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
titles are mentioned Besides the mentioning but these two sorts of Church Officers may be done only according to the distinction of the several imployments in the Church some being Ministerial others Governing though the latter may have a difference in the measure of their power in the administration of the same Government An evident instance of this we have in Clemens of Alexandria who notwithstanding he distribute the Clergy sometimes into Presbyters and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. strom l. 6. p. 283. Ed. Silburgii in 1 Tim. 1. as the Governing or Teaching and the Ministring Parts yet he does elsewhere acknowledg three Orders where he comes to speak more distinctly To the same effect are the words of the Greek Scholia collected out of the ancient Fathers that Bishops sometime in Scripture comprehend Presbyters too Because their offices are much alike 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sch. Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in 1 ad Tim. c. 3. Secundum Presbyterorum immo paene unum corum esse gradum Episcoperum they both administer the Sacraments they both teach and guide the Church and exercise discipline and the difference between them is not very great and what is that since they are both qualified for the same Acts Besides Ordination there iâ— hardly any thing but that they act in subordination to the Bishops in whom the principal Authority of Teaching and governing is placed and the Presbyters are the Assistants and supreâ—â— Council of the Bishop and both making as it were one Bench the directive governing part of the Church Salmasius would understand Chrysostom when he sayes the distance between Bishops and Presbyters was not great to speak of his own time only which is so impudent a construction that one would wonder how any man could be guilty of it since every one that has the curiosity to consult the place will discern the imposture and there is none of the Ancients that does more expresly distinguish between Bishops and Presbyters from the beginning than this eloquent Father and nothing can be more plain than that he speaks there of the constitution of Episcopacy and Presbytery without any regard to time for it is evident from him that he thought there was no difference in this particular between these orders of the Church in his time and that of the Apostles as any man may see that will but look into his comments upon Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. c. 1 Tom. 4. Ed. Savil. and c. 3. There are several other passages in that Epistle of Clemens that make mention of Presbyters appointed by the Apostles to guide the Church of the Presbyters of the Church of Corinth who were turned out by a faction but nothing that affords any argument against Episcopacy but such as the same answer may be extended to which I have given already to the allegations made from thence But to clear this business of the Church of Corinth as far as possible I will shew the state of it as it may be gathered from this Epistle and then take liberty to offer a conjecture concerning the form of its Government at that time and the occasion of the Schism The Church of Corinth in the first place is said here to be an Ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sound Church that for a long while had enjoyed all the benefits of peace and order and was had in great esteem and veneration of all those that knew it until at last having eat and drank and being enlarged and growing fat it lifted up the heel From this prosperity sprung all the evils of emulation and discord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaner sort setting themselves up against the better and silly men growing conceited and pragmatical set themselves against men of wisdom and experience But because in all the insolencies of the people against their Rulers there are commonly some persons of note that first animate the sedition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was no otherwise here a few ambitious discontented men and they too not very extraordinary Persons for knowledg or endowments instigated the common people against their Governours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having popular parts they knew how to insinuate themselves into the multitude and to manage the credulity and passions of the people to their own advantage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and prejudice of the publick Therefore Clemens aggravates this sedition by comparing it with that mentioned by St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they cryed some for him some for Cephas some for Apollos for they were two of them great Apostles and the other one highly esteemed by the Church But now sayes he consider by what manner of men you are perverted And now what could give occasion to all this disorder What would these troublesome men have this is not expresly set down but such hints are scattered as are sufficient to ground a probable conjecture 1. They are said to be great Zealots about things not material or requisite to salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hot disputants about such matters 2. They were such as magnified the power of the people and perswaded them that they had a right to turn out their Pastors therefore Clemens shews what course Moses took to establish the Priesthood and how the Apostles foreseeing there would be contentions about the name and office of a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointed chosen men which the people cannot with any justice turn out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. These men were ambitious disobedient despisers of their superiors and yet such as would bear rule themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and lift themselves up above their brethren and their discontents arising from the ill success or opposition their ambitious pretensions met with were probably the occasion of this Schism and therefore Clemens advises them to be content with their statition and chuse rather to be inconsiderable in the Church than to be never so great out of it than to be the heads and Bishops of a Faction From which Circumstances one may conjecture 1. That the Church of Corinth at this time had no Bishop the See being vacant by the death of the last or otherwise 2. That this sedition was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a contention about this Bishoprick 3. That the Clergy and people were divided about it the people setting up some they had a favour for whom the Clergy did not approve and when they could not be prevail'd with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people persisting in their kindness towards these persons broke out into extremities and turned out part of the Clergy that would not comply with their choice Which is yet further confirmed from the directions which Clemens gives upon this account that these men would go regularly to compass their design by just means that they would enter in at the right gate and
in the 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
they differ'd widely from the doctrine of Nestorius But though some few men might be transported and mistake one another in the heat of their contention it is strange that all the world should be so blind and undiscerning that no man before our Author should find out this undiscover'd agreement between the contending Bishops and not one have the fortune to stumble upon this observation Mr. B. does endeavour to satisfie this doubt by shewing that besides the factiousness of the generality of the Bishops there were but few among them that had any learning p. 92. and this he offers to make out by several arguments 1. That the Fourth Council of Carthage did forbid Bishops to read any Heathen Authors Mr. B. mistakes it for the 6th But how should this Prohibition make ignorant Bishops in the East where it had no force Nor do we find any such prohibition there unless that of Julian the Apostate to bring Christian Religion into contempt by making the professors of it ignorant of all humane learning 2. When no Bishop was to be remov'd from place to place but they were made in every Church out of an inferiour degree why should this keep them in ignorance since they had the freedom of liberal education and the lower degrees of the Church did no more incapacitate men for learning than they did for Episcopacy 3. Vniversities were rare therefore no wonder if learned Bishops were so rare If University education be so necessary for learning our Author I believe must keep these ignorant Bishops company and he will help them to more if others heed what he writes of the Universities But yet Philosophy Schools were not so rare as he fansies in the Eastern Church for there was hardly a considerable City that had not one and besides all this the great learning of the world being easily intelligible to the Eastern part of the World as being written in their common language they had the less need of Professors and a man might go a great way with his own private Reading 4. When Nectarius must be the great Patriarch that was no Christian and when Synesius because he had Philosophical knowledge is chosen Bishop even before he believ'd the Resurrection Learned men were very scarce he would inferr but it is hard to do so from these instances for 1. I do not find any where that Nectarius was made Patriarch for his learning Socr. l. 5. c. 8. Socrates indeed says he was noble by descent and a Prator by office that he was of a sweet obliging temper and an extraordinary and admirable person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which rendred him very popular and the Multitude in a fit of kindness would force him to be their Bishop There is not a word of his learning or of the scarcity of learned men that might justifie this extraordinary and irregular election of a Catechumen into the second Bishoprick of the World and if any one should yet fansy that to be the reason let him consult Sozomen l. 7. c. 8. who gives a more particular account of this action and different from Socrates He is so far from thinking that there was no Christian of learning and abilities equal to that dignity that he tells us there was great variety and that several Bishops of the Council that then sate propos'd many as fit for that Charge Diodorus Tarsensis happen'd to be strangely taken with Nectarius his Countrey man and the circumstances if true make it look something like a miracle He propos'd him to the Bishop of Antioch as a sit person for that high charge the Bishop wonder'd at the fancy and to comply with Theodorus puts his name among several others that he offer'd to the Emperour but in the last place little expecting he should be return'd Bishop The Emperour by an unaccountable impulse pass'd all by till he came to his name and fix'd there and nominated him Bishop He was no Christian says our Author He was not yet baptiz'd indeed but he was a Catechumen and a very good man and wanted nothing but that consummation which was Constantine's condition till within a month before his death and now let the shrewdest guesser in the world consider whether the small number of learned Bishops was the reason why Nictarius was chosen to be the great Patriarch Synesius his promotion concludes the ignorance of Bishops no more than that of Nectarius For Synesius besides his learning had a peculiar eloquence and besides that was a person of an extraordinary life and reputation so that it was not his Philosophical learning was the only reason of his preferment but he did not believe the Resurrection and surely there must be a great want of able men when a person under that and several other unqualifying circumstances should be forc'd into a Bishoprick But Theophilus understood the meaning of it that this was but a fiction to avoid being Bishop for his Letter to his Brother was not design'd as a secret Syn. Ep. 105. but as he suggests there that it might be shew'd and become a remedy against that fondness the people had of him and in another to the Presbyters of Ptolemais after he was made Bishop Ep. 11. he does acknowledge that he had us'd all the arts and stratagems that he could devise to escape it Evagrius and Nicephorus did take him at his word Vid. Bar. An. 410. Luc. Holst dissert de fug Ep. and represented him to posterity as he had characterized himself and excuse those that ordain'd him by saying that they had hopes that afterward he would believe more Orthodoxly and correct those errours he confess'd It was not then for want of able men that he was made Bishop but it was the extraordinary affection of Theophilus and the people of Ptolemais and the great reputation he had in the world having been sent long before by the City of Cyrene to Arcadius and deliver'd that noble Oration de Regno that alone were enough to make all ingenious men in love with him for his eloquence and his gravity and to render him eminent in the most learned age of the World though Mr. B. in the second Part of his Church-History part 1. p. 169. affirms That there are divers poor men Weavers Plowmen and others of the Church of Kederminster that can Pray and Teach and Write as methodical pious weighty tractates as Synesius notwithstanding he was a Philosopher and as well as any Eusebius extoll'd as famous Bishops of the second and third age c. not to say of Clemens Ignatius Irenaeus Cyprian yea even as Holy Macarius Ephrem Syrus Synesius Isidore Pelus By this you may judge how well our Author is acquainted with those Ecclesiastical Writers The last thing by which he proves the scarcity of learned Bishops is the ignorance of Nestorius which Socrates that knew him does affirm But here our Author does Socrates wrong for he does not say that Nestorius was ignorant but
is said to contain many Churches by that Canon whereby it is provided that Equitius the Bishop of it is to be deposed and another put in his place and for the easier effecting of it it is said Ecclesiae ibi ab his retinentur qui Equitii facinorosam communionem declinaverunt The Diocess whereof Xantippus was Bishop must be supposed of good extent August Ep. 236. for Augustine complains to him of one Abundantius a Presbyter in fundo Strabonensi at a great distance from his Bishop and near it seems to Augustine as may be gathered from the nature and manner of the complaint in the same place there is 〈…〉 Presbyter Gippitanus who was neighbour to this Abundantius or rather they lived both together tho' they had several Cures Alypius Bishop of Tagastis id Ep. 289. had likewise the Church Thyana under him which probably was a considerable City as may be gathered from the Epistle of St. Augustin to Melania whose Son was forced by a tumult of the people of Hippo to take Orders Hippo Regia the Diocess of St. Augustin was very large Ep. 74.212 236. Ep. He mentions many Parochial Presbyters and Parishes in it as Presbyter Germaniciensis Armemansis Subsana where Timothy was ordained Reader which occasioned no small trouble Malliana Turres Ciran Vitalis c. And such was the number of Churches in his Diocess that he excuses himself to a friend whom he had promised to assist in some kind of Study that he could not be as good as his word because he was gone upon his Visitation which would hold a considerable time and therefore he remits him to one of his Presbyters Quoniam visitandarum Ecclesiarum ad meam curam pertinentium necessitate profectus sum But we have a clearer account of the extent of this Diocess than of any other in Africk id Ep. 261. Volens prodesse quibusdam in nostra vicinitate This Neighbourhood which Mr. B. sometimes argues from to shew the smallness of Dioceses then was not the next door or the next Town in his Letter to Celestinus Bishop of Rome where he mentions a place in his neighbourhood as he expresses it that belonged to his Diocess and had never had a Bishop of its own yet forty miles distant from Hippo the passage because it is something remarkable I will set down in St. Austins words Fussala dicitur Territorio Hipponensi confine Castellum antea ibi nunquam Episcopus fuit sed simul cum contigua sibi Regione ad Paroeciam Hipponensis Ecclesiae pertinebat i. e. Tâ—e place is called Fussala a Town adjoyning to the Territory of Hippo which never had a Bishop of it own but belonged to the Diocess of Hippo with the Country about it Sed quod ab Hippone memoratum castellum millibus quadraginta sejungitur because it is forty miles distant from Hippo and the miserable condition of that Church requiring the presence of a Bishop he ordained one for them which not proving as useful as he expected he sends this Letter to excuse himself Nor are we to imagine that the Diocess of Hippo was singularly great above all the rest of Africk Collat. Carth. 1.65 but that Carthage Cirta Milevis and many others of the more eminent Bishopricks had more Churches under the inspection of their Bishops and the Diocess of Milevis particularly had besides Towns and Villages Cities likewise belonging to it for besides Milevis Civitas Tuncensis belonged to that Bishop And now if Mr. B. and the Nonconformists in whose name he makes Diocesan Episcopacy a reason of Separation had lived in Africa in the time of Cyprian or Augustin they must have renounced their communion or must have renounced these principles they must have been Nonconformists there and abhorred the largeness of the Bishops Dioceses no less than the Donatists did the largeness of their Charity Augustin would have been reckoned for all his learning and holiness no better than an Antichristian Bishop and our Reformers must have had toleration to Separate from him and what is the sweetest liberty of all to discharge their gall and bitterness upon him So that this is our comfort that these men that are such irreconcileable enemies to our Church would have been no otherwise to the Prophets the holy Primitive Bishops that have gone before us And for the same reason they reproach us they must reproach the ancient renowned Churches of Christ Nay the Church Universal as will further appear by what follows Although it may seem sufficient for my design to have shewed the progress of Diocesan Episcopacy in Africk the Country that Mr. B. singles out as retaining the clearest footsteps of the Congregational form yet for farther satisfaction in this point I will briefly shew the progress of Diocesan Episcopacy in other Nations and shew how at first they were but few in comparison not only for want of Christians in all Cities and Villages but by choice and when they came afterwards to be multiplyed it was not so much from the increase of believers as from Schisms and divisions in the Church and from the increase of Metropoles by the Christian Emperors in order to which I shall proceed upon the same grounds I have done hitherto From the great number of Christians that were dispersed into all parts and Cities and the small number of Bishops that met in Councils especially Provincial where all were obliged to be present as also from some general expressions of the condition of some Bishops in the earliest times as it is to be presumed that in the earliest times of the Church the Provincial Synods were the majority at least of the Bishops in the several Provinces so the first Synod had so few Bishops that we must needs conclude their number then to be very small For instance therefore The Gallick Synod assembled at Lyons under Irenaeus Ex Libello Synod against Marcion and other Hereticks had but twelve Bishops in it The Synod of Hierapolis under Apolinarius against Montanus and Maximilla had twenty six Ibid. The Synod of Anchialus under Sotas had twelve or thirteen Bishops Ibid. And Eusebius having cited two or three subscriptions out of Serapions Epistle Hist â—ocl l. 5. c. 9. adds that there were the subscriptions of many more not naming the number perhaps because in his time it would have looked but inconsiderable all being but twelve The Synod of Ephesus under Polycrates about the time of Easter was probably more numerous than most of the Provincial Councils of this age as consisting not only of the Bishops of Asia but of those of the neighbouring Countries as we may conclude from Victors attempt to excommunicate them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 5. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Libà l Synod Polycrates in his Letter to Victor sayes they were a considerable number and if he should write down all their names it would seem a great multitude But no number is any where expressed
A VINDICATION OF THE Primitive Church AND DIOCESAN EPISCOPACY In ANSWER to Mr. Baxter's Church History OF BISHOPS And their COUNCILS Abridged As also to some part of his Treatise of EPISCOPACY Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficerentur schismata quot Sacerdotes Hieron adv Lucif Ab illo Deo Patre ab hac Ecclesia Matre nullius me Hominis Crimina nullius Calumnia separabunt Augustin Coll. Carth. 3. Ego illam Ecclesiam defendo hanc assero qualicunque voce in qua quisquid fuero illa Ecclesia est Aug. ibid. LONDON Printed for Moses Pitt at the Angel in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1682. PREFACE IT is a very just Censure that Polybius pass'd upon Phylarchus one that wrote the History of the Achaian War That he did not understand the principal Business of an Historian because he conceal'd all the vertuous and generous Actions of one Side Polyb. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and insisted only upon such as might render them odious to the Reader the Rigor and Seveverity of Execution which the Achaians were sometimes obliged to use are set out with all the miserable Circumstances that can be conceived on such Occasions but not a word of their Clemency and Humanity which they commonly us'd towards their Enemies when they fell into their Power As if says that Noble Writer It were the Office of an Historian to record only the Worst of Humane Actions to reckon up the Faults and Miscarriages of Men and not their great and commendable Actions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as if the Examples of Sin might be of greater Benefit and Edification to the Reader than those of Goodness and Vertue Mr. Baxter's History of Bishops and their Councils being writ after the same Model falls unavoidably under the same Reproof unless perhaps the Disingenuity that is condemn'd in a Heathen may become a Christian Writer and what the one must not do to his Enemy the other may offer to his Brethren and Fathers to the great Lights and Ornaments of the Christian Church Now this History of Bishops is nothing else but an Account of all the Faults that Bishops have committed in the several Ages of the Church without any mention of their good Actions of the piety and severity of their lives of their Zeal for the Faith of their Charity towards the Poor of their Contempt of the World of their Labor and Diligence in their Office These were things he thought perhaps not to belong to a Church-Historian to relate These were improper unedifying Examples at least wise they were not very agreeable to the Design of our Author which was to disgrace Diocesan Episcopacy This Weeding of Church-History for the Faults of Bishops is not to write or abridge History but to draw up an Indictment and because many things are falsly charg'd it is no better than a Libell But we need not look for a severer Censure of this Church-History than that we have in Mr. Baxter's own Critical Preface to it For as his Church History is design'd to disgrace Diocesan Bishops and their Councils so the Preface looks as it were intended to disgrace this History For the Qualifications of a Credible Historian which he reckons up there appear so little in our Abridger and the Character of Incredible Relators so nearly resemble him that one might suspect a Trick in it and that some of Tom Coryat's Ensurers had given their Testimony to the Work 1. It is supposed says Mr. B. that a Man should believe his Sences Surely our Author was asleep when he wrote this and thought he saw every thing he relates But how shall we believe our Sences since we are told in this History that they were not Presbyterians but Episcopal Men that began the late War against the King 2. The History of the Gospel is certainly credible This would mightily ensure the Credit of this Abridgement if all were Gospel that Mr. Baxter writes 3. Prophets who had Divine Inspiration and Vision had that Evidence that gave them a Certainty tho not to others It may be Mr. B. has heard a Bene scripsisti de me but because he confesses this to be no Evidence to others we may suspend our Faith and upon Examniation believe as much as we shall find reason to do 4. When History delivers a matter of Fact and Sence by the common Consent of all those that knew it tho' of contrary Minds Disposition and Interest The Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters is acknowledg'd by Catholicks and Schismaticks and Hereticks Men of very contrary Minds Disposition and Interest and yet this Church History would have us believe the contrary Here we are in a Streight For whether shall we belive in this Case the Preface or the Book 5. When the History of any Person or Action is prov'd by continued and visible Effects as that William of Normandy Conquer'd England while there are so many Effects of that Conquest in our Laws and Customs And what may be prov'd by more visible and continu'd Effects than the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters The Laws and Customs of all Churches are full of this all the Christian World being govern'd by Diocesan Episcopacy till the last Age and yet notwithstanding these visible effects we must not believe this Government to be Apostolical when the Ancient History that delivers it as such is prov'd by such Continu'd visible Effects Here we are in a great Streight again which to trust the Critic or the Historian 6. That History is credible which speaketh consentingly against the known Interest of the Author Well but many of Mr. B's Characters of Ancient Bishops are taken from profess'd Enemies or persons manifestly prejudic'd as his Accounts of Athanasius Theophilus Cyril and divers others do manifestly shew But here he does endeavour to clear himself and says What I say of the Miscarriages of Bishops and Councils is most in their own Words Oftentimes they are not the Words of the Bishops or Councils but Mr. Baxter's Own when he mistakes in Translating them What I say against Popes is but the Recital of what is said by the Greatest Defenders and Flatterers of Popes And let those Flatterers and Defenders answer him if they think it worth their while but because upon this occasion he is pleas'd to give Account of his Authors let us consider his Authorities He tells us in the first place who he has not made use of I give you not a word says he out of Luther nor Illyricus nor the Magdeburgenses c. It is no great Matter For they were something disaffected to Popery and therefore they may be liable to Exceptions But it is something hard to reject those that follow No nor out of the Collections of Goldastus Marquardus Freherus Rubrus Pistorius c. So familiar to him that Marquardus Freherus makes two Authors by the
so much Greek as to be able to derive the Anomaei Hereticks that denied Christ to be of like Substance with the Father from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exleges or sine Lege Men without Law Well then let Mr. B. be excus'd in this particular for undertaking to write Church History upon the Credit of Wretched Translations It will be surely indispensably necessary to understand these Transactions But because Mr. B. is so puzzl'd with these Latin Versions I wish'd for his sake that Hanmar had translated Binius I wonder in what Dictionary Mr. B. found that ire ad Comitatum was to go the Palace of Great Prelates p. 56. We have strange Confusion of Discourse p. 88. About the Scriptures the Divine and Terrible Scriptures for want of understanding the Language of those times for all that Scripture is nothing else than Sacra Imperatoris the Emperor's Letter p. 107. Mr. B. represents Theodoret as a Jesuit not I believe out of any Evil Will but for want of a little Latin Theodoret says according to Mr. B's Translation I take not my self to say true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I know I please God Vere non dico nisi quomodo novi placere Deo i. e. In good Truth I do not speak but as I am persuaded is acceptable to God But p. 112. Mr. B. translates the Translation of Nicephorus something pleasantly Stephanus says he was kill'd by the Boys with sharp Quills Surely these were Porcupin's Quills to do this Execution Yet it is to be acknowledged that he has the Authority of Qui mihi for the Quills but because in the same place these Calami acuti are said to be sharpened like Spears 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it will make new Difficulties The Critics would be at a loss about it if some Dictionaries did not render Calamus a Reed or a Cane which possibly may better agree with the Description of these Fatal Weapons I must confess I was something surpriz'd with Mr. B's singular way of rendring the Names of Places as p. 96. The Council at Regiense at Arausican p. 131. at Toletane p. 217. George Bishop of Praenestine p. 358. D. of Spoletane p. 428. Council of Palentine with many more of this kind It would sound something strange with us to say the Vniversity of Oxonian or of Cantabrigian For my part if he stand upon it I do not love to contend about Words let him have Liberty of Conscience in Grammar as well as Religion But Mr. B's Translation of Canon the 21st of the Council of Tours is something more considerable because Mr. B. makes Remarks upon it in behalf of some Dissenters The Passage is somthing long but to make the Reader amends it shall be the last not for want of Matter but because I would not tire him with too many Instances of one sort the foresaid Canon is thus rendred by Mr. B. p. 187. Those that the Law commandeth to be put to Death if they desire to hear the Preacher we will have to be convicted unto life i.e. not to die for they are to be slain with the Sword of the Mouth and depriv'd of Communion if they will not observe the decrees of the Seniors left them and do despise to hear the Pastor and will not be separate Some Sectaries among us says Mr. B. are of the same mind against putting penitent Malefactors to Death Whatever mind some Sectaries may be of it is plain Mr. B. did not apprehend the Mind of this Council The matter in short is thus This Canon speaks of such as having vowed Virginity do afterwards marry and that tho' the Ecclesiastical Laws do punish such with perpetual Excommunication yet this Council thought fit so far to mitigate the punishment as to offer Pennance and Reconciliation to such who shall seperate from these Marriages which the Council expresses thus Nos vero si quos lex perimi jubet si cupiunt audire praeconem volumus ut convertantur ad vitam Nam perimendi sunt Oris Gladio Communione privandi si relicta sibi Seniorum decreta observare noluerint pastorem suum audire despexerint esse separati noluerint i. e. We order that those whom the Rigor of the ecclesiastical law commands to be cut off if they desire to hear the voice of the Preacher calling them to Repentance should be converted and live For those that refuse to obey the Decrees of the Bishops that have been before us and also neglect their Pastor and will not seperate themselves i. e. from those unlawful Marriages are to be cut off by the Sword of the Mouth and Excommunication And this is explained by what follows presently after Qui verò in hac pertinacia perdurare voluerint potius in volutabro malae Conversationis permanere quam se de vetito Conjugio separare perenni Excommunicatione damnentur i. e. Let those who will obstinately persist and chuse rather to wallow in the Enjoyments of a forbidden Marriage than to seperate from it be condemn'd to perpetual Excommunication I have promis'd to spare the Reader 's Stomach or Spleen in this kind and to add no more Instances of Mr. B's Success in Translating Binius and therefore shall add no more of this kind 3. It is very requisite for an Abridger of Church-History of Bishops and Councils to consult the best Editions of those Historians and Councils least instead of the Words of the Historians or of the Councils he obtrude upon his Reader the Oversight of Copyists If Mr. B. had been at this pains and consulted Sirmond's Edition of the French Councils he must have wanted several Allegations for the Congregational way which are nothing else but corrupt Readings of the Ancient Canons of the Gallicane Church as is shewed more at large in this Book Nor can we suspect Sirmond as too great a Favorer of Diocesan Bishops since it is well known how he is charg'd by the Abbot of St. Cyran under the Name of Petrus Aurelius for having falsyfied a Canon of the Council of Orange to the prejudice of the Episcopal Order to comply perhaps with a Design the Jesuits had then on Foot to Govern the Papists of England independent from any Diocesan Bishops Jesuits care as little for Bishops as our Protestant Dissenters can do 4. It is very requisite that an Abridger of Church-History use some little Diligence in Examining and Comparing of Authors at least in considering that Author out of which he takes his History for want of this little Care it is that Mr. B. tells us out of his own Head That Theodahatus yielded up Rome and the Crown to Belisarius p. 130. Whereas Theodahatus was kill'd before Belisarius came near Rome and it was from Vitiges that Rome and the Crown were forced by that Great General as Procopius and Evagrius do particularly relate It is an odd Oversight of Mr. B. p. 201. where he tells us that King Egica
of the Novatians That they had their Bishops successively to Cyril's Time Soc. l. 7. c. 7. Socrates does not say in the place alleadg'd but only that Cyril had taken from him all that he had and Successively from what time had they their Bishops there That is not said It may be they began there after this time For there is little account in Church-History that I know of any Novatians in Alexandria before Athanasius The next Instance is pregnant and comprising many at once as the Gentleman tells us it is that of Valerius and St. Augustin who were Bishops of Hippo together and the Bishops of those Parts assured Austin that this was usual and prov'd it by Examples both in the Africane and Transmarine Churches as Possedonius tells us But suppose all this true that this might be maintain'd by the Examples of several Churches What is it That two Bishops may be in one Church No that is not the Matter but that a Bishop when he grows Old may appoint or ordain his Successor to prevent the Mischiefs that are usually produc'd by popular Elections and to secure the Succession to some Extraordinary Man and this was not thought to violate that Rule that allow'd but one Bishop to a City For this Provision for a Successor does not destroy that Rule For Instance I believe no man will deny but that this Government is Monarchical in its Constitution and that it ought to be in the hands of a Single Person or if Royallists word be not Authority enough the Worthy Gentlemen that would have convinc'd Cromwell's Conscience about is I hope will satisfie And yet after that this Succession had been a little interrupted by the Vsurpation of King Stephen Henry the Second thought it convenient to make his Eldest Son King in his Life Time and to have him Crowned to secure the Succession Yet for all this and tho some more Instances may be fetch'd of the same Nature from neighboring Kingdoms yet I belive it will be true enough that it is the Rule of these several Kingdoms to have but one King And this as far as I am able to perceive is the utmost that can be made of all those Instances of two Bishops in one Church As for the last Reason of the Rule about dividing the Revenue I suppose it is added only out of Gayety and might have been left to Mr. Baxter who is us'd to supply his Want of Learning with a double Portion of Spight But I have too much respect for this Person who shews more Learning than any of the Advocates for Dissenters to make any Reflection upon it This Rule is likewise pag. 15. oppugn'd by Exceptions from the Conference at Carthage but of this I have spoke so particlarly in the following Book that I think it unnccessary to add any more The next thing I find concerns any thing alleadg'd by me is p. 23. where the Bishoprick of Hippo is consider'd I have shew'd the Names of a good number of Parishes in it which were under the Care of their Presbyters and among others alleadg'd the Town of Fussala the Gentleman Translates it a Castle I suppose to diminish it but these Castles were Garrison-Towns with a good dependance of Villages belonging to them and this particularly is so represented It was Forty miles from Hippo and was in St. Austin's Diocess and never had a Bishop of its own This the Gentleman answers by saying That the reason why it had a Bishop no sooner is signify'd by St. Augustin when he saith there were no Catholicks at all in it St Augustin says indeed the Town or Castle it self had none but the County belonging to it had some Paucos habebat illa Terra Catholicos And there were several Presbyters belonging to those Catholicks Presbyteri qui eis Congregandis à nobis primitùs sunt Constituti But I believe the reason alleadg'd for their having a Bishop no sooner will hardly hold For first St. Austin says that this Town when he set upon the Reduction of it to the Vnity of the Church had then no Catholicks but that it never had any he does not say nor is the thing probable But as for a Bishop he expresly says that it never had any but that it formerly had Catholicks we may conclude by Mr. Baxter's reasoning because it belong'd heretofore to the Diocess of Hippo. Simul cum contigua sibi regione ad paroeciam Hipponensis Ecclesiae pertinuit Now Mr. B. would ask what did belong to the Bishop of Hippo the Stones or the Timber of the Town since none of the People did ever own him Nor can it be imagin'd how a Town so distant should be judg'd to belong to that Diocese where yet there never was one Man that own'd the Jurisdiction So that I conceive this reason will not hold for its having no Bishop of its own since the same reason destroys its dependance upon the Diocese of Hippo which is exprefly affirm'd As to St. Austin's Excuse that it was too far and that he could not look after the inconsiderable Reliques of the Donatists there It is to be ascrib'd to his Modesty since he discharg'd the Office of a Bishop towards it in much more difficult Times while the Presbyters he employ'd were barbarously used and the generality of the People were against him The Towns in St. Austin's Diocese mention'd by the D. of St. Pauls this Gentleman finds to have had B shops of their own or some other Towns that had Names like them which yet may not be the same but here I am unconcern'd having as I remember mention'd none of these places but divers others But I cannot pass by what he offers p. 26. That St. Austin had only Episcopalem Sarcinam Hipponensem the Episcopal Charge of Hippo as if he had been Bishop of the Town only Nay but of part of that neither For the Donatists had their Bishop there too This will strangely diminish the Bishoprick of St. Austin which at first appear'd so large To which I answer That for the Donatists having a Bishop there it signifies little to our present purpose since he was but an Vsurper and the whole Diocess did of right belong to the Catholick Bishop As to the Insinuation that St. Austin was only Bishop of the Town let us believe himself Hoc Ecclesiae Catholicae aut ut modum dispensationis meae non supergrediar Ep. 159. hoc Ecclesiae ad Hipponensium Regionem pertinenti prodesse contestor Which plainly signifies that all the Church belonging not only to the Town but also to the Region of Hippo belong'd to him There is but one thing more which I shall observe concerning the Diccess of Hippo and that is a Passage cited out of St. Austin Ep. 68. to shew that there were many Bishops in that Region Ecce interim Episcopos nostros qui sunt in Regione Hipponensi ubi a vestris tanta mala patimur convenire To which I answer that
their Elders do directly excommunicate and yet are lay-men It would be much to the Advantage as well as the Reputation of our Dissenters if they would first agree and correct those Abuses among themselves which they so sharply exclaim against in our Church 2. When they oblige the Magistrate to execute their Decrees by the Sword be they just or unjust § 55. and to lay men in Goals and ruine them because they are excommunicated by Bishops Chancellors c. This is the Law of the State and not of the Church and therefore is not to be charged upon Diocesan Episcopacy besides now there are few that have reason to complain of this there are those Evasions found that render that Law insignificant but the Threatning Princes and Magistrates with Excommunications if not Depositions p. 23. if they do communicate with those whom the Bishops have excommunicated belongs not at all to our Diocesan Episcopacy let the Papists who hold this Dostrine or the rigid Scotch Presbyterians who seem to have outdone the Popes in their Claim of Authority over Sovereign Princes answer it if they can 3. Or when they arrogate the Power of the Sword to themselves as Socrates says Cyril did § 55. How far Socrates is to be credited in his account of that Bishop we shall consider in due place in the mean time this does not concern Diocesan Episcopacy as it is with us for our Bishops do not arrogate that Power if the King confer upon them any Authority extrinsecal to their Office Mr. B. has declared himself p. 23. § 59. that shall make no difference and that he will submit to them notwithstanding The next Paragraph I am loth to meddle with it is little else but Biitterness and Railing and this I have neither Skill nor Inclination to answer yet because it is set down as the highest Aggravation of Diocesan Tyranny I must say something to it lest I should be thought to be ashamed of the Cause and to desert it It becomes much worse § 56. continues Mr. B. by tyrannical Abuse when being unable and unwilling to exercise true Discipline and so many hundred Parishes they have multitude of Atheists Infidels gross Ignorants and wicked Livers in Church Communion yea compel all in their Parishes to communicate upon pain of Imprisonment and Ruine and turn their Censures cruelly against godly persons that dare not obey them in all their Formalities Ceremonies and Impositions for fear of sinning against God I am afraid there are too many wicked men in all Communions and the Communion or as they call it the Religion of the State will have the most for Reasons I need not mention but it is oftentimes a hard thing to know them and until they are discovered it can be no Reproach to the Discipline of the Church that they are in outward Communion but all sorts of People and these with the rest are forced into our Communion They are indeed obliged to come to Church and to receive the Sacrament three times in the year but all this is upon the Supposition of their being Christians if they declare to the contrary they are immediately exempted from all Church-Jurisdiction and for the Civil let them deal with it as well as they can It is the duty of every Christian to come to Church and receive the Sacrament and because all that have been baptised and have not renounced the Faith are presum'd to be Christians it is doubtless lawful to quicken them to that which is their Duty by Penalties upon the neglect of it As for the Atheists and Infidels declared if they are admitted to Communion it is an unexcusable fault of Discipline yet such as is to be charged on the Minister of the Parish that receives them rather than the Bishop and for the being of any such men amongst us that is not so much to be imputed to the defect of present Discipline as to the licentiousness of the late unhappy times and the Offence that was given to light and unsteady minds by such pretended Saints as made Religion their Warrant for all their barbarous Villanies they committed But wicked Livers he adds are forced into Church-Communion by the Bishops § 56. This is a great Mistake for the Bishop forces no such into the Church but obliges the Minister and Church-wardens of every Parish to present such if any there be that they might be separated from Communion till they shall have given some Satisfaction to the Church by their Repentance and good Hopes of their future Amendment and lastly that gross Ignorants are admitted to the Communion can be charged upon no other than the Minister of that place whose Duty it is to instruct them in the Principles of their Religion and the Bishops are so far from obstructing the Exercise of this Duty that there is hardly any thing which they press with greater Earnesiness As to those godly persons who dare not obey the Orders of Bishops in point of Church-Communion and cannot bring their Conscience to comply with Ceremonies and Formalities Whether it be their Fault or Misfortune I pity them heartily but I believe this ought not to be charg'd upon the Constitution of our Episcopacy for if the King and the great Senate of the Nation after Experience of former Troubles should think fit to impose this as a Test upon such as they thought the Government not secure of what is all this to Diocesan Episcopacy The next Paragraph concludes the Arraignment of Diocesan Bishops § 57. not with any Argument but a great many hard Words which suppose the Proofs that have gone before to have amounted to full Evidence I am not willing to repeat them here let them stand or fall with those Arguments they depend upon Now least you should take Mr. B. for an Enemy to Bishops for one sort he rejects he receives two the first such as St. Jerom says Was brought into the Church for a Remedy against Schism the Bishop of this Constitution was it preside over Presbyters and without him nothing of Moment was to be done in the Church § 58. These Presbyters that were under the Bishop had they several Parishes or Congregations or the same with their President If several then this is the Diocesan Prelacy that is a Crime in it's Constitution if the same then what did they do there For by old Canons it appears and Mr. B. makes use of them to serve his own Turn that a Presbyter was not to preach in the Presence of the Bishop what then Shall they only read the Offices of the Church This is to fall into worse than Diocesan Episcopacy and to make Presbyters not Preaching but what sounds much meaner reading Curates only to the Bishops There is another sort of Bishops that he dares not deny to be of divine Institution § 60. And they are such as succeed the Apostles in the ordinary part of Church-Government while some senior Pastors have
and one Parish has diverse Chappels for the aged and weak that are unfit for Travel Every one of these Churches then had one Bishop and was in his Opinion all the Diocess of apostolical and ancient Bishops If in any City or Town the number of Christians should exceed what might meet in one Congregation that then they were to imitate the Commonwealth of Bees who when they grow too numerous for one hive send out new Colonies commanded by their own Officers so when Christians grew too many for personal Communion in Doctrine and Worship they must resolve themselves into several Churches and have as many independent Bishops as they have Congregations But this model of a Church I am afraid is like to please no Party for the Dissenters are of Opinion we have too many Bishops already but this Project would make more Bishops in this one City than are now in the three Kingdoms Mr. B. has elsewhere endeavoured to take away this Prejudice Disp 1. of Ch. Gov. Ch. Hist part 2. by saying that those many Bishops he is for are not of the same sort with ours 't is true indeed Dioceses are not to be so large yet their Power within their own Church is to be equal to the others within their Diocess and the Church would fare no better in this Case than the Empire did in the times of Galienus when the People generally discontented with his Government because it was too remiss found themselves immediately enslaved by no less than thirty Tyrants The Presbyterians would never endure that the Power of their Classes and Synods should be settled in congregational Bishops and the Independent's Principles will as little admit this Project the Erastian Party will allow this Bishop no Power of Censures or Church Discipline Lewis Moulin Paraenesis who seems to speak in the name of all the English Independents explodes the use of Excommunication in a Christian State and will have no Ruler but the Civll and some of the greatest men of that party in their Recommendations before his Book though they speak something cautiously yet do not disapprove his Notion What some others of them have writ of the Nature of a Church is so mysterious and seraphical that one must be verè adeptus to understand it the plainest thing I believe can be made of it is that they are above Ordinances and that these Saints on Earth have as little need of Discipline and Censures as those in Heaven The Episcopal men are content with the present Form and do not desire the Bishops should be multiplyed at least not according to this Project for this in their Judgment would lie heavier than the Burden of Issachar So that I cannot see what party or principles this would suit besides the Authors own nor since he is so subject to Change is it likely to please him long However if it be the Primitive Platform it is Reason that all Churches notwithstanding their Prejudices should conform to it and therefore it is not equal it should be rejected though all the World were against it before that great Evidence of History which he alledges in Favour of it is consider'd For this Evidence he refers us to another Book of his 1 Disput of Ch. Government and Worship p 1659. and dedicated to R. Cromwel p. 87. Grotius his Opinion he rejects himself p 6. Edict Vossii Disp p. 88. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 22. where the Proofs are set down at large the first Authority he mentions there after the Scriptures is that of Clemens Romanus who mentions only Presbyters and Deacons but this is besides the present Question As for the Pseudo Clement which Mr. Thorndike mentions and is alledg'd by Mr. B. though it may be to the Purpose yet 't is of no Authority The next and the plainest as he confesses is Ignatius out of whom he cites several Passages the first out of his Epistle ad Smyrn Vbi itaque apparet Episcopus illic multitudo sit quemadmodum utique ubi est Christus Jesus illic Catholica Ecclesia as in B. Vshers old Translation with which Vossius's Greek Copy does agree from whence Mr. B. urges That this Plebs or Multitudo is the Church which he ruleth and not only one Congregation among many that are under him for this does without distinction bind all the people one as well as another to be where the Bishop is or appeareth viz. in the publick Assembly for Communion in Worship It is plain therefore there that there were not then many such Assemblies under him otherwise all save one must have necessarily disobey'd this Command To which I answer first That Antiochus cites this Passage quite differently and more at large than it is in the Text and to this Effect § Wherever the Bishop appears Antioch Ser. 124. there let the Multitude be as wheresoever the name of Christ is call'd there let a Church be assembled it is not permitted the Flocks of young Lambs to go whithersoever they please but whither the Sheepherds lead them those that remain out of the Flock the wild Beasts destroy and devour all that which goes astray which Words do not at all imply whether there were one or more Congregations under that Bishop and their design is to prove that Christians ought not to assemble themselves where they please without the Leave of or in Opposition to their Bishop this appears plainly from the Context to which Mr. B. does refer us these are the Words that immediately precede the Passage alledg'd Nullus sine Egiscopo aliquid operetur eorum quae conveniunt in Ecclesiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illa firma gratiarum actio reputetur quae sub ipso est vel quam utique ipse concesserit So that here is a plain distinction between a Congregation under the Bishop that is where he is personally present and a Congregation assembled by his Permission and Allowance and these Expressions of Ignatius can have no other Occasion than the Usage of the Church even in his time to have several Congregations under one Bishop The next Proof is out of Ignatius's Epist to the Philadelphians where he exhorts them to come all to the same Eucharist and these are his Motives Vna enim Caro Domini nostri Jesu Christi unus Calix in Vnionem Sanguinis ipsius unum altare unus Episcopus cum Presbyterio Diaconis conservis meis Disp p. 89. And thus the old Translation which is word for word according to the Florentine Greek Copy The Passage as Mr. B. cites it is in this Epistle interpolated but making more for his purpose he preferr'd it to the Genuine Reading where there is no mention of unus Panis unus Calix toti Ecclesiae but that which he lays his greatest stress upon is Vnum Altare unus Episcopus and this all Copies do agree in from whence he concludes Here it is manifest that the particular Church which in those dayes was
the number of Christians at his first Entrance was hardly enough to make a Congregation towards his latter end it was surely too great for one for the multitude of people in the City and the Country that belong'd to it Ubi supra it is said by Gregory Nysser to be infinite The Testimony of Tertullian Apolog. chap. 39. is as little to his purpose his words are these p. 93. Where a Body compacted by the Knowledge of the same Religion the Vnity of Discipline and the League of Hope do come together into one Congregation Conus ad deum Ed. Rigalty and not in caeum Congregationem to offer up Prayers to God we meet for the hearing of the holy Scriptures we feed our Faith with those holy words we raise up our hope we fix our Confidence 〈◊〉 confirm Discipline by the inculcating of 〈◊〉 â—ours Precepts there are likewise there Exhortations as being done in the presence of God that is lookt upon as an Anticipation of future Judgment if any one has so offended as to be banish'd from the Communion of Prayer and the Assembly and of all holy Commerce most approv'd Elders do preside Now let the Reader judge whether Mr. B. has Reason to be so confident of this Passage as to say pag. 94. If I be able to understand Tertullian it is here plain that each Church consisted of one Congregation and yet out of the words there can be nothing brought to favour it unless it be this that Christians used in those days to assemble for Prayer and reading of the Scriptures but whether one or more such Assemblies were under the Discipline of the Bishop and Presbytery is not signified in the least That Elders are said to preside does not at all prejudice the Right of the Bishop for either those are Bishops that are said to preside and so every particular Church will have many which if it be not against Mr B's Notion of Episcopacy is confessedly against the practice of the Church in those times when one Church had no more than one Bishop if they were Presbyters then 't is probable there was more than one Congregation But it appears by what follows that these Presidents were all the Officers of the Church where they are distinguish'd from the people and said to live out of the common Stock and the Deacons as well as Priests did assist at the Sacrament and the Bread and Wine was distributed by their hands aâ—â— shall endeavour to prove in due place 〈◊〉 cites out of the same Author De Corona Militis to put his meaning out of all doubt concludes nothing less than what he would have him to say his words are to this effect Presidentium c. 3. That we must receive the Eucharist at all times but from no other hand but those that preside That those were not Bishops appears from the next passage which he cites out of the same place This Mr. B. mistakes Ch. Hist p. 7. when he says that they took not the Lord's Supper but only Antistitis manu I suppose his Memory deceiv'd him 〈◊〉 where Tertullian speaking of Baptism mentions the form of renouncing the World and the Devil Sub manu Antistitis where we may observe that he uses another Word as well as another Number yet since it is said that Christians ought not to receive the Sacrament but from the hands of those Presidents we must not conceive the Bishop to be excluded but by that general Name to be comprehended together with his Bench of Presbyters but will not this Circumstance of Baptism serve to evince that a Bishop had then but one Congregation and every one to be baptized was to make his Renunciation under the Bishops Hand nothing less for many more might be baptized by a Bishop in the compass of few years than there are in the greatest Diocese in the World Paulinus could not well wish a greater number in his Diocess than he baptized in seven and thirty days Bed l. 2. chap. 14. Pamelius did labour to prove that Antistes is the same with Seniores Presidentes and that Presbyters might baptize as well as Bishops but that is not the thing in Question nor does this Passage suppose every baptism performed by the Bishop but the Renunciation of the Devil c. which was preparatory to it to have been made in his presence he might have a very large Diocess and be at Leisure for this especially when we consider that the generality of Christians in those times had such an awe of that Sacrament and the strict Obligation it lay upon them of more than ordinary Sanctity that they deferr'd it till the last and were baptized on their Death-bed and that not by the Bishop but by any other Presbyter or Deacon nor can we find in all the History of the times we now speak of that Children had any part in the solemn and publick Baptism but they might be privately baptized in case of Necessity and eminent danger of Death without the assistance of the Bishop And long after these times we find in the largest Dioceses where a great many Congregations are affirmed to be under the same Bishop One Baptistry to a Church sufficient for several Congregations there were but three days in the year appointed for solemn Baptism and the Bishops were so far from being unequal to the Multitude that they complain of the general Neglect of the Sacrament and of their not being fully employed at those times so that supposing this Antistes to be the Bishop and every one that was solemnly baptized past under his hand it is far from making out Mr. B's Notion that there was but one Congregation under him The next thing he makes use of to confirm his Conception of Congregational Church is the Consent of the people Disp 95. in the Margin Ch. Hist p. 7. as well in the Election of their Bishops as in several other Ecclesiastical Acts but this â—e rather hints by the Bye than insists upon and I suppose did not value much since he takes no care to improve it whoever will take the pains to examine those passages will find that the people never polled at the Election of their Bishops which was principally the act of the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but approved it commonly by a general and confused Voice of the Multitude that was present and the Phrase Vniversa Plebs does not denote every particular Christian of the Church but onely a general Assembly and Congregation of as many as could come together or of the most considerable Persons of the Diocese or rather as it is usually express'd all the People that were present at the Action Cornelius elected plebis quae tunc adfuit Suffragio Cypr. l. 4. c. 2. I shall not forget to answer this Argument more particularly hereafter when we shall meet with it confirmed by any Canon of Councils or other passages in his History Basil Ep.
as if it were to prevent such a Mistake as this Ad Fahiâ—â—n Anti. expresly tells us that these Officers were not useless and unnecessary but calls the Clergy To 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Necessity of them appears by what immediately follows because they had the Direction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a great and innumerable People and now with what Reason Mr. B. has retracted his Exception of the Roman Church let the Reader judge But the Church of Rome had long before outgrown the Stature of a Congregation for Euaristus the sixth from St. Peter is said to have divided Rome into Titles or Parishes the multitude being grown too numerous for one Assembly Ep. Pii ad Baron or if the Authority of the Pseudo Damasus be not to be depended upon we have the two Epistles of Pius to confirm it in the first we have mention of Euprepia that had given to the Poor Titulum Domus suae ubi nunc cum Pauperibus nostris commorantes missas agimus Several learned men do except against the Word Missa as not being yet in use in the Church Hospin de Temp. but it is a very hard matter to shew when it was first taken up certain it is that way of speaking was made use of not long after Remissa for Remissio being found in Tertullian and Cyprian in the second Epist we have these words Presbyter pastor titulum condidit dignè in Domino obiit I must needs say Blondel does not deal very ingeniously and equally with these Epistles for in his Pseudo Isidocus he endeavours to prove them suppositious tho they are not in Isidorus's Collection yet in his Apology for St. Jerom's Opinion concerning Bishops he vouchsafes to make use of one of them to prove that Bishop and Presbyter signified the same thing in Pius's days 't is a sad case that the Ancients shall have no farther Credit with us than they serve our Turn when they speak what men will not have them then they are false and Impostours let them give the same men but some little Countenance and then they are true men again The great Liberality of the Church of Rome is no small Argument of its Greatness for besides the maintenance of their own Clergy and Poor they were able to relieve most other Churches Euseb l. 14. c. 23. and it was their practice from the beginning to oblige all the Brethren by all manner of kindness and to send to a great many Churches that were establisht in every City the Necessaries of Life relieving the Necessity of those that were in want and sending necessary relief to those who were condemned to the Mines This was the ancient Liberality of the Roman Church and Soter is said not only to have continued but improv'd it Now if according to Mr. B's Notion of those Times not many Rich not many Noble were call'd the number of Believers must be by so much the Greater Euseb l. 7. c. 5. to be able to supply the Necessity almost of the Universal Church and Dionysius of Alexandria speaks of the Roman Church's Charity in his time in these words All the Provinces of Syria together with Arabia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you relieve every one The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is there Emphatical and implies an admiration of as it were the All-sufficiency of the Roman Church how it should be able to supply the wants of so many Churches and to furnish so Expensive a Charity Under the Reign of Commodus the Church is said to have enjoyed peaceable and happy Times and to have thriv'd so well that the whole World in a manner was reduc'd the words of Eusebius express a wonderful increase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that every Soul in a manner of every sort came over to the Christian Religion and at Rome particularly the increase was so great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that abundance of considerable Persons for their Nobility and Wealth came over with their whole Families and Relations Euseb l. 15. c. 21. Certain it is that the number of Christians at Rome was proportionably greater than in any part of the Empire for thither they fled for Refuge in times of Persecution and shelter'd themselves in a crowd and if Tertullian's account of the state of the Christians in his time makes it very probable that they made the better half of the Roman Empire if he boasts of multitudes and say that they had possessed themselves of the City and Countrey and every place was full of them but the Temples if they did in a manner besiege the Heathen in every part and were more beneficial to the Publick by the consumption of all sorts of Commodities and made Use of more Frankincense in One Street than the Heathen did in any one Temple it is evident that they were the major part every where but in Rome more eminently so See this urg'd farther by Mr. Dodwel in his Letter to Mr. B. Towards the middle of the Third Century they received a considerable Increase from the Countenance of Alexander Severus the greatest part of whose Family and that alone would make a good Congregation were Christians Euseb l. 6. c. 21.28 and this Favourer of Christianity reigned thirteen years Towards the latter end of that Age their condition was most flourishing and all the World in a manner had receiv'd the Faith let us observe in what glorious Expressions Eusebius represents the Church before the Persecution of Dioclesian Euseb l. 8. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who sayes he can describe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their full and innumerable Assemblies and the multitude of their Meetings in every City So that by this time not onely in Rome but almost in every City the Christians had several Congregations Valesius tho he corrects the old Translator yet it seems did not fully comprehend the meaning of this place nor see the Elegancy of Eusebius's Gradation for first he represents the many thousands that came together to make a Congregation then the number of such Assemblies that there were several of them and at last mentions the Places that receiv'd them that there was no Church no Chappel no Oratory but was full in those dayes About this time or not long after Rome had above forty Churches which we must not imagine to be built all at the same time but by degrees according as the number of Believers did require and in all probability there must be more than one or two even in the first and second Century And now I have mention'd this it will not be amiss to clear that Passage of Optatus about these forty Churches Optat. Mii. l. 2. contra Parmen from the Exceptions of Blondel whom Mr. B. follows in his mistake Optatus in that place traces the Donatists of Rome to their first Original If Macrobius says he were demanded whom he succeeds he must needs confess it is to Eucolpius if Eucolpius
before Arrius's time Epiphan Haeres Melet Arrian who was the fixt Minister of one of them call'd Buchalis are to be supposed to have been instituted before for Epiphanius though he observe this as singular in the Alexandrian Church at that time yet says nothing at all of its Novelty which he would not probably have omitted and Sozomen seems to imply Soz. l. 1. c. 15. that it was an ancient Custom Petavius mistakes Epiphanius's his words and imagines in Epiph. that these Divisions of Alexandria are therefore said by him to be singular and different from the Usage of other Churches because says he those which Epiphanius had seen were but small and might have but one Congregation but it is plain from Epiphanius his words that what he look'd upon as singular was not their having several distinct Assemblies but because they had certain and fix'd Presbyters and therefore he adds as an Effect of that Custom that every one would be denominated from his Pastor as the Corinthians did when one cry'd I am of Paul I am of Apollos and this indeed was so singular that perhaps no other Church in the World had it besides Vales Annot in Sâ—zom l. 11. c. 15. not that of Rome and Valesius infers from the same Passage of Pope Innocent's Epistle to Decentius which Petavius brings to prove the contrary that although there were several Titles or Churches in Rome then and had been long before yet none of them was as yet appropriated to any Presbyter but they were served in common as greater Cities in Holland and some other Reformed Countries that have several Churches and Ministers who preach in them all by their turns Lastly and to conclude this account of the Church of Alexandria it is evident out of Athanasius how the Bishop of that City had from the Beginning several fix'd Congregations under him Athan. T. 1. p. 802. particularly those of Mareotes who though they must be suppos'd to receive the Faith almost as early as Alexandria yet never had a Bishop before Ischyrias if he were to be reckon'd one Mareotes says Athanasius is a Countrey belonging to Alexandria wherein there never was a Bishop not so much as a Chorepiscopus but all the Churches of that place were subject to the Bishop of Alexandria And now let the Reader judge whether the Bishop of Alexandria had more Congregations than one under him or no more than could conveniently meet in one place I have hitherto examin'd Mr. B's Evidence of History for his Congregational Churches let us now see whether there be not as good Evidence to the contrary The growth of the Church of Jerusalem was so sudden and so great as to exceed the measure of one or two Congregations St. Peter's first Sermon brought over three thousand another five thousand Acts 2.41 then the Sacred Historian as if the Multitude had grown too great to be numbred mentions the other Accessions in gross and indefinitely but with such Expressions as imply they much exceed the numbers aforementioned Multitudes both of Men and Women were added to the Church and the number of the Disciples multiplyed in Jerusalem greatly and a great number of the Priests were obedient to the Faith Act. 6.7 Now let us seriously consider whether all these Converts could meet together in one place for personal Communion Doctrine and Worship or whether they could find a room spacious enough to meet in all together we find but two sorts of places they met in the Temple and from House to House the Temple cannot be supposed the ordinary place of their Assembly since the generality of the Priests and People did oppose them and though the Apostles preacht there it was no otherwise than they did in the Synagogues acd Market-places and other places of concourse to gain new Proselytes and not to instruct those they had converted when they preacht from House to House the fifth or tenth part of them can hardly be supposed to have convenience for personal Communion and it is certain they did break Bread no otherwise than from House to House from whence it is plain that it was not possible for them all to hold personal Communion in the principal part of Christian Worship i. c. the holy Eucharist which is made by Mr. B. as necessary to the Individuation of a Church as Communion in Doctrine The Presbyterians prest this Instance very unmercifully upon those of the congregational way who made use of all Shifts and most of them very poor ones To elude the force of the Argument sometimes they turn the Temple into a Church another while they send the greatest part of them home to the country and whatsoever other means they could find to diminish their number they laid hold of them and this way not succeeding in their own Opinion they found a Secret in the Ayr Grand Debate Answer of the Assembly to the Reasons of the dissenting Br. p. 27. ibid. which they fancied to be much more pure and shine in Jerusalem than our Northern Climates and so more proper to convey a Voice to a greater Distance whereas our dull unyielding Fog arrests the Voice in every point as it passes However the Assembly of Divines resolved they would not be paid with this piece of Philosophy and undertook to shew the Argument to be as thin as the Ayr they talkt of and the Lord Bacon relieves them in this Distress who was of Opinion that a Voice could be heard much farther in a gross than a pure Ayr the Resistance perhaps preserving it longer as Opposition serves to lengthen a Discourse and to make Disputes endless p. 81.82 but in the second part of Ch. Hist takes it up again but Mr. B. in his first Disputation of Church-Government summing up the Exceptions of the Independents against the Presbyterian Argument drawn from the Church of Jerusalem prudently leaves out this of the Ayr but finds another Expedient as proper for his purpose and that is that men had much stronger Voices in those times and places which they may believe that can fancy Nature to decay and that our Fore-fathers were Giants For my part the next thing I expect is that they should believe with Kirker that the Ancients knew the use of Sir Samuel Morland's speaking-trumpet for Kirker had a Vision of some old Manuscript that no body else ever saw which revealed to him that Alexander the Great could speak to his whole Army together by the help of a Trumpet and who can tell but in this vast Congregation of Jerusalem such an Engine might be made use of However since Dioceses are to be no larger than the Sphear of a man's Voice it will be an useful Instrument to a Preacher of weak Lungs to stretch out the Bounds of his Diocess and be as serviceable to the Church as it is to the Camp Disp of Ch. Gov. p. 81. But Mr. B. tells us one thing more which a Friend told
Truth is sometimes so miscall'd that no Doctrines are damnable because men have condemned one another for some that are not so Is there no Truth because Contradictions lay claim to it and because that every man honours his mistake under speciousness of that Title for all these confusions of terms the things are the same and a real Heresie is damnable and ought to be reproved and cast out of the Church nothwithstanding that under this pretence the greatest Truths have been discredited Mr. B. gives such an account of those Controversies that exercised the four first General Councils as seems in great measure to excuse those Heresies which were condemn'd by them and to blame their condemnation calling the Bishops in derision Hereticators and Damners because they pronounced Arrius Macedonius Nestorius c. Hereticks men of dangerous Principles and not to be tolerated in the Communion of the Church yet for all this I belive Mr. B's own Rule will absolve them for in his Book called The true and only way of Concord pag. 291. seq he makes a Catalogue of such Errours which men ought to be restrain'd from preaching and propagating now all those Errours condemn'd by the four first General Councils are laid down there not only in the Sense but in the very Terms they were condemn'd in these Doctrines are by him own'd to be dangerous and by no means to be suffered to be preach'd But what if men grow incorrigible and will preach them notwithstanding these Prohibitions and Restraints his Resolution is very moderate that every one should not be ejected or silenced that holdeth or preacheth any one such Errour what then must he be suffer'd to propagate the Infections and to teach these Opinions that are so confessedly dangerous nor that neither for there follows such an Exception in this Toleration as wholly overthrows it for those are to be cast out who consideratis considerandis are found to do more harm than good Now what if the Orthodox Bishops did find that consideratis considerandis those Hereticks they condemned did more hurt than good that they destroy'd with one hand much more than they edified with the other and that the propagating of one of these dangerous Doctrines was not compensated by all the other Truths that they preach'd there is no variety of wholsom food can countervail the Mischiefs of one envenom'd bit and that Physician is not to be trusted that puts in any one dangerous Ingredient though the rest of the Composition were very innocent and this was the Rule they went by the Hereticks in their Opinions were dangerous men they were obstinate in their Opinions industrious in propagating them and were mostly upon the vindication of these controverted Doctrines it was therefore necessary since they did more hurt than good that they should be cast out of the Church Nor is he less displeas'd with the Form than the Matter of this Condemnation and therefore he gives the Bishops the Titles of Hereticating Cursing Damning Bishops but what Antichristian words are these that can move a moderate healing-man to so great Indignation Anathema esto is the usual form of condemnation in Councils which he so frequently calls Cursing and Damning the word is St. Paul's 1 Corintâ— 16.22 If any one love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be Anathema-maran-atha and he had borrowed it from the Jews which signifies no more than the separation of any thing from common Use and is used sometimes in a good sometimes in a bad sense In the first he denotes any thing consecrated or devoted to God in the latter any thing which we abhorr and separate our selves from for fear of Pollution so that the addition of it to those Errours which they condemn is dangerous As for Instance If any man shall say that there was a time when Christ was not let him be Anathema imports no more than that we declare our abhorrence of such Doctrines and will have nothing common with those that profess them but Mr. B. I know not out of what Dictionary translates it God damn you and calls it the Religion of the Bishops and their Councils Nay though this did imply so much they may plead the Example of St. Paul even in that case since they do no more than apply his general Sentence which he repeats more than once Gal. 1 9. If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received let him be accursed And that you may not think that this other Gospel does directly overthrow that which he had preach'd and teach men to deny and renounce our Saviour Jesus Christ we must understand that all this relates to the Legal Observances which some would introduce into the Churches of Galatia and their compliance with those Teachers is by the same Apostle called a turning away unto another Gospel and the preaching of those men the Perverting of the Gospel and so warm is the same Apostle against those Disturbers of the Church that he wishes that they were even cut off which troubled them chap. 5.12 Yet the Councils did not go so far in their Anathema's they did but declare the Leprosie as the Priest under the Law turn'd out the Diseas'd and gave warning to all People of the danger of the Infection and it was but fit that such should remain without the Camp till the Disease was heal'd lest it should spread and the whole Church become an Abomination and Anathema to him whose Faith it had suffer'd to be corrupted This was the Design of the Bishops and their Councils to this end they directed their Anathema's and if they have not always met with the Success that were to be wish'd we must not judge uncharitably and undervalue or deride their Endeavours And now let us consider their Acts and see what it is that they have done The first Councils about the time of the Observation of Easter he passes over with only mentioning for there is little of them remaining Pope Victor was doubtless to be blam'd for endangering the Peace of the whole Church Euseb l. 5. c. 24. upon so light an occasion Ch. Hist p. 34. Whether Victor did actually excommunicate the Churches of Asia or only threatned and endeavour'd to do it is not very clear from the Relation of Eusebius Valesius is of opinion and it seems the most probable that this proceeded no farther than Letters of Accusation Vales in locum which he sent to most Churches to represent the Asiaticks as unworthy of Communion but the generality of Bishops not approving it and advising to Peace it is likely the business went no farther so Schism was avoided by the peaceable counsel and disposition of the Bishops The Councils of Carthage Labese under Agrippinus and that of Arabia under Origen he does but just mention that of Rome c. 2. p. 35. after the death of Fabian held by the Roman Clergy in the Vacancy he makes some Remarks upon
Alex. Can. 4. Argument Canon such were never to be admitted to full Communion no not at the hour of Death Is any man like to find fault with this Bishop for being too indulgent Is this any great Encouragement to Apostates It would be strange after all this that men should depart from his Communion for being too much prostituted to the Betrayers of Religion If all this does not satisfie Mr. B. but that he will still believe those holy Martyrs as unmortified in Prison as the Priests and Jesuits heretofore were at Wisbich let him enjoy his Fancy and contempt of ancient Bishops and be bound to believe all the Stories in Epiphanius Mr. B. confesses that Epiphanius seems not to be very accurate in his Disputes nor his Narratives why then does he maintain him here against the Authority of Athanasius and all Sense and Reason He does acknowledge some Passages in this History to be mistaken as that the Meletians joyned with the Arrians before the Death of Alexander and in his Instance of the time of Arrius's death placing it before the Councel of Nice Besides these there are other Mistakes no less gross which Mr. B. swallows down as true History as first that Constantine the Great banish'd Athanasius into Italy where he remain'd twelve or fourteen years till after the Death of Constantine If Athanasius himself be to be believ'd or Socrates out of him Constantine banish'd him into Gallia and Treves was the place where he abode nor is there any Likelihood that he saw Italy during his first Banishment But the account of the time of it Euseb de Vit. Constant for twelve or fourteen years is intolerable for the Councel of Tyre was not assembled till the thirtieth year of Constantine Epist Praef. Marâ—ot Constantius and Albinus being Consuls which agrees with the three hundred thirty fifth year of our Saviour according to Baronius's Computation Athanasius his Banishment is plac'd the year after Constantine dyes the year ensuing and presently after his death Athanasius is recall'd Baronius places his return in the year 338 but Valesius proves from the style of Constantine junior's Letter in the behalf of Athanasius who was then but Caesar that Athanasius return'd the very same year that Constantine dyed So that the twelve or fourteen years do hardly amount to so many Months which I believe was the true writing of Epiphanius and that Years are put in instead of Months by the mistake of the Copies Theodoret computes his Banishment to be two whole Years and Baronius follows him There are several other things in the same Author no less absurd as that Athanasius is charged with the murther of Arsenius in Constantine's time that Eusebius baptized Valens the Emperour though Eusebius was dead many years before Valens came to the Empire that Constantine was the Son of Valerian that George was put into Athanasius's place in the time of his first Banishment that Achillas succeeded Alexanaer in the See of Alexandria Dallè l. 4. de Imagin p. 394. Epiphanius planè aliter Schisma Meletianum narrat quam rei veritas poscebat and many other such Oversights in History and one would wonder so great a man as Epiphanius could be guilty of or that any one that pretends to Church-History should follow him in those gross mistakes which they may correct out of any Historian that does but make mention of the same things and Times Mr. B. strangely confounds Gregory and George the Arrian Bishops of Alexandria for page 47 he tells us That when Constans had compell'd his Brother Constantius to restore him Athanasius he was again banish'd For George that had been made Bishop by the Arrians and by Constantius was kill'd by the Heathen People in Julian's time and his Corps burnt and the ashes scatter'd into the Wind which increased the suspition of Tyranny against Athanasius I hope George's murther in Julian's time did not bring Athanasius into suspition of Tyranny under Constantius But pag. 62. Sect. 45. this George is call'd Gregory Gregory the Bishop being as is aforesaid murther'd by the Heathen and burnt to ashes We no where read that this Gregory was either murder'd or burn't but that he was turn'd out of the See of Alexandria because he was odious to all and to the Arrians themselves and that George Socr. l. 2. c. 14. who was afterwards murther'd was put in his place Where he says Constans compell'd his Brother Constantius to restore Athanasius he mistakes Constans for his Brother Constantine who was the Author of Athanasius his first restauration for it was long after his first banishment and after the Council of Sardica that Constans threatned his Brother with War if he did not restore Athanasius and Paul into their Churches Page 48. § 4. He gives an account of the Heresie of Arrius and I think heartily condemns him if these words be his own He that denies the Deity of Christ denies his Essence and he that denies his Essence denies Christ and is no Christian Yet he excuses this Doctrine in comparison of Socinianism and that very justly At last after a short sum of the Arrian Doctrine he concludes this was the dangerous Heresie of Arrius I must confess he is so much given to Figures that I can't tell whether he be in earnest here or speaks only Ironically but sure I am that what he sayes in the next Paragraph is very much to the disadvantage of the Doctrine of the Trinity And to say truth Petavius has done it no great kindness by his Defence of it 'T is true that some of the Fathers before the Nicene Council seem'd to speak sometimes in favour of that Doctrine which was afterwards taken up by the Arrians but that they did cadem sentire is more than ought to be granted Before some Controversies have been started men have spoke less warily whom afterwards Disputation has brought to be more Cautious in their Expressions Dallè de usu Patr Dallè makes the Ancient Fathers to be of little Use in the Controversies between us and the Papists because though they may seem to favour sometimes one side sometimes another yet they speak loosly and without any regard to our Controversies which were not then in being Several Passages extolling Communion with the Bishop of Rome were little intended to set him up for an infallible Judge and others speaking with great Veneration of the Eucharist may seem to favour Transubstantiation c. If any such Opinion had then been in the Church their words in probability had been more decisive It is a commendable Charity of Mr. B. to say that it is enough to believe those Fathers to be saved p. 49. though we may not believe them to be without Errour Though that Errour by his confession is very dangerous as implying a denial of Christ yet he adds that God is merciful and requires not knowledge of all alike ibid. But for my part I believe they do
Vid. loc they ought to consider the Justice of the Cause and he that is already Bishop ought to continue so if they have nothing material to lay to his Charge and that be not evidently proved so we see plainly that this Disagreement is only between the People who have no Power to depart from the rightful Bishop and factiously to set up another against him but that the People should stand by their Pastor when he is canonically ejected by his Superiours assembled in Synod is very far from being any meaning of this Canon though Mr. B. would force it to that purpose Besides all this though any of these Arabick Canons should directly favour either his Notion of a Church or the cause of Dissenters or disallow the Practice of our Church in any thing they scruple it would give them but very small Relief since there is no Church and much less ours that ever receiv'd them nor were they ever heard of till the last Age. 7. Those ordained by Meletius were to be received into the Ministry where others dyed if by the Suffrage of the People they were judged fit and the Bishop of Alexandria design'd them Whither this tends is not hard to conjecture but it would spoil the Drift if one should observe maliciously First That these Meletians were Episcopally ordain'd Secondly That they were receiv'd into the Ministry upon the Supposal of their Submission to the Canons and Orders of the Church Thirdly That in that same place Sozomen declares in the Name of the Council that it is not lawful for the People to elect whom they please Page 53. l. 1. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cir. Ath. Ep. ad Strap The Council of Gangrae he has nothing to object against that of Tyre is manifestly Arrian and abhorr'd by the Catholick Church that of Jerusalem is of the the same Stamp but here Mr. B. goes along with the common Mistake that Arrius was here receiv'd into Communion whereas Athanasius affirms him to have died out of the Communion of the Church And it is plain that comparing Socrates Sozomen and Athanasius Arrius the Author of that Heresie was dead before the Council of Jerusalem and it is observable that Athanasius in his account of that Council every where expresses himself thus Ep. Synod Con. Hiero◠ap Athan. l. de Synod That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were there receiv'd into Communion See Vales his Annot. Ecclesiast in Socrat. Sozom. The next of any Note p. 54. § 21. is the Council of Antioch of near a hundred Bishops of which thirty six were Arrians the most Orthodox and the holy James of Nisybis one yet they depos'd Athanasius and the Arrians it 's like by the Emperour's Favour carry'd it Thus far Mr. B. Many have wonder'd how the major part of this Council being Orthodox Athanasius should be condemn'd by it Mr. B. who does not seem much to favour him because he was not kind to the Nonconformist Meletians insinuates a base complyance of these Orthodox Bishops with the Emperours Inclination a moderate man and always for the most charitable Construction However Pope Julius's Letter is express that he was condemn'd but by thirty six Bishops whether they were Arrians or no he does not say Athanasius reckons ninety Hilary ninety seven Sozomon ninety nine and be they never so many it seems the lesser number carry'd it and if the Emperour made that a Law the Orthodox Dissenters ought to be absolved Certain it is that this Council lay under the Imputation of Arrianisin for when it was objected to Chrysostom that he resum'd his Place after that he had been ejected without the Authority of a Synod to restore him which the Canons of this Council did require his Defence was that this was not a Canon of the Church but of the Arrians Sozomen makes them all Arrians The Faction of Eusebius saith he with several others that favour'd that Opinion in all ninety seven Bishops assembled at Antioch from several places under Colour of consecrating a Church but indeed as the Event prov'd to abrogate the Decrees of the Nicene Council Athanasius rejects them as sworn Enemies to him and the Faith so that there is no likely-hood that the majority was Orthodox since Constantius and Eusebius had the contriving of this Synod and by it's means the Ruine of Athanasius But how came this Opinion of thirty six only being Arrians and yet carrying the Cause Some say that they acted secretly and did not admit the Orthodox to vote with them for so the Condemnation of Athanasius past at Tyre or that they might be impos'd upon by their specious Pretence of disowning Arrius but because there is no account of any Difference between the Arrians and Orthodox in this case no Protestation enter'd nay if any such thing had been it cannot be imagin'd but that Sozomen must have mention'd it where he speaks of the Bishop of Jerusalem absenting himself on purpose lest he should be drawn in a second time to subscribe to the Condemnation of Athanasius we must conclude That these were all of a Party and pack'd together upon that design And perhaps the reading of thirty six in Julius's Epistle may be a mistake of Transcribers it being easie to mistake the Greek figure of 90 for 30 unless we shall judge the contrary to be the true Reading for the two ancient Latin Translations of Dionysius Exiguus and Isidorus Mercator conclude consenserunt subscripserunt 30 Episcopi and the Greek Synodical Epistle wants but one of just thirty Subscriptions Sozomen mentions another Synod at Antioch of just thirty Bishops and confounds the Acts of it with those of this first but whether it be his mistake or the old Translators that might confound the second with the first I am not able to determine and the matter is too confus'd to be extricated here Though the Authority of this Council was not great yet it seems the Canons of it were so wisely suited to the condition of a distracted Church and to the depressing of Schism that they were adopted afterwards by General Councils Mr. B. mentions several that are most of them levell'd against Dissenters and yet they are such as the Dissenters themselves that own any Discipline cannot find fault with and when they are in any Power find necessary to observe The fifth forbids any Priest or Deacons to gather Churches or Assemblies against the Bishop's will and if any did and did not desist upon admonition he was to be deposed and if he went on to be opprest by the exteriour Power as seditious The word opprest it seems is Emphatical and has indeed an old Version to favour it but what may be Oppression in his sense with the Council was Legal Punishment and the Greek word it uses signifies not so much the Penalty as the End for which it was to be inflicted the reduction of Schismaticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And
Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 42. Codex Int. Eccles Affr. c. 53. Conc. Affr. c. 20. That since upon this occasion many ambitious Priests did seduce some Congregations to desire them for their Bishops for this very Reason Propter malos eorum cogitatus pravè concinnata Concilia hoc dico non debere rectorem accipere eam plebem quae in Dioecesi semper subjacuit Integ Cod. Can. 98. Conc. Affr. 65. nec unquam proprium Episcopum habuit This is made yet more difficult by other Canons that require that no People that have before had Bishops should have any but by the Approbation of a full Provincial Council with the Consent of the Primate and the Bishop of the Diocese He mentions several other Council of Carthage some whereof Ch. Hist p. 74. are Collections of Canons which Binnius mistook for particular Councils but there is little that he cites out of them that favours either his Model of Episcopacy or his design to disgrace Bishops some however I am oblig'd to take notice of as first That the Bishop's Cottage should not be far from the Church the Word is Hospitiolum not quite so poor as a Cottage for it was to be the Refuge of the Poor and the Inn of Strangers and a place fit for Hospitality but it is not hard to guess why this is particularly noted in the Margin for it may be that he may have a great Passion to have this Canon executed Envy is a Passion may slay the silly one but it is much more comfortable to be the Object of his Envy than Contempt There are others that order the Bishops to regard the Presbyters as his Brethren and they are much to blame that do not but there are others innumerable that command the Presbyters to observe their Bishops as their Governours as their Fathers as the Vicegerents of Christ 52. is something odd and shews the Poverty of the African Church that a Clerk or Clergy-man how learned soever in God's Word must get his Living by a Trade this is contrary to the usage of all other Churches even in their lowest times and to the third Council of Carthage Can. 15. which forbids it Item placuit ut Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi vel Clerici non sint conductores neque procuratores neque ullo turpi vel in honesto negotio victum quaerant quia respicere debeant scriptum esse nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis saecularibus This same Canon in some ancient Books runs thus Ut Episcopi Presbyteri Diacones non sint conductores aut Procuratores privatorum neque ullo negotio tali victum quaerant quo eos peregrinari vel ab Ecclesiasticis officiis avocari necesse sit And that we may not judge that this Canon only forbids them dishonest ways of Living which might be understood by Turpe inhonestum the Greek Translation does explain it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from any way that is mean or dishonourable but of this more than enough The Story of Theophilus § 73. p. 75. the great Patriarch of Alexandria comes next whom the succeeding Ages of the Church honour'd as a Saint but Mr. B. is in a strait whether he shall believe him to be a downright Knave or credible nay most credible Socrates and others gross Lyars p. 77. Yet there is no necessity of either for these Historians might be impos'd upon by false Reports and the Monks that were the Authors of them were it may be downright Knaves I must crave the Reader 's patience whilst I endeavour to relieve the Memory of this Great man from the Imputation of Knavery which Socrates and Sozomen Palladius and some others fasten upon it and with them Mr. B. who sets up their Evidence and Authority Sozomen having written this Story most particularly I will Translate those two Chapters out of him that contain the Accusation of Theophilus and add out of Socrates what the other has omitted The Story is thus At that time there was a Question disputed in Egypt Soz. l. 8.11 which had been started not long before Whether God ought to be conceived under a Humane shape Most of the Monks understanding those Places of Scripture which ascribe to God Eyes and Face and Hands grosly and literally fancy'd him as a man others who could penetrate farther into the meaning of those figurative Expressions were of the contrary Opinion and judg'd the other Party to speak blasphemously and unworthy of God Theophilus taught publickly in the Church that this Opinion of the Anthropomorphites ought by no means to be embrac'd and in his Paschal Epistle which he writ as his Custom was every year he declar'd That God ought to be conceiv'd Incorporeal and void of Humane shape The Egyptian Monks understanding this came to Alexandria and having got together made an uproar and would have murder'd the Bishop He comes out to them and endeavours to appease the Tumult by saying I see you as the Face of God This saying did a little asswage the Tumult and the Monks having abated something of their rage reply'd If thou think'st as thou speakest condemn Origen's Books that teach men to think otherwise of God This reply'd Theophilus I intended to do long ago and most willingly comply with you in for I dislike Origen's Opinions no less than you And having thus cajol'd those Monks he appeas'd the Tumult There is no downright Knavery in all this for those words Gen. 33.10 I see you as the Face of God are the words of Jacob to his Brother Esau and his condemning of Origen though not for that which these giddy-headed Monks fancy'd was nevertheless very just here was no Lye though there was a Deceit and the Danger he was in the Examples of Holy men in Scripture and Ecclesiastical History will Justifie or Excuse him And now let us pursue the rest of the Story This Controversie would likely have been at an end Soz. l. 8. c. 12. if Theophilus had not reviv'd it upon a Design of ruining Ammonius dioscorus Eusebius and Eutychius who were sirnam'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 long or tall These were Brothers and very eminent among the Monks of Scetis as we have shew'd before These of all the Monks of Egypt were the greatest Favourites of Theophilus who entertain'd them frequently at his House with great kindness and Familiarity Dioscorus he made Bishop of Hermenopolis but the ground of his Quarrel with them was his hatred of Isidorus whom heretofore he had endeavoured to have made Bishop of Constantinople after the death of Nectarius Socr. l. 6. c. 7. Some say that when a certain Woman had come over to the Church from the Heresie of the Manichees and had been receiv'd to Communion before she had made an abjuration of her former Heresie Theophilus charg'd the Arch-Presbyter with this Neglect but he had a grudge against him before upon another account Peter for that was his name
the Secret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and blabs out his Author I have heard says he from a credible Person who was acquainted with these Monks The Relation shews sufficiently he was of the Party and that he had it from them and if a Monk cannot tell his Story sufficiently to his own Advantage and to the Prejudice of his Enemy let him be irregular and to say Truth without this Intimation one might taste something of a Monkish Invention and Spirit the whole Story is so marvelously gross Besides that Socrates and Sozomen are not so credible in this Particular because they every where espouse the Cause of the Novatians to whom Theophilus was no great Friend reason enough to incur a very odious Character in their History as many other good men have done upon the same account But other Historians and more credible than Socrates or Sozomen discover sufficiently the Vanity of this Fiction Posthumianus was in Alexandria immediately after these things happen'd and let us hear what account he gives of this Affair After seven days Sulp. Sever Dial. l. 1. we came to Alexandria where there was a foul Contention between the Bishops and the Monks about the Books of Origen those condemning and forbidding the reading of them because of many dangerous Errors contain'd in them the other Party charging this upon the Hereticks that had corrupted the Works of Origen The Contention in short grew very high and the Bishops according to the Authority they had forbid all good and bad because there were Ecclesiastical Writers enough that might be read with as much Benefit and much less Danger and then instanc'd in several places of Origen that were very extravagant but this could not satisfie the Favourers of Origen who began to be in an Uproar which when the Authority of the Bishops could not appease the Civil Magistrate is forc'd to take the Church-Discipline into his own hands Saevo Exemplo says the Author Upon this the Monks were terrified and made their Escape whither they could and the Edicts of the Magistrates pursued them This person it seems was no Favourer of Theophilus and yet there is nothing he finds fault with but the too great Rigour and the taking of the Governour to supply the defect of Church-Discipline yet it seems there was absolute Necessity for it for these Monks had mutiny'd and rais'd a Sedition and then surely it is time for the Magistrate to look about him 2. The same Historian represents this not as any sudden surprizing Oppression of the Origenists for he mentions several Synods that had been assembled for this purpose 3. He does not make this the Effect of any particular Quarrel between the Monks and Theophilus but makes the Controversie to be between the Monks and the Bishops and which of them had most right to govern the Church and appoint what Books were or were not fit to be read But to return to our Author he tells us farther Sever. The Bishop of that place entertain'd him very courteously and beyond what he could have expected he made him a kind Invitation that he would stay and live with him but that he refus'd thinking it not fit to stay in a place ubi fraterna Cladis tam recens fervebat invidia Then he adds That though the Monks ought likely to have obey'd the Bishops yet on the other side they ought not to have us'd so great a Rigor Here is not a word of Theophilus his Crimes which he would not have dissembled having so fair an Occasion to mention to mention them and they would have been very proper Reasons for his Refusal to stay at Alexandria and would have very much aggravated the Envy of persecuting those Monks Theophilus But here is not a word of Him which the other Bishops are not as nearly concern'd in as himself and lastly here is a plain Confutation of that pretty Story of Socrates That the Origenists were persecuted for believing God to be incorporeal whereas they were the Errors of Origen as that Christ had dyed to save the Devils and such like that the Bishops objected And to say Truth that was a pretty Suggestion that they should be call'd Origenists for holding God incorporeal Was Origen singular in that point Did not every one that ever had any Reason with his Sense teach the same thing And therefore the other Story of the Anthropomorphites urging Theophilus to condemn Origen upon the same Account comes under the same Suspition for by the same Reason they must have forc'd him to condemn all the Ecclesiastical Writers in the World Yet such was the Impudence of these mutinous Monks that they were not asham'd to tell it all the World that all those that were against them were Anthropomorphites Hieron Johan And Chrysostom was so credulous as to believe them and to charge Epiphanius with that Error to which no man was a more bitter Enemy Whereas the Controversie was indeed whether Origen's Works were to be read and this was started sometime before Theophilus was concern'd in it Ep. ad Tranquil 76. Edic Mar. Victorii as appears by St. Hierom who in a Letter to Tranquillinus condemns the passionate Haters and admires of Origen he allows him to be read sometimes for his great Learning as Tertullian Novatus Arnobius Apollinaris but with Caution that we choose the Good and avoid the Evil But if these Passionate Friends and Enemies of Origen will be in the Extream and will either reject the whole as Faustinus or receive and approve the whole and admit no mean his Determination is Libentius piam rusticitatem quam doctam blasphemiam Eligam which shews the Controversie between the Orthodox and the Origenists and serves likewise to vindicate St. Hierom from the Imputation of having prevaricated in this case Sulp. Sev. D. 1. Ruffin Inv. as he is charg'd by Posthumianus and Ruffinus as if once he had been an Origenist himself and that this Letter was writ before the Troubles about that Question in Alexandria is clear from the fathering of that Opinion upon Faustinus which he would never have done if it had so great Patrons as Theophilus and the Authority of several Synods to confirm it And whereas Theophilus is represented so odiously by credible Socrates and the Character is believ'd by credulous Mr. B. it will not be amiss to see what other as credible men as any of his Enemies say of him whether in general or with Relation to the Condemnation of the Origenists St. Hierom blames him for his too great Moderation in this Particular Ep. 68. Super Nefaria haeresi quod multam patientiam geris putas Ecclesiae visceribus incubantes tuâ posse corrigi lenitate multis sanctis displicet ne dum paucorum paenitentiam praestolaris nutrias audaciam perditorum factio robustior fiat This does by no means agree with Mr. B's Authors who intimate as if he had circumvented and surpriz'd them And in another
who were the Authors of the death of Hypatia Some says he fasten it upon Cyril others upon the Alexandrians the most seditious of all mankind as may be seen by their murdering some of their own Bishops all which I suppose are the words of this Damascius Then he goes on to give a more particular account of this Woman and makes Cyril to conceive this envy against her because on a certain time passing by her house and seeing what great resort there was to her and what a number of Coaches were at her door he resolved to make her away This whole story is altogether improbable for Hypatia was an Alexandrian born and bred and so publickly known that Cyril who was bred in the same place could not be so great a stranger to her as that story makes him to be after he was a Bishop He could not be ignorant of her or her School without being the greatest stranger in Alexandria In short this is no other than a calumny invented by this Damascius to render the Christians odious which he endeavoured to do upon all occasions as Photius tells us Bibliotheca l. 180. For this is the character he gives of this Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that frequently snarls at our religion though he be afraid to discover his malice too plainly After this to render Cyril more odious yet our Author reproaches him with that unhappy quarrel with Chrysostome 〈…〉 Atâ—â—â— and his opposition to the restoring his name to the diptychs of the Church and his harsh expression that compares that holy man with Judas This quarrel was it seems hereditary to him and he did prosecute it beyond all equity or decency against the memory of a dead man This was a fault and he that is without any or without any particular animosity especially if he be in any eminent place let him cast the first stone But our Author does charge him with some things injuriously as his calling Alexander Bishop of Antioch that perswaded Atticus to restore Chrysostoms name a bold-fac'd man the word though us'd by Cyril in his Letter to Atticus is indeed the expression of Atticus in his Letter to Cyril and therefore if there be any indecency in it it 's to be imputed to the first Author But however Cyril had behaved himself in this affair it is a little unchristian to blast his memory with those faults he had corrected in his life time for though our Author affirms that no credible Historian tells us that either Theophilus or Cyril ever repented of this yet I believe there is sufficient evidence to the contrary to perswade any reasonable man For besides that Socrates affirms Theophilus before his death to have been reconcil'd to those Monks upon whose account he had quarrel'd with Chrysostome Cyrils Letter to Gennadius shews him to have been satisfy'd in the business of Chrysostome's Honourable Restauration to the Diptychs Gennadius was a Presbyter of the Church of C. P. and refus'd to communicate with Proclus his Bishop for receiving the Bishop of Elia into his communion contrary to the Canons Ep. Cyril ad Gennad which do not own that Bishop as Palaestinae praepositum Here Cyril urges very peaceably that the rigour of the Canons must oftentimes give way to peace and expedience whence it appears 1. That he had chang'd his mind as to the necessary maintenance of the Canons rather than remit any point that would conduce to peace which was his arguing with Atticus 2. It appears from hence that he held communion with Proclus else he had never been so urgent with this Presbyter to communicate with his Bishop 3. That this communion with Proclus supposes him satisfy'd in the restitution of Chrysostom For this Proclus had not only kept his name in the Diptychs but fetch'd home his bones and so ended that Schism of the Joannâ—â—â— so that Cyril must by this have chang'◠〈◊〉 judgement concerning Chrysostom Nâ—â—â—â—is Letter to Atticus which our Authâ—â— cites lays the greatest stress upon this argument that it will be dangerous to restore his name because it may divide the world again since the greatest part had expung'd it out of their Diptychs and could not easily be brought either to re-admit it or to communicate with those that did But finding the contrary it seems he follow'd the examples of other Churches The fiction of Nicephorus about Cyril's Vision was I suppose invented to salve the reputation of Cyril For since after so great opposition he chang'd his mind to remove from him the imputation of levity and to shew that he was carry'd away sincerely and by an invincible mistake he must be reconciled by a miracle However it were whether Cyril repented of this fault or no our Author cannot forbear exclaiming upon the occasion of Cyril's restoring the name of Chrysostom by the authority of a Synod O ductile Synods O unhappy Churches whose Pastors must grow wise and cease destroying after so long sunning and by an experience which costeth the Church so dear It had been doubtless much better there never had happened any difference between the Pastors of the Church but what Church has been so happy what government can secure this uninterrupted Peace Surely our Author cannot pretend to exempt himself from the lash of his own exclamations for I know no man deeper engag'd in the contentions of the Church or that has writ with greater bitterness on all such occasions The writing of a great part of his 80 books being but like so many pitch'd battels he has fought and most commonly in the dark when he was hardly able to discover friend from foe if he scorns to be so ductile as these Synods and to recant his mistakes when they are discover'd to him I pray God give him a better mind and make him to have a more honourable opinion of repentance The last part of Cyril's accusation is taken out of Isidore's Epistles §. 6. some of which are very sharp yet I believe when the Reader shall have weigh'd the circumstances duly this will be no great offence to him Isidore was certainly a good man but very easie to take any impressions and hot in his reproofs this may be evidently seen in his dealing with Cyril For he reproves him in one place for prosecuting his private quarrels against Nestorius l. 1. Ep. 310. under pretence of Zeal for the faith yet the same Author in another place advises him not to betray l. 1. Ep. 324. and give up the cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rather to suffer any evil that might befal him than to endure so much as to hear false and pernicious doctrines So that the same Isidore who reproaches this man upon a false information retracts afterwards and gives him commendations no less extravagant than the reproofs he us'd towards him before for he is very large and passionate in his commendation when he recommends to him the miserable estate of the Church of
Pelusuim l. 2. Ep. 126. into which it was brought by the covetousness and ambition of one Martinianus a Presbyter If. Pel. l. 2. Ep. 126. O thou best of men it belongs to thy Wisdom and Authority to rescue the poor Church of Pelusium from the Hands of evil Governours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor is this only a general complement but he goes on to mention particular instances of his integrity against this Martinianus who after he had robb'd the Church of Pelusium sent some part of the money to Alexandria to endeavour to procure himself the Bishoprick Cyril having intimation of this practice rebukes him sharply and threatens if he go on any further in this base course so dishonourable to Religion that he will not only excommunicate but have him banish'd Whereupon Isidore applys himself to him in expressions of the greatest admiration of his integrity and does not know how to call him by a title good enough What Compe'lation shall I use that may be suitable to so great worth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whoever is the least acquainted with the Spirit and temper of Isidore will hardly suspect him of flattery but that he was the real Convert of this great Bishop and by these commendations of him endeavoured to make honourable amends and to wash off the dirt he had before rashly cast upon his name If I should take the pains to gather the hands of the Fathers and to set down the glorious testimonials they give of Cyril I believe few Saints could shew greater evidence of their merit towards the Church Gloriosissimus fidei Catholicae Defensor Prosper contra collat c. 41. Celest Ep. ad Nest §. 5. and Cyrillus Alexandriae Episcopus vir omni sapientia Sanctitatis exemplo clarissimus probatissimus Sacerdos c. But Theodoret it seems was never truly reconcil'd to him for in his Epistle to Johannes Antioch he looks upon the death of Cyril as a deliverance of the Church from a turbulent enemy of Peace But God only knows says our Author Yes sure there are men that know it too though not Mr. Baxter They that are a little more vers'd in the writings of the Fathers know very well Baron An. 44016. that this Epistle is spurious and that John to whom it was directed was dead four years before which Theodoret could not but know And it is very well known that the Nestorians forg'd several Letters in the name of Theodoret. Leont de Sect. Sect. 5. In short nothing can be a plainer confutation of this Fiction than Theodorets own Letter to Dioscorus the successor of Cyril where besides that he does shew John to be dead seven years before the time of the writing of that Letter Theod. Ep. ad Diosc he does also make it appear that there was a full and sincere reconciliation between him and Cyril before his death That Cyril when he had written his Books against Julian the Apostate and another about the Scape-Goat before he publish'd them sent them to John Bishop of Antioch to communicate them with the greatest Scholars of the East He sent them to me says Theodoret and I read them and sent him an account of them and I received Letters from him after that Ad Flavian which I have still by me And the same man in another Letter gives an account of this to Dioscorus that he had sent to him to acquaint him that he persevered still in that league that had been made between Cyril of happy memory and the Eastern Churches And now let any man judge whether this forg'd Letter that goes under the name of Theodoret be not as great an injury to him as it is to Cyril But with our Author that weeds Church-History any fiction or imposture is authentick that does but contain some scandalous reflections upon great Bishops and this seems to be the mark that directs his choice all along I have been more particular in the Vindication of this great Bishop from those calumnies our Author raked out of all the Libels of his Enemies because all this seems to be brought in on purpose to lessen the reputation of the Council of Ephesus that was chiefly directed by the authority of Cyril and that you may not take this for an uncertain conjecture of his design he explains himself But pardon truth or be deceived still ignorance and pride p. 94. sect 20. and envy and faction and desire to please the Court made Cyril and his party by quarrelsome Heretication to kindle that lamentable flame in the world Can any man that has any ingenuity or knowledge of those times affirm this How could this gratifie the Court since the Emperour was so highly offended with the contention that he ordered Cyril to be imprison'd and was extreamly dissatisfy'd with both parties Or how can that be the effect of Cyril's Envy or Ambition which he himself did endeavour to prevent by all the amicable methods imaginable as may be seen by his Letters to Nestorius But if the Reader will not blindly engage in all the groundless jealousies and malicious suggestions of our Author then he has much ado to forbear calling him Fool but however he dismisses him with that which is equivalent Let him be deceived still as if every one that had any more charitable opinion of Bishops and Councils than he that seems to have read little more than what Binnius has of them lov'd to be deceiv'd and shut his Eyes against the greatest evidence in the World Before we enter upon the Council of Ephesus it is fit some notice should be taken of our Authors account of Nestorius The worst thing he can say of him is That he was hot against Hereticks and desired the assistance of the Civil Magistrate to suppress them that he went about to pull down the Church of the Arians and they set it on fire themselves and then call'd him Firebrand when themselves were the Incendiaries he vex'd the Novatians c. After all we have this Remark Thus Turbulent Hereticators must have the Sword do the work of the Word When our Author lays about him he never minds where the blow falls and deals alike to friends and foes What Hereticators were hotter than the Presbyterians in the year 1646 the Inquisition is not more severe than their Ordinance against Heresies Ordinance against Heresie and Blasphemy presented to the House of Commons which they desir'd should be made Felony and punish'd by death And of other opinions that were to be punish'd by imprisonment were there not many that are yet in dispute between the Reformed themselves Nay he that vindicates that Bloody Ordinance as the Independents call'd it does complain against the Bishops for not being severe enough in the eradication of Heresies Vindication of the Ordin against Heresie p. 23. Impr. James Cranford I will set down the words because they are something remarkable In the Bishops times there were some Arians and
only and not the divine nature but nothing can be plainer than this That there is a vast difference or distance between the divinity and humanity of Christ l. 2. contra Nestor I must needs confess for they are different things that are signify'd by these two names as to what regards their essence and have nothing the one like the other and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Vnion does admit a difference but excludes all division Ep. ad Nest and lastly he shews the absurdity of rejecting this Hypostatical Vnion as incomprehensible because it will unavoidably force us to allow two Sons the Son of Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by himself and the Son of God again by himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he plainly confutes If this does not sufficiently declare two natures subsisting in one person it is not in the power of words to do it Thus was he understood by all the world excepting only the Eastern Bishops who had a quarrel against him and therefore were resolv'd to cavil and even these at last were reconcil'd to his expressions Thus the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon understood him and the Catholick Church ever since yet all this it seems could not prevail with Derodon who in opposition to almost all the world maintains his Paradox that Cyril taught the same doctrine with Eutyches and that Nestorius was in the right For this purpose he cites out of Cyril several passages that affirm Christ to have but one nature and this is that which was condemn'd in Eutyches It is true indeed that Cyril does frequently own but one nature but it is to be observ'd that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his sense is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by both he means nothing but a real Union in opposition to an imaginary notional one which Nestorius did maintain This may be easily observ'd by comparing all those places where he affirms but one nature with those already alledg'd that expresly affirm the contrary But besides this if he shall be allow'd to explain himself the matter will be soon decided 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Natural that is Confir Anath 3. a real Union When Acacius presses him with the Confessions of the Orthodox Ep. ad Acacium that own two natures in Christ and that those Divines do express this difference because there really is one between the Natures Cyril answers that he does by no means take away these terms of distinction but condemns the wrong application of them so as that one should be apply'd to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other to the Son of the Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is so as to divide the person and to make the Son of the Virgin different from the Son of God therefore says he there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature of the word but of the word incarnate i. e. one hypostasis For so he explains himself in the conclusion of that answer that those Orthodox that mention two natures and he are all of the same opinion for since there is but one Son one God and Lord so it is that we and they do confess one person only for that was his design by the expression of one nature and that those things that belong to the Divinity and those which belong to the Humanity must be all ascrib'd to one Christ and justifying himself against such as suspected him of confounding the two natures in Christ Ibid. he denies that ever he took away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And John Bishop of Antioch willing to express the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though he disowns to be his own words but that John express'd himself after that manner yet he receives the sense of them that several things are to be understood of Christ as Man and others of him as God yet that the Godhead and the Manhood make but one Christ In what sense Cyril affirm'd one nature appears further from what he condemn'd in Nestorius and others Cyr. Ep. cum 12. Anath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not dividing and separating God from man as part from part nor yet joyning them together by an Vnity only of honour and authority this was it that he charg'd Nestorius with and from which he never did so much as endeavour to vindicate himself Whereupon Cyril urges that unity of dignity or honour does not imply personal union and parity of authority does not unite nature for Peter and John may be of the same authority and dignity and yet they are not one but two persons besides this he rejects another way of Union 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a participation of divine graces as holy men are said to be united to God upon which account he does reject frequently this expression that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he no less rejects the way of artificial conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being very improper to express this hypostatical union of Christ But that which he thinks comes nearest to illustrate this Union is that conjunction of body and soul in man which is a concourse of two very different natures which yet make but one man this is one of the greatest arguments to prove him a Heretick but if this will serve to do it most of the Fathers that wrote upon this subject must be Hereticks as well as he since they all make use of this illustration Yet though he were singular in this instance it would by no means conclude him in the Heresie of Eutyches for those things that are brought to illustrate are not necessarily required to be like the things they are to illustrate in every point What Cyril concludes is only this that as the Body and Soul make one Man so God and Man makes one Christ and this is the composition that he means which will be easily understood by comparing this with other passages of Cyril If he judg'd that Christ had but one only nature resulting out of that Composition like that of Man then it must be either the divine nature which had taken the humane into it self or that the divinity should be chang'd into his humanity or some third nature that must result from both all which he equally abhorrs for notwithstanding the incarnation Ep. ad Nest ad Acac. ad Joh. 12. Anathim ad Success he affirms expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the humanity he affirms it still remains because there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no mixture no changing of it into another nature 3. In the Composition of man there is one form joyn'd to matter which makes the unity of nature but in the hypostatical union the man retains his proper form according to Cyril who denys that the word informs the body of the man but that it is Corpus animatum a body endu'd with reason and understanding So that it appears plainly by the doctrine of
duos filios dicere sic enim nos feâ—erunt in hoc opere dicentes quod oporteat putare dicere duos filios vehementer nos illum Sermonem defendere dum nos in illâ Scripturâ manifestè ubique diceremus quod non oporteat duos filios dicere The summ is that those Hereticks that could not confute his books resolv'd to corrupt them and foisted strange doctrines that he abhorr'd as that we must own two sons in Christ and this cheat was carry'd on with that Impudence that they shew'd these interlopations to some of the Bishops own Congregation who were carry'd away with it at first but were recover'd by the Bishops reproof that they should be so foolishly credulous as to give greater credit to these writings than to what they heard him daily preach in the Church If then those that were so near Theodore were impos'd upon by this cheat of the Arians what wonder if Cyril should light upon corrupted Copies at that distance of time and place and take that for the doctrine of Theodore that was but the Interpolation of those Hereticks But this is not all Theodore had several expressions of his own that might be justly suspected of implying Two sons so that Sirmond in his note upon that passage where he disowns two sons remarks duos tamen imprudenter statuit l. 10. and he himself confesses that he was too negligent in his first writings Non quantum oportuit habuimus circa istam rem diligentiam passi enim sumus quaecunque incipientes ut evenit in imperitiâ scribendi constituti siquidem multas immutationes illo tempore quae nostra sunt susceperunt Sup. Ex. quas non est praesentis temporis enarrare ex quâ causa magis negligenter à nobis composita sunt plurima And to let you see that Theodore l. 10. c. 2. how Orthodox soever his meaning was us'd sometime suspected and dangerous expressions the same Author cites the Epistle of John Bishop of Antioch to Nestorius where he proposes to him the example of his own Master Theodore who in a publick exposition having dropp'd some words that gave offence to several persons and among others to Nestorius himself he made no difficulty to retract it Where we may observe by the way that John's Epistle is to be corrected from this passage of Facundus and Theodorus put instead of Paulus that was in all the Copies of that Epistle that had been compar'd before the 〈◊〉 Edition of that Council L'abbé T. 3. p. 391. part 1. c. 25. but L'abbé reâ—â—â—â—s Theodorus out of Segniers Copy Let us return now to Facundus he urges from this passage that Nestorius never made use of the authority of his Master for his defence which he would probably have done had he not been conscious to himself of having departed from his doctrines However Theodorus be Orthodox Cyr. Ep. ad Success yet Cyril did not find fault with him without reason his expressions were harsh and that was all he objected to him and added that if he were alive and did not explain himself more Orthodoxly and more commodiously he deserv'd to be condemn'd In short he wrote against the Apollinarists that confounded the natures in Christ and as it often falls out while he avoided one extreme he seem'd to fall into another This was Cyril's own case who to assert a real Union call'd it Natural and asserted one nature meaning by it but one person but that term he thought not sufficient since Nestorius endeavour'd to shelter himself under the ambiguity of the term thus St. Austin writing against the Manichees seems to be of one mind and writing against the Pelagians of another and although he endeavour here to reconcile his own writings yet if the same things seeming so contradictory had been maintain'd in those terms by two several persons it is great odds but they would have fallen out So hard it is to keep steady between two extremes when the subject is nice and difficult and it is not easie to find terms that are proper and distinctive Having given this account of the doctrine of Cyril and Nestorius I will give the Reader a short view of the Proceedings of this Council which our Author represents with his wonted candour and ingenuity Sacra Imper ad Episc Metrop The Emperour in his Writs for the calling of this Council commanded the Bishops to be at Ephesus before Pentecost They hore date 15 cal Decembr and doubtless came time enough to the most remote parts of the Empire and they do particularly direct that after Easter they immediately put themselves upon their journey implying that the time between Easter and Whitsontide was sufficient for the remotest Bishops to perform their journey Cyril and Nestorius and near two hundred Bishops were there at the time appointed Ep. Joh. ad Cyril John Bishop of Antioch stuck by the way some of his company falling sick and several of their Horses dying and sent notice of it to Cyril and the Synod The Bishops that were met were inclin'd to open the Council immediately in obedience to the Emperours command many of them had come from far Ep. Synod ad Imp. some of them did not enjoy their health in that place and many were poor and could not endure the expence of a long stay besides that they were number enough and it was not fit that about two hundred Bishops should stay for thirty and stop all proceedings to wait their arrival These therefore make their applications to Cyril and press him to proceed he gave them good words and desir'd them to have patience for some time for it would not be long e're John and the Eastern Bishops would come who were already upon their way and not far from the place he deferr'd their sitting therefore for sixteen days longer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Eastern Bishops still delaying he was obliged to comply with the Importunities of the Synod and John had sent two Bishops before to desire Cyril to go on Alexander Apam Alexander Hierap and not to stay for him upon this Cyril thinking all were satisfy'd open'd the Synod on the 22 of June The 22 of June falls exactly at the end of the sixteen days allow'd by the Synod Nestorius was summon'd to give an account of his faith he sent a surly answer that he would consider and do as he thought fit the next day they sent others to him but now he had fortify'd himself in his house and got a guard of Souldiers and treated those that were sent to him rudely and unworthily So that now there was no other means than to examine his doctrine out of his writings Ep. Synod ad Imp. which being judg'd by the Council to be dangerous and destructive of the incarnation and unity of Christ he was condemned I cannot see any thing in all this proceeding that is very blameable and John had no reason
made most for his defence and taking that part which was most liable to Exception The Leading men says he lead us on as simple ignorant men that knew not the cause and frighted us by defaming us as Nestorian Hereticks Thus Mr. B. But the most considerable circumstances are omitted for Theodore says they were impos'd upon at first by such Acts as seem'd to speak favourably of Flavian that afterwards they were threatned by Dioscorus his party not only making them of near kin with Nestorius but adding Cut them in sunder that say two natures dividite interficite ejicite cleave them kill them cast them out They were forty two of one hundred and thirty which made up that Council who dissented from Dioscorus and his party at first but could have no free debate and these with this violent usage were soon reduc'd to fifteen and they at last were forc'd to subscribe a blank paper to save not only their Churches but their lives And Thus says Mr. B. they cry'd they were frighted p. 101. And surely they had great reason to be so Such as though it could not justifie them for acting against their Conscience yet might move pity in men that have any compassion of humane infirmity considering that they also are subject to the like let him that standeth have a care lest he fall The Egyptian Bishops answered that a Christian fears no man a Catholick Orthodox fears no man if men were fear'd there would be no Martyrs It is much easier to say than hold There have several gone to discover themselves to the Heathen Judges with the intention and confidence of Martyrs p. 101. that were yet so frighted as to renounce their Religion before they came away Upon the reading of the Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus it appear'd how things were carried Mr. B. makes the best use he can of them to disgrace the Bishops the first thing he takes notice of is Dioscorus his words Anathematizing any that should contradict or retract any thing held in the Nicence Synod There is a foul mistake for want of a little Latin and a little ingenuity for Dioscorus says not one word of contradicting or retracting the Council of Nice All the debate was whether the Council of Nice had explain'd the faith fully so as to need no farther authentick explication The Synod is for this and will have no Additions and let him be Anathema 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that goes beyond the bounds given by the Fathers and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let no man add or diminish Dioscorus adds what a fearful thing it will be to offend against God in this particular and that he is Anathema that shall presume to examine or discuss or revise the faith agreed on in the Council of Nice or here The Latin Translator has indeed retractat which Mr. B. translates retract as if it were the recantation of what was done in this Council that they provided against But the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. Labb T. 4. p. 32. Examining of a thing anew and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyn'd with it So that as to this point they were all agreed and so in the succeeding Councils likewise that nothing was to be added to the Nicene faith but since new opinions were daily started they might examine whether they agreed with that faith and did not directly or consequentially destroy it and all this does not add any thing but only apply emergent cases to the old unalterable Rule Here Eutyches his confession at Ephesus was read p. 101. sect 18. saith our Author But as we have mention'd before in the Council of C. P. under Flavian it was only the Nicene Creed without those additions that it afterwards generally receiv'd in opposition to Apollinaris and Macedonius c. How far this may secure the Church from Heresie the multitude of Heresies that sprung after whereof the greater part would willingly be try'd by the Nicence Creed do sufficiently shew Eutyches adds Ch. Hist p. 101. that he cleav'd to the Ephesine Council and to Cyril who presided disclaiming all additions and alterations professing that he had himself Copies in a book which Cyril himself had sent him and which is yet in his hands and that he stands to the definition of that Council together with that of Nice One may very well ask here what all this means What is this that Eutyches disclaims all additions to and alterations of What Copies are these that Eutyches had by him and what definition of that Council does he join with that of Nice Here is nothing but nonsense and confusion The case is thus Eutyches gave the Nicene Creed for his faith and acknowledg'd the Council of Ephesus and Cyril and farther adds that Cyril and the Council of Ephesus pass'd a decree that nothing should be added to the Nicene Creed and that he had a Copy of that decree by him Eusebius Doryl gives him the lye and says there was no such decree past The Truth is such a thing there was and is still extant in the Acts of that Council but not altogether to that purpose Conc. Lab. T. 3. p. 689. for which Eutyches does mention it The design of that decree is only this that the Nicene Creed shall be the only publick form and that no other be taught to such as are Converted from Jews or Hereticks or Infidels but that this form should stand unalter'd which is no more than if we should determine that no Article should be added to that which is call'd the Apostles Creed which is the common form of our solemn confession of faith and that no Bishop or Minister should devise new forms to be us'd in its stead This is the design of that Decree and Cyril could mean no otherwise for if any one should teach new doctrines that might not be absolutely contradictory to the express words of that Creed yet he should be condemn'd though he still own'd that Confession of Faith Nestorius his case was of that sort and therefore the Synod says Con. Eph. Act. 6. T. 3. p. 671. that since several do shelter themselves under the generals of this Creed and put their own construction upon the Articles they were to be confuted out of the Fathers and so Nestorius was condemn'd notwithstanding he profess'd to receive the Nicene Creed Our Author goes on p. 102. sect and tells his Reader When Basil Bishop of Seleucia is reproach'd by Dioscorus for having prevaricated and despis'd the saith for the fear of men He makes this Answer If I have been call'd to Martyrdome before the Judges I had endured it Act. 1. but he that is judged of a Father useth just means it is the contrary which that Bishop says justis non utitur does not make use even of all lawful means to vindicate himself After this the Eastern Bishops cry'd We have all sinned we all crave pardon and
Council in the West since they would not determine this present Controversie Upon which Cecropius Bishop of Sebaestopolis said We desire the Definition may be read and then those that will not subscribe and conform to rightful Determinations let them walk to Rome i. e. to that General Council which the Emperour threatened to call in the West And the Illyrican Bishops seconded this Motion Those that contradict are Nestorians let them walk to Rome What manner of slight this was is not easily guess'd at the worst these Bishops did no more slight Rome than Cecropius did the West whither he bid Dissenters walk to be satisfy'd In the next Paragraph our Author makes Theodoret speak what was never in his §. 26. thoughts nor indeed in any honest mans Theodoret said I take not my self to say true but I know I please God These are not Theodoret's but Mr. B.'s words and very applicable to himself and his Church History For as mean an opinion as I have of his knowledge in Church History I doubt not he can read Latin when he had the book before him and yet when he does that I am afraid that many times He takes not himself to say true But perhaps he may be of opinion that a pious fraud may be accepted and that by calumniating the Bishops whom he takes for Enemies to the Kingdom of Christ and gratifyers of the Devil he may please God Disp 1. of Ch. Gov. I cannot clear him of that in other places so well as in this Here our Authors fault was only ignorance of theodorets language or a mistake of his Latin Translation which I shall rectifie for it is pity the good Father should suffer by it His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in English In good truth I do not speak but as I know is pleasing to God The Latin Translation puzled our Author Vere i. e. reverà non dico nisi quomodo novi placere Deo The next words of our Author do as much wrong the sense though not so much the Reputation of Theodoret I would first satisfie you of my belief whereas Theodoret said only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. I would perswade you in the first place that I regard not preferment The Latin thus Priùs satisfactio vobis quia neque de civitate cogito c. And at last after a great deal of that debate about Theodoret our Author concludes do not these words here Translated out of Binius agree too well with Gregory Nazianzen 's character of Bishops and their Councils How well they may agree with Nazianzen is not so material but they should have agreed better either with the Original or at least with the Translation out of which our Author Translated them and yet for all this our Author will understand all these Greek Bishops better than they did one another or even themselves In the next place we have an account of Ibas Bishop of Edessa p. 108. sect 28. His Epistle to Maris against Cyril was acquitted at least the Bishop upon the reading of it It is a sad Narrative of the Calamitous Divisions which these Prelates and their Councils made In the first place there is no truth in what our Author says that this Epistle was acquitted for the Council says no such thing In the next place Ibas was not acquitted upon the reading of this Act. 10. Con. Chalc. any more than a prisoner is acquitted upon the reading of his Impeachment but he was upon the defence he made that he communicated with Cyril and receiv'd his Orthodox interpretation of those twelve Articles which before he thought to be full of Impiety Baronius An. 432. deceiv'd by Gregory the Great Gregor l. 7. Ep. 53. Act. 6. and the Acts of the Second Council of Nice concludes this Epistle to be forg'd and falsely father'd upon Ibas but Anno 448. he recants and owns it to be genuine The truth is Ibas himself never pretended to disown it neither at Tyre nor Berytus nor Chalcedon where this was objected against him but confessed that before Cyril explain'd himself he thought him a Heretick and follow'd the Judgement of the Eastern Bishops Some say this Epistle was written whilest Ibas was a Nestorian before the Reconciliation but the words of that letter are express to the contrary for it mentions the Union and Peace of the Churches by the means of Paulus Emissenus How then comes he to give such an odious account of Cyril and the proceedings of the Council of Ephesus The Truth is the Eastern Bishops were not so ingenuous and fair after their Reconciliation with Cyril as he was towards them however he goes in Mr. B.'s History under so odious a character Who ever reads his Letters to Nestorius and to John of Antioch and considers with what candour he acts must needs see that he had very hard measure from those whom he treated with great ingenuity and confidence The Eastern men are still upon the disparagement of Cyril's proceedings and the vindication of themselves with what Truth or Reason has been shew'd already and Ibas here pursues the same prejudices and would insinuate that his party had the Right and Cyril was their Convert But if here was any change of opinion on either side it was on theirs for first they joyn'd with Nestorius and afterwards condemn'd him Yet this Epistle of Ibas shews that there was a core left still In the eleventh Action p. 109. sect 29. two Bishops Bassia nus and Stephen strive for the Bishoprick of Ephesus And saith our Author while the Bishops were for one of them the Judges pass'd sentence to cast out both One would imagine here that the Judges pass'd sentence against the consent or inclination of the Bishops But there is no such matter it was not the Judges but the Bishops past this sentence Act. 11. When the cause of these two Bishops was examin'd the Judges propounded it to the Bishops to determine of the right that was in Dispute the Bishops answer'd that the right was on Bassianus his side let the Ganons take place for Bassianus was the first Possessour The Judges represented to them that in their opinion neither of them were fit to be continu'd Bishops yet referr'd the whole matter to the Council to determine as it should think fit And this Mr. B. calls passing a sentence while the Bishops were against it The Bishops finding that Stephen was not like to carry the cause for they had no great favour for him because he had been a very active Instrument of Dioscorus in the second Council of Ephesus willingly consented the other should be turn'd out too and were so extremely satisfy'd with this expedient that they cry'd it up presently and own'd it to be a Divine suggestion and so the Bishops who Mr. B. says were for one did indeed pass sentence against both Competitors At last our Author enquires after the success of all
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
surely never seen it with his eyes open That these gifts were not had in any so great esteem then Apologia pro sentent Hieron Praefat. but all went by seniority and of the Colledge of Presbyters the Senior was as it were the Bishop and when he dy'd the next by seniority took the chair without any more ado no Election or Ordination being necessary If this answer does not satisfie I must profess I cannot help it for want of Authors that speak particularly of these matters All that I can affirm is that the Ancients talk of Bishops in every age up to the Apostles times and make these Bishops their successours but of the occasions of their promotion there is not a word only St. Jerom a great while after their institution ascrib'd it to the inconveniences which parity produc'd But as to the time Mr. B. tells us Treat of Ep. Part 1. c 3. p. 15. Hieron Catalog Scr. in Marco Euseb Chr. Hieron Ep. ad Evagr. But as to the time Mr. B. tells us That if Hierom mistake not it began at Alexandria some years before the death of St. John the Apostle If Mr. B. do's not mistake St. Jerom which is almost impossible he must know that Mark dy'd in the eighth year of Nero which answers the 63. of our Lord. Several years not only before St. John's death but before St. Pauls and before almost any of the Apostles So ancient is Episcopacy at Alexandria according to St. Jerom. His words are these Nam Alexandria a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant i. e. from the Death of St. Mark which Jerom following Eusebius places in the eighth year of Nero to Dionysius and Heraclas the Presbyters elected their Bishops out of their own body And this some years i. e. almost forty before the death of St. John But does Jerom make this the first Original of Episcopacy surely Mr. B. mistakes him For he makes the divisions of the Church some saying I am of Paul and I am of Apollos and I of Cephas to be the first occasion of this institution and these divisions happened in the Church of Corinth many years before St. Marks death An. Chr. 52. and that we may not think Hierom speaks this by a figure to express such divisions as followed afterwards in imitation of those of Corinth he instances some particulars that require them to be understood of that particular dissension among the Corinthians for he adds After that every one thought those whom he Baptized to be his own and to belong peculiarly to himself Which St. Paul mentions and confutes and thanks God that he had Baptized but few lest they should say He Baptized in his own name Now this determination of the Apostle that Baptizing of Converts did not give the Baptizer any right to Govern them and that they ought not to bear any name of relation to him but his name only in which they were Baptized it is unlikely that this controversy should revive after so clear a determination and therefore the Original of Episcopacy in St. Jerom's opinion must be referred to those dissensions in the Church of Corinth For which he fancies this remedy to have been provided And I cannot but wonder at Blondel Apol. p. 3. who makes St. Jerom to speak in this place of things done almost a hundred years after An. 140. when but a few lines before this passage he shews Episcopacy to have been set up in Alexandria immediately after the death of St. Mark i. e about eleven years after this division in the Church of Corinth Having considered the summ of Mr. B.'s account of the Original of Episcopacy which is partly Fiction partly a mistaking or mincing of St. Hierom I shall proceed to give an Historical account of the rise of Diocesan Episcopacy out of the Scriptures and Antiquity as far as I am able to trace it hoping that some others better acquainted with the Ancients may some time or other give a more full and perfect Deduction Our Blessed Saviour a 1 Pet. 2.25 The Bishop of our Souls laid the first foundation of his Church by his own Preaching b Luke 4.15 Matth. 4.12 Mark 1.14 in the Synagogues of Galilee where he was approved and glorified by all that heard him and now having entred upon that great undertaking of reducing the World to the obedience of faith c Matt. 4.18 Luke 6.13 John 6.70 he made choice out of his followers and Disciples of such Persons as he thought fit to instruct more particularly in the knowledge and to commit to them the great work of the conversion of the World Whom he call'd Apostles d Matt. 13.11 Mark 4.11 Luk. 8.10 e Luke 5.11.28 Matt. 19.27.28 Mark 10.28 Luke 22.28 These as more specially devoted to him did constantly attend his Person and follow him whither ever he went f John 2.11.4.53.11.45 And after that he had converted several out of the great multitudes that followed him by the excellence of his Doctrine and the conviction of his Miracles he gave these Apostles g Joh. 21 15 16. Commission to take care of that Flock which was already gathered to increase it not only by finishing the Conversion of such as the found of his Gospel and the Fame of his miracles had already disposed to receive the Gospel but to propagate it to the ends of the Earth h Matt. 28.19 Mark 16.15 and to Preach to all Nations When he had justified his Doctrine as well as us by his death and resurrection The i Luke 1â— 32 flock of the Church was yet but very small and Peter though he were now allow'd to be universal â—â—stor might easily discharge his duty k 1 Cor. 15.6 The greatest number we read of between â—he Resurrection and Ascension is but â—oo l Actâ— 1.15 and at Jerusalem when they met toâ—ether they were but about a hundred and â—â—enty But it was not long before these â—â—all beginnings this grain of Mustard feed grew up with a prodigious and surprizing increase m Acts 2.41 for on the following Pâ—ntecost there were added unto them about three hundred Souls The first fruits of the Spirit who must be supposed to have been converted not all by the Sermon of St. Peter but by the n Acts 2.4 6 7 8. Ministry of the other Apostles and the number of the Converts makes it more probable that the multitude was divided into several Audiences since the o Acts. 1.13.2.2 upper Room where they were assembled could not hold so great an assembly This accession made the Church too big for the house where it first assembled and the Disciples having yet no publick places of meeting but obliged to p Acts 2.46 break bread from house to house they were by this means divided into several Congregations
they believed they were Baptized both Men and Women Now the Apostles who remained in Jerusalem when they heard of this success send Peter and John thither who confirm the believers by imposition of hands and why could not Philip do this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphan he could dispossess unclean Spirits and heal all manner of diseases he could Preach powerfully so as to Convert in a manner a whole City and why could not he do all other Acts that were useful to the Church but that these Apostles must be taking Authority upon them in his Church it is something like Diocesan Prelacy to reserve any Acts of Order or Discipline to themselves yet so it was that the holy Ghost was not given 〈◊〉 by their hands and what kind of Government they established there Chrysost Oecumenius Theophylact. does not appear and some pretend to give reasons why they did not appoint a Clergy there as afterwards they did in other places because they say that Samaria was near enough to Jerusalem where the whole Council of the Apostles did reside and thither their Bishop or Presbyters might repair for more solemn Ordination And that we may not think meaner of the success of the Apostles Ministry than we ought and measure it by the progress of Sectaries as Anabaptists and Quakers as Mr. B. does with too much disparagement to the first Planters of Christian Religion St. Luke gives us a short account of loâ—e visitation of St. Peter that lets us see hoâ— wonderfully the Gospel prevail'd at first for when that Apostle passed through 〈◊〉 quarters and came to the Saints that dwelled at Lydda Acts 9.32 33. c. Saron Tractus quidam Regionis non procul à Caesaria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Antiq l. 20. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph de Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 37. Lydda Civitas Palestinae quae diospolis appellatur Hieron de 〈◊〉 Heb. and healed miraculously a Person that had been long bed-ridden 〈◊〉 that dwelled at Lydda and Saron saw him and turned unto the Lord and this Town anâ— Territory mentioned with it was large enough for a considerable Diocesan Church nor is there any likelyhood it was divided under several Church Governments Mr. B. confessing that no City with the villages aâ—joyning had any more than one Bishop 〈◊〉 a long time after this and in the time 〈◊〉 the Council of Nice It was an Episcopaâ— seat for we find Aetius Bishop of the place among the subscriptions of thâ— Council The next considerable Church that waâ— founded was that of Antioch the greated City of all the East and the Church dâ—â— soon bear a good proportion to the greatneâ—â— of the City Acts 11. â—1 For the hand of God was wâ—â— them the scattered Disciples and a greâ—â— number believed and turned unto the Lord anâ— when Barnabar had come from Jerusalem assist in this work v. 24. Much people was added unto the Lord and when Barnabas had brought Paul to Antioch they assembled themselves with the Church v. 26. and taught much people It is not unlikely that all these Proselytes mentioned hitherto were Jews or such as were Proselytes of the Gate and had reâ—ounced Idolatry and such must the Greeks be to whom those of Cyprus Preach'd the word at Antioch v. 20. for Paul and Barnabas sometime after tell the Church of Antioch as an extraordinary thing Acts 14.27 that God had opened the door of Faith to the Gentiles and there is no doubt but they were â—ncouraged by that success to Preach to the Gentiles at Antioch too while they abode â—here a long time with the Disciples and the â—ultitude of these Gentile Converts made â—equestion about Circumcision of so great â—â—portance as to require a determination of all the Apostles and the whole Church of Jerusalem assembled in Council for before that there were not only several Congregations probably but separate Churches and the people were not only distributed but diviâ—ed Gal. 2.12 compared with Acts 15.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rent into separate â—ssemblies unless we shall â—â—terpret this separation â—o be rather a scruple reâ—â—ting to Conversation and â—â—iet than to publick and Church Communiâ—â—â— as it is most likely though even this must â—ave likewise an evil influence upon their Communion too for it is not likely the Jews if they stood so much upon the Law about choice of meats should care much for the Communion of the Gentiles when they fansied to be prophane and polluted by the transgression of that Law Barnius makes two Bishops of Antioch together aâ— this time upon the account of these dissersions Martyrolog Rom. Feb. 1. Evodius and Ignatius the one choses by Paul the other by Peter but the misery is that the Author that gives this light is confessed to mistake Clemens Const l. 7. c. 46. Orat. in S. Ignat. by making Paul 〈◊〉 chuse Ignatius and Peter Evodius whereas Chrysostom sayes the contrary that Ignaâ—â—â— was ordained by Peter and to speak freely I believe this no better than what Barâ—â—â—â— would forbid his reader to imagine a fiâ—â—â—â— which he was forced to make shift with iâ— reconcile the contradictions of Eusebius aâ—â— Chrysostom Euseb Hist l. 3. c. 22. Ed. Valâ—sâ—i Euseb Chronicon the former making Peter to be dead before Evodius to whom he makes Ignatius to succeed the latter expressly afirming that Apostle to have ordained him For my part I believe that the traditionâ—â— Chronology of Eusebius and the preciâ—â— time of the Succession and Government 〈◊〉 the first Bishops was no otherwise known to him is not a Foundation firm enouâ—â— to build any Opinion upon Vid. Dissert Spanhemii Blond Praesat Apol. pro sent H. especiaâ—â— when we consider that the place as we as time of St. Peters Martyrdom is questioned not without some appearance 〈◊〉 Reason and the whole business is involveâ— in so many difficulties Blondel takes greaâ— pains to confute the conjecture of Baronius but advances another of his own more strange and improbable and what is yet worse draws important consequences from it and pretends by these seeming contradictions to discover the nature of Primitive Episcopacy and the ancient Law of Succession But all that is trifling It is plain of Chrysostom that he thought Ignatius the immediate successor of Peter and therefore makes no mention of Evodius at all unless one shall say that Peter might ordain Ignatius as he did Timothy or Titus as an Evangelist and that afterwards he became the fixed Bishop of Antioch though Chrysostoms words will hardly bear that sense and refer to the Episcopal Office at large But however it fare either with Baronius his divided Episcopacy or Blondel's Succession by seniority it is highly probable that the Bishop of Antioch even at this time was a Diocesan having the oversight of a Church that was distributed into several Congregations for if we reflect
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
or Deacons that were ordained in their Dioceses without their consent and that by simple Presbyters who were never Chorepiscopi or had any character to distinguish them from other Presbyters Therefore the case ought not to be reckoned so hard as it is commonly represented by the more moderate Nonconformists who pretend this point of Reordination the only bar that keeps them out of the Church since there was never any other Church not any in Ancient times would have received them upon any other terms and they must have remained Nonconformists under Basil Athanasius and all the ancient Bishops whose names are and alwayes have been had in veneration with all Christians not one of these would have ever been perswaded to own a Pastor that his Presbyters had ordained in opposition to him nay hardly could they have been prevailed with to admit such as any other Bishop should Ordain within their Diocess so extream punctilious they were in this matter and there is hardly any one thing that caused so frequent and dangerous contentions between them as the point of Ordination Nor was this Province singular in the extent of its Bishopricks or the manner of their Administration but all the parts of the Christian World went by the same Rule as to Diocesan Episcopacy and most of them had much larger Dioceses than these we have been speaking of The Frontier Provinces of the Empire towards the East being more remote from the contentions that afflicted the Church were not cantoned into so small Dioceses as other Countries and being likewise less divided in their Civil Condition because it might render them less defensible against Invasion the Ecclesiastical Dioceses likewise remained intire in the the measure of their first Constitution The Diocess of Edessa seems to be of extraordinary extent Conc. Chal. Act. 10. even at the time of the Council of Chalcedon when the ambition of some Metropolitans and the contentions of Hereticks and Schismaticks had reduced Bishopricks to be very small For 1. some of the misdemeanors charged upon Ibas Bishop of this place shew that Diocess to be extreamly rich 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Collection for redemption of Captives amounted to fifteen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and tho' it is not easy to reduce that summ to our money yet we must conclude it to be a considerable sum when we reflect upon another accusation of Daniel Brother to Ibas as if he had bestowed on Calloa the money of the Church for she had let out to use two or three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must be a considerable summ since it 's taken notice of as an argument of her wealth Besides the Church of Edessa had six thousand more of these Numismata besides its ordinary Revenues and one of its Mannors called Lafargaritha is mentioned there and two hundred pound weight of Church Plate 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The City of Battina was in the Diocess of Edessa for Ibas is accused of having endeavoured to make one John Bishop of it who was suspected of Magick But Ibas his Arch-Deacon of that place opposed it 3. Maras who was one of Ibas his accusers was Excommunicated by another Arch-Deacon of his 4. The Clergy of the City of Edessa was above two hundred persons not reckoning that of the Country within his Diocess and this was a Diocesan Bishop to purpose who besides a large Diocess had Excommunicating Arch-Deacons and a great Revenue And if Mr. B. or his Brethren had been of that Diocess we might have found them among his accusers The Diocess of Cyrus whereof Theodoret was Bishop was yet larger Theodor. Ep. 113. containing eight hundred Churches as he writes to Leo Bishop of Rome The exceptions which Mr. B. makes against this Epistle are so fully answered by the incomparable Dean of Pauls that nothing can be added But if Mr. B. should quarrel with any writings of this time for mentioning great Dioceses we must have a new Critick and disgrace a great deal of the Fathers that have hitherto been received by a general consent It is a very hard matter to convince men that imagine all that time for them whereof we have little or no account and reckon silence of Antiquity for consent and then if any thing shall appear against what they have once fanfi'd though it be never of so good credit it is spurious it is all Imposture because it makes against them who would ever be convicted if it shall be Defence enough to say the Evidence is a Lye Petavius mistaking a passage in Epiphanius Not. in Epiph Haeres Arr. Epiph. Ep. ad Joh. Hieros ap Hieron thought the Dioceses of Cyprus to be very small but from Epiphanius his Letter to John Bishop of Jerusalem it appears that his Diocess was of good extent John had a quarrel with him for having Ordained a Presbyter in his Diocess though it was only for the use of a Monastery and he excuses himself by shewing how common a thing this was and how frequently it was done in his own Diocess and he was so far from taking offence at it that he thought himself obliged to some of his neighbouring Bishops for using that liberty and therefore commends the good nature and meekness of the Cyprian Bishops who never quarrelled with one another upon this account and then adds That many Bishops of our Communion have Ordained Presbyters in our Province that we could not take because they fled from us on purpose to avoid that honour which was the modesty of those times Nay I my self desired Philo of blessed memory and Theophorbus that they would Ordain Presbyters in those Churches of Cyprus which were near them O vere benedicta Episcoporum Cypri mansuetudo bonitas multi Episcopi communionis nostrae Presbyteros in nostra ordinaverunt Provincia quos nos comprehendere non poteramus ipse cohortatus slim b. m. Philonem sanctum Theophorbum ut in Ecclesiis Cypri quae juxta se grant ad meae autem Parochiae videbantur Ecclesiam pertinere to quod grandis esset late patens Provincia ordinarent Presbyteros and belonged to my Diocess because my Province i.e. my Docess was very large Now that this Province which is here said to be of so large extent was no other than his Diocess appears from the nature of the thing For if we shall imagine that it was his Province as Metropolitan the words will have no sense for then are not there Bishops enough dispersed through this great Province who may Ordain within their respecture Dioceses and to them belonged the Ordination of Presbyters and not to the Metropolitan If we shall take this Province for a Civil division there will be yet greater absurdity for there may be other Metropolitans as well as he and by what Authority could he dispose of their Dioceses or Provinces In short there he gives leave to Ordain Presbyters where the right of Ordaining them belonged to
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