not the only Bishop that had such a large Diocess for St. Chrysostom had one full as large and which contained as many Parishes he was Bishop of Constantinople and all the Territories thereto belonging and did not think it in his Conscience too large for if he did so good a Man as he would either have divided or quitted it And Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria and the Territories belong to it for he says Ap. p. 781 802. Maoretis is a Region belonging to Alexandria and all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria But because Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter Mr. Cotton and the rest have made choice of the Church of Carthage in Africk in St. Cyprian's time to make their appeals to Dr. Stillingfleet to avoid all Cavils as he tells us has chosen that very Church to be decided by as to the Episcopal Government now in dispute between us And therefore first he proves that there were a great number of Presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage at that time and therefore not likely to be one single Congregation And this he proves out of St. Cyprian's own Epistles in his Banishment Particularly in his 5 th Book Ep. 28. he complains that a great number of his Clergy were absent and the few that remain'd were hardly sufficient for their Work And that these Presbyters and the whole Church were under the particular care and government of St. Cyprian as their Bishop appears by his own words Lib. 3. Ep. 10 and 12. to the People of Carthage he complains to them of his Presbyters that they did not reserve to their Bishop that honour due to his place for that they received Penitents to Communion without Imposition of Hands by the Bishop c. And in his Epist 28. he threatens to Excommunicate those Presbyters that should do so for the future And all the other Bishops gave their approbation to St. Cyprian for so doing And the same St. Cyprian in his 3 Book Ep. 65. tells them that a Bishop in the Church is in the place of Christ and that Disobedience to him is the occasion of Schisms and Disorders See more fully concerning this matter in Dr. Stillingfleet's Mischiefs of Separation p. 228 229. c. And now since Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter and the rest have agreed to appeal to the Church of Carthage we must suppose they allow no Deviations in that Church from the Primitive Institution and what that was then any one may judge And St. Augustine was another Bishop in the African Church he was Bishop of Hippo Regia the Diocess of which extended at least Forty Miles as appears by St. Augustine's own Epist 262. 'T is true the African Church came most near the Congregational way of any other the Diocess being smaller by reason of the many Sectaries there the Donatists and many others And that is the Reason Mr. Baxter and the rest express so great an Esteem for it But that their Bishopricks were much too large to serve either the Presbyterians or Independents turn and that they never allowed more than one Bishop in the largest Cities sufficiently appears by what has been said And in the African Code there is a Canon that says expresly no Bishop shall leave his Cathedral Church and go to any other Church in his Diocess to reside there See Codex Eccl. Africae c. 71. Which shows that the Bishops Territories and Jurisdiction extended into distant Places from the City as well in the African Churches as in others I shall only add to this that Calvin look'd upon it as a Thing out of dispute among Learned Men that a Church did not only take in the Christians of a City in the Primitive Times but of the adjacent Country also See Calv. Instit l. 4. c. 4. n. 2. But though there were never more than one Bishop in a City in the Primitive Church * V. Conc. Eph. Part 2. Act. 1. yet some Bishops have had Two or more Cities in their Diocess Timothy was Bishop of Farmissus and Eudocias Athanasius was Bishop of Diveltus and Sozopolis And there have been some Bishopricks that have had no City at all in them but only Villages for there were some Countries that had no Cities in them so have we at this Day Bishops in Ireland and Wales that have no Cities in their Diocess But it cannot be prov'd that the Jurisdiction of the Bishop and the extent of his Diocess was confin'd to any single Village So far from that that by the Canon of Sardica VI. all the Bishops Assembled at Sardica agree That it shall by no means be lawful to Ordain any Bishops in Villages or small Cities that the Dignity of a Bishop may not be contemptible from the meanness of the Place But says Mr. Clarkson and the rest The Apostles Ordain'd Elders in every Church and then Mr. Clarkson names the places to wit Antioch Iconium Lystra and other Villages and these Elders or Presbyters they will have Bishops But first I say That during the Apostle's days the names Bishop and Presbyter were commonly used the one for the other but not after as shall be show'd hereafter and therefore these Elders or Presbyters here spoken of may be as well taken for ordinary Presbyters or Priests as for Bishops But allowing these Presbyters were Bishops what advantage will it be to them for first it does not appear that the Apostles confin'd their Authority to those places but the contrary is evident and unless they can prove this it will not serve their turn But Secondly these Cities over which the Apostles appointed Elders were large Cities at that time by much too great to come together in one Congregation Iconium was then a Metropolitan and had many other Cities under it And the rest were all large Cities But before I conclude this point I must make one Observation and that is That Mr. Clarkson to prove that a Bishop of a City had no more but one Congregation undertakes to shew how small some Cities were but 't is remarkable he quotes for his Authority some Author who speaks of them long before there were any Bishops and because they might have been small places then will needs have them to be so in the days of the Apostles which is very ridiculous for under the Roman Emperours both the Roman and the Grecian Cities were at their height and did very much surpass both for their magnificence and number of people any that have been before or since nor is this to be wonder'd at since our Cities do now stand upon much narrower Foundations as to their constitution our Cities have seldom any Liberties half a mile beyond their Walls and are generally but an Assembly of Trades-men whereas the Roman Cities had each a Territory as it were a County belonging to it which was under the jurisdiction of the City Magistrate and the Citizens were the Lords of the adjacent Country I have now shew'd that the Government of
swallowed up in the Bishops And the Pastors of every Parish who ought to have full Power to execute every part of it are depriv'd thereof And Fourthly That the People are depriv'd of their right of chusing their own Pastors First say they Our Parochial Churches are not according to Christ's Institution For Christ they say instituted no other kind of Churches than particular Congregations to which he gave full Power and Authority to govern themselves distinctly and Independent of all other Churches But where have they Authority for this Opinion Where do they find that Churches were limitted to particular Congregations not in Scripture for there is no tolerable Proof that the Churches planted by the Apostles were of this Nature 'T is possible at first there might have been no more Christians in a City than might meet together in one Congregation But where doth it appear that when they multiply'd into more Congregations they made new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government of this Dr. Stillingfleet says he is well assuâ—'d there is no mark or Footstep in the New Testament or the whole History of the Primitive Church If they will follow the plain instances of Scripture they may better limit Churches to Private Families than to particular Congregations for of that we have a plain instance in Scripture Rom. 16. 3. 5. Col. 4. 15. in the House of Priscilla and Aquilla but not a word of the other And if they wou'd keep to these plain instances of Scripture they might fully enjoy the Liberty of their Consciences and avoid the Scandal of breaking the Laws But the Scripture is so far from making every Congregation an Independent Church that it plainly shews us the Notion of a Church was then the same with a Diocess or all the Christians of a City which were under the Inspection of one Bishop For if we observe the Language of the Scripture we shall find this Observation not once to fail that when Churches are spoken of they are the Churches of a Province As the Churches of Judaea 1 Thess 2. 14. The Churches of Asia 1 Cor. 16. 19. Of Syria and Cilicia Acts 15. 41. Churches of Galatia 1 Cor. 16. 1. Gal. 1. 2. Churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. 8. 1. But when all the Christians of a City are spoken of it is still call'd the Church of that City as the Church of Antioch the Church at Corinth the Church of Ephesus c. So that it seems plain from the Testimony of Scripture that Churches were not limitted to particular Congregations unless they will say that all the Christians in the largest of these Cities mention'd in Scripture were no more than cou'd conveniently meet in one Congregation which shall be shown to be otherwise hereafter But suppose we shou'd grant that the Apostolick Churches were Congregational as 't is plain they were not what then that might have been from the Circumstances of Times or small number of Christians in those Days must it therefore follow that they must always continue so Why do they not wash one anothers Feet as Christ did and commanded his Apostles to do the same * And if they must keep so precisely to the Practice of those Days why does any of their Ministers marry a Second Wife For St. Paul says plainly Let Bishops and Deacons be the Husbands of one Wife 1 Tim. 3. v. 2. 12. So the first Civil Government was by God's own Institution over Families they may by the same Rule think themselves bound to overthrow Kingdoms to bring things back to God's first Institution From whence it appears how ridiculous that fancy of theirs is That the Scripture is the only Rule of all things pertaining to Discipline and Worship and that we must stick so precisely to the Letter of it and to the practice of those Days as that 't is not lawful to vary from it in any little indifferent Circumstance for the sake of Publick Order or Conveniency But as this notion of Congregational Churches does not agree with the words of the New Testament so neither does it with the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church For by the ancient Canons of the Church it appears That the Notion of a Church was the same with that of a Diocess which comprehended many Congregations or Parishes See Canons Nicen. 6 15 16. Constant c. 6. Chalcedon 17. 20. 26. Antioch c. 2. 5. Codex Eccles Africae c. 53. 55. Concil Gangrae c. 6. Concil Carthag c. 10 11. And thus much as to the first Objection against the Constitution of our Church as differing from those of the Congregational way and therefore not of Christ's Institution The Second Objection against the Constitution of our Church is That our Diocesan Churches and Bishops are unlawful For say they 'T is making a new Species of Churches and Church-Government without God's appointment For says Mr. Baxter according to Christ's Institution no Church must be bigger than that the same Bishop may perform the Pastoral Office to them in present Communion And so he will have three sorts of Bishops by Divine Right First General Bishops that in every Nation are over many Churches Secondly Episcopi Gregis or Ruling Pastors of Single Congregations which are all true Presbyters Thirdly Episcopi Praesides which are the Presidents of the Presbyters in particular Churches This is Mr. Baxter's Notion of Bishops But others are not of his Mind and will allow of but one kind of Bishop and such they make the Pastor of every Congregation But that both these Notions of Episcopacy are false will appear For that First 't was an inviolable Rule in the Primitive Church that there must be but one Bishop in a City though 't were never so large for our Saviour having left no Rule about Limits the Apostles follow'd the Form of the Empire planting in every City a complete and entire Church whose Bishop as to his Power and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical Matters resembled that of the Chief Magistrate of the City the Presbyters that of the Senates and the several Churches the several Corporations So says Dr. Still in his Mischiefs of Separation p. 237. and quotes Origen c. Cels l. 3. and Dr. Maurice in his Def. of Dioces Episcopacy p. 377 c. affirms the same and proves it at large And as far as the Territories of the City extended it self so far did the Diocess of the Bishop extend for the Church and the City had but one Territory But though this be a thing agreed upon by most Learned Men of all Persuasions that there was but one Bishop in a City in the Primitive Church yet because some may be so hardy as to deny this I will appeal to the Practice of the African Church for which Mr. Baxter Dr. Owen and the rest of the Dissenters express an esteem above all other Churches 'T was an inviolable Rule among the African Churches that there must be but one Bishop in a City
Clement St. Cyprian St. Chrysostom c. could not have been ignorant of it St. Clement says in his Ep. 54 55 56 57. the Apostles thought fit to reserve this Power of appointing Officers in the Church to themselves to prevent the Contentions that might happen about it And that all the People had to do was to give testimony of the Person chosen And to that end 't is true the People were to be present at the nomination of a new Bishop for since they were to be Men blameless and of good report 't was but fit that the People that best knew his Life and Conversation should be present to testify the same And herewith agrees St. Cyprian Ep. 68. whom Mr. Baxter vouches for the contrary says he The Bishop shou'd be chosen in the presence of the People that by their presence their Faults may be publish'd or their good Actions commended but says not a word of the Peoples Power of Electing him All our Ordinations must be done in the publick view of the People who are demanded of the Bishop whether any of them can or will except against the Persons to be admitted See the Form of Ordination in the Book of Common Prayer As to the Elections of Deacons 't is to be noted that 't was properly no Church Power which they had but they were Stewards of the Common Stock and therefore 't was but reasonable the Community should be satisfied in the choice of them St. Chrysostom in his Book de Sacerdotio complains much of the unfitness of the People to judge in such matters So does St. Augustine Ep. 110. And indeed were there no other Reasons against the Peoples choosing their own Ministers but the mischiefs that would necessarily attend it 't were sufficient for when ever the People assum'd this Power of choosing it caus'd so great Disturbances in the Church that at Antioch the Divisions of the People about the choice of a Bishop in the time of Constantine had kindled such a Flame as had almost destroy'd both Church and City The like at Rome upon the choice of Damascus And if the People have the Power of choosing their own Ministers what shou'd hinder but there may be a Presbyterian Independant Anabaptist Quaker and Papist teacher all in one Parish and so this would set open a door to infinite Divisions And therefore to avoid the great Evils and inconveniences of popular Elections the Power of choosing their own Ministers was taken away from the People by several Councils as 12. and 13. Can. Conc. Laodicea Conc. Antioch c. 18. c. Conc. 2 d. of Nice c. 3. The Reason that first gave Lay-men a title to the nomination of Ministers was when Christian Princes and others had given large Endowments to the Church 't was thought but just that they should have the nomination of the Ministers for those Churches that they had built and indow'd And this was a Prerogative in the Kings of England ever since the first foundation of a Christian Church here and long before any freedom of Elections was pretended to See Stat. 25. Edw. 3. and the Case of the King 's Ecclesiastical Power in Lord Cook 's 8 th Rep. and the Case of Praemunire in Sir John Davenant's Reports Case ult And this title of Patronage has been confirmed to Lay-men by several Councils as 1 st Coun. of Orange Anno Dom. 441. 2 d. Counc of Arles Anno 452. 9 th Counc of Toledo c. And this Right of presentation is not only us'd in England but in other reform'd Churches In Denmark the Archbishops and Bishops are appointed by the King so they are in Swedeland So in other Lutheran Churches the Superintendants are appointed by the several Princes and the Patrons present before Ordination The Synod of Dort hath a Salvo for the right of Patronage In France the Ministers are chosen by Ministers at Geneva by the Council of State who have Power likewise to depose them And Beza in his Ep. 83. declares against the Peoples choosing their Ministers as a thing without any ground in Scripture Grotius Ep. ad Boatslaer Ep. 62. p. 21. agrees herein How comes then our English Dissenters to make this a ground of Separation to wit The depriving the People of their Right of choosing their own Ministers when 't is evident they never had any such Right but when they got it by Usurpation And 't is contrary to the general practice of the Church in all Ages and even to the practice of other reform'd Churches at this day But besides the unwarrantableness of the Peoples choosing their Ministers and the great mischiefs that attend it by making the People run into Divisions and Factions 't is a thing very unreasonable in it self that such an ignorant proud unpeaceable sort of People as Mr. Baxter himself confesses in his Sacrilegiae Dissert p. 102. c. the ordinary sort of Christians to be should be made judges of their Ministers abilities and soundness of Doctrines who are most apt to revile the best and gravest Ministers as the same Mr. Baxter says himself in his Cure of Divis p. 393. Sure 't is more likely that the King and Parliament and the Governours of the Church shou'd provide able and fit Ministers for us than such sort of People as these unless any will be so ridiculous as to suppose that the Magistrates and Clergy are all bad men and the ignorant common People the only incouragers of Vertue They may say 't is as unreasonable on the other hand that all the People of a Parish shou'd be oblig'd to take a Minister put into the Cure by some young raw extravagant Heir that had the good Fortune to be born to an Estate to which the Advowson did belong but perhaps is as ignorant and unfit to judge of the abilities of a Minister as the meanest in the Parish To this I answer That though such ignorant Persons may sometimes have the right of Presentation yet they have not the Power of putting into the Cure any Minister they please for the Patron has only the right of presenting his Clerk who must be admitted and instituted by the Bishop before the Cure is said to be full and if the Bishop with the rest of his Clergy after examination had c. do think him any way unqualified for the Cure of Souls he may reject him and put the Patron to present another qualify'd for the Office which if he neglect to do within six Months from the time the Church became void he shall lose his presentation for that turn and the Bishop shall present So that the Patron it seems cannot put whom he will on the People for their Pastor but is bound to find Personam idoneam a fit Person And now before we pass from this matter let us see whether the Civil Magistrate has Power to silence Ministers or not Doubtless he has otherwise 't is impossible that any Kingdom should be safe for since the