here An. 1586. A National Synod was call'd to sit at the Hague by the order of the Earl of Leicester without the States and here they insisted upon their Ecclesiastical authority and excluded the Magistrate from any voyce in the chusing of Church Officers That a National Synod should meet every third year without the Magistrates leave and subscription was more strictly press'd upon the Ministers under pain of being turn'd out of their Churches But these were but slight differences in respect of that which follow'd that fatal Schism I mean occasion'd by the Arminian Controversie The seeds of it had lain in that Church from the beginning and Colhaes â—uyrhuis Herberts I'o â—hert and divers oâ—hers had declared themselves against the received confession and Catechism of those Churches long before Arminius But his authority and learning bore up against the Current of the contrary Doctrine that had overborn such as before that had oppos'd it See the preface to the Acts of the Synod of Dore. and now the condition of those Churches was most deplorable for several years together there was nothing but perpetual Dispute and Claâ—rour Conference after Conference and Synod after Synod Appeal upon Appeal At last it came to Tumult and Sedition to Confusion and blood-shed Ministers were turn'd out of their charges some Banish'd Vid. vit Episcopii others set upon by the Rabble and in danger to be torn in pieces Nothing can be imagined more distracted than the state of those Churches was for a long whâ—le together At last after all the interposing and good offices of other Reform'd Churches but without effect a general Synod was resolved upon where the Remonstrants were condemn'd and the Civil Magistrate seconded this sentence by another more severe whereby they Banish'd the Ministers that would not subscribe many of them were imprison'd and in short Bâ—shops could not have procur'd greater rigour and severity which here seem'd to be more grievous where every body else had liberty of Conscience and Jews were allow'd a publick exercise of their Religion And yet these very points in difference that not only rent these Churches in pieces but shook those of France who confirm'd the Decrees of the Synod of Dort and turn'd out such Ministers as favoured the condemn'd Doctrine and requir'd subscriptions to the contrary opinions of such as were to be admitted into the Clergy these points I say have not had the same unhappy influence upon some other Churches that were Episcopal Men in our Church have taught very differently of these matters and yet the Unity of the Church hath been still preserv'd notwithstanding this difference of opinions which shews that Episcopal government is not so subject to Schism as Mr. B. would make the world imagine and to say the truth ours has been troubled with no other such difference but what hath been made in opposition to the very form of Government it self and there is no wonder if it seems so difficult to heal it since the Church can no otherwise satisfie these men than by destroying the whole frame of its Government and order and it is strange any should expect it that did not believe all those under the rule of the Church to be Hypocrites These men talk much of Ceremonies and Liturgy but this is the least of the difference though it be most pretended because most useful to render the Governours of the Church odious for shutting men out of it for such Circumstances as these This makes most noise as a false Alarm commonly does but the real design is upon the Government Therefore those that fancy any Accomodation practicable upon any allowances in this part seem to my apprehension to mistake the disease for Alas It is not accomodation but Victory that these men aim at But to return to the Churches of Holland whose Schism gave occasion to this digression After the Synod of Dort though all means were us'd to suppress the Remonstrants yet they remain still in separate Assemblies and the unhappy breach continues to this day without any probability of being made up Vid. Spanbmite Ep. ad Amie When they had tir'd themselves and the world with this Controversie they were diverted with new matter of dispute the names of Voetius and Cocceius rather than any difference between their Doctrine disturb'd again the peace of those Churches And though the ground of the quarrel is scarce perceivable yet it is hardly to be imagin'd how great the Animosities are This indeed never came to a formal Schism yet it has divided those Churches into formal parties and in some occasions the quarrel seems of more than ordinary consequence and has great influence upon the Promotions of the Ministry and the Affections of several Cites are determin'd to this or that party And as these Presbyterian Churches have been afflicted with Schism and contentions so they have been sensible of the mischiefs of Heresie and labour more than any part of the Christian world under the Infamy of them Here the Ministers have no great Revenues nor dignities nor Power and here are no Patriarchs nor Bishops and yet Heresies makes a shift to thrive Arians Socinians Menonists Labadyists and diverse others they are neglected no general Councils disturb the enjoyment of their errors and yet they abound and are pertinacious Nor is it a wonder they take such deep root in Presbyterian Churches for of late like Storks they have affected a republican Church above all others and it is observable that in these last ages there have been no Hereticks that have not been likewise Anti-Episcopal and at the same time that they become enemies of the truth they declare war against the Bishops who are the Guardians of it If it be objected that our Country swarms with this Vermin too it ought to be considered from whence they came to be so rife among us It was the taking away of Episcopacy that opened such a door to errors and there were more Heresies started here in the space of four years after Bishops had been laid aside if Edwards reckons right than have been known in the Universal Church from the foundation of it to that time And those that fall into Herefie here do it commonly by degrees They begin with Schism and end in Enthusiasm and madness first they are Presbyterians and then if that dispensation be not spiritual enough they are improv'd in to Independents and from thence to the fifth Monarchy or Quakerism All the extravagant Heresies among us are but the spawns of the first Schism and the consequences of those Principles of Separation that draw them from the Communion of the Bishop The Church of Scotland has felt the Distractions occasion'd by this Parity of Ministers more than any of her Neighbours and though it has not been divided by a formal Schisin 'till of late yet from the first setting up of this Government it has been exercis'd with perpetual contentions and Tumults and Sedition about Church Discipline
Salvation Eusebius Euseb l. 6. c. 43. who had seen all this and a great deal more relating to the Novatians and in all Probability had read several of their Books understood this to be their Doctrine for Novatus saith he so he calls Novatian a Presbyter of the Roman Church puff'd up with Insolence and Pride against the laps'd as if there remain'd to them no hopes of Salvation although they should perform all things that are requisite to a sincere Conversion became Author of that Sect who arrogantly assume the name of Puritans These Witnesses are so express and full that Socrates takes off nothing of the force of their Testimony for he says only this That they remitted Sinners to God who was only able to forgive them but they never give the least hope that he will do so or that any Salvation is to be attain'd out of the Communion of the Church so that this is to be lookt upon rather a Shift or a put off to divert Envy and Clamour than to give any Comfort or Encouragement to the penitent As to M. B's 2d Observation That the Authors of this Heresie did not deny Pardon to other great Sinners but only to those that laps'd to Idolatry or denying Christ and that it was their Followers long after that extended it to other hainous Crimes Socrates expressly confutes it in the place above cited where speaking of Novatian's Letters to several Churches upon the occasion of his Schism adds That several were offended at the Severity of that Rule that admitted none to Communion who had sinn'd mortally after Baptism The word there indeed is Sinn'd unto Death but that he did not understand that particular one of Apostacy by it appears by what follows in the same Chapter That some took part with Novatian others with Cornelius according to their several Inclinations and Course of Life the looser and more licentious sort favouring the most indulgent Discipline the other of more austere Lives inclining most to the Novatian Severity which implies that all Sins in the Opinion of these Schismaticks were equally irremissable And a little before in the same Chapter Novatian confesses as much where he remits the forgiving not only of this Sin of Apostacy but all Sins in general to God alone which is fuller confirm'd by St. Ambrose l. â— de Poeâ—it c. 1. who charges them with the Stoical Opinion that all Sins are equal Now let us see whether the Council of Eliberis dâ—es favour this Doctrine and whether Mr. B. had any reason to admire how that Council should be received as Orthodox and yet the Novatians be accounted Hereticks p. 39. He notes in his Margin that Abbaspinaeus has learnedly made the best of it so has Mendoza in his large Defence of this Council who vindicates this Canon by great numbers of Instances of the same nature in other Councils He must be a great Stranger to the ancient Discipline of the Church that has not heard of Penitents not being received into full Communion at the hour of Death but this is far enough from being Novatianism for such although they were not receiv'd into the Lord's Supper or within the Congregation were yet upon their Repentance received into the Order of Penitents who though they were not admitted into all the Priviledges and Familiarity of the Communion yet they were received into the Charity and Unity of the Church they had the Benefit of the Churches Prayers and at last were reconciled by Imposition of hands though not by the receiving of the Sacrament which was the more usual way We do not find that this Sect was much more mortified than it's Neighbours unless it were in Phrygia where Socrates saith In the place last cited l. 1. de paenit The People were naturally averse to Pleasures But at Constantinople their Bishop Sisinnius was so gay and luxurious as to give Offence to the Orthodox Party and Saint Ambrose objects the same thing to the whole Sect. Lastly they were no less Enemies to Peace than they were to Truth though Mr. B. commends their Moderation in one Instance for the Catholicks in time of common Persecution frequented their Churches and would have made up the old Breach Socr. l. 2. c. 38. but the Novatians would not comply but kept to their ancient rule of Seperation and refused to unite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctor Forbes intended a particular History of the Novatians to shew the Nature and Method of Schism it is Pity that great man did not live to perform what he design'd Steph. Keuchelius writ a Book of the Novatian Heresie so he makes it Strasburg 1651. Quarto CHAP. III. Of the Council of Nice and some that followed it THE great Council of Nice gives Title to Mr. B's third Chapter Ch. Hist p. 45. § 1. He cannot deny but the Controversie about which it was called was of great Moment and that it was brought to a happy end but lessens as much as he can the Credit of the Bishops and ascribes very little to their Prudence and Judgment I do not envy Constantine the Reputation of having heal'd the Differences of the Church and there is no doubt but he contributed much to the stilling that Controversie for a while yet it seems he did not judge the Bishops and Councils to be of so little use as Mr. B. would represent but was at great Pains and Expence to bring an extraordinary number of them together and he knew no other way of composing Differences about Religion than by getting a Consultation of the most learned and eminent of those that had the Direction of the Church Some of these indeed had their Grievances to represent and complaints against each other but the Modesty of Constantine put an end to their Quarrels and Disputes burning all their Accusations without reading them It is no wonder if in so great a number assembled from all the Provinces of the Roman World considering their great Dissentions about Religion that there should be some that might retain the Sense of Injuries received and complain of such as had done them wrong but these were but few and the matter soon accommodated Mr. B. adds That Eusebius Nicomed and Arrius were brought but to counterfeit Repentance § 1. which satisfied Constantine though not Athanasius who refusing to receive Arrius into Communion upon Constantine's Request caused much Calamity afterwards This is an oblique Accusation of that great Champion of the Christian Faith and seems to charge him with all the Calamities which that unhappy Controversie brought upon the Church but how justly we will refer to Mr. B's own Words who calls Arrius's Recantation A counterfeit Repentance and Consent to the Nicene Faith If Athanasius saw through this Dissimulation why is he yet blamed for not admitting him into the Church before he had sincerely corrected that Fault for which he was justly cast out Socr. l. 1. c. 27. And it was no hard matter
in the Catalogue of Bishops ordain'd by Meletius and given in to the Bishop of Alexandria The lastthing I shall take notice of is the Diocese of Theodoret. This indeed I just mention'd and remitted the Reader to the D. of Pauls who had spoke very particularly of it I shall therefore say very little to it here being unwilling to do any prejudice to so good a Cause and so great a Person by a weak and unnecessary Defence But this I cannot omit that if those 800 not 80 Churches as this Gentleman reckons them belong'd to him as Metropolitan and they were all Episcopal this poor Region of Cyrus would have more Bishops than all Africk notwithstanding they were more numerous there than in any part of the World besides I have no more to add but that there was design'd a Chapter concerning the Right of electing Bishops and Church-Officers with an Historical Deduction of the Practice of the Church through the several Ages of it but because it could not answer the Design first form'd without swelling this Book to too great a Bulk It may hereafter in due time be publish'd by it self The Subject affording Variety enough for a large Treatise and requiring some Time and Diligence to do it to any Effect CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS CHAP. I. OF the Design of Mr. Baxter's Church-History and his Notion of Primitive Congregational Episcopacy Page 1. CHAP. II. Of Heresies and the first Councils p. 76. CHAP. III. Of the Council of Nice and some that followed it p. 105. CHAP. IV. Of the Council of Constantinople p. 130. CHAP. V. Of the first Council of Ephesus p. 177. CHAP. VI. Councils about the Eutychian Hereresie p. 228. CHAP. VIi The Council of Calcedon p. 239. CHAP. VIII Of the Authors of Heresies Schisms and Corruptions and whether they were all Bishops p. 276. CHAP. I. A short View of the other Governments set up in Opposition to Episcopacy p. 364. CHAP. II. Of the Rise and Progress of Diocesan Episcopacy p. 433 ERRATA THe Faults that have escaped are almost infinite I have noted some of the most gross Page 5. for the effect read this p. 10. for judicially r. judiciously p. 11. for concident r. coincident p. 5. for the right r. their p. 18. for and so many r. over p. 21. for or Elders r. over p 23. there is a whole passage so mangl'd that it requires some trouble to restore it What refers to the Council of Calchedon cited in the Margin That is left out viz. that at that time they reckon'd 27 Bishops of Ephesus from Timothy that Polycrates reckon'd himself the 8. not the 6. Bishop of that Church for so many understand the passage of his Epistle tho' that does not necessarily follow from the words cited by Eusebius p. 27. for positure law r. positive ibid. the residence r. their p. 29. as they c. d. as p. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. for our Presbyters r. your ibid. for alledging r. alluding 16. for Capital r. Capitol p. 39. in the Margin r. coimus in caetum p. 41. for the generality of Christians r. many Christians p. 57. for made r. many Congregational c. p. 61. for before our Saviour was born correct before his Passion p. 63. r. Pantenus Heraclas p. 68. for shine r. thinne p. 69. r. that he should be p. 81. for is dangerous r. as p. 113. for Constantin's time r. Constantius p 126. for a dozen times r. lines p. 136. for to Meletius r. to Pautinus p. 143. for possum r. portum p. 319. for Observations r. Obsecrations p. 332. for not an Heretick r. Arch-Heretick 16. Arch Heresie d. Arch. There are very many false pointings which the Reader may correct as Isidor Pelus Evagrius Pontious c. where the Comma's are to be blotted out and several other wrong punctations that render the sence sometimes difficult but with a little observation the understanding Reader may restore them CHAP. I. Of the Design of Mr. Baxter's Church History and his Notion of Primitive congregational Episcopacy THERE is nothing so fatal to Christian Religion as our unhappy Dissentions about it especially such as divide the Church into Parties abhorring each others Communion for besides that the very Disagreement between men of the same Profession brings the whole Doctrine under suspition of Falshood or Uncertainty the Method that the Parties contending commonly make use of to set up themselves by the Disparagement and Reproach of the contrary side serves to bring them and their Religion into the lowest Contempt and the Result of all is that the common Enemy is made Judge between them who fairly sums up the Evidence and passes Sentence upon all sides according to their mutual Accusation This sad Truth is but too much confirmed by the experience of our times wherein there are few so happily removed from the noise of profane Conversation as not frequently to hear the scurrilous Blasphemies of the Atheist under pretence of running down the several Factions in Religion 't is this gives them Shelter and Protection and while they pretend to expose this or that Party they have the Opportunity with little change of Company to mock all Religion by parcels and that with the great good likeing and approbation of Christians themselves This is no such News but that most men seem to be sensible of it and bewail the thriving of Prophaneness by the Countenance that it receives from our Differences yet for all this how few abate any thing of their Fierceness How few will be so moderate as to sacrifice even the most disingenious Arts of Contention Calumny and Railing to the Safety and Honour of our common Faith I wish Mr. B. had had this Consideration before him when he set upon the writing of his Church History of Bishops and their Councils abridged he has indeed sufficiently abridg'd all the good Services that Bishops and Councils have done to the Church but their Miscarriages he has enlarg'd upon to purpose and sometimes by a foul Juggle conveyed the best of their Actions into the Catalogue of their Crimes and their greatest Services for Religion prove a considerable part of their Endictment I must confess I never saw any thing that in my Judgment reflected with more dishonour upon Religion than this strange account that he has given of the progress of it and the frightful Representation that he has made of the Church in all Ages Heathens have been civil and modest in their Character of us l. 27. compar'd with this Ammianus Marcellinus though he be something sharp upon Damasus Bishop of Rome yet speaks honourably of the generality of Christian Bishops Zosimus does not mention Chrysostom with any disrespct l. 5. c. 23. though he had a fair occasion nay the scurril Wit of that Buffoon Lucian nor the Malice of Julian the Apostate have left nothing half so scandalous in all their Libels against Christians as this Church Historian has raked up for here is
that he was unacquainted with the Fathers and Ecclesiastical writers which made him condemn the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. c. 32. which was us'd by Athanasius and several others and that he did not vouchfafe to read the Ancients As for Philosophy perhaps he had too much and his writings do shew that he had no confus'd illogical Pen So that this proves the ignorance of the Bishops of those times no more than the rest The truth is our Author has the worst luck in the world in his observations where he ventures to dictate out of his own head and to speak something new He could not have likely pitch'd upon such another age in all the History of the Church as this for multitude of eminent and learned Bishops and I believe I may say there is none that has recommended it self to Posterity by so numerous and substantial Monuments of learning What shall we think of Hierom Ruffinus Augustin the two Cyrils Theodoret what shall we say of Synesius Isidore Pelus and infinite others were these ignorant times that yielded such eminent lights such renown'd Champions and Ornaments to the Church of Christ One may say with great truth that it was not till now that learning was become general among Christians and especially in the East Yet alas say our Author how few Bishops could distinguish then as Derodon and cur conimon Metaphysicks do now between Individuum prima substantia natura suppositum persona and distinguish between a right essence and hypostasis or subsistence c. and have defin'd all these Nature says Derodon is taken in nine senses but the sense was not here agreed on before they disputed of the matter Alas indeed this was a wonderful ignorance They simple men did not understand the art of splitting a good six-pence into two bad groats or of evaporating all good substantial sense by multiplying impertinent distinctions but for my part I value them not a farthing the less for not knowing nine sorts of natures any more than for not knowing the four sorts of Seekers or our Authors twelve species of Episcopacy What our Author speaks of the turbulence and factiousness of the Bishops â—bid that blinded them so as not to distinguish between the Abstract and the Concrete and between the qui quà Deus It is after his wonted candour It is no wonder if good men are vehement when they think their faith is going to be overthrown and if heat and passion is in any thing to be excus'd it is surely here where the concern is so very great and easiness and moderation look like the betraying of the cause of God But there needs no other answer to our Author than the words of our Saviour Mat. 7.5 First cast out the beam out of thine eye and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye If the Bishops were turbulent here it was for the faith but there are those that have been and still are more turbulent for the circumstances of Religion I wish our Author would think of it There remains yet one considerable Objection against Cyril which I have reserv'd on purpose to the last place that I might answer it more at large and I hope it will give great light unto the subject we have in hand The objection is this That Cyril father'd the doctrine of Nestorius about the Incarnation upon his Master Theodorus Tarsensis and Theodorus Mopsuestenius But Theodore Tars dy'd in the Communion of the Church and was own'd by it not only as a sound Member but as an eminent Champion for the truth I will take notice at this time of this Theodore only whose discrple Nestorius was Facundus takes great pains to vindicate him and does it very effectually but as for this charge of Cyril he does not well know what to say sometimes he is in doubt of the matter of fact whether Cyril did condemn his doctrines and write against him because in doing so he must depart not only from the rest of the Fathers but from himself too For in some of his writings he is very high in his commendation Scripti sunt à Magno Theodore says Cyril ap Fac. l. 8. t. 6. p. 349. adversus Arrianorum Eunomianorum Haereses viginti forte ampliùs libri elia prater hac Evangelica Apostolica Scripta interpretatus est hos quidem labores nullus est ausus increpare sed dextrò decreto honorare studium rectorum dogmatum quod in cis est And therefore he makes it a doubt concerning Cyril sive scripserit aliquid adversus Theodorum sive non But there is no question to be made about the matter of fact For Cyril's Epistle to Successus where he accuses Theodore as the Father of Nestorianisme was never question'd that I know and another of his to Acacius Melitenus mentions not only his dislike of Theodore but that he had writ against him because he conceived he had writ against our Saviours incarnation and yet Theodore did expresly maintain two natures in one person So that Cyril in opposing this must either be a Heretick or he must mistake the meaning of those he wrote against Now for the clearing of this matter we must observe that though Theodore was no Heretick yet there was Heresie among his writings foisted in by the followers of Apollinaris and this is the very Heresie for which Cyril condemns him I will set down Theodore's own words as they are cited by Facundus Fac. l. 10. c. 1. Ante triginta enins hos annos de Incarnatione Domini Codicem conscripsinus usque ad 15. versum pertingentem in quae Arris Eunomii de hâc re delicta nee non etiam Apolinarii vanam prasumptionem per totum illud opus examinavi ut nihil sicut mea fert opinio praterirem ex his quâ—â— ad firmitatem Ecclesiastica Orthodoxia pertinerent ad convincendam corum impietatem Sed hi qui omnia facillime praesumunt praeterea rursum ab Apolinario qui princeps hujus haeresis fuerat instituti omnibus quidem similiter sentientibus opus nostrum manifestum fecerunt siquo modo aliqua invenirent valentia ad convincendum ea quae in eo sunt scripta quoniam verò nullus contra certamen Scriptis suscipere praesumebat imitati sunt infirmos Athletas callidos qui duni non possunt contra fortiores certare insidiis eos machinamentis quibus possunt conantur evertere Scripserunt enim ipsi inter se proculdubio quaedam inepta quae à nobis unqnam minimè dicerentur denique haec ipsa in medio Scriptorum nostrorum in quadam parte interposuerunt suis familiaribus demonstraverunt aliquando etiam nostris qui per facilitatem suam omnia pronis animis audiebant Et hoc quasi documentum ut putabant nostrae impietatis videntibus praebebant Vnum autem ex his Scriptis erat
on by evil men that were Bishops and others but Optatus derives it from two Presbyters Botrus and Geleusius and one Lucilla a woman of great interest and very whimsical But the Sect that most afflicted this Age and divided almost subdu'd all the World was that of Arius Arius But Arius by good providence was no Bishop but a Priest of Alexandria who taught that Christ was not of the same substance with the Father and that he was not Eternal This Doctrine first divided the Church of Alexandria and then all the World some few Bishops taking his part but the generality being against him The Original and Occasion of this Heresie is variously related though all agree in the Author Haer. 68 69. Epiphanius makes Meletius the Schismatick to be the first discoverer though afterwards his Sect if not he himself joyn'd with these Hereticks just as our Dissenters joyn Interests with the Papists to ruine the Church of England I would not be so bold to say it if Mr. Baxter who knows it much better than I had not observ'd this before if it be otherwise they must be satisfy'd by him who I suppose may be able to give a good account of that matter When the Bishop of Alexandria had been inform'd that one of his Presbyters and the Divinity Reader of that City for so Arius was taught dangerous doctrines denying in effect the Lord that bought us he calls him to answer this charge in the presence of his Fellow-Presbyters and Arius owning his Doctrine was condemn'd This I should not give so great credit to upon the word of Epiphanius who is unaccountably mistaken in several things relating to this Heresie unless the Letter of Constantine did confirm it Euseb de vit Constant l. 2. who blames Alexander for proposing this question which it seems by this story he could not avoid since this Schismatick not perhaps out of any good will to the faith but as is usual with the separating Spirit to reproach the Church with countenancing Heresie had given him notice of this Intolerable Doctrine and the Industry and Application us'd by Arius to promote it The occasion was the Ambition of the Heretick Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 4. c. 1. who could not endure to see Alexander in the Bishops Chair for which he had been his Competitor after the death of Achillas Sand. Hist Eriml l. 2. p. 159 160. Sandius impudently affirms without any proof that it was after Achillas had been put out by Alexander I cannot but warn the Reader against the intolerable dealing of that Arian Historian For he has so little shame as to cite Sozomen and the Tripartite History to prove that Achillas was turn'd out by his successour whereas there is not one word of it there but on the contrary the whole story is much to the disadvantage of the Arian cause For there Arius is said to envy the promotion of Alexander Sozom. l. 1. c. 15. Hist Tripart l. 1. c. 12. and to be so impatient as not to live under the tedious expectation of the Bishops death in probable hopes of succeeding him but to seek out any occasion of quarrel and then to set himself up The passage is so very plain that it is hardly possible to mistake it and to apply that to Alexander which is manifestly said of Arius The same Historian tells us Sandius Ibid. that Achillas was of the same opinion with Arius and refers to the same place but without the least shadow of Truth I suppose he took Achillas the Priest that revolted with Arius to be the same with the Bishop who he says was depos'd but who was indeed dead before that time And Epiphanius his placing Achillas after Alexander Epiph. Haer. 68. is a strange unaccountable mistake as divers other things are in his relations of this matter But let it be as Epiphanius says it can give no countenance to Sandius his opinion For this Achillas that Sandius speaks of had revolted with Arius but he whom Epiphanius mentions was Orthodox and set up by that party against the Arians In the next place it is not likely that the Achillas that joyn'd with Arius was in Alexandria when Alexander dy'd Socr. l. 1. c. 6 8. Soz. l. 1. c. 21. Theod. l. 1. for the Council of Nice condemn'd Arius and his adherents and the Emperour having banish'd him as some say or only forbid him to return to Alexandria as others the Presbyters of Alexandria that joyn'd with him were probably remov'd for quietness sake at leastwise if they did not conform Lastly Though Achillas might recant and remain in Alexandria yet considering the Arian party was now condemn'd by all the world it is not likely that one of the first promoters of it should be chosen Bishop of so eminent a Church and much less probable that being chosen he should resign to Athanasius a young man and but a Deacon and what is more than all that one devoted to the cause of Alexander and one of the Champions of it in the Council of Nice What Sandius says after this out of Philostorgius of Arius his modesty in preferring Alexander to the Bishoprick of Alexandria Philost l. 1. t. 3. is altogether improbable not one of all those Historians that give an account of this matter saying any such thing Theod. l. 1. Hist Ed. id Haeret. Fab. l. 7. Vid. Gotofr Dissert but several of them the quite contrary But that Arian Historian mistook his Index and put l. 3. for the first and the third paragraph which would not have been an easie mistake if he had look'd into the book that he cited But to return where we left Arius who was the cause of all the mischiefs that follow'd that Controversie was no Bishop and his first followers were not Bishops neither Socr. l. 1. c. 6. Sozom. l. 1. c. 21. Some Presbyters and Deacons of Alexandria first took his part and two Bishops that call'd themselves so being of Meletius his setting up and who were indeed no Bishops as being ordain'd Schismatically Arius when he left Alexandria made his Application to several Bishops and was rejected by most Eusebius of Nicomedia at last undertook his Protection and prevail'd with some few more to joyn with him and the greatest part as appears by the Letters sent to Alexander only out of Moderation and to endeavour to compose the difference between the Heretical Presbyters and their Bishop But this way encreasing the difference instead of healing it a General Council was agreed upon where there were but seventeen Bishops that so much as favour'd the cause of Arius and but five that refus'd to subscribe who were afterwards banish'd Had Constantine preserv'd the Rule which that Council had establish'd and not tamper'd with it in compliance with the Arians and by an Indulgence and comprehension endeavour'd to bring those under a Rule that were enemies to it and to joyn such doctrines as were
to reckon only since the Reformation for if a man be not blind he may see that this worshipful Church History is only design'd against Protestant Bishops under a general name They I suppose will receive ample Testimony from the Government of their faithfulness and Loyalty How many acts of Oblivion have been made for Bishops and their Party Where were they seen encouraging Rebels against their Prince with the hopes of Salvation What Reign have they disturb'd here with their Seditions or whose Government were they enemies to unless it were that of a Rebellious piece of a Parliament and Oliver Cromwel and his Son the David and Solomon of Mr. Baxter But Loyalty has hitherto been the greatest crime of our Bishops and long may they continue to fear God and the King more than the Insolence of any faction and I pray God they may always preserve Inviolable that great Treasure committed to them and the greatest next that of the Faith the honour of the most Loyal Church in the World Now although the Bishops of the Church of England since the Reformation need no defence in this particular the merit of their Loyalty being so well known and what other Bishops may do does not concern us yet because in this Treatise I have undertaken the defence of the Primitive Church and by consequence of our own it will be necessary to add something upon this subject by way of answer to such particulars as Mr. B. has brought together to shew the seditious Practices of the Bishops The first thing he takes to task Treatise of Episcop part c. 22. is an old Maxim of King James no Bishop no King which is represented here as if the Bishops were the Authors of it and if the Presbyterian had say'd no Prebyters no King you would have taken it for Treasonable as if they had threatned that the King shall not be King unless they may have their way and shall not the King be King unless you may be Bishops It is well for the Bishops that none of them was Author of that Dangerous saying else I perceive it might bear an impeachment and prove by little management at least Constructive Treason but the Authority of a King may excuse him of Treason against himself though the Scotch Presbyterians have declared him a Traytor to Jesus Christ and the Holy Kirk And surely that King had some reason to say it for it is not likely he should pass such a complement upon the Bishops and make them so necessary to Monarchy if he had not found some great suitableness in this Church government to that of the State The truth is that saying of King James was the Result of a long experience of a Turbulent Seditious ungovernable Presbytery in Scotland and how little he was a King while he was among them the Historians of those times as Spotswood Johnston and others do sufficiently shew Or if you would have a more particular description of the Insolencies and enchroachments of that Presbyterian Clergy look into the Burden of Isscahar and you will soon find reason enough for this Maxim But Mr. B. goes about gravely to Confute this as an affected fiction without proof Ch. H. p. 2. â— 2 c. 22. For 1. Heathen Emperors were without Bishops 2. follows the insinuation of Treason 3. What is in the nature of the Thing to Warrant this assertion They owne every Text and Article for Monarchy as well as Prelacy c. and the same reason Holland and Venice must have no Bishops Would not a man wonder that any one should make so great a stir about such a little saying Suppose it is not absolutely impossible but Kings may be without Bishops or Presbyters either what then Why then King James was mistaken in his Politicks when he said No Bishop no King There is no necessity of that neither for all Maxims in Morality and Policy are not to be used so unmercifully as to be judged according to the rigour of the letter He spoke this with regard to his own experience and his own case and the Anti-Episcopal men made his words good by destroying Bishops first and the King after when this or that sort of men is made either necessary or destructive to government the meaning is that either their Principles or Practices or interest do either support and assure or else overthrow and endanger the State and that their practices upon all occasions are generally suitable to their principles This will be clearer by these instances Popery is generally look'd upon as a Religion destructive of Civil power and not without reason Must there therefore be no government where there is Popery The Kingdoms of France Spain and Poland and several other Countreys do manifest the contrary The Jesuits are look'd upon as the great Incendiarys of the world and that no place can be at peace where they have any influence and yet they are entertain'd in all Popish Countries Is the general charge therefore of Sedition against these false and groundless No such matter Suppose then among Christians one should say with regard to us no Protestants no King I suppose there would be no such mighty absurdity in it Therefore if the Principles of those that were Anti-Episcopal were look'd upon by that wise King as Anti-Monarchical too and the Doctrine of the Bishops was much more safe to the Government it was ground enough for the saying And now to vindicate those Primitive Bishops from the imputation of Sedition that he has charg'd in this chapter with desturbing the Church and the world The first thing Mr. B. lays to the charge of Bishops is the Usurpation of Popish Prelacy Do you not know saith he that where Prelacy is at the highest there Kings and Emperors have been at the lowest Do you not know how the Papal Prelacy at present usurpeth one part of their Government and is ready to take away the other when ever Kings displease them c. Is it the Bishop or the Papist that is here to blame Is this the effect of their Order or of those pernicious principles they have inbib'd If it was the fault of the Bishops then we must find the same practice in other Ages or if the Popish Bishops are dangerous to Government are their Presbyters less to be fear'd The Jesuits before our Civil Wars us'd all the interest they had to prevent sending of Popish Bishops into England It was not I suppose out of any great affection to us or regard to the Peace of the Kingdom but because they thought Bishops unnecessary since Priests and Jesuits could do more mischief without them But the same reason that renders Popish Priests and Bishops so dangerous to Government renders the Presbyterians so too But first let us examine Mr. B.'s instances of more ancient Episcopal Sedition The first is at Alexandria in the time of Theophilus and Cyril which I have consider'd already I need say no more here than 1. That the Alexandrians
reverence to Ambrose but for fear of Valentinian's preparation accepted a Peace But this Vsurper faith Mr. B. wrote Letters to Valentinian in favour of the Orthodox Bishops and St. Ambrose Who can help it if a busy Usurper will be forward to concern himself in matters that do not belong to him But lest the Reader may suspect any treacherous correspondence between those Bishops and this Usurper Amb. Ep. 27. I will give a brief account of Ambrose his negotiation with him When Maximus had seised that part of the Western Empire that Gratian was possessed of Valentinian fearing lest the Tyrant should invade his Countries sends St. Ambrose to mediate a peace Maximus having understood that Valentinian was making some preparations against him and had entertained the Huns and other Auxiliaries began to incline to an accommodation looking upon the Invasion of Italy as too hazardous an attempt Therefore he sent some of his Officers to meet Ambrose and to offer him a peace which afterwards was concluded upon these Terms That Maximus should be owned Emperour and retain all the Countries he was possessed of This was the first Embassy of Ambrose in which negotiation it was not so much to do Honour to Ambrose as out of fear of Gratians preparations that Maximus did forbear invading Italy But when this Usurper perceived that Valentinians affairs were not in so good a posture as he imagined at first he was vexed that he had let so fair an opportunity slip of adding the Dominions of Valentinian to his other Conquests Upon this he begins to pick quarrels with Valentinian to take the part of the Orthodox Bishops nay of the Heathens and every one that had reason of discontent calling himself Procuratorem Reipublicae Valentinian jealous of his designs sends Ambrose a second time to desire Gratians body and likely to sound Maximus This good Bishop was entertained this time but very coldly The Usurper reproached him with having imposed upon him before and keeping him out of Italy The Bishop replyed that it was not he but his own fears that prevailed with him and in short when Ambrose would not communicate with him nor his Bishops because he looked upon him as a man of blood He was sent back without having been able to effect any thing and with no better answer than that Maximus would consider of it This is the summ of this negotiation as Ambrose himself and Paulinus in his life gives an account of it And now if any disloyalty can be suspected in Ambrose and the Orthodox Bishops it must be such a secret as was never yet revealed Whereas nothing is more evident from these Relations than the integrity of that Bishop and his extraordinary affection towards his Prince and Country For from what has been already said we may observe 1. That Ambrose was not only a dutiful Subject but as himself sayes though without vanity the Father or Guardian of his Prince 2. The confidence his Prince had in his integrity when after so great and fresh Provocations he would trust him with his life and Empire and that although he had been provoked in the most tender part by his Princess indeavours for the introducing of Arianism Others perhaps if they had been in his condition would have looked upon this Tyrants declaring for the Truth as such an opportunity that Providence had offered for the preservation of the Faith and since the Empress was of a false Religion and the Emperour was Governed by her why should noâ— they set up this Maximus as the Protector of the true Faith But Ambrose and the Bishops were of another mind They knew what it was to Dye for their Religion but did not understand what it was to brigue or to resist I have thus far observ'd with Mr. B. what this Usurper Maximus did in favour of the Bishops how he studied to please and rise by them The next thing we ought to enquire after is what success his Design upon the Bishops produced and whether they answer'd his kindnesses by forming any interest to support his Pretensions or by declaring in his favour Mr. B. gives a full account of it in these words and the said Maximus and the Bishops did so close that only one Hyginus a Bishop is mention'd and Theognostus besides Ambrose and Martin that rejected Maximus I shall grant Mr. B. here more than he desires The truth is that even those Bishops that he says rejected Maximus did Really own him for Emperor as having all the Confirmation the Laws of that time did require and it is a mistake of Mr. B. before where he tells us that Ambrose would not Communicate with the Bishops because they own'd Maximus whereas all the quarrel of St. Martin and Theognostus was against his proceedings with the Priscillianists and his Murdering of Gratian if he Murder'd him But for all that they own'd him to be Emperor as much as those did that Communicated with him Ambrose would not Communicate with Theodosius upon the like account but never disown'd his Authority as Emperor all that while what Hyginus did Mr. B. cannot tell without Revelation he was bannish'd by Maximus as St. Ambrose tells us but the Reason is not express'd Well then if all this be true Mr. B's Observation will be so too That Bishops can comply with Vsurpers that will be for them as well as Presbyters What they can do is not our Question but this instance of Maximus I am sure does not discover in them any great inclination to it for how I pray did these Bishops comply with that Usurper Were any of them instrumental to his Advancement did they Preach up his cause and the lawfulness of his Revolt Did they ever press the people to bring in their Plate and Contributions Or after his successes and the Murder of Gratian did any of these Bishops justifie the Usurpers Proceedings and preach and print in defence of that Barbarous Regicide did they flatter him as the Preserver of Religion the David the Champion of Israel I believe one much better vers'd in Antiquity than Mr. B. will find it a hard task to find out any Books or Dedications of Bishops to this effect But Mr. B. can tell who Printed and Preach'd and gathered subscriptions for the Approbation of the most execrable Regicide committed under the Sun and others can say something though at present it is not necessary to be particular Well But as to the Bishops that own'd Maximus what sort of compliance was theirs What did they do so much in favour of the Usurper When he had Conquer'd the Countrys where they liv'd and been own'd by both the Emperors Reigning then they submitted to him that is they did not think themselves oblig'd to Rebel or to stir up the People against him that was none of their business and therefore they meddled not with it And in short we do not find they studied any other complyance than only to be quiet and to do their own business