Ephesus c. OUr Author in the beginning of this Chapter p. 84. §. 3. to prejudice his Reader beforehand against the Acts of the Council of Ephesus gives the worst account of Cyril who was the President of it that he could patch up out of all the libels and accusations of his Enemies The first thing he is charged with is the oppression of the Novatians This was enough with Socrates or Sozomen to paint him as ugly as men do the Devil Socr. l. 7 or Antichrist and therefore there is no great credit to be given them in these relations as manifestly espousing the cause and quarrels of the Novatians But suppose he had us'd severity towards these Schismaticks it may be they deserved it and being Schismaticks and Alexandrians it is not unlikely that they were very troublesome and seditious Socrates makes it part of his charge that he took upon him the government of temporal affairs Socr. l. 7. c. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a little before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was not the usurpation of the Bishop but the indulgence of the Emperour and the Truth is that the Church and State being now united and the Schisms of the one causing inevitable seditions in the other the Civil Magistrates for the greater security of their Government did think it expedient to invest the Bishop with a coercive power since their Spiritual authority was contemn'd to the dishonour of Religion and no less to the disturbance of the State And it was it seems a crime in Cyril to accept this Commission or to act in pursuance of it though our Author elsewhere professes that he shall not dishonour such p. 23. sect 59. nor disobey them But besides the suppressing of the Novatian Conventicles he is charged with executing some Jews and banishing others which Orestes took ill as an incroachment upon his office who was Governour of the Province Socr. l. 7. c. 13. But as to this he cannot be very much blamed for the Jews conspired against the Christians and resolved to destroy them all in one night they gave the alarm that one of their Churches was on fire and as the Christians ran out to quench the fire they were murdred by those Villains Perhaps Cyril did not think this a time to complement the Governour to the assistance of the Christians when the danger they were in was sufficient to call him away but animated the people to make their defence and to go in quest of these Murderers and it was a sign of his Moderation that there were but some executed and that all were not put to the Sword after so barbarous an attempt This or something else offended the governour Socr. l. 7. c. 14. so that he became irreconcileable to Cyril The Bishop like a good man endeavoured by all means to procure a reconciliation but without effect and why is a Bishop to be worse thought of if a man of quality become his implacable enemy without cause Five hundred Monks came from Mount Nitria in a fit of wild zeal to take the Bishops part and Socrates cannot say that he sent for them they light on the governour and assault him he is wounded and hardly escapes with life But how could Cyril help this or how can he be charg'd with the extravagance of those Monks that he had no knowledge of till they had committed it But one of those Mutineers says Socrates that wounded the governour being executed for his crime was honour'd by Cyrill as a Martyr I do very much suspect this story from the circumstance of changing the criminals name to Thaumasius and the most probable conjecture that I can make of it if there be any ground at all for the story is that the memory of a Martyr of that name might be honoured by him which his enemies interpreted to be the Criminal But this changing of name is a thing without precedent and without reason for either this disguise was put on that it might not be observ'd and he was ashamed of doing it openly and then it will not be easie to be certain that this Thaumasius was that Ammonius who was executed or if he was the same and Cyril confest it then it is impossible to imagine a reason why he should use that disguise But there are men in the world that honour such as Martyrs that were executed not for Wounding a Governour but Murdering a King after a most unexampled manner witness the worthy Martyrologies of Harrison Speeches and Prayers Printed A. D. 1660. Carew Cook Peters c. and of Barkstead Okey Corbett with this Motto in the Frontispiece these dyed all in Faith and innumerable other things that justifie their horrid crimes and make them Martyrs by the cause of their suffering Printed 1662. I hope they were neither Bishops nor Episcopal men that were so fond of Canonizing these Murderers for Martyrs Another thing which our Author cites from the professed enemies of Cyril to render him odious was the Murder of Hypatia the famous She-Philosopher She it seems was barbarously murder'd but by whom or upon what occasion is not certain Socrates makes the occasion to have been this Socr. l. 7. c. 15. That she being frequently with the Governour was suspected to do Cyril evil offices and to disswade the Governour from being reconciled to him therefore some Zealots watched her and barbarously Murder'd her among whom was one Peter a Reader of the Church and an admirer of Cyril And this continues the same Historian brought a great reproach upon Cyril and the Church of Alexandria But he cannot charge the Bishop of being by any means conscious to it and though it were done upon his account by violent heady Zealots yet he could be no further guilty than he contributed to it by his countenance or consent Suidas in Damascius Damascius in the life of Isidore the Husband of this Hypatia charges Cyril directly with this Murder but his credit signifies very little as being in the first place a Heathen and a violent enemy of the Christians and secondly being more remote from these times for he liv'd in the reign of Justinian Vales Annot in Socr. l. 7. c. 15. Valesius cites the passage at large out of him and promises to publish much more of him than we have had hitherto This is taken out of Suidas who I believe cites the whole out of this Author In the beginning he makes it dubious
ever read this Epistle In short if I were as worthy to advise Mr. B. as he was to advise Cromwel I would say it were much more adviseable for a Christian especially for one that thinks he is so near his Eternal State to repent and cry peccavimus with the Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon whom he something Unchristianly derides than to stand upon justification of the fact and think to face it out by comparing himself with them that were so unlike him in all their circumstances This odious unpleasant work is no sooner done but Mr. B. leads me into a subject much more Invidious by his charging the late Rebellion upon the Bishops and their Party But this I must add says Mr. B. ad homines That it has been the Bishops themselves that have been the grand cause of our Church Divisions and Separations What advantage they have given the Separatists I have shewed before I am sure in the Congregation where I once was Teacher and the Country about nothing that ever came to pass has so inclin'd the people to avoid the Prelates as their own doing especially the silencing and Reproaching their Ancient Teachers whom they knew longer and better than the Prelates did and to say truth the people generally are very Competent judges of their Pastors But if the Bishops have been the Cause the Grand cause of our divisions how came it to pass that when the Bishops were gone that these divisions increas'd in other evils when you remove the Grand cause there follows abatement of the distemper This strange disease of separation grows more incurable by removing the cause But Mr. B. saith the reproaching and Silencing of the ancient Ministers gave offence and made the Bishops odious If Mr. B. means that which was done after his Majesties Restauration it will be an easie matter to answer There were many of those Ministers that were Usurpers and had intruded into the Churches of other men who had been silenc'd and cast out by those powers that had reason to be jealous of honest men There were many others that were intruders into the Ministry and such not a few of them as Mr. B. himself would not have thought fit to have continued All the rest were such as would not submit to the Rule that was then Establisht in the Church but chose rather to leave their Livings and the Bishops could not help it any other wise than as they were Members of Parliament for it was the Law that tied them to that choice and not the Bishops If Mr. B. means what happen'd before the last Civil Wars as 't is likely he may because that follows next then these Ancient Teachers that he speaks of howsoever they might be qualified otherwise were the instruments of an Anti-Monarchical Anti Episcopal Faction They would preach but they would not conform to the Establisht Religion Nay many of them would Preach against it and against their Governours too and Alienate the pople from them by their Sermons These were such Incendiaries as no Government would have endured And what manner of men several of them were may be observ'd from the Register of Norwich where Heyl. Life of Land p. 291. of four persons who were inhibited preaching one was by Trade a Draper another a Weaver and a third a Taylor and perhaps not altogether so learned as the Weavers and Plowmen of Kidderminster whom Mr. B. vouches of Abilities not inferior to most of the Ancient Fathers Yet by Silencing of these saith Mr. B. the Bishops caus'd separation It is pity the people should know no better than to follow such men as these out of the Church but if there be such an absolute necessity that these men must preach I should think they would become a Conventicle much better than a Church In the next place Mr. B. gives us a new account of the original of the late Wars and affirms that it was a Parliament of Episcopals and Erastians and not of Presbyterians who first took up Arms in England against the King It is well the Bishops had no share in it But pray where were the Presbyterians when this Parliament took up Arms were they not yet in being Or were there none of them in the House Or did they Protest against the proceedings of those Episcopals and Erastians As many of them as were of the Parliament I hope consented to the taking up of Arms and it may be may give Mr. B. little thanks for depriving them of the glory of the action For the Erastians I have not much to say but that at last they outwitted the Presbyterians although in the beginning they were reckon'd all one But can Mr. B. believe or think any body else so weak as to be impos'd upon in a matter so notorious that it was a Parliament of Episcopals and Erastians and not Presbyterians that began the like War were they Episcopals that voted down Episcopacy Root and Branch before the war was begun Were they Episcopals that Petition'd the King at York for Reformation in Discipline and Worship i. e. for Abolishing of Episcopacy and Common Prayer Were they Episcopals who in their humble desires tendred to the King at Oxford Feb. 1. 1643. pray him to give his Royal Assent for the utter Abolishing Arch-Bishops Bishops c. out of the Church of England and to promise to Pass other such Good Bills for setling of Church Government as upon consultation the Assembly of Divines shall be resolv'd on by both houses of Parliament Were they Episcopas that enter into a Solemn League and Covenant against Episcopacy and for Reforming of our Church after the Presbyterian Platform In short were they Episcopals that set up Presbytery by so many and repeated Ordinances Aug. 19. Oct. 20. Feb. 20. And this was the Parliament that began and continued the War The Erastians and Independents were at first inconsiderable and acted joyntly with the Presbyterians taking the Covenant as well as they and some of them were present at the forming of it in Scotland But afterwards opposing the Establishment of Presbytery they found a device to elude all the force of the Presbyterian Covenant by the means of that clause in it that Reformation intended was to be according to the word of God which they conceived Presbyterian Government not to be Some of them added that the Covenant was so attemkper'd on purpose to take them in for their Principles they said were very well known when they took it Grand Debate p. 89.90 91 c. But the Presbyterians utterly deny'd any such thing that they knew any principles of theirs that were contrary to Presbytery and the Assembly of Divines in their First Conference with the dissenting Brethren p. 108. c. urge the Honour of this Presbyterian Parliament as an argument against the Toleration of the Independents p. 20. because that in so doing the Parliament should grant Liberty to destroy and pull down what themselves are
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
the Multitude of Sects and Heresies that sprung up in the first and second and third ages of the Church was no dishonour to the form of Government then us'd in the Church as should encourage any man to dislike or change it Why then does he endeavour to dishonour Diocesan Episcopacy upon this very reason and why does he reproach it with the Schisms and Heresies that happen'd under that government But no man can reason against Mr. B. better than himself does in the very same Paragraph it is but taking away the word Prelacy and putting in the stead of it Congregational Episcopacy and then nothing can be more full to our purpose If it was Congregational Episcopacy that was us'd then Swarms of Sects and Heresies may come in notwithstanding Congregational Episcopacy even in better hands than yours But if it was not Congregational Episcopacy that was then the Government but Diocesan Episcopacy Heresies are no more a shame to that Government now I wish Mr. B. had consider'd this place when he conceiv'd the first design of his Church History perhaps he might have seen the Inconsequence of his design to dishonour Bishops and their Councils from a long deduction of Schisms and Heresies which he lays at their door and have forborn giving this just offence to all that have any real concern for the Honour of Christian Religion which is no less concern'd in all these disgraces than Episcopacy Yet I shall willingly discharge Congregational Episcopacy from any Imputation of those evils that disturb'd the Church in the first times and be content Mr. B. should lay it all to the account of Diocesan Government which I shall shew at large in the next Chapter to have been the Constitution of the Primitive Churches in the mean time I must enquire a little farther after the Glorious fruit of this Congregational Episcopacy If the Ancient Church was quite a stranger to this kind of Episcopacy it will be a harder matter to find it in latter ages since Mr. B. tells us that Bishopricks were enlarged so enormously in process of time that several Cathedrals were turn'd into Chapels and instead of one Congregation every Bishop had several Scores and Hundreds And the Reformation where it retain'd Bishops made them all Diocesans and set them over several Congregational Churches thus the Bohemians Denmark Sweden and some parts of Germany besides these three Kingdoms Where they Abolish'd Episcopal Government they threw away the Titles too so that if Mr. B.'s kind of Episcopacy obtain'd any where it must be under another name therefore that we may discover it it will be necessary to give a short desoription of it and then we may possibly find it to have acted under the disguise of another name This Congregational Bishop then Treatise of Ep. which Mr. B. makes so much a do about is the same thing with an Elder as he tells us and takes great pains to prove it 2. This Elder has no necessity of any ordination by any Bishop or Elders but having abilities and inclination to exercise them in the service of the Church 2. Disp p. 164.165 he may Interpret it to be sufficient authority to preach Administer the Sacraments c. Nay is oblig'd to do the Office of a Bishop or Elder 1. Disp 〈◊〉 throughout Treatise of Ep. p. 33. 3. That this Elder can Govern but one Congregation and there may be more than one of such Bishops belonging to that one Congregation 4. That this Congregation is not to be so great as that of Israel that had 600000 men but is to be restrain'd to the compass of personal Communion in hearing praying and receiving the Sacraments 5. That this Church and Bishop is independent and is invested with all Ecclesiastical power within it self 3. Disp p. 347. So that no other Bishop or Synod has any power or Superiority over it but by its own consent and then consequently no particular Congregation is obli'd to enter into any association at all but may refuse to submit to any Synod nay if it be left in this liberty and Independence by Christ it ought not to engage with any associations as should be prejudicial to that original liberty and consequently set and determin'd Synods are to be avoided and since they are only prudential means of preserving good correspondence between neighbour Churches it is enough they should be occasional And what is all this but the Picture of Independency and the Congregational Episcopacy upon Examinations proves nothing else but Congregational Eldership What a Healing constitution this is I shall shew first by matter of fact Secondly I shall shew the natural tendence of such a Government to endless discord and division that the Schisms and Heresies that it has hatch'd were not accidental but proceeded from the nature of the Government it self 1. Some derive this Congregational way from Socinus Case of the Church of Engl. p. 249. who perhaps thought it the most suitable to his design of spreading the poyson of his Heresie and to prevent all dangers that might threaten it from the condemnation of Synods Especially considering the late Union that had been made between all the Reform'd Churches of the Greater and lesser Poland in the Synod of Sendomiria Others deduce it from Ramus and Morellus who plac'd all Ecclesiastical authority in the people and by making the Government of the Church to be a Democracy made way for Congregational Independence This put the French Churches to the trouble of several Synods Thorndykes right of the Ch. p. 67. which condemned this Doctrine as pernicious to the Unity of Christian Churches and derogating from the honour of Religion Mr. Thorndyke conjectures that it came over hither with Ramus his Philosophy And that his credit in our Vniversities was the first means to bring this conceit in Religion among us For about the time that he was most cryed up in them Brown and Barrow published it And R. Baly who indeavours to relieve the English Presbyterians from the imputation of having begot this ill-faced Child Disswasive p. 12.13 as he calls it would fain also Father it upon Morellius who as he thinks learned from the Disciples of Munster this Ecclesiastical Anarchy But whoever were the Authors of it and none of those yet named can give it any great reputation it is certain that the Fruits of it are to be found only amongst our selves where it happened to take root and grow up into something considerable The Brownists or those of the separation laid the first Foundations of Independency among us and though they had so few followers at first not exceeding one Congregation so as not to have any occasion of entering into any measures of a general Unity yet they declared for the independence of Congregations and that no Diocesan Prelacy or Presbytery had any Authority over Congregational Churches Rob. Brown who gave the name to the Brownists though Bolton had led that way to
upon the multitudes said to be converted the number of Apostles and extraordinary Labourers commonly residing in this City the conjunction of Jews and Gentiles under the common title and profession of Christianity we must conclude that the Church of Antioch was too great for one Congregation especially before the place of assembly can be imagin'd very capacious and I believe Mr. B. does not imagine such vast Cathedrals as Pauls to be very Primitive Orat de S. Ign. But what ever number of Christians there might be at that time Ignatius his Bishop-rick was never the less Diocesan in its constitution and design or else Chrysostom mistakes one Topick of his commendation He reckons five things that were much to his honour whereof two bring him under suspition of Diocesan Prelacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatness of his Authority or Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatness of the City whereof he was Bishop The first I suppose refers to his metropolitan Power the second to his peculiar Diocess but if this Bishop were to have but one Congregation what would the greatness of the City signifie how many more would have the same honour with him Or what so great difference is there between a full Congregation in the heart of the City and another as full in Chelsey at leastwise what honour does the greatness of the City do the Minister of that single Congregation And now to pass by the Church of Corinth where St. Paul Preach'd for a Year and six Months upon a Divine assurance of extraordinary success and that God had much people in that place Acts 18.8 9 10 11. and where many effectually believed and were Baptized where Peter and Apollos Preached with that effect as to leave many Disciples 1 Cor. 3. who called themselves by their names And to say nothing of Ephesus where a numerous Church is said to have been gathered by St. Paul who preached there for two years and not only they that dwelled at Ephesus but all that dwelt in Asia Acts 19.10 heard the word of the Lord and the progress of the Gospel was so considerable that the shrine-makers apprehended the ruine of their Trade when they saw and heard that Paul not only at Ephesus but throughout all Asia had perswaded and turned away much people v. 26. To pass by these and several other eminent Churches Let us consider the Diocess of Rome as it was yet in the Apostles time It is very uncertain who laid the first Foundations of this Church though certain it is that before Pauls coming there the Gospel was not only received Rom. 1.13 15 17. seq but their Church was very considerable for St. Paul in his Epistle written long before his coming there as he himself witnesses sayes that their Faith was spoken of through the whole World and by the multitude of salutations in the end of that Epistle he makes appear the numbers of Christians in that City Salute Priscilla and Aquila Rom. 16. Ostendit Congregationem Fidelium Ecclesiam nominari Hieron in loe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coetum Fidelium nec mirum est in tam am plâ Civitate distinctos fuisse Fidelium coetus Beza with the Church that is in their house This was one of the Congregations of that Church which is occasionly mentioned and it is not improbable that several that are mentioned with all the Saints that are with them may be the Officers of several Congregations For it appears that most of these were of the Ministry and such by whose means the Romans believed and that they were strangers come thither from other parts where Paul had known them Congregationem vert Eras Istos amats quos satutat intelligimus ex nominiâ—us suiffe peregrinos per quorum exemylum atque Doctrinam non absurde existimamus credidisse Romanes Hieron for as yet he had not seen Rome And this number was afterwards increased considerably by the coming of Paul who converted some of the Jews and afterwards received all that came whether Jews or Gentiles and Preach'd to them the Kingdom of God for the space of two whole years no man forbidding him And the progress of the Gospel in this City may be farther observed from the Persecution of Nero who is said to have put an infinite multitude of them to Death Ingens multitude hand perinde in Crimint ineendii quam odio bumani generis convicti sunt Tac. H. l. 15. upon pretence that they had fired Rome and the Heathen Historian sayes that they who confess'd were first laid hold on then a vast company were convicted by their indication where by the by besides the multitude of the sufferers we may take notice that the words seem to be mistaken generally as if the Christians some of them had confess'd the Fact and accused the rest Lipsius thus understanding the passage gives Tacitus the lye but he does not say they confessed the fact but they confessed without expressing the particulars but what did they confess then If it were this Crime that theâ— own'd themselves and charg'd others with how comes he to add that they were not convicted so much of this Crime by this Indication as by the hatred of all mankind therefore this confession was no more than owning themselves to be Christians and the hatred they were in made this sufficient conviction To these instances of the great numbers of Christians in some more considerable Cities Eccles Hist l. 2. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall add only the general account which Eusebius gives of the success of the Christian faith immediately after the first discovery of it That presently in all Cities and Villages Churches abounding with innumerable multitudes were assembled and the Granary of Christ was fill'd up to the top with the Wheat that was gather'd in Hitherto I have observ'd chiefly the growth of Christianity under the Apostles and that there was in some Cities such a number of Christians as could not meet together in one Assembly for personal Communion in Doctrine and Worship The next thing we must shew in order to Diocesan Episcopacy must be that such numbers of believers made but one Church Govern'd by one Bishop As to the Church of Jerusalem we have shew'd already from the most ancient Ecclesiastical writings that James the Just was Bishop of that Church i. e. of all the Believers in Jerusalem Nor is that Tradition without ground in the Scripture it self for St. Paul reckons James the Lords Brother among the Apostles of that Church Sal. 1.19 though he were none of the Twelve and in another place he mentions him as a person in Eminent place and authority there one that had sent several Brethren to Antioch before that certain Brethren came from James â— 12 Here we find the style of the Scripture to alter in favour of Episcopacy for hitherto the Messengers who were sent from one Church to another were
and the extraordinariness of their gifts can be no argument against their continuance for notwithstanding they did many miraculous things yet they never could contrive to be in two places a the same time and as to their governing of several Congregations they were under the same inconveniences with their successors They visited from place to place they called the Presbyters of some Churches to them to give them directions they proceeded by information and legal evidence and what was possible to them to do in these cases is not become impossible to those that succeed them 2. All other offices had extraordinary men in those dayes and the same argument will hold against Presbyters and Deacons as against Bishops for the first Deacons that were elected were men full of the Holy Ghost 3. The unfixedness of these is no argument against the reason of their continuance and all that will follow from that is no more than this that if it was essential to their office to be unfixed they ought to be so still and not to cease to be at all 4. All of them were not unfixed and if they had been so it does not follow that the nature of their office requires it it might be no more than accidental 5. That they governed several Churches and were Arch-Bishops As to the notion of Church or Churches it is not very material whether we say Bishop of one or of many Churches for many worshipping Churches may make but one Governing Church and worshipping Churches may have their officers too as our Parishes but still in subordination to the Bishop as the several Churches under these Evangelists and Apostles were subordinated to them in matter of Discipline and Ordination But because many depend upon the title which these secondary Apostles have in Scripture as Timothy is commanded to do the werk of an Evangelist it is necessary to observe that it was not all their work to Preach and Propagate the Gospel but to settle Churches to govern them to ordain Officers to censure offenders these are the things particularly given in Charge that of Evangelists was common to them with divers others But ordination is made their peculiar right For why did Paul leave Timothy and Titus one in Ephesus the other in Crete to ordain Elders Were there not Presbyters in Ephesus already Might not they ordain Might not they receive Accusations and Excommunicate Why then was there one single Person left to do all this and in Crete it is not to be conceived but that since St. Paul had converted several to the faith in that Island he also had ordained some Church Officers in those places of the Island where he most resided Or what need had he to leave a Bishop behind him to ordain when he might by the ordination of a few Presbyters in one City provided sufficiently for ordination in the rest or lastly since this ordination is made so insignificant by Mr. B. why might not these Believers have appointed their own Teachers without any further circumstance and by an instance of their power have freed Posterity from the superstition of thinking Apostolical Ordination and succession so requisite to Authorize Pastors But since the Apostles ordained all Ecclesiastical Officers by themselves or their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Assistants their suffragan Bishops and left some of them on purpose to do this work it is plain that they conceived some kind of necessity for it and did not look upon the power so common or insignificant as later projectors of Church settlements would make us believe Now as the Scripture discovers no other sort of Episcopacy than such as we have discribed so the ancient Bishops knew of no other Original of their Office for they conceived themselves to be derived from the Apostles not as ordinary Presbyters or Deacon but to succeed them in such a preheminence of dignity and power as their first Assistants were endued with And Eusebius whose diligence nothing could escape and whose judgment was not easily imposed on aâ—ter all his search could find no other Original of Episcopacy and derives the Bishops of the most eminent Cities of the Empire from the Apostles and their Assistants whom they appointed as the first Bishops of the Church Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How many sayes he and who they were that followed the example of the Apostles and were thought worthy to govern those Churches which they founded is not easy to say besides these which St. Paul mentions in his Epistles he indeed had a great number of Assistants and as he calls them fellow Souldiers whose names are preserved in his Epistle And Luke in the Acts of the Apostles makes mention of some of them Among these Timothy is said to have been first Bishop of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Titus the Bishop of the Churches of Crete Crescens was sent to Gallatia as the present reading of St. Pauls Epistle is but as Eusebius read it to Gallia Linus whom he mentions in his second to Timothy was made Bishop of the Church of Rome next to Peter and Clemens who succeeded Linus is owned by Paul as his fellow labourer And Lastly Dionysius the Areopagite whom St. Paul mentions as the first Convert of Athens is reported to have been the first Bishop of that Church by another Dionysius a very Ancient writer and Bishop of Corinth This was the rise of Episcopacy according to Eusebius and the progress of it he takes care to shew by setting down the successours of these and other Bishops to his own time Ep. ad Smyrn ad Ephes ad Magn. Ignatius derives the Original of Episcopacy a little higher yet from Christ himself the Universal Bishop and compares the Bishop with his Bench of Presbyters to Christ sitting in the midst of his Apostles and is the most express and vehement of all the Ancients in setting out the dignity and preheminence of the Bishop Irenaus deduces the Episcopal Authority from the same Original and makes the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles to be his principal argument against the Hereticks and Schismaticks of his time and because it was endless to make a perfect enumeration of those who succeeded the Apostles in all the Churches of the World Valde longum esset in tali volumine enumerare Successiones l. 3. c. 3 he instances in that of Rome where Linus was first ordained Bishop Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecelesiae tradiderunt Apofloli ibid. Polycarpus ab Apostolis in eâ qua est Smyrnis constitutus Episcopus qui usque adbue successerunt Polycarpe ibid. then Clemens and so on to his own time and in another place proposes it as the only remedy against Heresy to obey those that have a due succession from the Apostles who though they are there called Presbyteri yet it is plain who he means by them when he adds that they are the same which he shewed before to have succeeded the
titles are mentioned Besides the mentioning but these two sorts of Church Officers may be done only according to the distinction of the several imployments in the Church some being Ministerial others Governing though the latter may have a difference in the measure of their power in the administration of the same Government An evident instance of this we have in Clemens of Alexandria who notwithstanding he distribute the Clergy sometimes into Presbyters and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. strom l. 6. p. 283. Ed. Silburgii in 1 Tim. 1. as the Governing or Teaching and the Ministring Parts yet he does elsewhere acknowledg three Orders where he comes to speak more distinctly To the same effect are the words of the Greek Scholia collected out of the ancient Fathers that Bishops sometime in Scripture comprehend Presbyters too Because their offices are much alike 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sch. Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in 1 ad Tim. c. 3. Secundum Presbyterorum immo paene unum corum esse gradum Episcoperum they both administer the Sacraments they both teach and guide the Church and exercise discipline and the difference between them is not very great and what is that since they are both qualified for the same Acts Besides Ordination there iâ— hardly any thing but that they act in subordination to the Bishops in whom the principal Authority of Teaching and governing is placed and the Presbyters are the Assistants and supreâ—â— Council of the Bishop and both making as it were one Bench the directive governing part of the Church Salmasius would understand Chrysostom when he sayes the distance between Bishops and Presbyters was not great to speak of his own time only which is so impudent a construction that one would wonder how any man could be guilty of it since every one that has the curiosity to consult the place will discern the imposture and there is none of the Ancients that does more expresly distinguish between Bishops and Presbyters from the beginning than this eloquent Father and nothing can be more plain than that he speaks there of the constitution of Episcopacy and Presbytery without any regard to time for it is evident from him that he thought there was no difference in this particular between these orders of the Church in his time and that of the Apostles as any man may see that will but look into his comments upon Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. c. 1 Tom. 4. Ed. Savil. and c. 3. There are several other passages in that Epistle of Clemens that make mention of Presbyters appointed by the Apostles to guide the Church of the Presbyters of the Church of Corinth who were turned out by a faction but nothing that affords any argument against Episcopacy but such as the same answer may be extended to which I have given already to the allegations made from thence But to clear this business of the Church of Corinth as far as possible I will shew the state of it as it may be gathered from this Epistle and then take liberty to offer a conjecture concerning the form of its Government at that time and the occasion of the Schism The Church of Corinth in the first place is said here to be an Ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sound Church that for a long while had enjoyed all the benefits of peace and order and was had in great esteem and veneration of all those that knew it until at last having eat and drank and being enlarged and growing fat it lifted up the heel From this prosperity sprung all the evils of emulation and discord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaner sort setting themselves up against the better and silly men growing conceited and pragmatical set themselves against men of wisdom and experience But because in all the insolencies of the people against their Rulers there are commonly some persons of note that first animate the sedition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was no otherwise here a few ambitious discontented men and they too not very extraordinary Persons for knowledg or endowments instigated the common people against their Governours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having popular parts they knew how to insinuate themselves into the multitude and to manage the credulity and passions of the people to their own advantage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and prejudice of the publick Therefore Clemens aggravates this sedition by comparing it with that mentioned by St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they cryed some for him some for Cephas some for Apollos for they were two of them great Apostles and the other one highly esteemed by the Church But now sayes he consider by what manner of men you are perverted And now what could give occasion to all this disorder What would these troublesome men have this is not expresly set down but such hints are scattered as are sufficient to ground a probable conjecture 1. They are said to be great Zealots about things not material or requisite to salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hot disputants about such matters 2. They were such as magnified the power of the people and perswaded them that they had a right to turn out their Pastors therefore Clemens shews what course Moses took to establish the Priesthood and how the Apostles foreseeing there would be contentions about the name and office of a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointed chosen men which the people cannot with any justice turn out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. These men were ambitious disobedient despisers of their superiors and yet such as would bear rule themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and lift themselves up above their brethren and their discontents arising from the ill success or opposition their ambitious pretensions met with were probably the occasion of this Schism and therefore Clemens advises them to be content with their statition and chuse rather to be inconsiderable in the Church than to be never so great out of it than to be the heads and Bishops of a Faction From which Circumstances one may conjecture 1. That the Church of Corinth at this time had no Bishop the See being vacant by the death of the last or otherwise 2. That this sedition was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a contention about this Bishoprick 3. That the Clergy and people were divided about it the people setting up some they had a favour for whom the Clergy did not approve and when they could not be prevail'd with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people persisting in their kindness towards these persons broke out into extremities and turned out part of the Clergy that would not comply with their choice Which is yet further confirmed from the directions which Clemens gives upon this account that these men would go regularly to compass their design by just means that they would enter in at the right gate and
in the Funeral Oratition of his friend where besides this new Bishoprick he shews that seâ—â—â—al others were erected upon that contention and that the Church had this advantage that By the increase of Bishops there would be a more exact and particular care taken of Souls and every City should be governed in all Ecclesiastical affairs within it self which before in that Country it seems they were not used to And Lastly That by this means the strife endeds After what manner he does not say perhaps this increase of Bishops carried the cause for Basil against Anthimus and so the controversy ended However Nazianzen commends Basil here for multiplying Dioceses yet in the Verses before cited he makes it a very unnecessary innovation for him to set up a Bishop at Sasima having no less than fifty Suffragan Bishops in his Province already 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet if we consider how far Sasima was probably from Caesarea we must conclude the Diocess of Basil out of which this is expresly said to be taken to have been very large for that this place was at some good distance from Basil we may perceive from Nazianzen's complaint as if he had been banished by this promotion into some remote place 2. If any guess may be made by comparing the itinerary from Constantinople to Jerusalem Printed â—â—th that of Antonius with the Tabulae Peuterigeranae Apud Itinerarium Antonini Sasus in finibus Ciliciae But this cannot be the same with Sasime in the other Itinerary the distance must be as great at least as between Hippo and Fussala for in that Itinerary there is reckoned sixteen miles from Sasima to Andavalis which in Peutingers tables is a great way from Caesarea 3. Sasima in the Ancient Greek Notitiae Printed with others by Carolus â S. Paulo Ordo Metropolitarum prout descriptus est in Chartophylacio is set down in the second Cappadocia which was under the Metropolis of Thyana and therefore it is not likely to be very near Caesarea the Metropolis of the other Cappadocia And one may observe that the Dioceses of Cappadocia notwithstanding this division were yet very considerable and far from being reduced into Congregational Churches It is plain from Nazianzen that Cappadocia had but fifty Bishops for so many he sayes Basil had under him and no doubt he owned him as Metropolitan of the whole Province and considering the extent of that Country the Dioceses must needs be large for the Country as Strabo computes Strab. l. 12. is near four hundred miles in length and little less in breadth as Causabon restores the reading of one thousand eight hundred furlongs in the twelfth book by a passage in the second where the breadth is made two thousand eight hundred And in this compass Bishops may contrive fifty Dioceses of very competent extent and not inferior to many of ours Basil writing to the Presbyteâ—â— of Nicopolis Salutes the Clergy of the City and the Clergy of the Diocess And in a Letter to the Citizens of the same place Bas Ep. 592. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 desires them to shew a good example of affection towards their new Bishop to the rest of the Diocess Ep. 94. And in another to the Brethren of Colonia whence Euphronius was chosen to Nicopolis he tells them that he who was their Chorepiscopus before may take care of them still and continue to be their Bishop The same Father in another Epistle Ep. 72. Evasenis shews that Ancyra was a Diocess of good extent for Eustathius passing through the Territory of that City is said to have overthrown the Altars of Basilides the Bishop of it and to set up his own Tables which supposes several Country Churches under the jurisdiction of that Diocesan Bas Ep. 406. Amphilochio sub nomine Hâ—racleidae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And Lastly when Basil directs Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium to constitute Bishops in the Province of Isauria which at that time was it seems distitute upon what occasion I know not he enters upon a comparison between the convenience of large and small Dioceses and debates for sometime whether it were best to Ordain one Bishop of the Metropolis Seleucia I suppose who shall take care of the whole Province and Ordain more Bishops as he shall find expedient or else appoint a number of lesser Bishops first And here he confesses that if he could find one that would answer the character of St. Paul that were a workman who needed not to be ashamed such a one would go a great way and be worth many little Bishops would be of greater use to the Church and by that means we might with less hazard undertake the care of the Souls of the Province But if this cannot be done then let there be made Bishops in the lesser Cities and Villages where there were Bishops before and the matter be so ordered that the Bishop of the Principal City may not disturb us hereafter in point of Ordinations By which it appears that Isauria was then part of Basils Province and we may perceive the reason why he chose rather to Ordain the Country Bishops first to form an interest in the first place and to diminish the strength and power and to prevent the usurpations of the Bishop of the chief City Nor were these Chorepiscopi Country Bishops other than Diocesan as to the extent of their Church which consisted of many Congregations and those at a good distance one from the other for these were not as Rectors of a single Parish but Visitors of several Churches to the proportion it may be of our Rural Deaneries though like them they were more immediately related to a certain Parish or Town But their Episcopacy was in relation to the association of several Churches So Basil sayes he sent to the Chorepiscopus of those places not of one Country Town 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bas Ep. 355. and therefore the Council of Laodicia calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Visitors and where Cities were not very thick some of them had the inspection of a large Territory But yet these were but the Deputies or Surrogates of the City Bishops in point of jurisdiction for they were to do nothing of moment without their Bishop and several Councils provide against their Usurpations Basil whose Diocess and Province we come from giving an account of is so resolute upon his prerogative that he will not endure they should ordain as much as the inferior Clergy as Deacons Subdeacons Readers and several others which the Church of that time reckon'd among the Clergy without his consent Bas 181. and if they do let them know sayes he that whosoever is admitted without our consent shall be reputed but a Layman What would he have said if they had pretended to ordain Presbyters or Bishops in opposition to them The Bishops of the Church of England desire no more than S. Basil assumed That none should be reputed Priests