owed him still the duty of Children notwithstanding his absence and lastly that he would come to them shortly by way of Apostolical visitation and examine the power of those that entred into competition with him For as far as his Line or Diocess or Province did extend so far he pretended a peculiar Authority to govern Rom 15.19 2 Cor. 10.13 to 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dioecesis sive certus Pastorum Ecâ—lesiarum numerus Unit. Frat. Bohem. Sect. de Antist Regulam vocat Ditionem praescriptum Praedicationis Terminum Salmeron and exercised Diocesan jurisdiction upon all within his Rule But when this Line was so far extended that he neither was able to visit every part himself and his communication by Letters would not answer all the occasions of those Churches he had planted 1. Tim. 1.3 18. c. 2.14 15. c. 4.12 14. c. 5.21.22 Tit. 1.5 c. 2.15 he provides for them not by leaving every Congregation Independent and resigning all Authority into the hands of every particular Presbytery but by sending Persons endued not only with extraordinary gifts but with Apostolical power to ordain Elders to end disputes to censure the unruly and irregular whether of the Clergy or People to confute Hereticks to preach the Gospel and in short by all means to provide for thee welfare of those Churches committed to them And now as the Apostle had before ordained assistant Elders in the several Churches which he had planted for the ordinary attendance of the Congregation so now he takes to himself Assistants of another sort Suffragans for the Service of his Province which he distributed as he found most expedient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 1. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod in 1 Tim. 3. Phil. 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acceperat in illis Apostolatus officium Hieron in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anonym 〈◊〉 Phot. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Timoth. and these in the Apostles time were sometimes called Apostles or Evangelists Bishops Presbyters Fellow Labourers Helpers Deacons c. but their successors leaving greater and more invidious titles contented themselves with the name of Bishops which was common to them with ordinary Presbyters at first though the Offices were alwayes distinct Of this kind we have several mentioned in Scripture of St. Pauls Province as Barnabas Timothy Titus Crescens Epaphraditus Sosthenes and some others that had no relation to him as James the Just Mark Linus Clemens c. These exercised Episcopal jurisdiction in that district where they were appointed Ordained Presbyters received accusations against them Reprov'd and censur'd them as there was cause and in short govern'd those Churches over which they were appointed by full Apostolical power which was transmitted to their successors But the extraordinary abilities of some of these men and the occasions of several other Churches made their residence less constant in the Diocess where they were plac'd 2 Tim. 4.9 than otherwise might have been expected Phil. 2. and therefore Timothy the Bishop and Apostle of Ephesus is called to Rome by St. Paul to be imployed as the necessities of the Church should require Titus is sent to Dalmatia though Crete were his first Province but this concludes no more against their being Diocesans than the Voyage of Germanus and Lupus into Brittain to oppose the Pelagian Heresy would conclude against their being Bishops Now what care was taken for those Churches which these Apostolick Diocesans left whether they returned again to their Provinces is not mentioned in Scripture But Ecclesiastical Records shew an uninterrupted Succession from the Bishops in several Churches Nor do we find that they were all so unfixed as they are represented by the adversaries of Episcopacy for Mark who was the first Bishop of Alexandria remained in that Province Euseb Hist l. 2. c. 16. Niceph. l. 2. c. 43. Gelas in Conc. Rom. in decr de lib. Auth. planting Churches in the Country round about and governing them by Apostolical Authority which after his Martyrdom there was derived to his successuors in the same charge Now this order being of perpetual use and necessity in the Church to ordain Presbyters and Deacons to exercise discipline to preserve unity they were multiplyed according as the Apostles found most expedient for the Church and the most eminent Cities became the Residence of these first Bishops not because God takes greater care of Cities than he does of lesser Towns and Villages but because the Apostles thought it the most natural way to follow the distribution that was then in the more civilz'd part of the world St. John a little while before his death mentions seven in the Lydian Asia under the name of Angels of the Churches nor is it probable there were any more in that Province The Seven Churches being the same with all the Churches mentioned in the next Chapter Rev. 1.20.2.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Andr. Caesar Ego puto simul inveniri posse Angelum hominem bonos Ecclesia Episcopos Origen in Lucam Hom. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut Collegas moneat Beza Ad Episcopum loci dirigitur Paraus and Carolus à Sancto Paulo concludes the same thing out of St. John Cum in Asia septem tantum hisce temporibus essent Episcopi ut in Apocalypsi legere est nec majorem corum numerum in Ponto tunc fuisse probalile est Geogr. Sacra p. 289. Dissert 4. c. 5. Quod si de Angelis superiorum Coelorum non de praepositis Ecclesie intelligi vellet non consequenter diceret Laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositas Ecclesiae Aug. Ep. 162. But Dr. Hammond makes all these Angels to be Metropolitans having several Bishops under them for the reasons I must refer the reader to his Dissertations Thus far the Scripture discovers the rise and progress of Diocesan Episcopacy which was the form of Church Government under the Apostles who had large Provinces to supervise and their suffragans such as are commonly called Evangelists had several Congregations to govern and this was undeniably the constitution of the Church in the first age the next thing we are to inquire is whether the Office expired with those Persons or was designed to be of perpetual use in the Church The Adversaries of Episcopacy are not all agreed as to this point the Presbyterians generally looking upon the offices of Apostles and Evangelists extraordinary as the persons were Mr. B. is something more scrupulous because he does not find any where that Christ design'd to have this alter'd and yet he condemns Diocesan Episcopacy as being altogether different from it I have said something to this already and therefore I shall answer here more briefly 1. That we have no reason to believe from Scripture that the Office of Apostles or Evangelists which concerned the Government of the Church was extraordinary and for a time only
Apostles which were those Bishops he had given a Catalogue of before And Lastly speaking of the Bishops to whom the Apostles committed the government of those Churches they had planted he makes them much ancienter than those Hereticks that disturbed the Church and draws an argument from their Apostolick institution and their constant succession in that office against those that brought in new Doctrines Tertullian makes use of the same Argument Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sant Presbyteris obandire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut oftendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma veritatis certum acceperunt l. 7. c. 42. and requires of the Hereticks a succession from the Apostles and Origen speaking of Bishops makes them likewise to succeed the Apostles in their office Omnes enim ii valde posterieres quam Episcopi quibus Episcope Ecclesias tradiderunt In short it was the opinion of all the Ancients And Aerius is looked upon by Epiphanius if not as a Heretick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. yet at least as an innovator for maintaining an equality between Bishops and Presbyters For if the Bishop were only the first Presbyter and the opinion of the Church was at that time that there was no Original difference between the Orders Haeres 75. Epiphanius could not have observed this as a singularity in Aerius therefore the common opinion then being contrary to this notion they must apprehend Episcopacy to be the Apostolical Order derived from the Apostles by a succession First to those Assistants we have been speaking of and from them to the Succeeding Bishops I shall conclude with the testimony of Theodoret whose judgment and knowledg of Ecclesiastical Antiquity was greater than ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also Clemens is said to be an Apostle by Clemens Alexand. Strom. l. 4. He makes Bishops at first to be called Apostles and Presbyters to be called Bishops and from such Apostles as Epaphroditus who was Bishop of Philippi Bishops are descended according to his opinion but that out of modesty the Succeeding Bishops changed the title of Apostles for that of Bishops and this for some time after was common to them with Presbyters though the offices then were manifestly distinct All this considered I cannot but wonder that the conjecture of St. Jerom concerning the Original of Episcopacy against all the sense of Antiquity and the traditions of particular Churches concerning the Succession of their Bishops gathered by Eusebius should obtain not only among the professed Adversaries of that Order but even among many that retain it therefore for a further Confirmation of what we have said concerning the Original of Bishops I shall indeavour to remove that prejudice which the Authority of Jerom has done it who has advanced a singular notion in this particular which I shall first set down as briefly as I can and afterwards examine the grounds of it St Jerom observing the name of Bishop and Presbyter used in Scripture promiscuously and without distinction concludes Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesiae gubernahantur Postquam vero unisquisque eos quos Baptizaverat suos put a bat esse non Christi in toto Orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus caeteris superponeretur ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum Semina tollerentur Hieron in Titum c. 1. that the Office was not not then distinct but that Bishop and Presbyter were but two names to signifie the same order but when divisions were occasioned in the Church by this parity between the Presbyters the Churches who were governed before by a Colledg of Presbyters for to remedy that evil consented that one should be chosen out of the rest who should be set over them and be called more peculiarly their Bishop to whom the care of the whole Church should appertain that all the seeds and occasions of Schism might be taken away But that St. Paul and the Ancients make Bishops and Presbyters to signifie the same thing This is in short the opinion of St. Jerom I will in the next place examine the ground of it Apud veteres idem Episcopi Presbyteri erant idem Ep. ad Ocean Cum Apostolus perspicue doctat cosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos id Ep. ad Evagr. It is manifest by the allegations of Jerom in defence of his opinion that it was grounded chiefly upon those places of Scripture where Bishops are called Presbyters or Presbyters Bishops and then from the synonomy of the names concludes to an Identity of the Office and then he adds One may perhaps think this to be my sence and not that of the Scripture Phil. 1.1 let him read the Apostles words to the Philippians his salutation of that Church with the Bishops and Deacons which he confirms by Acts 20.27 28. Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 5.1 And now suppose all this is granted that Presbyters are called Bishops and they again Presbyters yet I am afraid it will hardly follow that they are the same and some of those texts cited by St. Jerom are sufficient proofs to the contrary for that of Peter The Elders or Presbyters among you who am my self an Elder 1 Pet. 1.5 if the reasoning of St. Jerom hold will prove likewise that Apostles were no more than ordinary Presbyters and if Peter were but a Presbyter we shall be at a great loss to find any Bishops in Scripture that were superior to Presbyters and to the same purpose Jerom cites those texts of St. John The Elder to the elect Lady 2 John 1. 3 John 1. The Elder to his beloved Gaius which plainly overthrows his Argument for if an Apostle were of an office superior to a Presbyter properly so called and yet is called Presbyter in Scripture then Bishops might be of a superior degree to Presbyters though they might some time be so called or if it be replyed that these Presbyters again are called Bishops it does not alter the case at all for so some Messengers of Churches are called Apostles as Andronicus and Junia who were of note among the Apostles Rom. 16. Besides there were several of the Fathers that observed this Synonomy of Bishop and Presbyter as well as Jerom but could not observe the necessity of his inference that therefore there were then no Bishops but Presbyters Chrysost in Ep. ad Phil. c. 1. Chrysostom confesses the titles were confounded but he takes notice likewise that all other Ecclesiastical titles were so as well as these that Bishops were sometimes called Deacons and that Timothy being a Bishop was commanded to fulfil his ministry or his Deaconship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor did he wonder at this at all since in his own time the Bishops when they wrote to Presbyters or Deacons
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
owned them as Brethren and called them their fellow Presbyters or fellow Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he did not take at all to derogate from the dignity of their Order no more than the modesty of the Apostles calling themselves Presbyters or Deacons could be a prejudice to the Preheminence of their Apostleship which they took care to vindicate when they were forced to it by the ambition of some teachers that entred into competition with them Theodor. ubi supra in Ep. ad Phil. ad Tim. Tit. Theodoret observ'd the same promiscuous use of Bishop and Presbyter but could yet see that there were Bishops then superior to Presbyters and in that time properly called Apostles The Greek Scholiast Theophylact and Oecumenus saw the same but were still of opinion that the Episcopal office was alwayes distinct from the Presbyters so that the ground upon which Jerom built his conjecture was rejected by the current of Ecclesiastical writers who could discern the preheminence of Bishops above Presbyters notwithstanding the names were confounded And yet this is the foundation upon which that conceit doth wholly stand all Jeroms allegations are to this effect all the additional confirmations of Salmasius and Blondel are no other than from the phrase of some of the Ancients who do not alwayes distinguish between Bishops and Presbyters but speak in the phrase of the Scriptures and yet there is nothing more evident than that at that time when these Authors writ Bishops and Presbyters were distinguished and excepting only Clemens Romanus Blondel and Salmasius do both acknowledg it But to return to Jerom Let us considet the account he gives of the Original of Episcopacy something more particularly Before there were factions in Religion the Church was governed by Presbyters of equal Authority But what factions were these that gave birth to Episcopacy What time was that when the Church was under Presbyterian government He informs us in the following words Before it was said I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas If we understand this according to the letter we must conclude this to be very early For this Epistle to the Corinthians where that division is mentioned was written in the year of Christ 52 And then this notion will do little service against Episcopacy for this will make it of Apostolick institution Besides I do not see how it can be true for the Church was now Governed by Apostles and not by Presbyters and if in most Cities there were no particular Bishop ordained yet it was because the Apostles were their Bishops and visited them to establish good order to ordain officers to punish the disorderly as they had opportunity and when they were not able to be present they sent their orders in writing and exercised Episcopal Authority at a distance But Blondel contends earnestly against the literal understanding of that passage and shews that Jerom could not mean this of the Church of Corinth but of some following Schism that sprung up after the example of this of Corinth His reason is that the passages whereby Jerom confirms his opinion of Bishops and Presbyters being the same were written after that Epistle to the Corinthians I have shewed before how probable it is that Jerom spoke without a figure and I need not repeat it here But these things you will say cannot cannot consist It may be so and it is not certain that Jerom when he wrote this passage did consider in what order of time St. Paul's Epistles were written what if it was an oversight for want of stating the Chronelogy of the New Testament If it be replyed that Jerom a man of that great learning and diligence and particular knowledg also in Chronology as we may conclude from his translating of Eusebius his Chronicon could hardly commit such a mistake It is to be considered that according to Blondels computation who makes him to speak of the second Century he will be as inconsistent with himself for suppose w◠should say that Jerom pointed to the year 135 as the precise time when the Presbyterian Government was changed how shall we reconcile Jerom to himself For in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers he reckons several Bishops long before that time he makes James to be Bishop of Jerusalem statim post Ascensionem presently after the Ascension of Christ He calls Timothy Bishop of Ephesus he makes Anianus to succeed Mark in Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero. How shall we make all these things to consist did he think James to be no more than a simple Presbyter or Timothy could he fansie him to have no superiority over the Elders he was to ordain or to govern it is not possible or shall we say that in these relations he only transcribes out of others and that he does not speak his own opinion Well suppose this Either he must have some Authority for his opinion greater than that of such Authors he follows in that Book or not if he had none why should we believe him against all Antiquity Nay why should we believe so uncharitably of him as that he would deliver those things he did not believe without the least warning to the reader or that he would believe any matter of fact against all the tradition and History of the Church and yet have no Authority for it Or if he had any Authority from Ecclesiastical writers to ground his opinion upon why are they not produc'd Nay we may be assured in this point that he had none from that Catalogue of writers we are speaking of since he had seen none but what Eusebius had seen before him and cites as we have shewed before for the contrary opinion to confirm Episcopacy to be Apostolical and to have begun long before this time which Blondel would have Jerom thought to assign for its Original So that what way soever Jerom be understood of the Original of Episcopacy he is either manifestly inconsistent with himself or with Scripture and Antiquity But his Scripture Authorities you will say do sufficiently prove that Episcopacy was not yet introduced into the Church Nothing less unless they can prove that those Presbyteries were not governed by the Apostle that established them or by some Assistant or Suffragan or unless they can make out that Timothy Titus and divers others of that rank were no more than simple Presbyters After this time whensoever it was St. Jerom adds It was decreed over all the world that one of the Presbyters who governed before in common should be set over the rest In what Church in the whole world was this Decree Registred Who ever heard of it before St. Jerom What general Council passed it What Authority made it Authentick Or by what means did all the Churches in the World agree to this change What was there no opposition made against this alteration of the Apostolical Government What did all the little Ecclesiastick Aristocracies submit without dispute to this innovation We
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
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
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-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
to find fault having given them leave to proceed But he coming to Ephesus shortly after and finding fault with the proceedings of Cyril became the occasion of great confusions which yet cannot be with any justice charg'd upon the Council John with his protesting Bishops countenanc'd the cause of Nestorius and condemn'd Cyril being drawn in by Candidianus who was a favourer of Nestorius Act. 1. prope finem and it is not unlikely that he had secret Orders from the Emperour to do Cyril all the ill offices that he could for the Emperour in his Letter to Cyril before this Council shews that he was not a little angry with him He pretends his writing to him Theodos Cyril p. 1. c. 31. and the Empresses about this question to have been the cause as if he had had a design to divide the Court as well as the Church and to sow discord in the Royal Family But whatever were the reason it is evident by his proceeding that he had a pique against Cyril who was oppos'd in every thing by the Emperours Officers A little Committee of about thirty Bishops with John and Candidianus at the head of them set up against the Council condemn'd Cyril and Memnon and gave the Emperour an account of what they had done he sent Johannes Comes with Order to depose Cyril Memnon and Nestorius This John gives a sad account of the confusion all things were in and of the heats of Bishops but is very much to be suspected For the tenour of his relation makes it evident that he was a partizan of the Eastern Bishops and therefore endeavours to lay all the blame upon Cyril and his party but sure I am that the confusion which he represents cannot be much greater than our Author makes in the sense of this John and the Bishops could not understand one another much worse than our Author did that Epistle They would have the Scriptures read says our learned Translator but they that favour'd Cyril said that the divine and terrible Scriptures were not to be read without Cyril the Bishops that were with John said that Cyril ought not to be present at the reading of the Scriptures One would imagine that this Officer would have read a Chapter of Job to recommend patience to these violent Bishops but it is quite another matter for these terrible Scriptures were nothing else but the Emperours Letter which in the language of those times was call'd Sacra and Sacra Scriptura in this place as every body knows that has any acquaintance with these times or has but read this Letter for the secret is discover'd within a few lines Augustarum literarum lectionem fecit in quibus depositi sunt Cyrillus Nestorius c. And now it is no wonder if all things were in confusion and all parties unless that small one of John of Antioch dissatisfy'd the Orthodox look'd upon the faith as involv'd in the condemnation of Cyril and to suffer in the same proscription with him and the greatest part of the Christian Church look'd upon it self as engag'd in the same cause therefore the Emperour considering better of it whether out of fear that all the world in a manner would oppose this sentence or being better inform'd concerning Cyril revok'd this decree but confirm'd the deposition and banishment of Nestorius and considering the party of John was but inconsiderable in respect of those that own'd the Council the Emperour who probably might have made use of them against Cyril commands them now to be reconcil'd to him to condemn Nestorius to receive the Council and Cyril was only desir'd to sacrifice his resentments of the injuries received at Ephesus to the peace and settlement of the Church and so at last Cyril and the Council of Ephesus prevail'd against all the little arts that were us'd to blast their reputation and by the means of Paulus Emissenus a perfect reconciliation was effected so sincere that the old contentions are chang'd into friendship and confidence and Cyril sends some of his books to John and Theodoret to revise and correct So far were they from thinking him a Fire brand and incendiary as long as they liv'd as our Author represents the matter But this reconciliation does as little please Mr. B. as their dissentions There is no thanks to the Bishops for this the Emperours threatning Letter cur'd them all of Heresie and good men they were all this while of one mind and did not know it It is some sign of good nature that they would submit to the powerful interposition of the Emperour but there is a temper which Mr. B. is acquainted with that is not to be prevail'd upon either by threats or promises from the Magistrate and seems to hate nothing so much as compliance with Superiours there are some that scorn to preach by the licence of the Government and place the Kingdom of Christ purely in opposition to Laws and Magistrates CHAP. VI. Councils about the Eutychian Heresie IT is the general weakness of our minds not to think we have sufficiently avoided one extreme unless we run into the other and to be still running away from what we dislike we care not whither without considering what inconveniences the contrary extreme may expose us to This is frequent among us not only in what relates to our passions and manners but to our faith Nestorius for fear of blasphemy dissolv'd the incomprehensible unity of the son and fell into blasphemy on the opposite side denying Christ to be Deus verus Anath 1 2. Eutyches abhorring this doctrine thought he was not safe till he had deny'd Christ to be verum hominem Brevic. de Hist Eutyc and this became the occasion of a great deal of stir and tumults in the Christian World This Eutyches who to our comfort was no Bishop but an Abbot having pleas'd himself some time with his notion concerning the person of Christ was not content to enjoy it himself but was ambitious to propagate it He therefore drew up a new Creed different from those which had been set forth by all the Councils before him and sent a Copy of this Confession into several Monasteries to desire Subscriptions Act. con C. P. This got wind and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum having notice of this practice advises Eutyches as a friend to desist from such dangerous enterprizes and to acquiesce in the decrees of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus Eutyches pursues his course and Eusebius reports the whole matter to Flavian who having called a small Convention of Bishops at C. P. sends for Eutyches thither He at first refuses to come but afterwards being encourag'd by a favourite Eunuch he comes to the Council as if he had been going to a war guarded not only with his Monks but with Souldiers and the Emperours guards where after some tergiversation he discover'd his Heresie and the Council having admonish'd him to retract but without effect condemn'd him as a Heretick Our
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
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
said to be sent in the name of the Church in General as the Church of Jerusalem sent John and Peter to Samaria Act. 8. In like matter the Church sent Barnabas to Antioch v. 11. But now it seems they come from James and the Acts of the Church pass in the name of the Bishop only although after this we find this Style to vary again and sometimes the Church of such a place sends to another without the mention of the Bishop though the letter be pen'd by the Bishop himself as the inscription of Clemens his Epistle to the Corinthians does inform us and Iastly as the authority of James appears by sending to the Church of Antioch so it does likewise from his speech in the Council of Jerusalem where he seems to preside and determines the question in dispute Act. 5. in the name of the whole Assembly All this consider'd together with the Testimonies of Hegesippus and Clemens there can be as little doubt that Dâ—ocesan Episcopacy was setled by the Apostles in the Church of Jerusalem as there is of any thing that is not expresly set down in Scripture and it cannot be deni'd without resecting the most Authentick records of Church History It is to be confess'd that the Scriptures have not left so full and perfect account of the constitution and Government of the first Churches as might be wish'd for the Acts of the Apostles the only Scripture History of those time relate mostly the victories of Christian Religion how several Cities were converted By what miracles by what Argument or exhortation but before the Holy Pen-man comes to give an account of the settlement of those new Conquests he carries away the Reader from thence to follow the Apostles to some other place where they begin to lay the Foundations of another Church Thus we have no more notice of the Churches of Samarid and of Judea Jerusalem excepted than that such were founded by the Apostles but of their Government and constitution we are not the least information and the prospect left of Antioch in Scripture is very confus'd as of a Church in fieri where a great number of Eminent persons labour'd together to the building of it up but after what form does not appear but only from Ecclesiastical Writers Eusel l. 3. c. 22. Chronnon Chrysost Orat. de Ignatio who report that this Church when it was setled and digested was committed to the Government of Evodius and after him to Ignetius and the succeeding Bishops Nevertheless we are not left destitute of all light in this particular even from the Scriptures the History of St. Paul as it is deliver'd by St. â—â—ke in the Acts of the Apostles and by himself scatteringly in his own Epistles informing us in some measure of the from of the Primitive Church Government in the Apostles times This Apostle of the Gentiles did commonly use this method informing those Churches he had converted as may be seen by consulting the Citations in the Margin When he came to any place where the Gospel had not been preached and he did not affect much to build upon another was foundation He preached first in the Synâ—gogues of the Jews Rom. 15.20 1 Cor. 3.10 Acts 9.20 13 14. Acts 13.46 and if they rejected the grace of God he turn'd to the Gentiles Assoon as he had converted a competent number he took care to improve them in the knowledge of the truth 1 Cor. 3.2 and for that purpose taught them constantly either at his own house Acts 28.30.19.9.20.20 or at some publick School as that of Tyrannus or any other convenient place where a good number might assemble together These converts as they were made Partakers of the same common Doctrine and Faith so they were to be perpetually united by a Communion in worship in Prayer and the Sacrament for it was not with the School of the Apostles as with those of this World Acts. 11.26 Heb. 10.25 which the Disciples leave when they conceive themselves to have learn'd what they came for But there was an obligation upon all these Scholars to Assemble themselves together Rom. 12.5 1 Cor. 12.13.12.22 Phil. 2.12 till they came to a perfect man which was not consummated till after this life Nor was the Relation between Christians dissolved when the Congregation was dissmiss'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origâ—câ—â—â— â—â—s 1.8 in fine but they were united farther into one Society or Corporation into a holy City under the Government of Christ their King and under Apostles and such other Officers of his and their appointment and so far to act and determine all things within themselves that they were not to appear before any Heathen Magistrate upon any difference but to referr it to the Brethren or to the Apostle under whose direction they were Thus far we may consider a Church without any other Officer than the Apostle who converted them but their numbers increasing in that place and much of his time being taken up in disputing with and preaching to unbelievers and gainsayers or this Apostle being call'd away to preach the Gospel in other places Acts 9.29.17.17.19.8 9. it was necessary to ordain such Church Officers as might take care of this Church in the Doctrine and Discipline of it 6.4 Acts 14.23 Phil. 2.12.20.17 and others to take care of the poor lest that Office taking up much time might be a hinderance to those who were to guide the Assembly in Doctrine and Worship Now this constitution does not take away the relation that was between this Church and the Apostle that founded it and these Officerâ— act in subordination to him whether present or absent and St. Paul therefore looks upon himself as the Apostle or Bishop of the Corinihians though he could not hold personal Communion with them 1 Cor. 5.3 Acts 15.36 for sometimes he goes a Circular visitation to examine the State of those Churches which he had planted or if the distance and oceasions of that Church where he resided or his imprisonment and other outward Circumstances would not admit this personal visitation he sends his letters and orders what is to be done If any open Scandal be permitted he sends his Excommunication to be publish'd in that Church whereof the offender was a member 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Cum meo spiritu quipro me erat praesens sive in mearum literarum authoritate Hieroâ— he judges as though he were present he orders that when they are met together in his spirit they would deliver the Criminal to Satan And because some of the Teachers in the Church of Corinth began to set up themselves in opposition to the Apostle taking advantage of his absence 1 Cor. 4.18 19.9.1 2.5.19 and using all means to lessen him in the esteem of that people he is forced to assert his Authority and to justifie his Title to let them know that he was their Father their Apostle and that they
But a Synod held at Rome about the same subject had but fourteen Bishops and several other Synods about this Controversy had not many more That of Jerusalem under Narcissus had but fourteen Papa Victor direxit Authoritatem not the language of that time Praecepta it aque authoritate praedictus Episcopus nonsolum de sua Provincia sed de diversis Regionibus omnes Episcopos evocavit And the famous Council under Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea had but twelve besides him Eusebius makes but one of both these Bede represents it as an extraordinary great Assembly for the Preface to it I conceive to be his he makes him to assemble not only the Bishops of his own Province but from several other parts The Council of Lyons under Irenaeus made up but fourteen That of Corinth under Bachillus eighteen That under Pasna or Palma the same number That of Osroena eighteen but the President of it is not known That of Mesapotamia which follows had the same number and it may be was the same Synod as that of Rome which follows is it may be the same with that which is mentioned before to have had the like number and the occasion of such mistakes as these is that when men find a Synod cited upon several accounts although it might be the same meeting that determined several things they are apt to conclude they were several Synods However it is plain from hence that there were but few Bishops in comparison of what they grew to within an hundred years after and that I take to be an argument of the largeness of their Dioceses But you will say there were but few Christians in these Parts The countrary is notorious to all the Word for these parts where most of these Councils were held were the best planted and furnished with Christians of any in the World But it may be there were but few in the world at this time It is not long after this that Tertullian wrote his Apology and what number of Christians there were then we have shewed already How then can this be imagined for every City if it have a Church must have a Bishop there is no absolute necessity of that that it should have its peculiar Bishop for we have seen already one Bishop as that of Milevis had more Cities than one in his Diocess and it had been so from ancient time or rather from the beginning antiquitus pertinuit And in this time we are now speaking of it is likely the Apostolick constitution of Bishopricks which in the beginning as Rabanus Maurus observed were very large did hold and it was the best suited to the infancy of the Church when one general visit our should take care of several Churches scattered as yet and incoherent and because a persecution might overthrow these little beginnings it was necessary there should be one whose office it should be to cultivate these new Plantations and where they were rooted up to set anew and to confirm those that were shaken with a competent district But when Christians multiplyed every where and most Cities had such numbers belonging to them as must be distributed into several Congregations the Diocess of the first constitution became too great and every City with some of the Territory belonging to it became a Diocess and had its proper Bishop And this seems to be most agreeable both to the Scripture History of the Church which we have made a deduction of before and to the progress of the Church in succeeding ages and particularly to the numbers of Bishops which are found in the first Synods But to proceed The Synod at Rome under Victor wherein Novatus was condemned was much more numerous than any mentioned before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 43. and consisted of sixty Bishops besides Priests and Deacons and Eusebius speaking of this observes the number to be very extraordinary consisidering the circumstances of those times and the numbers assembled in foregoing Synods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Libellus Synodicus reckons but eighteen which it may be was a small Synod previous to this greater one mentioned by Eusebius The Eastern Synods about Rebaptizing Hereticks were reckoned as for those times very numerous Euseb l. 7. c 5. Plurimi tractavimus Firmil Ep. ad Cypr. contra Crescon l. 3. c. 3. and yet that of Iconium the greatest of those of the East consisted of but fifty Bishops and these met together out of several Countries as Galatia Cappadocia Cilicia and other neighbouring Provinces St. Augustin despises the smalness of their numbers though Dionysius confesses these were mighty Synods in his time or rather before his time for they seem to be earlier than Baronius places them But what were these against so many thousand Bishops as were in the world then sayes Augustin I believe it would have been a very hard matter to have found so many thousand Bishops at that time I am sure the Acts of the Church discover no such multitudes of them and they must be very negligent if they should be so many and yet suffer things to be carried any way in Councils by a very few persons that Father judged of former ages by his own when Dioceses were exceedingly multipyed even to be the grievance and complaint of the African Church But Baronius goes to mend the matter by telling us that this opinion could find but fifty to countenance it among all the Bishops of the East One would imagine by this that the Councils of Iconium and Synadae An. Ch. 258 were but a small number of Bishops protesting against the general suffrage of their neighbour Bishops But if this were true Stephen Bishop of Rome had acted very extravagantly and upon ill information when upon the account of those publick resolutions taken by fifty Bishops he goes to excommunicate all the Bishops of Cilicia Galatia Euseb l. 7. c. 5. Cappadocia and the bordering Nations What number of Bishops France had at this time appears from the Council Vita 5. Pauli ap Bosquet Hist Eccl. Gal. par 2. where Paul Bishop of Narbonne was accused of in continence Evocatis paucis Episcopis Galliae quia nondum erant plures having called a few Bishops together for at that time Gallia had not many Nor do we find that Dioceses were much multiplyed in Spain as yet the famous Council of Illiberis which decreed so many things relating to Communion and such as all the Churches there must be supposed to consent to had but nineteen Bishops a number so small that Baronius takes occasion from hence to despise the Authority of the Assembly But what ever may be inferred from the smalness of their number surely one must infer that their Dioceses were Divided into Parishes from Canon seventy seven Siquis Dia conus regens plebem sine Episcopo vel Presbytero aliquns baptizaverit c. Conc. Illib c. 77. Hic regere posse plebem Diaconum hoc