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 Churchyard, 1682.   

PREFACE.  
IT is a very just Censure that Polybius passed upon Phylarchus, one that wrote the History of the Achaean War, That he did not understand the principal Business of an Historian, because he concealed all the virtuous and generous Actions of one Side, 
Polyb. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and insisted only upon such as might render them odious to the Reader: the Rigour 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 used 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 Virtue. 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 condemned 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 Labour 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 falsely charged, it is no better than a Libel.  
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 designed 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 Senses: Surely our Author was asleep when he wrote this, and thought he saw every thing he relates. But how shall we believe our Senses, 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, though 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 Sense by the common Consent of all those that knew it, tho' of contrary Minds, Disposition and Interest. The Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters is acknowledged by Catholics, and Schismatics and Heretics, Men of very contrary Minds, Disposition and Interest; and yet this Church History would have us believe the contrary: Here we are in a Straight: For whether shall we believe in this Case the Preface or the Book?  
5. When the History of any Person or Action is proved by continued and visible Effects, as that William of Normandy Conquered England, while there are so many Effects of that Conquest in our Laws and Customs: And what may be proved by more visible and continued Effects than the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters? The Laws and Customs of all Churches are full of this; all the Christian World being governed 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 proved by such Continued 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 professed Enemies, or persons manifestly prejudiced, as his Accounts of Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyril, and divers others do manifestly show: 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 pleased 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, etc. 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, etc. So familiar to him, that Marquardus Freherus makes two Authors by the same Figure that Marcus Tullius Cicero makes three: Unless you will lay this Mistake upon the Printer; but than you cannot easily give a reason, why, in the midst of so many Surnames, Freherus should have his Christian Name more than any of the rest: But whoever this mistake belongs to, it is plain, Mr. B. had but little Acquaintance with those Collections. He tells us, He gives us not a Word out of them. It must be surely great Modesty to conceal his Authors, or his Ignorance not to know them: For he does really gives us several things from these Collections, and citys his Authors too. Egristhart and the 
* Called by Aimon, l. 4. c. ult. Ademarus, and Adelmus by P. Massonus.  Anonimous Author of the Life of Lewis the Emperor, are cited with several others that are published in some of those Collections which Mr. B. denies to have given his Reader one word out of: It would sound something harsh from a Compiler of General History, to say, That for that of England, he had not given one word out of the Collections of Cambden, Savil, or Selden, but only out of Alford or Cressey; and yet to cite Bede, or Newburgensis, or Huntingdon, etc. It is a strange thing, that a Man who talks so much of leaving the World, should not yet have left the Vanity of pretending, and of mustering up Books of which he had never seen any more than the Titles.  
Thus far Mr. Baxter gives Account of his Authors negatively; in the next place he informs positively, whence this Worthy Rhapsody is taken.  
The Substance of the Common History (the Rarities are not to be enquired after whence they come) is taken out of the commonly received Church Historians, and among them Mr. B. does reckon Nazianzen, the first time doubtless that ever he appeared among the Commonly received Church Historians: Mr. B. names Eusebius, Socrates, and some others; but I am afraid Mr. B. mistakes Dr. Hanmar's Translation for Eusebius, etc. Whereas this English Translation which Mr. B. makes use of, has seldom the Sense of the Authors, and oftentimes none at all. The main part of the Councils he owns to be taken out of Binius, of an Old incorrect Edition of the Year 1606. but it must be noted, that where Mr. B. did not understand Binius, he is pleased to give something of his own.  
7. The next Degree of Credibibility depends upon the Veracity, or Credible Fitness of the Reporter, as, 1. One that lived upon the place, or near. 2. A Wise Man. 3. One that made it his long and hard Study. 4. One that is Impartial, a lover of Peace, and not engaged in Faction. 5. A Sober, Calm, Considerate Man. 6. Of manifest Honesty, Conscience, etc. And after this, he tells us of several sorts of Men that are not to be believed: among others, One that is deeply engaged in a Party; One that shows a Malignant Spirit, that extenuateth or denieth (he might have added concealeth) all the Good that was in his Adversaries, and fastens on them all the Odium that he can, without just Proof, mutato nomine de te; One that is ignorant or proud; a silly, weak Man; nor one that is passionately rash, with many more things to this purpose. And how well the Circumstances of Credibility agree with his History, or how little these discrediting Circumstances concern him, the Reader will best judge: How Impartial, how Calm, how disengaged from Faction, how well versed in this Study? As for his Temper, the Books he lately Published sufficiently discover it; and let the Reader judge, whether ever any Man railed with greater Intemperance, or less Provocation? Now to give some Instances of his Christian Meekness, pag. 19 he calls the present Bishops of the Church of England, A few Turbulent Prelates, p. 46. Silencing, destroying Prelates. p. 73. Proud, Contentious, Ambitious, Hereticating part of the Bishops. p. 50. Hereticating Prelates; and this is a Title he takes great delight in, and applieth to all Councils that condemn any Heretics. p. 77. He has much ado to forbear calling Theophilus of Alexandria a downright Knave. p. 95. Speaking of Bishops, he calls them the Firebrands of the World. p. 98. Selfconceited Bishops. p. 196. Merciless, Furious Bishops. p. 183. The Confounders of Churches, etc. And this is the Temper of the Catholic, of the mere Christian, as Mr. B. is pleased to style himself. Bitterness, and Wrath, and Clamour, and Evil Speaking, are these the Fruits of that mere Christian Spirit? To say no worse, This Spirit cometh not of him that calleth us.  
But because Mr. B's Character of a Credible Historian regards not only those that writ an Original History, it will be expedient to add something concerning such Qualifications as are most necessarily required in an Abridger, or Collector of General Church History at this time.  
1. It is very requisite, that whosoever undertakes to write a General History of Bishops and Councils, should be acquainted with the Languages in which those Historians, out of whom he collects, have written: For it is neither safe, nor very decent to depend altogether upon Translations. Who does not see, who has read Valesius his Edition of the Ancient Church Historians, how necessary it was to translate them a new? And how often former Translations had mistaken the Meaning of those Authors, in Passages very Material? And who would not smile, after all this, to see a man pretending to Learning, transcribing out of Dr. Hanmar's Translation, and Copying out the grossest of his Mistakes? As for Instance, p. 83. Mr. Baxter, out of that English Translation, says, That Hypatia taught in the Schools which Plotinus continued. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Scholam à Plotino deductam, Vales.  He should have said, That he taught in the Platonic School, descended or continued down from Plotinus, i. e. where he had taught above a Hundred Years before Hypatia was born: For Plotinus died about the Year of Christ, 270. Hypatia flourished in the beginning of the Fifth Century: And p. 127. we have this imperfect Sense, Also that he embraceth the Venerable Images which the Oeconomy of our Lord Jesus Christ: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Where he observeth that the Verb is left out, whereas the Sense is perfect in the Greek, and there needs no Verb; The Venerable Images of the Oeconomy of Christ: But of this sort of Mistakes it would be endless to give Instances, the Translations of the Greek Historians and Councils, which he has made use of being very bad.  
But it may be alleged here, in Mr. Baxter's Defence, that several other Compilers of Councils, and Church History, had as little Greek as he: For Surius and Crabbe had none at all, and Baronius discovers his Ignorance in this part, by the miserable Versions he is forced to make use of. Binius, Mr. B's. Author does not seem to have any, for all his Greek and Latin Edition of the Councils. And Bail, a Frenchman, and a Late Abridger of the Councils, had just so much Greek, as to be able to derive the Anomaei, Heretics 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 excused 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 puzzled with these Latin Versions, I wished 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 myself 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 killed 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 surprised with Mr. B's singular way of rendering 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 University 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 something long, but to make the Reader amends, it shall be the last; not for want of Matter, but because I would not tyre him with too many Instances of one sort: the foresaid Canon is thus rendered 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 deprived 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 Penance and Reconciliation to such who shall separate 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 Rigour 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 separate 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 choose rather to wallow in the Enjoyments of a forbidden Marriage, than to separate from it, be condemned to perpetual Excommunication. I have promised 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; lest 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 Readins of the Ancient Canons of the Gallicane Church, as is showed more at large in this Book: Nor can we suspect Sirmond as too great a Favourer of Diocesan Bishops, since it is well known how he is charged 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 killed 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, before the Council of Toledo writeth a Sermon for them (the Bishops) wherein he tells them, that every Parish that have twelve Families must have their proper Governor; i. e. a Presbyter: Whereas that is not part of the King's Sermon, as Mr. B. calls that Prince his Letter to the Council, but a Canon of the Council itself: For the King's Letter ends long before with a Formal Date. Dat. die 70 faeliciter 60 Regni: Toleto. In the same Page Mr. B. to show his Skill, makes Willibrood and Wilfrid to be the same; I wonder the more at this, because Binius, in this very place, from whence Mr. B. takes his account of Willibrood and Wilfrid does plainly make them to be two persons; but when Mr. B. goes to play the Critic, this is constantly his Success: But Binius leads him into a mistake, p. 253. where he transcribes, out of his Author, That Ludovicus deprives him (Pepin) of his Kingdom of Italy, and divideth it between his two Sons by the Second Wife, Charles and Rodolphus: It is great news to Historians, to hear, that Lewis had two Sons by his Second Wife, since no mention is made of any other but Charles; the Writer of that Emperor's Life, speaks of no other; nor Ammonius who transcribes him; nor the following Chronicles. Girard, Vignier, Mezeraye, who reckon up Lewis his Children, have no such person; and say expressly, that Judith had but one Son: She had a Brother indeed named Rodolphus, but he had no share of the Empire: But this Division of Pepin's Kingdom, was between Lotharius and Charles, as the Annal. Franc. before mentioned do deliver: Nor was Italy the Kingdom of Pepin, the Son of Lewis, as Binius and Mr. B. tells us; but Aquitain. Lotharius had been a good while before made King of Italy, and Crowned by the Pope, in the place of Bernard. Mr. B. by way of Remark, p. 342. says, That it was no wonder that Pope Benedict, and his Company should condemn Berengarius; but Lanfrancus, in his Book against Berengarius, writes, that Leo the Ninth was the first that condemned him some Years after the Death of Benedict, Anno Dom. 1050. We have a Conjecture of Mr. B's. p. 356. that is not unpleasant, and that shows his profound Skill in History: He citys an Epistle of Gregory the Seventh to the King of Denmark, where, among other things, he invites him to send his Son with an Army to conquer a Maritine province not far from Rome, possessed by vile and sluggish Heretics: What Province he means (says Mr. B.) I am not certain, unless it be the Waldenses. It is pretty well guessed: For Gregory the Seventh died in the Year 1085. and P. Waldo, from whom the Waldenses had their Denomination, began to be taken notice of about the Year 1160. But Fourscore Years break no Square; nor is our Author much more happy in his Geography, than in his Chronology: For p. 421. He tells us, that there was a Council held at Vienna near France: As if a Man should say, the City of Sarum near England: But there would be no end of instancing all the Oversights of this Church-History: the Reader may dip at adventure, and if he do not light upon Mistakes as Remarkable as any of these, he has but ill Fortune: He that takes any pleasure to trace Beveus and Mistakes, may find here an endless Comedy of Errors.  
5. But I had almost forgot one Qualification very requisite for a Church-Historian, which must not be omitted, the Learned call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the want of which, betrays a Writer sometimes, when Fortune is not propitious, into great Absurdities. I will not be so bold with Mr. B. as to say this was the Occasion of a strange Misadventure of his, p. 122. For speaking of the Canon of Scripture concluded upon in a Council at Rome, under Pope Gelasius, Mr. B. makes a wonderful Discovery, that in the Canon they put a Book called, ORDO HISTORIARUM: And now let the Church of Rome value itself if it dare, for having preserved the Canon of Scripture entire and undiminish'd; since Mr. B. plainly discovers a Book to have been once in their Canon, which is not now to be found in any of the Pope's Bibles. A strange thing this! that no body should ever discover this before: But I wonder that he did not find out another Book in that Canon, every whit as strange as this, and that is Ordo Prophetarum: For there it is as a General Title before the Prophets, as this Ordo Historiarum is before some Historical Books. This mistake is as if a Man should find a Chapter in the Bible called Contents, or a Book called Apocrypha.  
I have given these few Instances, out of many of Mr. B's great Abilities in Church-History, that the Reader may perceive how much this Infamous Libel against Bishops and Councils is to be depended upon; and let any Man that has any acquaintance with these matters, judge impartially whether this History do really disgrace Bishops or Councils, or any body else so effectually as it does the Author? And if this be the Effect of having made History one's long and hard Study, even let us burn Binius and Baronius, and go make Buttons: We may with honest Application employ our time so to much better purpose.  
I must detain the Reader a little longer with this Preface, while I endeavour to clear some Passages of this Book, which may seem to be answered already, the Effect of them being said in behalf of Episcopacy, and replied to on the part of the Dissenters: For some part of this Book being Printed 8 or 9 Months ago, and the Subject having been treated by several Hands, it could not be, but that several things should be said to the same effect in Answer to Mr. B's Allegations for the Congregational Way; and in Confirmation of Diocesan Episcopacy, with what is written here; and being replied to there, seem already to have received their Answer: Wherefore I conceived it necessary to take off such Exceptions as prevented any Passages in this Book; and because it could not be done conveniently, in the Book itself, to reserve them for the Preface: But upon Examination, I found them to be fewer than I did at first imagine; For Mr. Baxter, since his Church-History, and Treatise of Episcopacy has made no farther Impression into this Controversy; I have examined some Chapters of that Book that pursued the Design of this History, by the Addition of several Historical Passages to disgrace the Episcopal Government, as the occasion of all Mischiefs in the Church: As for the first part, about the Order of Bishops, it had too many particulars to be minutely considered; but the Substance of it having been said in short in the first Chapter of his Church, and more at large in his Disputation of Church Government, has been examined in the beginning of this Book Dr. O. hath followed Mr. B. in the Congregational way; and as for his Allegations out of Antiquity, they are transcribed out of Mr. Baxter, with little of Improvement or Addition. One would think a diligent Man might find good Gleaning after Mr. B. but Dr. O's. Book, it seems, is answered already by an unknown Hand: But there is a later Book published under the Title of No Evidence for Diocesan Churches, etc. in the Primitive Times, in Answer to the Dean of St. Paul 's Allegations out of Antiquity for such Churches, etc. But no Reply being yet made, that I know of to those Exceptions, I shall endeavour to take off such of them as may concern me.  
1. I have endeavoured to prove, that the Church of Carthage in Cyprian's Time, was Diocesan; and among other things, urge for it the Multitude of Presbyters that belonged to that Church, even in the time of Persecution, when the greatest part of the Clergy was fallen off. The Author  excepts against this, where it is alleged by the Dean of S. Paul's, and offers two things in Answer; 1. A Passage out of Bishop Downham, That indeed, at the first Conversions of Cities, the whole Number of the People converted (being sometimes not much greater than the Number of Presbyters placed among them) were able to make but a small Congregation: But this Allegation can be of little Use, because, 1. This was not the Case of the Church of Carthage, it was not a new converted Church, but settled long before, and in a flourishing Condition. 2. Many more Presbyters may be ordained in a City than is necessary for the first Beginnings of a Church, with respect to future Increase; and for the Service of such as afterwards should believe: So that tho' there might be in a new gathered Church, almost as many Presbyters as there are People, yet the Design of that number of Officers may be for several Congregations, when the Believers of that place should become so numerous as not to be contained in one. 3. The Multitude of Presbyters belonging to one Congregational Church, might be occasioned by the uncertain Abode of most of the Apostles and their Commissioners, who are the Principal, if not the only Ordainers of Presbyters, mentioned in Scripture. Therefore they might ordain more than were just necessary for the present Occasions of a Church, because they could not be present to ordain, as often as the Increase of a Church, or Vacancies, or other Necessities of it should require. But that any Church fixed and settled, having its Bishop always present, should multiply Presbyters beyond Necessity, in the Circumstances of the Primitive Christians before Constantine, is altogether incredible: For the necessary Expenses of the Church were very great; the Poor numerous; the generality of Christians not of the Richest; and the Estates they had being at the Discretion of their Enemies, and ruined with perpetual Persecution: Is it credible, that persons in this Condition would multiply Officers without Necessity, who were to be maintained out of the Public Stock; as Cyprian affirms the Presbyters of Carthage were? And lastly, if this Opinion of Bishop Downham had any certain Ground in Antiquity, We should probably hear of it with both Ears: and we should have it recommended upon Ancienter Authority than His: But the first which this Author citys is Nazianzen, who complains of the Multitude of Presbyters in his Time: This has been already alleged by Mr. Baxter, and has received Answer; and he that cannot answer it to himself from the great difference between the Condition of the Church in Cyprian, and in Nazianzen's Time, has a fondness for the Argument beyond my Skill to remove.  
The next Instance of the number of Presbyters belonging to the great Church of C. P. St. Sophia, the greatest perhaps in the World, will do as little Service, as the complaint of Nazianzen: Justinian (says that Gentleman) Observing that Officers in Churches were multiplied beyond reason and measure, takes order that they should be reduced to the numbers of the first Establishment; but in the great Church at C. P. he would have the Presbyters brought down to Sixty: And what follows from this? That the Number of Presbyters was become extravagant in Justinian's Time; but what is this to their Number in Cyprian's: For this very Edict of Justinian shows, that this multiplying of Church-Officers, was an Innovation, and therefore would have them reduced to the first Establishment; but that first Establishment it seems admitted great Numbers; for one Church had Sixty: True; but it must also be noted first, that these sixty were to serve more than one Church: For there were three more, besides St. Sophia, to be supplied by those Presbyters, as may be seen in the Constitution, Nou. 3. c. 1. viz. St. Mary's Church, and that of Theodorus the Martyr, and that of Helena, as some, but of Irene as others read: Yet after all, there is no Argument to be drawn from this Number; for these were Canons of a particular Foundation, designed for the Service of a Collegiate Church, and no measure to be taken from hence concerning the Numbers of Presbyters belonging to the Diocese. This is evident from the Preface of the said Novel, whither I refer the Reader.  
But I must confess, that what this Gentleman adds concerning the Church of Constantinople is something surprising. No doubt (says he) they (the Presbyters) were more numerous in C. P. in Constantine's Time, who endeavoured to make that City in all things equal to Rome, and built two Churches in it; 
Soz. l. 2. c. 2.  yet in the latter end of his Reign, after the Death of Arrius, the Christians there could all meet together for Worship: It is said expressly, that Alexander, Bishop of that Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That Constantine built two Churches in C. P. Sozomen does not say but that he built many and very great Churches there. 
Soz. l. 2. c. 3. Ed. Vales. Euseb. de vit. Const. l. 3. c. 48.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: after the same manner Eusebius says, that he adorned the City that he called after his own Name, with many Churches, and great Temples, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Some within the City, and in the Suburbs of it: Nor can we imagine, that two Churches (much less one) could suffice all the Christians in C.P. when the City of Heliopolis being converted to Christianity required more, and Constantine built several for them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Soc. l. 1. c. 18.  i. e. Having built several Churches, he ordered a Bishop; but one for all those Churches and Clergy to be ordained there. Socrates indeed says, that Constantine built two Churches in C. P. and names them; but does not say, either that there were no more there in his Time, or that he built no more; but these being remarkable for the Magnificence of the Structure, are perhaps, upon that account, only mentioned by this Author: But we have showed already from other Writers, of as good, or better Credit, That this Emperor built there very many, and very Great Churches. Nor were these only for State and Ornament, but the Number of Believers in that City did require many Churches for their Assemblies: And the Passage of Theodoret above cited does not import the contrary: Therefore to clear this point, I will endeavour to show the State of the Church of C. P. about the later end of Constantine's Reign; and how it was impossible for them to meet All in one place. 2. I will show, that the words before cited do not conclude, that all the Believers of C. P. were assembled in one Congregation with Alexander their Bishop. 1. As to the State of this Church, it could not but be very numerous, when we consider what care the Emperor took to bring Inhabitants to it from all Parts, some from Rome, some from other Provinces; and it is more than probable, that much the greatest part of those that came to inhabit the first Christian Emperor's Favourite City, were Christians. 2. His care for rendering this City great and suitable to the Magnificence of so mighty a Prince, had that Success, that it did not only equal Old Rome, but excelled it as well in Greatness of its Wealth, as the Multitude of its Inhabitants, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Sozom. 
L. 2. c. 3.  And the same Author adds, that the Piety of the Emperor, and of the Citizens, and their Charity towards the Poor, was the reason of its mighty Increase, from the whence may be judged, what Religion the Generality of the City did profess. 3. The Success of that Charity did not only add, to the Number of the Citizens, but very considerably to the number of Christians: For the same Author writes, that it had so good effect there. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. That many of the Jews, and almost all the Heathens were converted and became Christians. 4. The same Author, to make it altogether a Christian City, writes farther, that it was never polluted with any Heathen Temples or Sacrifices, unless it were in the Time of Julian the Apostate. 5. The Provision which Constantine made for the Burial of the Dead, shows the number of the Church of C. P. to be far too great for one Congregation: For he allotted to that charitable Use no less than Nine Hundred and Fifty Shops, or Work-houses, whose Profits were to be employed in burying the Poor decently; which Shops were to be free from all Tax and Duty to the Prince: As you may see by comparing these several places in the Body of the Civil Law, N. 59 with N. 43. and with N. L. 12. And Honorius in the Year 409. considering the Number of the Decani, the small Officers that attended Funerals, to have grown inordinate, reduces them to Nine Hundred and Fifty, probably the first Establishment of Constantine the Great. See Justinian's Code, l. 1 T. 2, 4. And if after all this, all the Christians in C. P. could meet together in one Church towards the latter end of Constantine's Reign, we must conclude some wonderful Mortality to have happened, and that these Decani had had extraordinary Employment, and buried, in a manner, the whole City: But let them believe that can comprehend; For my part, I can as soon imagine, that Homer, with all his Scholiasts, can be put into a Nut shell, or that a Witch can turn herself in a Keyhole, as that all the Christians in C. P. made but one Congregation.  
But notwithstanding the Number of Christians in C. P. might be much too great for one Congregation, yet the major part might be Heretics, or Schismatics, such as came not to the Bishop's Church, and therefore all that adhered to him, might be no more than could meet in one Assembly. To which I answer, towards the latter end of Constantine's Reign, it was so far from being the Case of the Church, that the number of Heretics and Schismatics was inconsiderable; and most of those were forced to come to Church; and that there may be no Difficulty remaining in this point, I will give some farther account of the number of the Catholic Christians in comparison with Heretics and Schismatics.  
Constantine the Great, having set his Heart upon Christian Religion, to settle and adorn it, he thought nothing more effectual than the Unity and Concord of Christians; to promote which, he resolved to proceed against all Heretics and Dissenters by a severe Law, and to reduce them to the Unity of the Church. The Doctrine of Arrius, though it began to be favoured in several places, had not yet made a formal Separation, 
L. 2. c. 32.  says Sozomen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. All came to Church, and communicated together; but the Novatians and some old Heretics. Against these the Emperor made an Edict, whereby he took away their Churches, and ordered them to be joined to the Churches of the Catholics.— He told them, it was better for them to communicate with the Catholic Church, and advised them to come over to it. The Success of this Law we find in the very same place; That by this means, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The memory of those Heresies was in a manner extinguished; for they came all to Church for fear of that Law against their Conventicles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 
Ibid.  And those that persisted in their Opinion, having no opportunity to Conventicle, nor to corrupt the minds of men, died at last, and left none to succeed them in their Opinions: Only the Novatians remained, who, says the Author, did not suffer much by this Edict, being befriended by the Emperor, who had an esteem for their Bishop of C. P. upon the account of his Holiness; and therefore his Church there was not much endamaged, tho' the Historian speaks this very mincingly, and says only, that it was probable, that so it was; and likely had no other reason for it, than the Opinion which the Novatians had of that Bishop; and that their Church was not altogether extirpated then, like those of other Heretics: But he confesses, that every where else they suffered the same measure with others, unless it were in Phrygia, and some Bordering Provinces: And now to allow the Novatians a Conventicle in Constantinople, towards the later end of Constantine's Reign, which is more than Sozomen durst affirm, yet I hope the Catholics will be still too numerous, to meet all of them in one Congregation.  
But Theodoret affirms, they were no more than could meet in one Church, and that they did actually do so. I answer, That Theodoret does not say so, and that the Passage cited does not conclude it; therefore to clear this difficulty, let us examine it: After the Death of Arrius, says Theodoret, those of Eusebius' Faction were much out of Countenance, and buried him; but on the other side, 
L. 1. c. 14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Valesius renders thus: B. autem Alexander cum gaudio totius Ecclesiae collectas celebravit piè, & orthodox, simul cum Universis fratribus Deum orans, & impense glorificans: Now he takes the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in a general Sense, which I suppose was spoken with respect to that particular Congregation in which Arrius was to have been reconciled, if he had lived but one Night longer; and that the Author intends only to say, that that Service was performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with the Joy of that Church, which the Bishop apprehended would be the occasion of great Trouble to it; and that with all the Brethren there present, not all the Believers of Constantinople (for that he does not say) he prayed to, and praised God for what had happened; unless you will say, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, does not signify their Personal Presence, but only their Unanimity; 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aquila.  as that of David Ps. 33.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To conclude this point then, Theodoret could not think that all the Believers of C. P. could come together to the Bishop's Church; for he citys a Letter of Constantine a little after this, where he gives an Account of the great Increase of that Church. 
c. 16.  In the City that is called by my Name (says he) by the Providence of God, an infinite Multitude of People have joined themselves to the Church; and all things there wonderfully increasing, it seems very requisite that more Churches should be built; understanding therefore hereby what I have resolved to do, I thought fit to order you to provide Fifty Bibles fairly and legibly written, etc. which he signifies in the same place to be designed for the Service of the Churches there. Now where Christians were so multiplied, that it was necessary to build more Churches, and to make such Provisions for the Multitude of their Assemblies, it could not be, that they should all make but one Congregation,  
It would swell this Preface to too great a Bulk; if I should answer the rest so particularly: Therefore I shall be more brief, but as plain as I can; p. 10, 11, 12. This Author gives several Instances of several Bishops being in one City at the same time, in Answer to the Dean of Paul's, who affirmed, That it was an inviolable Rule of the Church, to have but one. I have endeavoured to show, that it was the Rule of the Church to have no more than one: So Cornelius affirms, that in a Catholic Church there ought to be no more; and the Council of Nice finds Expedients even against the show and appearance of two Bishops being together in one place. Jerusalem is the first Instance, which is said to have had several Bishops together in the time of Narcissus. I wonder to find a man of Learning cite this Passage, than which nothing can be more disadvantageous to his Cause: For 1. Narcissus having retired, and the People not knowing what had become of him, the Neighbouring Bishops ordained Dius in his place; who dying in a short time, was succeeded by Germanicio. In his Time Narcissus returns, and was desired by the Church to resume his Office. What became of Germanition is not said, probably he resigned, or died presently: For the next thing we find is, that Narcissus, being very old, an Hundred and Sixteen Years of age, took Alexander into a Participation of the Charge: He was indeed the Bishop, and Narcissus retained but the Title and Name only, as we may gather out of Alexander's Letter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Euseb. l. 6. c. 11.  i. e. Who was Bishop before me, and who now joins with me in Prayers. The Administration was, it seems wholly in the Hands of Alexander: For the Historian says of Narcissus before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He was not able to officiate by reason of his great Age: And Valesius confirms this in his Notes upon the place. Hoc enim sibi-vult Alexander, Narcissum in Orationibus duntaxat, non in reliquo Episcopali munere sibi collegam fuisse, and then, Ex quibus apparet, Alexandrum non tam adjutorem quam Episcopum in locum Narcissi, utpote jam decrepiti factum fuisse. Narcissum verò nudum nomen Episcopi, atque honorem retinuisse. The next instance is of Theotecnus and Anatolius, who were for some time Bishops of Caesarea together: Anatolius was a person of extraordinary Learning and Abilities, and Theotecnus, designing to make him his Successor, says the Historian, ordained him Bishop in his Life time, 
Euseb. l. 7. c. 32.  and as it were his Coadjutor, or Episcopus designatus: Afterwards Macarius and Maximus were Bishops at once in that Church: He means that of Jerusalem, tho' that of Caesarea was the last he mentioned; and this Instance is of the same nature with the other: For Sozomen writes, that first of all he was secretly designed by the People, to succeed Macarius after his Death: And to make sure of his Succession, with the Consent and Concurrence of their Bishop, they brought it about, that he should stay at Jerusalem, and assist Macarins in the Episcopal Office, 
Soz. l. 2. c. 20.  and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. After his Death to govern that Church, whereas before he did only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. assist in the Divine Service and Offices of the Church.  
Epiphanius, continues this Gent. (alleged by Grotius for this purpose) signifies that other Cities had two Bishops, and excepts but one, Alexandaia had never two Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; His meaning cannot be (as a great Antiquary would have it) that Alexandria was never so divided, as that several parties in it should have their respective Bishops there; for so it was divided in the time of Epiphanius, when the Catholics had Athanasius, the Arrians had Gregorius, and then Georgius, and afterwards the one had Peter, the other Lucius; and the Novatians had their Bishops successively in that City, 
Soc. l. 7. c. 7.  till Cyril 's time. To which I answer as briefly as I can. 1. That Epiphanius cannot mean that all other Cities had had two Bishops at a time: For the contrary is too notorious, and the Cases above alleged are extraordinary, when the Bishop, or People of a City had a mind to secure the next Succession to some Extraordinary Person. He was made the Assistant and Coajutor of that Bishop he was to succeed: If Alexandria had never done this (and it might be the reason why Athanasius was not ordained then when he was designed by Alexander) I do not see what advantage can be made of this Passage; the practice of those other Churches has been already considered: However I do not see why that Learned Antiquary's Opinion may not be maintained against this Gent's. Objections: He says, that Alexandria was divided before Epiphanius his Time, between several Bishops: It cannot be denied; but that is not the thing Epiphanius speaks of, but that before the Election of Theonas against Athanasius, who was before appointed by Alexander with the Approbation of the Church, there were never two opposite Bishops, as in other Churches: the Instances are all later than this Fact; and therefore are insignificant: Unless it be that 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 alleged; 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 proved it by Examples, both in the African and Transmarine Churches, as Possedonius tells us: But suppose all this true, that this might be maintained 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 produced by popular Elections, and to secure the Succession to some Extraordinary Man; and this was not thought to violate that Rule that allowed 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, aught to be in the hands of a Single Person; or if Royalists, word be not Authority enough, the Worthy Gentlemen that would have convinced Cromwell's Conscience about is, I hope will satisfy: And yet, after that this Succession had been a little interrupted by the Usurpation 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 though some more Instances may be fetched of the same Nature, from neighbouring Kingdoms, yet I believe 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 Gaiety, and might have been left to Mr. Baxter, who is used to supply his Want of Learning with a double Portion of Spite. But I have too much respect for this Person (who shows more Learning than any of the Advocates for Dissenters) to make any Reflection upon it.  
This Rule is likewise pag. 15. oppugned 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 alleged by me is p. 23. where the Bishopric of Hippo is considered. I have showed the Names of a good number of Parishes in it, which were under the Care of their Presbyters, and among others alleged the Town of Fussala; the Gentleman Translates it a Castle, I suppose to diminish it; but these Castles were Garrison-Towns, with a good dependence of Villages belonging to them; and this particularly is so represented. It was Forty miles from Hippo, and was in St. Austin's Diocese, 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 signified by St. Augustin, when he saith there were no Catholics at all in it: St Augustin says indeed, the Town or Castle itself had none, but the County belonging to it had some: Paucos habebat illa Terra Catholicos: And there were several Presbyters belonging to those Catholics, Presbyteri qui eis Congregandis à nobis primitùs sunt Constituti: But I believe the reason alleged 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 Unity of the Church, had then no Catholics; but that it never had any he does not say; nor is the thing probable: But as for a Bishop, he expressly says, that it never had any; but that it formerly had Catholics, we may conclude by Mr. Baxter's reasoning, because it belonged heretofore to the Diocese 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 imagined how a Town so distant should be judged to belong to that Diocese, where yet there never was one Man that owned 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 dependence upon the Diocese of Hippo, which is expressly affirmed. As to St. Austin's Excuse, that it was too far, and that he could not look after the inconsiderable Relics of the Donatists there: It is to be ascribed to his Modesty, since he discharged the Office of a Bishop towards it in much more difficult Times, while the Presbyters he employed were barbarously used, and the generality of the People were against him.  
The Towns in St. Austin's Diocese, mentioned by the D. of St. Paul's, 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 unconcerned, having, as I remember, mentioned 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 Bishopric of St. Austin, which at first appeared 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 Usurper, and the whole Diocese did of right belong to the Catholic 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, belonged 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 show, 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 these Bishops, who are said to be in Regione Hipponensi, were not the Bishops of that Region, but some Bishops of the Province met together there; as had been done before upon the like Occasion, as may be seen in the same Epistle, Facto Concilio placuit ut conveniremini. 2, It appears from the Inscription and Style of this Epistle, Clerici Catholici Regionis Hipponensium; and yet speaking of the Bishop of Hippo, they call him their Bishop, not one of their Bishops, which they must have said if they had had more; but Conventus ab Episcopo nostro Proculeianus,— non est Conquestus Episcopus noster, etc. So that notwithstanding these Bishops mentioned in the Region of Hippo, the Body of that Clergy own but one who was properly their Diocesan: And this is farther cleared by comparing this passage with that of St. Austin, mentioned a little before, where he assumes to himself the Church belonging to the Regio Hipponensium.  
From the Diocese of Hippo, we pass to that of Alexandria, of which I have spoke particularly enough before; but here the same Author offers a great many things, p. 32. which I cannot answer at this time very particularly; yet something I shall say as briefly as I can. The Instance of Maraeotis, he says little to; he insinuates as if Maraeotis might not have Number enough of Christians to have a Bishop. But this Athanasius does sufficiently show to be a Groundless Conjecture; and even before Athanasius, the Generality of the People there were Christians. He farther finds one Dracontius made a Bishop in the Territory of Alexandria; possibly a Chorepiscopus, or at leastwise, it is manifest from the Epistle to him, that it was the extraordinary Favour of the People towards him, that compelled him to accept a Bishopric: And the Danger of their falling to Arrianism was the reason which Athanasius makes use of to press him to accept it. This was an extraordinary Case, and allowing this man a Country Bishopric, that of Alexandria would be a great deal to big for the Congregational Measure. After this we have Instances of several Cities that had Bishops, and lay very near one the other; and what does this conclude? Might not these Dioceses be yet much larger than one Congregation? Suppose the Chief Cities of Holland had each a Bishop, yet I conceive they would be Diocesans, though those Cities lie very close together. And now after all this, though we have several Instances out of Egypt, how near Cities were together in some parts; yet upon the whole account, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ath. Ap. 2.  the Dioceses do appear to be large enough from the Number of them: For in Athanasius his Time, there were not a Hundred Bishops in all Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.  
The next thing I shall take notice of, is the Defence of Mr. Baxter's Allegation out of Athanasius, to show, that all the Christians of Alexandria could meet in one Church. It is to be confessed, that the Expressions of that Father do seem to favour him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that the Church did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hold all, etc. Now suppose that all the Christians in Alexandria, the Catholics at leastwise, could meet together in that Great Church, yet all the Diocese could not; there were some parts of it at a good Distance, and they could not conveniently come; so that the Diocese of Alexandria, will exceed the measure of the Congregational Way. 2. Suppose this Great Church could receive all the Multitude, yet if that Multitude was too great for Personal Communion, it is insignificant: For if that be a Congregational Church that can possibly meet between the same Walls, this Congregational Church will be as indefinite as a Diocese. 3. Before this the Church of Alexandria met in distinct Congregations, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: But we are told, that these places were very small, short, and straight places: So I suppose they were in respect of the Multitude of Christians which they did scarcely receive. But that they were such Chapels or Churches as some of our Parishes in England have as great a number as Alexandria, is hardly credible; because,  
1. The Church of Alexandria was very numerous from the beginning; and if they met all in one place, it must consequently be very large: Nor is it likely they should divide till they were grown too numerous for the biggest Meeting-place they could conveniently have.  
2. Tho' before the Empire was converted they might be confined to little places, and forced to meet severally, yet after Constantine became Christian, it is not likely that the Alexandrians would content themselves with small and straight Chapels, when every ordinary City built very Great and Magnificent Cathedrals; And,  
3. Some of these Churches had been built with a Design of receiving as many as well could have Personal Communion in Worship together; as Theonas is said by Athanasius, to have built a Church bigger than any of those they had before: And yet this and all the rest were but few, and straight, in comparison of the great Multitude of Catholics that were in Alexandria.  
But I conceive after all this, that the Expressions of Athanasius do not conclude, that all the Christians in Alexandria were met in that Great Church: All that came, it may be found Room; but that all did come is not easily imagined: For the Tumultuous manner in which they come to their Bishop, to demand a General Assembly, makes it probable, that not only Women and Children would be glad to absent themselves, but many more, either apprehensive of the Effect of this Tumultuous Proceeding, or of the danger of such a Crowd, would willingly stay away. Mr. Baxter, tho' he thought the main Body of the Catholics might meet here, yet he would not conclude that all did; and even these that did assemble here, were too many for one Congregation; and was an Assembly more for solemnity and ostentation, than for Personal Communion in Worship, and the proper Ends of a Religious Assembly.  
But that we may not wonder how the Catholics should be so few in Athanasius his Time, we are told farther, that the Arrians, and other Dissenters might make much the Major part: Nay, it may be the Arrians alone were more numerous. How true this is, we may learn from Athanasius, who speaking of the Catholic Party, makes them the Major part of the Alexandrians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: All these were Catholics, and their business was to desire Sirianus and Maximus not to disturb their Churches, till they might send to the Emperor. And that they were the greatest part, might be yet farther cleared from several Circumstances of that time, which I cannot insist upon in this place, without being too tedious to the Reader. To conclude this, not only Alexandria, and the other Cities of Egypt had several Congregations comprised in the same Diocese, but the Meletians had some Bishops of several Titles who had more Cities than one in their Dioceses, as may be seen in the Catalogue of Bishops, ordained 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 mentioned and remitted, the Reader to the D. of Paul's, 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, belonged to him as Metropolitan, and they were all Episcopal, this poor Region of Cyrus would have more Bishops than all Africa, notwithstanding they were more numerous there, than in any part of the World besides.  
I have no more to add, but that there was designed 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 formed without swelling this Book to too great a Bulk: It may hereafter in due time be published by itself: 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. IU. 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. Seven. The Council of Chalcedon, 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 mangled, 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 reckoned 27 Bishops of Ephesus from Timothy, that Polycrates reckoned 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, etc. d. as. p. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. for our Presbyters, r. your, ibid. for alleging, 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, etc. p. 61. for before our Saviour was born, correct before his Passion. p. 63. r. Pantenus Heraclas. p. 68 for shine, r. thin. 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 Heretic, r. Arch-Heretick. 16. Arch Heresy, d. Arch. There are very many false pointings, which the Reader may correct; as Isidor, Pelus, Evagrius, Pontious, etc. where the Commas are to be blotted out; and several other wrong punctations, that render the sense 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 Dissensions 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 suspicion of Falsehood 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; 'tis 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 liking 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 Profaneness, 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 disingenuous 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 abridged all the good Services that Bishops and Councils have done to the Church, but their Miscarriages he has enlarged 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 Judgement 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.  compared 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 nothing to be seen in his Book, but the Avarice, Ambition, Ignorance, Mistakes, and furious Contentions of the Bishops, and the Governors of the Church. And they being so bad, the People that were guided by their Order and Example, could not be much better, they were but the Instruments of the Episcopal Ambition, to fight their Quarrels, to kill all that opposed, and to burn and destroy all that came before them; turbulent, seditious, Incendiaries and Murderers; and what can be the effect of such an History, but that men should believe there never was any sort of People so desperately wicked, and so great disturbers of the World: the Enemy of our Religion will have reason to rejoice, that his work is in great measure done to his hands, for this will serve him as a common place book, for railing against Christianity, and the Christian Reader will be in danger, either of losing all his Patience, or a great deal of that Reverence he had for his Religion, and those primitive Worthies that professed and defended it.  
But this perhaps will be thought not to concern the Church, but the Bishops only, who are charged with these Misdemeanours, and dishonoured by this Representation. He must have a strange notion of the Church, that can think it unconcerned in the dishonour of those by whom it is governed: for if one should write a Book, and call it the History of the English Nation, which should only represent the Vices of our Kings, the Contentions and Disagreements of our Parliaments, the Weakness and Corruption of our Ministers of State and Justice, and represent all persons that were eminent enough to hold any place in Story, under mean and infamous Characters; he must needs have a very metaphysical Moderation,, that could think the honour of the Nation unconcerned, and that it was no Reflection upon the English name.  
God forbidden I should charge the Design of the Author with any disservice to Religion; but well-meaning men do sometimes pursue their Resentments too far, and so they can be revenged of their Enemies, pursue them into the Church, and set upon them in the Sanctuary, not considering how much it is violated and profaned by the Action. But Mr. B. is not insensible of the evil use that may be made of this book, and therefore endeavours to prevent it by wholesome Caution, and frequently in his History starting like a man affrighted to see that which he though to have been a Rod turned into a Serpent, straight applies what Remedies he can against the Poison: he does in the first place warm the Reader, that he do not abuse this into Diabolisme. But alas it is a poor Relief, to forbid an Enemy to make use of those Weapons you have put into his hands, to leave the Honour of our Religion at his Mercy, and then to desire him to be generous, not to make use of his Advantage. However, if the Scorner should prove perverse and take no Warning, Mr. B. proceeds to confute his reasoning, and his Inference, by saying that this scandalous account of the Bishops and their Councils, concludes nothing to the discredit of Church or Religion; for there were many good men that were not Bishops but Presbyters, Monks, or Laymen; nay, 
p. 16. 17. etc.  many Heretics; obscure good men, whose Virtues do not shine in Story; nay, there were some good men among the Bishops themselves, with more to the effect. God forbidden I should endeavour to invalidate the least shadow of reasoning, that is urged in defence of the Church of Christ; I join hearty with him in this part, and I must profess, it is the greatest end of this Treatise, to prevent the Contempt of Religion, which this Church History might occasion. Nor can I think the Author will be offended, that I take his part and Religions against his own Book, and that I look upon it as a dangerous piece, 
p. 16. 19 § 49.22. etc.  when he himself has given such frequent and solemn Warnings against it.  
But I must take leave to pursue this point upon another Supposition than he does, for he takes all his History to be a true and just representation of things, and upon that supposal, makes his Vindication of the Church; which I hope is a mistake in him, and will endeavour to show, is very far from being true; nay on the contrary, it is the most injurious Character and the most unsuitable to the persons it is fastened upon, that can be imagined: this I take the great Confidence to do, because I am persuaded, Mr. B. would be very glad this dishonourable Character, even of Bishops, should be found a Mistake, rather than it should be true, to the Disparagement of the Christian Name.  
It is true, that in the Western Church, the generality of the Clergy, as well as Laity, were so grievously corrupted; as well in Doctrine as Discipline, in some of the Ages that were more removed from our Saviour, that we must make use of God's Vindication of the Church of Israel to Elijah, to excuse it from a total Defection; but for the first four or five hundred years (thanks be to God) there is no need of that refuge: for the generality of the Christians of those times, and the Bishops more eminently, were men of that Holiness and Integrity, as reconciled the most obstinate Prejudices against their Religion: men of so exact and punctual a Justice, of so frank and unstinted a Charity, of so severe a Temperance, of so grave and weighed Conversation, that their Memory does still command an universal Veneration, and their Examples remain a reproach to the degeneracy of after Ages. What sort of men did the World know, that were greater Undervaluers of it? Upon whom did the Temptations of Wealth, or Honour, or Pleasure, prevail less? What Society of men was ever united by so powerful Bands of Friendship and Affection? No Religion had ever so constant and faithful Adherers, whom no Danger, no Loss, no Death could fright from the Acknowledgement of the Truth, which is after Godliness, in hope of eternal Life. And all this owing next to the Grace of God, and the Precepts of so holy a Religion, to the Guidance and Example of the Bishops. It was by their Ministry, that Churches were multiplied, and the Kingdom of Christ enlarged: by their Care, that they were preserved in Peace and Unanimity. These were the great Champions for Religion, that maintainld the Purity of the Faith against Paul of Samosata, Arrius, Eunomius, Photinus, Macedonius, Pelagius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and innumerable other pestilent Heretics, and Overthrowers of the Foundation of our Religion. But with all this, they were men, subject to the same Passions and Mistakes with us, and if some among them were evil men, and the best of them had his Failings, it is not to be wondered at, much less to be aggravated, to the Disparagement of the Order. They were generally, men of severe Lives, and that naturally sharpens the Temper, and renders it more rigid and uncomplying; they had an extraordinary Zeal for Religion, and that oftentimes made them take Alarm, when it was not in any extreme danger; and if their Knowledge and Discretion were not always proportionable to their Zeal, surely among Christians it might be allowed to the Frailty of Humane Nature, and the Sincerity of a good meaning; If they differed sometimes among themselves, and were warmer than is fit in their Disputes; consider that the Apostles themselves had their Misunderstandings, and their Contentions; sometimes Peter was to be blamed, and Barnabas was carried away. The Churches founded by the Apostles, were immediately divided about Opinions, which were presently determined in Council; and yet we do not find that the Controversy was at an end. Should any one therefore so abridge the History of the Apostles, as to represent nothing of them, but their unhappy Contention, and leave them under the odious Characters of Disturbers of the World, and Dividers of the Church? would it not justly pass for a Libel against Christianity? It were disingenuous and base, even in an Enemy, in a Christian I know not how to call it.  
Having paid this duty to the honour of Religion by a general Vindication of it from such Consequences as might be drawn from this Church History against the Intention of the Author, I come now to his design, which is laid down, page 27. To show the Ignorant so much of the matter of Fact, as may tell them who have been the Cause of all Church-Corruption, Heresies, Schisms, Seditions, etc. And whether such Diocesan, Prelacies and Grandeur, be the Cure, or ever was.] But surely, this is not the way of cureing Church-divisions thus to exasperate. These Reproaches cannot serve to heal, but to fret and inflame the Wound; I have some hopes that I shall be able to show the Reader so much of the matter of Fact too, as may let him see how much he has been imposed on by this History, and that all Corruptions and Schisms, are very injuriously, and against all Truth of History, charged upon the Bishops. Yet suppose the Charge be true, is it such a Wonder, that men of great Talents and great Authority do sometimes abuse them, and by that means become the Cause of Church-Corruptions? Private men though neither better nor wiser than the Bishops, have not the Opportunity of doing so much either Good or Hurt, and their Mistakes or Vices do not draw after them so great Consequences. This Accusation though it may serve to render Bishops odious, is yet of use to prove their Authority, and their ancient possession of the right of governing the Church; like his who would prove, that they have troubled the World ever since the Apostles time. If the abuse of this Power be sufficient reason to take it away, or to render it odious, what will become of preaching, and writing Books? What will become of Scripture and Conscience? Let him still exclaim, the Bishops have been the Authors of all Corruption and Schism, were they not Christians and Men as well as Bishops? and if a Heathen or a Jew should not lay such a Stress upon the name of Bishop, but put that of a Christian in its place, and then make a great Outery, wicked Christians! turbulent Christians! would not this reasoning hold as well as Mr. B's? or if some of the graver Beasts should recover the Conversation they had in Aesop's days, and talk judicially, might not they bray aloud, Horrible men! Abominable men! that will never agree or understand one another, and then conclude with the Ass in the satire.  Ma foy non plus que nous l'home n'est qu'une bête. 
Be the Bishops, whose History Mr. B. writes, as bad as he will have them, how will this concern the rest of that order, unless they will follow their Examples, and own their Corruptions: Machiavelli was of Opinion, that the greatest part of men were Rogues and Knaves, but what is that to You and I? let every man bear his own Burden.  
But Mr. B. is resolved to cut off this Retreat, and to levelly his Charge, not so much against the Persons as the office of Bishops, and to this effect, he explains himself, p. 22. There is an Episcopacy whose very Constitution is a Crime; and there is another that seems to me, a thing convenient, lawful, and indifferent, and there is a sort which I cannot deny to be of divine Right.]  
Here we have three sorts of Bishops, and this is pretty reasonable and compendious, but in another Book which he refers to in this, he gives no less than twelve; 
Disput. of Ch. Government p. 14.  dividing was much in Fashion at that time, though commonly it was without a difference: and as they could make a sort of Seekers, that neither sought nor found, so he gives several sorts of Bishops that were no more so than he or I; nay, in this Abridgement of the great Division, I believe the Members will be concident, and that it is but a little artificial Illusion of Mr. B. that makes them appear several; take away the little corner'd glass, and that great multitude of pieces we saw, are in a moment reduced to one poor , well, let us see then, what this criminal sort of Episcopacy is, and what Mr. B. has to lay to its Charge.  
That Episcopacy which I take in itself to be a Crime, is such as is , 
p. 22.  which in its very Constitution, overthrows the Office, Church and Discipline, which Christ, by himself and his Spirit in his Apostles, instituted:] this is criminal indeed and a thousand Pities it should stand one Moment.  
But where shall we find this Abomination? it is not far of, if his Judgement may be taken; for, Such says he, I take to be that Diocesan kind, 
ibid.  which has only one Bishop over many Score or Hundred fixed parochial Assemblies. Is this then their Crime, that they have many fixed parochial Assemblies under their Government? Had not the Apostles? Had not the Evangelists so too? And was that Constitution criminal? Had not the Bishops of St. Jerom's Notion several fixed Assemblies? That Father did indeed maintain that the poor Bishop of Eugubium was as much a Bishop, as he of Rome; but he little thought that he was more so, or that the Extent of the Roman Diocese had changed the very Species of its Church Government: 
Hieron. Ep. ad Evagr.  he thought they were both of the same sort, and that the single and small Congregation of the one, and the numerous Assembly under the Inspection of the other, had made no difference at all in the nature or constitution of their Episcopacy; he communicated with, and submitted himself in Questions of the highest moment to the Bishop of Rome: 
Vid Hier. Ep. add Damas'.  which, considering the Temper of the man, and his Contempt of the World, he would hardly have done, if he had judged him an Usurper, but would rather have joined himself to the poor Bishop of Eugubium, and done all possible Countenance to that Primitive and Apostolic Constitution of Episcopacy.  
But let St. Jerom think as he pleases, Mr. B. is of another Opinion, and now let us consider his Reasons.  
By this means (says he) parochial Assemblies are made by them (the Bishops) no Churches, 
p. 22. § 55.  as having no ruling Pastors, that have the Power of judging, who to baptise or admit to Communion or Refuse, but only of Chapels, having Preaching Curates.] But must every Parish be an independent Church, and exercise all Authority and Jurisdiction within its self? May not several Parishes associate under the Discipline of the same Bishop, but that they must be unchurched? If it be no Church that has no Bishop, what will become of all Presbyterian Churches, that are subject to Classes? do not they unchurch Parishes as well as Bishops? But they are made no Churches for want of governing Pastors; this is a great Mistake, every Parish with us has a governing Pastor, but it is in Subordination to the Bishop, and with Exception to some Acts that concern the general Union of all the Parishes associated. Is he no Governor, because he is not Independent? Is he no Officer that is subordinate? At this rate, every Constable should be a King, and every Captain a General.  
But our Pastors Mr. B. says, have not the Power of judging whom to Baptise,] this is a Calumny that has not the least Shadow of Truth, and the contrary is notorious: That they have no power to admit to Communion or Refuse, is not true; they have Power to admit any one that is not excommunicated, or naturally incapable; and they may likewise refuse the Communion to such as they judge notoriously unfit, but must afterwards approve their reasons to the Bishop. Several have used their Liberty and Discretion in this point, without Offence; however, it is but fit, that since the peace of the Church does greatly depend upon the right Application of Church-censures, there should be a Restraint laid upon ordinary Ministers in this particular; yet there is no Church-censure can have any effect, without the Consent of the Minister of that Parish where he lives, against whom it is directed: The Minister's Refusal indeed may expose him to great Inconveniences, and it is but just, when his Refusal is only the effect of Opposition, yet he has time and opportunity to produce his Reasons; and why should he despair in a just Cause of convincing his Ordinary? However, though the Power of Church-censures be not allowed Parish Presbyters under Diocesan Episcopacy, it is no Diminution of the right; for neither under the Apostles, nor the Primitive Bishops, did they ever exercise it as principals or independent.  
2. Mr. B's second Reason against Diocesan Episcopacy is, 
p. 22.  That all the first Order of Bishops in single Churches is deposed; as if the Bishop of Antioch should have put down a thousand Bishops, about him, and made himself the sole Bishop of the Churches.] This reason goes upon the same Supposition with the other, that every single Congregation had a Bishop, the proof of which we will examine in due place. The Bishops of great Cities had several Parishes or Congregations under them in the first times, which never had any other Bishops but themselves; and it was not this but the contrary, that was the fault of great Bishops and Metropolitans of old: for instead of deposing little Bishops, they multiplied them to strengthen their Party in Councils, 
Vid. Collat. Carthag.  when they began to vie with one another in number of Suffrages, as if the Archbishop of York should make every Town under his Jurisdiction, an Episcopal Seat, that he might have as many Suffrages as the Archbishop of Canterbury. This I hope to prove in due place, and to show the Reader how far Mr. B. is mistaken in the Causes of Schism, and that nothing contributed more to some of them than the multiplying the number of the lesser Bishops by their Metropolitans.  
3. His third Reason is, That the Office of Presbyters is changed to Semi-presbyters,] What then is the Office of a Presbyter? Is it not to preach, and to be the mouth of the Congregation in public Worship? to administer the Sacraments? to exhort? to admonish, to absolve the penitent, to visit the sick? This all Presbyters in the Church of England have full liberty to do; and I wish all would take care to execute their Function, as fully as it is permitted them.  
4. Discipline is made impossible, 
p. 22.  as it is for one General without inferior Captains, to rule an Army.] But are there not subordinate Officers in the Church, as well as in the Camp? How then is Discipline impossible? If the General reserve to himself certain Acts of Jurisdiction, does he by that means supersede the Commissions of all inferior Commanders? Mr. B. is much upon the point of Discipline's being impossible under Diocesan Episcopacy, because one man, he thinks, cannot govern so many Parishes. Admit in all things he may not, nor is it necessary he should, but in such Acts of Government that are reserved to him, it is possible enough, and has been practised from the days of the Apostles, to this present time. This Point you may find excellently discussed by Mr. Dodwel, in his second Letter to Mr. B. which Mr. B. confutes briefly, (Cb. Hist. 2. part) by telling the Reader, that if he will believe those reasons, he has no hopes of him; a short way of confuting, and one would wonder, that he that makes use of it should write so many and great Books of Controversy. Yet this I must add, that if it be impossible now, 'tis fit to let the World know who has made it so; the Dissenters themselves have first weakened the Authority, and obstructed the Execution of Discipline; and when the subordinate Officers agitated, caballed against their Superior Commanders, it is not wonder if Government be made impracticable. However, the Accusation sounds ill from those men, by whose Mutiny and seditious Practices, things have been brought to that evil Pass.  
Mr. B. pursues his point further, 
§ 55.  and adds, Much more does it become then unlawful, when first deposing all Presbyters from Government by the Keys of Discipline they put the same Keys, even the Power of decretive Excommunication and Absolution into the hands of Laymen called Chancellors, and set up Courts liker to the Civil than Ecclesiastical.] It is a Question I cannot easily resolve, whether it be the King or the Bishop that governs by the Chancellor, but whoever governs by them, they neither have no nought to have the Power of Decisive Excommunication, or the Power of the Keys, but act only as Assistants, and judges of matter of Fact, and apply the Canons, which determine what Offences are to be punished with Excommunication; if they do any more, I neither undertake the Defence, nor will I suppose those that employ them, own their Actions any farther. However, the Presbyterians fall under the same Censure with our Diocesans, for 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 ruin them, because they are excommunicated by Bishops, Chancellors, etc. 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 Threatening 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  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 loath 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 Ruin, 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 presumed 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 Villainies 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 Churchwardens 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 hearty; but I believe this ought not to be charged 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 lest 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 Precedent? If several, than this is the Diocesan Prelacy, that is a Crime in its Constitution, if the same, than 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 signior Pastors have the supervising Care of many Churches, (as the Visitors had in Scotland,) and are so far Episcopi Episcoporum, and Archbishops, having no constraining Power of the Sword, but a Power to admonish and instruct the Pastors, and to regulate Ordinations, Synods, and all great and common Circumstances that belong to Churches; for if one Form of Government in which some Pastors had such extensive Work and Power (as Timothy, Titus, and Evangelists as well us Apostles had) we must not change it without Proof, that Christ himself would have it changed.  
Let us compare this with Diocesan Episcopacy, and see whether for all this mincing of the matter, they will not amount to the same thing: this supervising of many Churches, does it not sound like having many Parishes under them? And if this be impossible for a Diocesan, how comes it to be otherwise in an Evangelist, or an Apostle? Nay, how comes it to be allowed in a Scotch Visitor or Superintendent? The regulating Ordinations is no other in Scripture-Phrase, than to appoint and ordain Elders in every Church, and in every City; the Diocesan Bishops desire no more in that point, than to have such a Regulation, and that it should not be accounted an Ordination that is done without, or in Opposition to them. The Evangelists might sometimes ordain Elders by their own single hands, without the Assistance of any Presbyter, sometimes together with the Presbytery; our Diocesan Bishops never ordain any to that Order, without the Assistance of their Presbyters; the Evangelists and Apostles had the Direction of Church-censures, 
1 Cor. 5. 2 Cor. 2.9, 10, 11. 1 Tim. 5.19, 20, 21. Tit. 2.15.  as appears from frequent Instances in the new Testament; as also an Authority or Elders as well as the People, to admonish and rebuke, and punish those that were negligent or disorderly; The Bishops claim no more, it is the same Authority, it is the same Office hitherto, and this is the same of what the Bishops in all Ages of the Church have pretended to succeed to; they of the Presbyterian way, make all this Power of the Apostles, as extraordinary as their Gifts, and to expire together with them: but for this they never offer any Reason; and if this Notion should obtain, it would follow, that neither Presbyters nor Deacons could be succeeded in their Offices, because they also were inspired with extraordinary Gifts as well as the Apostles. But Mr. B. allows all this, and that they ought to be succeeded even in this Eminence and Extent of Work and Power; Why then does he find Fault, and exclaim against that which he cannot deny to be of divine Institution, and of perpetual Use under the name of Diocesan Episcopacy? From these men the ancient Bishops derived their Title, to this Authority they pretended to succeed, 
Act. Conc. Tholi. Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.  Polycrates reckons himself the sixth from Timothy, and Irenaeus gives us the succession of the Roman Bishops, from St. Peter, to his time; and if it had been necessary to his Purpose, did undertake to show the same of the Governors of the most considerable Churches in the World, which afterwards Eusebius has collected out of their several Registers. 
Comment. 1 Ep. ad Timoth. Scholar Graec.  Theodoret does admirably explain the Original of this Title, by showing that the Apostolic Power was fully conveyed to their Successors. Those that are now called Bishops, says he, were, in the Beginning, called Apostles, and the name of Bishop and Presbyter were then of the same Signification; but in Process of time, the Title of Apostle was appropriated to those who were Apostles indeed; that is, to the 12. And the name of Bishops was taken up by those that were before called Apostles. 
Walo Mess. p. 35. & sequent.  Salmasius a man that never looks behind him, or regards any Consequence, runs away with this Passage as if he had found the greatest Treasure in the World, that Bishop and Presbyter signified the same thing in the Apostles time; and is so transported that he cannot take any notice that at the same time there is a Distinction made between the Office of Presbyter and Bishop: for the Name they anciently bore, shows the Nature and Eminency of their Office, that they were Apostles in Authority; but the Title being too great and invidious, they laid it down for an humbler name, and were content with the Style that was common to Presbyters in the Apostles time. Hitherto we have an exact Agreement between these three sorts of Episcopacy, and find the Members of Mr. B's most compendious Distinction, to be without Difference.  
But it must not be dissembled, that there are some things in which they seem to disagree, especially-these two; first, That the Evangelists or Apostles were unfixt, but Bishops are determined to a certain Diocese. Secondly, That the Apostles and Evangelists had Bishops under their Jurisdiction, which Bishops do not pretend to.  
As to this Unsetledness of the Apostles, there are some that look upon travelling to be so essential to their Office, that their Commission is in danger to expire, if they should reside any considerable time in any certain place. 
Walo Mess. de Epise. & Presb.  And Salmasius makes so acute a Remark upon the Inscription of St. John's two latter Epistles, as comes within a small matter of deposing him. Before those Epistles, he styles himself John the Presbyter, or the Elder, or it may be in English, no more than John the aged; and what would you imagine so great a Critic would observe from this? That St. John having fixed his Residence at Ephesus for some considerable time, had lost the Eminence of his Apostleship, and sunk into the common Level of Presbytery; and therefore styles himself Presbyter only, as if he had been conscious his Apostleship had departed from him. But how comes St. Paul to remain three years in the same place, and remain his Title, and much longer yet at Rome, where he died in the Exercise of his Apostleship? Clemens Alex. speaking of St. John, tells us he went about, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In some places he appointed Bishops where they were wanting, and none but Apostolic men could do it; and in some places he himself governed the Church entirely, i. e. as their Bishop, and probably, appointed another when he left them, to succeed in the Charge. Vales did not see the Import of this Phrase, but rendered it, Partim ut ecclesias integras disponeret & formaret. The last is a Comment that destroys the Sense of Clement, who by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not understand the setting of a Church, under its Officers which his former seems to imply, but the ordering and governing of it by himself, in Opposition to his setting up of Bishops in other places; and though he had some Authority there by way of supervising the Bishops, yet he did not take the Care of the whole, which is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Now in whatsoever City they lived, besides the general Care of all the Churches, they looked upon that as their peculiar Charge, and governed not as ordinary Presbyters, but by Apostolic Authority: as a Metropolitan; who although he has the supervising of all the Dioceses within his Province, yet may have his proper Diocese which he governs, as a particular Bishop. And the Office of an Apostle does not essentially consist in the governing of more Churches than one, else St. Paul would never have vindicated his Apostleship from the particular Right he had over the Corinthians, 
1 Cor. 9.2.  If I be not an Apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you, for the Seal of my Apostleship are ye in the Lord. So that though he had had no more Churches to govern, yet his Apostolic Authority might have been still exercised over that particular one of Corinth. The Provinces of the Evangelists were not yet so large as those of the Apostles, for these were either sent to such Cities or Parts, whither the Apostles themselves could not go, or left where they could not stay: The Church of Ephesus was the Diocese of Timothy, from whence although the greater Occasions of other Churches might call him away, and require his Assistance, yet his Authority was not Temporal, nor would it have expired, if he had resided a longer while at Ephesus; so that these Apostolic men were not so because they were unfixt, but because they had that Eminence of Authority, which they might exercise in one or more Churches, according as their Necessities did require, or as the Spirit signified: and that they did not settle in one place is to be ascribed to the Condition of their Times, and not to the nature of their Office: for the Harvest was now great, and such Labourers as these were but few, and therefore their Presence was required in several Places. And as this Unsetledness is not essential to Apostolic Authority, no more is it essential to Episcopacy to be determined to a certain Church. Every Bishop is Bishop of the Catholic Church, and that his Authority is confined to a certain district, is only the positive Law of the Church, that forbids one Bishop any Exercise of his Office within the Diocese of another; and St. Paul seems to have given them the occasion, who would not build upon another man's Foundation. However, in any case of Necessity, this Positure Law is superseded, and a Bishop may act in any place, by virtue of a general Power he has received in his Ordination: so that this first Exception of the Apostles and the Evangelists being unfixt, and Bishops determined to a particular Church, can make no essential Difference.  
As to the Visitors of the Church of Scotland, they make evidently against Mr. B's Notion of an essential Difference between Bishops and Evangelists; for first of all, the Residence was fixed to certain Cities, and their Jurisdiction confined within certain Provinces, as the Superintendent of the Country of Orkney was to keep his Residence in the Town of Keirkwall, 
Spotswood Hist. Scot l. 3. p. 158.  he of Rosse in the Channory of Rosse, and so the rest in the Towns appointed for their Residence. Their Office was to try the Life, Diligence, and Behaviour of the Ministers, the Order of their Churches, and the Manners of the People, how the Poor were provided, and how the Youth were instructed, they must admonish where Admonition needed, and dress all things that by good Counsel they were able to compose; finally, they must take note of all heinous Crimes, that the same may be corrected by the Censures of the Church. So far of their Constitution as we find it in Mr. Knox's first Project of Church-polity, 
Spotswood p. 258.  and their practice was altogether the same with that of Diocesan Episcopacy, as Bishop Spotswood describes it, The Superintendents held their Office during Life, and their Power was Episcopal, for they did elect and ordain Ministers, they presided in Synods, and directed all Church Censures, neither was any Excommunication pronounced without their Warrant. And now let the Reader judge how the Constitution of Diocesan Episcopacy becomes a Crime, and yet these Visitors of the Church of Scotland, conformable to divine Institution.  
As to the second Exception, that the Apostles and Evangelists were Episcopi Episcoporum, and had Bishops under their Jurisdiction, which our Diocesans, who are the Bishops but of particular Churches, do not pretend to; This makes no Difference, at leastwise no essential one, for the same person may have the Charge of a particular Church or Diocese, and yet have the supervising Power over several others. But in this point Mr. B. does but equivocate and impose upon his Reader; for by his Episcopus gregis he means only a Presbyter, and a particular Bishop may have Jurisdiction over such, without any Injury or Prejudice done to the Office, which from its first Institution has been under the Direction of a superior Apostolical Power: if therefore these Presbyters do retain all that Power which essentially belongs to them under a Diocesan Bishop, how are they degraded? In short, either this Order of Congregational Episcopacy is different from Presbytery, or the same with it; if the same, how is it abrogated by Diocesan Episcopacy, since Presbyters are still in the full Possession and Exercise of their Office. If they are distinct how then comes Mr. B. to confound them as he does, § 16. where he says, That the Apostles themselves set more than one of these Elders or Bishops in every Church. So then those Apostolic men, as Bishops of the particular Churches wherein as they resided, had Authority over Presbyters within the Extent of their Diocese, and a general Supervising Care of several other Churches, and so they were Episcopi Episcoporum: in the first, they are succeeded by Diocesan Bishops, in the latter, by Metropolitans, which yet were never looked upon as two orders essentially distinct.  
But after all this we shall never come to a right Understanding of Mr. B's Episcopacy, unless we take along with it, his Notion of a particular Church, which he sets down, p. 6. § 19 There is great Evidence of History, 
p. 6.  that a particular Church of the Apostles settling was essentially only [a Company of Christians, Pastors, and People, associated for personal holy Communion, and mutual help in holy Doctrine, Worship, Conversation, and Order] therefore it never consisted of so few or so many, or so distant as to be uncapable of such personal Help and Communion, but was ever distinguished as from accidental Meetings, so from the Communion of many Churches or distant Christians, which was held but by Delegates, Synods, of Pastors or Letters, and not by personal Help in Presence. Not that all these must needs always meet in the same place, but that usually they did so, or at due times at least, and were no more, nor more distant than could so meet, sometimes Persecution hindered them, sometimes the Room might be too small, even independent Churches among us sometimes meet in divers Places, and one Parish has divers Chapels for the aged and weak that are unfit for Travel.  
Every one of these Churches than had one Bishop, and was, in his Opinion, all the Diocese 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. Gou. Ch. Hist. part 2.  by saying, that those many Bishops he is for, are not of the same sort with ours: 'tis 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 Diocese; and the Church would far 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 Ciull; 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 multiplied; at least, not according to this Project: for this, in their Judgement, 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 alleges in Favour of it, is considered.  
For this Evidence he refers us to another Book of his, 
1 Disput. of Ch. Government and Worship, p, 1659. and dedicated to R. Cromwell. 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 alleged by Mr. B. though it may be to the Purpose, yet 'tis of no Authority. The next and the plainest as he confesses, is Ignatius, out of whom he citys 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. Ushers old Translation, with which Vossius' 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 public 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 disobeyed this Command.] To which I answer, first, That Antiochus citys 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 called, there let a Church be assembled; it is not permitted the Flocks of young Lambs to go whithersoever they please, but whither the Shepherds 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 alleged, 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' Epist. to the Philadelphians, where he exhorts them to come all to the same Eucharist, and these are his Motives, una enim Caro Domini nostri Jesu Christi, & unus Calix in Vnionem Sanguinis ipsius, unum altar & 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. citys it, is in this Epistle interpolated, but making more for his purpose, he preferred 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 Altar, unus Episcopus, and this all Copies do agree in; from whence he concludes, Here it is manifest, that the particular Church, which in those days was governed by a Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons, was but one Congregation, for every such Church had but one Altar.  
This Observation of one Altar in one Episcopal Church, he confirms by Mr. Mede, who propounds it with great Modesty, and only as a Conjecture, and M. B. has added nothing to his Reason, more than his own Confidence. If he had but taken leisure to consider, and not have run away with that only which seems to make for his purpose, he might have found enough in those very Passages cited by Mr. Mede, to have undeceived him. The Matter in short is thus; The Principal Church, or Meeting-place, in every City, belonged to the Bishop, where his Chair was set up, with a Bench of Presbyters on every side, circling the Communion Table; this whole place was called Altar, Sacrarium, and within the Jurisdiction of a single Bishop; it is probable there was no more than one: the Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons represented the Unity of the Church, although it might be divided into several Congregations, and every Congregation might have a Communion Table; so that one Bishop, one Altar, signifies indeed the Unity of the Church, as being the place of its common Council and solemn Tribunal, and to set up an Altar is not to have two Communion Tables in a City, but to have distinct Governments, 
Mr. B's Dispute of Church Government, p. 90. The Ancients ordinarily call the Lord's Table and the place where it stood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I say, the Table and the Sacrarium or place of its standing. And so says Bishop usher in his Notes upon the passage before cited, Altar apud patres mensam Dominio eam passim denot at apud Ignatium & Polycarpum, Sacrarium quoque.  and opposite Bishops and Presbyters; this is confirmed by a Passage of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Magnesians cited by Mr. B. Omnes adunati ad templum Dei concurrite sicut ad unum Altar. If this reading which he uses were right, it would distinguish between Christian Temples, and imply, that some of them had not Altars, which is not likely to be true, if Altar and Communion-table were the same. But to speak ingeniously, neither Temple nor Altar here does signify what Mr. B. would have it; for the Florentine Copy has, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which refers only to the Jewish Temple and Altar, wherein consisted the Unity of the Jewish Church, notwithstanding they were divided into many Synagogues and Congregations.  
But that one Altar for every Church so frequently mentioned by Ignatius, does not signify every Communion-table, but that eminent one together with the Bishop's Chair, and the bench of the Presbyters, appears from divers Passages in his Epistles. In that to the Magnesians he alleges to this Ecclesiastical Consistory about the Altar, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That well-platted Crown of our Presbyters, alleging to the Figure in which they sat; and then follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Counsel of the Altar or Sacrifices.  
And in his Epistle to the Ephesians, he speaks to this Effect, Unless a man be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 within the verge of the Altar, he is no partaker of the bread of God, and this Phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he explains in his Epistle ad Trallenses, he that is within the Altar is clean, wherefore he obeys the Bishops and the Presbyters; he that is without, is such a one that does any thing without the Bishop and the Presbyters: so that Obedience to the Bishop or Presbyter, is an Explication of that Phrase of being within the Altar: and this might consist with the Division of the Church into several distinct Congregations. But St. Cyprian in his fifty fifth Epist. makes this yet clearer, where speaking of the Insolence of such as having sacrificed to Idols, thrust themselves into Church-Communion, without doing any Penance, he breaks out at last into this passionate Aggravation: what then remains, but that the Church should yield to the Capital, and that the Priests withdrawing themselves, and taking away the Altar of our Lord, Images, and Idol-Gods, together with their Altars, should succeed and take Possession of the place, proper to the sacred and venerable bench of our Clergy? the bench of the Clergy than belongs to the Altar, that is, the Communion-table of the Principal and Episcopal Church, to which all other Congregations did belong, in as much, as the Presbyters they joined with, appertained to that Altar, and so there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet several Assemblies under his Direction and within the Communion of that Altar.  
This Usage of one Altar and several Communion-tables depending upon it, continued a long while after in the Church: Innocent I. in his Letter to Decentius, mentions the sending of the consecrated Symbols from the Episcopal Church Altar, to the depending Parishes upon solemn times; and long after that, all the Parishes of a Diocese paid Homage to the Episcopal Church by sending some of their principal Members to communicate there, upon Solemn Festivals, as appears by several Canons that are cited and examined more particularly hereafter: and here in England there have been Footsteps of the same Custom till of late in Comparison, though from the first beginning of the Gospel we have not the least hint of Congregational Episcopacy in this place.  
The next thing he alleges is a passage out of Justin Martyr, 
Just. Martyr Ap. 2. p. 97. Ed. Paris, 98.99.  where he describes the manner of the Christian Assemblies in his time, where the Eucharist is said to be celebrated by the Bishop, 
1 Dispute p. 92.  and that on Sunday all the Christians that lived either in Cities or in the Country, came together, prayed with, and received the Sacraments at the hand of the Bishop, and those that were absent, had it sent to them by the Hand of the Deacons: but what shall we conclude from hence? That all that came together could come to one place, or because the Congregation of the Bishop as being the most eminent, is here only described, must we conclude that there was no more than one in any City? This account is only General and serves only to show what they did, when they came together, (and the Principal Assembly, was surely the most proper instance) and not in how many places they might be Assembled. 
Disp. p 33.   
The Story of Gregory Thaumaturgus makes the next Proof, who being made against his will Bishop of Ne-Caesarea found but seventeen Christians in the whole City: this was indeed a small Congregation and hardly numerous enough to make a Church; but if Mr. B. had been so ingenious, 
〈…〉  as to have mentioned the Success of that Bishop's Ministry, he might have spared any one else the Labour of answering this Instance: for the same Bishop out of those contemptible Beginnings did so far enlarge the Church of that place, that when he died, he left but seventeen in the whole City that were not Christians; if 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 belonged 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 Unity 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 〈◊〉 ●ours Precepts; there are likewise there Exhortations, as being done in the presence of God, that is looked upon as an Anticipation of future Judgement, if any one has so offended as to be banished from the Communion of Prayer and the Assembly, and of all holy Commerce; most approved 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 'tis probable, there was more than one Congregation. But it appears by what follows, that these Precedents were all the Officers of the Church, where they are distinguished 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, a●● shall endeavour to prove in due place; 〈◊〉 citys 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 citys 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 deceived 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 Precedents, 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 baptised, was to make his Renunciation under the Bishop's Hand? nothing less: for many more might be baptised 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 Diocese, than he baptised in seven and thirty days: 
Bed. l. 2. chap. 14.  Pamelius did labour to prove that Antistes is the same with Seniores Presidents, and that Presbyters might baptise 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, etc. which was preparatory to it, to have been made in his presence, he might have a very large Diocese, 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 deferred it till the last, and were baptised on their Deathbed, 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 public Baptism, but they might be privately baptised 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 baptised 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 ●e rather hints by the Buy, 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 only 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 expressed, 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. 194. ad Pleb. Nicop.  
As for Nynius' History of St. Patrick and the three hundred and sixty five Bishops, which he planted in Ireland, I suppose 'twas invented by some learned Monk, to fill up the Irish Calendar, and to leave no day in the year so forlorn, but that the name of one of these Bishops could vindicate it from Profaneness.  
That which follows of Scotland's having no Bishops before Palladius, 
Disp. 1.97. Yet England had Bishops long before, as may be seen in the Subscriptions of the Councils of Orleans and Nice.  but that the people there were instructed by Priests and Monks, makes nothing at all to our present purpose, though the Authority of Henricus Major, and Johannes Fordorius were unquestionable, for there is no account of settled Churches or Discipline, but only that some good men out of their Zeal for Religion, did endeavour to propagate it among the Scots, and that these were not Bishops. But Buchanan stretches this point higher than it will bear, and will have it, that the Churches of Scotland were governed by Presbyters and Monks, the first time; I believe in Story we meet with Monks amongst the Orders of Church-Government: but I believe that the Story itself may be easily disproved, and we may expect shortly a fuller account of this and other things, relating to the ancient British Church, by the hand of one of the greatest Masters of Antiquity in this Nation.  
The last part of Mr. B's Evidence has some of the Canons of ancient Councils, but I must needs say, he does not cite with that accuracy, that one would expect from a person that advances so singular a notion; The first is the fourteenth of the Council of Adge, 
Can 1.  the Sum of it is this, that if any man should desire a Chapel of Ease for the benefit of his Family, he might be gratified in it, but with this Proviso, that upon the most solemn Feasts he should hear divine Service in Parochiis aut Civitatibus. Mr. B. makes Parochia signify a Diocese, because the word is used frequently in that sense by Eusebius and other Ancients, but does not consider, that the Import of it is changed by this time, and is taken for a Parish in the fifty third Canon of the Council of Adge, whose Title is de Presbyteris parochianis rei Ecclesiae distrahentibus; & cap. 2. vass. 3. There is express Difference made where a Presbyter is allowed to preach, Non solum in Civitatibus sed in omnibus Parochiis. 
47.  The next is the thirtieth Canon of the same Council, Benedictionem super plebem fundere, aut poenitentem in Ecclesia benedicere presbytero poenitus non licebit; to which he adds the thirty first, 
47.  Missas die dominico saecularibus totas audire speciali ordine praecipimus, ita ut ante benedictionem sacerdotis egredi populus non presumat, quod si fecerit, ab Episcopo publicè confundatur. From whence he infers, that all the people were obliged to come to the Bishop's Church, because they were to stay till the Benediction, which it was lawful for the Bishop only to give; but if Mr. B. had considered these two Canons, he must have observed, that either they contradict one another, or the same thing is not meant by the Benediction of the Priest and the Bishop: by the first, which is reserved to the Bishop, Confirmation must in all probability be understood: By the second, the Priest's Benediction, that which is pronounced at the dismissing the Congregation; or if he will understand a Bishop by Sacerdos, the Canon forbids it, in making a Distinction between them, ab Episcopo confundatur; whereas if by Sacerdos they would have understood a Bishop, it is not likely they would have either changed the Term, or repeated it, but have added, ab eo confundatur. But why should we insist upon this, since nothing can be more notorious, than that Presbyters had Churches now distinct from Bishops, and every Diocese almost a great number of Parishes, and there are few Councils of that Age, but oblige the Bishop to visit all these Churches once a year.  
To these he adds the thirty eighth Canon of the same Council, 
Disp. p. 99  Cives qui superiorum solemnitatum, id est, Paschae & Natalis Domini, vel Pentecostes festivalibus cum Episcopis interesse neglexerint, quum in Civitatibus communionis, vel Benedictionis accipiendae causa positos se nosse debeant, triennio communione priventur Ecclesiae. It is not to be denied, but it was the ancient Custom for all the Parishes or places depending upon any Episcopal Church on certain times to repair to it, not so much for personal Communion, as for Homage: but we are not therefore to conceive, that every Soul under a Bishop's Charge, was to appear before him on those solemn times, but only the most considerable persons of every Division, and this Canon means no more. Sirmond could never find any more than 47 Canons of this Council, the rest were taken out of Conc. Epaonense, from whence the true Reading of this Canon is to be sought for: there is Cives superiorum natalium (not solennitatum) and so it is corrected in the best Edition of the Council of aged, and Communionis is left out: which restoring of this Canon overthrows all the use that M. B. would make of it, since all are neither obliged to be present, nor to personal Communion, but what Cives superiorum Natalium signifies, we must learn from other Councils of this Age: in the 14 chap. of the Council of Arvern. we have it thus explained, that together with all the Presbyters and Deacons of a Diocese, Quicunque sunt etiam Cives natu majores pari modo in Vrbibus ad Pontifices suos in praedictis Civitatibus veniant. And the third Canon of the fourth Council of Orleans, obliges only the Principal Citizens to assist the Bishops on these Solemn Times, Quisquis de prioribus Civibus Pascha extra Civitatem tencre voluerit, sciat sibi à cuncta Synodo esse prohibitum, which is no other than if the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, the Liveries, and most considerable Citizens were obliged on certain High Festivals to come to Church to St. Paul's.  
The next of the Canons he produces are either to the same effect with what he has already alleged, or not directly to his purpose, so that I believe upon a Review he will judge as well as I that there is no necessity of a Reply.  
Mr. B. has heretofore excepted, the Churches of Rome and Alexandria, 
Ch. Hist. p. 7. § 23.  and has despaired of bringing them ever to comply with his Model; but now it seems he has found a means to reduce them to a Congregation: he revokes his former Concessions, and declares, that he finds no reason to believe (that ever the two chief Cities of the Empire had so long; that is, for two hundred years after Christ, more than some London Parishes, or near half so many) it is Pity these great London Parishes should ever be divided, they are so serviceable to Dissenters on all Occasions; for if a Conventicle is to be kept up, the Greatness of St. Martin's or St. Giles Parish will justify it; those Churches will not hold a tenth man that ought to repair to them, and surely, better set up a meeting against the Law, than that the People go unedified. And again, when Rome or Alexandria are to be reduced to a single Congregation, than it is but comparing them to these great Parishes, and the work is done; It is not likely, that for two hundred years, Rome itself had near so great a number of Christians as one of these Parishes. Suppose they had not, the Question is not whether the Church of Rome was more numerous than that of St. Martin's, but whether they could meet in one Congregation: for suppose they were but half, or a quarter so big, if they could not meet in one place to hear the Word and receive the Sacraments, but must resolve into several Assemblies for to do it, it is no matter what proportion they held to our London Parishes.  
But what Evidence is there out of History, that the Church of Rome made but one Congregation for two hundred years after Christ, is it that the People are said to consent to the Election of the Bishops, or to concur in several Ecclesiastical Acts? But how shall we be assured, that every Believer was obliged to be present, or that Matters were carried by Vote; and not by general and confused Approbation? Besides, though all that had the right of Electing Church Officers might possibly meet in one place, yet they were not the fifth part of the number that had right to Congregation and Personal Communion; for Women and Children, and Servants must be supposed to be excluded, together with the Poor, and the more inconsiderable Persons: or if this practice of approving the Election of Church-Officers be any Argument for a Churches being no more than a single Congregation, it will follow, that Rome had but one Congregation for many hundred years after, for the People were very long in possession of that right, after the whole City was become Christian, and surely than they were too numerous for one Congregation.  
Anton. de Dom. l. 4. c. 11. makes a long deduction of the Election of the Bishops of Rome, and proves that they were chosen by the People, until Innocent the Second, for 1100 years, and that he was the first that altered the ancient way of Election; Now if any one can believe, that for eleven Centuries there was but one Congregation in Rome, much good may it do him. As for the People's Right to choose, which Mr. B. does so much insist upon, and seems to give the People Encouragement to revolt from those Bishops, which they never chose. I shall give a more particular Account of it towards the latter end of this Treatise.  
Mr. B. makes a Computation of the Church of Rome, in the time of Cornelius, and finds it to fall much short of one of our great Parishes; for when Novatian divided that Church, it had but forty six Priests, seven Deacons, and as many Subdeacons, forty two Acoluti, Exorcists, Readers, and Porters fifty two, Widows and Poor that were disabled, and lived upon the Charity of the Church, fifteen hundred: upon which we compute thus, Suppose the Poor the tenth part of the whole Church, (as St. Chrysostom calculated the number of the Church of Antioch) the Product than would be fifteen thousand, and not ten thousand five hundred, as Mr. B. reckons, or the Printer mistakes, and even thus, would they be too many for one Congregation. We cannot imagine any five Churches of such as the Christians might be supposed then to have, 
Ch. Hist. p. 7.  capable of holding them all; 
Euseb. l. ●. c. 43.  but if we consider this Passage more narrowly, we shall find Mr. B.'s Computation to be extremely short: for these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were not only poor, but sick and disabled, for so the word is explained in the Epistle of the Roman Clergy to the Clergy of Carthage, upon the subject of Cyprians retiring, 
Ap. Cyr▪  Sive Viduae, sive Thlebomeni qui se exhibère non possunt, sive qui in Carceribus sunt, sive exclusi à sedibus suis utique habere debent qui eis ministrent. So then these poor were such only, as were not able to help themselves, that were not able to come abroad; and such as these surely are not the fortieth part of any people, unless it be in the time of Plague or extraordinary Sickness.  
In the next place let us consider the number of the Priests, what use can there be of forty six in one Congregation? For they were neither to preach nor administer the Sacraments in the Presence of the Bishop; for the first Mr. B. urged it elsewhere to prove no more than one Congregation belonged to one Bishop, and I hope he will not be so disingenuous as to cast it off as soon as he has served his turn of it. For the Administration of the Sacraments, Justin Martyr is very clear in his Description, that the Bishop consecrated and gave it the Deacons to be distributed among the Congregation: 
ubi supra.  so that unless there were distinct Congregations at that time, those 46 Presbyters could hardly find how to employ themselves.  
But Mr. B. does endeavour to remove this Objection, 
Ch. Hist. p. 8.  by showing the Church-Officers were very much multiplied in those days, to the end, that as many as had any useful Gifts, might be employed in the Service of the Church: For this, 
Orat. 1. p. 45.  he brings in Nazianzen, as a credible Witness shortly after, complaining of the Excess in this part, that the Church Rulers were almost more than the Subjects: but how shortly after? would you have judged this to have been spoke? No longer than about a hundred and fifty years, and after one of the greatest Revolutions that happened in the Church in Cornelius' time: the Christians as Mr. B. remarks, were not of the greatest and richest, and therefore it is not likely that the public Charge should be multiplied without Necessity, and forty six Presbyters be appointed for one Congregation. But in Nazianzen's time the Church was in a prosperous and flourishing Condition, the Governors were now become Christians, and great Privileges and Wealth were added to the Clergy, which made it then so  a thing. But in Cornelius' time the greatest Dignity was Martyrdom, and the Clergy was particularly aimed at by the Heathen Persecutors, their Portion was Labour and Danger, they were to come and assist the Brethren in the Prison and at the Stake; and the Office was so unpleasant, that Novatian (the Author of that Sect which Mr. B. speaks so favourably of) desired to be eased of the Burden, 
Euseb. l. 6● c. 43.  and renounced his Priesthood: besides, the same Epistle of Cornelius, as if it were to prevent such a Mistake as this, 
Ad Fahi●●n Anti.  expressly 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 show 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, though they are not in Isidorus' 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' days; 'tis 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, than they are false and Impostors, 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 established 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 improved it. Now, if according to Mr. B's Notion of those Times, not many Rich, not many Noble were called, 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 thrived so well, that the whole World in a manner was reduced; 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 sheltered 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 Country, 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 Public, 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 urged 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 received the Faith; let us observe in what glorious Expressions Eusebius represents the Church before the Persecution of Dioclesian, 
Euseb. l. 8. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  who (says he) can describe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their full and innumerable Assemblies, and the multitude of their Meetings in every City: So that by this time, not only in Rome, but almost in every City, the Christians had several Congregations. Valesius, though he corrects the old Translator, yet it seems did not fully comprehend the meaning of this place, nor see the Elegancy of Eusebius' Gradation; for first, he represents the many thousands that came together to make a Congregation, than the number of such Assemblies, that there were several of them, and at last mentions the Places that received them, that there was no Church, no Chapel, no Oratory, but was full in those days. 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 mentioned 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 be asked in whose Chair he sits? he must say, where Bonifacius Ballitanus sat before him; and he, where Victor Garbiensis, who was the first Donatist Bishop in Rome, and there the Succession ends, he having none to succeed to, Filius sine Patre, Tyro sine Principe, Hospes sine Hospitio, Pastor sine Grege, Episcopus sine Populo, non enim Populus aut Grex appellandi fuerant pauci qui intra quadraginta & quod excurrit basilicas locum ubi colligerent non haberent. It is plain then, that Optatus does not speak of the state of Rome as it was in his own time, but of Victor Garbiensis, the first Donatist Bishop; when this was, is not easy to fix.  
There is no greater Argument for a great number of Congregations under the Bishop of Rome, than what Mr. B. observes of their Churches before Dioclesian's time, that they were but like our Tabernacles, as to the capaciousness, 
Euseb. l. 8.  I suppose, as well as the manner of their Structure, and therefore the lesser they were, the greater Number there must be of them, and the Church must grow too big for his Definition, since there must be more than could in those circumstances, have personal Communion in Doctrine and Worship.  
When the Diocese of Rome is reduced within the narrow Bounds of a single Congregation, what other Church can pretend to more? And if the Imperial City need not be excepted, Alexandria cannot hope for Exemption, therefore he proceeds to show that Alexandria the greatest and most populous City in the World, next to Rome, had no more Christians than could meet together in one Congregation; and of this he offers a bold Proof, that it was so in the time of Athanasius, 
Athan. T. 1. p. 531. Ch. Hist. 9  whose words he citys, where he excuses himself for having celebrated Easter in the great Church of Alexandria, and drawn together such a multitude as gave great occasion of Jealousy to the Emperor; but his Plea is, that the other Churches were so narrow, that they would have been in danger of suffering by the crowd: and as if this Church would have held all the People, he adds, that it was better for the whole Multitude to meet in the Great Church, and to have the concurrence of the people with one Voice, etc. This Church was newly built by Constantius, and we may suppose it very large, though not yet so great as to be able to contain all the Believers in Alexandria; nor does Mr. B. desire it should, but only the Generality: 
Ch. Hist. p. 10.  yet granting that it received all, it would follow indeed, that the Church of Alexandria then was but one Congregation: but what was it before this great Church was built, when they had no possibility of personal Communion, were not they then made congregational Churches under one Bishop? And Athanasius in the same place confesses the multitude was so great, that all the other Churches in the City could not hold it. Besides the Orthodox were probably much more numerous before the building of that Church, and the Banishment of Athanasius; and if this vast Fabric could not receive the party of Athanasius, what Church shall we imagine could have been large enough for all the Christians in Alexandria before they were divided by Arrius, and before they were governed by Gregory and George the Arrian Bishops?  
He adds to this of Athanasius, 
p. 10. § 30.  another Argument given him by a learned Friend, which I will take the liberty to examine: The City of Alexandria, says Strabo, is like a Soldier's Cloak etc. and by Computation, about ten Miles in Compass; a third or forth part of this was taken up with public Buildings, Temples, and Royal Palaces; thus is two Miles and a half, or three and a quarter taken up.] I will not say, this learned Friend has imposed on Mr. B. but there is a very great Mistake betwixt them; suppose Temples and Royal Palaces should take up such a part of the City, must there therefore be no Inhabitants in those Palaces, or no Christians amongst those Inhabitants? But he believes this to be that Region called Bruchium, which Epiphanius speaks of in his time as destitute. What? all the public Buildings of the Town in one Region, and that an outer Skirt too? as it is described by the Greek Martyrology in Hilarion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And in the Life of Apollonius Discolus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This Epiphanius says, was destitute of Inhabitants in his time, and not unlikely, and perhaps, destitute of public Buildings too; for it was destroyed after an obstinate Siege in the reign of Aurelian, as Ammianus Marcellinus, or of Claudius, 
l. 22.  as Eusebius would have it. However, the City must be reckoned by so much the less, 
In Chronico.  neither is there any Necessity of this; for they might enlarge upon another Quarter, being, it may be, forbidden to build in Bruchium, because it was divided from the rest of the City, and too favourable a Refuge of Rebellion, to which that People was too much addicted; they might dwell closer than before, and so their Multitude be undiminisht. However, certain it is, that this City long after the Destruction of Bruchium retainrd it's ancient Greatness, and is represented by no Writer, as diminished either in Number or Wealth; but to let this pass, let us see what becomes of the rest, he adds, A great part of the City was assigned to the Jews, so Strabo indefinitely, as Josephus quotes him; others tell us more punctually, that their Share was two of the five Divisions (Ush. Annals p. 859.) though many of them had their Habitations in the other Divisions, yet they had two fifth parts entire to themselves (which he might have found as punctually in Strabo, as in Bishop Usher) and this (continues he) is I suppose the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Josephus says, the Successors of Alexander set apart for them; thus we see how six or seven Miles of the ten are disposed of.] And by the same rule he might have disposed of all at once, and concluded out of Strabo's Division of the Town, that there was not one Christian it it: For Strabo lived in Augustus his time, when it was a hard matter to find a Christian in Alexandria, unless we will take in Justin Martyr's old Christians, such as Socrates, i.e. all virtuous good men; and then I am afraid, they would be too few to make a Congregation. The number of these Jews was much lessened within a little while after Strabo, by an Insurrection of the Alexandrians against them; the Civil Wars afterwards under Trajan and his Successor had almost extirpated them; and yet even at this time, Alexandria was as populous as ever, and frequented by almost all the Nations of the Earth, as Dion Chrysostomus represents the flourishing State of it in his time: but no matter what number of Jews or Heathens it had in Strabo's days, the Question is, whether many of both were not converted to the Christian Faith, and that very early.  
There remains now but three or four miles to be disposed of between the Heathens and the Christians, 
ibid.  and much the lesser part will fall to the share of the latter: 'tis kindly done, to provide for the Christians before they were in Being: surely, Strabo who makes the Distribution, and Bishop Usher who citys it out of him, never intended the Christians one Foot of ground in all that Division; and this learned Friend might have spared his little Town of eight or ten Furlongs, which he so liberally bestows upon the Bishop of Alexandria before our Saviour was born.  
What he adds about Alexander and Meletius I wonder it could escape him, 
p. 11.  there being nothing more notorious, than that Alexandria had now several fixed Parishes, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and every one governed under the Bishop, and by its proper Presbyter, and his remark upon two Bishops living quietly in Alexandria, is so disingenuous a Suggestion, that he has reason to be ashamed of it: 
See Epiph. in Hare's Miletian.  for while Miletius lived quietly, and did not set up Altar against Altar, all was well; but a little before his Death, the schismatical Humour returned upon him again, and he ordained Priests and other Church-officers, every where, in Opposition to Alexander, he may find as many or more Bishops living peaceably in London, though there be but one Bishop of the place, as there was in Alexandria.  
Now because Mr. B. has endeavoured to represent the Church of Alexandria so inconsiderable, even after Constantine's days, it will not be impertinent to give the Reader a View of that Church's Greatness, even from the first Foundation of it. In St. Mark's time, Alexandria had several Churches, 
Euseb. l. 2. c. 16 Niceph. l. 2. c. 15. Euseb. l. 2. c. 24.  though but one Bishop, for that same Evangelist is said to have preached the Gospel there first, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, to have founded several Churches or Congregations there; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  yet for all this the whole was but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which Annianus succeeds St. Mark; and Eusebius, in the Chapter before cited, tells us, that the number of Christians was so great in Alexandria, even at the beginning, that Philo vouchsafes to take notice of them; but as for the Essaei, which he there describes, whether they were Jews or Christians, it is not very material, though this is observable, not only of them, but of all the Jews of Alexandria, that their Principles had prepared them for Christianity above all other People: for by their moralising of the Law, and making Virtue and Holiness to be the Design and meaning of all those Observances; they were coming, as it were, to meet the Gospel, and, like the Centurion our Saviour commends, were not far from the Kingdom of Heaven.  
In Adrian's time, 
Vopiseg. in Saturn.  they were, it seems, so considerable, as not only to be mentioned by that Emperor, but to be set at the Head of all the Sects of Religion in Alexandria, and they are named first: for that Emperor in his Letter to Servianus, reproaching the Egyptians with inconstancy and lightness, says, those that worship Serapis are Christians; and there are that call themselves the Bishops of the Christians, that devote themselves to Serapis; all these, it seems, were Christians by inclination, though sometimes they were forced by the Egyptians to worship their Gods; for he that has the least tincture of Christianity, can have no great Devotion for Serapis:— and the Patriarch himself, 
ibid.  when he comes into Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others, to worship Christ. It is not material to our purpose, whether this Patriarch were Bishop of Alexandria, as Casaubon and Salmasius will have him, or rather the chief Governor of the Jews, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Claudius, 
Josephus Antiqu. l. 19.4.  and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Philo; it is enough that the Christians than were so powerful as to be able to oblige him to worship Christ: there is no doubt but that Adrian does the Christians wrong in this point, for they never forced any to their Religion, not after they were uppermost, unless we should judge those of Alexandria to be more violent than the rest; however, this Account certainly represents them as very considerable, and equal to any Sect or Religion in Alexandria.— Vnus illis Deus est, Hunc Christiani, Hunc Judaei omnes venerantur & Gentes. Salmasius understands Serapis by this one God. Casaubon looks upon this Passage as spurious, and added afterwards by a Christian hand in the Margin; from thence, by an ignorant Scribe, transferred into the Text. But, 'tis most probable, that that one God, which the Christians and Jews are said in the first place to adore, is the true God, which both worshipped, although after different manner. And now, by the preaching of the Christians, the greatest part of the Alexandrians might possibly be brought over, if not to a perfect Acknowledgement, yet to some Veneration and Esteem of the true God.  
The great Catechists of Alexandria, as Panteus, Clemens, Origen, and Heracles, did not a little advance the growth of Christian Religion in that place, and Origen's School particularly was so frequented, one Company coming still after another, from Morning till Night, that he had hardly time to take breath, and was forced to take Heraclas into his Assistance, to instruct the more ignorant sort.  
Dionysius, who gives an account of Valerian's Persecution in Egypt, represents the Christians, as well of Alexandria as of other Cities, extraordinary numerous; the concourse of them to him when he was banished to Chebron, was so great, that he was forced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and afterwards, when he was removed from thence to Coluthio, 
Euseb. l. 7. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 8.  which was nearer Alexandria, he comforts himself with this, that those of his Flock could come to him, and stay with him, and meet there in several Congregations, as it were in remoter Suburbs. Valesius observes from hence, that Suburbs, that is, in this sense, Villages of the dependence of any City, had their particular Congregation, and were not obliged to come to the City Church, which he believes was but one, even in Alexandria, in Dionysius' time, but how that is deducible from this passage, I cannot see.  
Under the Persecution of Dioclesian, what numbers of Christians might be at Alexandria, may be judged by the multitude of Martyrs that suffered at Thebes: Eusebius was an Eye-witness of what he relates concerning them; he saw great multitudes suffer together, some days ten, some twenty, some sixty, and sometimes an hundred, and this continued not for a few days only, or a short space of time, but for several years.  
The division of Alexandria between several Presbyters, as it were into so many Parishes, although it be not mentioned before Arrius' time, 
Epiphan. Haeres. Melet. & Arrian.  who was the fixed Minister of one of them, called 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' 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 looked upon as singular, was not their having several distinct Assemblies, but because they had certain and fixed 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 cried, I am of Paul, I am of Apollo's: and this indeed was so singular, that perhaps no other Church in the World had it besides, 
Vales. Annot. in S●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 fixed Congregations under him; 
Athan. T. 1. p. 802.  particularly those of Mareotes, who, though they must be supposed to receive the Faith almost as early as Alexandria, yet never had a Bishop before Ischyrias, (if he were to be reckoned one.) [Mareotes, says Athanasius, is a Country 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 examined 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 numbered, 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 multiplied 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 preached there, it was not 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 preached 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 pressed 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 Air, 
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 show the Argument to be as thin as the Air they talked 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 Air, 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 Air, 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 Forefathers 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 Sphere of a man's Voice, it will be an useful Instrument to a Preacher, of weak Lungs, to stretch out the Bounds of his Diocese, and be as serviceable to the Church as it is to the Camp. 
Disp. of Ch. Gou. p. 81.   
But Mr. B. tells us one thing more which a Friend told him, which I wonder as much, he should believe, as that he be satisfied with another Friend's Computation of the Christians in Alexandria in Strabo's time: 'tis in short this, That, he, though his Voice was none of the loudest, yet he preached to a Congregation judged to be about ten thousand men, 
2 part of Ch. Hist. in one place he has but 6000. but in another he comes up again to 10000  and that they all heard him; I am afraid that this Friend's Calculation exceeds as much as the other falls short; for we reckon now, that three thousand makes an extraordinary Congregation, and it may be possible for a mighty Voice to speak to a thousand more, but it may be, that the World is degenerated since, and that our Lungs are no more in Comparison with those of the times he speaks of, than they were compared to those of the Eastern Preachers.  
At last, to make sure work, he concludes that though Jerusalem might have many Assemblies and yet but one Church, 
p. 81. & 82.  and after the dispersing of the Apostles, but one Bishop, yet this is no Precedent; This I must needs say, is something more than the Independents would adventure to say, they minced the matter and told us, that Jerusalem being the first born Church, and nursed up by the joint care of all the Apostles might arrive to an extraordinary Stature, and look gigantic, in Comparison of the rest, yet they durst not say it had more than one Congregation, and was no Precedent: What shall we judge then? That the Apostles built the Church of Jerusalem after one model, and those of other Cities after another, or if they did, surely they were both lawful; does that overthrow the Church and Discipline of Christ's Institution, that is, according to the practice of his own Apostles? Or can a Conformity to the Discipline of the Mother-church of Jerusalem, become in its self a Sin? Wherein shall we be saved if the Imitation of the Apostles do not secure us?  
But Mr. B. says, the Office of a Bishop supposes him to have no more than one Congregation, since he must hold personal Communion with all, in Preaching, and Administration of the Sacraments, visiting the Sick, relieving the Poor, and the like: but must all these Acts be performed by himself in Person? Must he have no Assistance? Is nothing to be done within his Congregation, without his Presence? May not he do all this occasionally, as the Apostles and Evangelists did, 
Every Bishop had Presbyters in the first times, and if he were so indispensably obliged to do all himself, what use were they of?  and yet appoint Elders for the ordinary and constant Performance of the Ministry, whom he shall supervise and direct? It is very strange, that the Bishops should have been so many hundred years in an Office, which it was impossible for them to discharge, and yet this be never discovered by themselves or others.  
However, the generality of Bishops (you say) for a long while after the Apostles, had but one Congregation to govern; what then? If all the Believers in and about a City, would hardly make a Congregation, that is, to be ascribed to the Condition of those times, and not to be reckoned essential to the Office: all things have their Beginning, but are not confined to the Measures of their Infancy; and if the Beginnings of the Church were but small, even the greatest Cities, it cannot be a prejudice to the Governor of it, if the number of Believers should increase, since they are appointed in Clemens Opinion, for the Government not only of those that have already, 
Ep. ad Corinth.  but of such as shall afterwards believe.  
The Practice of the universal Church, is evidently on our side, for who has ever heard of two Bishops in one City, though it were never so great, unless in time of Schism: and it is strange, when the number of Believers did increase beyond all Possibility of personal Communion, that none should ever discern the necessity of dividing into several Churches, and learn this Wisdom from the Example of Bees; But the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria by their Affectation of Empire, became evil Examples to others by their first Corruption of Church Discipline. It is strange then, that among all the Quarrels of the Bishops, and in all their Accusations of one another, that this Crime of so high a Nature, should never be objected, that no good man could never complain of this Corruption, that there should never be laid to their Charge this usurping of Authority over whole Cities and multitudes of Congregations. But supposing this an Usurpation in the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria, how is it credible, that all the great Cities in the World should be carried away with their Example? that there should be not one honest Bishop left, that understood the nature of his Office, or the just bounds of his Diocese? Or suppose the Bishops so far prejudiced with self-Interest as to have neglected a Duty that redounded so much to the Diminution of their Power, yet were the People who in those times had some part in their Election, ignorant of this great Secret, would not they right themselves, and not have suffered their several Congreations to become Chappelries, etc. Dependencies upon the Bishop's Church? Would not they have governed themselves, rather than become, as it were, a Province to the Bishop; or if the People were ignorant of this, was there no Priest that was ambitious enough to be Bishop, that could inform them of their Right, in Expectation that they would be grateful to the Discoverer of their Privileges. And lastly, was there no Schismatic learned enough to justify his setting up of an Altar against an Altar, by this Argument, that there were more Believers than could hold personal Communion with the Bishop's Altar; that there was work enough for more Bishops than one, and that in populous Cities there ought to be several Churches: yet they were all so dull, as never to think of this way, but on the contrary, every one pretended, that there ought to be but one Bishop in a City, and that himself had the Right, and the other was the Usurper.  
In short, since the Nature of the Church requires, that it should swarm, when Believers grew too numerous for one Assembly, and send out new Colonies under Independant-officers, Is it not very strange, that it should so far forget its Nature, as never to have done this, and to leave not one poor instance, upon whose Authority, the Independency of Congregations might rely? It is upon this, that the present Question turns, and not whether Bishops at first had but single Congregations; for if there were no more Believers within, or belonging to the City, they could have no more; but after they were multiplied into several Congregations, still they had but one Bishop: and Mr. B. does not as much as pretend to any Evidence of History to the contrary, unless it be, when the Church was divided by Schism.  
I thought myself obliged to consider Mr. B's Notion of a Church and Episcopacy, as it lies scattered in his first Chapter, and explained more at large in his first Disputation of Church Government; partly because he insists so much upon it, and bends the whole course of his History to favour it as much as is possible; partly, because he makes it a plea to justify his Rail against Bishops and Councils, as if those he dishonoured in this History, had departed from the ancient use of Church Government and Discipline; and their Usurpation had drawn after it all those evil Consequences and Calamities, which he relates throughout this Book. It is time now to enter upon his History, and to examine how truly and how fairly he has represented the Actions of Bishops and Councils, I shall go along with him as far as the end of the Council of Chalcedon, and endeavour to vindicate the Reputation of the four first general Councils, which our Church receives, from those injurious Representations which Mr. B. has made of them in his History.  
In the next place, I shall endeavour to show how little Truth there is in that general Accusation which this History is intended to make out, that Bishops have been the Authors of all Heresies, Schisms, and Corruptions: Thirdly, that the way to remedy this, is not by multiplying Bishops, and that this Expedient is so far from being the Cure of Church Divisions, that nothing has contributed more to widen the Breach, and to render Peace and Concord impossible within any considerable Compass. Fourthly, That though Bishops and Councils have been guilty of great Miscarriages, they ought not to be imputed to the Order, but the Men; and if Bishops brought in several Corruptions as well in Doctrine as Discipline after the four general Councils; Bishops have likewise reform the Church from them, and have maintained, and do still maintain and justify their Reformation. Lastly, that latter models of Church-Governments without Bishops have been subject to all the Miscarriages that are charged upon the Bishops, and have not been able to prevent or remedy the Mischiefs of Heresies and Schisms, and that the Independent model is of all other, the most unlikely to remedy these Mischiefs, and is justly charged by the Presbyterians to have given the occasion to all those Confusions in Religion, those monstrous Doctrines and endless Separations, under which we still labour, and almost despair to see a Remedy for them.   

CHAP. II.  
Of Heresies and the first Councils.  
THE design of general Councils being chief to preserve the Unity of the Faith, 
Ch. Hist. c. 2. p. 28, 29, 30.  and to reject and discredit all such dangerous doctrines as appear destructive of the fundamental Principles of Religion: Mr. B. thought fit before he entered upon the History of these Councils, to give us some account of Errors which they were designed to remedy: his Discourse is very favourable to the Mistakes of men, [and considering the common Frailty, it is but fit that we should forbear, (as far as is possible) with each others Infirmities] yet still there are such Errors as are not to be endured, and corrupt the very Vitals of Christianity: these when they were obstinately maintained, were stigmatised by the Church, with the name of Heresies, a word which Mr. B. has no Fancy to, and yet St. Paul and St. Peter made use of it to signify the worst and most dangerous sort of Errors, and such as are not to be tolerated within the Communion of the Church. 
Tit. 3.10.  It is Saint Paul's charge to his Son Titus, an Heretic after the first and second Admonition, reject; 
Galat. 5.12.  and reckoning up the works of the Flesh that excluded from Salvation, he puts in Heresy: and St. Peter, 
2 Pet. 1.1.  to render it the more frightful, joins with it the Epithet of damnable, saying, that wicked men should come, who should bring in damnable Heresies. Now, since we are warned before hand, that Heresies there must be, that wicked men will endeavour to introduce wicked Doctrines, the Church would be left in an evil condition, had it been provided with no Authority, no means to remedy those Mischiefs that would certainly overthrow the very Foundations of that Faith, upon which it was built: Now, what defence shall she make against these Assaults? Arms she has none, but Prayers and Tears, and even those may return empty; if the Heretic will be perverse, and obstinately fortify himself in his Errors: must she then suffer this Cancer to eat up her very ●●wels? is there no way of stopping the Progress of this Plague, or to interpose between the sound and the infective? Surely, it cannot be left so destitute, so forlorn, so helpless: there is nothing of Nature or Society but has some means as well as Inclination, to preserve itself; and the Church being a Society united upon the Terms of a common Faith and Charity, must be supposed to have so much Power within itself, as to refuse the Use and Benefit of its Communion, to such as violate the Terms upon which they are associated, corrupt the Doctrine, destroy Holiness, and endanger the Attainments of the ends and Benefits of Religion, not only to themselves, but to those that converse with them. They had Power to reject a Heresy, to put away from them wicked Persons, and to refuse to receive into, or shut out of their Communion such as would not submit to the Laws of their Society. The great condition of their Admission into the Church, was a Profession of the Christian Faith, and they had no right to remain in it any longer than they kept up to that Profession; if they brought in Doctrines that were inconsistent with it, and did persevere in their mistakes, using all endeavours to propagate them, it is but just and equal, it is but natural that such should be turned out of the Fellowship of the Church, and it is but reasonable, after a sad experience of the mischiefs that attend these Doctrines, to endeavour to prevent the li●● for the future, by guarding diligently the Entrances of the Church, and by taking Security of such as enter into it; and if not of all such as enter into it, yet, at leastwise, of those that are admitted to teach or govern the People, that they will not revive those dangerous Doctrines.  
'Tis this that Mr. B. finds so much fault with, and ascribes all the mischiefs that have befallen the Church, to an ignorant zeal against Heresy: There is no doubt but this has been the occasion of great Calamities, the greatest Heretics persecuting the Truth under the name of Heresy: 
p. 31. §. 15. p. 32.  the Arrians were exceeding violent against the Orthodox Believers, and used all manner of Cruelties to reduce them from the right way, which they called Heresy; they, on the other side, returned the infamous name, though not the barbarous treatment, upon their Enemies; and what shall we infer from hence? that there is no Heresy, because Truth is sometimes so miscalled, 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 Heresy is damnable and aught to be reproved, and cast out of the Church, notwithstanding, 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 condemned by them, and to blame their condemnation, calling the Bishops, in derision, Hereticators and Damners, because they pronounced Arrius, Macedonius, Nestorius, etc. Heretics, men of dangerous Principles, and not to be tolerated in the Communion of the Church; yet, for all this, I believe 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 Errors, which men ought to be restrained from preaching and propagating: now all those Errors condemned by the four first General Councils, are laid down there, not only in the Sense, but in the very Terms they were condemned in; these Doctrines are by him owned to be dangerous, and by no means to be suffered to be preached. 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 Error what then? must he be suffered 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 Heretics they condemned, did more hurt than good, that they destroyed 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 preached; there is no variety of wholesome food can countervail the Mischiefs of one envenomed 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 Heretics 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 displeased 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 Corint●. 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 abhor, and separate ourselves from for fear of Pollution; so that the addition of it to those Errors 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 preached, 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 anathemas, they did but declare the Leprosy, as the Priest under the Law turned out the Diseased, 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 healed, lest it should spread, and the whole Church become an Abomination and Anathema to him, whose Faith it had suffered to be corrupted.  
This was the Design of the Bishops and their Councils; to this end they directed their anathemas, and if they have not always met with the Success that were to be wished, 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 blamed 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 threatened and endeavoured 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 asiatics 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, that are grounded upon a mistake; for this is rather to be counted a Consultation than a Council; and, as if they had wanted Authority to determine any thing in that ticklish point of receiving the lapsed into Communion, they only agreed this, 
ap. Cypr. Ep. 31.  That nothing should be changed before the Election of their next Bishop, as appears by their Letter to the Clergy of Carthage; the Bishops that were here present, were such as came to assist and advise the Roman Clergy in a time of so great danger, and not to determine any thing authoritatively in Council, much less to be presided and governed by the Roman Presbyters.  
After this, says he, 
p. 35. § 26.  there was another Council in Carthage, two in Rome, and one in Carthage about the same Controversy. These he passes over very lightly, and the Schism that was the occasion of some of them, because it was impossible to charge it upon any Bishop: Cyprian behaved himself like a prudent good man, and an indulgent Father, and yet all this could not prevent Schism and Conventicles; Faelicissimus, Priest of Carthage, makes the first breach, whom Mr. B. mistakes for Felicissimus the Deacon, 
§ 26.  who joined himself afterwards with Novatus, against the good Bishop Cyprian. Novatus, an African Presbyter, improved this difference; and not content to disturb his own Church, went to Rome, and kindled Discord and Dissension there. Baronius would have this Novatus to be a Bishop, because he is said by Cyprian to have ordained Felicissimus a Deacon; but it is plain, as well out of Cyprian, as the Chronicle of Eusebius, that he was but Priest. Novatus Presbyter Cypriani, Romam veniens, 
Ep. 49.  etc. saith Eusebius; and Cyprian, after he had showed what manner o● man he was, adds, that being conscious of such horrid Crimes, he must expect, non 〈◊〉 Presbyterio excitari tantum, sed & Communicatione prohiberi: and as for the Ordination o● Felicissimus, Cyprian in the same Epistle shew● it to have been done against all Rule and Order, because, he says, that he did it, nec p●mittente me nec sciente, but, sua factione & ambitione: which plainly shows, that Novat●● was Cyprian's Presbyter, and ought not to have ordained a Deacon, unless it were in Conjunction with him, or by his Permission● whereas, if he had been a Bishop, his right to the ordaining of Deacons would have been unquestionable. This was the Author of that Schism Mr. B. favours so much throughout his whole History, and claims Kindred with them, as the Puritans and Nonconformists of those Times; yet having known what manner of man he had been, he might have been ashamed of such a Progenitor, who, if Cyprian be to be believed, was always restless, arrogant, proud, perfidious, a Flatterer, and an Incendiary, that carried a tempest with him wheresoever he went, and was a sworn Enemy to Peace and Settlement; he robbed the Orphans, cheated the Widows, purloined the Treasures of the Church, he suffered his Father to starve, and would not as much as bury him when dead; he kicked his Wife, being great with Child, and caused sudden Abortion: and this was the great Saint and Puritan, that could find no Church, no Bishop holy enough for his Communion; this was the severe Judge, that would not admit Repentance, and represented God cruel and implacable, as himself; for it was really his Opinion, as I shall show in due place, that there was no pardon for the lapsed, no, not with God; and that Mr. B. mistakes, when he affirms this Rigour to extend no farther than to refuse an outward Reconciliation with the Church.  
The next is another Council of Carthage, 
p. 36.  under Cyprian, where one Victor is condemned for making a Priest Guardian of his Children, and entangling a man devoted to the Service of the Altar, in the Affairs of this World. All that he has to except against this, is, the Rigour of the Sentence, that forbids his name to be mentioned in Prayer for the dead; and that there should be no Oblation made for his Rest: but this shows, that the ancient praying for the dead was intended rather as an honourable Remembrance of them, than any act of Charity toward the Soul departed; else it is not likely, so good and indulgent a man as St. Cyprian was, would have been so cruel in his Intentions, as to deprive a poor Soul of any Relief he had judged necessary for it.  

p. ●5. § ●8.  After this he gives a short account of several Councils called upon the subject of Rebaptisation of Heretics, and here, to do him Right, he is just enough in his Remarks: The Generality of the World was for rebaptising Heretics, and considering what manner of men the first Heretics were, it is probable they had Tradition as well as Reason on their side: However, Mr. B. endeavours fairly to excuse these Differences, and speaks of the Bishops with Honour and respect, allowing them to be men of eminent Piety and Worth: Had he used the same Candour towards others, who were no less eminent, it would have been no Disparagement to his Judgement or Sincerity; but his contrary unequal Dealing is not much for the Reputation of his Charity and Modesty.  
There is a mistake § 29. where he make; Eus bius to speak that in his own Person, 
〈…〉.  which he citys not of Dionysius Alexandrinus, That he does not condemn the rebaptising of Heretics, 
Euseb. l. 7 c. 6.  which was a Tradition of so great Antiquity.  
The Councils of Antioch that condemned Paulus Samosatenus, are in effect acquitted by Mr. B. when he acknowledges him, that was rejected by those Councils, a gross Heretic.  
That infamous meeting of Traditors at Cyrta, 
p. 36. § 37. A meeting of 12 evil men that were Bishops. lib. 1. contra Parmen.  was rather a Conspiracy than a Council; and I am sorry Mr. B. has not done that Right to the Catholic Church, as to show who these men were. Opatus Milev. reproaches his Donatist Adversary with these Progenitors; amongst these was Donatus Masculitanus, Victor. Rusicciadiensis, Marinus ab aquis Tibilitanis, Donatus Calumensis, and the Murderer, Purpurius Limatensis, the great Promoters of the Schism of the Donatists, and, as it were, the Apostles of that Sect; yet these men, though they were confessed Traditors, became of so tender Consciences soon after, as to abhor Communion with Cecilianus, because he was ordained by Felix, whom they suspected of the same Crime, that they had pardoned one another. The Church is so unconcerned with the crimes of these men, that they are in some measure her Vindication, they went out from us, because they were not of us, and they left the Communion of the Church, because their crimes made them despair of enjoying it.  
The next Council he mentions, 
c. 2. § 38.  is that of Sinuessa, one of the most nonsensical pieces of Forgery that ever I saw; three hundred Bishops are said to meet together, to judge Pope Marcellinus, and could find no better place than a Cave, where they could meet but fifty at a time; like the Prophets that were fed by Obadiah in the time of Jezebel's Persecution: and these Judges when they came together, durst not be so presumptuous as to judge a Pope, but desired him to condemn himself; and when the poor man is persuaded to pass his own Sentence, Melchiades pronounces these Words, Justè ore suo condemnatus est, nemo enim unquam judicavit Pontificem, nec praesul sacerdotem suum, quoniam prima sedes non judicatur à quoquam: and yet for all this, Mr. B. declares, that whether this be true or forged is too hard a Controversy: Just as hard as that concerning St. Ursula and her eleven thousand Virgins, or the travelling Chapel of Loretto, or the History of the seven Champions.  
The Council of Illiberis follows next, that has many very good Canons, and some have need of a favourable Interpretation; it is very severe in some cases, denying Communion even at the hour of Death; but this is not the thing which was condemned in the Novatians, as we shall show hereafter.  
The Council of Carthage followed, that began the Schism of the Donatists, 
p. 39 § 40.  upon the occasion of Cecilianus his Election; Thus, says he, the doleful Tragedy of the Donatists began by Bishops, divided about the Carthage Bishop. Tho it cannot be denied, but that Bishops had a hand in carrying on this Schism, 
Opt. lib. 1. contra Parmen.  yet 'tis not true, that it was begun by them; for Optatus makes Botrus and Caeleusius, the first Authors of this Schism; for these, desiring themselves to be Bishops of Carthage, and disappointed of their Hopes, by the unanimous Election of Cecilianus, left the Communion of the Church, and drew Lucilla, a rich and potent Lady, into their Party, Et sic tribus convenientibus causis & personis factum est ut malignitas haberet effectum. Schisma igitur illo tempore confusâ mulieris iracundia peperit, ambitus nutrivit, avaritia roboravit. These three invited those Traditors of the Council of Cyrta to Carthage, to judge the cause of Cecilianus, who they pretended, was ordained by a Traditor; and these inveigled a great many others, by a plausible pretence of Zeal against the Betrayers of Religion; so Cecilianus was condemned, and Majorinus put into his place.  
The Donatists, says Mr. B. were so called from Donatus, 
§ 40.  a very good Bishop of Carthage heretofore, and not from Donatus, à Casis nigris. 'Tis true, the former gave them the name, but I wonder where Mr. B. finds that he was so good a Bishop, 
(a) De script. Eccles. in Donat.  St. Jerom makes him an Arrian; 
(b) Optat. lib. 3. contra Parmen.  Optatus represents him as the most arrogant, proud man, that ever was, that he exacted such a Submission, even from Bishops, as to make them worship him with no less Regard than God himself, that he suffered men to swear by his name: 
(c) Aust. in Joh. tract. 3. prop. Friem.  St. Austin makes him an Impostor, that he made his party believe, that when he prayed, God answered him from Heaven; and the civil Magistrate found him no less turbulent than the Church, his contumelious Language to the Emperors and their Lieutenants, showing sufficiently what Spirit he was of. 
Gregori Macula Senatus & dedecus Praefectorum.   
Lastly, He mistakes the time of this Council, with Binnius and Baroneus, placing it in the year of Christ, 306. But Optatus making this Election of Cecilianus subsequent of the Toleration granted the African Churches by Maxentius, who had not reduced Africa, 
Valesius de Schismate Donatist. c. 1. § 41.  till about five years after; it is clear, that this Council could not be before.  
An. 308. Another Council was held at Carthage, where no less than two hundred and seventy Donatist-Bishops, 
The Bishops now begin to multiply, Schism the occasion.  for Moderation, agreed to communicate with penitent Traditors, without rebaptising them, and so did for forty years. This looks liker a piece of Policy than Moderation, for it had no tendence to Peace, but to strengthen the Schism.  
For the number of Bishops in this Council we have only the Authority of Tychonius, 
Aug. Epist. ad Vincentiam.  a Donatist, who probably, (as the humour of those Schismatics was) might magnify the strength of his Party, and stretch it a point beyond what it really was. The time of this Council is likewise very much mistaken, as appears by what we have said of the Council going before; and, it is probable, that it was held in the time of Donatus, 
Vales. de Schism. Donat. c. 3.  Schismatic Bishop of Carthage, and immediate Successor of Majorinus. St. Jerom, in his Chronicle, sets his Promotion in the year 331. Donatus agnoscitur à quo per Africam Donatiani; And it cannot be well imagined, that Schism should spread so suddenly, as in the very beginning of it, to have two hundred and seventy Bishops of their Party; especially, considering that Constantine the Great used all his Endeavours to suppress them.  
It is observable, that before this time we do not meet any very numerous Councils, either in afric or any where else; the greatest falling much short of a hundred; which shows, that Bishops were not yet so much multiplied, and that their Bishoprics were of a larger Extent; but these Schismatics having divided the Church, made Bishops in every Village to strengthen their Party, and to outnumber the Orthodox; besides that, they had set up an Altar, 
p. 4. § 44.  and made them Bishops in every City, where they could get the least Congregation to join with them.  
Mr. B. complains, upon this Occasion, That some Popish Persons liken the Separatists among us to the Donatists; who those Popish Persons are, I will not pretend to guess; However, this I am sure, that the word Heresy of old was never worse abused, than that of Popery is now; for whomsoever men have a mind to render odious to the People, it is sufficient to call him Popish, and then he is baited under that infamous name, as the Christians anciently were in the Skins of Beasts: But if a man had a mind to make odious Comparisons, Mr. B's Defence of our Separatists from the Imputation of being like the Donatists, would render them but little Service. For his first Exception of our Separatists having no Bishops, which the Donatists had, makes them differ not only from that Sect, but from all the Sects and Churches in the World● till the last Age: and his second Exception of their being the lesser number, signifies as little; for so were the Donatists at first, and so may they long continue; or rather may the name of Separation cease, and all return into one Flock; under one Shepherd. But the Donatists divided the Unity of the Church, appointed Bishops against Bishops, and Altar against Altar, pretended to a greater Purity than the Orthodox, and boasted, that their Church had all Wheat and no Tares; were great Calumniators of Bishops, and the honest Clergy that took their part, they gave great Jealousy to the Civil Government, and spoke Disrespectfully of Princes: I will not say, that any of our Separatists do resemble them in any of this.  
The succeeding Councils of Ancyra, Neocaesarea, and two of Alexandria, escaped with pretty good Quarter; the Acts of some not displeasing him, and of others being lost.  
The next is that of Laodicea, 
p. 42. § 49. They were so few, that without Contention, they made divers good Canons.  of 32 Bishops; not so few, but they could have fallen out, if they had been so disposed; three Canons of this Council, he citys in favour of his congregational Church: The forty sixth requires, That those that are to be baptised, and not already baptised, (as Mr. B. translates) should learn the Creed, and repeat it to the Bishop or Presbyters, on the Friday of the last Week, i. e. of the Lent, or any other, next preceding the day of solemn Baptism. By this, saith Mr. B. You may conjecture how large a Bishopric than was. They might be as large as ours for all this: For though the Bishop may not hear them all himself, upon the same day yet the Presbyters of his Diocese may, and the Canon is satisfied with that: And Canon 56 forbids the Presbyters to go into the Church before the Bishop, but with him: and Mr. B's Inference from hence, is, That every Church had a Bishop, though some Chapels afar off, had but Presbyters only. But I cannot see what Service this Remark does him; for 'tis confessed, that no Bishop had but one Cathedral, and that is the Church meant here in the Canon; for it is added, Nec sedere in Tribunalibus, which were put up only in the Episcopal Church; but that there were other Parish Churches supplied by Presbyters, and those far from the Cathedral, is acknowledged by Mr. B. I will not contend with him about their Title, whether they were Churches or Chapels; it is sufficient to disprove his Notion, that they were several Congregations. Canon 57 It is ordered that Bishops should not be ordained in Villages and Hamlets: The Canon does not distinguish between the small and great, putting Villages indefinitely, but instead of Bishops they were to have Visitors, i. e. qui circum eant, that should go about, and visit them: 
§ 49.  which Expression imports, that there was no small number of them under the same Association, and yet, all these were under the Bishop of the City, upon which they depended, and their Visitor was to do nothing without his Knowledge or Privity; which Mr. B. translates Conscience: 
Sine Conscientia Ep. nibil faciant.  But lest he should have forgot the thirteenth Canon, or taken no notice of it, I would recommend it to his consideration; it is but short, Quod non sit permittendum turbis, Electionem eorum facere, qui sunt ad sacerdotium provehendi; which shows, that the People's Right of electing Bishops or Ministers, is not so general, as to have no Exception in Antiquity.  
That great Roman Council, of two hundred seventy five Bishops, 
p. 43. p. 53. this is confessed to be partly false if not all.  which Mr. B. mentions out of Crabb, is of so little Credit, as either not to be taken notice of by the following Compilers, or else, as is most probable, is set down elsewhere; for Crabb sets them down twice. It is uncertain, says Mr. B. whether it was before or after the Nicene Council: for my part, I believe it was neither before nor after, but just the same time with the other great Roman Council, that follows next to it, of 284 Bishops, which is said to be held after that, 
ibid.  Constantine was baptised by Sylvester: A hundred and twenty nine Bishops came to this latter from the City of Rome, and not far from it: How big were Bishoprics then says Mr. B.?  
But had there been no more Bishops in Italy than were in this Council, they would not have exceeded the number of Christians in Alexandria, when Strabo described it. After this he finds fault with several things in this imaginary Synod; first, Because men are cursed for being ignorant of the time of the Moon; and then he congratulates the Makers and Improvers of the English Liturgy, (he should have said the Almanac-makers) that they did not live in those severe times: For alas! one year they mistook the time of Easter, and this is one of the things for which two thousand Ministers are silenced, for not declaring Assent, Consent, and Approbation of, yea, and the use of it, and so to keep Easter at a wrong time. The silenced Ministers have little Reason to thank him; or any body else, that gives this reason of their Separation; nor do I believe they would be thought such strict Observers of Times and Festivals; and it is strange, this should trouble their Consciences, who care no more for Easter than they do for Christmas, but only that it falls upon a Sunday; and if the old observance of Easter in this Country, upon the fourteenth day of the Moon, had continued, we must have expected to have had as many Arguments against the Feast of the Resurrection, as we have had against that of the Nativity.  
After this, he quarrels with several other Canons of this Council, and at last ends in these Exclamations, O brave Pope and Clergy! O patiented Council! that subscribed to one man, and pretended to no Judgement. O humble Constantine! that subscribed to all this, and said nothing, and a Woman's Subscription perfecteth all; and O credulous Reader that believeth this! Why then does he speak so modestly, that the Fiction is but uncertain? Why does he make Advantage of the number of these imaginary Bishops? Why does he find Fault, and aggravate, and exclaim; if after all, this is but a dream, and his Reader a Fool to believe it?  
Before I close this Chapter, I must give an account of Mr. B's Favourite Sect, the Novatians, whom he speaks so favourably of, as often as he has occasion to mention them. The Original of their Schism he slubbers over, p. 35. after this manner; And Novatus, and Novatian, as 'tis said, being against their taking (i. e. the lapsed) into Communion at all, the Councils excommunicated them all as Schismatics.  
One would imagine by this account, that Novatus and Novatian had been thrust out of the Church, and that their Schism was an Effect of their Excommunication; but the contrary is notorious, 
Ep. 39  for Cyprian charges Novatus with having first departed from the Unity of the Church, and drawn away several Brethren from the Communion of their Bishop; and the Reason of all this was, his Consciousness of those horrid Crimes he had committed, which he foresaw would unavoidably bring the Censures of the Church upon him, as soon as ever the Persecution was over. This was the tender Conscience of the Author of the ancient Sect of the Puritans; 
Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.  Novatian in like manner withdrew from the Communion of the Church, before he was excommunicated; and the reason of his being renounced by the Church, was, because he had first renounced their Communion: this Pharisaical Saint could not vouchsafe to enter into the same Church with Sinners; and if it were not purged of all Dross and Corruption, it must be unworthy of his Communion: yet this severe Refiner, of all others, had least reason to exact this Purity, whose Entrance into the Church, as well as the Ministry, was by extraordinary Dispensation and Indulgence; he was baptised in his bed, in great danger of Death; he neglected to be confirmed by the Bishop; he was made Priest against Ecclesiastical Laws [that forbidden Clinics to have any share in the Government of the Church] by the intercession of the Bishop, who promised the People, who were generally against his Admission, that this Act should never be drawn into Precedent. Being made Priest, he became no great credit to his Friends that promoted him, for in time of Persecution, being desired to assist some of the Brethren that were in distress, he renounced his Office, and Religion, saying, that he would be Priest no longer, and had an inclination to betake himself to another sort of Philosophy than the Christian: this is the man that was so rigid and cruel, as not to receive the Repentance of such as had fallen in time of Persecution, but, insinuating himself into the good opinion of the Confessors, such as had endured the fiery Trial, he began to bring them into a dislike of the Church, since it did receive those that had abjured that Religion for which the Confessors had so gloriously suffered, and equalled them to these holy Martyrs in all the Privileges of Communion. Some of these good men were carried away with his dissimulation, to do countenance to the Schism, and their Authority brought off several others from the Communion of the Bishop; but these at last discovering the Wolf in Sheep's clothing, forsook the Impostor, and returned to the Unity of the Church; he, in the mean time, uses all diligence to widen the breach, and to make it perpetual, by setting up himself for a Bishop, which then was thought necessary to the Being of a Church, although he had sworn solemnly before never to take the Office upon him. To compass his Design, he sends some of the subtlest of his Agents to three plain ignorant Bishops, to invite them to Rome, under pretence that this wretched Schism might be ended by their good Offices: These good men, suspecting no trick, came; and, overcome with his good Entertainment, with too much Wine and Persuasion, were forced at last to lay their hands on him, and consecrate him a Bishop; and not thinking himself secure enough yet under this Title, he makes every one of his Congregation engage himself by Oath never to forsake him, or to return to Cornelius, and this in a manner so Solemn, that the relation of it is sufficient to strike a horror on the mind of the Reader: for when he administered the Sacrament, after Consecration, he made every one that received, when the Bread was in his hand, to swear to him by the Body and Blood of our Saviour, that they would never forsake him, or return to their former Bishop. These were the men, these were the means by which the Schism of the Novatians was begun and carried on; a Schism no less execrable in the Conduct of it, than infamous in its Authors, and, which is yet worse than all this, most blasphemous in its Doctrines.  
Mr. B. is too favourable in his representation of the Novatian Doctrine; for, in the place above-cited, he makes these two Observations in favour of them. First, that Novatus did not deny the lapsed pardon of Sin with God, 
p. 39  but only Church-Communion. Secondly, That he did not deny this to other great Sinners repenting, but only to those that lapsed to Idolatry, or denying Christ; but the Novatians long after extended it to other heinous Crimes, as upon supposed parity of Reason.  
As to the first, 
lib. 4. c. 28.  Socrates does endeavour to excuse them, by saying, that those who had sacrificed to Idols in times of Persecution, were to be exhorted to Repentance, though not to be admitted to Communion, and as to the Pardon of their Sin, they were to leave that to God, who alone has power to forgive Sins.  
It must be confessed, that Socrates is an Historian of good credit, and, it seems, well acquainted with the History and Doctrine of the Novatians, who probably in his time might have grown more moderate in their Opinion concerning Remission of Sin; but nothing can be more evident, than that the Authors of that Schism denied not only the Communion of the Church, but God's Pardon, to those who had sinned after Baptism; for this, all the Writers of that time, who must be supposed to understand their Tenets, do unanimously affirm. Dionysius Alexandrinus, who lived the same time with Novatian, and writ to him to advise him to return, and be reconciled to the Church, and lay down that Honour of a Bishop, which he pretended was forced upon him; this ancient Writer gives us this account of their Doctrine: 
Euseb. l. 7. c. 8.  Novatian, says he, I justly abhor, because he has divided the Church, and drawn aside several Brethren into Impiety and Blasphemy, and brought in a most wicked Doctrine concerning God, representing our most merciful Saviour as cruel and void of pity: Besides this, be evacuates holy Baptism, and overthrows the Faith that was before him: And lastly, He banishes the Holy Ghost irrevocably from those in whom there is great reason to hope that either it Remains still, or may return to them again. So far Dionysius.  

Cypr. ad Nou. Haer.  S. Cyprian argues, in several places, upon the same Supposition, and looks upon their Severity, in not admitting Penitents to Communion, as the Effect of a more cruel Doctrine, that God would never receive them into favour: 
idem ad Anton. l. 4. ep. 2.  This was the main Argument against the lapsed, He that denies me before men, him will I deny before my Father which is in Heaven: and consequently, they denied them Communion, because they believed Christ would finally reject them. This the same Father uses great diligence to explain, and confutes their Inference from it by the Example of St. Peter, who denied his Master, and yet was received into Grace. He does acknowledge indeed frequently, that Novatus did exhort those to Repentance he refused to receive; but then he urges, that nothing can be more impertinent, than to press men to repent, and yet to take away from them all hopes of Pardon; and therefore, he notes this as a pernicious Effect of their Doctrine, That it frighted men out of their Religion, and made them turn Heathen, upon despair of Mercy, and cast away all thoughts of Repentance, since it would not avail them to Salvation.  
Eusebius, 
Euseb. l. 6. c. 43.  who had seen all this and a great deal more relating to the Novatians, and in all Probability, had read several of their Books, understood this to be their Doctrine; for Novatus, saith he, (so he calls Novatian) a Presbyter of the Roman Church, puffed up with Insolence and Pride against the lapsed, as if there remained to them no hopes of Salvation, although they should perform all things that are requisite to a sincere Conversion, became Author of that Sect, who arrogantly assume the name of Puritans.  
These Witnesses are so express and full, that Socrates takes off nothing of the force of their Testimony; for he says only this, That they remitted Sinners to God, who was only able to forgive them, but they never give the least hope that he will do so, or that any Salvation is to be attained out of the Communion of the Church; so that this is to be looked upon rather a Shift, or a put off, to divert Envy and Clamour, than to give any Comfort or Encouragement to the penitent.  
As to M. B's 2d Observation, That the Authors of this Heresy did not deny Pardon to other great Sinners, but only to those that lapsed to Idolatry, or denying Christ; and that it was their Followers long after, that extended it to other heinous Crimes: Socrates expressly confutes it, in the place above cited; where, speaking of Novatian's Letters to several Churches upon the occasion of his Schism, adds, That several were offended at the Severity of that Rule, that admitted none to Communion who had sinned mortally after Baptism. The word there indeed, is Sinned unto Death, but that he did not understand that particular one of Apostasy by it, appears by what follows in the same Chapter; That some took part with Novatian, others with Cornelius, according to their several Inclinations and Course of Life; the loser and more licentious sort, favouring the most indulgent Discipline, the other of more austere Lives, inclining most to the Novatian Severity; which implies, that all Sins in the Opinion of these Schismatics were equally irremissable: And a little before, in the same Chapter, Novatian confesses as much, where he remits the forgiving not only of this Sin of Apostasy, but all Sins in general to God alone; which is fuller confirmed by St. Ambrose, 
l. ●. de Poe●it. c. 1.  who charges them with the Stoical Opinion that all Sins are equal.  
Now let us see whether the Council of Eliberis d●es favour this Doctrine, and whether Mr. B. had any reason to admire how that Council should be received as Orthodox, and yet the Novatians be accounted Heretics. 
p. 39  He notes in his Margin, that Abbaspinaeus has learnedly made the best of it; so has Mendoza, in his large Defence of this Council, who vindicates this Canon by great numbers of Instances of the same nature in other Councils. He must be a great Stranger to the ancient Discipline of the Church, that has not heard of Penitents not being received into full Communion at the hour of Death: but this is far enough from being Novatianism: for such, although they were not received into the Lord's Supper, or within the Congregation, were yet, upon their Repentance, received into the Order of Penitents; who, though they were not admitted into all the Privileges and Familiarity of the Communion, yet they were received into the Charity and Unity of the Church; they had the Benefit of the Church's Prayers, and at last were reconciled by Imposition of hands, though not by the receiving of the Sacrament, which was the more usual way.  
We do not find that this Sect was much more mortified than its Neighbours, unless it were in Phrygia, where Socrates saith, 
In the place last cited. l. 1. de paenit.  The People were naturally averse to Pleasures. But at Constantinople, their Bishop Sisinnius was so gay and luxurious, as to give Offence to the Orthodox Party: and Saint Ambrose objects the same thing to the whole Sect. Lastly, they were no less Enemies to Peace, than they were to Truth, though Mr. B. commends their Moderation in one Instance; for the Catholics in time of common Persecution, frequented their Churches, and would have made up the old Breach, 
Socr. l. 2. c. 38.  but the Novatians would not comply, but kept to their ancient rule of Separation, and refused to unite.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Doctor Forbes intended a particular History of the Novatians, to show the Nature and Method of Schism: it is Pity that great man did not live to perform what he designed. Steph. Keuchelius writ a Book of the Novatian Heresy (so he makes it) Strasburg 1651. Quarto.   

CHAP. III.  
Of the Council of Nice, and some that followed it.  
THE great Council of Nice gives Title to Mr. B's third Chapter; 
Ch. Hist. p. 45. § 1.  He cannot deny, but the Controversy about which it was called, was of great Moment, and that it was brought to a happy end, but lessens, as much as he can, the Credit of the Bishops, and ascribes very little to their Prudence and Judgement. I do not envy Constantine the Reputation of having healed the Differences of the Church, and there is no doubt, but he contributed much to the stilling that Controversy for a while; yet it seems he did not judge the Bishops and Councils to be of so little use as Mr. B. would represent, but was at great Pains and Expense to bring an extraordinary number of them together, and he knew no other way of composing Differences about Religion, than by getting a Consultation of the most learned and eminent of those that had the Direction of the Church. Some of these indeed had their Grievances to represent, and complaints against each other; but the Modesty of Constantine put an end to their Quarrels and Disputes, burning all their Accusations without reading them. It is no wonder, if in so great a number assembled from all the Provinces of the Roman World, (considering their great Dissensions about Religion) that there should be some that might retain the Sense of Injuries received, and complain of such as had done them wrong; but these were but few, and the matter soon accommodated.  
Mr. B. adds, That Eusebius Nicomed. and Arrius were brought but to counterfeit Repentance, 
§ 1.  which satisfied Constantine, though not Athanasius; who, refusing to receive Arrius into Communion upon Constantine's Request, caused much Calamity afterwards.  
This is an obliqne Accusation of that great Champion of the Christian Faith, and seems to charge him with all the Calamities which that unhappy Controversy brought upon the Church: but how justly, we will refer to Mr. B's own Words, who calls Arrius' Recantation, A counterfeit Repentance, and Consent to the Nicene Faith. If Athanasius saw through this Dissimulation, why is he yet blamed for not admitting him into the Church, before he had sincerely corrected that Fault for which he was justly cast out? 
Socr. l. 1. c. 27.  And it was no hard matter to discern the Insincerity of Arrius' Confession, since he dissembles the very point in Question, and rejects the Terms in which the Council had expressed itself: If therefore the good Emperor were imposed upon by a counterfeit Repentance, and would restore that Incendiary to Opportunities of doing Mischief, Athanasius is not to be blamed, who wisely foresaw what Mischiefs were like to follow, upon the Reception of that Heretic. Compliance with Hypocrites, is no likely means to reclaim them; and there is a sort of Mercy that is more cruel, than Severity: if those few that dissented from the Determination of that Council, had not been received again without giving greater security of their Faith and Moderation, it might perhaps have ended that fatal Controversy.  
In the next place, 
§ 2.  Mr. B. passes to the case of the Meletians, and thinks it useful (for our warning in these times) to recite the sum of the Story out of Epiphanius.  
The short of it is this, 
Epiph. Haer. Melet.  Peter Bishop of Alexandria, and Meletus Bishop of Lycopolis, being Fellow-prisoners for the same Faith, disagreed unhappily about the old Question, Whether those that denied the Faith in time of Persecution, were to be received upon their Repentance? 
Epiph.  Peter was for Indulgence, Meletius for Severity. In Conclusion, they divided Congregations in the Prison, Peter suffered Martyrdom, but the Schism survived him, and the Churches of Egypt were upon this occasion, divided into Parties; Meletius is reconciled to the Successor of Peter, and lives peaceably with him in Alexandria, content with the Title of a Bishop, but without any exercise of his Function. At last, the Spirit of Diusion returned upon him again, and he made new Ordinations, and set Church against Church, and Bishop against Bishop; His Followers after his Death, joined with the Arrians, against Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, and became a great Support to that Heresy, 
p. 46.  Just as if the Nonconformists at this time, saith Mr. B. should seek, by the favour of the Papists, to be delivered from the silencing and destroying Prelates, upon Condition of common Liberty; the cases are not much unlike.  
I do not desire to improve this Comparison to the Reproach of the Non-conformists, as he endeavours to render Bishops odious, under the Name of Tyrants; yet I wish they would seriously consider, what Support their Separation has been to that Faction, they above all men exclaim against. They have made the Breach, and the Enemy has lodged, and fortified himself in it, and yet notwithstanding the common danger that threatens all, still choose to pursue their little Scruples and great Animosities, to the evident hazard of the Reformed Religion, rather than to close with the Church, and to make up the Breaches of our City, which will be impregnable, when it is at Unity in itself. But to return to our Story of the Meletians. Mr. B. confesses, page 48. That Baronius and Petavius say that Epiphanius is deceived in all this History, and makes the case of the Meletians, better than it was, and that some Meletian Knave beguiled him. He answers, 1. They give us no Proof of any such Knaves beguiling him at all. 2. That he who was so apt to overdo, in suspecting and aggravating Heresies (as in Origen and Chrysostom 's Case) was not likely to make the case here so much better than it was. 3. And how much nearer was Epiphanius in Time and Place, than Baronius and Petavius? And how easy was it then for him to have true Notice of such public things? 4. And if they make Epiphanius so fallacious in such a Story as this, so near him, what a shake does it give to the Credit of his copious History of the many other Heresies, which he had less opportunity to know, and consequently, to the Credit of much of Church-History?  
Mr. B. has an easy way of confuting men's Opinions, without confuting their Reasons: If he had but mentioned any of their Arguments, he might have spared the Labour of his own. As to his first Reason against them, they do not stand much upon it, whether a Meletian Knave beguiled Epiphanius or no, they prove him to be deceived, and it is likelier he should be deceived by a Meletian Knave, than any Body else. As to the second; No body can think he designed to excuse the Meletians, by that Story which he laid down as he found it. As to the third, it would have some weight, if Baronius and Petavius contradicted this out of their own Heads, without any Authority ancienter than Epiphanius. Is not Athanasius as credible a Witness, who lived in those times, and was concerned in some of those Actions that are related by Epiphanius; his Relation contradicts this. Who then is to be believed, Epiphanius, who writ a long time after, 
Athanas. Apol. 2.  or Athanasius, who was witness of most of these things, and must needs have heard of that Quarrel in the Prison, if any such thing had been? But he gives us this account; which, how it can consist with Epiphanius', let Mr. B. judge: Peter, says he, was made Bishop with us before, and suffered Martyrdom under the Persecution of Dioclesian; he deposed, in a Synod of Bishops, Meletius an Egyptian Bishop, convict of many Crimes, and in particular, that he had sacrificed to Idols; he neither appealed to any other Synod, nor took care to purge himself before Peter's Successors in Alexandria, but made a Schism; so that his Followers now instead of Christians, are called Meletians; then he began to asperse and calumniate the Bishops, and Peter in the first place, than his Successor Achillas, and after him Alexander, and that with great cunning, borrowing the Instance of Absalon, to render the Fact of his Deposition more invidious, and to revenge himself by calumniating the innocent. What shall we now believe? That Meletius who was convict of sacrificing to Idols himself, should be so severe against others that had fallen into the same Sin? or how should he be imprisoned for his Religion that had sacrificed to Idols? This, and the Story of that dividing Mantle, can no more agree, than Peter and Meletius could in the Prison, according to Epiphanius his Relation. Socrates and Sozomen have the same Story with Athanasius, and not one word of this Partition Mantle. In short, is Peter himself to be believed against Epiphanius? He is represented there as one too indulgent to Sinners, but his Canons are the severest of any that I have seen, and are downright Novatianism in Mr. B's Opinion: He appoints very long Penance, for Sins not very heinous; and for those that fall away under Persecution, 
Vid. Petr. Alex. Can. ap. Bib. Patr. apud. Synodic. Bever.  though their Temptations be never so great, and the Terrors of Death never so forcible, yet he allows them but just Encouragement enough to hope for a Pardon upon their sincere Repentance; but for such as prevent the danger, and offer themselves to Sacrifice before the Officers hale them to the Temple, 
Petr. 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 departed from his Communion, for being too much prostituted to the Betrayers of Religion: If all this does not satisfy 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 joined with the Arrians before the Death of Alexander; and in his Instance of the time of Arrius' death, placing it before the Council 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 banished Athanasius into Italy, where he remained twelve or fourteen years, till after the Death of Constantine. If Athanasius himself be to be believed, or Socrates out of him, Constantine banished 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 Council of Tyre was not assembled till the thirtieth year of Constantine, 
Epist. Praef. Mar●ot.  Constantius and Albinus being Consuls; which agrees with the three hundred thirty fifth year of our Saviour, according to Baronius' Computation; Athanasius his Banishment is placed the year after, Constantine dies the year ensuing, and presently after his death, Athanasius is recalled. 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 returned the very same year that Constantine died: 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 murder of Arsenius, in Constantine's time; that Eusebius baptised Valens the Emperor, 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' place in the time of his first Banishment; that Achillas succeeded Alexanaer in the See of Alexandria, 
Dallè, l. 4. de Imagine. 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 compelled his Brother Constantius to restore him (Athanasius) he was again banished; For George, that had been made Bishop by the Arrians (and by Constantius) was killed by the Heathen People in Julian's time, and his Corpse burnt, and the ashes scattered into the Wind, which increased the suspicion of Tyranny against Athanasius.  
I hope George's murder in Julian's time, did not bring Athanasius into suspicion of Tyranny under Constantius. But pag. 62. Sect. 45. this George is called Gregory; Gregory the Bishop, being, as is aforesaid, murdered by the Heathen, and burnt to ashes.] We no where read, that this Gregory was either murdered or burnt, but that he was turned 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 murdered, was put in his place. Where he says, Constans compelled 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 threatened his Brother with War, if he did not restore Athanasius and Paul into their Churches.  
Page 48. §. 4. He gives an account of the Heresy of Arrius, and, I think, hearty 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 Heresy 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 says 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. 'Tis true, that some of the Fathers, before the Nicene Council, seemed 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 aught 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 loosely, 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, etc. 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 Error. Though that Error, 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 not stand in need of that Charity: Some of them spoke loosely, in compliance with a Platonic Notion of the Trinity, not foreseeing what Consequences might be drawn from their Expressions, or how narrowly they should come afterwards to be examined. Certain it is, that the Fathers that followed the Nicene Council, 
Athan. ad Afros. Hist. Tripart. l. 2. c. 7. Socr. l. 5. c. 10. & Sozom. l. 7. c. 12.  took all the Ecclesiastical Writers before their time to be of their Opinion; and Sisinnius, the Novatian Reader, afterwards Bishop, is said to have confounded all the Arrian Disputants, by putting the matter to this issue, Whether they would stand to the Judgement of the Ancient Fathers, in the Interpretation of such places of Scripture as were controverted between them. Eusebius, no Enemy to the Arrians, 
Ep. ad Caesar. Hist. Tripart. l. 2.  acknowledges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be used by some Ecclesiastical Writers, long before the Council of Nice: the Creed of the Council of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus, has it, 
Vid. Con●. Antioch.  and several other things, that show how much the Doctrine of the Church at that time differed from that of the Arrians. It would be a great Service to the Truth, that seems now to labour under some Prejudice, if some learned hand would take the Pains to show (which I believe is not impossible) how Petavius has betrayed the constant Tradition of this Doctrine, to establish it by the Authority of the Church, and relieve the Memories of those holy Martyrs that he leaves charged with the Suspicion of blasphemous Opinions concerning our Saviour.  
Having done with the Nicene Council, 
p. 50. §. 7.  and all that related to it, Mr. B. thinks it worth his labour to add the Sum of the History of the Audians out of Epiphanius. 
Epiph. Haeres. Audian.  That the World may perceive what Spirit the hereticating Prelates were then of, and how some, called Heretics, were made such, or defamed as such, and who they were that did divide the Churches, and break their Peace; The Author of this Sect was Audius, a man severe in his Life, and sound in his Principles, but one that took great Liberty of Speech, and reproved sharply, whatsoever he found amiss, though it were in the Bishops; they, in Revenge, persecuted him, and turned him out of the Church. He is made Bishop of his own Sect, and so exasperated, as to abhor all Communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church. If all things were as Epiphanius represents them, Audius had very hard Measure: but it seems, from Epiphanius his own account, that there was not wanting just occasion against him; for he held, that God had Humane Shape; a Doctrine, if obstinately maintained (and such bold men are not easily reclaimed) altogether intolerable: But I am afraid Epiphanius had this Story from as bad hands as that of the Meletians; for, this Schism happening in a remote part of the World, and being scattered afterwards into several Parts, it is likely, that some Audian might impose upon him; 
l 4. Haeret. ●ah.  For it looks like the Story of one party: and the more likely, because Theodoret, a man that lived in that Country, where they first sprung, gives an infamous Character of them, That they held some of the Doctrines of the Manichees, That God was not the Author of Fire and Darkness, that they exercised Usury, that they cohabited with Women, without Marriage, that they were great Hypocrites, of a proud, Pharisaical Spirit, that cried, Touch me not, for I am holier than thou. If Audius were like his Followers, I know nothing so like him and them, as Labady and his Disciples: 
See Labady's Epist. against Reformation.  This was a man very free in his Reproofs too, he spoke sharply against the Vices of the Clergy where he lived, though there were no Bishops amongst them; and it may be, one of his Followers may be able to persuade a learned man in Constantinople, that he was banished only for his Liberty of Reprehension, and out of Envy to his Virtue.  
Page 52. Section 14. we have several shrewd Remarks upon some Canons of the Council of Nice; As first, That no Patriarches are named there; Secondly, That they nullify the Ordination of scandalous and uncapable men.  
Can. 9.10. Which will justify Pope Nicholas, forbidding any to take the Mass of a fornicating Priest. This fornicating Priest of Pope Nicholas, is no other than a married one; and whatsoever will justify that Prohibition, cannot but condemn Mr. B. who is himself married. As for deposing scandalous Ministers, there is none but wishes it, but not in the manner he seems to insinuate by the Sentence of the people, but by their lawful Superiors, which these two Canons do suppose. 3. That Rural Bishops were then in Use, and allowed by the Council. Can. 8. And what can he infer from hence? Not surely, That every Country Parish had a Bishop, but that, such Cities as had larger Territories belonging to them, had Ecclesiastical Visitors under the City-Bishop, which were called Chorepiscopi; 
Can. 57 Conc. Laodic.  Whether they were Bishops indeed, or Priests, with a delegated Episcopal Power, is not agreed amongst Learned men: Sure it is, that they had this Obligation common to them with other Presbyters, not to do any thing of Moment without the Advice and Approbation of the Bishop. 
Conc. Carthag. 4.  4. That no Bishop was to remove from one Church to another: yet some other Councils allow this Translation, and Gelasius understands it only of such, as out of Covetousness or Ambition, and by indirect means, shall endeavour to translate themselves; and the Practice of the Church was never very conformable to this Canon, the most eminent Bishops in the World, 
Socr. l. 7. c. 36.  having transgressed it. 5. The Arabic Canons; the fourth, Si p●pulo placebit, is a Condition of every Bishop's Election: Newer Translations render this Concurrence of the People, Cum consensu Pepuli, Populo consersum praevente; which implies little more, than that the Bishop ought to be such, as the People should have nothing material to object against; and not, that they were to please themselves, and to indulge their Fancies in the Election of their Bishops, for that did belong to the Clergy, 
Vid. lo●. ap. Synod. B●●●r. ●0.  and particularly, to the Metropolitan; as the ●●●th Arabic Canon does expressly inform us. 6. The fifth Arabic Canon, in case of Discord among the People, who shall be their Bishop or Priest, refers it to the People, to consider which is most blameless; and no Bishop or Priest must be taken into another's place, if the former was blameless; so that if Pastors be wrongfully cast out, the People must not forsake them, nor receive the obtruded. Nothing can be more disingenuous than this Dealing: The design of that Canon is, that there should be but one Bishop in every City; but if the People disagree, and one party stand up for one, and another for another, 
Vid. loc.  they ought to consider the Justice of the Cause, and he that is already Bishop, aught 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 departed 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 Superiors 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 Arabic 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 received 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 died, if by the Suffrage of the People, they were judged fit; and the Bishop of Alexandria designed them. Wither this tends, is not hard to conjecture, but it would spoil the Drift, if one should observe maliciously, First, That these Meletians were Episcopally ordained. Secondly, That they were received 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 abhorred by the Catholic Church; that of Jerusalem is of the the same Stamp; but here Mr. B. goes along with the common Mistake, that Arrius was here received 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 Heresy 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 received 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 deposed Athanasius, and the Arrians (it's like by the Emperor's Favour) carried it: Thus far Mr. B. Many have wondered, how the major part of this Council, being Orthodox, Athanasius should be condemned by it; Mr. B. who does not seem much to favour him, because he was not kind to the Nonconformist Meletians, insinuates a base compliance of these Orthodox Bishops, with the Emperor's Inclination; a moderate man, and always for the most charitable Construction. However, Pope Julius' Letter is express, that he was condemned 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 carried it; and if the Emperor 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 resumed 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 favoured that Opinion, in all, ninety seven Bishops, assembled at Antioch, from several places, under Colour of consecrating a Church; but indeed, as the Event proved, to abrogate the Decrees of the Nicene Council: Athanasius rejects them, as sworn Enemies to him and the Faith, so that there is no likelihood that the majority was Orthodox, since Constantius and Eusebius had the contriving of this Synod, and by its means, the Ruin 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 passed at Tyre; or that they might be imposed 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 entered, (nay, if any such thing had been, it cannot be imagined, but that Sozomen must have mentioned 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 packed together upon that design. And perhaps, the reading of thirty six in Julius' Epistle, may be a mistake of Transcribers, it being easy 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 confused 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 levelled 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 oppressed by the exterior Power, as seditious. The word oppressed, 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 Schismatics. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And here Mr. B. ends very angrily, and leaves his sting behind him, in this sharp Expression, [this is their strength.] There are many as intelligent men as Mr. B. that are of Opinion, that these [they] have strength of Reason and Argument on their side, as well as of Power; but there are those that have a strength that is invincible by any Reason, and that is Perverseness: and that is the only strength of some that I will not name.  
After this, he spares his Gall, for about a dozen times, though not without one small sally, till he meets with the Council of Sardica, which cleared Athanasius, 
p. 55. § 28.  Marcellus, and others. Austin and many others, says he, 
August. Ep. 163. ad Eleus. Where he rejects it, because Athanasius and Julius were condemned by it.  reject this Council. Surely, not because it cleared these men; for all the Orthodox World look upon their Cause and that of Religion, as so nearly joined, that they could not desert the one, without betraying the other: Besides, St. Austin does not reject this Council, for he had never seen the Acts of it, but that of Philippo-polis, as appears by his Exceptions against it, that it was carried on by the Arrians.  
I marvel that Mr. B. speaking of the Arrian Synod at Philippo-polis, 
p. 56. § 29.  would seem to give so much credit to the Calumnies those Heretics fastened upon Athanasius, and other good Bishops, as to be staggered with their Accusation. Athanasius had already detected so many Subornations against himself, that it ought not to astonish any to hear the same men, or their disciples, laid new and incredible Crimes to his charge, no more than the Centuries of Scandalous Ministers, or the lying wonders of the anni mirabiles, aught to stagger any man in his Opinion of the Conformists of the Church of England.  
In the next Paragraph, 
§. 30.  we have a soft, kind character of the Circumcelliones, who pass only for Violent Reformers, taking from the Rich, what, they thought, they had wronged any of, and righting the injured, and unjustly doing Justice. We need not despair, after this excusing of the most barbarous and desperate Villains that ever defamed Christianity, by assuming the Title; but that Mr. B. in a great fit of Charity and Moderation, may another time give us an Apology for John of Leyden, or of Venner, and his desperado Saints.  
The rest of the Councils, to the end of this Chapter, must be confessed not to be much to the Honour of the Church; yet the evil Effects and Consequences of them, are rather to be charged upon the Arrian Emperor than the Bishops. This was the time of the Arrian Inquisition, and this was the miserable choice, to subscribe, or to suffer Imprisonment, and scourging, and Banishment, and Sequestration; and many good men preserved Faith and a good Conscience, against all this Violence and Compulsion, many fell in the day of Trial, and subscribed against their own Judgement; yet such are rather to be pitied than insulted on, considering we have all the same common Infirmities, and without extraordinary Assistance, are not sufficient to encounter all the Terrors that a resolved Enemy can make use of to affright us; and in this case, it is evident, that it was neither the Bishop, nor the Christian, but the Man, and the infirmity of Humane Nature, was to be charged with these Compliances.  
The account which Hillary gives of those times is very sad, but yet, such as shows, rather the Calamity than the fault of the Bishops, every one, as in time of an  Conflagration, using his best, though ineffectual Endeavour, to quench the Flames. This made every one a Projector, and devise new Forms of Creeds, in hopes at last, that some one or other, might be received by all the differing Parties. It is an easy thing to mock at the Dissensions or Differences of the Church, but it is not an easy matter to heal them; and Reconcilers themselves are at last engaged in the Dispute they would put an end to. If Mr. B. despises their Unskilfulness, that they did not understand, either the Cure of Church-Divisions, or the true and only Terms of Christian Concord, it was their Unhappiness, not to have so discerning a Spirit as his; and yet, for all his Projects and Methods, we do not find any great Success of his Undertake; for neither is he himself free from Contentions, and those very bitter, in which he is, and has been engaged, against almost all sorts and Sects of me●●; and some have judged him so much a Stranger to Peace, as to need a Moderator to stand between the Contradictions of his own Books.   

CHAP. IU.  
Of the Council of Constantinople.  
IT was a malicious Suggestion of the Devil against Job, when he had nothing to lay to his Charge, to call his Integrity in Question, Does Job serve God for nought? And Mr. B. though he elsewhere abhors Diabolisme, yet here, condescends to the odious Arts of the Accuser of the Brethren, and endeavours to disparage the Faith and Orthodoxness of the Bishops of the West, by insinuating, that it was but their Compliance with good Emperors: The Bishops (says he) much followed the Emperor's Will: 
p. 65. § 1.  and if the Faith of Constantine Senior and Junior, Constans, Valentinian, had not failed, the General Councils at Milan and Ariminum, tell us how failing the Bishop's Faith was like to be. What can there be more unchristian, than this Suggestion? Why could not the Bishop's Faith be as sincere and constant as the Emperors? Nay, that these Emperors did continue Orthodox, must be in great Measure ascribed to the Diligence of the Bishops, that had any Influence upon them. But it seems, the Emperors drew Councils on their part, what side soever they took; And what wonder, since they could call whom they pleased, and pack their Councils, disable those that were not for their Turn, turn honest men out of their Bishoprics, with a high hand, and put into their places, such as were fittest for their purpose. By the same means, England became Presbyterian, as the World became Arrian, and yet I hope Mr. B. will not charge the Bishops with too much Compliance in that Particular: Nay, 
§ 2.  in the very next Paragraph, Mr. B. does the Bishops Right again, and shows, without thinking of doing them any Justice, how they were not so complying as he represented them before; for he tells us, That eighty were burned by Valens in one Ship, and in all the East, he Deposed, Abused, Murdered many that would not forsake the Nicene Creed; and then descends to more Particulars of the Arrian Persecution. And now the Reader may cease to wonder, if he find numerous Councils in so short a time, contradicting one the other; since good Bishops are banished, deposed, or murdered, and Heretics forced upon their Churches. Of this, though we have not the Particulars of the numbers turned out in the East, yet we may imagine it, 
Notitia Affr. una cum Facundo Editae à Sirmondo. Though Mr. B. makes them 660.  by comparing the Arrian Visitation of afric, where there were but four hundred sixty six Bishops in all, and I believe the Schismatics come into the number, who might abhor Arrianism, no less than the Catholics; and then Churches must be of greater Extent even in Africa than Mr. B. fancies them: all these were called before King Hunnericus, to give an account of their Faith, of whom but eighty eight fell away, and three hundred seventy eight persevered: It seems, the majority of Bishops was not then so complying, as they are injuriously represented in this History.  
St. Basil, in the Descriptions he makes of the lamentable Estate of the Eastern Churches, does not complain of the Temporising, and Compliance of the Bishops, but of the hard measure they received, and how they were generally turned out by the Arrians. Thus that excellent Bishop complains to his Brethren of the West, 
Basil. Ep. 70.  The Shepherds are driven away, that the Flocks might be dissipated. And a little farther, There is no Criminal condemned without some Evidence, but Orthodox Bishops are punished without any proof at all; some of them never saw their Accusers, and were never brought to any Bar, nor were ever indicted of any Misdemeanour; but secretly, in the Stillness of the Night, were hurried away into Banishment, and died with the Hardships of the Wilderness; and though we should be silent, yet the World cannot be ignorant of the Banishment of the Priests and Deacons, and of the Havoc that is made of the whole Clergy. And in another Place. 
Ep. 220.  Among all the Dioceses of the Bishops those that are the most eminent Assertors of the Faith, are driven out of their Country, by Calumnies and false Accusations, and others brought in who lead Captive the Souls of the ignorant.  
And if you would know what persons they were that made up the Arrian Councils, the same Author tells you, they were such as they put into the places of those good men that were turned out; Men that would not fail to serve them, 
Basil. Ep. 69.  (the Arrians that put them in) to the Destruction of the true Faith, and were the Slaves and Instruments of those that promoted them in their Revenge upon the Orthodox Doctrine. And now judge, whether it was the Compliance of the Bishops, or the Violence of the Heretics, that made so great and sudden Change in the Church, and in the Doctrines of Councils.  
In reckoning up the principal things done in the Council of Constantinople, 
§ 4. p. 66.  he makes the Deposition of Gregory Naz. to be one against all History, and against himself in the next page, where he says, That Gregory, seeing the Resolutions, and offended with the furious Carriage of the Bishops in the Council, resigneth to the Emperor, and departeth: Let them be resolved upon casting him out as much as they will, yet it was not done, only they put another into his place, which was made vacant by his voluntary Resignation.  
Upon this account he represents this Council in a most odious manner, 
p. 66. § 7.  and for this end, makes use of the words of Nazianz. speaking of the general Corruptions of the Times, and the Divisions of the Church, (and what Age has been so happy, as not to labour under these Evils?) But he has mangled and disjointed the Words of that eloquent Father, more barbarously than ever the Bishops or their Councils did the Church: The Courtiers, 
Gregor. Orat. in Synod.  whether true to the Emperor, I know not, but for the most part, perfidious to God. This is in the Close of his Speech in the Council, among those passionate Valedictions; but Mr. B. joins with it, his sharp Reproof of the Bishops, page 524. where we may observe his wont Candour; for Nazianz. speaking of the Factions of the Bishops, under these Metaphors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mr. B. thought fit to render it, Raging like furious Horses in Battle, and leaves out the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Almost; to make the satire more full, writes, and like Madmen, casting Dust into the Air. And, as he thought fit to leave out in one place, so he adds in another, to the Words and Sense of Nazianzen; therefore he professes, That it is unseemly for him to join with them in their Councils, as it were, to leave his Studies and Quietness, to go play with the Lads in the Streets. To join with them in their Councils, is an addition of Mr. B. the words of Gregory are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In like manner, it would not become me, (who know better things than the multitude) whilst others bustle in a Crowd, to choose rather to be one of them, than to enjoy my Liberty with Obscurity. There is nothing reflects upon this Council, before which this Oration was spoken, but only representing the great Trouble that would attend the Office of a Bishop, and especially, the Bishop of the Imperial City, that he might obtain the Request he had made before, and which all this lamentable Description of the Church is designed to recommend; he desires to be dismissed, Give me (says he) The Reward of my Labour; What? 
p. 23.  Not such as some envious men may think, but such as I may safely ask; give me Rest and Ease from my long Labours, have Compassion on my grey Hairs, have some Respect to a Stranger, and put another into my place, who may be vexed and disturbed in my Stead; such as hath clean hands, and an eloquent Tongue; such as is able to gratify you in all things, and may be sufficient to join with you in an effectual Care for the Church: But as for me, you see how I am wasted with Time, and Labour, and Sickness—  
The Verses cited out of Gregory, 
Ch. Hist. p. 67.  do not concern this Council at all, but represent the miserable Distractions of the Church, at that time he accepted the Bishopric of C. P. and his chief design in it, 
1 Carm. de vita sua.  was, to reconcile, if it were possible, these Differences, which were occasioned by Heretics, who envied the Orthodox Bishops, and had a violent Passion for their Chairs. However, Mr. B. will have it, That he spoke all this and a great deal more of this Council of C. P. one of the four which is equalled to the four Evangelists. He does indeed in several places find fault with this Council, but is far from making such a Riot as this; and, it seems, he had a great many Friends in it, as appears by their Dissension concerning him, which he put an end to, by a voluntary Resignation of his Place: and it is evident from his own Account, that the Council had not agreed upon his Deposition till after his Resignation; 
Carm. de vita sua.  for, after his Speech, he says, That a confused Murmur followed, and the younger men brought the old over, I suppose, to accept of this Offer, that since his Case did give some occasion of Dissension, the prudentest way was to take him at his Word, and so end the Quarrel.  
But it seems, Gregory did resent the Injury, and did not bear the Deprivation of his Bishopric, with the same Generosity he proposed, which made him a little more sharp than was decent, in his Representation of the Bishops; but from hence to conclude against the Bishops, as the Disturbers of all the World, would argue as little Judgement as it would Charity; for Orators draw something bigger than the Life, and Satirists love to aggravate. The Age, though wicked enough, may not be as wicked as a zealous Preacher might represent it; all men are Liars, says David in his Haste; and St. Paul, when he was neglected by his own Friends, concluded generally, All seek their own, and not the things that are Christ's; and what wonder, if this holy man, sharpened with Discontent, should exclaim, with somewhat too great a Passion, against the Administration of the Church, which he had been forced to quit. His Censure of Councils, that he knew none of them have any happy End, was not the fault of the Expedient for ending of Differences, but of the men, and particularly, of the Heretics, that were uppermost most part of his time, for he does frequently profess a great Veneration for the Council of Nice, and was one of the greatest Champions for it in his time.  
The Case of Meletius and Paulinus, 
p. 69. § 9  both Orthodox Bishops of Antioch, was something nice, and determined very tenderly, that both should be allowed equally the Administration of that Church, 
Socr. l. 5. c. 5. Sozom. l. 7. c. 3.  but with a Provision, that this Indulgence should never be drawn into a Precedent, and that the Survivor should govern alone. Flavianus, and ambitious, 
Socr. l. 5. c. 10.15.  popular Presbyter, after Meletius his Death, is elected Bishop, in opposition to Meletius, which was the occasion of much Trouble in the Church. The Expedient so extraordinary, showed the Moderation that was used to end the first Schism: but Flavianus can have no excuse, who, against the Canons, and the Interest and Peace of the Church, and against his own Oath, set up himself against his lawful Bishop.  
Mr. B's Observation is, That even good Bishops cannot agree, nor escape the Imputation of Heresy; which refers to Lucifer Calaritanus. It is much to be lamented, that good men cannot rightly understand one another, but so it has ever been, and the Apostles themselves had misunderstandings; but this is no more incident to Bishops, than to any other good men: it is the effect of Humane Frailty, from which, no Dignity, no Title, can ever free us.  
The History of the Priscillianists is related by Mr. B. with his usual Ingenuity; 
p. 70. § 13.  for, all along, he observes this Rule, to be very favourable to all Heretics and Schismatics, be they never so much in the wrong, and to fall upon the Orthodox Party, and to improve every miscarriage of theirs into a mighty Crime. 
Aug. de Haer. c. 70.  These Priscillianists joined the monstrous Opinions and Practices of the Gnostics and Manichees into one Heresy; and, besides their blasphemous Conceits concerning this World's being created by the Devil, and our Saviour's descending gradually through the several Spheres of Heaven, they were monstrous in their lewdness, and promiscuous Fornications, men of no Faith, whose Principle was this, Jura, perjura, Secretum prodere noli: These men, after they had been condemned by some Councils, (and very justly, I hope) got, by the means of some Mercenary Courtiers, 
Sulp. Seu. l. 2. prope fin.  the Emperor's Protection, and his Order to be restored after they had been banished. Ithacius, and some other Bishops, the most zealous Opposers of this Sect, applied themselves to Maximus the Tyrant, desiring him to suppress these Heretics by the Sword. In short, Priscillian, and several others, after they had been condemned by the Council of Bourdeaux, were put to death at Treves, by Maximus his Order; and, how justly, let the Reader judge, by this Relation of Sulpitius Severus; 
l. 2.  Priscillianum gemino judicio auditum, convictumque maleficii nec diffitentem obscoenis se studuisse doctrivis, Nocturnos etiam turpium foeminarum egisse Conventus, nudumque orare solitum, nocentem pronunciavit. But, notwithstanding the Sentence were most just, and Severus confesses, that these Heretics were Luce indignissimi, yet all good men were offended that Bishops should procure their death, and concern themselves in Blood: Whereupon, Theognostus excommunicates Ithacius in a Council at Treves, as Baronius tells us, 
Bar. An. 385.29. & an. 386.25. ubi supra.  though Severus brings in Maximus, persuading St. Martin to join with Idacius, who had been condemned by none but Theognostus, and that upon a private Quarrel.  
St. Martin, 
Ch. Hist. p. 71.  says Mr. B. renounced the Communion of the Bishops and their Synods.] One would imagine, that now Martin the Saint were become Martin Marr-Prelate, and turned Presbyterian; but no such matter, he renounced only the Communion of Ithacius his Party, and that others did as well as he. 
Amb. Ep. 58.76. Conc. Taur. c. 5.  Theognostus, Ambrose, Studius, and several others, scrupled Communion with these men polluted with Blood: how justly, I will not pretend to determine, but Mr. B. cannot complain, if he calls to mind how often he reproaches and derides the Tenderness of the Bishops, that are content to enjoin Penance upon great Malefactors, that had taken Sanctuary in the Church: There he pleads with Idacius, that it is pity they should live, and that the Gallows should be deprived of its due: However, forgetting himself, he makes this a Plea for Separation [and which shows a Divine justification for Separation from the Bishops and Synods of such a way; yea, 
p. 72. § 19  though of the same Religion with us, and not so corrupt as the Reformation found the Roman Papacy and Clergy:] This Divine Justification is the Angel's Reproof of Martin for having communicated with the Ithacians once, 
Sulp. Seu. Vit. Mart.  to save the Lives of some Eminent Persons. How far the Historian is to be credited in these marvellous Relations of St. Martin, I am as loath to determine as Mr. B. but sure it is, that, all things considered, though St. Martin may pass for a great Saint, yet several of his actions show more Simplicity and Zeal, than Knowledge or Discretion; for, though it were much to his credit to be solicited to an Emperor's Table, 
Sever.  yet it was a great want of Duty to prefer his own Priest to the Emperor and Nobles, in outward expressions of respect: and, though it was great Devotion in the Empress to condescend to be his Cook and Serving-maid, yet it was no great sign of Humility in him to accept the service. For my part, I must confess, I should be very loath to separate from the Communion of a Church, whose Doctrines I could not except against, merely upon this Divine Justification, and the Example and Miracles of St. Martin.  
But this Instance could become no man worse than Mr. B. who, in a Letter to Dr. Hill, confesses himself to have been a man of Blood, and therefore despairs of the honour of ever being instrumental in the Peace of the Church. If St. Martin was so far in the right, why does not M. B. imitate him? why does he not renounce Communion with those bloody men that instigated the Long Parliament and People to rebel, that pressed the King's death, and defended it when it was done? why does he not renounce these, especially, since they never gave the least sign of Repentance? These were the men that applied themselves to the Maximi of this Nation, to persecute, not Priscillianists, but a great many Worthy, Honest Men: And I need not call to Mr. B's remembrance, who were the sordid Compliers with these Usurpers, who compared Cromwell to David, 
Disput. 1. Ep. Ded. to R. Cromwell.  and his wise Son to Solomon: but this has transported me a little too far; and, to say truth, who can forbear, where men have the confidence to suggest those things against others, that they stand most notoriously guilty of themselves?  
The next thing, worth Reflection, is, his Remark upon the Council of Capua: 
§. 20.  This Council (says he) had more wit than many others, and ordered, that both Congregations, Flavian 's and Evagriu 's, being all good Christians, should live in loving Communion: O that others had been as wise, in not believing the Prelates that persuaded the World, that it is so pernicious a thing for two Churches and Bishops to be in one City, as Peter and Paul are said to be at Rome.] Whatever Wit this Council had, it seems Mr. B. shows little, in mistaking it so grossly: for the Council of Capua never ordered that the two opposite Bishops and Congregations at Antioch, should join in loving Communion; but only that the Eastern Bishops, that had divided themselves upon that occasion, some taking part with Flavianus, others with Evagrius, 
Conc. Cap.  that these should be received into the Communion of the Catholic Church, if they were Orthodox in the Faith: so that if the Schism at Antioch could not be composed, the Mischief should not go any further, or divide the Catholic Church; 
Ambros. Theoph. Ep. 78.  as St. Ambrose writes to Theophilus Alex. Cui bonae pacis naufragio Synodus Capuensis tandem obtulerat possum tranquillitatis, ut omnibus per totum Orientem daretur Communio Catholicam confitentibus fidem, & duobus estis tuae sanctitatis Examen impertiretur: And now Mr. B's violent Exclamation against those who would persuade the World, that it is so pernicious a thing to have two Bishops in the same City, might have been spared: but this is to be pardoned, when we consider, that a Gun makes the same noise, whether it hit, or miss the mark.  
But this Council condemned a new Heresy (Hereticating was in fashion) viz. of one Bishop Bonosus, 
Ch. Hist. § 21. p. 72.  denying Mary to have continued a Virgin to her death. Here Mr. B. makes himself pleasant with his own Dream; for, surely, no man, with his Eyes open, ever saw this Condemnation of Bonosus by the Council of Capua; which determines only, that the neighbouring Bishops should judge between him (Bonosus) and his Accusers: 
Ambr. Ep. 79.  sed cum hujusmodi fuerit Concilii Capuensis judicium, ut finitimi Bonoso atque ejus accusatoribus Judices tribuerentur, & praecipuè Macedones, qui cum Episcopo Thessaloniensi de ejus factis cognoscerent, advertimus quod nobis judicandi forma competere non posset.  
Next (says our Author) we have a strange thing, 
§ 23.  a Heresy raised by one that was no Bishop: but the best is, it was but a lit-Heresie; that of Jovinian.] But how! is it so strange a thing that a Heresy should be raised by one that is no Bishop? or did he not turn Heretic because he was not made one? Cerinthus, Ebion, Martion, Valentinus, Artemon, Arrius, etc. were they Bishops? I suppose it will be a hard matter to find any Bishops to have been the Authors of any Heresy, for a long while after Christ; and even those that gave names to Heresies, were not the first that gave them being, as we shall show more particularly hereafter.  
It is strange (says Mr. B.) that Binnius vouchsafes next, 
§ 24.  to add out of Socrates (when he hereticates him also) a Council of the Novatians.] And why should it be so strange, since Binnius sets down a great many more Councils that were Heretical in his opinion? But, let Mr. B. enjoy his wonder, when he is in the fit, he must give others leave to wonder a little too, at the Transports of a man that pretends so much to moderation [that would say, as loud as I can speak, if all the proud, ambitious, hereticating part of the Bishops had been of this mind; O, what Sin, 
Ch. Hist. p. 73. § 24.  what Scandal, and what Shame, what Cruelties, Confusions, and Miseries had the Christian World escaped!] And what is all this about? The leaving Easter indifferent; i. e. Whether it be to be observed with the Jews, or the Christian Church? And yet Mr. B. in this very Paragraph, finds fault with silencing of Ministers that would not keep it at the wrong time. If all times be indifferent to observe it in, what time is wrong? and who changes the nature of things indifferent, the Bishops, or those that make a Conscience of Observing it upon a mistaken time? He is very much here in the Commendation of the Novatians, as if none had ever observed this Moderation but these Schismatics. Did not Irenaeus, and many other good Bishops, show the same moderation before Novatian was born? But these Heretics, than whom there never was a more proud, Pharisaical sort of men, must have the Honour of it, when it was their necessity that put them upon this Indulgence one towards another: and, that you may understand how peaceably they behaved themselves in this present case, take this short account of it out of Socrates and Sozomen, who, if they were not Novatians (as most Learned men, both Protestants and Papists, are of Opinion) were too great Favourers of that Sect, as all complain of them.  
The Novatians, 
Socr. l. 5. c. 20. Sozom. l. 7. c. 18.  in the time of Valens the Emperor, did think fit, for Reason's unknown, to change the Rule for the Observation of Easter, which, by the Decree of the Council of Nice, was become, in a manner, Universal. It may be they would have no Observance common with the Catholic Church, and especially at that time, when they were all under the same Persecution, and the Catholics desired a Reconciliation with them; and therefore they flew off, as much as they could, to avoid such a Conjunction: However, this Innovation did not so generally obtain among the Eastern Novatians, but that the contrary Usage prevailed almost every where in a short time. Sabbatius, a Convert Jew, ordained Priest by Marcianus, the Novatian Bishop of C. P. began to favour the Jewish time of observing Easter, established in the Council of Pazus; and for this, and the pretence of greater Purity, began to separate from the Church; He is called upon to show the Reasons of his Separation, and declares his greatest Grievance is about Easter. The Novatian Bishops, perceiving this was but a Pretence, and that his real Disease was the desire of being a Bishop, were resolved to take away this Excuse, and leave it indifferent for every one to observe Easter when he thought fit. And what was the Issue? He seemed to be satisfied for some time, till he found he had some Followers, and an Opportunity to set up a Congregation for himself; and then, notwithstanding his Compliance, turned Schismatic: so little good does Concession do with men that are set upon Separation. So that though you should take away all Rule and all Order, yet there is a sort of men, that a Wantonness of Spirit has made restless, that would never be satisfied; the Disease is fed by Concession, and then it is most violent, when they know not what they would have.  
A great Council (says our Historian) was called at Hippo, 
p. 73. § 25.  and Augustin yet a Presbyter, was there: Good men will do well, and most of the African Councils were the best in all the World? And why would you judge? Because their Bishoprics were but like our Parishes, and they strove not who should be the Greatest, or domineer. I am content he should like any Councils or Bishops, but I am afraid, this good Opinion will not continue long; for the Reason of his good Liking is a great Mistake, that they were Bishops according to his own Model, Whose Dioceses were no bigger than our Parishes. But surely this cannot be; for all Africa, from Tangier to Egypt, had but four hundred sixty six Bishoprics, 
Notitia Affr.  which were thus divided according to the Provinces.  

1. Proconsularis. 54.  
2. Numidia. 125.  
3. Provincia Bizac. 107. 

Sees without Bishops. 006.    
4. Maurit. Caesar. 120. 

without Bishops. 006.    
5. Maurit Sitifens. 044.  
6. Tripoli. 005.  
7. Sardinia. 008.   
There is some Difference between the Sum in gross, and the Particulars, which will not agree, though you should deduct the twelve vacant Sees, for then the Particulars will not come up to the Sum of four hundred sixty six: And now judge, whether the African Bishoprics were not bigger than our Parishes, by comparing the vast Extent of afric, with our England, which is not near so big as some of those Provinces: and yet the Bishoprics of afric were multiplied thus occasionally, as we shall show hereafter, and cannot prescribe to other countries': Nor could the Churches of afric, notwithstanding the Multitude of their Bishops, and Narrowness of their Dioceses, keep themselves in Peace any more than their Neighbours, but were divided as soon as any, and their Divisions were as long and irremediable as their Neighbours; And indeed, Schism came over from hence into the other parts of the World with Novatus, and who taught the Roman Presbyters first, to set up against their Bishops. In short, there was not where a greater Breach, nor more extravagant Schismatics, who opposed themselves, not only against the Discipline of the Church, but the Civil Government too. Now, lest this may put our Author out of Conceit with the Bishops and Councils of afric, as well as the rest; I must put him in mind of his own Remark, That good men will do well, whether they be Bishops or not, whether they have large or small Dioceses, and a very good man in a very great Diocese, will do an extraordinary deal of good.  
A Donatist Council at Bagai, 
S 29. p. 73.  had three hundred and ten Bishops, who condemned Maximianus; and upon this Council, Mr. B. makes two observations. 1. How great a number the Donatists were, and upon what Pretence, as over-voting them) they called others Heretics and Schismatics. Very unjustly no doubt, for they were Heretics and Schismatics themselves still, notwithstanding their Increase; Multitude may render a Sect formidable, but it is but a poor Argument of Right. 2. How small Bishoprics than were, the number tells us; not so small as our Parishes, though the Donatists did use all means in the World to multiply them, and to strengthen their Party.  
The Council of Turin ordered, 
p. 74. § 30.  That Communion should not be denied Felix, one of Ithacius his Party, and not the contrary, according as the false Reading of Binnius; 
Vid. Conc. Sirm.  So Sirmond. in loc. Male enim in vulgatis qui Felici non communicant, abest enim in Manuscriptis Negatio.  
Another Carthage Council, 
§ 31.  called the second, which Binnius saith, was the last, is placed next; and so our Author takes it. This Mistake Binnius takes from Baronius, 
Conc. T. 2. p. 1158.  as Labbe shows, Erravit post Baronium Binnius verè enim hoc Concilium celebratum fuit. Anno 390. Sub Genethlio decessore Aurelii cujus nomen necnon Alypii exulat à MS. optimae notae. The Canons that Mr. B. instances from hence, in favour of his Congregational Church, will not comply with his Design; 
ibid.  That the Bishops only, had the Power of making Crisme, and all the Priests were to receive it from him, that the Bishop alone, was to reconcile Penitents publicly; this may consist with a great many Congregations, and the Canon, 
Can. 3. " Reconciliare quemquam" in publicâ Missâ Presbytero non licere; may probably, extend only to the Cathedral Service, and that the Priest should not do this in the Presence of the Bishops, as he is forbid several other Acts, which he is supposed to do apart, and in the Bishop's Absence, but with the Supposition of his Consent. 
Can. 4.  The fourth Canon expresses the Absolution of Penitents, by Reconciliare sacris Altaribus, the plural; though, it must be confessed, it is improper, for there was but one principal Altar, that was properly so called, though several Communion-Tables depending upon the great Altar, there might be in the same Diocese, unless the reconciling to one Church, be reckoned a Reconciling to all other parts of the Catholic Church.  
The fifth Canon is disingeniously cited by Mr. B. thus, 
Can. 5.  When Christians were multiplied, they that desired a Bishop in a place that had none before, might have one; but he leaves out the Consent of the Bishop, out of whose Diocese that other is taken, which is made absolutely necessary. Dioeceses quae nunquam Episcopos habucrunt, non habeant, & illa Dioecesis quae aliquando habuit habeat proprium, & si accedente tempore, crescente fide, Dei populus multiplicatus desideraverit proprium habere rectorem, ejus videlicet voluntate in cujus potestate est Dioecesis constituta habeat Episcopum. Which is confirmed by the third Council of Carthage, where it is added, 
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 & prauè 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 citys out of them, that favours either his Model of Episcopacy, or his design to disgrace Bishops; some however, I am obliged 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 guests, 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 Governors, as their Fathers, as the Vicegerents of Christ. 52. is something odd, and shows the Poverty of the African Church, that a Clerk, or Clergyman, 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 honoured as a Saint; but Mr. B. is in a straight, whether he shall believe him to be a downright Knave, or credible, nay, most credible Socrates and others, gross Liars: 
p. 77.  Yet there is no necessity of either, for these Historians might be imposed 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, grossly and literally, fancied him as a man; others, who could penetrate farther into the meaning of those figurative Expressions, were of the contrary Opinion, and judged the other Party to speak blasphemously, and unworthy of God. Theophilus taught publicly in the Church, that this Opinion of the Anthropomorphites, aught by no means to be embraced; and, in his Paschal Epistle, which he writ, as his Custom was, every year, he declared, That God ought to be conceived Incorporeal, and void of Humane shape. The Egyptian Monks understanding this, came to Alexandria, and, having got together, made an uproar, and would have murdered 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 assuage the Tumult, and the Monks, having abated something of their rage, replied, If thou thinkest as thou speakest, condemn Origen's Books, that teach men to think otherwise of God. This, replied 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 cajoled those Monks, he appeased 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 giddyheaded Monks fancied, was nevertheless very just; here was no Lie, though there was a Deceit; and the Danger he was in, the Examples of Holy men in Scripture, and Ecclesiastical History, will Justify or Excuse him. And now let us pursue the rest of the Story.  
This Controversy would likely have been at an end, 
Soz. l. 8. c. 12.  if Theophilus had not revived it, upon a Design of ruining Ammonius, dioscorus, Eusebius and Eutychius, who were surnamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, long, or tall. These were Brothers, and very eminent among the Monks of Scetis, as we have showed before. These, of all the Monks of Egypt, were the greatest Favourites of Theophilus, who entertained 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 Heresy of the Manichees, and had been received to Communion before she had made an abjuration of her former Heresy; Theophilus charged the Arch-Presbyter with this Neglect, but he had a grudge against him before upon another account: Peter (for that was his name) affirmed, that the Woman was received Regularly, according to the Law of the Church, and with the consent of Theophilus himself; and that Isidore could testify all this; which he did at his return from Rome, whither he then was sent. Theophilus' excommunicated both, as having done him wrong, and belied him: This some say. But, I have heard, from a very credible Person, who conversed familiarly with those Monks at that very time, who said, that there were two Reasons of Theophilus his falling out with Isidore; the one common to him and Peter, because they refused to witness for Theophilus his Sister, that a certain Person had made her his Heir; the other particular to Isidore; because he, being Overseer of the Poor, and having a considerable Sum of Money in his disposal, refused to re-imburse the Bishop what he laid out upon the Building of Churches, saying, That it it was far better to refresh the Bodies of the Poor, for whom that Treasure was intended, and which were properly the Temples of God, than to lay it out upon the building of Churches: But, whether it were for these, or for other reasons, so it was, that Isidore was excommunicated, and came to Scetis, to his old Friends the Monks. Ammonius, taking some of them along with him, goes to Theophilus, and desires him to be reconciled to Isidore, which, he is said then readily to have promised; but, after some time, when nothing was done, and they saw plainly that Theophilus did intent to put them off, they come again, and renew the Request, with greater earnestness, requiring a performance of his Promise: He takes one of the Monks, and puts him in the common Prison, for a terror to the rest; but this would not do; for Ammonius, with the rest of the Monks that came with him, under pretence of bringing Relief to the Prisoners, got into the Prison, and resolved to stay there with their Companion; Theophilus hearing this, sends for them, but they at first desired him to come himself and fetch them out; for, it was not fit, they said; that since the Affront they had received was public, they should privately be dismissed; yet, afterwards, they were prevailed upon to come to him: and he sent them away, after he had begged their pardon, and promised never to molest them more. However, he fretted, and was vexed in himself, and cast about how he he should do them a mischief; and, since they despised every thing in the World but their Philosophical Life, he resolves to attack them in that part, and to disturb their Peace and Quietness: for, understanding by the Discourse he had had with them, and the Complaints they were used to make to him of the Anthropomorphites, that they were Favourers of Origen, he kindled a deadly feud between them and the Monks of the contrary Opinion, which was blown up by their undecent wranglings and Disputes; in which they left the Question, and, instead of arguing, reproached one another: So they that believed God Incorporeal, were called Origenists, those of the contrary Persuasion, Anthropomorphites.] So far Sozomen.  
Socrates differs something in the relation of this matter from Sozomen, though, as to the greatest part, one has copied out of the other, yet so as to leave it a very hard Question, to determine which is the Original, and which the Copy.  
Socrates says nothing of Isidor's being the occasion of this Quarrel, 
Socr. l. 6. c. 7.  but only, that those Monks, disliking the Covetousness of Theophilus, would live with him no longer, but returned to their solitude; and when Dioscorus was had in great Veneration of the Monks. Theophilus envying him, and being angry with his Brethren, resolved to ruin them, by stirring up the Anthropomorphites against them; that he wrote to the Monks against Dioscorus, accusing him with holding God to be Incorporeal; and that he had no Members like men, as the Scriptures describe him, and by this means he set them all together by the Ears. Isidor Pelusiota confirms Sozomen, 
Isid. Ep. l. 1. Ep. 152.  so far as to make Isidor to be the ground of this Quarrel, without any particulars, but treats Theophilus very outrageously, calling him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Now, if we examine these Relations impartially, we may observe several things that are very improbable, almost impossible, to conceive. All these men that are said to be persecuted unjustly by Theophilus, were such as he had an Extraordinary kindness for; and therefore it is not very likely, without special Provocation, he should ever endeavour to ruin those he took so much pains to set up: And,  
1. As to the Story of Isidore, it is altogether improbable; for this was the man he opposed to Chrysostom, as Competitor for the Bishopric of C. P. This was he that was entrusted with the great Secret, upon which his Life and Dignity did depend; he that had received double Orders and Letters to present him that should overcome, whether Theodosius or Maximus; And, is it likely, he should fall out with this man so desperately about a punctilio of reconciling a Heretic Woman? or witnessing that himself must know not to be truth? Is it likely a Person so Eminent in Place and Reputation, of an extraordinary Fortune too, should suborn two the most considerable men in the Church of Alexandria, to forswear themselves in favour of his Sister? Surely, he must know them too well, after so long an acquaintance and experience, to hazard his Reputation upon so unlikely a Project, He must know them to be very Evil men, before he would attempt them in that nature; nor is it very likely, that Isidore, considering his Obligations to Theophilus, should have refused him any Money to carry on and support his Magnificence in Public Buildings.  
However, suppose all this true, they must be only private Reasons, such as Theophilus kept secret to himself; but he must find some other plausible Pretence to justify his Excommunication of these persons that were so considerable in their Place, and Reputation in the World: He could not be so brutish, as to excommunicate a man, because he would not forswear himself, or rob the Poor to serve him. There must be something for a Colour, and that these Impartial, Credible Historians, did both forget; for I suppose, the Monks from whom they had this Relation, did not care much to insist upon that point, which would make a man suspect, that Theophilus his Cause might be something justifiable; and surely, it was very plausible, when all the World in a manner, did approve it. Thus every Malefactor will give out, that he is persecuted out of Envy and Malice, and such a one they had disobliged in this manner, and another became their Enemy upon another Account, but not a word of the Crimes laid to their Charge, or of the Evidence against them. No poor men, though they talked Sedition or Treason, blasphemed God or the King, and the Fact be notorious, yet they fall innocent Victims to the Malice or Covetousness of their Judges.  
Sozomen unawares discovers the Secret, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and blabs out his Author, I have heard, says he, from a credible Person, who was acquainted with these Monks. The Relation shows 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 marvellously 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 happened; 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 contained in them; the other Party charging this upon the Heretics that had corrupted the Works of Origen. The Contention in short, grew very high, and the Bishops according to the Authority they had, forbidden all, good and bad, because there were Ecclesiastical Writers enough, that might be read with as much Benefit, and much less Danger; and then instanced in several places of Origen, that were very extravagant; but this could not satisfy 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 forced 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 Governor to supply the defect of Church-Discipline: yet it seems, there was absolute Necessity for it, for these Monks had mutinyed, and raised 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 surprising 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 Controversy 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 entertained 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 refused, 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 obeyed the Bishops, yet, on the other side, they ought not to have used so great a Rigour.  
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 concerned 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 died to save the Devils and such like; that the Bishops objected. And, to say Truth, that was a pretty Suggestion, that they should be called 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 Suspicion; for, by the same Reason, they must have forced him to condemn all the Ecclesiastical Writers in the World. Yet such was the Impudence of these mutinous Monks, that they were not ashamed 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 Controversy was indeed, whether Origen's Works were to be read, and this was started sometime before Theophilus was concerned in it, 
Ep. add 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 Extreme, 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 shows the Controversy between the Orthodox and the Origenists, and serves likewise to vindicate St. Hierom from the Imputation of having prevaricated in this case, 
Sulp. Seu. D. 1. Ruffin. Inu.  as he is charged 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 believed 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 surprised them: And in another place, 
Ep. 70.  Dolebamus te nimium esse patientem; and in another Letter, he charges the Origenists with calumniating Theophilus and others, 
Ep. 78.  instead of answering to their charge. Now, for my part, I have as much Respect for St. Jerom, as our Author has for Socrates; and am as loath to believe him a Flatterer that had renounced all the Enjoyments of the World, as to think Socrates a gross Liar; but there is no Necessity the Historian should be so, though the Story should prove false; for he might be imposed upon, but Hierom has hardly any Excuse unless things were as he represents them. It was the Observation of a very wise man, that he thought himself to have hit the Point of Virtue exactly, 
Aristotle.  which he placed in Mediocrity, when he was charged with having declined into the two Extremes, by persons of different Interests. How Theophilus did, I will not judge, but he has this Man's Judgement in his Favour, for one condemns him with too much Rigour, and others with too much Lenity in one and the same Action; 
E●. ad Cyril. ap. Cyril. 7.5. p. 20.  and such Atticus a moderate good man, in the Account of Socrates, describes him to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I knew your Predecessor Theophilus, a man equal to the Apostles in time of Confusion, prefer Peace to a punctilious Exactness.  
But that which rendered the Cause of the Origenists most invidious, was the involving of Chrysostom in the same Quarrel; for he received these banished Monks, when they came to Constantinople, perhaps, not so much out of Compassion to them, as out of Purpose to thwart Theophilus, whose opposition to his Election he could not have forgot. Theophilus resents it too much, and stirs up Epiphanius to go and dislodge those Fugitives, which occasioned great Disorder: At last, Chrysostom being in disgrace at Court for having reflected upon the Empress in some of his Sermons, she is resolved to take the opportunity of his Quarrel with Theophilus, and other Bishops, to revenge herself; a Synod is called, and Chrysostom is deposed, and afterwards banished: Thus those troublesome Monks, like many other Sycophants, shifted the Quarrel, and engaged good men in it: and so they were sure to be revenged of their Enemies one way or other; if they were worsted, than they triumphed, if they overcame, the Victory must make them odious. I do not intent to excuse Theophilus in this Particular, he did certainly prosecute his Resentment too far, but he was not the only man, Epiphanius a person of great Holiness, Hierom, and several other persons, renowned for their Piety, were concerned in the persecution of this great man, as well as he: and so it is that the best men have their Resentments and Piques, as well as others; and to say the Truth, this is their Weakness, for that Severity which gives men generally a Reputation of Holiness, though it mortify some irregular heats, yet is apt to dispose men to Peevishness; and what kills some Weeds, becomes a Nourishment to others.  
I have dwelled so long upon this, not only to vindicate Theophilus, but to show (once for all) the manner of our Author's dealing with his Reader in his Church-History. Any scandalous Story, though it be as false and improbable as any in the Anni mirabiles, or White's Centuries of Scandalous Ministers, any Fiction, that reflects with disgrace upon Bishops and Councils, is set down for Authentic, no matter who delivers it, whether Friend or Foe; and there it stands, without adding the least hint that as Credible Historians do contradict, or confute the Calumny.  
He mentions a scrap of an African Council, 
p. 80. § 45.  to petition the Emperor, that the Privileges of Sanctuaries should be preserved inviolable, and no man forced away to punishment, that had taken Refuge there; Justice was taken for wickedness, (says our Author.) No such thing; they might themselves deliver the Offender, if they judged him unworthy of Mercy; all they desired was, that they should not be forced away, or else their Sanctuary was no more so. It is a hard thing to please a man that has such contrary Humours. He is offended with the Bishops, for procuring Justice upon Priscillian and his Complices, and calls them Bloody Bishops, and not to be communicated with; now he is angry with them for being too merciful, and reckoning Justice a Crime, which they never did, but desired only, their Sanctuaries might not be forced, upon any pretence, for that would utterly destroy the merciful Design of those Privileges that were granted some Places devoted to Religion; which was, to give Criminals time and opportunity to repent of their wickedness.  
In the Fragments of the Councils of Toledo, there is a Canon, 
§ 47.  that makes a difference between the Offerings made at the Parish Churches, and those made at the Altars. Our Author mistook the meaning of this Canon, which is thus; Quae ad Parochianas' Elclesias offeruntur, in terris, vineis, mancipiis, peculiis, etc. that is, Whatsoever is given to Parish Churches, whether in Land, Vineyards, etc. that the Bishop is to have the disposal of it all; but what is given to the Altars, that is, to the Episcopal Church, he has but his Thirds: Yet all this notwithstanding, Parish Churches had Communion Tables, and, wherever there were Congregations, there was the Administration of the Lord's Supper: Nay, before this time, Altars were become much more frequent than our Author would have believed; 
Conc. Carthag. 5. Sub Anastasio.  for a Council of Carthage forbids the erecting of Altars in the Highways, and in the Fields to the memory of Martyrs, yet the Exception shows how numerous they might lawfully be; nisi aut ibi corpus, aut aliquae certae reliquiae sunt, aut origo alicujus habitationis, vel possessionis vel passionis fidelissima origine traditur.  
We have a strange occasional Remark of our Author, That Pope Innocent, 
§ 55.  one of the best and wisest Popes, excommunicated Theophilus, Arcadius, and the Empress] yet did this pass without contradiction. I perceive any thing passes with him for History; for this Epistle of Innocent, that mentions the Excommunication of the Persecutors of St. Chrisostom, after Chrysostom's death, is all forged, which Labbee does as good as confess; for, over against the place where the Pope threatens Eudoxia with Punishment in this life as well as that to come, he notes in the Margin, that Eudoxia died before Chrysostom: Which is a sufficient proof of the Forgery; for Eudoxia died in the year 404. Oct. 6. and Chrysostom in 407. Nou. 14. Therefore Mr. B. might well have spared this Note, and his Author, Binnius, might have spared that wise Remark, That the Pope was a true Prophet, because the Empress died soon after.  
Among the Decrees of Boniface, 
Ch. Hist. p. 82. § 50.  one is, that no Bishop shall be brought or set before any Judge, Civil or Military, either for any Civil or Criminal Cause, so that, as Mr. B. says, a Bishop had the privilege of a had Physician, he might murder and not be hanged, etc. This Decree is, I believe, hardly so ancient as the forementioned Epistle; for we have only the Authority of Gratian for it, a man little to be depended upon, unless he find Vouchers that are ancienter than himself: but any thing will serve Mr. B's turn, that will give him occasion to ease his Spleen against Bishops.   

CHAP. V.  
Of the First Council of Ephesus, etc.  
OUr Author in the beginning of this Chapter, 
p. 84. §. 3.  to prejudice his Reader beforehand against the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, giveth the worst account of Cyril who was the Precedent of it, that he could patch up out of all the libels and accusations of his Enemies. The first thing he is charged with is the oppression of the Novatians. This was enough with Socrates or Sozomen to paint him as ugly as men do the Devil, 
Socr. l. 7  or Antichrist: and therefore there is no great credit to be given them in these relations, as manifestly espousing the cause and quarrels of the Novatians: But suppose he had used severity towards these Schismatics, it may be they deserved it; and being Schismatics and Alexandrians, it is not unlikely that they were very troublesome and seditious.  
Socrates makes it part of his charge that he took upon him the government of temporal affairs, 
Socr. l. 7. c. 7.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a little before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This was not the usurpation of the Bishop but the indulgence of the Emperor; and the Truth is, that the Church and State being now united, and the Schisms of the one causing inevitable seditions in the other, the Civil Magistrates for the greater security of their Government did think it expedient to invest the Bishop with a coercive power, since their Spiritual authority was contemned to the dishonour of Religion, and no less to the disturbance of the State. And it was it seems a crime in Cyril to accept this Commission, or to act in pursuance of it: though our Author elsewhere professes that he shall not dishonour such, 
p. 23. sect. 59  nor disobey them. But besides the suppressing of the Novatian Conventicles, he is charged with executing some Jews, and banishing others, which Orestes took ill, as an encroachment upon his office, who was Governor of the Province. 
Socr. l. 7. c. 13.  But as to this he cannot be very much blamed, for the Jews conspired against the Christians, and resolved to destroy them all in one night; they gave the alarm that one of their Churches was on fire, and as the Christians ran out to quench the fire, they were murdered by those Villains. Perhaps Cyril did not think this a time to compliment the Governor to the assistance of the Christians, when the danger they were in was sufficient to call him away, but animated the people to make their defence, and to go in quest of these Murderers; and it was a sign of his Moderation that there were but some executed, and that all were not put to the Sword, after so barbarous an attempt.  
This or something else offended the governor, 
Socr. l. 7. c. 14.  so that he became irreconcilable to Cyril. The Bishop like a good man, endeavoured by all means to procure a reconciliation, but without effect; and why is a Bishop to be worse thought of, if a man of quality become his implacable enemy without cause? Five hundred Monks came from Mount Nitria in a fit of wild zeal to take the Bishop's part; and Socrates cannot say that he sent for them, they light on the governor and assault him; he is wounded, and hardly escapes with life: But how could Cyril help this? or how can he be charged with the extravagance of those Monks that he had no knowledge of till they had committed it? But one of those Mutineers (says Socrates) that wounded the governor being executed for his crime, was honoured by cyril as a Martyr; I do very much suspect this story, from the circumstance of changing the criminals name to Thaumasius, and the most probable conjecture that I can make of it, if there be any ground at all for the story, is, that the memory of a Martyr of that name might be honoured by him, which his enemies interpreted to be the Criminal. But this changing of name is a thing without precedent, and without reason; for either this disguise was put on that it might not be observed, and he was ashamed of doing it openly; and than it will not be easy to be certain that this Thaumasius was that Ammonius who was executed: or if he was the same, and Cyril confessed it, than it is impossible to imagine a reason why he should use that disguise. But there are men in the world that honour such as Martyrs that were executed, not for Wounding a Governor, but Murdering a King after a most unexampled manner; witness the worthy Martyrologies of Harrison, 
Speeches and Prayers, Printed A. D. 1660.  Carew, Cook, Peter, etc. and of Barkstead, Okey, Corbett: with this Motto in the Frontispiece, these died all in Faith: and innumerable other things that justify their horrid crimes; and make them Martyrs by the cause of their suffering: 
Printed 1662.  I hope they were neither Bishops nor Episcopal men that were so fond of Canonising these Murderers for Martyrs.  
Another thing which our Author citys from the professed enemies of Cyril to render him odious, was the Murder of Hypatia, the famous She-Philosopher; She it seems was barbarously murdered, but by whom, or upon what occasion is not certain. Socrates makes the occasion to have been this, 
Socr. l. 7. c. 15.  That she being frequently with the Governor was suspected to do Cyril evil offices, and to dissuade the Governor from being reconciled to him, therefore some Zealots watched her, and barbarously Murdered her, among whom was one Peter, a Reader of the Church, and an admirer of Cyril. And this (continueth the same Historian) brought a great reproach upon Cyril and the Church of Alexandria.] But he cannot charge the Bishop of being by any means conscious to it: and though it were done upon his account by violent heady Zealots; yet he could be no further guilty than he contributed to it, by his countenance or consent. 
Suidas in Damascius.  Damascius in the life of Isidore the Husband of this Hypatia charges Cyril directly with this Murder; but his credit signifies very little, as being in the first place a Heathen, and a violent enemy of the Christians; and secondly, being more remote from these times, for he lived in the reign of Justinian; 
Vales. Annot. in Socr. l. 7. c. 15.  Valesius citys the passage at large out of him, and promises to publish much more of him than we have had hitherto: This is taken out of Suidas, who I believe citys the whole out of this Author: In the beginning he makes it dubious 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 publicly 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 chrysostom, 
〈…〉 At●●●.  and his opposition, to the restoring his name to the diptyches 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 persuaded Atticus to restore Chrysostoms' name, a boldfaced man; the word (though used 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 repent of this: yet I believe there is sufficient evidence to the contrary to persuade any reasonable man. For besides that Socrates affirms Theophilus before his death to have been reconciled to those Monks, upon whose account he had quarrelled with chrysostom, Cyrils' Letter to Gennadius shows him to have been satisfied in the business of Chrysostome's Honourable Restauration to the Diptyches. Gennadius was a Presbyter of the Church of C. P. and refused 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 changed 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 satisfied in the restitution of Chrysostom. For this Proclus had not only kept his name in the Diptyches, but fetched home his bones, and so ended that Schism of the Joann●●●; so that Cyril must by this have chang'● 〈◊〉 judgement concerning Chrysostom: N●●●●is Letter to Atticus, which our Auth●● citys, 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 expunged it out of their Diptyches, 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 followed 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 changed his mind; to remove from him the imputation of levity, and to show that he was carried away sincerely, and by an invincible mistake, he must be reconciled by a miracle.  
However it were, whether Cyril repent 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 engaged 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 pitched battles 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 discovered 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 weighed the circumstances duly, this will be no great offence to him; Isidore was certainly a good man, but very easy 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 befall 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 used 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 Governors.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: nor is this only a general compliment, but he goes on to mention particular instances of his integrity against this Martinianus, who after he had robbed the Church of Pelusium sent some part of the money to Alexandria to endeavour to procure himself the Bishopric: 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 banished. Whereupon Isidore applies 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 show greater evidence of their merit towards the Church, Gloriosissimus fidei Catholicae Defensor, 
Prosper. contra collat. c. 41. Celestina. Ep. ad Nest. §. 5.  and Cyrillus Alexandria Episcopus vir omni sapientia & Sanctitatis exemplo clarissimus, probatissimus Sacerdos, etc.  
But Theodoret it seems was never truly reconciled 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 versed 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 forged several Letters in the name of Theodoret. 
Leont. de Sect. Sect. 5.  In short, nothing can be a plainer confutation of this Fiction than Theodoret's own Letter to Dioscorus, the successor of Cyril; where besides that he does show 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 published 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 forged 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 authentic 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 chief 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 gratify the Court, since the Emperor was so highly offended with the contention, that he ordered Cyril to be imprisoned, and was extremely dissatisfied 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, than 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, loved to be deceived; 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 Author's account of Nestorius.  
The worst thing he can say of him is, That he was hot against Heretics, 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 called him Firebrand, when themselves were the Incendiaries; he vexed the Novatians, etc. 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 Heresy and Blasphemy: presented to the House of Commons.  which they desired should be made Felony, and punished by death. And of other opinions that were to be punished 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 called it, does complain against the Bishops for not being severe enough in the eradication of Heresies: 
Vindication of the Ordin. against Heresy, p. 23. Impr. James Cranford.  I will set down the words because they are something remarkable: In the Bishop's times there were some Arians and Blasphemers put to death, according to the Laws which then were, and for aught I know are still in force. But had the Bishops had as much zeal for God and his truth, as they had for their own greatness, they had obtained such a law as this is, if not in all the particulars, 
Presbyterian Toleration.  yet in most of them long ago, and thereby prevented many of those monstrous opinions, which have of late been vented among us, to the great dishonour of God and our Kingdom, and the mischief to Souls; but they were cast out for their lukewarmness, and let others take heed of the like: How shall the Bishops do to please these men? Sometimes when they are in authority, they are Hereticators, and Persecutors, and Instigators of the Civil Magistrate against men for Conscience sake: Sometimes they are lukewarm and negligent for not providing Laws severe enough, and for not putting men to death for errors in Religion: If I were worthy to advise our Author I would desire him for the honour of Presbytery, to levelly his spiteful reflections a little more justly, lest whilst he let's fly with a good will against Bishops, the Brethren of the Holy Discipline be not hurt; and lest what he designs against Councils, fall unhappily upon the Reverend Assembly, 
Answer to Dr. Stillingst.  for which he expresses no small esteem elsewhere, although Bishops and their Councils are so abominable in his sight. But enough of this, for our purpose: I will leave our Author to the judgement of his Brethren, and only crave the Readers Pardon for this digression.  
We are now come to the Council of Ephesus, 
§. 9  which was occasioned by Nestorius his denying the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of that person that was God: this doctrine was broached by his favourite, Priest Anastasius; though Nestorius being the more eminent person carried away the name and reputation of it: Our Author says, This set all the City in a division, disputing of they well knew not what: Nestorius was suspected by some to deny the Godhead of Christ, but he was of no such opinion,] It is true, he did not directly deny the Godhead of Christ but consequentially he did, as we shall show hereafter.  
The Emperor weary of this stir, 
p. 89. sect. 9  calls a Council; and yet our Author forgets himself not many pages after, where he will have his Reader believe that Cyril made all this stir to please the Court.  
The truth of it is, the obstinacy of Nestorius obliged the Emperor to assemble this Council; for Cyril had tried all the moderate ways in the world to reclaim him before this was thought of. Nothing can be more modest than Cyril's Letter to Nestorius, 
Ep. ad Nest.  though he had received several personal provocations from him; and after this another written with the same Spirit; 
Secunda Ep. ad Nest.  but Nestorius took all this brotherly admonition for reproach, and endeavoured to maintain his opinion, and to secure himself in equivocal and doubtful expressions, sometimes seeming to speak the same thing with Cyril, that Christ had two natures in one person, sometimes considering Christ as a double person, and always denying Mary to be the Mother of God by any means: This was the unhappy Controversy that divided the world. Several being deceived by the Equivocations of Nestorius took his part at first, but finding him obstinate in denying the Virgin to be the Mother of that person that was God, they at last deserted him, and joined with Cyril in his condemnation.  
It had been happy for the Church if the mysteries of our Religion had never been curiously disputed. But when busy, troublesome men have started a new dangerous doctrine, and endeavour to propagate it with all industry imaginable, it is not fit that the Governors should sit as unconcerned Spectators, but that they should oppose vigorously all such remedies as God has put into their hands: i e. advise, admonish, rebuke; and if these means prove ineffectual to stop the course of evil doctrine, they must proceed according to the Apostles advice, a Heretic after admonition reject. This method therefore of proceeding against Heresies and the Authors of them cannot be disallowed by any reasonable man. But this case of Nestorius it seems yields a further debate; and the merit of the cause is yet disputed. Derodon makes Nestorius' Orthodox, and Cyril the Heretic: our Author believes both Orthodox, but that they did not understand one another; and so by words that themselves did not understand, they set all the world on fire. As for Derodon, he manifestly condemns Nestorius in a little Treatise De Supposito, printed with several other Philosophical Tracts of his; and approves Cyril: the truth is, he has a singular notion of a person there which seems to approach Nestorianism, which he endeavours to confirm by the authority of Cyril and other Fathers: but this which our Author citys, I have not yet seen, nor can I find that it has been yet published; however since the minutes of his arguments are set down by our Author, I will endeavour to show the mistake of that learned man, by giving the true state of the question between Cyril and Nestorius.  
Nestorius' did first recede from the allowed expressions of the Fathers, who did all occasionally call the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God; and therefore was justly suspected to recede from their doctrine: Cyril admonishes him of this dangerous innovation, and explains himself concerning the Incarnation of the son of God; Nestorius endeavours to confute it; and now let us see what it was that they both maintained. I will begin with the Doctrine of Cyril, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word united the flesh to himself hypostatically or personally: 
Ep. 2. ad. Nestor.  and a little after, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 
Ibid.  i. e. distinct natures concurring to make a real Unity; of both which consists one Christ and one Son: not that the difference of the natures are taken away by that Unity, but that the divinity and humanity combined by an unspeakable manner of Union, make one Christ, and one Son. 
Ibid.  And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, uniting the manhood hypostatically to himself: and as to the order of this Union he explains himself farther, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: i. e. He was not first a mere man that was born of the Holy Virgin; which the Divinity afterwards did assume; but the Word being united to the Man from the very Womb, is said to have undergone a carnal generation. And that this Union does not destroy the difference of natures in Christ, he shows expressly in that same place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: He became man, but did not therefore cease to be God, but after the assumption of Flesh, remained still the same that he was before. And to the same purpose in another place, after the assumption of Flesh he remained very God, 
Ep. ad Eulog.  and suffered death upon the Cross, i. e. the Flesh 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 signified by these two names, as to what regards their essence, and have nothing the one like the other, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Union does admit a difference, but excludes all division; 
Ep. ad Nest. ] and lastly he shows the absurdity of rejecting this Hypostatical Union 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 resolved to cavil; and even these at last were reconciled to his expressions. Thus the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon understood him, and the Catholic 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 citys out of Cyril several passages that affirm Christ to have but one nature; and this is that which was condemned in Eutyches. It is true indeed that Cyril does frequently own but one nature, but it is to be observed 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 observed by comparing all those places where he affirms but one nature, with those already alleged, that expressly affirm the contrary. But besides this, if he shall be allowed 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 applied 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 ascribed 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 expressed 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 affirmed one nature, appears further from what he condemned in Nestorius and others: 
Cyr. Ep. cum 12. Anath.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not dividing and separating God from man, as part from part; nor yet joining them together by an Unity only of honour and authority; this was it that he charged 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 Heretic: but if this will serve to do it, most of the Fathers that wrote upon this subject, must be Heretics 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 Heresy 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 judged that Christ had but one only nature resulting out of that Composition, like that of Man; than it must be either the divine nature which had taken the humane into itself, or that the divinity should be changed into his humanity, or some third nature that must result from both, all which he equally abhors; for notwithstanding the incarnation, 
Ep. ad Nest. ad Acac. ad Joh. 12. Anathim. ad Success.  he affirms expressly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 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 joined 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 endued with reason and understanding. So that it appears plainly by the doctrine of Cyril, that he did acknowledge two natures in one person, and that when he oftentimes affirmed one nature in Christ, he meant only one person; which he would not have divided and separated from itself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and the reason of using the phrase of one nature, as well as of one hypostasis or person, will appear further by considering the error of Nestorius, against which he opposed those expressions. This Heretic began to discover himself, by not only scrupling, 
The Opinion of Nestorius.  but condemning the Title which the Blessed Virgin bore commonly in that age, of being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Mother of God; by condemning this expression, Nestorius in effect condemned all the Fathers who had used it; and this gave a general alarm, as if the faith of the Fathers, Athan. Gregory, etc. was going to be condemned in this Word: and there was very great reason for this jealousy. John Bishop of Antioch, a particular friend of Nestorius, 
Joh. Ep. ad Nest.  was scandalised at this innovation, and sends a Letter to him to expostulate about this matter; and presses him very hard with this argument: If you understand and believe the same thing with the Holy Fathers that have gone before us (for this I understand by several common friends that you do) why are you afraid to express an orthodox meaning by a convenient phrase? Especially since so great mischief and confusion is like to ensue upon your refusal: But how he explained himself we shall see presently.  
In his Epistle to Cyril he expresses himself one would think very Orthodoxly, 
Ep. ad Cyr.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if we examine what he means by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we shall find that he really maintained two persons as well as two natures. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used not only for a person, or an intelligent subsistence, but likewise as Persona in Latin, with relation to office, dignity, authority, and other circumstances of a man: so 'tis used in those phrases, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; this was the most common signification of the word; and therefore Cyril does not use it so frequently as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he thought more proper to express the personal union of Christ: and Nestorius does industriously avoid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now let us see wherein he made the unity of person to consist: 
Cyr. Cont. Nest. p. 43. Ed. Par.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: i. e. It was God that took upon him the form of a servant, it was this which was assumed: after that there is the dignity of the conjunction; (though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify such a near conjunction as that personal one, but only an artificial joining, so as that the things do still remain under different subsistences) the authority is common to both natures; for the same dignity belongs to both, confess the unity (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of personal dignity not subsistence, 
Ibid.  the natures or subsistences remaining still different; and then, there is no dividing of the conjunction of dignity and filiation; and then, the son is twofold, not in respect of dignity, but of nature. And the error which he charges Cyril with, is, as if all those things that are said of Christ as God and as Man, 
p. 33.  were understood by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not according to the Honour of the conjunction, but according to nature, or naturally: than which nothing can be plainer. Cyril's answer does plainly show what he meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and what Nestorius, by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Why therefore (says he) dost thou pretend to maintain the true faith, when thou dost manifestly divide Christ into two persons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and dost destroy the manner of that true and real union, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is with him the same thing as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereby Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, really one. But thou on the other side makest that equality of honour to be Unity, which is not a real, substantial, but an imaginary Unity: So that Nestorius does evidently hold two natural persons (for so I must speak) still distinct in Christ, 
Vid. Zanch. de Incarnate. Verbi.  joined together not hypostatically, but into one title, or dignity, which Cyril explains sometimes very properly by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
This being premised concerning Nestorius his holding two natures in one person, we shall see more clearly how all his expressions do point at this notion, we have now observed, 
Cyr. count. Nest.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Where there are two generations, 
p. 21.  there are two Sons, but the Church knows but one son, therefore the word cannot be said to be born with the flesh as one person; and so consequently God and Man is not the person that was born of the Virgin; and Christ was a person distinct from the word: nor does he hold this consequentially only but in express terms, therefore, says he, Christ is said to be the Word, 
p. 47.  because he i. e. Christ is joined for ever to the Word. What, is not Christ the name of the person? and if there be not two, what can this conjunction of Christ with the word signify? and therefore Cyril makes this advantage of it, 
p. 52.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The same thing is observable from Nestorius' dividing his Worship in respect of God and Man; the first he worships upon his own account, the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which Cyril takes to imply another person. There are many more instances to the same effect, 
p. 74, 84, 90, 100, 108, 126. Ed. Par.  cited and confuted by Cyril in the same Book.  
When Cyril and the Eastern Bishops were agreed, the Nestorians caviled as if Cyril had received those that maintained the same doctrine with Nestorius, and as if John and the rest had condemned those that held the same faith with them; 
Ep. ad Acac.  but Cyril makes it sufficiently appear what difference there was between them and Nestorius: For he destroys the mystery of the incarnation, denying that the Son of God was born of the Virgin, for these are Nestorius his own words, I have read, says he, in Scripture that God proceeded or passed through the Virgin: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but he read not where that he was born of her; and in the same place, Therefore Christ is called the Word of God, because he is joined for ever to the word. Christ then in his sense is not the word, but belongs to it; which manifestly makes two persons: and a while after, I separate the natures, but I join the adoration; and that upon the account of that equality of honour and authority which the man had by his conjunction with God, not into one natural person and properly so called, but into an union of title and dignity. With respect to which opinion Cyril presses the unity of nature, and makes use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hypostasis indiscriminately: And lastly, Nestorius denys Christ to be truly and properly God, in his first Anathema in answer to those of Cyril, saying, Si quis Christum verum deum & non Immanuel dixerit, i. e. Whosoever shall call him True God, let him be Anathema, which shows that the Union he meant was not personal, but that Christ was no more than what Cyril often charges Nestorius with holding, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: If those twelve Articles of Nestorius were extant in Greek, they would likely discover more of his mind, but as they are, they have hardly any sense at all.  
How far Nestorius dissembles his opinion by those plausible expressions of one person and two natures, may be judged from what is already observed concerning him: but our Author falls into a great passion against those that say Nestorius dissembled when he affirmed two natures and one person; I take them, says he, to be the Firebrands of the World, and unworthy the regard of sober men, who pretend to know men's judgements better than themselves, etc. It cannot be unknown to any man that has read any thing in Ecclesiastical writings, that Heretics were used to take refuge in Equivocation; and to show a fair plausible doctrine to the first view, but when this was narrowly examined and compared with other things that dropped from them, either unawares or in greater confidence, it was found to be nothing but deceit and illusion. Thus the Arians frequently imposed upon the Orthodox; thus the Nestorians seemed to own the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, changing only the accent, which changed the signification of the Word from the Mother to the Child and offspring of God; and S. Paul, who was not unacquainted with the arts of Heretics, gives this caution against them, that they are not presently to be taken for what they appear, 
Rom. 16.17, 18.  Now I beseech you Brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them; for such serve not the Lord Jesus Christ but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple: But let them be accounted Firebrands of the World that will not put the most charitable interpretation upon the expressions of men of suspected doctrines: I am content, and I believe the Bishops will not be so much concerned in this accusation; I could wish our Author would look home, and observe those Firebrands that will make men of what Religion they please, in despite of all Protestations and Oaths to the contrary: Is it not strange that men who subscribe the Articles of the Church of England, so destructive of all the errors of Popery, which were the occasion of the Reformation; that renounce Transubstantiation, Pope's Supremacy, Idolatry, Rebellion for the cause of Religion, Adoration of Images and Saints and Angels; that notwithstanding all this, these men must be Papists and Popishly affected, and let them say or believe what they will, they must be accounted so: What shall a man do to these men? who instead of pulling down Popery strengthen it, by reckoning so many learned and godly persons of that side? and whilst they endeavour to dishonour these persons by so odious a name, do no small honour to the Papists by making the most eminent party of men both for learning and integrity that perhaps is now in the World, to be favourers of their way: hoc Ithacus velit: The Jesuits indeed are apt to feign several deathbed Reconciliations to their Church, to gain it credit by the accession of some eminent opposers of it, but this they do sparingly, as the easy people can swallow the cheat; But these Papist-makers of ours will present them with thousands together, and send them the Protestant Churches of three Kingdoms in one present. If any be Fire brands of the World, if any set up Popery under the disguise of Protestants, they are surely these men that cry down all for Papists that they have any prejudice against; and out of spite to their brethren assist that common enemy, and become the most liberal Benefactors to the Church of Rome that ever it had since the Reformation; nay, not inferior to the forgers of Constantine's Donation. These men would deserve better of Rome than Francis or Dominick, could they but make their words good. Surely the Papists are not now to learn how to make the best use of a fictitious title, they will not fail to boast of that strength which dissenters give them; and have no reason to discover the falsehood of a calumny that is so much to their credit and advantage! I must beseech the Readers Pardon for this digression, and Gods Pardon to these false accusers of their brethren, that they may know in this their day the things that belong to their peace. To return now to the business we left.  
It will not suit the proportion of my design to dwell upon every particular expression of Cyrils that may be suspected, and to detect the Heresy of Nestorius lurking under the disguise of Orthodox Expressions, I hope that what has been already observed, may be sufficient at least to suspend the Readers judgement from pronouncing Cyril a Heretic with Derodon, or Nestorius (who was condemned by almost all the world) an Orthodox and sound believer? until some abler hand undertake that matter, and treat it more particularly.  
Our Author though he make use of Derodon's citations to disparage the authority of these Councils, yet he differs from him in conclusion, and is loath to give in to that bold Paradox, that Cyril so much celebrated in the Catholic Church for his defence of the faith, should at last, after twelve hundred years good credit prove downright Heretic. Therefore he endeavours to moderate the business, and to make both parties Friends and Orthodox, though they themselves were not sensible of it! All this stir, saith our Author, proceeded only from misunderstanding, and Cyril and Nestorius and the rest of the Bishops did not understand one another's meaning: It is not unpleasant to observe a man unacquainted with the language in which these disputes were, pretend gravely to be Moderator, and to persuade the World they did not understand the terms they quarrelled about, though the language were vulgar to them all; and by the strength of Hanmers, and other miserable translations, to play the Critic: but whether is most likely that these great and learned men should understand one another's terms; or persons removed from their times many hundreds of years, and ignorant of the language in which they writ, I leave the Reader to determine. It is true, that in this case there was great misunderstanding between Cyril and the Eastern Bishops; yet we find that as soon as ever they came to debate the matter calmly, they found they differed but in expression, and yet both found they differed 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 undiscovered agreement between the contending Bishops, and not one have the fortune to stumble upon this observation. Mr. B. does endeavour to satisfy this doubt, by showing 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 removed from place to place, but they were made in every Church out of an inferior 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. Universities 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 Bishop's 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 fancies 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 believed the Resurrection! Learned men were very scarce, he would infer; 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 rendered 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 justify this extraordinary and irregular election of a Catechumen into the second Bishopric of the World: and if any one should yet fancy 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 sat, proposed many as fit for that Charge: Diodorus Tarsensis happened to be strangely taken with Nectarius his Country man; and the circumstances, if true, make it look something like a miracle: He proposed him to the Bishop of Antioch as a sit person for that high charge; the Bishop wondered at the fancy; and to comply with Theodorus puts his name among several others that he offered to the Emperor, but in the last place, little expecting he should be returned Bishop.  
The Emperor by an unaccountable impulse passed all by till he came to his name, and fixed there, and nominated him Bishop: He was no Christian, says our Author. He was not yet baptised 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 forced into a Bishopric. 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 designed as a secret, 
Syn. Ep. 105.  but as he suggests there, that it might be showed, 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 used 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 ordained him by saying, that they had hopes that afterward he would believe more Orthodoxly, and correct those errors he confessed: 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 delivered 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 Writ as methodical, pious, weighty tractates as Synesius, notwithstanding he was a Philosopher, and as well as any Eusebius extolled as famous Bishops of the second and third age, etc. 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 that he was unacquainted with the Fathers and Ecclesiastical writers, which made him condemn the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
l. 7. c. 32.  which was used 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 show that he had not confused 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 pitched 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 itself 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 renowned 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 Metaphysics do now, between Individuum, prima substantia, natura, suppositum, persona, and distinguish between a right essence, and hypostasis or subsistence, etc. and have defined 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  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, 
abide.  that blinded them so, as not to distinguish between the Abstract and the Concrete, and between the qui & quà Deus: It is after his wont 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 excused, 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 brother's 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 reserved 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 fathered the doctrine of Nestorius about the Incarnation upon his Master, Theodorus Tarsensis, and Theodorus Mopsuestenius. But Theodore Tars. died in the Communion of the Church, and was owned 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 departed 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 fort & 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 questioned 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 Saviour's incarnation: and yet Theodore did expressly maintain two natures in one person: So that Cyril in opposing this must either be a Heretic, 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 Heretic, yet there was Heresy among his writings, foisted in by the followers of Apollinaris, and this is the very Heresy 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 qu●● 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, duos filios dicere; sic enim nos fe●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 sum is, that those Heretics, that could not confute his books, resolved to corrupt them, and foisted strange doctrines that he abhorred, as that we must own two sons in Christ; and this cheat was carried on with that Impudence that they showed these interlopations to some of the Bishops own Congregation, who were carried away with it at first, but were recovered by the Bishop's 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 imposed 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 Heretics?  
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, used sometime suspected and dangerous expressions, the same Author citys the Epistle of John Bishop of Antioch to Nestorius, where he proposes to him the example of his own Master Theodore, who in a public exposition, having dropped 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 compared before the 〈◊〉 Edition of that Council; 
L'abbé T. 3. p. 391. part 1. c. 25.  but L'abbé re●●●●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 deserved to be condemned: 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 seemed to fall into another: This was Cyril's own case, who to assert a real Union called it Natural; and asserted one nature, meaning by it but one person; but that term he thought not sufficient, since Nestorius endeavoured 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 maintained 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 easy 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 Proceed of this Council, which our Author represents with his wont candour and ingenuity. 
Sacra Imper. ad Episc. Metrop.  The Emperor in his Writs for the calling of this Council commanded the Bishops to be at Ephesus before Pentecost: They door date 15 call. 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 Whitsuntide 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 inclined to open the Council immediately, in obedience to the Emperor's 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 expense 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 proceed to wait their arrival. These therefore make their applications to Cyril, and press him to proceed; he gave them good words, and desired them to have patience for some time, for it would not be long  John and the Eastern Bishops would come, who were already upon their way, and not far from the place; he deferred 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 satisfied, opened the Synod on the 22 of June: 
The 22 of June falls exactly at the end of the sixteen days allowed by the Synod.  Nestorius was summoned 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 fortified himself in his house, and got a guard of Soldiers, 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 judged 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 ; and John had no reason to find fault, having given them leave to proceed. But he coming to Ephesus shortly after, and finding fault with the proceed of Cyril, became the occasion of great confusions: which yet cannot be with any justice charged upon the Council; John with his protesting Bishops countenanced the cause of Nestorius, and condemned Cyril, being drawn in by Candidianus, who was a favourer of Nestorius: 
Act. 1. prope finem.  and it is not unlikely that he had secret Orders from the Emperor to do Cyril all the ill offices that he could, for the Emperor in his Letter to Cyril before this Council, shows that he was not a little angry with him. He pretends his writing to him, 
Theodos. Cyril. p. 1. c. 31.  and the Empresses, about this question, to have been the cause, as if he had had a design to divide the Court as well as the Church, and to sow discord in the Royal Family. But whatever were the reason, it is evident by his proceeding, that he had a pique against Cyril; who was opposed in every thing by the Emperor's Officers: A little Committee of about thirty Bishops, with John and Candidianus at the head of them, set up against the Council, condemned Cyril and Memnon, and gave the Emperor an account of what they had done, he sent Johannes Comes with Order to depose Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius. This John gives a sad account of the confusion all things were in, and of the heats of Bishops; but is very much to be suspected. For the tenor of his relation makes it evident that he was a partisan of the Eastern Bishops, and therefore endeavours to lay all the blame upon Cyril and his party: but sure I am that the confusion which he represents cannot be much greater than our Author makes in the sense of this John; and the Bishops could not understand one another much worse than our Author did that Epistle. They would have the Scriptures read (says our learned Translator) but they that favoured Cyril said, that the divine and terrible Scriptures were not to be read without Cyril; the Bishops that were with John said, that Cyril ought not to be present at the reading of the Scriptures. One would imagine that this Officer would have read a Chapter of Job to recommend patience to these violent Bishops; but it is quite another matter, for these terrible Scriptures were nothing else but the Emperor's Letter, which in the language of those times was called Sacra; and Sacra Scriptura in this place, as every body knows that has any acquaintance with these times, or has but read this Letter; for the secret is discovered within a few lines, Augustarum literarum lectionem fecit, in quibus depositi sunt Cyrillus & Nestorius, etc. And now it is no wonder if all things were in confusion, and all parties, unless that small one of John of Antioch, dissatisfied; the Orthodox looked upon the faith as involved in the condemnation of Cyril, and to suffer in the same proscription with him; and the greatest part of the Christian Church looked upon itself as engaged in the same cause: therefore the Emperor considering better of it, whether out of fear that all the world in a manner would oppose this sentence, or being better informed concerning Cyril, revoked this decree, but confirmed the deposition and banishment of Nestorius; and considering the party of John was but inconsiderable in respect of those that owned the Council, the Emperor, who probably might have made use of them against Cyril, commands them now to be reconciled to him, to condemn Nestorius, to receive the Council; and Cyril was only desired to sacrifice his resentments of the injuries received at Ephesus, to the peace and settlement of the Church; and so at last Cyril and the Council of Ephesus prevailed against all the little arts that were used to blast their reputation, and by the means of Paulus Emissenus a perfect reconciliation was effected, so sincere, that the old contentions are changed into friendship and confidence, and Cyril sends some of his books to John and Theodoret to revise and correct. So far were they from thinking him a Fire brand and incendiary as long as they lived: as our Author represents the matter.  
But this reconciliation does as little please Mr. B. as their dissensions: There is no thanks to the Bishops for this; the Emperor's threatening Letter cured them all of Heresy; and good men! they were all this while of one mind and did not know it: It is some sign of good nature that they would submit to the powerful interposition of the Emperor; but there is a temper, which Mr. B. is acquainted with, that is not to be prevailed upon either by threats or promises from the Magistrate, and seems to hate nothing so much as compliance with Superiors: there are some that scorn to preach by the licence of the Government, and place the Kingdom of Christ purely in opposition to Laws and Magistrates.   

CHAP. VI  
Councils about the Eutychian Heresy.  
IT is the general weakness of our minds not to think we have sufficiently avoided one extreme, unless we run into the other; and to be still running away from what we dislike, we care not whither, without considering what inconveniences the contrary extreme may expose us to! This is frequent among us, not only in what relates to our passions and manners, but to our faith. Nestorius, for fear of blasphemy, dissolved the incomprehensible unity of the son, and fell into blasphemy on the opposite side, denying Christ to be Deus verus: 
Anath. 1, 2.  Eutyches, abhorring this doctrine, thought he was not safe till he had denied Christ to be verum hominem: 
Brevic. de Hist. Eutyc.  and this became the occasion of a great deal of stir and tumults in the Christian World.  
This Eutyches (who to our comfort was no Bishop, but an Abbot,) having pleased himself some time with his notion concerning the person of Christ, was not content to enjoy it himself, but was ambitious to propagate it: He therefore drew up a new Creed different from those which had been set forth by all the Councils before him, and sent a Copy of this Confession into several Monasteries, to desire Subscriptions. 
Act. con. C. P.  This got wind, and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, having notice of this practice, advises Eutyches as a friend to desist from such dangerous erterprises, and to acquiesce in the decrees of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus. Eutyches pursues his course, and Eusebius reports the whole matter to Flavian: who having called a small Convention of Bishops at C. P. sends for Eutyches thither. He at first refuses to come; but afterwards, being encouraged by a favourite Eunuch, he comes to the Council as if he had been going to a war, guarded not only with his Monks but with Soldiers, and the Emperor's guards, where after some tergiversation he discovered his Heresy, and the Council having admonished him to retract, but without effect, condemned him as a Heretic.  
Our Author makes Eutyches as Orthodox as Cyril; and would show that he was condemned for the doctrine of the Council of Ephesus. 
Brevic. de Hist. Eutych.  The Truth of this we shall understand by considering the following particulars of his doctrine. He held Christum verum hominem non fuisse, nec in co esse duas naturas, sed unam Dei Verbi, incarnatam; though the last words be the very same with those of Cyril; 
Ep. 2. ad Nest. & alib.  yet the rest are expressly condemned by him, for he maintains upon every occasion, that Christ is truly Man as well as God, and perfect too, as consisting of Body and Soul, nor did he deny two natures in Christ, but only said that they were not separated or divided; that there was no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but that both were united in one subsistence. He does indeed frequently assert one nature, 
ad Eulog. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which in his sense is no more than personal unity; and sometimes too says there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
ad Acac. Melit.  unless we shall read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is much more agreeable to Cyril's ordinary way of expressing himself; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 
Conc. Chalc. Act. 1.  and yet Eustath. Beryt. citys Cyril in the Council of Chalcedon according to the first reading. But not to make any difficulty about this, 
Flau. Exempl. fidei Theodos. Dat. Conc. Chalc. part 1. Ep. 5. It. Maxentii Cathol. Professio.  Flavian it seems did not stand much upon that expression. For he owns it with this interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so far he owned one nature as was consistent with one Christ that must be God and Man, but he condemns all those that shall teach that there are two sons, or two hypostases, or two persons, and so dissolves that unity. And yet for all this, he was condemned as a Nestorian; and although he seems to speak the same words with Eutyches, yet he condemns him; 
Brevic. & Ep. Flau.  but you have already seen some difference, and shall sinned yet more. He goes on concerning Eutyches, saying, Christum nobis esse Consubstantialem negavit: which is an express contradiction to the doctrine of Cyril, who all along affirms Christ to be of the same substance with us as to his humanity, as well as of the same substance with the Father in respect of the divine nature: [Deinde dixit Virginem quidem quae cum genuit secundum carnem consubstantialem nobis esse, 
Rescript. Flau. ad Leon.  ipsum antem dominum non suscepisse ex eâ carnem nobis consubstantialem; & Corpus domini non esse quidem corpus hominis, humanum verò corpus esse quod est ex Virgin: adjecit autem & aliam impietatem; 
Ep. ad Leon.  Corpus domini quod ex Maria factum est non esse nostrae substantiae, neque humanae conspersionis. This is something hard to be understood at first sight; but the Breviculus Hist. Eutych. does explain it, speaking of Eutyches his opinion concerning Christ's flesh, quam quidem non esse hominis perhibuit sed humanum, ut similitudo magis humani corporis quàm veritas suaderetur. But to return to that which was more insisted upon for Heresy, his affirming of one nature, which these passages will serve to explain.  
The great Complaint of Eusebius Doryl. to Flavian, and of Flavian to Leo, against Eutyches was, that he affirmed one nature after the incarnation. Did not Cyril say the same thing? does not Flavian himself say that he does not reject it? what then is the Controversy? Surely these men cannot be so mad as to fall out so violently, when they all say not only the same thing but the same words. Shall we imagine that Flavian would prevaricate, and accuse Eutyches to Leo of that Heresy, which he owns for sound doctrine to Theodosius? 
Flau. Ep. ad Theod.  It is not to be conceived that any one, much less so great a man as Flavian, should be either so foolish or so wicked; and if we consider the accusation, we shall be able to unriddle this difficulty. 
Flau. Ep. ad Leon.  For after he had charged Eutyches with holding but one nature after the Union, he adds for a confutation of that error: neque vero unitas convenientium in Christo duarum naturarum sicut unâ re, proprietates suas in unitate confudit, sed manent in unitate perfectae naturarum proprietates; the one nature of Christ according to Eutyches did (it seems) take away, and confound the properties of humanity; but according to Flavian they still remained; for how else could Christ suffer, and the divine nature not have suffered too? The Monothelites spoke out what Eutyches disguised, whose principle extended to much absurd consequences than that, if it had been pursued; and the denying of the body of Christ (for I do not find that he mentions any thing of his Soul) to be like ours, tends manifestly to this confusion of the nature, the form, and properties of the humanity of Christ with that of his divinity.  
There is one thing more in Eutyches his way of expressing himself which is liable to exception; and that is, that before the union, there were two natures, afterwards they were but one; if he speaks of the particular natures of Christ, this must be very impious or absurd; either it must imply that the divinity was united to Christ after he was come in the Flesh, or that he was at first but a mere man, and the divinity was united to him afterwards, for the merit of his obedience; or else that the man was before his birth: the first I think Eutyches did not hold, the latter was suspected by Leo, 
Ep. ad Flau. & Julian.  who wishes he had been asked what he meant by this expression, For where were the two natures before the incarnation? his humanity could not antecede itself, and be before he was man: and he was never purely and simply man, but ever from the first moment in conjunction with the Godhead; therefore Leo fancies that Eutyches was of opinion that the soul of Christ pre-existed, and so indeed there would be two natures; but it is still absurd to say they were both in Christ, for Christ denotes the person that is constituted of both, and so they could be never in him until they were united. 
Ch. 6. Ject. 1.  Mr. B. makes Cyril say the same thing, which, if it were true, would either justify Eutyches, or involve Cyril in the same condemnation with him. But our Author has mistaken Cyril, or Derodon who furnished him with this notion, and the citations upon which it depends. For Cyril never said there were two natures in Christ before the Union, but only considers the divinity and humanity abstractedly; not that the humanity ever had a separate existence from the Godhead in Christ; and the result of all Cyril's discourses upon this point is only this, that two different natures very unlike and disproportionable were joined together in the person of Christ, but never thought that one of the particulars united, before that union had any separate existence, nay, his words are express to the contrary, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ep. 2. ad Nestor.  he was not first born an ordinary mere man of the Holy Virgin, and the word came afterwards into him; but being united from the womb he is said so to have undergone a carnal generation.  
It was the luck or the cunning of Eutyches not to engage far in disputes about his doctrines, or to explain himself much in public; there he seemed Orthodox enough; but when he instructed his Monks in private, than he discovered himself more fully. But the circumspection of the Church, and the zeal of good men, did not suffer it to go on long undiscovered or uncensured. This is no unusual thing with Heretics, to be reserved in public and promiscuous audiences; and to use greater freedom in select meetings. This was much practised amongst us in the late unhappy times: though there was licence enough to say any thing in public, yet the teacher's Spirit (it seems) was under some restraint in the Church, as some men think evil spirits are in consecrated places, and were not free to reveal the mysteries of their sect: of this we have several instances in Edward's his Gangr●na, which I would recommend to the reading of such as are so fond of Toleration; and if the effects of it in those times, as they were represented there, do not cure them of that mistaken charity, nothing will, but a too late experience of those evils when they are past remedy.  
Having given this short account of the doctrine of Eutyches, which they that condemned it understood much better than we can; and could doubtless distinguish from such expressions of their own that sounded like it: We will proceed to the history of its condemnation.  
The Synod of Constantinople having condemned Eutyches, he made his application, first to Leo Bishop of Rome; and being rejected there, applied himself to the Emperor by the means of his old friend Chrysaphius, 
Niceph. l. 14. c. 47.  an Eunuch in great favour and credit at Court. He obtained a review of the acts of the former Synod, before Florentius and most of the same Bishops that had condemned him. Florentius was a person of great integrity, and the Bishops after a second hearing, and after the cause of Eutyches had been pleaded by three Monks his Advocates, and all things diligently fifted, persevered in the same opinion; and the issue of this appeal was not a little to the disadvantage of Eutyches, and increased the suspicion of his crime.  
This way failing him, 
Niceph. l. 14. c. 47. Lib. Synod. in Syn. Eph. Diosc.  he makes use of the Eunuch's authority to call a General Council, that should be so contrived, that Eutyches might be acquitted, and Flavian deposed. This Flavian had incurred the Eunuch's displeasure before by sending him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his Benedictions, in Bread and not in Gold; therefore he was glad of any opportunity to do him ill offices: and he had such an influence upon the Emperor, who was too much addicted to this kind of Vermin, 
Suidas.  as to set him upon the ruin of this Good Bishop. In order to which, he dispatches several Letters to summon Bishops and others to a Council at Ephesus, 
Conc. Chalc. Par. 1. Sacrae, ad Dioscor. ad Elpid. Commit. etc. Pars 1.  which sufficiently show his bitterness against Flavian: intimating that the Nestorian Heresy was springing again, and that there were several favourers of it; he forbids Flavian and the Bishops that condemned Eutyches to sit in the Council; he complains against Flavian that he had called a Synod against his will, and prosecuted Eutyches, and disturbed the Church, notwithstanding all his advice and orders to the contrary; and in short, the Letters that called this Council suggested sufficiently what it was to do, and that their only business was to condemn a Bishop the Emperor did not care for; though without any just ground, nay for his honesty, if Nicephorus relate the business truly. There is no doubt but the Emperor, or rather this Eunuch who contrived all this mischief, knew how to choose Bishops for the purpose; and the Precedent did admirably suit with such a design, who besides his emulation against the Bishops of Constantinople, was, if half be true that is said of him, one of the most wicked profligate wretches in the World. This Synod in short did the business it was called for, and that not without force, for they used all the violence imaginable to fright poor conscientious men to a concurrence with them: and if any one should offer to speak for Flavian or Eusebius, the next word was da comites, you shall go the same way if you be troublesome. 
Act. 1. Conc. Chalc. T. 4. p. 135.  Eutyches brought in his confession of faith, which was no other than the Nicene Creed; and added only that he condemned all Heretics: but when Sozon would have put him to explain himself concerning the incarnation, Dioscorus and his party would not suffer it, for fear he should betray himself. And upon that he was absolved. 
Act. 1. Chalc. T. 4. p. 134.  As if a Socinian were called to a Synod to answer for his doctrines, and would make a confession of his faith in the Apostles Creed, and when any one should desire him to explain himself farther, moderate comprehending men should cry, this contains all that is necessary, there is no need of a farther Test: And thus some Synods in Poland were so moderate as to be imposed upon, which occasioned great mischief to those Reformed Churches there, now almost extinguished under the notion of Socinians. How bad soever Dioscorus and this Council were, yet they are in my judgement to be looked upon rather as favourers of Heresy than as Heretics, for although they did threaten to cleave him in sunder that durst say there are two natures in Christ, yet they were not of Eutyches his opinion for all that; but followed the meaning I believe as well as the words of Cyril. And it is observable that Anatolius in the Council of Chalcedon after Dioscorus' condemnation, 
Act. 5. T. 4. p. 558.  says expressly that he was not condemned for Heresy, but Misdemeanours. The Judges said, for this reason Dioscorus condemned Flavian, because he said there were two natures in Christ. Anatolius said, Dioscorus was not condemned for Heresy, but because he excommunicated Leo, and being cited to appear before the Council, refused to obey: The Instrument of his Deposition gives the same reason, and all the subscriptions that mention any reasons at all; only that of Paschasinus charges him with not only receiving Eutyches, but of being of his opinion. But because this Council chose two natures, 
Act. 3. p. 458.  as the most safe way of expressing the Oeconomy of Christ's incarnation, Dioscorus cried, cum Patribus ejicior; and his followers were afterwards called Eutychians, though they did not own his doctrines; as some of the Eastern Christians are called Nestorians, though they do not really hold the doctrine of Nestorius; but the very same with the Eastern Bishops that mistook Cyril, and with Theodorus Tarsens. and Mopsuest. who were misunderstood on the other side by Cyril. But of this we have said enough already.   

CHAP. VII.  
The Council of Chalcedon.  
NOw comes the great Council of Chalcedon under the new Emperor Martian, 
p. 99 §. 14.  where all is changed for a time; yet Pulcheria, who married him and made him Emperor, and whose power then was great, was the same that before had been against Nestorius, in her Brother's reign. Thus far our Church Historian. It is a marvellous observation, that all should be changed for a time, and yet Pulcheria be the same that condemned Nestorius, in her Brother's reign. She was the same person I suppose, though I dare not maintain any identity against the splitting instruments which he borrows of Derodon; (those Metaphysical terms I mean, which we have mentioned before,) and our Author's charms and imaginary remedies against Heresy; those Notions that he bewails the ancient Bishops were so dull as not to be able to find out. But if out of special grace he will allow Pulcheria to be the same Pulcheria in and after her brother's reign, we must acknowledge his good nature in the concession. But where is the wonder all this while? that matters should change, and yet she be still the same? It may be that she might not have always the same credit and authority with her brother, and if Nicephorus may be believed in a story that hangs very well together and is very probable, 
l. 14. c. 47, etc.  her interest was very low when the Second Council of Ephesus was called; for the end of it was to ruin her favourite Flavian, who had given her notice of a Court-plot that was formed against her, to shave her, and thrust her into a Monastery: So that it is not much to be wondered at if Pulcheria when she had the power in her own hands, should change some things that had been done against her will, and perhaps designed by the Court on purpose to affront her. This than cannot be the wonder; and it would vex a man to see one stare, and stand aghast, and yet not be able to find out the subject of the admiration. It may be (for I will venture to guests once more) that the wonder is, that the same Pulcheria should condemn Eutyches, that had condemned Nestorius before. But why should we wonder at this in Pulcheria, more than in Flavian, in Eusebius Doryl. and a great many others that did the same thing at that time? Nay, did not all the world in a manner, all the Catholic Church, condemn both these? Will he say, that these are contradictory Doctrines, and therefore one must be true and the other false? But Mr. B. has determined already, that Cyril, Nestorius, Flavian, Eutyches, all of them meant the same thing; and what wonder then is it, if a devout Lady could not find this secret consent of doctrine under appearing contradictions, when the learned Bishops could not do it, nor after ages, nor the subtle distinguishing Schoolmen, no nor Derodon himself? However since we cannot discern the drift and shrewdness of the observation, we ought thankfully to accept what we can understand, though that be no great news, That Pulcheria that was Empress after her Brother's death, was the very same that condemned Nestorius, in her Brother's reign.  
This profound Remark is immediately followed by another of great acuteness; 
p. 100 sect. 14.  That it was never truer than in the case of general Councils, that the multitude of Physicians exasperateth the disease, and kills the patiented.] And yet our Author will have these Physicians multiplied without end. If every Congregation have its own Bishop, what general agreement can we then expect? what unity in a Nation, when Bishops are grown so inordinately numerous? Since it can be no otherwise than by a consultation of these Physicians, that the public Peace and Unity can be preserved.  
Or if this Expedient should fail, what other way is there left? Our Author comes in here, and relieves us in a great strait, and offers a remedy more Sovereign than all the Hereticating Councils in the World. In short it is this: The word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the [one nature after Union] the words [One Will and one Operation] had never done half so much mischief in the Church if the erroneous had been confuted by neglect, 
p 100 sect. 14.  and Councils had not exasperated, enraged and engaged them, and set all the world on taking one side or another.] It is an admirable way to cure Heresy to neglect it; and to preserve the Church by despising such small differences as may be reduced into a Word. It was but a word that divided the Arians and the Orthodox; It was but the Trinity, Servetus said, that divided all the World. Despise the disputes about this, and than Christians, Jews and Mahometans may be comprehended under the same Rule. It is but the Import of the word Episcopus that our Dissenters stand so much upon; why does not Mr. B. persuade them to despise this Verbal Controversy, and study rather to be quiet than to write about it? But we find he cannot persuade himself to this, otherwise the Shops would have wanted divers books that he hath published this year. Nay, we find that he himself will not be answered with Neglect. So that we are like to find little benefit of this rare project for confuting the disturbers of the Church. For though six of his Books that came out in little more than six months were let pass without any Answer that I know of: yet this Patience has been so far from mending his humour, that he writes and writes on still, runs us down with Repetitions, proclaims his own victories, and insults over our silence; and in short he cannot be more violent and outrageous, more bitter and malicious under all the provocations imaginable, than he is under that Neglect which himself is pleased to prescribe for the cure of them. I wish our Author had taken his own advice before this Book was written, practised this Mortification upon himself. And not gone on as he does still to disturb the world with perpetual contentions to no purpose, but to show how much he wants of a Scholar and a Christian.  
But however men may be confuted, yet they are seldom convinced by neglect, and therefore, lest that expedient might fail, our Projector slurs in another, 
p. 100 ubi supra.  One skilful, healing man, that could have explicated ambiguous terms, and persuaded men to love and peace, until they understood themselves and one another, had more befriended Truth, Piety, and the Church, than all the Hereticating Councils did. And why may not this skilful man show his skill in Councils as well as elsewhere? why may not many such skilful healing men be found in such great Assemblies as those of General Councils? Or if such as these are strangers to General Councils, why do they not appear since the use of such Councils has been laid aside? We have had several new disputes raised of late, and many of them in the opinion of judicious men, merely about words and for want of understanding one another, as the Controversy of Justification, Good Works, etc. yet we have not found that any of these healing men were able to reconcile parties, any more than the Councils of old, which our Author according to his manner of respect and charity, honours with the Title of Hereticating Councils.  
Our Author is is so full of his observations in this place that I am almost weary of observing them, 
p. 100 sect.  but that in the next Paragraph is so choice, it must not be passed by. If what Socrates writeth of Theodosius Junior be true, (as we have no reason to doubt) God owned his moderation by miracles, notwithstanding his favouring the Entychians more than he did any ways of violence.] I am afraid that the miracles whereby God owned Theodosius, especially those recorded by Socrates, could do but little countenance to the Eutychian cause. For Socrates' little thought of Eutychians when he related those miracles. That Heresy was not then known, at leastwise not by that name, when that Historian wrote. 
Soer. l. 7. c. 48. Prosp. in Chron.  For he ends in the 17th Consulship of Theodosius, ten years before the beginning of the Eutychian Heresy; and that we may be sure this Controversy was not yet sprung, the same Author tells us in the same place, that the Church was then in peace, and That as long as there is peace, there is little matter for Church-History; and that if men had been peaceable and quiet, he should have been at a loss for materials; and that therefore he does make an end there; for peace preserving things in the same Order, does not afford variety enough for an Historian.  
From whence it is manifest that Socrates wrote in that peaceful interval between the first and second Council of Ephesus, and could not think of Theodosius his moderation in respect of the Eutychians; and so Mr. B.'s notwithstanding might have been spared; for Socrates says not one word of any miracles in approbation of his favouring of Eutychians; or that any were done in favour of Theodosius after that, for the History does not reach so far. But if it were allowed to comment upon the ways of Providence, one might say, that he who was heretofore owned by God as being wonderfully protected by him, seemed to lose the divine favour as soon as he favoured Heretics; for he died soon after; but far be it from me to make such constructions, for who can find out the ways of the Lord, or who has been his Counsellor?  
Besides, what can be the meaning of Theodosius his favouring Eutychians more than he did any ways of violence? Was there ever a more violent outrageous sort of men than those Eutychians he favoured? Were there ever greater violences committed than in that infamous Conventicle at Ephesus? where Eustathius was kicked to death, 
Act. Con. Eph. 2. Read Act. 1. Con. Chalc.  and all those that durst defend him were threatened to be served in like manner; where the cry was, let him be cleft in sunder that says there are two natures: What now can our Author mean by favouring such men more than any ways of violence? unless it be that he thinks the Emperor took a particular delight in that kind of cruelty; and that he had rather one should be kicked to death, or cloven downright, than that he should be hanged or beheaded, which would not be much to be credit of his Moderation. And to say the Truth, his Letter to Valentinian discovers a strange kind of Spirit; 
Among the ●reambles of the Counc. of Chalc.  for there he justifies the proceed of the Eutychians at Ephesus; he says that all things were carried on with much freedom, and perfect truth; that Flavian was found guilty of innovating in Religion, and that he had been treated according as he deserved. I wonder Mr. B. can cite this against Flavian, and not discover the notorious falsity of it. For who does not know the Liberty, that was given there, to have been no other than either of subscribing or of suffering banishment or death? as we shall show presently more particularly. This is but an ill sign that Mr. B. is a Hater of false History, when he lets this pass unreproved, and puts upon his Reader for Truth that which he must needs know to be otherwise. And as to Theodosius, whose Letter this is, it is not unlikely that he was imposed upon by his Eunuch, or whoever else penned it for him; for he must needs know the Eutychian Proceed to be the most violent and disorderly that ever were in any solemn Assembly.  
At last Mr. B. 
p. 100 sect. 17.  comes to the Council of Chalcedon, and the Acts of it. Dioscorus in the first place is accused for his Ephesine General Council: Dioscorus alleges the Emperor's Order, and that all the rest of that Council consented and subscribed as well as he: The Bishops answered that they did it against their wills, being under fear: condemnation and banishment were threatened, and Soldiers were there with Clubs and Swords. The truth is, Mr. B. does most disingenuously mince the Acts of the Council, and uses all the foul play that is possible, to render Dioscorus his case the more plausible, and on the other side to discredit the rest of the Bishops that said they were forced. The first Answer of the Eastern Bishops was, that no man did voluntarily consent to the condemnation of Flavian, 
Act. 1. Conc. Chalc.  violenta est facta vis cum plagis, they were beaten to it; this Mr. B. leaves out, because it would go near to excuse their compliance with a merciful man. And in Stephen Bishop of Ephesus his vindication of himself, Mr. B. uses the very same method; for all that he said is slubbered up in this, that Eulogius and Elpidius and some Eutychian Monks and Soldiers threatened: Alas! one would think this was a poor spirited man that would do any thing against his judgement for the threatening of these men. But let us understand from the Acts themselves what manner of threatening this was. Stephen says in the first place, that he communicated with Flavian, 
Ibid.  and Eusebius Doryl. and their Clergy, and received them kindly. Eulogius and Elpidius with Monks and Soldiers to the number of about three hundred came to him, and would have killed him, and then forced him to subscribe before he should go out of the Vestry. The Answer of Theodore Bishop of Claudiopolis is maimed by our Abridger of Church-History after the same manner, 
Ibid.  by leaving out that which 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 Heretics: Thus Mr. B. But the most considerable circumstances are omitted: for Theodore says, they were imposed upon at first by such Acts as seemed to speak favourably of Flavian, that afterwards they were threatened 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 reduced to fifteen, and they at last were forced to subscribe a blank paper, to save not only their Churches but their lives: And Thus, says Mr. B. they cried they were frighted.] 
p. 101.  And surely they had great reason to be so: Such as though it could not justify 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 Catholic (Orthodox) fears no man; if men were feared, 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 appeared 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, Anathematising 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 explained the faith fully, so as to need no farther authentic 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 joined 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 mentioned before in the Council of C. P. under Flavian, it was only the Nicene Creed without those additions that it afterwards generally received in opposition to Apollinaris and Macedonius, etc. How far this may secure the Church from Heresy; the multitude of Heresies that sprung after, whereof the greater part would willingly be tried by the Nicence Creed, do sufficiently show.  
Eutyches adds, 
Ch. Hist. p. 101.  that he cleaved 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 acknowledged the Council of Ephesus, and Cyril; and farther adds, that Cyril and the Council of Ephesus passed 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 lie, 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 public form, and that no other be taught, to such as are Converted from Jews, or Heretics, 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 called 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 used 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 condemned though he still owned 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 condemned notwithstanding he professed to receive the Nicene Creed.  
Our Author goes on, 
p. 102. sect.  and tells his Reader, When Basil Bishop of Seleucia is reproached by Dioscorus for having prevaricated and despised the saith, for the fear of men; He makes this Answer, If I have been called to Martyrdom 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 cried, We have all sinned, we all crave pardon, and this in the next page our Author observes to the discredit of the Bishops of those times, 
p. 103, 111.  that they were so far from the Martyr's constancy, that they turned as the Emperor's Countenance and the Times, and worldly interest turned, Voting down things and persons in one Council, and crying Omnes peccavimus in the next. How easy they were to follow the Emperor's Inclination in this case we have seen already, in the Account these Bishops gave of the violence used towards them. When Soldiers and a giddy Rabble of Monks with Swords and Staves, like Bedlam broke lose, run upon men with open mouth, denouncing death and destruction; We ought rather to pity the infirmity of those poor men that were overborne with the Temptation, than to insult over them. It may be they had no mind to be Martyrs in this Controversy, that must be confessed, as it was managed, to be something perplexed; though neither these nor any other terrors could have prevailed with them to betray their religion: And it is not unlikely, that had they had the cause of the Martyrs which was plain and indisputable, they might likewise have had their Resolution and Constancy; and Basil Seleuc. does mention, when this levity is objected to him, that he had behaved himself with greater courage upon the account of Religion at C. P. probably against Macedonius, or the Arians. Mr. B. who is here so severe upon the Bishops for sacrificing their Consciences to their fears, might have remembered, that when the Jews came with Swords and with Staves to take our Saviour, the Disciples forsook him and fled, and Peter denied his Master out of fear; and yet they were all received again upon their return, and entrusted with the planting and propagation of the Gospel.  
From these warm debates of the Bishops, Mr. B. observes two lamentable, 
§. 19  undeniable things. The Reader may observe, that when our Author ventures upon Observations, it is more than an even lay that he is out; I believe his memory betrays his judgement, for his eye is no sooner off of the book to consider, but he loses his story. Now let us see what he infers from what he has recited, as he says, out of Binius and others.  
1. That this doleful Contention, 
p. 103. sect. 19  Anathematising, and ruining of each other, was about the sense of ambiguous words, and that they were of one mind in the matter and knew it not. Who were they that were of one mind and knew it not? Eutyches and those that opposed him? They were far from being of a mind, for Eutyches denied Christ to be truly and properly man, i. e. to have the proprieties, and the Constituents of Humane Nature; and the Monothelites, Theopaschites, etc. were the Genuine Disciples of Eutyches, and owned those Consequences of his Doctrines which he did not think fit to publish. Or who else were those that were of one mind, and knew it not? Dioscorus and Flavian? I am apt to believe they were much of the same Opinion as to the point in Controversy; and knew it well enough; which was the only reason why Dioscorus, with his party of Bishops and Monks, would not endure to come to any Debate of that matter, for fear it would appear that they all agreed, and then there would have been no pretence to condemn Flavian, which was the design, if not of the Emperor, yet at leastwise of those that governed him; and several Bishops in that infamous Assembly at Ephesus were about to make this Mutual consent in Doctrine appear, if the Monks, the Myrmidons of Dioscorus, would have given them leave to speak? Or lastly, did not the Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon understand one another? The contrary is notorious, from their Debates, and their Subscriptions. The Egyptians indeed scrupled subscribing, not upon the account of the matter, but the form; because they had no Metropolitan, (Dioscorus being now deposed) and it was against their usage to sign any thing in Council without their Metropolitan; and as soon as they had one, they subscribed willingly. But if they were all of a mind and knew it, How did they condemn Dioscorus? Anatolius confesses in the Council, and no man contradicted him, that Dioscorus was not condemned for Heresy but Misdemeanours: Well; But why did Dioscorus absolve Eutyches, if he had not thought him to be of his opinion? There is good reason for that: for Flavian could not be condemned, unless Eytyches were absolved; and that those very men that received him did not think he was of their opinion, though their expressions were the same, appears manifestly from the manner of their transacting that affair; for when some well-meaning Bishops were so curious as to desire he should explain himself in that point of doctrine for which alone he had been called in question, Dioscorus forbids any farther search, for fear Heresy would appear, and then Flavian must be acquitted. The Case was just as if a Papist were to purge himself of that Imputation in an Assembly of Divines, and should offer the Nicene Creed for his Faith: But some honest plain men, not satisfied with this Impertinent vindication in those things he was not questioned for, putting cross questions about Transubstantiation or Supremacy, should immediately be checked, and all should cry, we will have nothing added to the Nicene Faith; would not any one conclude that this Reverend Assembly was afraid Popery would appear, and that the man that for private Reasons they would acquit for that time, would discover himself to hold such opinions, as he could not be able to approve to that Assembly? This is the naked case; from whence the Reader may judge, how far these were of one mind: and that men of very different opinions joined to serve a present turn; and united in design, when they knew some of them, that their doctrines could never be reconciled.  
Mr. B. to make out that they were all of one mind, 
p. 102. sect. 19.1.  shows how they came to be mistaken. The Egyptians (Eutychians) took two natures and two sons to be of the same sense, which the others did not.] The Egyptians indeed took two natures to imply two sons; for they took nature in the sense Cyril used it, for hypostasis, and so it really did imply two persons: but they acknowledged distinct properties of the divinity and humanity, which Eutyches did not; and so Eutychians and Egyptians are not altogether the same thing. 2. Though at first the Egyptians seemed not to understand what Flavian meant by two natures; yet it is evident that there was something of wilfulness in that mistake; and at the Council of Chalcedon it was quite taken away, and all subscribed to two natures, that yet owned Cyrils expressions of but one Nature Incarnate.  
It is plain (saith Mr. B.) that while all sides held, 
p. 103. 11.  that Nestorius held, that there were two sons (which he expressly denied) that they accused Nestorius in ignorance.] It is true indeed that Nestorius' owned but one son: but how? one in dignity and title only, as we have showed before; but that unity was of persons, i. e. really distinct according to his notion; taking person properly for an intelligent subsistence, and not for a notional unity of two things, really distinct, in the participation of the same common name or title, which was really the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Nestorius. And Mr. B. is so confident of this notion of his, as to conclude with his defiance to all gainsayers, This is true, whatsoever faction shall say against it.] If it were a Faction that spoke against this truth, it was a mighty strong and general Faction, and was never opposed by any person before Mr. B. For then all sides granted they disagreed one from the other, and succeeding ages were of the same opinion; and all the factions in the world agreed in this, that Nestorius and those that opposed him, spoke absolute contradictions to each other.  
The next remarkable thing that our Author citys out of the debate of this Council, 
p. 104.  is that about the words of Cyril, which in the next Paragraph he calls Eutychian words, they are these: We must not conceive two natures in Christ but one Incarnate. These words may sound harsh to one that is not acquainted with Cyril's manner of expressing himself: But they are not yet Eutychians. For Eutyches his opinion is condemned by Eustathius, (who citys these words of Cyril,) immediately after. He that says there is but one nature, so as to deny Christ's flesh, which is consubstantial with us. So Mr. B. translates indeed, out of the Latin Translator, who mistook the sense of this place. The words of Eustathius were these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that affirms one nature to the taking away of the consubstantiality of Christ's flesh to ours, or to the denying that his flesh is of the same substance with ours, let him be accursed.] Which was the doctrine of Eutyches, whereof he was convicted by several Witnesses in the Council of C. P. and Basil Seleuc. 
Act. 2.  one of the clearest men in all this Council makes a wide difference between saying one nature incarnate, or of the word incarnate, and one nature absolutely, which was the error of Eutyches, as he affirmed. Though in the Council of C. P. Eutyches makes use of the same expression (unless we may think those Acts corrupted by the Council of Ephesus in favour of Eutyches, as Flavian complains they were, to render his opinion more plausible) I have showed before how ill the notion of Cyril about the Incarnation did agree with that of Eutyches.  
Mr. B. had great reason to note the Impudence of Binius, in calling this allegation of Eustathius out of Cyril, to be Wicked and Heretical; since he does no more than cite Cyril's words: but this remark is left out of latter Editions.  
After this, Mr. B. brings in Dioscorus defending himself by the authority of Cyril, 
p. 104. sect. 22.  who maintains one nature incarnate, and then concludes, I am condemned with the Fathers; they say the same that I do. I must repeat therefore once more, what I had said before, that Dioscorus was not condemned for Heresy, but for condemning and murdering Flavian, etc. 
p. 104.  And although our Author seems to be dissatisfied that when Dioscorus offers satisfaction to God and you, i. e. Eusebius Doryl. his repentance was not accepted; yet I suppose he is not in earnest; for upon other occasions he is inexorable in much lesser matters: and surely if any Misdemeanours may depose a Bishop that has nothing to plead but the Orthodoxness of his belief, Dioscorus was justly condemned, and yet our Author observes that a verbal quarrel was turned to personal revenge, because Eusebius Doryl. replied upon Dioscorus, that he must satisfy the law.  
Mr. B. concludes his citations out of the first Action of this Council, with the subscriptions of the Bishops in the Council of Ephesus whereby they absolved Eutyches; which being read in the Council of Chalcedon, the Bishops concerned had no excuse, but to cry, Omnes peccavimus. Our Author it seems takes great delight in repeating as often as he can this recantation of those Bishops, looking upon it, I suppose, as a great undervaluing and reproach to confess an error. The Spirit of Schism is very nice in point of honour, and reckons nothing so great a disgrace as the acknowledgement of a mistake; where it is once engaged, no conviction shall be able to reclaim it, though it be in the most indefensible thing in the World. And though interest and conscience should oblige to return; yet in honour he must not recede, nor recant what no Rhetoric is able to palliate. Recantation, whether they be in the right or the wrong, appears equally infamous. A late brisk defender of Nonconformity out of fondness for a smart saying in Religio Medici has dropped an unlucky truth, that he is not so much afraid as ashamed of Conformity. I have charity enough to believe him that he is indeed ashamed of owning that which he has so fiercely opposed, not so much by his reasoning, as by his ill manners and scurrility. For my part I do not envy these men this inflexible stiffness of Spirit, but do sincerely pity them, although the witty Author just now mentioned has derided Compassion, no less than Mr. B. has Repentance, and Recantation. However I had rather be found among those Bishops that cried Peccavimus after a fault, which yet had all the excuses that can be made from violence and compulsion; than to maintain a Schism upon a point of honour, and for shame of confessing to have been in the wrong.  
In the third Action, among many things, 
p. 104.  our Abridger of Church-History fastens upon the law of Theodosius for the confirming of the second Ephesine Council, and the Condemnation of Nestorius, and of Flavianus, Domnus, etc. One would expect here that our Historian being tired with throwing dirt at the Bishops and their Councils, should divert the outrageous Spirit, by giving him one lose at Emperors and Courts. But no such matter, he scorns to change his game, and therefore charges the Bishops with the faults of the Magistrate, and lays all the blame upon them; So far (says he) could fierce and factious Prelates prevail with a pious and peaceable Prince, by the pretences of opposing Heresy and Schism.] And what authority has our Author to ground this observation upon? What if the Eunuches and Courtiers prevailed upon the Emperor? 
Niceph. l. 14. Synod. Eph. Dios●. Elib. Synodico.  and the Emperor prevailed upon some Bishops by fair means, upon others by force, to condemn those persons as Heretics, and to make way for his Edict against them? what then? (will you say) no extraordinary matter: Only Mr. B. when he comes to make observations mistakes the Fact, and the more bitter and malicious he endeavours to be, the greatest oversights he usually commits. It was once the hard fortune of the Christians to father every calamity that befell the public; if the Army had evil success, or the Harvest proved scanty; if pestilence, or famine afflicted the Heathens, the Christians were the cause of all this Mischief: To the Lions, to the Stake with them. It fares no better with the Bishops in Mr. B.'s History; whatever is done amiss, it is by their procurement. Whose act soever that be, a Princes or an Eunuches, or a Monks, or a Woman's, yet still the blame is the Bishops. And this is the cry which some men teach their Disciples to use. If Trade fail, O these Lordly Bishops spoil all; if a Brother shut up Shop, and conveys himself away without evening his accounts, the Bishops have undone him. The truth is, these men or their neighbours have great reason to pray the Bishops may always continue; for this peevishness and gall which is so predominant in this party of men, if it have not its ordinary vent, will taint the blood, and turn into Jaundice and other evil distempers; or if it fly out, it will disturb the peace of the family, or of the neighbourhood, or it may be of the Kingdom: So necessary it is for this sort of men to have something to rail at, and to exercise that freedom of speech upon, which is part of their Liberty of Conscience.  
In the next place our Author relates at large out of the fifth Action of the Council, (which he mistook for the fourth, being deceived by the running Title in Binius that is false Printed) what passed between the Council and the Egyptian Bishops; and this he did not think fit to Abridge, because he did not conceive it much for the honour of the persons concerned. The debate it must be confessed was something too warm; but that heat was not altogether without reason. The case in short was thus: The Council had condemned Eutyches for a Heretic, and Dioscorus for receiving him into Communion, and for other Misdemeanours. The Egyptian Bishops, considering how far they were engaged in the same crime, and standing in a near Relation to Dioscorus, began to be afraid that they might possibly be involved in the same punishment: and therefore petitioned the Emperor, declaring the uprightness of their faith; and condemning all Heresies, but not naming Eutyches. This Petition was read before the Council, which immediately made this exception, Why did they not condemn Eutyches? They answered, that they condemned him, or any body else, that taught any thing against the faith. This was looked upon as a delusory answer: and the Council began to press them closer: At last they condemned Eutyches. Having been brought thus far, they were called upon to subscribe his condemnation. This they scrupled, which made the Council jealous of them, upon the account of their dependence upon Dioscorus, and of their behaviour in the second Ephesine Council: and therefore they resolved to press the point home. The Egyptians pretended they could not subscribe according to the custom of their Church without their Patriarch. Their Tergiversation all along made the Bishops look upon this as a Trick; yet at last, when they understood the case, they admitted of this expedient; that they should give security that they should not leave Chalcedon before they had a New Metropolitan, and so the debate ended. If this business seem to have been managed with too much heat, it is not much to be wondered at, all circumstances considered, and especially the injuries and provocations that several of the Council had received before from Dioscorus and his party. Men will be men, wherever they are placed, whether in a Council, or in the Church, or even at the Altar.  
The next business (says Mr. B.) was with the Abbots of the Monks (it would have been great news to have found Abbots of Seculars, 
p. 106. sect. 25. ) who had petitioned the Emperor for a Council to end their broils, and that without perturbations. These petitioned that Dioscorus might be called: He was called indeed several times before, but he did not think fit to come; but they would have him restored; and the Council opposing them, they began to talk impertinently about Religion. Among these was Barsumas, who had headed a great number of the same sort of  at the Second Ephesine Council, and had assisted in the murdering of Flavian, encouraging his Monks to make sure work, kill, slay, knock him on the head, etc. It is not unlikely but some of these, if not all, (for some in this Council charge him with having headed 1000 Monks) had been with him at Ephesus; and it is not very material whether such giddy sanguinary fellows were satisfied with the Council or no. If the countenance of this sort of men signified any thing, there was number enough that owned the Council, and give the Emperor thanks, that his Christian Authority had cast out Eutyches, 
Act. 5.  who had spoke blasphemously against our Saviour, and sowed Tares in the Church.  
At last (says Mr. B.) there was a dissension whether Leo 's phrase should be put into their Definition of Faith, 
p. 107. sect. 26.  (now drawn up anew.) There is no mention there of Leo 's phrases, but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Contents of his Letter should be inserted into the Definition or Rule of Faith. This inserting of it into their Definition was, I believe, no other than what we find in the larger Declaration of Faith drawn up in this Council; where the Epistle of Leo is received, together with those of Cyril to Nestorius, as Expositions of the Faith delivered them by the Council of Nice. Mr. B. says that Leo's Epistle was a while run down. There was no such thing, but only some said that their Rule of Faith was full enough without it. It was not because they had any exception against the doctrine of it, but because they would preserve their Rule as simple, and with as little addition as they could. But at last it was yielded to, saith Mr. B. when the Illyrican Bishops had first slighted Rome, and cried, Qui contradicunt (Definitioni) Nestoriani sunt, qui contradicunt, Romam ambulent: He must be very captious that can interpret this for a slight; And it does not appear, that the Legates, who were usually very apprehensive of slights put upon their See, did take any notice of it. I am not very much concerned whether it were or no, I must confess I do not find in myself any great devotion for that See to vindicate it from any slights, yet I believe this we now speak of was never intended as one. Only our Author, according to the usual success of his observations, misunderstands the matter. The Judges assisting in this Council propounded it as the Emperor's direction, 
Act. 5.  that they should appoint select Bishops out of every Province to draw up their Confession of Faith, or else that every Metropolitan in the name of his Province should make a Declaration of his Faith; otherwise that the Emperor would call a General Council in the West, since they would not determine this present Controversy: 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 Emperor 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 guessed; at the worst, these Bishops did no more slight Rome, than Cecropius did the West, whither he bid Dissenters walk, to be satisfied.  
In the next Paragraph our Author makes Theodoret speak what was never in his 
§. 26.  thoughts, nor indeed in any honest man's: Theodoret said, I take not myself 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. Gou.  I cannot clear him of that in other places so well as in this: Here our Author's fault was only ignorance of theodorets language, or a mistake of his Latin Translation, which I shall rectify, 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 puzzled 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 satisfy you of my belief: whereas Theodoret said only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. I would persuade you in the first place that I regard not preferment. The Latin thus, Priùs satisfactio vobis quia neque de civitate cogito, etc. 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 received his Orthodox interpretation of those twelve Articles which before he thought to be full of Impiety. Baronius An. 432. (deceived 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 forged, and falsely fathered 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 explained himself, he thought him a Heretic, and followed the Judgement of the Eastern Bishops. Some say this Epistle was written whilst 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 proceed 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 proceed, and the vindication of themselves; with what Truth or Reason, has been showed 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 joined with Nestorius, and afterwards condemned him: Yet this Epistle of Ibas shows that there was a core left still.  
In the eleventh Action, 
p. 109. sect. 29.  two Bishops (Bassia nus and Stephen) strive for the Bishopric of Ephesus; And, saith our Author, while the Bishops were for one of them, the Judges passed sentence to cast out both. One would imagine here that the Judges passed 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 examined, the Judges propounded it to the Bishops to determine of the right that was in Dispute; the Bishops answered, that the right was on Bassianus his side, let the Ganons take place, for Bassianus was the first Possessor. The Judges represented to them, that in their opinion neither of them were fit to be continued Bishops, yet referred 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 turned out too; and were so extremely satisfied with this expedient, that they cried it up presently, and owned 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 inquires after the success of all this: 
p. 109, 110, 111. sect. 32, etc.  What Concard did these late Councils procure to the Churches? From that time most of the Christian World was distracted into Factions, Hereticating and killing one another. The Alexandrians murdered Proterius their Bishop chosen by the Council of Chalcedon. And to aggravate the cruelty, Mr. B. says they spared not to taste his Entrails with their Teeth like Dogs. 
(Gustare more Canum)  The miracle of tasting with Teeth would be much greater than the cruelty, and go a great way to justify the barbarity of the Action, if it were true. But what shall we say to these lamentable consequences of these Councils? Was it the misfortune, or the fault of these only, not to be able to heal the differences of the Church? Or else was the defect in the Councils, or the blame to be imputed to those obstinate men that opposed the Rule established by them? These were not the first Councils that have miscarried as to their design of Universal Reconciliation. The Council of Jerusalem under the Apostles, that determined the Controversy about Circumcision; did not presently silence all Disputes about that Question: For the Church of Galatia was presently after divided about it. The Council of Nice, though it quieted the Arian Controversy for a while, yet it was not able to prevent those lamentable Contentions which the same question afterwards occasioned. Or if Bishops and their Councils could provide no effectual Remedies for the violent distempers of the Church; let us see what Presbyterian Synods have done. The Synod of Dort condemned the Arminians, and Subscribed certain Articles, declaring their Doctrine in the points in Controversy; yet the disease was so far from abating, that it grew more violent, and the Civil Magistrate was obliged to second the determinations of the Synod by inflicting Imprisonment and Exile upon such as would not subscribe; and yet all this would not do, for the same breach remains unclosed unto this day. Our Author in his meek Answer to the Dean of Paul's Sermon says very kind things of the Assembly of Divines: and yet these, with their Catechisms, Directory, and Annotations, and Overthrowing of the Episcopal Church Government, (upon which they charged all the Miscarriages, and Divisions of the Church,) were so far from Reconciling the people, that after this they were distracted into innumerable Schisms. Never was there so lamentable a face of things; never such variety of Heresy, and such wantonness and Extravagance in Blaspheming God, under pretence of Religion and Conscience; and this is the state whither the same manner of Men are driving again. Experience (they say) is the Mistress of Fools, but they are Fools to be begged whom even experience so dearly purchased is not able to make wiser. But to return to the success of these Councils.  
Now since Councils, whether of Bishops, or Presbyters, have oftentimes so bad success, what is to be done? What other remedies shall we find more effectual? The Papists have left the use of General Councils of late, He who had among them the chief authority of summoning such Councils, being grown jealous of that way; and the Condition of the Ecclesiastical Roman Empire has been for some ages not unlike that in which Livy represents the Heathen Roman Empire in his time, nec vitia nostra ferre possumus nec remedia.  
At last a great part of the Western Church weary of expecting relief by a General Council from that Tyranny and Corruption under which it laboured, was forced to use extraordinary means to reform themselves; and what they could not do all together, they did severally, as they had Opportunity. It was the good fortune of our Church to Reform itself with the countenance and assistance of the Civil Magistrate, and therefore they could do it by degrees, and with greater Moderation, than other Churches, who must contend with the Civil power about it, and who had no other strength than the zealand Resolution of the People. As soon as this Reformation began to take root deep enough here, the Clergy, Assembled in a National Synod, established a rule for Unity and peace, and to prevent disputes as much as was possible: This rule comprehended the Doctrine, Worship and Discipline of this Church which was at first received with universal joy and approbation, None but Papists opposing it; But some time after some few discontented men under pretence of Zeal against Popery, took the part of the Papists against this rule; and it is observable, that as one faction grew up and gathered strength, so did the other; that one's right and left hand can hardly grow in evener proportion; so that one would fancy, that either they advanced by some secret consent, or were nourished from the same Common Stomach; It may be from him that Palavicini calls the Stomach as well as the Head of the Church, the Pope: And what shall be at last done for these Protestants, as they call themselves? Shall every one be left to himself without any rule? The effect of this will be, that in a little time we shall have no Religion at all. Shall this rule be altered? We can have no assuance that when it is altered, we shall find any Conformity to it then more than now; and this, as it is, has the advantage of any innovation, if for nothing else, yet for its standing, and that it is an Ancient Establishment. In short, these that Cry out against this rule, seem to have a great respect for the Protestants of Queen Elizabeth's time, and that Reign is counted the Golden age of this Kingdom. Let us consider then what was 〈…〉 their Rule, whether 36 or 39 Articles, and that Rule that made them so happy, may, if preserved entire, keep us so still.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of the Authors of Heresies, Schisms, and Corruptions, and whether they were all Bishops.  
I Have hitherto gone along with Mr. B. step by step, conceiving it necessary to make a more particular Vindication of the Church in these times, as well because they were the best that the Christian World has had for true piety and zeal; as also because our Church Professes to receive the four first General Councils; and lastly because all sober moderate Christians have always had, and still retain a great esteem and veneration for many of those persons that are represented so odiously in Mr. B. 's Church-History. I do not pretend to justify every thing that was done by all the Bishops and Councils of those times. There have been wicked men, and wicked Bishops in all times, and the Church under the Apostles, nay their own Order, was not so happy as to have none but good men of it. But I hope I have showed sufficiently that things were not as Mr. B. represents them; and that most of his particular Accusations are void of all truth and ingenuity. I must deal with him hereafter more Summarily, and Answer the drift and design of his Book, which is to render Episcopacy Odious under the more invidious name of Diocesan Prelacy; a distinction without ground or foundation, as I have already showed, and will be yet more fully made out.  
The main design or Mr. B.'s History is 1. To charge the Bishops with all Schisms; Heresies, Corruptions, etc. 2. To show, 
p. 27. §. 7.4  that Diocesan Prelacy and grandeur is not the Cure, nor ever was; And to this purpose are levelled all the particulars of his Church-History. In this Chapter I will endeavour to take off the first general Charge.  
That some Bishops have abused their Office and Authority, and have been the cause of Heresy, or Schism, cannot be denied; but Priests, Deacons and Laymen have been so too; and therefore if the miscarriage of any particular man becomes a prejudice to his Office, and the Order must suffer for the personal faults of those that are of it, we must have neither Priests nor Deacons in the Church, since some of them have been Authors of Heresies, etc. But this is not all, our Author tho' he speaks indefinitely, that ●he will show the ignorant (and he must be very ignorant that knows no better) who have been the cause of Church Corruptions, Heresies, Schisms, Sedition; yet he means they were the Authors of all these evils; as he is pleased to explain himself p. 72. Next we have a strange thing, a Heresy raised by one that was no Bishop: and then, as if that were impossible, he shows that was no Heresy; and so the Bishops remain under the whole charge of raising all Heresies. I wish he had left Schism and Sedition out of this charge; for if he can persuade the Ignorant Readers that the Bishops were the cause of all these too; they will never be persuaded that any Presbyterians are to be found in Church-History. For if they had been in the world, they must have had their share with the Bishops in Schism and Sedition.  
It is a heavy charge, to accuse the Bishops of all the Heresies and Schisms that have afflicted the Church, and if it were true, would go near to stagger the Reverence that one might have for the Order. For though Bishops as well as other men may be subject to Miscarriages, they might be allowed the frailty of Humane nature, from which no dignity can exempt us; But to be found the cause of All the Evils that have befallen the Church, would argue such a malignity in the Constitution, as would show plainly that God never designed them for good. But I believe this can be no more proved against them by matter of fact, than that Bishops invented Gunpowder, or Hand-Granadoes, or were the Authors of the Scotch Covenant, or the late Rebellion of the Field Conventiclers in Scotland.  
Let us then trace the Heresies and Schisms that have torn the Church in pieces in several ages of it, to their first original; and examine who were the Authors of them; and if it appear out of Church-History that Bishops raised them All, or the greatest part, I will give up the Cause, and believe every thing in Mr. B.'s History; and for penance read over all the fourscore Books that he tells us he has written.  
Where then shall we begin? If the Bishops should be convicted by the first Instance, it would be ominous: However, because it shall appear that I deal impartially, I will begin with the first. All Ecclesiastical Writers do agree that Simon Magus was the Author of the first Heresy in Christian Religion. 
Simon Magus.  Epiphanius indeed reckons up about a score of Heresies before this, 
Epiph. Haer. 21.  but they are Heathen or Jewish Heresies; and I hope Mr. B. will be so kind as to allow that the Bishops had nothing to do with these.  
That Simon was a Heretic, all are agreed in, though the Scripture say no such thing; and though Epiphanius confess that his Sect cannot truly be reckoned among Christians. 
Haer. 21. p. 55. Ed; Pet.  This man did teach very strange, and, if there be any such, damnable doctrines. But that he was a Bishop no man ever yet affirmed. Justin Martyr thought he had seen an Inscription at Rome to this Simon, which owned him a God, though it is possible this might be a mistake: But that ever any Writing or Tradition called him a Bishop, I have not heard. It is true indeed, he had a great mind to be a Bishop; that is, to have power of Confirmation; and that every one on whom he should lay his hands should receive the Holy Ghost.  
And he bid fair for it. For he offered Peter Money (says the Text:) And the Repulse perhaps disgusted him so, that he resolved to leave the Communion of the Church, since he could not be a Bishop in it; and it has been the disease of several other Heretics, to scorn to be any other Member of the body but the Head.  
The next that Epiphanius mentions, is Menander; 
Menander. Epiph. Har. 22.  who, as Irenaeus (and out of him the rest) says, was Simon Magus his Disciple, but neither Irenaeus, nor Eusebius, nor Epiphanius, nor Philastrius, nor Theodoret; and in short, no man that has given any account of Heretics, or any Historian whatsoever that has been yet heard of, has given the least Intimation that he was a Bishop. 
Saturnius, Basilides. Iren. l. 1. c. 22, 23. Epiph. Her. 23, 24. Euseb. l. 4. c. 7. August. Ep. ad Quodlib. Philast●. Haer. 3, 4. Theod: Haer. Fab. l. 1. 〈…〉  Saturninus and Basilides follow next; and neither of them were either Bishops, or of any other Order in the Church, that we can find. The next is the Heresy of the Nicolaitans, which is generally fathered upon Nicolas the Deacon: Irenaeus l. 1. c. 27. seems to he positive in this, Nicolait● autem Magistrum quidem habent Nicolaum unum ex septem qui primi ad Diaconium ab Apostolis Ordinati sunt, Nicolas one of the seven Deacons was the Master of the Nicolaitans; or at leastwise they looked upon him as their Master. 
Epiph. Haer. 2●.  Epiphanius follows Irenans, and enlarges the story, showing how he was a good man at first, and did contribute much to the futherance of the Gospel; but that afterward the Devil entered into him: 
Philastr. Haer. 5. Bibl. Patr. M. de la Rigne. T. 4. p. 10.  Philastrius follows the Authority of Epiphanius. But for all this, I believe Nicolas the Deacon may be acquitted of this imputation; for there are Witnesses of very good Antiquity that endeavour to Absolve him.  
1. Ignatius Interpolated in two several places, warning those he writes to, 
Ign. Ep. ad Trall. & Philadelph. Interpol.  to have a care of the Nicolaitans, calls 〈…〉 ●●●●uns, and 〈◊〉 i. e. those that fals●y call themselves by the name of Nicolas, Sycophants and Impostors. The old Latin Interpreter explains this farther, and adds, Non 〈◊〉 talis fuit Apostolorum Minister Nicolaus.  
Clemens of Alexandria is more particular in the Vindication of Nicolas, 
Clem. Alex. l. 2. Strom. c. 3.  whose name these Gnostics abused to countenance their lewdness; For speaking of that Abominable Sect, he has these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. They that pretend to be the Followers of Nicolas the Deacon, do pervert a saying of his, that the Flesh must be thused, that is kept under: But these Men like Goats abandoning themselves to all uncleanness, understand and him to permit men to dishonour their bodies by indulging themselves in all their lusts.  
And the same Author in another place gives a more particular vindication of Nicolas the Deacon, 
Clem. Alex. l. 3.  saying: That Carpocrates gave out this story of him, That he had a comely Wife, and was Jealous of her, for which he was reprehended by the Apostles: But Nicolas, to acquit himself of this Imputation brought her before them, and offered to release her to any other that would marry her: and that this action was suitable to his Maxim which we have mentioned before: Whereupon Clemens adds, that the Nicolaitans, as they called themselves, following this Doctrine and Action of the Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rashly and without Examination, give themselves over to all manner of uncleanness: and then goes on to vindicate Nicolas, adding, That he had understood by Tradition that he always preserved his faith to his Wife inviotable; that his children that he had by this Wife, were remarkable for their Chastity, and all died unmarried: And concludes at last, That this was to be looked upon as an Instance of Mortification: and the Words that those Heretics insisted upon so much, meant nothing else. 
Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 29.  Eusebius, who citys this passage at large, seems to be of the same opinion; and therefore says only that these Heretics gave out Nicolas for the Author of their Doctrine (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) they only cracked and boasted that it was so. 
l. de Haeres.  S. Austin speaks with the same caution with Eusebius, and says only, ut perhibetur, permisisse fertur; though he says, eâ qui vellet uteretur, it cannot be understood of common prostitution, for Carpocrates himself says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that she might be Married to any body that would have her. Theodoret follows Clemens, allows this relation about Nicolas to be true, 
Theodor. l. 3. Haeret. Fab●l.  and excuses him, by saying that He did not intent seriously to be as good as his word, but only to haffle those that accused him of Jealousy; and at last concludes, From hence they (the Nicolaitans) are manifestly convicted to be Impostors, and falsely to call themselves by that name. Petavius does not know what to determine in this case, 
Is Epiple.  since the Fathers are divided about is; But I believe one needs not be so scrupulous: The whole matter depends between the Authorities of Irenaus and Clemens: Clemens is very particular, and had examined the business it seems as far as he could; the other speaks generally, and perhaps looked no further than the name, nor could he so easily have an account of them, as Clemens could, who lived where the sect was most numerous: Carpocrates who was the Father of it was an Alexandrian. Besides, the Words of Irenaus, if they are examined, do not positively affirm Nicolas to have been the Father of the Nicolaitans: Magistrum habent Nicolaum are the words, which may signify no more than that they hold him to be so: If the Greek Copy were extant, it might have given more light; perhaps he said no more than Eusebius does, and the Word might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they boast that he is their Master. I am to beg pardon for this Digression; If it can relieve the Memory of a person whom the Scripture intimates to be a Man of Honest Report, 
Act. 6.3.  full of the Holy Ghost, and Wisdom; I am content to bear the blame of the Impertinence. But however it were, it is some comfort, and enough to my purpose, that he was no Bishop.  
The Gnostics had no Bishop either for their founder or promoter that is yet known: 
Clem. Alex. l. 3.  Carpocrates was no Diocefan Prelate, but his Sect pretended high, indeed to something more than a Bishop, to an Apostle. They quoted Mathias for such another sentence as the Nicolaitans did Nicolas the Deacon, and would have persuaded the World that they were his Disciples.  
Cerinthus, 
Clem. Alex. l. 6.  Ebion, Valentinus, Secundus, Epiphanes, Isidorus, Ptolemaus, Marcus, were they Bishops? What Churches did Colarbasus, or Heracleon, or Cerdo govern? Martion indeed was a Bishop's son, but it does not appear that he was of the Clergy; he was Excommunicated by his own Father for a Rape, and when he could not obtain Absolution turned Heretic. It were endless to reckon up all the Heretics that gave names to Sects; they were most of them bred up the Scholars of other Heretics, and differing in some things from their Masters, set up for themselves, and called their followers by their own names.  
The 39th Christian Sect in Epiphanius is that of the Cathari or Puritans, and these are the first that we find started by any of the Clergy.  
Novatus an African Priest began this Sect; I have given his History before; and shown how he seduced Novatianus a Roman Priest, 
Epiph. Aug. Philastr. etc.  or at leastwise joined with him against his Bishop. Theodotus, whom St. Austin calls Theodotion, was a learned man indeed, and Orthodox at first: and so was Bardesanes Syrus; but neither of them was a Bishop. Montanus became the Author of a Heresy because he could not obtain the highest place in the Church: and turned downright Fanatic, saying he was the Holy Ghost. In short, the first Heretic Bishop that we find is Paulus Samosatenus who succeeded Demetrianus in the Bishoptick of Antioch in the year 262; 
Euseb. in Chron.  & who fell into Heresy in the year 267.  
His is the 65th Sect in Epiphanius, or the 45th Christian Heresy. This Paulus was a very ill man, and taught dangerous opinions, that Christ was not God: 
Euseb. l. 7. c. 30.  But though he was really a Heretic, yet he was not the Author of this Heresy. He is said by Eusebius (and the rest out of him) to have learned this from Artemas, (as he calls him) or Artemon; 
Epiph. etc.  as also from Theodotus who began to teach this doctrine, and to gather him a Sect under Victor Bishop of Rome, by whom he was excommunicated.  
But Paulus Samosatenus is said to have revived this Heresy: It is true indeed; but Eusebius in the place before cited makes it appear, 
l. 7. c. 30.  that the Sect of Artemas, and Theodotus was then in being; For the Council of Antioch in their Synodical Epistle sent to several Bishops where they desire them to receive Domnus, whom they had made Bishop in the place of Paulus Samosatenus, when he should send his Circular Epistles, and then speaking of Paulus deridingly, say, Let him (if he thinks fit) writ to Artemas, and let those that follow Artemas communicate with him if they please. But the best of it is, that if God permitted a Bishop of so eminent a Church as that of Antioch to fall into Heresy, he on the other hand raised up Godly and Orthodox Bishops to oppose him, and to vindicate, not only the Christian Religion, but the Order of Episcopacy also which he had dishonoured. For the Neighbour Bishops assembled in the Second Council of Antioch Condemned and Deposed him: Dionysius of Alexandria, being now very old and unfit for Travel, could not be there, but writ to him, says Theodoret: 
Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 1. Eus. l. 7. c. 30.  Eusebius citys the Epistle of this Synod that expressly denys that; saying, that Dionysius of Alexandria had writ to the Council, but had not vouchsafed so much as to salute Paulus. From which passage Valesius concludes that the Letter of Dionysius to that Heretic Bishop in the Bibliotheca Patrum is forged, 
Vales. Annot. in Eus. l. 7. c. 30.  notwithstanding Baronius receives it for genuine. Now because Mr. B. promises to show, not only Who have been the cause of Heresies, etc. but also How; It will not be impertinent to show briefly how this Bishop also fell into Heresy. It was in short by the way of Comprehension, for Zenobia Queen of Palmyrene after her Husband's death, being very considerable in the East, and being Proselyted to the Jewish Religion, (for which reason likely L●nginus her Favourite speaks so favourably of Moses) this Paul Bishop of Antioch thought that by reducing Christ to be a mere man he might reconcile both Religious, and take away the Partition-wall that divided the Jews and Christians, nothing being so great an offence to the Jews as that Christ was owned by his Disciples to be God: And thus compliance and vain projects of Comprehension, made this man a Heretic. But Philastrius is not to be regarded, 
Phil. Haer. 17. Ap. Biblieth. Patr.  who charges this Bishop with being turned Jew, and teaching Circumcision, and bringing over Zenobia to Judaisme.  
Before this time, there is another Bishop reckoned by some Collectors of Heresies, as the Author of one; 
Nepos.  Nepos an Egyptian Bishop, who taught out of the Revelation of St. John, as he pretended, 
Euseb. Hist. l. 7. Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 3.  that the Saints should live a Thousand years of pleasure here on Earth.  
If this be a Heresy, it was much older than this Nepos: 
Just. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 307. Ed. Par.  For it was so ancient and so general an opinion, that Justin Martyr did not believe they were perfectly Christians that did not believe it. For all that were Orthodox did look for the Restauration of Jerusalem, and that Christ should reign there gloriously with his Saints a thousand years; which he endeavours to prove out of the Revelations, and the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 
Iren. l. 5. c. 33, 34, 35.  Ireneus endeavours to prove the same thing at large, and derives the Doctrine from Papias, and by him from St. John, the Beloved Apostle. So that if Nepos prove Heretic for this, he is like to find very good company, but Author of it he cannot be: It is some favour to him that Epiphanius and Philastrius pass him by, for I do not remember that either of them mention him: However you will say, that though he was not the first that taught this Doctrine, yet he was the first that divided the Church about it: And that is a heavy fault that Mr. B. charges upon the Bishops, that they divide the Church about unnecessary, nice Speculations: But this Nepos is as far, if not farther from the Imputation of Schism, than that of Heresy; For Dionyfius charges him not with Schism, but only with writing a book for the Millenary opinion, which others afterwards laid a great stress upon, and by that means several Churches were divided and some entirely carried away, and all this after Nepos his death: They might have done the like with Justin Martyr, or Irenaeus if they had pleased, and made the same stir, and yet those Fathers not at all concerned in the Schism; this is manifestly the present case; there is no account of any Schism made about this point till after this Nepos his death; And Dionysius who writes against him, thinks himself obliged to make his Apology before hand; saying, that he honoured the man for many great good qualities, and was sorry that he was forced to write against his Brother in the defence of Truth: And as to the matter of fact, it was thus, He found in the Region of Arsinoe several Churches distracted about this matter; so that they began to make Schisms in several places: The Bishops surely must be concerned, where there is any Schism or Heresy, they must have a hand in it: But here by good fortune no such thing appears; 
Euseb. l. 7  here is mention only of Presbyters and Teachers, whom this Bishop assembled; Presbyters of the Villages: and these after some Dispute he at last persuaded to Peace. But what became of the Bishop of that Region will you say? It may be he was dead, and that this Nepos was the man; unless one may imagine the Diocese of Alexandria to extend so far; for the Country adjoining to the Lake Mareotes, and called by that name, was part of the Alexandrian Diocese, as we have showed before out of Athanasius, and the Arsinoeites was the next Region to that: But however this be, our point is sufficiently cleared, that this Nepos was neither Heretic, nor Schismatic: Nor does it appear that any Bishop was concerned in that difference, save only Dionysius of Alexandria, who by his Prudence and Authority did compose it. To conclude, For the first three hundred years after Christ there is but one Bishop found, who was the Author, or rather the Reviver of a Heresy; and yet Mr. B. looks upon it as a strange thing, that there should be a Heresy raised by one that was No Bishop.  
The following Ages were not so happy; but as Christians generally degenerated, so did the Clergy too; but yet not so much as our Author would make it appear. The beginning of the fourth Century was very unhappy to the Church; not only by reason of a most violent Persecution raised against it from without, but also of Heresies and Schisms from within. Meletius an Egyptian Bishop, 
Meletius.  and the first of that Order that began a Schism, forsook the Communion of the Church, because they that fell from the Faith under Persecution were received into it, 
Epiph.  as Epiphanius tells his story; though others of better Authority give other Reasons, that this Bishop had himself denied the Faith; and being condemned by a Synod of Bishops, he set up a Schism: But of this we have said enough elsewhere. 
Athan. Ap. 2.   
About the same time started up the Schism of the Donatists; 
Donatus.  named so from one of their Bishops, 
Aug. de Hae●es.  that lived a good while after the rise of that Faction: this was carried on by evil men that were Bishops and others: but Optatus derives it from two Presbyters, Botrus and Geleusius, and one Lucilla, a woman of great interest, and very whimsical.  
But the Sect that most afflicted this Age, and divided, almost subdued, all the World, was that of Arius. 
Arius.  But Arius by good providence was no Bishop, but a Priest of Alexandria: who taught that Christ was not of the same substance with the Father, and that he was not Eternal. This Doctrine first divided the Church of Alexandria, and then all the World, some few Bishops taking his part, but the generality being against him. The Original and Occasion of this Heresy is variously related, though all agree in the Author: 
Haer. 68, 69.  Epiphanius makes Meletius the Schismatic to be the first discoverer: though afterwards his Sect, if not he himself, joined with these Heretics; just as our Dissenters join Interests with the Papists to ruin the Church of England. I would not be so bold to say it, if Mr. Baxter, who knows it much better than I, had not observed this before: if it be otherwise, they must be satisfied by him, who I suppose may be able to give a good account of that matter. When the Bishop of Alexandria had been informed that one of his Presbyters, and the Divinity Reader of that City (for so Arius was) taught dangerous doctrines, denying, in effect, the Lord that bought us, he calls him to answer this charge in the presence of his Fellow-Presbyters; and Arius owning his Doctrine was condemned. This I should not give so great credit to, upon the word of Epiphanius (who is unaccountably mistaken in several things relating to this Heresy) unless the Letter of Constantine did confirm it; 
Euseb. de vit. Constant. l. 2.  who blames Alexander for proposing this question, which it seems by this story he could not avoid, since this Schismatic (not perhaps out of any good will to the faith, but as is usual with the separating Spirit, to reproach the Church with countenancing Heresy,) had given him notice of this Intolerable Doctrine, and the Industry and Application used by Arius to promote it: The occasion was the Ambition of the Heretic, 
Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 4. c. 1.  who could not endure to see Alexander in the Bishop's Chair, for which he had been his Competitor, after the death of Achillas. 
Sand. Hist. Eriml. l. 2. p. 159, 160.  Sandius impudently affirms (without any proof) that it was after Achillas had been put out by Alexander: I cannot but warn the Reader against the intolerable dealing of that Arian Historian, For he has so little shame as to cite Sozomen, and the Tripartite History, to prove that Achillas was turned out by his successor, whereas there is not one word of it there, but on the contrary, the whole story is much to the disadvantage of the Arian cause: For there Arius is said to envy the promotion of Alexander, 
Sozom. l. 1. c. 15. Hist. Tripart. l. 1. c. 12.  and to be so impatient as not to live under the tedious expectation of the Bishop's death, in probable hopes of succeeding him, but to seek out any occasion of quarrel, and then to set himself up. The passage is so very plain that it is hardly possible to mistake it, and to apply that to Alexander, which is manifestly said of Arius. The same Historian tells us, 
Sandius. Ibid.  that Achillas was of the same opinion with Arius, and refers to the same place, but without the least shadow of Truth. I suppose he took Achillas the Priest, that revolted with Arius, to be the same with the Bishop, who he says was deposed, but who was indeed dead before that time. And Epiphanius his placing Achillas after Alexander, 
Epiph. Haer. 68  is a strange unaccountable mistake, as divers other things are in his relations of this matter: But let it be as Epiphanius says, it can give no countenance to Sandius his opinion; For this Achillas that Sandius speaks of had revolted with Arius, but he whom Epiphanius mentions was Orthodox, and set up by that party against the Arians. In the next place, it is not likely that the Achillas that joined with Arius was in Alexandria when Alexander died, 
Socr. l. 1. c. 6, 8. Soz. l. 1. c. 21. Theod. l. 1.  for the Council of Nice condemned Arius and his adherents, and the Emperor having banished him (as some say) or only forbidden him to return to Alexandria (as others) the Presbyters of Alexandria that joined with him were probably removed for quietness sake, at leastwise, if they did not conform.  
Lastly, Though Achillas might recant, and remain in Alexandria, yet considering the Arian party was now condemned by all the world, it is not likely that one of the first promoters of it should be chosen Bishop of so eminent a Church; and much less probable, that being chosen he should resign to Athanasius, a young man, and but a Deacon; and what is more than all, that one devoted to the cause of Alexander, and one of the Champions of it in the Council of Nice: What Sandius says after this, out of Philostorgius: of Arius his modesty in preferring Alexander to the Bishopric of Alexandria, 
Philost. l. 1. t. 3.  is altogether improbable; not one of all those Historians that give an account of this matter saying any such thing, 
Theod. l. 1. Hist. Ed. id. Haeret. Fab. l. 7. Vid. Gotofr. Dissert.  but several of them the quite contrary. But that Arian Historian mistook his Index, and put l. 3. for the first, and the third paragraph, which would not have been an easy mistake if he had looked into the book that he cited. But to return where we left.  
Arius who was the cause of all the mischiefs that followed that Controversy, was no Bishop; and his first followers were not Bishops neither: 
Socr. l. 1. c. 6. Sozom. l. 1. c. 21.  Some Presbyters and Deacons of Alexandria first took his part, and two Bishops that called themselves so, being of Meletius his setting up, and who were indeed no Bishops, as being ordained Schismatically. Arius when he left Alexandria made his Application to several Bishops, and was rejected by most: Eusebius of Nicomedia at last undertook his Protection, and prevailed with some few more to join with him; and the greatest part (as appears by the Letters sent to Alexander) only out of Moderation, and to endeavour to compose the difference between the Heretical Presbyters and their Bishop. But this way increasing the difference instead of healing it, a General Council was agreed upon; where there were but seventeen Bishops that so much as favoured the cause of Arius, and but five that refused to subscribe, who were afterwards banished. Had Constantine preserved the Rule which that Council had established, and not tampered with it in compliance with the Arians, and by an Indulgence, and comprehension, endeavoured to bring those under a Rule that were enemies to it, and to join such doctrines as were Incompetible, there might have been an end of the Arian Heresy; but the Church is never distracted more by any thing than projects of Moderation.  
And because the calamities that enfued upon the Arian Controversy are to be dated from Constantine's recalling of Arius: It is some Justification of the Bishops that their authority and credit with the Emperor did not effect it. 
Socr. l. 1. c. 25.  But it was an Arian Priest, that insinuated himself into the favour of Constantia, and by her Intercession prevailed with the Emperor to admit of Arius his delusory Recantation.  
Constantius succeeding his Father in the East, and taking part with the Arians, it is no wonder if in a little while they grew uppermost, not so much by the compliance of the Bishops with the Inclinations of the Prince, which Mr. B.'s charity does so often suggest; as by the violence that was used, by deposing and banishing, and killing all those that durst be active in the defence of the Faith: And what was worse than all this, by condemning men for other things than their Faith, and so taking away from them the reputation of Martyrdom, 
Socr. l. 1. c. 28, 29. Sozom. l. 2. c. 25.  by accusing good Bishops of the most heinous crimes, and suborning Villains and Strumpets to swear the charge; by imposing upon the simpler sort by plausible pretences. And so at last, (as Vincentius Lirinensis expresses it) by force and fraud the whole World in a manner was turned Arian; partim vi partim fraude factus est Arianus: But of this I have said enough already, to show with what little reason or humanity the Bishops are charged with compliance in the case of the Arians.  
The Sects that sprung out of Arianism were most of them begun by those that were no Bishops. 
Sozom. l. 3.18. id. l. 5.12. Socr. l. 2.29. Philost. l. 3.  Aetius who thought not Arius to blaspheme enough, and added to his Heresy further disparagements and diminutions of the son of God, was first a Physician, and then began to teach Heresy; afterwards was made Deacon by Leontius Bishop of Antioch, an Arian, which is the highest Degree we find him arrive to in the Church; he was at last excommunicated by the Arians themselves as being too mad for their company.  
Eunomius was his Scholar, 
Socr. l. 4. c. 7.  and his Clerk; bred a Heretic, and by that merit, Heretics prevailing, he came to be Bishop. It were well indeed if all Bishops had the privilege the Pope pretends to, to be Infallible as soon as he is set in his Chair. It were well if that Order were a preservative against Heresy: But since it is in vain to hope that, it is no wonder to see a Bishop a Heretic, that was so when he was a Layman, and brought the same disease along with him into the Office.  
Macedonius his case is the very same; He was a Heretic long before he was Bishop; and was for that reason chose by the Arians after the death of Eusebius, 
Vid. Athan. Apol. 2. id. Ep. ad Sol. Socr. l. 2.6. Sozom. l. 3. c. 3.  and not after the death of Alexander, as Socrates and Sozomen seem to say. For at the Synod of Tyre, this Macedonius, who at the death of Alexander was but a Deacon, is said by Athanasius to have been a Presbyter belonging to Paulus Bishop of C. P. and to have accused his Bishop; which Sozomen likewise confirms. 
Vid. Vales. Observe. Eccles. ad Socr. & Soz.  He is said to have been recommended together with Paulus, by Alexander on his deathbed, to the people of Constantinople for their Bishop; but the character is not great: Socrates says only for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an outward show of gravity, which Sandius takes for true piety, and so amends the character: But Sozomen says that Alexander recommended him only for a man of business, and acquainted with the ways of the world.  
This man it is likely turned Arian when he was Priest under Eusebius, who removed from Nicomedia to Constantinople, and by that means so ingratiated himself to the party, 
Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 3.  that after the death of that Arian Bishop, that party set him up against Paul who was turned out by Eusebius. 
Epiph. Haer. 77.   
Another improver of Arianism, and leader of a new Sect was Aerius; but he was No Bishop, and for that reason turned Heretic. For Eustathius and he having been fellow Students, and Eustathius having the better fortune to be preferred to a Bishopric: This good man, although obliged by all the promotion his friend could give him, yet could not be contented; and began to disparage that Order and Authority of Bishops, since he had not the fortune to arrive at it. This was the Cartwright of those times; and the Father of the Presbyterian parity: a Notion brought into the world by the ambitious discontents of one, who when he could not be Bishop himself, yet scorned to seem inferior to any Bishop.  
There is another Division of the Arians, mentioned by Theodoret, which were called Psatyriani, or Tapsuriani; who had no Bishop for their Leader, but one that prepared a certain food well relished in those times; the Critics are not agreed whether it were Custard or Pudding-Pyes. What this leading man was for a Scholar I cannot learn; though I believe not inferior to the Weavers and Plowmen of Kedderminster, whom Mr. B. prefers before the Ancient Fathers: all that can be said for this man is, that he had too much learning to follow his calling, and nothing would serve his turn but mending of Religion. But if I should join with him Theodotus the Tanner, (who lived indeed a good while before) Mr. B.'s Weavers and Ploughmen might be hard put to it, and reconciled to their Trades again.  
The Audians were a Sect sprung up much about the same time with the Arians, 
Epiph. Haer. 70.  headed by one Audius an Anthropomorphite, but no Bishop, till after he had made this division; and then (as the design of all Heretics generally is,) he was made Bishop of his Party. Epiphanius gives him and his followers a very fair Character: which St. Austin seems to suspect, 
Ep. ad Quodvult. de Haeres.  and observes partiality and favour in the Relation. But Theodoret, who had most reason to know them, represents this man as a heady fellow, of extravagant conceits, 
Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 4.  and his followers as great Hypocrites: These it is probable were the Anthropomorphites of Egypt, that were so violent against the followers of Origen, in Epiphanius his time, who he says, communicated with the Catholic Church; and for that reason it may be, he speaks so favourably of them.  
The Errors of Origen, as they were pertinaciously maintained by the Monks of Nitria, became a Heresy; but the Bishops had no hand but in condemuing those gross mistakes; and when the Monks began to mutiny, and raise tumults about them, threaten to kill the Bishop, and when they grew insupportably troublesome; then they were banished for quietness and peace sake: Of these we have spoken more particularly elsewhere.  
It was not long before this, that the Priscillianists sprang up in the West, a Sect made up of a mixture of Manichees and Gnostics. It was a lewd infamous Heresy: But the Author of it was no Bishop. For whether we trace the original of it to Egypt, and to that Marcus who first brought it to the West; 
Sever. l. 2. in sin.  It does not appear that he was so much as a Clergyman. Priscillianus, his Scholar, who gave name to the Sect, was a Layman when he was condemned in the Council of Saragossa. There are two Bishops indeed that are condemned by the same Council: but such as were drawn in by the fair pretences of Priscillianus, and accessories only to his crime, but he that gave them the name is called by the same Author Princeps Malorum: whom after he was condemned, those of his party, to give greater credit to their cause, made Bishop of Abila: But Mr. B. on this occasion does not find fault with the Bishops as Authors or promoters of this Heresy, but for calling the civil Sword to their assistance, and procuring great severities to be used towards the Authors of it.  
The Pelagian Heresy had no Bishop either for its Author or Promoter; 
Aug. Haer. 88  Pelagius who gave it its name and being, was a Monk; and Julianus and Coelestius his Disciples were never Bishops: or if this Heresy be derived from Ruffinus, Jovinian, Evagrius, Ponticus, 
Hieron. in Jerem. l. 4. praef.  or lastly from Origen, as St. Jerome derives its Pedigree; It is evident that Bishops had no hand in it; none of these being Bishops, but most, if not all of them Presbyters.  
Nestorius who gave the name to a Heresy, was not the first Author of it, as I have showed before, but fell into it by engaging himself in the defence of Anastasius his Presbyter, who first preached down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but as to Heresy Mr. B. does acquit him.  
Eutyches was a Monk, and imposed upon the Council of Ephesus, as we have showed before; or they connived at his errors, and were not willing to examine his doctrine to the bottom, for reasons before mentioned. This Heresy was preserved chief among the Eastern Monks, who made such fearful disturbances about it after the Council of Chalcedon.  
Petrus Fullo, who invaded the Bishopric of Antioch, was indeed a great promoter of Eutychianism, and a very wicked troublesome man; but the comfort is, he was a Heretic long before: For being a Priest of the Church of Chalcedon, 
Theod. Lect. Coll. l. 1.  he was put out for his crimes, or as others say more expressly, for Heresy; which Liberatus sufficiently discovers, 
Liberat. in Breviar. c. 18.  when he tells us, that this person seized upon the Bishopric of Antioch, per vilissim●●n papulum & Haereticum. 
Alex. Ser. de S. Barn.  His Heresy was the thing that recommended him to the Rabble that made him a Bishop.  
The Eatychians in the East were revived or new modelled by one Jacobus Zanzalus, no Bishop, but an obscure mean man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Niceph. l. 18. c. 52. In Haer. 3. Maxim. cum Disput. Pirrho & Theod. An. 633.  says Nicephorus, upon which account he was called Zanzalus, that is, a pitiful, mean fellow. Matthew Paris gives a more particular account of him, which is liable to several exceptions, which it is not necessary to urge in this place.  
The Heresy of the Monothelites, though an unavoidable consequence of Entyches his Doctrine, yet it is generally fathered upon Cyrus' Bishop of Alexandria: Sergius of C. P. Cyrius Bishop of Phasis, and Theodorus Pharanatarius. Baronius lays it mostly upon the first, and shows how he came to fall into this mistake; he had a charitable design of uniting the Divisions of the Church, by devising some project that should comprehend all parties: he thought one Will, and one Operation would not be so harsh, as one Nature, which had been for so long time the subject of Contention. But with the same success that usually all such designs have: when the Rule is changed, the Church is immediately all to pieces, and those that were united under that Rule divide into parties and factions; which will hardly ever unite again.  
Now because in the following ages of the Church the Devil had another game to play, and started up but few Heresies until these last ages; let us see what sort of men the Authors of them have been. The Swenkfeldians, Anabaptists, Menonists, The Family of Love, Quakers, Ranters, and the rest of the Modern Sects; did these derive themselves from any Bishops? Servetus (whom the Ministers of Switzerland prosecuted as far or further than Idacius ever did the Priscillianists) was he a Bishop? Socinus was he a Prelate? or the Racovian Divines, were they a Council of Bishops? how then comes it to be so great a wonder as our Author professès it to be, that a Heresy should be raised by one that was No Bishop? It is much a greater wonder that any one that makes Conscience of what he says, should against all truth of History, and against his own knowledge, charge the Bishops with all the Heresies in the World; that a person that seems to be so sensible of approaching judgement, as frequently to put himself in mind of it in his Writings, and even force the belief of good charitable men by such professions of Sincerity; should yet advance so malicious and so groundless an Accusation. There is no dallying with the allseeing God; and if every idle word will be accounted for, what plea shall be made for whole books full of Calumny and Detraction? What for blasting the memory of so many Holy men for aught he knows that are dead? What for aspersing so many faithful Servants of God, for aught he knows, that are living? What for defaming the whole Order from which he received his Ministry? and to which he owes Honour and Subjection, as he will surely find in that day when he comes to give account of all the hard things that he has written against it.  
But if you would have the True Causes of Schism, Heresy, etc. You must not look upon this or that Order of Men, but go up to the first Original of such things. These Mischiefs, as all other disturbances of the World, proceed from our Lusts which war in our Members: and do not flow from any particular Institution or Order, but from the General Corruption of Humane Nature; by which means all conditions, and degrees of men, have had the misfortune to have some that have been wicked and infamous. The Apostles had a Judas, the Bishops a Paulus Samosatenus, the Presbyters a Novatus and an Arius, the Deacons an Actius: and in short there is no Office in the World, Sacred or Civil, but has been in the possession of infamous persons, who have been a reproach and scandal to it.  
Now although the passions of men move them to be troublesome in any State or Circumstances, yet there are some that qualify them more for Mischief, and others that dispose them for it: There may be many wicked men that might be willing enough to make a disturbance, but they may want parts and Abilities for the work. Any man may pretend to a wicked opinion, but every one cannot recommend it to others; and there are few that care for being Heretics by themselves; But where Malice and an evil temper has the advantage of Natural and acquired endowments, like Sulphur and Salt peter, it does not only presently take fire, but has likewise an extraordinary force and capacity to destroy. It is observed by some of the Fathers that most of the Haeresiarchae, the Authors of Heresies or Sects, 
Aug. Com. in Psalm.  were men of great wit and accutness in Reasoning, Non Enim putetis Fratres, potuisse fieri Haereses per parvas quasdam animas, non fecerunt Haereses nisi Magni Homines: Do not think that Heresies were first raised by ordinary, mean persons; they were great men that set them up: and within the same page he mentions several of them considerable men.  
The same Observation St. Hierom makes. 
Hieron. Com. in Os●● c. 9  Nullus enim potest Haeresim struere nisi qui Arden's Ingenii est, & habet dona natura qua à Deo Artifice sunt Creata. Talis Valentinus, talis Martion, quos Doctissimos legimus: Talis Bardesanes, cujus etiam Philosophi admirantur Ingenium: None but men of Great Parts are able to set up a Heresy: Valentinus and Martion we find were very learned men, and Bardesanes was admired even by Philosophers. Vincentius Lirinensis amplifies upon this subject with great art and passion; he tells the great endowments of such as raised Heresy, and reckons up particularly all the advantages they had to recommend themselves and their Doctrine; and at last concludes they were a mighty Temptation, enough almost to stagger the most confirmed Orthodox Believe: 
Vincent. Lir. adv. Haeres.  alluding I suppose to that of the Apostle that there must be Heresies, that (by that trial or Temptation) they who are approved might be made manifest. It was a Question that puzzled the most understanding Heathen I think that ever was, 
Cicer.  how God should ever bestow Reason and wit upon such men as he foresaw would make use of the gifts against the Donor: This Christian Religion renders more easy, when it shows us the end of this permission, the manifestation of those that are approved.  
Now though these Qualifications of Malice and Wit where they are met in the same person, do dispose and fit him for Disturbances, yet he seldom breaks out into any extremity before some outward occasion of Discontent does inflame him. There is indeed a Temper that no Fortune, no Honours, can content, and render easy to itself, or restrain from disturbing the world; but this extravagancy is not Common; and the Generality of men, though not very quiet or peaceable in their Dispositions, yet when they have gained their point; and are possessed of wealth, and honour, they are commonly willing to secure the enjoyment of those Possessions, by letting things run in the ordinary course: But if one of these men happens to labour under repulse and disappointments, his patience is soon at an end. Upon this account many of the Inferior Clergy that have stood in Competition for a Bishopric and lost it, have broken off all Communion with their Bishops whose Competitors they were; so Novatianus, and several others became Heretics: sometimes growing impatient with waiting for the Death of their Bishop, they have revolted against him, and drawn the People after them, Thus Arius and Macedonius became the heads of Sects; sometimes despair of Promotion after long waiting, and envy against those they saw preferred before them hath carried away unsteaddy men, to set up for singularity, and to make new Sects. Thus Aetius Separated from the Arians, and taught new Blasphemies of his own. Sometimes vain men have been carried away with the applause and favour of the people (that flocked after them and throughed their Churches) to set up themselves against their Bishop upon presumption of greater interest in the people. This St. Austin makes a principal cause of Heresies. Sic enim fiunt Haereses & schismata, 
Aug. de Bapt. cont. Donat. prop. sin.  cum dicit plebs carn●lis, quae in charitate dei fundate non est, Ibo post Amatores meos, cum quibus utique sive per fidei Corruptionem, sive per elationem superbiae turpiter fornicantur: Heresies and Schisms are caused by giddy People that have itching Ears, and run after such Teachers as they fancy. There is no doubt but these pretended greater Edification, for an excuse of their Curiosity: Yet this good Bishop did not like the reason, and makes it the cause of all the mischiefs that befell the Church. Nay the Apostle expresses no small dislike of those that heap themselves Teachers, having Itching Ears. Were that great Apostle and that Great Bishop alive now, what would they say, when they should hear men renounce all order and rule, and profess to follow their fancy, under the notion of greater Edification? Yet this I must observe farther, that how good soever the argument may be for separation; It sounds not well from the Teachers whose Commendation is involved in the reason, They might surely give the People leave to say it, and that might have saved their Modesty without losing the argument.  
To Conclude this Point: Almost all the Heresies and Schisms that have distracted the Church, have been no other than so many defections of the Discontented part of the Clergy, and the more pragmatical part of the Laity from their Rightful Bishop. 
Cyp Ep. 55  Non aliundè Haereses obortae sunt, aut nata sunt Schismata quam inde quod Sacerdoti non Obtemperatur; 
Ep. 69.  Schisms and Heresies spring from no other cause than disobedience to the Bishop: Ind Haereses obortae sunt, dum Episcopus qui unus est, Contemnitur: All the disturbance of the Church is purely for want of observing that Precept of the Apostle; 
Heb. 13.17.  Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they Watch for your souls, as they that must give account: i. e. Obey those that are Rightfully over you, and submit to them, not choosing yourselves new Teachers, and running after your own fancy: 
Epad. S●yr.  Which Ignatius seems to paraphrase as he is cited by Antiochus. Let the people assemble where the Bishop is present. The sheep ought not to go wandering whither they please, but as the Shepherd leads them. The people ought to follow the directions of their Bishop, and conclude what he order to be most pleasing to God. And surely any one would think this the securest course; Those that seduce the people into Faction, they may have interests of their own to serve by making a breach and a disturbance: but all that love peace should surely cleave to their Bishop: For his interest as well as duty oblige him to maintain peace and Unity; for he is unavoidably a loser by the Quarrel, and cannot rationally be supposed to have any design but to preserve things as they are: But the Pretences of others though never so plausible are to be suspected of design, where the separation is manifestly to the prejudice of the people as well as of the Bishop; and to the advantage of him only that persuades it.  
Now as the Bishops are under the least Temptation to make a disturbance (and what Governor will raise a Sedition against himself?) so in fact likewise they are sound to be very few, that being Bishops have raised any Heresy or Schism. Let any man consult the Catalogues of Ancient Heresies: and Compute how many of the 60 reckoned by Epiphanius, or of the 88 of St. Austin, or of the greater number of Philastius, and the more confused account of Theodoret; How many of them I say were Bishops when they turned Heretics, and he shall find very few if any one in all those numbers. But if any after they had Debauched the people from their Rightful Pastors, were by subreption made Bishops of their Party, They were never looked upon as Bishops but only as heads of a Faction. So that I believe the reader may by this time easily perceive what truth there is in Mr. B.'s General Charge, that the Bishops were the causes of the Heresy, and Schism, and that it was so wonderful a thing that a Heresy should be begun by one that was no Bishop.  
Besides this charge of Heresy and Schism, Mr. B. accuses the Bishops of having been the cause of Church corruptions, and Sedition: As to the first, if he means that the Bishop's first introduced these corruptions into the Church, I believe he will be never able to prove it: as to the latter we shall examine it in due place.  
The Corruptions of Christian Religion whether in Doctrine or Worship, have crept unperceivably into the Church; and by such degrees, that it is a hard matter to ace their Original, and we are so far from nowing the first Authors of them, that we are ignorant even of the age wherein some of them were introduced. Mr. B. charges confidently, but proves nothing: But the most probable conjecture I think can be made of the rise and Progress of these, is, 1. That most of the corruptions in Doctrine crept in together with the Heathen Philosophy: For great Philosophers especially the followers of Plato turning Christians, still retained something of their former Notions, which not appearing to be any way prejudicial to Christianityl; but on the Contrary rendering it more acceptable to the wiser part of Heathens, were by degrees owned among the more learned sort, in their Disputations with Heathens, and passed without contradiction: But afterwards busy men building farther consequences upon this foundation, Improved the corruption, till at last it grew Gross and intolerable. Hence came the Invocation of Saints, and Angels, 
Plat. Pot. l. 5. Orig. adv. c●ll. l. 8. Hieron. descript Eccl. in Orig. Euseb. Praep. Eu. l. 12. Virg. Georg. 6. Somn. Scip. etc.  and the opinion of their knowledge of Humane affairs. Hence Prayer for the Dead, and the opinion of Purgatory; Hence proceeded many other curious Questions about the nature of God and his Attributes, of the Fatal determination of events, of free will and the like. And as to the more sordid, superstitious corruptions in Worship. If any one sort of men are to be charged with them, I believe the Monks will bid fairest; The Cross, and Relics, that came first from Judea, are owing as far a I can observe to Melania and her Monks; 
Paulin Epad. Sulp. Sever.  and I do believe the story of the finding of the Cross is of no ancienter standing. Who has filled all the world with fictitious Relics, and fabulous Revelations concerning them? Who Debauched the reason and common sense of men by their fulsome Legends and fictions of Miracles? By whose means in short, had Superstition overspread the face of the Christian world? Were not the Monks the manifest Authors and Promoters of all this? Superstition was born and brought up first in Monasteries, and as Monks came into the Church, they brought it along with them, and the opinion the people had of the piety of these Retired men, made every thing current that they advanced? What so devoted Instruments had the Papal usurpation, as the Monks, that pretended exemption from the jurisdiction of their Bishops, and subjected the Episcopal Authority to it. And for Transubstantiation, though the Grossness of the conceit were enough to prove it Monkish; yet besides, it is found by matter of fact to be theirs, Paschasius Radbertus being the first that broached this Doctrine. All this that I have but just mentioned in the General may be made out by a deduction of the rise and Progress of Superstition; but a particular account would exceed too much the Proportion of this book. This I must add, that the Bishops who are charged with these Corruptions by Mr. B. were the only opposers of them that we find in Antiquity: as we may see in the Canons of the African Church, and that of Spain, and other countries'. The first Picture we read of in a Christian Church was torn in pieces by Epiphanius a Bishop: the first Councils about Images condemned the Idolatrous use of them with great zeal, but at last superstition being still advanced by the Popularity of the Monks, and the ignorance of the Age, and some of the Emperors joining with them, prevailed against the Bishops: and so Idolatry was brought for a help to Christian Devotion; And if at last the Bishops joined in the superstitions, it is no more a wonder, than that they were engaged in Heresy. For when any number of people are corrupted, whether with superstition or false Doctrine, they will find Teachers to their own mind, not that their Bishops will comply with every popular wind of doctrine, but because men will make themselves Pastors after their own hearts: and as long as there is a Heretic or an Ambitious man who will be any thing for applause, or preferment, they will never want Bishops and heads of their faction; or if the Clergy have no Judas, they will find Teachers amongst themselves, and give them what Titles they please.  
The last branch of the Charge is Sedition, and this is as grievous as any of the other. Suppose the matter of fact in the first place true, that several Bishops had been Seditious: does this proceed from their Constitution, or any Principle the Bishops maintain, that is inconsistent with the people where they live? This I suppose cannot be pretended. Or is Diocesan Episcopacy such an enemy to the peace of the Government? We have had the experience of it for many ages, and find but few that were so troublesome. But because as the case stands now, we are to reckon only since the Reformation (for if a man be not blind he may see that this worshipful Church History is only designed against Protestant Bishops under a general name) They I suppose will receive ample Testimony from the Government, of their faithfulness and Loyalty: How many acts of Oblivion have been made for Bishops and their Party? Where were they seen encouraging Rebels against their Prince with the hopes of Salvation? What Reign have they disturbed here with their Seditions? or whose Government were they enemies to, unless it were that of a Rebellious piece of a Parliament, and Oliver Cromwell, and his Son, the David and Solomon of Mr. Baxter? But Loyalty has hitherto been the greatest crime of our Bishops; and long may they continue to fear God and the King, more than the Insolence of any faction; and I pray God they may always preserve Inviolable that great Treasure committed to them, and the greatest next that of the Faith: the honour of the most Loyal Church in the World.  
Now although the Bishops of the Church of England since the Reformation need no defence in this particular, the merit of their Loyalty being so well known; and what other Bishops may do, does not concern us; yet because in this Treatise I have undertaken the defence of the Primitive Church, and by consequence of our own, it will be necessary to add something upon this subject, by way of answer to such particulars as Mr. B. has brought together to show the seditious Practices of the Bishops.  
The first thing he takes to task, 
Treatise of Episcop. part. c. 22.  is an old Maxim of King James, no Bishop no King: which is represented here as if the Bishops were the Authors of it: and if the Presbyterian, had said no Prebyters no King: you would have taken it for Treasonable, as if they had threatened that the King shall not be King unless they may have their way, and shall not the King be King unless you may be Bishops? It is well for the Bishops that none of them was Author of that Dangerous saying; else I perceive it might bear an impeachment, and prove by little management at least Constructive Treason, but the Authority of a King may excuse him of Treason against himself, though the Scotch Presbyterians have declared him a Traitor to Jesus Christ and the Holy Kirk: And surely that King had some reason to say it, for it is not likely he should pass such a compliment upon the Bishops, and make them so necessary to Monarchy, if he had not found some great suitableness in this Church government to that of the State. The truth is that saying of King James was the Result of a long experience, of a Turbulent, Seditious, ungovernable Presbytery in Scotland: and how little he was a King while he was among them the Historians of those times as Spotswood, Johnston, and others do sufficiently show: Or if you would have a more particular description of the Insolences, and enchroachments of that Presbyterian Clergy, look into the Burden of Isscahar, and you will soon find reason enough for this Maxim. But Mr. B. goes about gravely to Confute this, as an affected fiction without proof. 
Ch. H. p. 2. ●. 2. c. 22.  For 1. Heathen Emperors were without Bishops: 2. follows the insinuation of Treason. 3. What is in the nature of the Thing to Warrant this assertion? They own every Text and Article for Monarchy as well as Prelacy, etc. and the same reason Holland and Venice must have no Bishops. Would not a man wonder, that any one should make so great a stir about such a little saying? Suppose it is not absolutely impossible but Kings may be without Bishops or Presbyters either, what then? Why then King James was mistaken in his Politics: when he said No Bishop no King. There is no necessity of that neither: for all Maxims in Morality and Policy are not to be used so unmercifully as to be judged according to the rigour of the letter. He spoke this with regard to his own experience, and his own case; and the Anti-Episcopal men made his words good, by destroying Bishops first, and the King after: when this or that sort of men is made either necessary or destructive to government; the meaning is, that either their Principles or Practices, or interest, do either support, and assure, or else overthrow and endanger the State: and that their practices upon all occasions are generally suitable to their principles. This will be clearer by these instances: Popery is generally looked upon as a Religion destructive of Civil power, and not without reason. Must there therefore be no government where there is Popery? The Kingdoms of France, Spain, and Poland, and several other countries' do manifest the contrary. The Jesuits are looked upon as the great Incendiaries of the world, and that no place can be at peace where they have any influence: and yet they are entertained in all Popish Countries: Is the general charge therefore of Sedition against these false and groundless? No such matter. Suppose then among Christians one should say with regard to us, no Protestants no King. I suppose there would be no such mighty absurdity in it. Therefore if the Principles of those that were Anti-Episcopal, were looked upon by that wise King as Anti-Monarchical too: and the Doctrine of the Bishops was much more safe to the Government; it was ground enough for the saying. And now to vindicate those Primitive Bishops from the imputation of Sedition, that he has charged in this chapter with desturbing the Church and the world.  
The first thing Mr. B. lays to the charge of Bishops is the Usurpation of Popish Prelacy: Do you not know, saith he, that where Prelacy is at the highest, there Kings and Emperors have been at the lowest? Do you not know, how the Papal Prelacy at present usurpeth one part of their Government, and is ready to take away the other when ever Kings displease them? etc. Is it the Bishop or the Papist that is here to blame? Is this the effect of their Order, or of those pernicious principles they have inbibed? If it was the fault of the Bishops, than we must find the same practice in other Ages; or if the Popish Bishops are dangerous to Government, are their Presbyters less to be feared? The Jesuits before our Civil Wars used all the interest they had to prevent sending of Popish Bishops into England. It was not I suppose out of any great affection to us, or regard to the Peace of the Kingdom, but because they thought Bishops unnecessary, since Priests and Jesuits could do more mischief without them. But the same reason that renders. Popish Priests and Bishops so dangerous to Government, renders the Presbyterians so too: But first let us examine Mr. B.'s instances of more ancient Episcopal Sedition.  
The first is at Alexandria in the time of Theophilus and Cyril, which I have considered already. I need say no more here than, 1. That the Alexandrians of all the people in the world were the most infamous for Sedition, even before they ever had any Bishops. 2. That their Bishops did never give any countenance or encouragement to their Sedition. The next is the combustion in Constantinople about Chrysostom, where Theophilus and Epiphanius were concerned: To this I Answer, 1. That these Bishops were indeed the occasion, but never intended this tumult, or gave their party any encouragement to make this disturbance. 2. That what they did, although it was very unjust, yet it was not done against the civil Government, but in compliance with the Emperor. 3. That those who began this mutiny were such as favoured Chrysostom, but did it against his will, and against all his entreaties and observations to the contrary: for he conveyed himself away first of all privately to prevent a mutiny: and in the whole business he behaved himself so as to endeavour by all means to prevent any mischief. He saw the civil power was wrongfully against him, and he would not contend, but endeavoured to steal away to prevent contention.  
The story of Theophilus his charging Isidore with double Letters, that whoever was Conqueror, he might apply himself to him in his name, is of the same piece with the rest of Socrates his story concerning that Bishop; and in all probability an invention of one of the Monks of Nitria. He would never have disobliged that man afterwards after such a manner, that he had entrusted with such a secret. Upon this Mr. B. makes a great outcry: What would have been said of one of us now, if we had not only complied with a victorious Tyrant, but also juggled with presents and double Letters before hand: I did myself disown Oliver Cromwell openly to his death: So did John Lilburn, So did the Levellers. So did the Presbyterians, as far as they durst, and none of these out of any great affection to their Prince: but because they saw things run against their inclination: and these had the same quarrel against Cromwell they had before against the King: i. e. they could not endure to see the power in any other hands than their own. But whatever Mr. B. had with Cromwell to his death: It seems he generously forgets it after his death. And compares the most barbarous villain in the World to King David in his Epistle to his Son. But as for his owning his Son Richard Cromwell, because it was given out that he was a Cavalier in his heart, will surely find excuse as far as it finds belief.  
The next thing is the Bishops too sudden owning the Barbarian Conquerors. Do I need to recite (says Mr. B.) how great Leo himself and other Roman and Italian Bishops, owned the Barbarian Conquerors? No wonder then if they too early took Theodoricus for their King, set over them by God, who was a better man than the rest, and had at last a better Title. The truth is, it is not necessary for you to recite this at all: because I think their lies no necessity upon any man to recite that which is not true. For how I pray did great Leo himself own the Barbarian Conqueror? 
Vid. Baron. ad An. 461.  Or who were those that he owned? Theodoricus? But Leo. was dead a long while before, in the year 461. as Baronius; or the year before, as the Chronicle of Marcellinus fixes it: whereas Theodoricus did not invade Itadly till the year 490: Was it Attila that he owned? He was indeed a Barbarian Conqueror in Leo's time: But how did he own him? Attilas, when he had laid all Italy waist, and was come with his Army before Rome, this Bishop is said to have gone out to him: 
Suid Cassiod. Chron.  Missu Valentiniani Imperatoris, sent by the Emperor, and prevailed with him to raise the Siege and leave Italy. If this be owning Barbarian Conquerors, they were very unreasonable that would find fault. So Lupus Trecassensis, Eusebius of Milan, Severinus, and several other Bishops of that time, prevailed with several of those Barbarous Conquerors, to use their victory with moderation; and by their intercession saved the lives and fortunes of many thousands, But that they flattered these Kings, or approved of their Titles, we do not find. But however Leo may escape, the Italian Bishops too early took. Theodoricus for their King. How does Mr. B. conclude that it was too early. Had they then any rightful Emperor whose cause they might maintain against this Usurper? the Western Empire was now extinct, and not so much as the Title remained after Augustulus: Odoacer had no Title but his Sword, and the possession of 13 or 14 years. The Eastern Emperor, if he had any right, he had given it to Theodoricus, whom he adopted, 
Jornand. de Reb. Get c. 57 adampliandum honorem ejus, in arma sibi eumifilium adoptavit etc. Annuit quae poscebat, dimisit ei populum & senatum commendans Rowanum.  and sent into Italy to drive Odoacer out thence? So that if Conquest; or resignation can give a Title, this King had a sufficient one. And besides all this, the Western Empire was at that time in such a confusion, what by factions within themselves, what by invasion of Strangers, that it was a very hard matter to know who had the right; there being no Law of Succession established, and Theodosuis his line being extinct. So that this is no parallel with our late Rebellion, when there was a lawful King, of ancient descent, whose right did not depend upon any election of the people: to raise War against such a one, and to put him to death, and own the fact, and extol the barbarous Usurper, is such an instance not to be paralleled by any Nation, and such as no Christian Sect or Profession, out of Popery could have owned or justified, but that of our tender conscience Loyal Protestant Dissenters.  
In the next place we have the story of Theophilus and the Monks of Nitrià which not reasonable man can believe as it is related by Socrates and Sozomen, without loving a malicious lie. The reasons I have given in another place, and do not think it very convenient to repeat them as often as Mr. B. does the story: But this is added by way of observation. Did ever Presbyterians commit such an , Inhuman villainy as this, by such false dissimulation and Malice? Yes much more, by the Covenant. Who preached up Rebellion under pretence of Religion? And destroyed the King under pretence of fight for him? Who sold their Master when they had promised to protect him? Were not these Presbyterians? But because Mr. B. seems now to have gone over to the Independents, he knows much worse can be said of them. I am entered upon this much against my inclination, being forced upon it by the confidence of our Author, than which nothing can be more provoking; quis tulerit Gracchos de Seditione querentes.  
The next instance is that of Eusebius Samosatenus, who when Valens his Officer had brought him an Order for his Banishment, 
Theod. l. 4. c. 13.  tells him, If the people should know it, they would drown him in theriver Euphrates: What would they say if our Churches were such, as this Orthodox Episcopal Church was? What ever they would say of the people, they must needs commend your Ministers. But the case is very much altered. Here a Bishop leaves his people, rather than occasion any disorder: With you the Pastors persuade the people that notwithstanding all the laws to the contrary, they must not desert their Pastors. Here the People were incensed with the apprehension of Arianism, which overthrew the Foundation of the Faith; with you there is no such reason, since you all confess we are agreed in the Substantials of Religion, and yet the Teachers press their Congregatios to stand by them against the Government. Here a good Bishop would not be prevailed upon by any entreaties to return against the Emperor's command, to the manifest endangering of the public peace; and desire them to have patience, and submit to Authority: The Presbyterians. Teachers when they had opportunity, did inflame the people against the Government, and by their seditious preaching kindled the late Rebellion. What would we say then, if you were like this Church of Samosata, that lovded their Bishop, and would be governed by him, and take his advice when he disswaed them from tumult and sedition? We would say then that, tho' the first heats were not warantable, yet that you would be much better than you are, and the Government could be much more secure of you than it is.  
Mr. B. pursues this instance farther, and adds, 
Theod. l. 4. c. 14.  When the Emperors Arian Bishop was set over them, not one of all the people would come to the Church as they were used to do: Would not wash in the same water, etc. do our hearers deal as harshly as this? How shall a man deal with those that have no Conscience, but against Ceremonies, and Episcopacy? Is there any resemblance between our case and this? The Arians (as Mr. B. confesses) denied by direct consequence the Being of Christ; and is it any wonder that Orthodox Believers should have such abhorrence of these men? If any of our Bishops, Nay, if an Angel from Heaven should preach such Doctrine as this, let him be Anathema, and be abhorred as much as you please. In the mean time they are but in evil case, that depend upon the Authority of your instances for Separation, and will believe they are moderate Men, because they do not use Orthodox rightful Bishops as harshly, as the Orthodox did the Arian Usurpers; Although they have no great reason to boast of their civility upon this account, it being easy to show out of their writings, and Sermons, (to say nothing of their common conversation) such Language as a Christian ought to be ashamed of: But these good men are too much mortified to blush, and keep their blood so much in subjection, that they never suffer it upon any provocation to flush into their faces.  
After this we have another story of the Virgins that sung in reproach of Julian the Apostate: Who can help Libels, 
Theod. l. 3. c. 13.  and Lampoons from stealing out against one that is generally hated? Did any of the Christians enter into any combination against him, or declare it lawful to Rebel?  
Presently we have another story of the Church of Edessa that would assemble, notwithstanding the Emperor's commands to the contrary. And what is all this to the purpose? Did not the Primitive Christians do so too, and suffered Martyrdom for it? But did they ever enter into Covenants, and Practices against the State? No, here is mention of a poor Woman that made haste to the Assembly when she knew it would be disturbed by Soldiers, and in probability be massacred: but what to do? to see how manfully a field Conventicle would be have itself, or to plunder the Baggage of the assailants, when they should be put to the rout? No such thing: but with a design to suffer Martyrdom, and to die tamely with the rest, for the profession of the Faith.  
In the next place, We have Basil 's answer to the Perfect, 
Theod. Hist. l. 4. c. 19  when he offered him the Emperor's favour (upon condition he would turn Arian, which our Author with great ingenuity forgets,) This (says he) may take with Children, etc. And as for the Emperor's friendship, I much value it joined with Godliness, but if it want that, I say it is pernicious: Upon this our Author remarks, In one of us this Answer would have been enough to make us seem as bad, as it made Basil esteemed good. I must ask your pardon if in this point I am not of your Opinion. For when your circumstances are the same with Basils, I believe you may follow his example; and they are unreasonable men that will find fault, that when any King or Emperors fayour upon Earth is offered you upon condition to betray the Faith, you should reject it with indignation. But the difference between the substance, and indifferent circumstances of Religion, strangely altars the case. There is a great deal more to this effect; of the Orthodox refusing to conform to and keeping separate assemblies from the Arians; which as they do not prove Sedition against those that were then Non conformists, so they do not excuse ours. And this must be added, that in all these lamentable distractions of the Church we find no Orthodox Bishop animate the people against the government, what persecution soever they suffered; but on the contrary, restraining all Tendencies to Rebellion, and withdrawing themselves when the Popular favour towards them grew inordinate and ; whereas too many of our Schismatical Presbyters have kindled and fomented Sedition.  
Mr. B. saith, Audas a Bishop in Persia demolished their Temple or Pyreum by violence, for which the Emperor of Persia killed him, 
Theodor. l. 5. c. 39  and destroyed all the Christian Churches. And Audas was very much to blame: and the fact was disowned generally: and Theodoret condemns it, and antiquity never approved it. But who follows the example of this Zealot Bishop? I am sure our Episcopal men are far enough from any such imputation. But there are men in the world that Mr. B. knows, who have not destroyed Pagan Temples, but Christian Churches; and some were so zealous as to move for the pulling of them all down as polluted with superstition.  
What Theodoret says of Julian, calling him Tyrant, which Mr. B. takes notice of, was after Julian's Death, and therefore could not tend to Sedition. But whoever animated the people to resist him? His Apostasy indeed being inexcusable, people took the Liberty to give him such a Character as he deserved when he was dead; and his successors were not at all concerned in it, as having no relation to him. Isaak, as Mr. B. observes, 
l. 4. c. 34.  spoke to Valens with great boldness: but it was with the assurance of a Prophet, and such a one as spoke immediately from God.  
The Christian people of Thessalonica (says Mr. B.) risen and killed some of Theodosius his officers, 
Theod. l. 5. c. 17.  which provoked him by his Soldiers, to kill seven thousand of them, for which Ambrose brought him to do open Penance. The Christian people are much obliged to Mr. B. for giving them the honour of this Sedition: But Theodoret whom he citys for this story, says not one word of the mutineers being Christians. 
Ruff. l. 1. c. 30.  Ruffinus who is particular enough in relating it, says nothing of their being Christians, but has some circumstances that make for the contrary. 
Niceph. Hist. l. 32. c. 40.  The occasion of this Sedition was about a Charioteer, who had lewdly attempted one of the Governors' Pages, and was put in Prison for it; but being expert at his calling, the people interceded for his release, to entertain them at the Public races: It is not likely the Christians would have concerned themselves for such a villain: or for his Performance at those public spectacles. It being forbidden by the Canons of the Church to be present at them, and extremely declaimed against by the Bishops of those times: 2. It is not likely they were Christians if we consider the method Theodosius took to revenge this outrage: for as these Chariot Races were the occasion of the Sedition, so he made them the opportunity of his revenge, for having got a great number together to that sight the Soldiers put his orders in execution, and slew 7000. in Ludio Circensibus, 
Ruffin. l. 11. c. 30.  says Ruffinus. 3. That the Generality of those that came to these spectacles, and consequently of those that were there slain, were not Christians, may be gathered from the arguments used by St. Ambrose to aggravate the Cruelty; where there is not a word of their being Christians, and his brethren, but only of their bearing the Image of God and being men. 4. Zosimus, 
Theod. ubi sup. Niceph. l. 12. c. 41.  who omits nothing that is to the reproach of the Christians, does not mention this Sedition, which if it had been theirs he would have hardly passed. But the Christians, it seems are more beholden to that Heathen, and professed enemy, than to Mr. B. Lastly since there are so many Authors Christian and Heathen that mention this Sedition, and not one of them say the Christians were concerned in it, Mr. B. is inexcusable for charging such a Barbarous Sedition upon those of our Religion, as if he affected without any authority to render Christianity odious. And though all this had been the fault of the Christians, it is but an accidental Tumult, and the Bishops are no way concerned in it.  
Our Author adds, that to mention all the Bloodshed in Rome (as at Damasus Election and else) and at Constantinople, and Alexandria, would be tedious, even that which was shed on the account of Bishops. It cannot be denied but there were great and bloody Tumults upon the account of Bishops, but there were not many Bishops that encouraged them; but on the contrary they used all means possible to prevent and remedy them, by withdrawing, by quitting their right, and going into voluntary Banishment. But almost all these Tumults were occasioned by the Popular elections of Bishops, which Mr. B. out of his love to peace doubtless, and to save effusion of Christian blood, would restore by his Reformation of Episcopacy.  
Lucius (he would say Lucifer) Calaritanus, was a pious Bishop (says Mr. B.) but so hot for separation from those that had been Arians, that he is numbered for it with the Heretics, though an Orthodox Bishop: And what is all this to Sedition?  
The Novatians were Episcopal, and so were the Donatists (says Mr. B.) and yet how have they been judged of for their Schism I need not tell: They are very much to blame that say the Presbyterians or Independents troubled the Primitive Church: It was impossible for them to be troublesome before they were at all, it seems all the Sects, and Schisms of that time thought they had no right to pretend to be a Church, unless they had Bishops: But these Anti-Episcopal Separatists were reserved, it seems for the last times, as the severest curse, and judgement that could befall the Church. Those Episcopal Schismatics indeed divided the Church, but these quite dissolve it.  
Besides these Episcopal Schismatics, Mr. B. gives a small list of Bishops that were Anti-Hereticks. Apollinaris, father and son, Paulus Samosatenus, Nestorius, Dioscorus, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, have been Arch-heretics, and the cause of Tumults and Dissension. There is much of this that is not true, and some of it that Mr. B. does not believe to be so: For 1. Apollinaris the Father was no Bishop; 
Hieron de Script. Apoll. Laodic. Syria. Ep. Patre Presbytero. l. 6. c. 25. Gregor. Nyss. Ephr. Syrus. Philost. l. 8.15. Gottoffred. Dissert. in Philost.  and this was he that was the Arch-Heretick as Zozomen informs us: and as much may be gathered from Gregory Nyssen, who makes Apollinaris a very old man when he should have disputed with Ephraim Syrus. Apollinaris the younger is said to have been a Bishop by Philostorgius, though Photius adds that he knows not whence he had it: But Jerom is express, and that is the Common opinion. Yet whether he were the Author of this Heresy or his father, he was a Heretic before he was a Bishop, while he was yet reader of the Church of Laodicea: 
Socrat. l. 2. c. 46.  and from Socrates, and Athanasius writing against his Heresy, it is plain that it was long before the younger Apollinaris was made Bishop (if ever he were so.) Nicephorus makes the repulse of Apollinaris at Antioch, (which seems to be after he may be presumed to have been Bishop from some expressions of that Historian, 
Niceph. l. 12. c. 4. ) to have been the occasion of his Heresy; but this manifestly contradicts, all ancienter Historians; and indeed the very story contradicts itself; for Flavian upon the place convicts him of having been a Heretic before: Sandius thinks he was not Bishop of Laodicea, till after the Council of C. P. because Pelagius is found Bishop of Laodicea in the subscriptions of that Council; though I believe this reason of small moment, and the Acts of that Council show him to have been Bishop of that place before: However, manifest it is, that whether the father nor the son were Author of that Heresy, he was not a Bishop at that time. Nestorius' Mr. B. himself has taken great pains to prove Orthodox, yet now it seems his mind is changed. The same he does with Dioscorus. He was on their side against the Councils that condemned them; but now from Advocate he is turned Accuser: Eusebius of Nicomedia was no Heretic in the judgement of Valesius: but if he were, he was not an Heretic: because he did not begin the arch-Heresie, but followed Arius. Theodorus of Mopuestia was an Orthodox Bishop as Mr. B. owns out of Derodon, and as Facundus proves at large; though he had the ill fortune ●o be condemned by Later Councils, upon 〈◊〉 misunderstanding: this case I have discussed more Particularly in another place, where Theodore Tarsensis, his Doctrine was examined. At last Bishops failing, Mr. B. mentions Aerius, who spoke against Bishops, because himself could not be Bishop: so Pestilent a thing the desire of such Bishoprics have been: And who can help it: if men will be Ambitious, and aspiring: must there be no Government, because it is the aim of ambition, or may be the Possession of an evil man? So there must be no Kings, because many times a Crown became the occasion of Civil Wars: There must be no reputation, because Ambitious men affect it, and grow Seditious to become Popular.  
After this we have little hints of quarrels which were far enough from Sedition, as that of Theodotus and Basil, and of Eusebius and Basil, the former was a particular humour, and had no consequence. Of the latter, because Mr. B. says it was sad and scandalous, I will give a more particular-relation, that the Reader may discern the difference between the Temper of those good men that are here scandalously represented, and that of our Separatists that Mr. B. compares with, and prefers before them.  
A difference happened between Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea and St. Basil then Presbyter of that Church; 
Nazianz. Orat. de Basilio.  how or upon what occasion Gregory Nazian. Was not willing to discover; ●●nking it not much for the honour of Religion to rip up the faults of Bishops. But he says indeed that Eusebius, though he was a very good man, yet was in fault; and seems to say that he envied Basil. But when the falling out was known, the Monks took Basils' Part, and drew many of the people with them, and would have done him right upon his Bishop: but this good man, though he knew the Merit of his cause, and of his person, yet for peace's sake retired into the Widerness. He might have said to his Monks, that the people must stand by them; and considering his Learning and Eloquence, he might have presumed to have edified more in a Coventicle than the Bishop could in the Church; yet this good man had in humbler opinion of his gifts, than to endanger the peace of the Church, rather than forbear the exercise of them: And after a long Banishment and silence, he was not grown so resty and Irreconcilable, but that when his Church, was threatened by the Arian Pest, he returned voluntarily to assist his Bishop without desiring the Church Walls (i. e. the Order and Discipline of it) to be broken down that he might enter Triumphantly like a Conqueror. He came of his own accord, submitted to his Bishop and lived with him till he died not only in peace and Charity: but in the most entire friendship and confidence. The Application of the Parable of the merciful Samaritan is not improper here. Go thou and do likewise.  
The contention between Basil and Euthomius (Anthimus I suppose he means about the extent of their Diocese was no less (Scandalous) Any unreasonable Usuper may bring the meekest man upon earth into odious Debates; so Saint Paul himself was put upon an Invidious vindication of his Authority and Jurisdiction.  
The People of Caesarea would have torn in pieces Eusebius, the Emperor's (the Empress he would have said) own uncle, for Basils' sake if he had not hindered them; And does not this show the Loyalty, 
Greg. Nazianz. Orat 19 de Basil.  as well as the Authority of this Bishop: But the People were Episcopal; all people, especially those of the meaner sort, as these were, are apt to be moved into disorder, but it is much for the Honour of the Bishop's authority, and their Duty, that they obeyed him so readily: surely they are much more Tolerable than those that Assassin Bishops.  
The difference between those of Neo Caesarea and Basil is not worth the mentioning because it contains nothing like Sedition; and is only a quarrel about Psalmody, and some new orders introduced among them.  
The Antiochians for a Tax under Theodosius the Great did Tumultuate and kill the Magistrates, and destroyed the Statues of Flacilla the good Empress: And what then? What is this to the Bishops? It does not appear that these mutineers were Christians. The Heathens indeed were very Turbulent in this Emperor's Reign because he had Ordered their Idols should be destroyed, 
Zozim. l. 4. c. 38.  and that they were the men principally concerned in this uproar we may understand by the choice of their Delegates whom they sent to carry their submission to the Emperor: 
Zozim. l. 4. c. 42.  Lybanius and Hilarius both Heathens. The Church of Antioch I suppose was not in such want as to be forced to charge the enemies of their Religion with so great a trust, nor could they have been so absurd as to commit their cause to such hands as they could not be assured of, and they could not think they would be so acceptable to a zealous Christian Emperor, who had so lately put out such severe Edicts against the Heathen superstition. It shows a strange temper when a man to render Bishops odious will not stick to raise false accusations against Christians, and charge them with the Sedition of Heathens. In the worst, says Mr. B. Good Ambrose at Milan (was not silenced as we are) but by an Orthodox Emperor desired and Commanded to deliver the Arians possession but of one Church and he refused to do it and to forsake that Church. etc. Whereas we left all our Churches at a word: It is strange Mr. B. should take such delight to compare us with the Arians; surely he would have his Reader believe we are as unsound in the Faith as those Heretics, or else all this discourse is but to amuse and impose upon him; But there is great reason to value the peaceable Resignation of the Nonconformists, when we consider by what Usurpation and violence they were brought in; and what a number of worthy Learned Ministers of the Church of England were turned out to make vacancies for these Men who were to instruct the people in new Mysteries of Religion, which their old Pastors had not the Conscience, or ability to Teach them, that is of the Lawfulness of Rebellion.  
We have several other instances of St. Ambrose his zeal against the Arians, and some of his Charity in rescuing some of them from the fury of the multitude, of his popularity, etc. But not a word of his sedition, or his forcible resistance of the Emperor: The harshest thing he did, was the shutting of the Church against the Officers of the Emperor, who would have delivered it to the Arians for a place to Blaspheme Christ, under pretence of Worshipping him.  
But at length, after long straining Mr. B. has found out some Bishops in the same fault, of owning and flattering Tyrants, and Usurpers, with himself, and this because it is home to the purpose, and seems to parallel his Dedications to R. Cromwell. We have the story at length, and set out with all the advantage of Remarks and comparisons, and thus it gins.  
And because the late Revolutions in England are made by some Prelates. The pretence for the Silencing of 1800 Ministers, of whom one in ten never meddled with Wars: being fallen again on this case of Maximus, Let it be Noted how like he was to Cromwell, saving that it was not the Sectaries, but the Bishops that he studied to please, and rise by: How just the pretence was, Mr. B. can tell better than I, if he would speak-out: And whether he will or no, others perhaps will have the Courage and the Honesty to do it.  
How like Cromwell was to Maximus I do not find by Mr. B. though he desires it should be Noted: They were both Usurpers, but as unlike in their circumstances, as they could well be imagined. For First, Cromwell. Usurped a Kingdom settled in one Family by a long and unquestionable Descent, upon a King of undoubted right. Maximus Usurped an Elective Empire at the disposal of Armies, being chosen by his own Army, and that of Gratian, 
Sulp. Seu. de vit. Mart. c. 23. Aur. vict. Socr. Sozom  (as he said) against his will. Gratian against whom Maximus Rebelled, was killed indeed by Andragathius, an Officer of this Tyrant: by his order as most suppose; but as he himself protested, without his knowledge: However it was in pursuit, in open Field, in a posture of Resistance, and at the head of some of his Troops. 
Zozim l. 4. c. 37.  But Cromwell murdered the late King in cold blood, after the formality of a Trial, with all the pomp and ostentation of insolence and cruelty: Maximus when he had done this, though he entered by Treason, 
Ambr. ep. 27. Sozom. l. 7. c. 13. Zozim ubi supra.  yet afterwards had his Title confirmed by Treaties concluded with Valentinian, and Theodosius the great, who ordered their names should be joined together in all public forms, and that his Statues should be every where set up: So that those who lived in the Provinces under Maximus could not now reject him without Rebellion; He being their Prince, and no other having any right, or making any claim. And had he been contented with his first conquest, it is not likely Theodosius had ever armed against him: But Cromwell, as he entered without any colour of right according to the constitution of this Kingdom, so while he enjoyed it, the right Heir was still in being, to whom he and all the people in Conscience still owed Allegiance, and whose interest the invincible Loyalty of some of his subjects did still promote, and therefore they were not so excusable that complied with this Tyrant, as those that closed with Maximus. Lastly, Maximus did pretend something of Title by Descent, as being related to Constantine the Great. 
Baron. An. 383.1.  But Cromwell never pretended to be of the Royal Family: So that here was a vast difference between these two persons before us. But Mr. B. can find no difference but this, That Maximus studied to please the Bishops, and rise by them, and not by the Sectaries: If there had been any Sectaries in those days of the same Principles, with some of ours; He understood his interest too well to have neglected them. But how is it the Bishop's fault, that he studied to please them? That he studied to rise by them, is more than any body has said before Mr. B. And if Maximus had such a design upon the Bishops, he was surely disappointed; for we do not find any where, that any Bishop did ever contribute in the least to the raising of him. But besides to what would he rise? He was Emperor already, before we find him take the least notice of the Bishops: And if after this success of his Army, to establish himself in his new conquest, he endeavoured to oblige all sorts of people, and amongst the rest, the Bishops, who were popular men in those days; I cannot understand, how it can be any great reproach to them. Sometimes wicked Men may reverence that Virtue and goodness in others, that they will not practise themselves Sometimes their guilty Consciences, and their just fear of reproof, makes them stand in awe of men of severe conversation, and to endeavour to please them. Sometimes their interest leads them to oblige those that have any influence or Authority over the people: And one would think this would hardly be objected by way of reproach to them that innocently received the obligation. Well, But what did this Usurper do to please the Bishops? And how far were they instrumental to his advancement? Mr. B. tells us, When Gratian the Emperor befriended the Priscillianists; Maximus to please the Bishops, persecuted them to death: But by this, if he pleased some Bishops, he displeased several others, who were extremely dissatisfied with these proceed; although they all were of opinion those Heretics were not fit to live: 
Sulp. Seu. l. 2. in sin.  And in the account which Severus gives of this proceeding, he intimates that the Bishops were generally dissatisfied; that Ithacius to avoid their prosecution, did lay down his Bishopric; that Theognostus and a Synod condemned him for it. Yet another Synod, to prevent a Schism in all likelihood, received him into their Communion: But to proceed, saith Mr. B When Valentinian, 
Sulp. Seu. de vit. mar. Baron. Ar. 385.29.  by Justina the Empresses' means, did persecute or trouble Ambrose, for refusing to deliver a Church to the Arians, and also other Orthodox Bishops as well as Ambrose; Maximus gave to Ambrose and the Bishops the honour of keeping him out of Italy; and wrote his Letters to Valentinian for the Orthodox Bishops, telling him how grievous a thing it is to persecute the Ministers of God, and when under his Father they went for faithful Ministers. Upon this message of Maximus: he saith, that Valentinian being afraid of him, the persecution ceased, and Ambrose must be sent upon an Embassage to Maximus, to stop him. As to the when, Mr. B. mistakes the time in the first place, 
So●r. l. 5. c. 1. l. So●●● 〈…〉  with Socrates, and Sozomen; Socrates makes this persecution of Ambrose to be before the Death of Gratian, which that Historian says, so frighted Justina, that she left off tro●●●● that good Bishop any longer. But Ambrose himself contradicts it, 
Ep. 33. Baron. An. 383.19.  and shows plainly that this happened after his first Embassy, and after his obtaining a peace of Maximus. In the next place: Maximus is said to have given Ambrose and the Bishops, the honour of keeping him out of Italy. It was certainly a great Honour to Ambrose (for other Bishops there were none concerned in it) But I much question whether ever Maximus designed it as such; 
Gloriosum est mihi hoc pro salute pupilli Imperatoris. Amb. Ep. 27.  who (as we shall show presently) not out of reverence to Ambrose, but for fear of Valentinian's preparation accepted a Peace. But this Usurper, 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 seized 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 Emperor, 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 gins 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 replied, 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 sum 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 says, 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 endeavours 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 Emperor was Governed by her, why should no● 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 Die for their Religion, but did not understand what it was to brigue, or to resist.  
I have thus far observed 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 inquire after is, what success his Design upon the Bishops produced, and whether they answered 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 mentioned, 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 owned Maximus, whereas all the quarrel of St. Martin and Theognostus was against his proceed with the Priscillianists, and his Murdering of Gratian, if he Murdered him. But for all that they owned 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 disowned his Authority, as Emperor all that while; what Hyginus did, Mr. B. cannot tell without Revelation; he was banished by Maximus (as St. Ambrose tells us,) but the Reason is not expressed. Well then: if all this be true, Mr. B's. Observation will be so too; That Bishops can comply with Usurpers 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 justify the Usurpers Proceed, 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 versed 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 Preached, 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 owned Maximus, what sort of compliance was theirs? What did they do so much in favour of the Usurper? When he had Conquered the Countries where they lived, and been owned by both the Emperors Reigning, than they submitted to him; that is, they did not think themselves obliged 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 compliance than only to be quiet and to do their own business. Some of them indeed desired his assistance against the Priscillianists; so might Bishops have desired Cromwell to supress Ranters, Seekers, Adamites, and such like, that were not only a Reproach to Christian Religion, but to Humane Society: and yet I do believe such an Address would hardly have been interpreted by the strictest Royalist for a Criminal compliance with the Usurper. Most of the Bishops in Maximus his Dominon communicated with him, you will say; and that goes a little farther. I do not see what great hurt there was in all this: what if he pretended to be Penitent? what if he excused it as well as he could, by pretending he was forced by the Soldiers? I believe Ambrose did not scruple his Communion at first, and he seems to hint as much; but upon his second Embassy he found him to be a bloody Aspiring man, and then would have nothing to do with him or any that adhered to him; which he might yet do with greater freedom and decence than those that were his Subjects, because Ambrose belonged to another Prince, and owned him only in Titular Conjunction with his own Master. And now let the Reader judge by this, instance how the Bishops complied with Usurpers, and how like the case of Maximus and his Bishops, is to that of Cromwell and his Adherents and flatterers.  
The last instance Mr. B. gives out of Antiquity is Ambrose his letter to Eugenius the Tyrant, which is inscribed, Clementissime. Imperatori Eugenio●: and in the close of the Letter we have these expressions, in his vero in quibus vos rogari decet, etiam exhiberi sedulitatem Potestati debitam; sicut & Scriptum est, cui Honorem, Honorem; cui Tributum, Tributum; nam cum Privato detulerim cord Intimo, quomodo non differrem Imperatori? i. e. But in this matter where it becometh us to petition you, we must also give the diligence due to Power, as it is written, Honour to whom Honour; Tribute to whom Tribute; for when I honoured you, when you were a private man from the inwards of my heart, how should not I honour you an Emperor? Thus Mr. B. Here it is necessary in the first place to observe the occasion, and necessity of Ambrose his writing. Many of the Roman Senate, being still Gentiles, had prevailed with Eugenius to furnish the expense of the public Sacrifices, as it was used to be in former times: Ambrose, who had prevented this indignity to Christian Religion under Valentinian and Theodosius, was earnestly solicited by his friends, to try his Authority with Eugenius, who was newly set up by the Army; with much unwillingness he at last undertook it. He gives him the Title of Emperor, and such Title as the condition of those times afforded, this Engenius had; being set up by the Army which had been in possession of the right of making Emperors for several ages. But though he were an Usurper, yet there is no flattery in using the common Style to him; so Justin Martyr calls Marcus Antoninus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pious, when he knew him to be an Idolater. St. Paul owns a respect due to the High Priest, although the office was Abrogated by our Saviour's Priesthood, and the Jewish Priests were now Usurpers. So Protestant Princes, when they have occasion to write to the Pope, are fain to use the Style of his Holiness; and yet by that Title are not to be understood to acknowledge his Usurpations. So Ambrose inscribed his Epistle, Clementissimo Imperatori Eugenio. But does not he flatter him with these Expressions, sedulitas Potestati debita? This is but a poor Compliment; and owned not farther than in general Terms; Honour, where Honour. But does not he profess he Honours him? He says indeed, when he was a private man he had respect for him, and should not he now pay it when he was Emperor? This question I believe is a little Artificial; and used on purpose because he would not speak out: as we may say by the words following, sed qui vobis deferri vultis, p●imini ut deferatur ei, quem imperii vestri vultis Autorem probari. But Sir, permit that Honour you would have paid you, to be given to him, whom you would have to be thought the Author of your Empire: whom you would have to be thought, is an intimation that he begged his pardon that he could not think so.  
But for a farther vindication of St. Ambrose, we may see more particularly from the same letter how he behaved himself towards this Usurper Eugenius. 1. Understanding he was to come to Milan, the Bishop left the Town, because he would not be forced to communicate with, or to own him: and in the beginning of this Epistle he gives Eugenius himself this short account of it; 
Paulin. in. vit. Ambr.  Secessionis mea causa timor Domini fuit. Nec pluris facere cujusvis Hominis, qua● Christi gratiam consuevi. i e. The fear of God was the occasion of my departure: and I am not used to make greater account of any man's favour, than of Christ's. Then after a large account of what he had urged to Valentinian and Theodosius, the Reader may see how far Ambrose was from any mean compliance with this Eugenius; whom he would have no Communication with, not so much as by writing, though urged and provoked to it: Ideo etiam in primordiis Imperii tui Seribenti non rescripsi, quia istud pravidebam futurum. In the beginning of thy Reign I did not answer thy Letter, because I foresaw what would be. Denique reposcenti litteras cum non Rescriberem, dixi, haec causa est quod extorquendum ei Arbitror: At last when I refused to writ upon second summons, I gave this reason, that I thought it must be extorted from him.  
And now since Mr. B. upon this Letter of St. Ambrose does Appeal to the Reader: Saying, Reader do not only judge of my two Epistles to R. Cromwell by these Passages, but even of theirs that submitted to Oliver himself; and yet judge of the Inferences that are raised by our Accusers. Since I say he does Appeal, he cannot be offended, if I set down some passages of those Epistles, and then let the Reader compare: I will be none of his Accusers, nor make the least Inference good or bad from them. Before his five Disputations of Church Government, he has an Epistle to his Highness Richard Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland. And it gins with these words.  
Sir,  
THese Papers are Ambitious of Accompanying those against Popery into your Highness 's presence, for the Tender of their service, and that upon the same account. The Controversies here decided, are those that have had a hand in most of the Great Transactions, that of late years have here past, and that still have a hand in the Differences that hinder our desired peace. I observe that the Nation Generally rejoiceth in your Peaceable entrance upon the Government: and are affected with indignation, if they hear but any Rumours that Troublesome Persons would disturb their hopes. And many are persuaded that you have been strangely kept from participating in any of our late bloody Contentions, that God might make you a Healer of our Breaches, and employ you in that Temple work which David himself might not be honoured with, though it was in his mind, because he had shed blood abundantly, and made great wars, 1 Chron. 22.7.8. I perceive also that some Settlement of Church Affairs will be expected from you by the most: And then after some bitterness against the Bishops and their party; and some sharpness against the Sectaries, and some discourse against a General Toleration in Religion, he comes at last to Advise the Protector to keep tenderly the Golden mean in this point, and for his own sake not to Indulge all; where we have this Remarkable passage, If you give liberty to all that is called Religion, you will soon be judged of no Religion, and loved accordingly: Then after some more particular Advice how to behave himself, Mr. B. adds, If you could be the happy instrument of taking away the Divisions of the Godly— this would be the way to lift you highest in the esteem and love of all your people; and make them see that you were Appointed of God to be a Healer and Restorer; and to Glory in you, and bless God for you, as the instrument of our chiefest peace.— I should have been as ready as another to censure such an Address as this, as guilty of Presumptuous boldness, but that I consider what is the work of my calling, and what it is to be faithful to the eternal God, and am Conscious of fidelity to your Highness in my boldness. My earnest Prayers for your Highness shall be, that your own soul being first subjected and devoted wholly to God, you may Rule as one that is Ruled by him, etc. And that God would endue your Highness with that Heavenly wisdom.— That so the eternal God may be engaged in the Protection of your Dominions and you.— Parliaments will love and Honour you, and Abhor the Motions that tend to a division, or your just displeasure: Ministers will hearty pray for you and praise the Lord for his mercies by you. And Teach all the people to love, and Honour, and obey you.— I crave your Hhigness Pardon for this Boldness, and your favourable acceptance of the tendered service of  
R. BAXTER.  
An Extract out of Mr. B's. Epistle Dedicatory to R. Cromwell before his Key for Catholics.  
Sir,  
THese Papers presume to tender you their service, because the subject of them is such as it most nearly concerns both us and you, that you be well acquainted with the Roman Canons that Batter the Unity, etc.— It is only the necessary defence of your life, and dignity, and lives of all the Protestants that are under your Protection or Government, and the souls of men, that I desire. The serious endeavours of your Renowned Father, for the Protestants of Savoy, discovered to the world by Mr. M. in his Letters, etc. Hath won him more esteem in the hearts of many that fear the Lord, than all his Victories in themselves considered, we pray that you may inherit a Tender care of the cause of Christ.— We humbly Request, that you would faithfully adhere to those that fear the Lord in your Dominions. Then speaking of several sorts of persons that he calls Masked Papists, (as I believe some were, and I am afraid there are more of the sort:) He mentions in the Tenth place, Those that under the pretence of defending Prelacy, and of uniting us to Rome, do adhere to the course of Grotius and St. Clara (one without the spirit of Divination may guests who are meant) and Vnchurch all Reformed Churches, degrade all the Ministers that are not of their way, while they maintain the verity of the Church of Rome and the Validity of her Ordination.— These Ten sorts of men we are jealous of, and if ever you Advance them into places of command or power, It will increase our jealousies.— last we beseech you that Toleration may be limited by execution as well as by Law— and who would have thought that had not known it, that they (the Jesuits and Friars) had so Insinuated into the several Sects among us, and that they were so industrious in their work, as the Newcastle Scottish Jew was, etc. At last after all his Advices and Petitions he adds,— If you ask who it is that Presumeth thus to be your Monitor: It is one that serveth so great a Master, that he thinks it no unwarrantable Presumption in such a case to be faithfully plain with the greatest Prince; it is one that stands so near eternity, where Lazarus shall wear the Crown, that unfaithful man-pleasing would be to him a double crime; it is one that rejoiceth in the present happiness of England, and wishes earnestly that it were but as well with the rest of the world, and that honoureth all the Providences of God by which we have been brought to what we are. And he is one, that concurring in the common hopes yet to these Nations under your Government. And observing your acceptance of the frequent Addresses, that from all Parts of the Land come to you, was encouraged to do what you daily allow your Preachers to do, and to Concur in the Tenders, and some performance of his service.— That the Lord will make you a Healer and preserver of his Churches here at Home, and a successful helper to his Churches abroad, is the earnest Prayer of your Highness' Faithful Subject,  
R. BAXTER.  
I hope Mr. B. will find no Reason to tax me of any disingenuity in this Extract, for I have not torn pieces of sentences, and concealed any thing that might give words a more favourable Construction; but I must confess it is with great Reluctance that I have been able to do it at all: And since Mr. B. himself refers to them, and compares them with Ambrose his Epistle, and endeavours to justify them by hinting at other instances, I could not avoid giving some account of them. I have promised to make no Inferences, Malicious, or not Malicious from them, but as to the occasion that has brought in all this, I must crave leave to show him, besides the expressions, a great difference between these Epistles and that he compared them with. For that was extorted by importunity, these are volunteer services to an Usurper. Eugenius had written twice to Ambrose before he would make any answer; and then he owns such a frowardness, that unless the Honour of Religion, threatened by the Restauration of Idolatry, had required it of him, he would not then have been prevailed with to have made any Applications to him: although there had passed an acquaintance and friendship between them, when Eugenius was a Private man: But Mr. B. was a stranger to R. Cromwell, and had no great temptation to dedicate books to him, nor any reasonable hopes that the Protector would ever read this Epistle. In short, if I were as worthy to advise Mr. B. as he was to advise Cromwell, I would say it were much more adviseable for a Christian (especially for one that thinks he is so near his Eternal State,) to repent and cry peccavimus with the Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon, whom he something Unchristianly derides, than to stand upon justification of the fact, and think to face it out by comparing himself with them that were so unlike him in all their circumstances.  
This odious, unpleasant work is no sooner done, but Mr. B. leads me into a subject much more Invidious, by his charging the late Rebellion upon the Bishops and their Party.  
But this I must add (says Mr. B.) ad homines, That it has been the Bishops themselves, that have been the grand cause of our Church Divisions and Separations. What advantage they have given the Separatists I have showed before: I am sure in the Congregation where I once was Teacher, and the Country about, nothing that ever came to pass, has so inclined the people to avoid the Prelates, as their own doing, especially the silencing, and Reproaching their Ancient Teachers, whom they knew longer and better than the Prelates did: and to say truth, the people generally are very Competent judges of their Pastors. But if the Bishops have been the Cause, the Grand cause of our divisions, how came it to pass that when the Bishops were gone, that these divisions increased? in other evils, when you remove the Grand cause, there follows abatement of the distemper: This strange disease of separation grows more incurable by removing the cause. But Mr. B. saith, the reproaching and Silencing of the ancient Ministers gave offence, and made the Bishop's odious. If Mr. B. means that which was done after his Majesty's Restauration: it will be an easy matter to answer, There were many of those Ministers that were Usurpers, and had intruded into the Churches of other men, who had been silenced, and cast out by those powers that had reason to be jealous of honest men. There were many others that were intruders into the Ministry, and such not a few of them as Mr. B. himself would not have thought fit to have continued. All the rest were such as would not submit to the Rule that was then Established in the Church, but chose rather to leave their Live, and the Bishops could not help it any other wise than as they were Members of Parliament; for it was the Law that tied them to that choice, and not the Bishops. If Mr. B. means what happened before the last Civil Wars; as 'tis likely he may because that follows next, than these Ancient Teachers that he speaks of, howsoever they might be qualified otherwise, were the instruments of an Anti-Monarchical, Anti Episcopal Faction. They would preach but they would not conform to the Established Religion. Nay many of them would Preach against it, and against their Governors too; and Alienate the people from them by their Sermons. These were such Incendiaries as no Government would have endured. And what manner of men several of them were may be observed from the Register of Norwich: where, 
Heyl. Life of Land, p. 291.  of four persons who were inhibited preaching, one was by Trade a Draper, another a Weaver, and a third a Tailor: and perhaps not altogether so learned as the Weavers and Plowmen of Kidderminster, whom Mr. B. vouches of Abilities not inferior to most of the Ancient Fathers. Yet by Silencing of these, saith Mr. B. the Bishops caused separation. It is pity the people should know no better than to follow such men as these out of the Church: but if there be such an absolute necessity that these men must preach I should think they would become a Conventicle much better than a Church.  
In the next place Mr. B. gives us a new account of the original of the late Wars: and affirms that it was a Parliament of Episcopals and Erastians', and not of Presbyterians, who first took up Arms in England against the King. It is well the Bishops had no share in it. But pray where were the Presbyterians, when this Parliament took up Arms, were they not yet in being? Or were there none of them in the House? Or did they Protest against the proceed of those Episcopals and Erastians'? As many of them as were of the Parliament I hope consented to the taking up of Arms; and it may be, may give Mr. B. little thanks for depriving them of the glory of the action. For the Erastians' I have not much to say; but that at last they outwitted the Presbyterians, although in the beginning they were reckoned all one. But can Mr. B. believe (or think any body else so weak as to be imposed upon in a matter so notorious) that it was a Parliament of Episcopals and Erastians', and not Presbyterians; that began the like War? were they Episcopals that voted down Episcopacy, Root and Branch before the war was begun? Were they Episcopals that Petitioned the King at York for Reformation in Discipline and Worship? i. e. for Abolishing of Episcopacy and Common Prayer? Were they Episcopals who in their humble desires tendered to the King at Oxford, 
Feb. 1. 1643.  pray him to give his Royal Assent for the utter Abolishing Arch-Bishops, Bishops, etc. out of the Church of England; and to promise to Pass other such Good Bills, for settling of Church Government, as upon consultation the Assembly of Divines shall be resolved on by both houses of Parliament? Were they Episcopas that enter into a Solemn League and Covenant against Episcopacy, and for Reforming of our Church after the Presbyterian Platform? In short were they Episcopals that set up Presbytery by so many and repeated Ordinances? 
Aug. 19 Oct. 20. Feb. 20.  And this was the Parliament that began and continued the War: The Erastians' and Independents were at first inconsiderable, and acted jointly with the Presbyterians, taking the Covenant as well as they; and some of them were present at the forming of it in Scotland. But afterwards, opposing the Establishment of Presbytery, they found a device to elude all the force of the Presbyterian Covenant, by the means of that clause in it, that Reformation intended was to be according to the word of God; which they conceived Presbyterian Government not to be. Some of them added, that the Covenant was so attemkpered on purpose to take them in; for their Principles they said were very well known when they took it. 
Grand. Debate. p. 89.90, 91, etc.  But the Presbyterians utterly denied any such thing, that they knew any principles of theirs that were contrary to Presbytery; and the Assembly of Divines in their First Conference with the dissenting Brethren, 
p. 108. etc.  urge the Honour of this Presbyterian Parliament as an argument against the Toleration of the Independents, 
p. 20.  because that in so doing, the Parliament should grant Liberty to destroy, and pull down, what themselves are endeavouring to set up. Now How these should be no Presbyterians who set up Presbytery, how they were Episcopals that destroyed Episcopacy, is (I must confess) too hard a Riddle for a man of a plain understanding; unless one may think that Mr. B. gives this Bishop-destroying Parliament the Title of Episcopal, as the Romans honoured several of their Generals with the Titles of those Nations they had overcome: or else that Mr. B. speaks by a figure, too frequent, though not very decent in History called Fiction.  
As to the particulars, with which Mr. B. concludes this Chapter I have so long dwelled upon, of the Parliaments Army, Generals, Lord Lieutenants, Assembly of Divines being Episcopals and Conformists, I had rather and body else should disprove than I: not that it is so difficult a matter, for who that can remember so long, or can read English does not know the contrary? But because I am unwilling to renew the memory of so unpleasant and odious things; and hearty wish, that as our Gracious King passed an Act of Oblivion for those matters, so they who enjoy the benefit of that act of Grace would suffer us to forget the occasion of it, or cease to presume that we have so far lost all memory and sense that we do not know the same things when we see them acted over again: But however Mr. B. informs us of the Original of the late Rebellion, I am sure there was a time when we had a very different account of things; there was a time when the Presbyterians and Independents contended who should have the greatest share of the Glory of having carried on that cause; and there is one who is very particular in this matter on the behalf of the Presbyterians, 
Bastwick of Independ. p. 624. & seq.  to whom I refer the Reader for his satisfaction.    


CHAP. I.  
A short View of the other Governments set up in opposition to Episcopacy.  
IF eminent places or offices, as they give authority and jurisdiction, could likewise secure those that are possessed of them from errors in Administration; if any character or order could so Consecrate the person that bears it, as to exempt him from the Common condition of Humane frailty, and from a possibility of being wicked; the world must needs be happy, by submitting to such a constitution, and then Schism and Sedition would have no Pretext. But if after all the Accessions of authority and honour, men retain their nature and their manners, and are subject to passions as they were before, it is no wonder if all degrees and Denominations can furnish Numerous instances, of vice and infamy, and the more eminent any order is, the more frequent examples of evil men, it commonly affords: For the blemishes of such persons are more Conspicuous, and exposed to public view and observation, and the eyes of all men are fixed upon them, so as they will quickly discern what is amiss, nor are they less forward to censure their miscarriages. Besides it is possible that the Governing part may not always consist of the best men, for ambition makes men Industrious in the pursuit of power, and goes a shorter and generally a more effectual, though less direct way to obtain it. And when they are in possession, they begin to discover that temper they before Artificially concealed, and become more open, since they have less restraint. Lastly even Power itself is a great temptation, and an eminent private virtue has often times lost itself in the Exercise of Authority, as weak heads grow giddy when they are placed upon a height.  
But however it comes to pass, so it is, that there is no sort of Government whether of Church or State, which any one that has a mind to disgrace it, may not show to have been in the hands of very infamous Persons; and that the best that have possessed it were not without their faults. If one have a mind to Reproach Monarchy there are Nero's and Caligula's enough; nay Augustus and Trajan, who are reckoned the best of that rank, had great and some inexcusable faults: If one he inclined to rail against Commonwealths: the Ingratitude of Athene or Rome or Carthage towards their best friends and preservers will furnish him with Infinite matter. If one would Disgrace Episcopaacy, Church History is full of evil contentious Bishops, Paulus Samosatenus, Eusebius, Nicomed, Nestorius, Dioscorus, and innumerable others: and the most Orthodox and holy were not without their blemishes. Theophilus, Cyril, Epiphanius had very undecent heats. Nay the Apostles themselves had a Judas, and the rest of them were not free from misunderstandings, which must needs give great offence to the Church: What shall we do then in this case? Shall we submit to no Government that has been profaned by evil administration? shall we be of no Church that has any mixture of the world? Shall we renounce Monarchy because we have read of Tyrants? or throw down Episcopacy, because some of that order have been unworthy of it? By this reason we must have no Government or order at all, or as the Apostle infers, we must go out of the world. But since our necessities require some kind of order, and there can no number of men live by any Common Rule, whether of Religion or Law, without authority placed in some hands or other to enforce it; and since God himself was pleased to appoint the kind of Government under which his Church was to be; notwithstanding that evil men might creep into the office, we remain still under an Obligation to submit ourselves to it, and it is not in our power to alter that constitution. This Mr. B. and all the Dissenters will easily grant, and therefore they say that they contend only for the Primitive Institution of Church Government. Be it so: yet this long deduction of reproach and accusation does not prove any thing to the prejudice of the office; and this notwithstanding, Episcopacy may be the Church Government of the Apostles settling; for those things that fill Mr. B.'s Indictment against Bishops are the faults of the men not of the Office, and the same miscarriages may be discovered in other kinds of Church Government that are not Episcopal. And since every project is more plausible, and seems to have fewer inconveniencies in the Idea than in the use; lest any one for want of experience, or History, may think Presbytery, or any Church Government that is not Episcopal to be subject to no abuse or Disorders, I will give a short account of the Rise and Progress of that form of Government, that has obtained in such of the Reformed Churches as have cast off their Bishops; and show that they have suffered under the same Calamities, that had befallen Episcopal Churches, and are guilty of most of the same things, as requiring subscriptions, Conformity, etc. as our Bishops against whom all this History, and bitterness is directed.  
It is not yet a Hundred and fifty years that the Church has known any other Government but Episcopal; and the newer Models of Church Polity have obtained but in a small part even of the Reformed Churches; and that in some places under Persecuting Princes, who more effectually keep under the Tares in the field of the Church, prevent excesses, and Unite the suffering Church, than any sort of Church Government or Discipline whatsoever: yet the Histories even of these Churches can furnish too many instances of Tumult and disorder, of Heresies Schisms, and contentions, of Wars, and Desolations: and if this cannot be drawn into any argument against the Presbyterian way, there is less reason it should be urged against Episcopacy, that for so long time obtained over the Universal Church: which under this constitution, had passed through fire and water, and then was brought into a wealthy place, through distresses, and Persecutions, through all the encouragements of wealth and power. And in short, through all the Trials that can be made by all the differences of outward condition, and Circumstances.  
They who fancy a time when the Church had no Bishops, do represent it as then full of discord, and Distraction, (I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas.) So that as, they say, it was necessary for the preservation of peace and Unity to appoint one person over the rest: and if the Presbyterian parity had any place in the Primitive times as some do imagine, it must needs have been an intolerable kind of Government, since all on the sudden it was Universally abolished; it must have given strange occasion of offence when all the Christian Churches in the world should conspire to Abrogate this Polity, and to destroy all the memory and footsteps of it, so that in the lamentable distractions which the Church fell into afterwards under Bishops, none should so much as propose this way of relief, by returning to their Ancient Government; and the people that were so harassed with perpetual contentions about their Bishops must either think that there could be no Church where there was no Bishop, or else that Presbyterian parity, or a Popular Church Government would occasion yet greater mischiefs than those they suffered. That the inconveniences are not less, will appear from the experience of such Churches as have cast off Episcopacy, some of which, (at leastwise a good number of very understanding men in them,) do at time this wish that they might be governed by Bishops, and conceive it to be the only remedy for their divisions.  

Beza in vitâ Calvini. J. Lassitius de Discip. Frat. Bohem. Calvin. Ep. ad fratr Bohem. Eccles. Bohem. ad Ang. Paraenes.  In the beginning of the Reformation those Eminent Instruments whom God was pleased to employ in that work, were so wholly taken up with preaching, and writing against those gross errors and superstitions which had covered the face of Christianity, that they had little or no leisure to look after Discipline or Government; and did do the work of Evangelists, rather than Governors of the Church. But when they saw to what mischiefs the want of Government and discipline exposed the Reformed Churches, and were thereby convinced that there must be building up as well as pulling down; then they began seriously to consider of some Ecclesiastical Polity: For many had joined with them in pulling down Superstition and Papal Tyranny, who, when they began to discover their opinions more particularly, became intolerable, and advanced such doctrines, as did not only destroy Christianity, but all Government and society. 
Muntzer. Swenckfeld etc.  These by good providence were neither Bishops, nor Episcopal men, but against all sort of Church Government and order, and while there is any of this leaven remaining, let what sort of Government you please obtain, there will never be an end of Schism and Sedition. For if Episcopacy be Abolished, what ever is established in its Room, will be accounted by such men every whit as Antichristian; and Presbyterian Glasses and Synods, or Congregational Episcopacy will have no fairer quarter; for these will admit no Government, no Law, but that which will permit every one to do what he pleases; and that will set up a State of Grace just like Hobbs his state of nature. It is very much to be feared, that this is the most prevailing principle among our Anti-Episcopal Dissenters. And if out of such inconsiderable beginnings they increased so fast when the fences of our Church had been once taken away, as not only to ruin all projects of unity and Establishment, but to possess themselves of the Government; what may we expect now when they are formed into considerable parties, and outnumber those of the Classical and Parochial Presbyterians; that is, all that are for any sort of settlement that may be suited to the Circumstances of this Nation? What may we not have Reason to fear, if the Laws which give check to their Insolences were once taken away? And if they should be taken in under the Notion of Protestants? A dishonour from which it has pleased God hitherto to preserve that name, according to the prayers of the first Reformers, who dreaded the growth of Sects, no less than the return of Popery itself.  
But besides that Heresy may spring where there are no Bishops, as there were none in the Reformation, when those Monsters first appeared; There can be also bitter contentions about Religion, where Bishops have nothing to do. Luther, and Carolostadius were no Bishops, 
M. adam's in vit. Carolost.  and yet they could quarrel, and disturb the Reformation they had in hand with their Jars. Carolostadius in Luther's. Absence Reformed the Church of Wittenborg, took away Images. Auricular Confession, etc. Which Luther took offence at, as being done without his Authority, or advice, which was the beginning of the Sacramentarian War: and M. Adam's blames them both in these words, visus est uterque cupidior Gloria. Luther was angry that any body should set up himself a new master in a place where he was so much concerned, and could not endure, Ordinationes suas in Populo pressâ mea authoritate erigi: And this contention was so Exasperated that after a Conference, Carolostadius was Banished from Turingia by the Elector of Saxonie's order, and the instigation of Luther; and some other Ministers were turned out of their places upon the same Account: and the sufferer did not spare to render all this Treatment as Invidious as he could, and therefore writes a Letter to the people of Orlamund, Subscribed A. Bodenstein, non Auditus, non Convictus, à Martino Luthero Ejectus: If Bishops or their Councils had been concerned in this, what Bitter Reflections should we have upon the Prelatical persecuting Spirit? But it seems other men as well as Bishops have passions, and may disturb the Church: Yet we are not to aggravate, but to cover as much as we can the frailties of great persons, and to retain still a Reverence for the Authority of their Offices, and their Personal Excellences.  
But wherever the Lutheran Reformation was received, Diocesan Episcopacy soon became the Church Government; and I believe it will be found to have preserved those Churches in as great peace and Unity, if not more, than those had that were Governed without Bishops. The Churches of Sweden and Denmark never knew what Schism or Heresy was, but by reading or hear-say: and those of Germany, though something more disquieted, yet it was seldom from within, but by Projects of Union with other Churches under a different kind of Polity, as well as of different opinions in some points of Religion: It is to be wished that the Churches of the Ausburg Confession, as they took care to preserve the Ancient form of Church Governmet, had been also a little more careful in the point of Ordination: For their Bishops, though they have the same authority with Diocesans, yet were at first ordained but by Presbyters; and the Principles of those Churches touching the right of ordination are so lose, that I believe those of the Presbyterian Discipline will hardly allow them. Hunnius defending their Ordinations, says, the power is in the Church diffusive; and that it may be conveyed, not only by Bishops or Presbyters, but by Deacons, or any body else if the Church think fit: and I am afraid the Practice of some of those Churches is not otherwise to be justified.  
But before this Lutheran Reformation, was that of the Bohemians; not that of the Calixtins only, but the Vnitas fratrum Bohemorum; whose Churches were governed by Diocesan Bishops; and where Discipline was so far from being Impossible, 
Commenii. Hist. Eccles. Slau. p. 32.  notwithstanding the Dioceses were very large, that they were perhaps the best Governed Churches in the world: Bucer speaking of this Government, says, haec verò est Coelestis potius, quam Ecclesiastica in Terris Hierarchia, and Calvin was so taken with this Government, as well as Discipline, that he looks upon their Governing and ordaining Pastors as no inconsiderable blessing, 
Ep. ad Pastor. Bohem.  Neque Vero parvo est estimandum quod tales habent pastors a quibus Regantur & Ordinentur: and those were their Bishops, as may be seen in that Account they gave of themselves in Ratio Disciplinae Ordinisque Ecclesiastici in Vnitate fratrum Bohemorum, printed at Lesna, 1632. and afterwards at the Hague by Commenius, 1660. Whoever would know more of these Episcopal Diocesan Churches may consult Lasitius, or the short Accout of Commenius, the then only Remaining Bishop of those Churches. And these had such Bishops as were not only invested with the full Authority of Diocesans over several Churches, but such as had been ordained according to the Canons of the Ancient Church, 
Stephanus. accito Episcopo altero, etc. Come. Hist. p. 24.  by the Bishops of the Waldenses, who derived themselves by an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles.  
It is time now to Return to the Principal Design, which was to show, how no other form of Government can secure the Church from Heresy, Schism, and Contention, any more than Episcopacy; and that those Churches which put themselves under new Models of Government and discipline, have been exercised with Schism, Heresy, and Sedition, no less than those under Episcopacy.  
The Churches which followed the Reformation of Zuinglius had at first no Government nor discipline that was properly, Ecclesiastical. All authority rested in the Civil Magistrate, and the Ministers did only preach and administer the Sacraments without excluding any. It was from this practice (I suppose) that the Divines of that way came to speak generally so loosely of the power of the Keys, making it all to consist in preaching, without any regard to Ecclesiastical discipline. But the Licentiousness that followed this defect of Discipline and Government, soon opened the eyes of the Ministers, who Complained passionately of the Increase of Libertinism under pretence of Reformation; and endeavoured to make the people sensible, that there is more required to make a true Protestant, than to Renounce the Pope, and Transubstantiation; and that the Notion of a Church did imply something more than a Company of sound believers met together to hear a Sermon. Calvin, a person of extraordinary Abilities, was one of the first that observed and Complained of this defect in the Reformation; and endeavoured to Remedy it in the Church where he was Pastor, by Establishing an Ecclesiastical Government: 
Baza vit Calv.  and that perhaps not such as he thought most perfect and absolute, but such as the Circumstances of the place would bear. The people of Geneva were sufficiently prejudiced against Episcopacy, having turned out their Bishop, who had likewise a title to be their Prince; and to have talked of Introducing a Bishop there, would have sounded as harsh as the mention of a King would have done to the Romans after the expulsion of Tarquin. But suppose they could have been Reconciled to the name and the office, upon assurance it should not exceed its proper bounds; it is possible Calvin might look upon it as too Invidious a proposal to his Church, for fear of being understood to recommend himself; and to affect dominion over his Brethren; Episcopacy then seeming Impracticable in that place, he devised a form of Government that should be more popular and consequently more acceptable the Ministers were to be all of equal Authority, and were in the first place to govern the Church, and with them a certain number out of the Laity under the Title of ruling Elders were to have a share in the Church Government; and this mixed Council without any Bishop was to exercise all Ecclesiastical Censures and Jurisdiction. One would think this would be unexceptionable, but it proved otherwise; for this frame was no sooner begun, but it was presently broken in pieces, and the Author banished: But his Reputation abroad made them reflect upon this Treatment with shame, and desire him to return: With him this Government was restored, which was so far from remedying all disorders that it became the occasion of some very great ones; and the State of that Church as it is described by Calvin in his letters to his friends, and by Beza in his life, was most lamentably distracted; and this Government was made odious in the beginning of it by very harsh, and rigorous proceed. The Expulsion of Castellio a man of Great and Polite Learning, was too Invidious. The opposing of the Senate in the Election of a Minister to such a point of heat and Contention, 
Beza vit. Calv.  as to endanger the peace of the City, wanted little of Sedition. Calvin's quarrels with Perinus came to that height, that the Council of the City had almost cut one another's throats about it. Siquidem eousque semel in ipsâ curiâ deventum est, coactis Diacosiis, & pene exertis jam Ensibus parum abfuerit quin mutuis caedibus ipsam Curiam cruentarent. And what was the reason of so dangerous a Contention? No Article of the Creed was in danger; It was not for any part of the faith that they contended so fiercely: the greatest occasion of all this stir was some Recreations, as Dancing, which the People of Geneva were addicted to, and Calvin forbade upon pain of Excommunication, this bred the first discontents. Perinus being Captain of the people, and perhaps a lover of Liberty, began to oppose this Tyranny, and to charge Calvin with false Doctrine; two of the Ministers joined with him, and were turned out, as Scandalous and Seditious: and so by degrees the Contention was improved to that desperate point that the Common Council of the City had almost destroyed one another. I might add a great many more instances of the Tumults occasioned by this Discipline; and show how distracted the condition of Geneva was during the time of Calvin, merely upon the account of this form of Ecclesiastical Government; But whoever desires to see more may have Recourse to Calvin's life written by Beza.  
But as to the Rigours of that Discipline, I suppose the Highest Tyranny of Epilcopacay can hardly match them. One was put to death at Geneva for Libelling Calvin: I wish the Majesty of Kings were so Sacred to the men of this way. Another was banished the City for preaching against Predestination, a hard punishment for weakness of understanding. Servetus was burned for Heresy; by the Instigation of Calvin and the Ministers of Geneva, and such others of the Neighbour hood as they could engage in that cause; which occasioned not small disputes between them, and some other more Moderate Divines: the Case of Ithacius and the bloody Bishops, as Mr. B. calls them, was not half so odious: for this Heretic Servetus was burned for opinions only, the Priscillianists for lewd abominable Practices besides.  
Nor did Geneva only feel the evil effects of this unepiscopal Government, but it had in a little while an unhappy Influence upon the Neighbouring Churches of Suitzerland. Erastus' having published his Theses of Excommunication, was confuted by Beza; yet there remained still several Ministers dissatisfied; as Bullinger, Gualther and divers others. This occasioned very great jealousies between the several Parties, and it had almost come to a Rupture. The Churches of the Palatinate were no less shaken with this new Controversy, 
Vid. Bullingeri Epcum Erasti. Thes. Editas.  and the zealots for this Government and discipline took all occasions publicly to maintain them; but the Prudence of that Prince prevented the mischiefs which threatened his Churches from this question. Bullinger in a Letter dated March. 10. 1574. and Gualther in some Letters of his to the Bishops of London and Ely, and several other eye-witnesses do sufficiently testify the Lamentable condition of those Reformed Churches, and the Confusion which Presbyterian Government brought upon them.  
From Geneva this Government was brought into the Churches of France. But what success it had there, the Miserable distractions and wars that presently followed do sufficiently declare: I do not charge all that Tragedy upon this Government; but it seems it cannot prevent Tumults, and Sedition, and War, any more than Episcopacy: For with what violence the Reformation was carried on in many parts of that Kingdom, is not unknown to any that has but looked into the Histories of those times. There were some very wise men who understood the condition of that Kingdom, of opinion, that had the Reformation there proceeded with more Moderation, and been content to have left the Ancient Government, and some observances of unquestionable Antiquity, that Kingdom was in a great disposition to receive it: and in probability all the following Wars, and bloodshed about Religion would have been prevented.  
That the Reformed Churches of France had no considerable differences between them, is owing not so much to the Constitution of their Government, as to their Common danger: which United them closer than all the bands of Discipline and Government. Besides, when they obtained some Edicts in favour of their Religion, they Extended them only to such as their Churches would own; and so every dissenter from them, was left to the Rigour of the Laws against Heretics, and enjoyed no benefit of that Protection which the Reformed Churches were to have. Upon this account the Lutherans (of whom there were many in that Kingdom in the beginning of the Reformation) were obliged either to Conform to the Rule of those Churches, or to leave the Country: and these necessities kept them along while Undivided. Besides this, the affairs of that Reformation were managed, not so much by their Ministers, as by the great Persons who were the Heads of that party: and their Synods were employed not so much in making Ecclesiastical Canons; as in taking effectual measures for their mutual defence and preservation; in receiving assurances of Protection from foreign Princes; 
La vie de Mr. Dis Plesses. Mornay. p. 119, 120, 123, 124, 231, 280, & 345.  in making Alliances; in providing for Peace and War, so that they might be more properly called Parliaments than Synods, although they had their Politic Assemblies besides.  
And yet they were not without their differences about Religion among themselves. Some Ministers starting new and unprofitable questions in Divinity, their remedy was no other than that of the Ancients, to condemn such opinions as they judged to be dangerous by the Authority of their Synods: and they descended to take notice of very trifling subtleties some times, such being unregarded, would perhaps have died of themselves. The Synod of Saumur condemned a Minister of Poictou for questioning the Humanity of Christ when he lay in the Grave, and the same Assembly condemned the Doctrine of a Suiss, not under their jurisdiction, about justification by works after Regeneration, a Controversy merely about words; another Synod at Gap. declared against the Doctrine of Piscator about Justification, which Alarmed some of the Reformed Churches; but the Prudence of Du Plessis prevented any mischief that might have ensued, by stopping the proceed of that Synod. P. D. Moulin and Tilenus happened to have some difference of a dangerous nature, about the Mystery of the Incarnation: and notwithstanding these great Professors had learning and distinctions enough, (which Mr. B. says the Ancients that first moved this Controversy wanted,) yet they could by no means agree about it; and disputes about Person, Nature, Properties had like to have endangered the peace of those Churches. But how was it prevented? The Litigants were too considerable to be passed by with Contempt, and the subject of the difference was of so high a nature, that it ought not to be left to the hazard of so slight a remedy: How then was this Controversy decided? Not by Niceness of Distinction; no● by distingushing nature into 9 sorts, or splitting of Notions; But the wise Du Plessis having got their Papers into his hands burned them altogether: and the fire (without making distinction between the Orthodox, and Heretical sense) put an end to that Controversy. 
Vid● Du Pless. p. 388.  But yet it was not quite ended, for it began to revive afterwards o●● of its own Ashes, and so made some little flattering, but was composed again by the same Person; to whose prudence the Unity of that Church is in great measure to be ascribed, as the Instrument of the Divine goodness towards them: for after his death the peace of those Churches was very much endangered by a new Controversy about Universal Redemption, and the Nature of Original sin; and the Dissension was not far from a Schism. Cameron though he had cleared himself of all suspicion of Heterodoxy at his promotion to the Professourship of Saumur, had the bad fortune after his death to fall into suspicion of Heresy: and his Scholars and followers were brought into no small troubles: What had been allowed by the Synod of Dort as sound Doctrine in the English Divines, was now called in question in France, and what was approved in Camero while he was alive, 
Acts Authentiques per Blondel.  became dangerous and Heretical after his death. It is hardly to be imagined, what great contention this little, and to some, Imperceptible difference did create; or how many Synods it employed, Amyraldus, Dallee, Blondel, and several others were looked upon as little better than Heretics; and their Doctrine about Original sin condemned in a National Synod at Charenton, and an Abjuration of it required by all those that were to enter into holy orders; and a stricct Injunction was laid on all Ministers upon pain of all the Censures of the Church, not to preach any other wise of this point than according to the Common opinion. And all this stir, as Blondel deduces it, 
p. 50.  was raised from little private quarrels between some of the Profesours; and from the discontents of the University of Montauban that they of Saumur should be favoured too much in the distribution of such Pensions as the Churches furnished for the maintenance of their Universities; and they thought themselves wronged and undervalved because their Salaries were less: We see that lesser matters than a Bishopric can sometimes disturb the Church; and that others as well as Bishop's shops can prosecute their private piques to the hazard of the Public peace; and that there will be contentions where there is no Episcopacy.  
If we Consult the History of the Reformed Churches in the United Netherlands, We shall be farther confirmed that Heresy, Schifm, and contention, may arise under other forms of Church Government as well as Episcopal; and the parity of Ministers cannot remove all occasions of Strife, and Disturbance; and many eminent men of that Church are said to be very sensible of this truth, and to look upon Episcopacy as the most effectual remedy in the world for their Divisions. The Church Government of that Country was not established without great trouble and difficulty; and occasioned no small disturbance; the Ministers taking an authority to themselves of settling the Church as they thought fit without the consent and Concurrence of the Magistrates. The first Synod they held, was at Dort, assembled without the permission of the Civil Authority; 
Brandt. Hist. vande Reform. l. xi.  where the Heidelberg Catechism was imposed upon all Ministers; and they were farther obliged to subscribe the netherlands Confession, and to submit themselves to the Presbyterian Government. (It seems the Bishops are not the only Church. Governors in the world that require subscriptions and Canonical obedience,) Nor were the Ministers only bound to subscribe, but all the Lay Elders, and Deacons, were to declare Assent and Consent to the Articles of Discipline. The Civil Magistrate was very much offended with these Proceed and would by no means confirm, no not so much as take into Consideration the acts of this Synod: but said they would take care of Religion themselves, and appoint Commissioners to put in, and put out Preachers as they should think Expedient; and as for their Consistories and Classes, they declared they knew of no Power they had. The Ministers on the other side Preached up their own authority; and vilified the States, calling them in derision Stakes. But the effect of this Contention about Presbyterian Government was very sad; for while they were quarrelling about Jurisdiction the Spaniards made great Advances, and took several Towns in Holland.  
The Synod of Middlebrough An. 1581. 
B●and 13.  was held likewife without the Magistrates leave, and the Historian observes that the Eccleslasticks were thought by several to have extended their Jurisdiction here a little too far, and to the prejudice of the Civil power. Here they distributed their Churches, throughout the Country, digesting them into Classes, and Classes into Synods. Here likewise they excluded the Magistrates from any share in the Election of Church Officers, and obliged all Ministers, Elders, Deacons, Professors of Divinity, and Schoolmasters, to subscribe the netherlands Confession; which was little so known there, that several members of this Synod had never seen it, and began to inquire what Confession of 37 Articles it was that they talked of. They ordered likewise that the form of Excommunication should be, I deliver thee up to Satan; something more harsh than the anathemas of Bishops and their Councils. Here also they condemned Kaspers' Colhaes Minister of Leyden for unsound Doctrine. But he would not stand to the judgement of this Synod, that was Judge and Party both, and this occasioned strange disorders in the Church of Leyden, which continued still a kindness for their Pastor notwithstanding this condemnation, and the Excommunication of the Synod at Harlem. However prevailed they so far, that he was turned out of his Ministry, and forced to betake himself to a mean employment. This caused great discontents among the Common people, many of them fell off to other opinions, and there was no Communion administered in that City for a year and a half; and when there was a Communion in the year 82 there were not a hundred persons present at it: If these Synods had been Episcopal what Clamour might we have expected? What Animadversions? But others can disturb the Church as well as Bishops.  
The Synod held at Harlem did but increase their confusion. For by the Excommunication of Colhaes and other proceed, they brought all things to that confusion, that the Prince of Orange told the States roundly, that unless they took some care to settle the Church, which was daily more and more distracted by the Presbyterial Synods, they must expect that the Reformed Religion, and their Country, would be unavoidably lost. They according to his advice empowered Commissioners to settle the affairs of Religion; which establishment the North Holland Ministers in a Synod at Amsterdam publicly protested against. At Dort, Herman Herbert's Minister of the place was accused of having caused a Book of D. George to be be printed, which he absolutely denied: and the proceed were so extraordinary, that one of the Commissioners that sat with the Classes upon that occasion, said that he had read much of the Spanish Inquisition, 
H. van. Nespen.  but that he never was in any place where he saw so lively and effectual a representation of it as here. An. 1586. A National Synod was called to sit at the Hague by the order of the Earl of Leicester, without the States; and here they insisted upon their Ecclesiastical authority, and excluded the Magistrate from any voice in the choosing of Church Officers; That a National Synod should meet every third year, without the Magistrates leave; and subscription was more strictly pressed upon the Ministers under pain of being turned out of their Churches.  
But these were but slight differences in respect of that which followed, that fatal Schism I mean occasioned by the Arminian Controversy. The seeds of it had lain in that Church from the beginning; and Colhaes, ●uyrhuis, herbert's, I'o ●hert, and divers o●hers had declared themselves against the received confession and Catechism of those Churches long before Arminius. But his authority and learning bore up against the Current of the contrary Doctrine, that had overborne such as before that had opposed it: 
See the preface to the Acts of the Synod of Dore.  and now, the condition of those Churches was most deplorable, for several years together there was nothing but perpetual Dispute, and Cla●rour; Conference after Conference; and Synod after Synod; Appeal, upon Appeal. At last it came to Tumult and Sedition; to Confusion and bloodshed. Ministers were turned out of their charges, some Banished, 
Vid. vit. Episcopii.  others set upon by the Rabble, and in danger to be torn in pieces. Nothing can be imagined more distracted than the state of those Churches was for a long wh●le together. At last, after all the interposing and good offices of other Reformed Churches, but without effect, a general Synod was resolved upon, where the Remonstrants were condemned, and the Civil Magistrate seconded this sentence by another more severe, whereby they Banished the Ministers that would not subscribe, many of them were imprisoned, and in short Bishops could not have procured greater rigour and severity; which here seemed to be more grievous, where every body else had liberty of Conscience, and Jews were allowed a public exercise of their Religion. And yet these very points in difference, that not only rend these Churches in pieces, but shook those of France, who confirmed the Decrees of the Synod of Dort, and turned out such Ministers as favoured the condemned Doctrine, and required subscriptions to the contrary opinions, of such as were to be admitted into the Clergy; these points (I say,) have not had the same unhappy influence upon some other Churches that were Episcopal. Men in our Church have taught very differently of these matters, and yet the Unity of the Church hath been still preserved notwithstanding this difference of opinions: which shows that Episcopal government is not so subject to Schism, as Mr. B. would make the world imagine, and to say the truth ours has been troubled with no other such difference but what hath been made in opposition to the very form of Government itself; and there is no wonder if it seems so difficult to heal it, since the Church can not otherwise satisfy these men than by destroying the whole frame of its Government and order, and it is strange any should expect it, that did not believe all those under the rule of the Church to be Hypocrites. These men talk much of Ceremonies and Liturgy; but this is the least of the difference, though it be most pretended, because most useful to render the Governors of the Church odious, for shutting men out of it for such Circumstances as these. This makes most noise, as a false, Alarm commonly does; but the real design is upon the Government. Therefore those that fancy any Accommodation practicable upon any allowances in this part, seem to my apprehension to mistake the disease; for Alas! It is not accommodation but Victory that these men aim at. But to return to the Churches of Holland, whose Schism gave occasion to this digression.  
After the Synod of Dort, though all means were used to suppress the Remonstrants, yet they remain still in separate Assemblies, and the unhappy breach continues to this day, without any probability of being made up. 
Vid. Spanbmite. Ep. ad Amie.   
When they had tired themselves and the world with this Controversy, they were diverted with new matter of dispute; the names of Voetius and Cocceius, rather than any difference between their Doctrine, disturbed again the peace of those Churches. And though the ground of the quarrel is scarce perceivable, yet it is hardly to be imagined how great the Animosities are. This indeed never came to a formal Schism, yet it has divided those Churches into formal parties; and in some occasions the quarrel seems of more than ordinary consequence; and has great influence upon the Promotions of the Ministry; and the Affections of several Cites are determined to this or that party.  
And as these Presbyterian Churches have been afflicted with Schism and contentions, so they have been sensible of the mischiefs of Heresy, and labour more than any part of the Christian world under the Infamy of them. Here the Ministers have no great Revenues, nor dignities, nor Power; and here are no Patriarches, nor Bishops; and yet Heresies makes a shift to thrive; Arians, Socinians, Menonists, Labadyists, and divers others; they are neglected, no general Councils disturb the enjoyment of their errors, and yet they abound, and are pertinacious.  
Nor is it a wonder they take such deep root in Presbyterian Churches; for of late, like Storks, they have affected a republican Church above all others; and it is observable that in these last ages, there have been no Heretics that have not been likewise Anti-Episcopal; and at the same time that they become enemies of the truth, they declare war against the Bishops who are the Guardians of it.  
If it be objected that our Country swarms with this Vermin too, it ought to be considered from whence they came to be so rife among us. It was the taking away of Episcopacy that opened such a door to errors; and there were more Heresies started here in the space of four years after Bishops had been laid aside, if Edward's reckons right, than have been known in the Universal Church from the foundation of it to that time. And those that fall into Heresy here, do it commonly by degrees; They begin with Schism, and end in Enthusiasm and madness; first they are Presbyterians, and then, if that dispensation be not spiritual enough, they are improved in to Independents, and from thence to the fifth Monarchy or Quakerism. All the extravagant Heresies among us are but the spawns of the first Schism, and the consequences of those Principles of Separation that draw them from the Communion of the Bishop.  
The Church of Scotland has felt the Distractions occasioned by this Parity of Ministers more than any of her Neighbours; and though it has not been divided by a formal Schisin till of late, yet from the first setting up of this Government, it has been exercised with perpetual contentions, and Tumults, and Sedition, about Church Discipline. Mr. B. tells us that, 
Treatise of Episc. p. 1. p. 164.  The Church of Scotland is an Eminent instance, that Churches which have no Bishops have incomparably less Heresy, Schism, wickedness, and more concord than we have here. For the concord of that Church, it was much greater while it continued under Superintendents and Bishops, than it has been since Andrew Melvil diiturlied it with the Perfection of the Geneva Discipline and Government. For a long time after, all the Disputes about Religion were reduced into one point of Ecclesiastical sovereign jurisdiction; which they disputed against the King and the Government, with such perpetual Seditions, and Treasons, as at last engaged three Kingdoms in most unnatural and bloody Wars; which ended in the slavery of them all, and particularly of those that were the first Incendiaries, through the wise and just judgement of God. What Schism there arose in the late times, between the disciplinarians, and the rest; and what disturbances the same sort of men have given of late; is too well known to need a relation, and the field Conventieles still witness. But because Mr. B. would persuade us that there is such great concord to be found in Anti-Episcopal Churches, and particularly in this; I will give one Instance, that shall let the reader see how far this way is from establishing a lasting Concord; and withal how this parity that is pretended, is really no more than a pretence, the leading men against Bishops commonly assuming greater authority, and exercising it with greater Absoluteness, and more Impatient of being opposed and contradicted, than any Bishops who are legally Invested with power.  
There happened a great division in the Presbytery of St. 
Spotswood. H. of Scot 1.6.  Andrews about preferring a Minister to the Church of Luchars. There were two pretenders, and Melvil with a few more was for one, and the rest who were three times as many in number, were for the other; Melvil looking upon himself as an Apostle, and disdaining to be overruled by the Majority of the Presbytery, left the place, and with his six Presbyters that followed him, made another Synod by himself: and both these Presbyters, like Anti. Popes, Issued out their several pleasures. The Gentlemen of the Parish upon this were divided into factions; some holding with one, and some with the other, which occasioned great scandal: and the heats grew to that height, that the Presbytery was forced to be divided; one part of it to sit at St. Andrews, the other at Couper; the one under the Influence of Melvil, and the other under that of Th. Buchanan; so hard it was for one Presbyterial Diocese to hold two Topping Presbyters. The observation that follows the relation of this difference in Spotswood is very remarkable: Thus was that great strife pacified; which many held to be Ominous, 
p. 386.  and that the Government which in the beginning did break forth into such Schisms, could not long continue; for this every man noted, That of all men none could worse endure Parity, and loved more to Command than they who had introduced it into the Church. This sort of men did afterwards make not only a formal Schism, and insurrection against those Bishops placed over them by authority, but after that Episcopacy was abolished in Scotland, could be as little at peace among themselves. They were in the first place divided about the receiving the King, and the Conditions to be Imposed upon him; and in this they proceeded even to the Excommunication of one another. After his Majesty's Restauration, when Episcopacy was again established in the Church: the Presbyterians who separated from the Communion of the Bishops, were divided yet among themselves some accepting the King's Indulgence and Licence to Preach, others renouncing it as derogatory to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ: and upon this they parted Communion; Nor could these resolute Renouncers of Indulgence agree yet among themselves, about the measure of their Contempt of authority; some were content to Conventicle, and Preach against the King's order, and carry their Contempt no farther; the others under Cameron were more fiercely Zealous, and thought themselves obliged by the Covenant to attempt the deposing of the King, as they manifested (besides their several Writings to that effect,) by two formal Rebellions: These are the fruits, this the Peace and Unity that Presbytery, and the Scotch Covenant produced, the Covenant so much Idolzed once by our Presbyterians of England, and which notwithstanding all the Mischiefs that attended it here, and do still issue from it in Scotland, they are yet loath to renounce, though required so to do by all the Authority in the Nation.  
But what is all this to Congregational Episcopacy? It is not Presbytery, but this that Mr. B. Contends for: He is for Bishops, and would only pair off the superfluities of their Dioceses, and reduce them to their first bounds. To which I answer: First, That Mr. B.'s. Congregational Bishop and Parish Presbyter is all one; and he has taken so much pains to prove it in his Treatise of Episcopacy, that it were an injury to his sincerity to question his opinion of it. But Secondly, That there was some necessity to say all this of Presbyterian Governments being subject to Heresies and Schisms as well as Episcopal; because Mr. B. himself had made the comparison between them; and charged all Schisms and Heresies upon Diocesan Episcopacy, as the fault of the constitution; it was therefore necessary to see how all sorts of Governments of the Church, as well as of the State, may be disturbed by evil and factious men, and are subject to great inconveniences when they fall into evil hands. But than what Schisms can be imputed to this Congregational way? This cannot well be answered without ask a question: was this Congregational Episcopacy ever established in any Churches? If not, it will be as hard a matter to show what mischief, it has occasioned as it is to discover what Civil Wars happened in Plato's Commonwealth, or to reckon the Differences of Sects of Philosophers in the College of Atlantis. If this Government has been set up any where, it is but naming the time and place, and it may be that some account may be given of the Schisms and Heresies that molested it. Mr. B. contends it was the first, Apostolical, and Scripture constitution: and shows at large that a Church was but one Congregation, and a Bishop could have but one Church. Well: but there were Schisms and Heresies then: and St. Paul makes frequent complaints of them. Or if this sort of Government continued for some Centuries after, as Mr. B. would make it appear; it must be likewise granted that there never were greater and more Blasphemous Heresies than in those times, and for Schisms, they could not be avoided, it seems, and though a Diocese were but one Congregation; the Presbyters could not agree who should govern that, but divided it into separate Assemblies. But to this Mr. B. Answers, 
2 Dispute about Ordination. p. 329.  That the Multitude of Sects and Heresies that sprung up in the first and second and third ages of the Church was no dishonour to the form of Government then used in the Church, as should encourage any man to dislike or change it. Why then does he endeavour to dishonour Diocesan Episcopacy upon this very reason? and why does he reproach it with the Schisms and Heresies that happened under that government? But no man can reason against Mr. B. better than himself does in the very same Paragraph; it is but taking away the word Prelacy, and putting in the stead of it Congregational Episcopacy, and then nothing can be more full to our purpose. If it was Congregational Episcopacy that was used, then Swarms of Sects and Heresies may come in notwithstanding Congregational Episcopacy (even in better hands than yours). But if it was not Congregational Episcopacy that was then the Government (but Diocesan Episcopacy) Heresies are no more a shame to that Government now: I wish Mr. B. had considered this place when he conceived the first design of his Church History: perhaps he might have seen the Inconsequence of his design to dishonour Bishops and their Councils, from a long deduction of Schisms and Heresies which he lays at their door, and have forborn giving this just offence to all that have any real concern for the Honour of Christian Religion, which is no less concerned in all these disgraces than Episcopacy.  
Yet I shall willingly discharge Congregational Episcopacy from any Imputation of those evils that disturbed the Church in the first times, and be content Mr. B. should lay it all to the account of Diocesan Government, which I shall show at large in the next Chapter to have been the Constitution of the Primitive Churches; in the mean time, I must inquire a little farther after the Glorious fruit of this Congregational Episcopacy.  
If the Ancient Church was quite a stranger to this kind of Episcopacy, it will be a harder matter to find it in latter ages, since Mr. B. tells us that Bishoprics were enlarged so enormously in process of time, that several Cathedrals were turned into Chapels, and instead of, one Congregation every Bishop had several Scores and Hundreds: And the Reformation where it retained Bishops, made them all Diocesans, and set them over several Congregational Churches; thus the Bohemians, Denmark, Sweden, and some parts of Germany: besides these three Kingdoms. Where they Abolished Episcopal, Government, they threw away the Titles too, so that if Mr. B.'s kind of Episcopacy obtained any where, it must be under another name, therefore that we may discover it, it will be necessary to give a short desoription of it, and then we may possibly find it to have acted under the disguise of another name.  
This Congregational Bishop then, 
Treatise of Ep.  which Mr. B. makes so much a do about, is the same thing with an Elder, as he tells us, and takes great pains to prove it. 2. This Elder has no necessity of any ordination by any Bishop, or Elders; but having abilities, and inclination to exercise them in the service of the Church, 
2. Disp. p. 164.165.  he may Interpret it to be sufficient authority to preach, Administer the Sacraments, etc. Nay is obliged to do the Office of a Bishop or Elder. 
1. Disp. 〈◊〉 throughout. Treatise of Ep. p. 33.  3. That this Elder can Govern but one Congregation: and there may be more than one of such Bishops belonging to that one Congregation. 4. That this Congregation is not to be so great as that of Israel, that had 600000 men; but is to be restrained to the compass of personal Communion, in hearing, praying, and receiving the Sacraments. 5. That this Church and Bishop, is independent and is invested with all Ecclesiastical power within itself: 
3. Disp. p. 347.  So that no other Bishop or Synod has any power or Superiority over it but by its own consent: and then consequently no particular Congregation is oblied to enter into any association at all: but may▪ refuse to submit to any Synod: nay if it be left in this liberty and Independence by Christ, it ought not to engage with any associations as should be prejudicial to that original liberty: and consequently set and determined Synods are to be avoided, and since they are only prudential means of preserving good correspondence between neighbour Churches, it is enough, they should be occasional. And what is all this but the Picture of Independency; and the Congregational Episcopacy upon Examinations proves nothing else but Congregational Eldership. What a Healing constitution this is, I shall show first by matter of fact. Secondly I shall show the natural tendence of such a Government to endless discord and division, that the Schisms and Heresies that it has hatched were not accidental, but proceeded from the nature of the Government itself.  
1. Some derive this Congregational way from Socinus, 
Case of the Church of Engl. p. 249.  who perhaps thought it the most suitable to his design of spreading the poison of his Heresy, and to prevent all dangers that might threaten it from the condemnation of Synods; Especially considering the late Union that had been made between all the Reformed Churches of the Greater and lesser Poland in the Synod of Sendomiria. Others deduce it from Ramus and Morellus, who placed all Ecclesiastical authority in the people; and by making the Government of the Church to be a Democracy, made way for Congregational Independence. This put the French Churches to the trouble of several Synods, 
Thorndykes right of the Ch. p. 67.  which condemned this Doctrine, as pernicious to the Unity of Christian Churches, and derogating from the honour of Religion. Mr. Thorndyke conjectures, that it came over hither with Ramus his Philosophy: And that his credit in our Universities was the first means to bring this conceit in Religion among us: For about the time that he was most cried up in them, Brown and Barrow published it. And R. Baly, who endeavours to relieve the English Presbyterians from the imputation of having begot this ill-faced Child, 
Dissuasive. p. 12.13.  (as he calls it) would fain also Father it upon Morellius, who (as he thinks) learned from the Disciples of Munster, this Ecclesiastical Anarchy:  
But whoever were the Authors of it, (and none of those yet named can give it any great reputation,) it is certain that the Fruits of it are to be found only amongst ourselves, where it happened to take root, and grow up into something considerable.  
The Brownists or those of the separation, laid the first Foundations of Independency among us: and though they had so few followers at first, not exceeding one Congregation, so as not to have any occasion of entering into any measures of a general Unity: yet they declared for the independence of Congregations, and that no Diocesan Prelacy, or Presbytery had any Authority over Congregational Churches.  
Rob. Brown, who gave the name to the Brownists (though Bolton had led that way to separation twenty years before) seems to have made the first step towards this Congregational way, 
Brown in the column entitled the state of Christians. 50. Art 51.  but he speaks of it something more obscurely: Who have the grace and office of watching and guiding? The Answer is, Some have this Charge together, which cannot be sundered: Some have their several charge over many Churches, some have charge but in one Church only: 
52. — How have some their charge and office together? Ans. There be Synods or the meetings of sundry Churches, where the weaker Churches seek for help to the stronger, for deciding or redressing of matter, or else the stronger look to them for redress: Who have their several charge over many Churches? Ans. Apostles, Prophets, Helpers or Evangelists: Nor does he determine whether any may succeed to this general inspection or no.  
Those that followed, delivered themselves with greater clearness upon this point: 
Confer. with Egerton p. 43. Collection of certain Art. 1590. Art. 11.  Barrow and Greenwood make all Ecclesiastical power to belong to every Congregation, and call the Bishop's Antichristian, because they take upon them to oversee so many Pastors and Churches: And in another treatise, where they answer this Question, whether the Queen may be excommunicated by the Presbytery, they say, That they detest the power of any Person or Presbytery, usurping Authority over the Church: No Presbytery can do any thing of this kind without the consent of the whole Congregation,— but That the Congregation whereof the Prince is, may Excommunicate him:  
Ainsworth went the same way, and declared himself in these words. 
Ains. Communion of Saints. c. 24.  We find no Authority committed to our Congregation over another, for Excommunicating the same, as every Church has over her own members: Christ reserveth this power in his own hands.  
Barrow affirms, 
Bar. Refuttat of Gifford. 137.  that ordinary set Synods are as prejudicial to the Rights of the Church as the other, i.e. Diocesan Episcopacy.  
But Johnson was the first that cleared this point, and treated of it particularly: 
Johns. Christian Plea, Treat. 3.  He lays down two things as the foundation of Church Government and Unity: 1. That all particular Churches, with their Pastors do stand immediately under Jesus Christ their Arch Pastor, without any other strange Ecclesiastical Power and Authority interposed between: Whether of Prelates, or their unlawful usurping Synods. 2. That notwithstanding the estate and distinction aforesaid, 
Treat. 3. c. 6. p. 261.262. etc.  yet all the Churches and Ministers of them should be always ready to advise and assist one another— and in this manner might be had a lawful and profitable use of Synods, classes, etc. Provided they do not usurp any unlawful jurisdiction or power over particular Churches: This man goes yet farther and maintains Congregational Episcopacy: and shows out of several places of Scripture and antiquity, That there may be in a particular Church, one Pastor, or Angel of the Church (properly and specially so called) and divers teachers and ruling Elders joined to this Pastor in the Ministry and Government of the same Church, who may all of them generally be called Pastors, yet so as one be specially distinguished from the rest, in respect of place and function to be the Pastor, (so more particularly called) under Jesus Christ the Arch Pastor: Never did copy agree more exactly with the Original, than Mr. baxter's doctrine about Church Government, with this of Johnson the Brownist.  sit tam fimilis sibi nec ipse: It is easier to find a difference between Mr. B. and himself upon other occasions, than to discern the least disagreement between him and Johnson in this.  
Robinson (whom Bailiff makes the Father of the Independents) though he left some tenets of the Brownists, 
Diss p. 17. Robin's. Apol. p. 17.  continued still a separation in the Sacraments and Discipline, and was as much for this Congregational way as any of the Brownists. In his Apology he declares, That every particular Congregation is entire without any relation to other Churches, as Peter or Paul are perfect men without respect to others; that these Congregations are Independent and under Christ only. Therefore the Ancient bounds which the Apostles have laid are not to be removed under pretence of any human Prudence, Antiquity, or Unity: Upon this foundation the Independent Churches were built, and continue to this day, which though they may differ in points of Doctrine as their Pastors, or leading men may be inclined, yet this constitution of Government gives them a common Denomination: And now having given this account of the Original of this way, at leastwise in these last times, (the higher Antiquity of it we shall consider elsewhere) I shall in the next place, give some account of the success of this form of Government, and show what fruits of Peace, and Truth, it has yielded since its first planting by the Brownists.  
Robert Brown Schoolmaster in Southwark, 
Bailiff diss. Ch. 1.  having seduced out of the Communion of the Church of England such a number of Disciples as made up a congregation, for fear lest the severity of our Laws might dissipate this new Church, resolved to remove it to a place of greater liberty, and accordingly persuaded his followers to transport themselves and families into Middleborough: Here they had not been long but they began to be shaken with intestine discords; 
G. john's. Letter to Fran. john's.  George Johnson says, It was in great measure occasioned by Brown's Wife, and other Women of that banished Church; which caused a mortal feud between Brown and Harison: and some said it was the occasion of Harison 's death. It was also the cause of Excommunicating Perriman: And this new fashioned Church in short broke all to piece, most turning Anabaptists, and Brown at last seeing himself deserted, returned with tears in his eyes into the Unity of the Church; Conformed, and was preferred to a living.  
The next Congregation that was form under this rule was by F. Johnson, 
Diss. p. 14.  (for Barrow was hanged before he could fill his Church) and this finding the air of the English Government not to agree with it, followed its Pastor to Holland, and settled at Amsterdam, a kind Soil for a young and tender sect: But this Colony had no better success than that of Brown, for in a little while it was diminished by the falling away of several to the Anabaptists, who were Excommunicated by the Congregation they deserted: But the dissensions that were raised among themselves afflicted them yet more; for G. Johnson having disobliged his Brother's Wife, by reproving her for the vanity of her Apparel, and cited a Text of Scripture for it, when he was candidate for the place of a Pastor in conjunction with his Brother, 
G. Johnson discourse of some troubles, etc. 1603.  was required to recant his Doctrine against fine ; he on the other side drew Articles of Impeachment against the Busk, Stomacher, and Sleeves, etc. of his Sister in Law, and the contention grew so sharp that the Pastor Excommunicated his Brother, notwithstanding all the mediation of the Presbytery, and afterwards his father too, upon the same quarrel: I must confess I never saw any thing more extravagant than this contention, as it is related by the sufferer with great particularity; the Impertinence, the Childishness of the whole Transaction is so extraordinary, that a man cannot reflect upon it without compassion; as men would the strange and extravagant humours of Bedlam: After this breach followed another between F. Johnson the Pastor and Ainsworth the Doctor of the Church who divided it yet once more, and excommunicated one the other, Johnson and his party quit the place, and go to Embden; where this Church dissolved, and the other part at Amsterdam after the death of Ainsworth remained a long while destitute of any Officers: Smith who had transported a new Church to Leyden left it, and turned Anabaptist, and these Congregational Churches were every where just expiring, when Robinson revived them with new and more Commodious principles; though the Government were still the same.  
And now part of Robinson's Church with his new amendments being carried over to New England in a short time overspread the whole Country, for the old Planters having almost lost all sense as well as neglected all exercise of Religion, did easily give into this new Model, and so the whole Country, i. e. as many as were of any Communion submitted to this form, though the greater part were of no Church at all by reason of the difficulty of admittance into this: yet what were the fruits of this Congregational Episcopacy in this flourishing condition? 1. The neglect of Converting the Pagans, which their Ministers own without any shame or remorse; which seems to have proceeded not so much out of their principle to make all Saints which should be admitted to their Communion, (though that was pretended by them, for a reason against general Conversion) as out of the nature of their constitution; for the Pastor of a Congregation, thought it not worth his while to go and gather Congregations over whom he was to have no authority, and such as must be committed to he knows not whom.  
Nor were these Sovereign Congregations, 
Short story of the rise. p. 32.13, 2.  much more useful for the preservation of truth and Unity, than they were for the Propagation of the Gospel: For they soon fell into horrid kinds of errors and blasphemies, that the Holy Ghost personally dwelled in them; That their own Revelations of particular events were as Infallible as the Scriptures. That sin in a child of God should never trouble him: That souls, were mortal; that the Resurrection of the dead was not to be understood literally, with several such hideous doctrines. Some extravagant women, as Hutchinson and Dyer did affront these Churches, and drew several of these Congregational Bishops, and the leading men among them, unto their party, and to countenance their errors that were no less Monstrous than the births they are said to have had: These began to affect purer ordinances, and despised their settled Churches as legal Synagogues: Williams and several others declared they could not conform, and would have the benefit of Separate. Congregations: But after all these men had no better remedies against Schism and Heresy than those they railed at so much here, the Sword and power of the Civil Magistrate: Williams was banished, and makes woeful complaints of his hard usage; Hutchinson and her company, being also forced farther into the Country, was with her followers slain by the Indians: nay some have been so Barbarous as to destroy Quakers upon the account of their Religion; and in short, there is no place nor Trade nor dealing for those that oppose their Churches, and their Excommunication is rendered terrible even to those who are not of their Churches, upon the account of the Civil deprivation that attends it.  
From New-England this Congregational way returned back again to Holland, where notwithstanding all the advantages it might have had by some farther experience in New-England and the late amendments, yet had no better success than when it was planted there under the name of Brownism: The first Independent Church there was at Rotterdam settled by H: Peter an Apostle suitable to the constitution: 
Bailies Diss. Chap, 4.  to him succeeded Bridges and Ward: but Simpson coming thither and renouncing his Ordination, and reducing himself to the state of a private member, was not long satisfied, the Pastors not allowing the private members sufficient liberty of Prophesying. Whereupon Simpson erects a new Congregation of his own, and the contentions between these Congregations were extreme fierce and Scandalous, Ward is turned out for favouring Simpson, in his pretensions to Liberty of Prophesying, and at last with much ado the business is made up by the interposing of 4 Brethren of other Congregations which they called a Synod: but that peace lasted not long for some time after they were all dissipated, and at this time I do not know of any one Congregation of this way in all that Country.  
At Arnheim where they settled a small Congregation they had no better success, for they fell into strange Heresies, and Extravagances, setting up Chiliasm, and Blasphemy, That God is the author of sin, and the like, and now their remains not the least footstep of their Church or Doctrine in that place.  
But no place can furnish a more Tragical History of this Congregational Episcopacy than England, for this opinion taking new root here about the beginning of the late Wars, produced such confusion, as nothing but the miraculous hand of God could have ever reduced to any settlement or order: He that would see the Influence it had on the Civil Government, the growth and prevailing of it in the Army; the Slavery of the Nation which immediately followed the Murder of the late King, and the Abolition of Kingly Government: the Shedding of so much Innocent blood, under the formality of Justice, though against all the Laws of this Land and those of God and man; he that would see how they set up an Usurper, and when he was removed by a happy providence how they opposed all the means of Union and settlement, may find enough to entertain his wonder in Walkers History of Independency: and the Histories of those times: But for the Influence it had upon Religion, there would be no end of relating the strange confusions, the Heresies and Schisms that this way brought amongst ●s. 
Vid Ed. Gangraena.  Tho. Edward's gives some account of them for about 4 years, and reckons near two hundred several strange opinions with which they infected this Kingdom: nor did they only beget Heresies but learned to Cherish them us, 
Baylies Diss. p. 93.  for though this kind of Church Government did open the way to Anabaptism, Antinomianism, Familism and many more Heresies, yet the Independents commonly disowned and Excommunicated such as fell ●●to them: But here Independency became an Uniting Principle, and bound up all sorts of Errors and Blasphemies in one, and would ●ot disown any that would enter into their Constitution or interest, let them believe as they please, or believe nothing all: but as to the Sects that Sprung out of them let us ●●ar Bastwick: 
2. part of Indep. Postscript. p. 37.  Before the Independents Ap●●ition in our Horizon, there were but three 〈◊〉 four Sects known among us, and they were 〈◊〉 in number and well conditioned: But out of the independents lungs are Sprung above 40 several ●●ts of stragglers, which before their coming were never known among us. J. Lilburn related it unto me, and that in the presence of others, that returning from the Wars to London, he not forty new Sects, and some so pernicious that he had much a do to keep his hands off them, though he was in his judgement for a Toleration of all Religions. There are innumerable and Diabolical Sects; and so prodigiously Impious, that it is not for a Christian to name their opinions.  
And Lastly these Congregational Bishops, men of humble pretences, that would not aspire at first beyond a single Congregation, nor desire to govern that any otherwise than in Conjunction with, and by the advice of all the members, These men when they had an opportunity, exercised so great, and extensive a Tyranny, as this Church had never felt under the most Insolent of Diocesan Bishops: for P. Nye and H. Pet●r the Arch-Bishops of those times, wh●● Governed the Committee of Tryers, 〈◊〉 no Law, no Canons, but their ow● pleasures, they rejected whom they pleased without giving themselves the Trouble 〈◊〉 the sufferers the satisfaction of the least reason; and there was no relief, no Quare I●●pedit against these Church Governors and their proceed were so arbritrary that some styled that Committee, 
The Case of A. S.  The English Inquisition. And this is the fair fruit o● Congregational Episcopacy among us. Confusion, Regicide and Slavery in the Common wealth; Heresy, and endless Sects; and more than Papal Tyranny in the Church.  
But surely Mr. B. is not for this Congregational Independent way, but for a Temperament or Mixture of Church Government, made up of this and Presbytery, and Episcopacy: Mr. B. tells us that he has not changed ●is opinion these forty years: 
Treatise of Episc. praef.  and if we may judge of it by what he has written since, it must be either Independency, or something so like it, that an ordinary Capacity cannot distinguish from it. For if to declare 〈◊〉 Church of Christ's constituting to be but ●●e Congregation, joined in personal Com●●●ion of Prayer and Sacraments and that ●●ery such Congregation is Independent; ●●d hath all sort of Ecclesiastical power ●●en it immediately by Christ. If to say, that 〈◊〉 usurp▪ Authority over several of these ●●●ches, and to assume the power of cen●● over their Members, is contrary to the ●●●tolick Institution, and unchurches all ●●●●e Congregations, and that no Synods, 〈◊〉 more than Bishops, have any Superiority over any one, or more of these Churches, 〈◊〉 that a Church for Discipline cannot ●●prehend a greater number than a Church 〈◊〉 Worship; if this be Independency Mr. B. ●●●ds it, or else he either does not mean as 〈◊〉 speaks, for all these things he plainly ●●●ms) or speaks so as no body can make 〈◊〉 other meaning of his words.  
Yet how can this be? for he is not against ●●●●es and Synods: no more are the Indepen●●●, they have not condemned the use of ●●ods, as I have showed out of F. Johnson: and the Independents Assembled in a Synod, declare in the Preface to their Confession, that this neglect of Synods, and Consociation was the cause of those endless divisions their Churches ran into; but still this is no more than a Neighbourly consultation, and has no proper authority to impose any rule upon National Churches: But Mr. B. is for Episcopacy: so is Johnson, and Mr. B. is for no other. For he does expressly disown any Bishop that is appointed over many Churches: But he is for Bishop Ushers Episcopacy: It is true Mr. B. says so in several places: and that Bishop Usher and he had agreed the point in a quarter of an hour: What might have been the result of Mr. B.'s conversation with that Learned Primate I cannot tell: But that which Mr. B. so often refers us to for Bishop Ushers opinion, shows there is as great a distance between him and Mr. B. in this point as there is between Mr. B. and the Church of England: There is a small Paper that bears the name of that Bishop, Entitled The Reduction of Episcopacy, which Mr. B. often mentions; I will Transcribe the second Article, that the reader may see how well his notion of Episcopacy does agree with Mr. B.'s. Whereas by a Statute in the 26 year of K. Henry the Eight (revived in the first of Queen Elizabeth) Suffragans are appointed to be erected in Twenty six several places of this Kingdom, 
p. 6.  the number of them might very well be conformed unto the number of the several Rural Deaneries into which every Diocese is subdivided: which being done, the Suffragans supplying the place of those who in the Ancient Church were called (Chorepiscopi) might every month Assemble a Synod of all the Rectors, or Incumbent Pastors within the Precinct, and according to the major part of their voices conclude all matters that should be brought into Debate before them. To this Synod the Rector and Churchwardens might Present such Impenitent persons, as by admonition and suspension from the Sacrament would not be Reformed, who if they remain Contumacious and incorrigible, the sentence of Excommunication might be decreed against them by the Synod, and accordingly be executed in the Parish where they lived,— Hitherto also all things that concerned Parochial Ministers may be referred, whether they did touch their doctrine or their Conversation: The Diocesans were to remain as now, only to Govern by a Synod of Suffragans, and incumbents: and their Decrees if occasion were to be revised, by Provincial, and Metropolitical Synods, presided by the Metropolitans: Now let us compare this with Mr. B.'s Doctrine of Church Government. First then: the Suffragans here mentioned, as the Bishops of the first and lowest order, are Diocesan for every one is to rule a Rural Deanery, which consists of about 40 or 50, or sometimes more Parishes: is not this the same species of Government with Diocesan? if a Diocese of 50 Parishes be specifically distinct, from one of 80 or a Hundred, we must have several species amongst us too, according to the different proportions of our Bishoprics: the Diocese of Lincoln will be specifically different from that of Bristol, and by this way it is possible at last to make out Mr. B.'s Twelve sorts of Episcopacy which he reckons in his Disputation of Church Government: in short: what kind of Episcopacy does Mr. B. reject? Diocesan he says: 
Treatise of Episc. part. 1. c. seven.  and what is that? By a Diocese we Nonconformists mean only a large Circuit of Ground with its Inhabitants containing many particular Parishes; and by a Diocesan Church we mean all the Christians within this Circuit, who have but one Bishop over them: though they be of marry Parishes. And what Episcopacy does Mr. B. approve? Bishop Ushers Episcopacy Reduced: and what is this? It is a Bishop over many Parishes, a Bishop of a Rural Deanery that contains a great many Parish Churches. It is manifest therefore that Mr. B. says and unsays, and Condemns himself in that which he approves. 2. Bishop usher's Reduction overthrows the Foundations of Mr. B.'s Church, the Essence and Individuation of it: for he defines a Church by a Congregation, for personal Communion in Worship and Discipline. and denies that one Church can be any farther extended in respect of its Government and Discipline, than it may in respect of Worship: which he expresses thus: I think many of them (i e. the Presbyterians) do with Rutterford, distinguish between a Worshipping Church and a Governed Church. (And sadling the Horse for Prelacy to mount on) do affirm that many, about Twelve of these Worshipping Churches (like our Parishes) may make but one Governed, or Presbyterial Church: But Bishop Ushers Project makes 40 or 50 Worshipping Churches, but one Governed Church.  
3. Bishop Ushers Reduction deposes Parish Bishops, and turns their Churches into Chapels, because they are allowed no exercise of the Keys, but only admonition, and suspension from the Sacrament till the Bishop and Synod is made acquainted with it; 
Art. 1.  and this any incumbent in the Church of England is allowed to do: But Mr. B. rejects Diocesan Episcopacy for this fault of turning Churches into Chapels, and Pastors into Preaching Curates, and yet approves all that he Condemns by yielding to Bishop Ushers Reduction: It is something strange he should be a Non Conformist, to himself, as well as to Diocesan Episcopacy, and upon the very same reasons too.  
Lastly, This Project of Church Government (in which there is one thing not so agreeable to the practice of Antiquity, which is the Major part of the Presbyters concluding the Bishop, who always had a Negative voice, and nothing ever becoming an Act, without his consent and Approbation) this I say may perhaps be of some use to make an accommodation, between Presbyterian Government, by Classes and Synods, etc. and Diocesan Episcopacy: but it wholly overthrows Mr. B.'s Congregational way, however qualified by the Independent Principles of Consociation, beyond which Mr. B.'s Notion of Church Government, and constitution does not extend.  
Therefore, to leave this Episcopacy of Bishop Ushers as destructive of Independence, why may not they of the Congregational way prevent such inconveniences as they have fallen into, by some qualifying Principles in favour of Consociation, and some abatement in their Punctiliousness of admitting into full Communion, and Church-membership? And thus far no doubt Mr. B. does comply: to which I answer, That the Fundamental Principle of this Congregational way does dispose it to all manner of confusion, which I undertook to show in the last place.  
I shall say nothing to such Principles of our Independents as have no necessary Connexion with the nature of their Church Government, as those of separation from every defect in ordinances and the like, they are besides my purpose, and the mischief, and unreasonableness of them have been showed already with so much light, and advantage by the Incomparable Dean of Paul's, as to be able to convince any men who did mistake in good earnest; as to that part therefore I will suppose them satisfied in point of Conscience though not perhaps in point of Honour, and consider only the mischiefs of their Government, abstracted from their other opinions.  
The Independent or Congregational constitution is founded upon these two Principles.  
1. That Christ and his Apostles instituted Congregational Churches, and endued them with all the Power that is given the Church: as of censures, Excommunication and the like, without any dependence one on another, or of several upon one General Pastor, and that the single Congregations planted at first in several Cities when they came to increase beyond the possibility of Personal Communion, were to Imitate Bee-hives, and to send out Colonies under their proper Officers, without any dependence on the mother Hive.  
2. That what was thus instituted by Christ and his Apostles must so continue, it not being in the power of man, or the Church to alter it.  
This is the foundation of Independent Government, and if you abate any thing of these Principles, the whole Fabric must fall to pieces.  
If you deny the first that Christ or his Apostles did not institute such Churches, the Congregational way has no pretence, or if you will say that the first that were planted were indeed of this kind, but accidentally, there being no more believers in any City than might meet in one Congregation it equally destroys it: for when Christians were multiplied into several Congregations they might put themselves under another form more commodious for preserving Unity among them.  
If you deny the second, that though the Apostolical Churches were of this Model, yet that it was not necessary, and unalterable; it will remove all just reason of contention about it; for the Church having made use of its liberty in the change of that Government which it is supposed to have power to do as it saw occasion, nothing can be more unreasonable, than to tear it in pieces upon this occasion, unless it has done something that it had no authority to do, and so altered the Government Established by Christ with out his leave: in short if the Apostles did not found Congregational Churches, there is no reason why we should set them up; if they did found them at first, but did design they should continue no longer, than till the numbers of Christians should exceed one Congregation, the success of the Gospel has changed that form: If they were founded at first, and then the matter left to the discretion of the Church to frame itself according to its best convenience, the Church has already determined it, there can be no Controversy: So that if any of these Principles be denied, the Congregational Government must fall of course.  
Independency, therefore being founded upon a firm belief of those Fundamental Principles, which cannot be left, but the whole frame must sink, I shall proceed to show the unavoidable mischiefs that belief exposes these Congregational Churches to.  
1. Of the mischiefs that this way occasisions, by rendering any Union between particular Churches Impossible.  
2. The mischiefs it produces in particular Churches or Congregations.  
1. Of the Impossiblity of preserving any Unity between Independent Churches.  
These Churches like so many little Sovereignty's crowded together within the same Territory, and a great number of them within the Walls of the same City, their Vicinity and Cohabitation gives them opportunities, and begets a necessity of a Correspondence and Communication between them; and this begetting a mutual knowledge of each others opinions and practice, differences will arise, and endanger their peace; and what remedy is there, since there is no common Court to put an end to it? It must be a lamentable case when every quarrel, becomes a War; and there is no end but either Ruin, or at last, when they are tired with contention, their Voluntary Acquiescence. But you will say there is the same Inconvenience in Episcopacy; for if Bishops fall out about Religion who shall judge between them? if you say Metropolitans and Synods; suppose two Metropolitans then should differ, or two Councils: It were much better they would agree, but if they will quarrel, it is not quite so bad as if those that live in the same City, and under the same Government should fall out; suppose our Church could not adjust all Articles of Faith and Discipline with the Churches of France or Suitzerland, good men would wish that it might be made up, and that there were a perfect Harmony in our Confessions: But in case this could not be effected, yet the Controversy would remain pretty quiet within the books that should be written about it: But if within the City of London those Controversies should be unhappily started, and one Parish take one side of the Question, and another the contrary, it would be something more dangerous; and an Intolerable defect in the constitution of our Church to have no effectual remedy to apply to the beginnings of this Division: But what hurt is it, you may say, let both enjoy their own opinion, if they would do so with Peace it were something; but these little republic Churches, like Descartes his Vortexes' grate and make Impression one upon the other; Some members of one Congregation may be seduced by the other, and the whole perhaps in danger of being carried away with evil Doctrine or example, what shall be done in this case? They can submit to no Judge; for they are immediately under Christ; they must have no Diocesan, no Classes, no power to Control them; what then? They must wrangle to the world's end; or Dissolve and come to nothing as many of their Congregations have done.  
The Independents have been made very sensible of this by a sad experience of great and Irremediable dissensions, and some of them have been so ingenuous as to confess it, and entered into some measures for an effectual Prevention of these disorders: by way of Consociation or Synods: but neither can relieve them as long as they maintain the principles before mentioned, i. e. as long as they are Independents.  
For 1. What Consociation can there be between those bodies of men, that cannot be United under any Common Government, to which the particulars are to be subordinate? Without any Laws to correct them, without authority to execute them, without any subordination of the Members: what Permanent Consociation can be expected, that must depend upon the pleasure of every Congregation of that Association? that remains still Independent, and under no obligation to submit any farther than itself thinks good? This is the case of the Independents, either there must be General Officers to take care of this Consociation, as Bishops or Supervisors, or some Committees any Synods, and these must have some pow-over the particular Congregations under their Inspection, or there must be no such Officers: If that be allowed, it is no more Independence, but Diocesan Episcopacy or Presbytery: And overthrows the Fundamental principle, that the Congregations immediately under Christ, and that the constitution cannot be altered for any convenience. If they have no Persons appointed over the Generality, then wherein does this Consociation consist, or how are they United? But suppose they have Synods, as they had one in the Savoy 1658. What can they be able to do? They may advise, and discourse the matter, but if any particular Congregation be obstinate, they cannot censure, that Importing a Superiority, which destroys the notion of Congregational Independence; to make this clearer, if possible, suppose something like Hobbs his State of nature, That Twenty men, who can have no pretence of authority one over the other, were cast upon an Island; and their Common necessities would oblige them to live together and maintain some Commerce and agreement, and that every one should believe firmly that God had not only made him free, but that he had laid an obligation on him so to continue, and never to subject himself to any Creature, upon the pretence of any conveniences of life. How should these men do? They might consult, and agree upon a rule, they might make a distribution of proprieties, and promise never to hurt or injure one the other: But these men being subject to the same Appetites and disorders with others, it is not to be expected they should live long without some bodies transgressing his duty: And then what shall be done to preserve this Consociation of Kings? Every one is sacred and cannot be called before any Tribunal, but his own Conscience; and that perhaps he may dispense with: he must not submit to any one, nor to all his associates together, nor can they, continuing in that opinion of Original Freedom, usurp any Authorities over him; What can such a Constitution produce? Either their indignation, or necessity must prevail over their principles, and so they must submit to Government, or else if they retain these fancies of Independent Sovereignty and freedom, they must dissolve and break all to pieces, and renounce all communication one with the other.  
You will say that good men will agree, and preserve such an union as their common necessities require, without any superior power to enforce it: But the Independents know by woeful experience, that all have not proved Saints that they have received for such, though they were as punctilious in the admitting of them as the Pope in a Canonization; besides this, reason will destroy the discipline of Congregational as well as of associated Churches: for every good man will do his duty, and what need therefore of any power in the congregation to censure.  
It is plain therefore that Congregational Churches, unless they renounce the Principles of their Independence, cannot enter into any solid and lasting union, having no means to preserve it, and all the union that their Principles will admit can be no other than that of a heap of sand, where the parts are lose and unconnected, and therefore unavoidably scattered and dissipated by the first Wind that shall arise.  
Nor is this Congregational Constitution less pernicious to the Peace of Particular Churches, than it is to a General union of many Congregations, which I shall make appear by the following reasons. First in General; and then by examining the different forms there may be of Admininistring this Congregational power.  
1. He that lieth under an unjust sentence of a Congregation has no relief; for this being Independent, there is 〈◊〉 Appeal left, and this is the more gri●rous, by how much the deprivation of Communion, is a sorer punishment to those who have known the value of the Ordinances of Christ, and have tasted the grace of God in them, than any other that can be inflicted on men's bodies or estates. And here can be no other relief but by Separation and Schism.  
2. When a Pastor is turned Heretic, and has seduced his Congregation into a good opinion of his Doctrine, they have no relief, because they have no judge to examine the Doctrine, and to remove the evil from among them.  
3. If a Congregation shall conspire to be wicked, turn Libertines and Antinomians, who shall censure them for it? the Magistrate may not be a Christian, or may not take notice of it.  
But the inconveniences of this way may be farther observed, by looking into the several forms, whereby this Congregational Supremacy either is or may be Administered.  
1. Suppose the Pastor invested with this whole power, without any appeal to be made from his sentence; what temptation would this independence be to abuse that unaccountable power, since no superior Court could revise his Acts? And if this man s●●uld prove imprudent, and wilful in the Administration of so great a power, what peace could be expected? And yet we must expect this power should fall often into the evil hands, and it must be a wretched constitution that should not make some provision against it. But in the Congregational way, the first thing is extremity: But I will not urge this, because the Independents will not allow the Pastor any such power, and therefore let us consider this way as managed by the Pastor, and a select Presbytery: the inconveniences are rather greater. For,  
1. In many Congregations the Church power must come into the hands of such as have little capacity, or experience, and by that means would become contemptible.  
2. Suppose they should not all agree upon a Sentence of Excommunication, must the majority conclude it? and against the opinion of the Minister? This would be something hard for him to pronounced sentence against his own judgement, and condemn a person he believes to be innocent; if he does refuse, than he resists the Authority of the Church, and that must needs produce a Rupture.  
3. They of the select Presbytery must be supposed, to have a mixture with the rest by way of dealing, and commerce, and this begetting differences and feuds between them, it cannot be ●voided but that Church censures will be abused to revenge private Animosities: and those upon whom they are to be executed, will be more loath to submit when they recollect that they proceed from persons they had disobliged: and instead of reflecting upon their guilt, they will be apt to ascribe all to private grudge: upon which reason in common Law, he that is supposed to be judged by his neighbours, has the liberty to reject any with whom he has had any falling out.  
4. This would probably degenerate into a civil Tyranny, when a poor man should refuse to comply with some of his Ecclesiastical Judges, to his own disadvantage, they would find some advantage against him: and by disgracing him in the Congregation, ruin him consequently in his livelihood.  
5. The exercising of such censures within so little compass as that of a Congregation, by the members of it one on the other, must in a little while engage the whole body in parties and factions, without any hopes of uniting, the sufferers will be discontented, and when they grow numerous will not conceal their resentments, but bend them to the disturbance of that Congregational unity.  
But lastly if we suppose the whole Congregation concerned to declare itself in every act of Excommunication; few of the inconveniences before mentioned will be removed, and there will be others yet greater. For,  
1. It cannot well be avoided but upon many causes the Congregation will be divided, and when it happens to be upon the subject of removing from, or restoring to Church communion, such differences do lead them into Schism; for since there is no judge between them, every party will likely stand by its own opinion, and will hardly submit their judgements to the majority of the other side, that out-votes them but by a few voices: Those that were fierce for turning a Member out of Church fellowship, because they are offended with him, will likelier quit the Congregation and set up for themselves, than endure the Communion of that which they cried out upon as so great a scandal.  
2. The wisest and best men who are generally the fewest will be of no use, for they will be overborne with number.  
3. It will make a constant trade of Faction, and making of parties.  
To conclude therefore, If the Church hath been afflicted with Schisms and Heresies under Diocesan Bishops, we have seen that it has suffered the same things under other sorts of Government, but that which Mr. B. offers as a remedy of disorders, has been the least able to preserve the Church from divisions, nor were those infinite breaches accidental only, as the best Government in the world cannot prevent all inconveniences, but were the natural fruit of that constitution, which would not be able to preserve peace between the Churches of one City, how much less between the numerous Congregations of a Kingdom: and is such a form as destroys itself, and pulls even particular Congregation in pieces, by unavoidable feuds and factions first, and then by formal Schism and Separation.   

CHAP. II.  
Of the Rise and Progress of Diocesan Episcopacy.  
Mr. Baxter in a Book published since his Church History, 
Treatise of Episc. Part 1. c. 3.  gives us such an account of the Original of Bishops and Diocesans, as would make one suspect he had had some late Revelation; for he speaks so particularly of such things, which no body else ever heard of, and shows all the first causes of the rise of Episcopacy after so new a manner, that it must be either new Revelation, or some new Authors found out: But because nothing of these appears in the Margin, I am apt to believe it was rather a Dream: For he tells us, That in the beginning there were but few Scholars and Philosophers converted, who were able to Preach, and these men of parts Overtoped the rest, and where such as these were found, they were highlier esteemed than the rest, and these in some time became Bishops, being made first Arbitratours, and then as more learned Judges of true and false Doctrine, nay, being wiser than all the rest, it was fit he should have a negative voice; and Fourthly, they understood their own value well enough, and that made them proud and desire pre-eminence. And, Lastly, one Bishop was set over some Churches for want of more able men, and he having got the start of the others that came after, made them truckle to him.  
Mr. Blondel had a quite contrary dream, and for my part I do not know a better way of Answering one Dream but with another, he Dreamed I say, (for he had 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 College of Presbyters, the Senior was as it were the Bishop, and when he died, the next by seniority took the chair without any more ado, no Election, or Ordination being necessary: If this answer does not satisfy, 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 successors; but of the occasions of their promotion there is not a word, only St. Jerom a great while after their institution ascribed it to the inconveniences which parity produced: But as to the time Mr. B. tells us, 
Treat. of Ep. Part 1. c 3. p. 15. Hieron. Catalogue. 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. does not mistake St. Jerom, which is almost impossible, he must know that Mark died 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. Paul's; 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 Apollo's, 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 Baptised to be his own, and to belong peculiarly to himself: Which St. Paul mentions, and confutes, and thanks God that he had Baptised but few, lest they should say, He Baptised in his own name: Now this determination of the Apostle that Baptising 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 Baptised, 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 shows 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 sum 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 entered 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 called 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 1●. 32.  flock of the Church was yet but very small, and Peter though he were now allowed to be universal ●●stor, might easily discharge his duty: 
k 1 Cor. 15.6.  The greatest number we read of between ●he Resurrection and Ascension is but ●oo, 
l Act● 1.15.  and at Jerusalem when they met together they were but about a hundred and ●●enty: But it was not long before these ●●all beginnings, this grain of Mustard feed grew up with a prodigious and surprising increase, 
m Acts 2.41.  for on the following P●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 public 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: But those of the Congregational way, endeavour to diminish the numbers, by making a great part of these new Converts to be strangers, and to return home▪ when the Feast was over: To which I Answer, 1. That the Scripture gives no countenance to this conjecture, but says all those strange Nations were 
q Acts 2.5, 14.  Inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the Original word inclines most on this side. But 2. Suppose they were some of them Strangers▪ yet how shall we be assured that they returned home? The Scripture seems to say th● contrary: 
v 47.  For as soon as it sets down th● number; it adds, That they continued st●●● fastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in Prayers: They i e. the three thousand in the Verse going before: besides there is no probability of their leaving the Apostles, it is not suitable to the zeal and devotion of the first Converts, who despised all Earthly concerns, and left Houses and Land, and Families, for Christ's sake. And these Proselytes sold all, and had all things in common, which takes away the necessity of their returning home: Nor did the Church cease to grow and multiply, but proselytes came over every day; For the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved: But among these daily accessions, some are very great and remarkable; for not long after we find no less than five thousand more added to the Church at one time: 
v. 47.  Many of them that heard the word believed, and the number of the men, (that is plainly, of those that heard the word and believed) was about five thousand: 
Acts 4.4.  and besides these that were Converted the generality of the people favoured the preaching of the Gospel, so that the Magistrates durst not deal over rigorously because of the people: 
v. 21.  This general good disposition was improved by the Apostles into a perfect conversion of great numbers: For believers were the more added to the Lord, 
Acts 5.14.  multitudes both of men and women. And the Christian Congregations were now so thronged, that they brought out their sick and laid them in the Sreets that the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.  
And now the Church of Jerusalem grew too numerous for the Apostles to take the whole charge of it upon them, for when the Number of the Disciples was multiplied, 
c. 6.1.  their arose a murmuring of the Grecians that their Widows were neglected, and the Apostles desired the multitude to choose seven men, whom they might appoint over this matter: And in the mean time they would give themselves up continually to prayer and the ministry of the Word: and the twelve it seems had enough to do in this particular, for they declare that they cannot look after Tables, but they must neglect their more peculiar duty, 
●. 2.  leave the word of God: And we do immediately find the success of this Counsel, 
●. 7,  The word of God increased, and the number of the Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly, and a great company of the Priests were obedient to the Faith: And now after all these accessions, 
Acts 8.1.  we find but one Church in Jerusalem, a great persecution is said to have been raised against that Church: Now what manner of Church shall we imagine this to be, a Congregational one, shall all those thousands make but one Assembly, for Communion in Prayer, and the Sacraments? It is incredible. There was no place large enough no hold them: and considering the opposition that was made against them, they cannot be supposed to have the use of any public meeting place; the Synagogues were taken up by the Jews, and if we may guests at their bigness by their number, we must conclude they could not be very capacious, since in Jerusalem there were as Sigonius delivers from the Records of the Jews, no less than five hundred and eighty: 
Car. Sigonius de Rep. Heb. l. 2. c. 8. Lightfoot Hor. Hebr. cap. 36. prooem. Evang. Mat.  the number more generally argeed is four hundred and eighty: In short the multitude of Believers as it is represented by St. Luke, must be granted to exceed the measure of one or two Congregations, and considering their circumstances might probably make up more than twenty Congregations: This Church then in the singular containing more than one Assembly, was no other than a Diocese, governed by the common Council of the Apostles, in which Peter may be supposed to preside, without doing the Pope any Service.  
To this the Assertors of the Congregational way make several exceptions, 
Grand Debate concerning Presb. and Independ. in the Answer to the reasons of the Diss. Breath.  and Mr. B. among the rest, but so frivolous, that I wonder after the Answers made to them by the Divines of the Assembly, any can be so obstinate as to insist upon them.  
They Except, 1. That the first three thousand Converts were not all of Jerusalem, but returned home after the Feast was over, but of this no other proof than that there were dwelling in Jerusalem devour men of several Nations, or as they render it sojourning: and it is not very significant how we understand it, since the Scripture says expressly, that they continued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship. But of this already.  
2. That the five thousand is not to be added to the other three, but includes them: There needs no other Answer to this, than to refer them to the place, which is clear enough of itself: The miracle wrought on the Cripple that sat in the Gate of the Temple, and the Sermon that seconded it was altogether occasional, and there can be no reason to imagine the whole Church then to be met together in that place.  
3. That in those Countries there were much greater Congregations than can be with us, as some of those that followed our Saviour, who Preached to Myriads, and the reason is offered, because the air is more pure and thin. That at Charenton, the Congregation consists of many thousands: This is manifestly to trifle, and to Libel their own cause, by reasons that are impertinent, or ridiculous.  
4. Mr. B. Adds, they had better Lungs; in those times and places, he might have said as well, that they had better Ears, and a quicker hearing, or that they could understand a man's meaning by his gaping.  
5. They say that this being the first Church, and under the joined care of all the Apostles, might soon arrive to the greatest measure of a Church: What is this in effect but to yield the question? How they came to that number we see well enough, but the thing contended is, that their number did exceed a Congregation; besides they cannot be supposed so well to have multiplied so very soon, if the Ministry of these Apostles had not been divided, and some Preached in one Assembly, and others in another.  
6. They say there was liberty till saul's persecution. And what then? Under that liberty the Church might exceed the measure of a single Congregation in less time.  
7. Mr. B. says, this is no precedent: And why? The Mother Church gathered, and governed by all the Apostles together, (which is a circumstance that perhaps no other Church can boast of) Why should not this be a precedent? The truth is it spoils a notion of Congregational Independent Churches, and because it cannot be made to comply, it must be protested against that it be not brought into a Precedent.  
Besides these exception, 
Acts 2.26.5.1.6.5, 6.  they offer testimonies to prove the Church of Jerusalem no more than could meet in one place; because all the multitude is sometimes said to meet together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: against these proofs there lies one great exception: The number of Converts on one side are specified, and it plainly thence appears, that there was no possibility they should all meet together, for all acts of worship: but on the other side, all the proof is in general expressions, the whole multitude, and the all may denote only those that were present, and not all that believed, as it is said Luke 1.10. The whole multitude of the people were without Praying, i.e. not all the people of Jerusalem, but the whole multitude that was present; so the meeting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be said of several Congregations meeting for the same purpose as well as of one.  
But the Independents in the Assembly of Divines did seem to give up this point, and to grant that before the dispersion there might be more than one Congregation of Christians; but that after they were scattered, there remained no more than could meet in one place: Suppose all this: what advantage can it be to their cause: if there were more once than might meet in one Assembly, and so were forced to divide into several; and this notwithstanding to retain the name but of one Church, because under one common Government, it follows that wheresoever the Christians should afterwards increase in the same manner, they might likewise be governed after the same manner, and in several Congregations, still preserve the Unity of the Church: If there were no more afterwards than one Congregation, it is plain, that it was only casual; if I may so speak of the circumstances of the Church.  
Nor is that true in fact which they affirm of the Church of Jerusalem after the dispersion, for though they are all said to be scattered besides the Apostles, 
Acts ●. 1.  yet it cannot be understood of all the Believers, because afterwards, we find Saul entering into houses, and haling out Men and Women: We find good men, believers doubtless, taking care of Stephen's Funeral: 
Hist. Ecc. l. 2. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nid. Lorin. Cajet. Calvin. Bez. in. Loc.  and thus Eusebius understood it, where he says all the Disciples, i. e. the Disciples of Christ, mentioned Acts 1. that conversed with Christ, and so the generality of Expositors; nor is it to be imagined, that the Apostles should remain alone at Jerusalem, when the whole Church had been forced thence, and the fury of the Persecution was so great that there was no opportunity to Preach publicly: Nor is it unlikely that the Preachers were more particularly marked out for destruction, for in Stephen's case, we find it was his public Disputing and Preaching, that brought him under the lash of that Persecution, and his Indictment was made up of what was delivered by him in his public Discourses; though besides it cannot be denied but that other Converts, Men and Women were also haled to Prison: But whatsoever numbers were forced away by that Persecution, it is likely they returned most of them after it was over, and it did not continue long, for immediately after the the Conversion of St. Paul, 
Acts 9.31.  The Churches had rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, and were edified and multiplied: And it is a strange conceit of Baronius, That these are the Jews of the Dispersion that St. Peter and James directed their Epistles to, 
An. 35.  and that they were scattered into all the Parts of the World: After this Persecution the Church of Jerusalem, 
Acts 8.14. Acts 11.22.  as the metropolitan of the rest, taketh care of them, sends some Apostles to Samaria, and Barnabas to Antioch: and these as soon as they had fulfilled their ministry, return home to their Mother Church, which could not but thrive much more in proportion than the rest, whether we reflect upon the number and abilities of her Pastors, or the advantage of its situation. For the place itself was a most convincing witness, as of some very remarkable actions of our Saviour, so particularly of his Death and Resurrection, here the vail of the Temple was rend, here Rocks cleft in sunder, here the empty Sepulchre preached with no less efficacy than the Apostles, and though they should hold their peace, the Stones would become Apostles, and be Witnesses of the Resurrection.  
This Church being thus considerable in all its circumstances, 
Apud Eusib. Ecc. Hist. l. 2. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap. Eusch. l. 2. c. 23.  when the Apostles were called away, was committed to James the just, the Brother of our Lord: If not before, for as Clemens reports the matter, he was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, presently after our Savious Ascension, and mentions it as an instance of the humility of the Apostles, that would not contend about it, but chose one that was no Apostle, and Hegesippus one of the Ancientest Ecclesiastical Writers, co-temporary with Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, gives much the same account with Clemens as to the time of his promotion, unless we shall take Jerom's Translation, which if the words would bear it, is much more commodious: Hegesippus writes, That James took upon him the Episcopacy of the Church of Jerusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after the Apostles; 
Post Apostolos. Hieron Catal. in Jacobo.  Jerom renders it, but against all Grammar, and therefore Sophronius who translates him into Greek, is forced to change the case, and write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is very probable Jerom read so in his copy; though Rufinus who translated the same passage confirm the Greek reading: However certain it is that James was Bishop of Jerusalem (whether with or after the Apostles is not so material) not only from Hegesippus and Clemens Alex. but also from St. Paul, who mentions him as one of the Apostles, that he had conversed with in Jerusalem, and it is likely there were no more there at that time but he and Peter. But when they were at last dispersed, Ecclesiastical History makes James the Ordinary, Bishop and Diocesan of the place. As for his Episcopacy it will not be disputed by any man that has left himself any freedom of understanding and belief: and it is strange to see Salmasius run his head so violently against such solid Testimonies, as those of Hegesippus and Clemens. But for his Diocese, that I see will be stiffly denied, though the Scripture Testimonies already alleged, are sufficient to persuade any reasonable man, that the Church of Jerusalem was more than a Congregation, and consequently the Bishop of it a Diocesan, according to Mr. B.'s definition: But besides; we have as ancient Testimonies from Church History too, of the greatness of that Church, as of any other whatsoever. For Hegesippus among several commendations of him, says, that several of the Jewish Sectaries who believed neither a Resurrection nor Judgement to come, were converted by James. And that when a great number of the Rulers and and principal men of the City, 
Apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  were by his Ministry brought to believe the Gospel, the Jews made an uproar, the Scribes and Pharisees saying, that it was to be feared, that all the people would turn Christians: would they fancy themselves in so great danger, if the Christians in so vast and populous a City should have but one single Congregation? Suppose they had one Synagogue of four or five hundred, is that such a dreadful proportion as to fright people out of their wits as if they were, immediately to be overrun with Christianity; and what should give them so great disturbance? The Christians had always had one Congregation there, and surely a pretty full one, from the time of Christ's Death, and if their meeting places were not increased, and Synagogues with their Rulers and Officers had not deserted the Jewish Church, and professed Christianity, there had been no protence for such an apprehension, as if all Jerusalem were about to change the Law for the Gospel; it was more than a poor Congregational Church, and Bishop that must give cause to these apprehensions.  
It was not long ere this Church of Jerusalem, that was grown so formidable to the Jews, that they were afraid lest in a little while it might swallow up all their Synagogues, was removed thence, and by a special warning snatched from the destruction that was shortly to fall upon that wicked City. There is an ancient Tradition that the Christians of Jerusalem forsook it before the last Siege, and went to Pella, 
Euseb. Hist. l. 3.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  a City of beyond Jordan: and because the obscurity of the place may make one suspect that the numbers of the Church of Jerusalem were not so great, if this Town could receive them all: We must understand that Town to be their Metropolis, or seat of their Bishop, but the believers were all scattered through that whole Country, 
Epip. Haer. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 11.  as Epiphanius writes: and his way of expressing himself, makes Pella only the principal residence of the Church, and here it is probable their Bishop lived, for after the death of James and the Destruction of Jerusalem, the Apostles and Disciples, and such of our Savious kindred as remained, met together to appoint a Successor to James when this Church was departed from Jerusalem, and it must needs be more than an ordinary charge to occasion so solemn a meeting, to consult about the Person that should succeed in it. It was more surely than the oversight of one single Congregation: 
Id. l. 3. c. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And his Government added yet greater numbers to that Church, many thousands of the Circumcision receiving the Christian Faith at that time, and among the rest Justus who succeeded in the Bishopric of Jerusalem.  
Now from this account of the Church of Jerusalem it appears manifestly, 1. That it was Episcopal from the beginning, and some of the Authors that attest it, lived in that time, when the Apostolical Church Government is pretended to be changed into Episcopacy, by Blondel, and it shows no less the vanity of Mr. B.'s conceit about the Original of Bishops.  
2. That the Bishops of Jerusalem were Diocesan's having the oversight of several Congregations, which is necessarily inferred from the express numbers of Converts, from general expressions of wonderful accessions; from the jealousy of the Scribes and Pharisees, who apprehended from the progress Christianity made, that all Jerusalem would soon become Christians; from the farther accounts of its increase, and of the innumerable multitudes that were added to it, and this is sufficient to show the weakness of Mr. B.'s conjecture, who makes Rome and Alexandria to be the first patterns of Diocesan Episcopacy, and that not till after the beginning of the third Century.  
Nor was the Church of Jerusalem singular in its constitution, but all other Churches of the Apostles planting were of the same kind, and designed for the like, and yet farther increase: The beginnings of them as of all other things were but small, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of Mustard Seed, which is yet capable of prodigious improvement, and the slip when first planted is but single, yet afterwards it shoots out several branches, which though never so mnumerous, and at some distance one from the other, yet communicate all in the same same body and root: The design of the Gospel is not like those of the Authors of Sects, or Religious orders to have only a select company of followers, that are much at leisure, but great and comprehensive, and suited to the whole World: There is no Sex, no Capacity, no condition but is designed to be brought into the Church, and to be digested the most commodiously that may be, so that there may be one fold under one Shepherd, Christ the Universal Pastor: The Schools of the Philosophers and the Synagogues of the Jews were to narrow foundations for such a building as that of the Christian Church; which are to be larger in proportion to the greatness of the Fabric: and it is no less the strength than beauty of the whole to have its Stones and Timber, the parts of which it consists, of something a greater magnitude than those of private and ordinary building: nor can it yet stand without there be some kind of coherence and connection, at least wise where the people that are members of the Church, are likewise united in a political communion, this connection ought particularly to be regarded, which the Apostles in their first planting of the Gospel had an eye to, as shall be observed farther in the course of Diocesan Episcopacy, which after this digression I am going to pursue.  
The first Persecution that was raised against the Church of Jerusalem was by the good Providence of God turned into the happy occasion of planting several other Churches, and that storm which was designed to quench that fire that came down from Heaven, scattered the sparks of it into all the Regions round about: Samaria was the first place we read of that entertained the Gospel when it had been forced out of Jerusalem, 
Acts 8.1. v. 4. v. 5, 6. v. 12.  Philip the Deacon Preached Christ unto them, and the people with one accord gave heed to those things that were spoken by him: and when they believed they were Baptised 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? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Scholar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 lo●e visitation of St. Peter, that lets us see ho● wonderfully the Gospel prevailed at first for when that Apostle passed through 〈◊〉 quarters, and came to the Saints that dwelled at Lydda, 
Acts 9.32, 33. etc. 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 bedridden: 〈◊〉 that dwelled at Lydda and Saron saw him and turned unto the Lord: and this Town an● Territory mentioned with it was large enough for a considerable Diocesan Church nor is there any likelihood, it was divided under several Church Governments, Mr. B. confessing that no City with the villages adjoining had any more than one Bishop 〈◊〉 a long time after this: and in the time 〈◊〉 the Council of Nice. It was an Episcopal seat, for we find Aetius Bishop of the place among the subscriptions of th● Council,  
The next considerable Church that wa● founded, was that of Antioch, the greated City of all the East, and the Church d●● soon bear a good proportion to the greatness of the City: 
Acts 11. ●1.  For the hand of God was w●● them (the scattered Disciples) and a gre●● number believed and turned unto the Lord: an● 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 renounced Idolatry, and such must the Greeks be to whom those of Cyprus Preached 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 ●ncouraged by that success to Preach to the Gentiles at Antioch too, while they abode ●here a long time with the Disciples: and the multitude of these Gentile Converts made ●equestion about Circumcision of so great ●●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 divi●ed, 
Gal. 2.12. compared with Acts 15.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and rend into separate assemblies: unless we shall ●●terpret this separation ●o be rather a scruple re●●ting to Conversation and ●●iet, than to public and Church Communique as it is most likely; though even this must ●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 fancied to be profane and polluted by the transgression of that Law: Barnius makes two Bishops of Antioch together a● 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 〈◊〉 choose Ignatius, and Peter Evodius, whereas Chrysostom says the contrary, that Igna●●● was ordained by Peter: and to speak freely, I believe this no better than what Bar●●●● would forbid his reader to imagine, a fi●●●● which he was forced to make shift with i● reconcile the contradictions of Eusebius a●● Chrysostom, 
Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 22. Ed. Val●s●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 tradition●● Chronology of Eusebius, and the preci●● time of the Succession and Government 〈◊〉 the first Bishops was not otherwise known to him) is not a Foundation firm enough to build any Opinion upon; 
Vid. Dissert. Spanhemii Blond. Praesat. Apol. pro scent. H.  especia●● when we consider, that the place as we as time, of St. Peter's Martyrdom is questioned, not without some appearance 〈◊〉 Reason, and the whole business is involved in so many difficulties: Blondel takes grea● 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 far 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 upon the multitudes said to be converted, the number of Apostles, and extraordinary Labourers commonly residing in this City: the conjunction of Jews and Gentiles under the common title and profession of Christianity, we must conclude that the Church of Antioch was too great for one Congregation, especially before the place of assembly can be imagined very capacious: and I believe Mr. B. does not imagine such vast Cathedrals as Paul's to be very Primitive.  

Orat de S. Ign.  But what ever number of Christians there might be at that time, Ignatius his Bishopric was never the less Diocesan in its constitution and design, or else Chrysostom mistakes one Topick of his commendation: He reckons five things that were much to his honour: whereof two bring him under suspicion of Diocesan Prelacy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the greatness of his Authority, or Government: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the greatness of the City whereof he was Bishop: The first I suppose refers to his metropolitan Power, the second to his peculiar Diocese, but if this Bishop were to have but one Congregation, what would the greatness of the City signify? how many more would have the same honour with him? Or what so great difference is there between a full Congregation in the heart of the City, and another as full in Chelsey? at leastwise what honour does the greatness of the City do the Minister of that single Congregation?  
And now to pass by the Church of Corinth, where St. Paul Preached for a Year and six Months, upon a Divine assurance of extraordinary success, and that God had much people in that place, 
Acts 18.8, 9, 10, 11.  and where many effectually believed and were Baptised, where Peter and Apollo's Preached with that effect as to leave many Disciples, 
1 Cor. 3.  who called themselves by their names: And to say nothing of Ephesus where a numerous Church is said to have been gathered by St. Paul who preached there for two years, and not only they that dwelled at Ephesus, but all that dwelled in Asia, 
Acts 19.10.  heard the word of the Lord, and the progress of the Gospel was so considerable, that the shrine-makers apprehended the ruin of their Trade, when they saw and heard that Paul not only at Ephesus, but throughout all Asia, had persuaded and turned away much people. 
v. 26.  To pass by these, and several other eminent Churches, Let us consider the Diocese of Rome, as it was yet in the Apostles time.  
It is very uncertain who laid the first Foundations of this Church, though certain it is, that before Paul's coming there the Gospel was not only received, 
Rom. 1.13, 15, 17. & seq.  but their Church was very considerable; for St. Paul in his Epistle written long before his coming there, as he himself witnesss, says, that their Faith was spoken of through the whole World: and by the multitude of salutations in the end of that Epistle, he makes appear the numbers of Christians in that City: Salute Priscilla and Aquila, 
Rom. 16. Ostendit Congregationem Fidelium Ecclesiam nominari. Hieron in lo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Coetum Fidelium: nec mirum est in tam am plâ Civitate distinctos fuisse Fidelium coetus. Beza.  with the Church that is in their house: This was one of the Congregations of that Church, which is occasionly mentioned, and it is not improbable that several that are mentioned with all the Saints that are with them, may be the Officers of several Congregations; For it appears that most of these were of the Ministry, and such by whose means the Romans believed, and that they were strangers come thither from other parts where Paul had known them, 
Congregationem vert. Eras. Istos amats quos satutat intelligimus ex nomini●us suiffe peregrinos per quorum exemylum atque Doctrinam non absurde existimamus credidisse Romans. Hieron.  for as yet he had not seen Rome: And this number was afterwards increased considerably by the coming of Paul, who converted some of the Jews, and afterwards received all that came, whether Jews or Gentiles, and Preached to them the Kingdom of God, for the space of two whole years, no man forbidding him: And the progress of the Gospel in this City may be farther observed from the Persecution of Nero, who is said to have put an infinite multitude of them to Death, 
Ingens multitude, hand perinde in Crimint ineendii quam odio bumani generis convicti sunt. Tac. H. l. 15.  upon pretence that they had fired Rome; and the Heathen Historian says, that they who confessed were first laid hold on, than a vast company were convicted by their indication, where by the by, besides the multitude of the sufferers, we may take notice, that the words seem to be mistaken generally, as if the Christians some of them had confessed the Fact, and accused the rest, Lipsius thus understanding the passage, gives Tacitus the lie; but he does not say they confessed the fact, but they confessed without expressing the particulars; but what did they confess then? If it were this Crime that the● owned themselves, and charged others with, how comes he to add that they were not convicted so much of this Crime, by this Indication as by the hatred of all mankind? therefore this confession was no more than owning themselves to be Christians, and the hatred they were in, made this sufficient conviction.  
To these instances of the great numbers of Christians in some more considerable Cities, 
Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  I shall add only the general account which Eusebius gives of the success of the Christian faith immediately after the first discovery of it. That presently in all Cities and Villages, Churches abounding with innumerable multitudes, were assembled; and the Granary of Christ was filled up to the top with the Wheat that was gathered in.  
Hitherto I have observed chief the growth of Christianity under the Apostles, and that there was in some Cities such a number of Christians, as could not meet together in one Assembly, for personal Communion in Doctrine and Worship: The next thing we must show in order to Diocesan Episcopacy must be, that such numbers of believers made but one Church Governed by one Bishop.  
As to the Church of Jerusalem we have showed already from the most ancient Ecclesiastical writings, that James the Just was Bishop of that Church, i. e. of all the Believers in Jerusalem: Nor is that Tradition without ground in the Scripture itself, for St. Paul reckons James the Lord's Brother among the Apostles of that Church, 
Sal. 1.19.  though he were none of the Twelve; and in another place he mentions him as a person in Eminent place and authority there, one that had sent several Brethren to Antioch [before that certain Brethren came from James.] 
●. 12.  Here we find the style of the Scripture to alter in favour of Episcopacy, for hitherto the Messengers who were sent from one Church to another, were said to be sent in the name of the Church in General: as the Church of Jerusalem sent John and Peter to Samaria: 
Act. 8.  In like matter the Church sent Barnabas to Antioch: 
v. 11.  But now it seems they come from James, and the Acts of the Church, pass in the name of the Bishop only, although after this we find this Style to vary again; and sometimes the Church of such a place sends to another without the mention of the Bishop, though the letter be penned by the Bishop himself, as the inscription of Clemens his Epistle to the Corinthians does inform us: and jastly, as the authority of James appears by sending to the Church of Antioch, so it does likewise from his speech in the Council of Jerusalem, where he seems to preside, and determines the question in dispute, 
Act. 5.  in the name of the whole Assembly. All this considered together with the Testimonies of Hegesippus and Clemens, there can be as little doubt that Diocesan Episcopacy was settled by the Apostles in the Church of Jerusalem, as there is of any thing that is not expressly set down in Scripture; and it cannot be denied without resecting the most Authentic records of Church History.  
It is to be confessed that the Scriptures have not left so full and perfect account of the constitution and Government of the first Churches as might be wished, for the Acts of the Apostles the only Scripture History of those time, relate mostly the victories of Christian Religion, how several Cities were converted: By what miracles, by what Argument or exhortation: but before the Holy Penman comes to give an account of the settlement of those new Conquests, he carries away the Reader from thence, to follow the Apostles to some other place, where they begin to lay the Foundations of another Church: Thus we have no more notice of the Churches of Samarid and of Judea (Jerusalem excepted) than that such were founded by the Apostles; but of their Government, and constitution we are not the least information; and the prospect left of Antioch in Scripture, is very confused as of a Church in fieri, where a great number of Eminent persons, laboured together to the building of it up, but after what form does not appear but only from Ecclesiastical Writers, 
Eusel. l. 3. c. 22. Chronnon. Chrysost. Orat. de Ignatio.  who report that this Church when it was settled and digested, was committed to the Government of Evodius, and after him to Ignetius, and the succeeding Bishops.  
Nevertheless we are not left destitute of all light in this particular even from the Scriptures, the History of St. Paul, as it is delivered by St. ●●ke in the Acts of the Apostles, and by himself scatteringly in his own Epistles, informing us in some measure of the from of the Primitive Church Government in the Apostles times.  
This Apostle of the Gentiles did commonly use this method informing those Churches he had converted, as may be seen by consulting the Citations in the Margin.  
When he came to any place where the Gospel had not been preached (and he did not affect much to build upon another was foundation) He preached first in the Synagogues of the Jews, 
Rom. 15.20. 1 Cor. 3.10. Acts 9.20, 13, & 14. Acts 13.46.  and if they rejected the grace of God, he turned to the Gentiles. Assoon as he had converted a competent number, he took care to improve them in the knowledge of the truth, 
1 Cor. 3.2.  and for that purpose taught them constantly either at his own house, 
Acts 28.30.19.9.20.20.  or at some public School as that of Tyrannus or any other convenient place where a good number might assemble together: These converts as they were made Partakers of the same common Doctrine and Faith; so they were to be perpetually united by a Communion in worship, in Prayer, and the Sacrament: for it was not with the School of the Apostles as with those of this World, 
Acts. 11.26. Heb. 10.25.  which the Disciples leave when they conceive themselves to have learned what they came for: But there was an obligation upon all these Scholars to Assemble themselves together, 
Rom. 12.5. 1 Cor. 12.13.12.22. Phil. 2.12.  till they came to a perfect man, which was not consummated till after this life: Nor was the Relation between Christians dissolved when the Congregation was dissmissed, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig●c●●●. ●●s. 1.8. in fine.  but they were united farther into one Society or Corporation, into a holy City, under the Government of Christ their King, and under Apostles and such other Officers of his, and their appointment: and so far to act and determine all things within themselves that they were not to appear before any Heathen Magistrate upon any difference, but to refer it to the Brethren, or to the Apostle under whose direction they were.  
Thus far we may consider a Church without any other Officer than the Apostle who converted them; but their numbers increasing in that place and much of his time being taken up in disputing with, and preaching to unbelievers, and gainsayers, or this Apostle being called away to preach the Gospel in other places, 
Acts 9.29.17.17.19.8, 9  it was necessary to ordain such Church Officers as might take care of this Church, in the Doctrine and Discipline of it, 
6.4. Acts 14.23. Phil. 2.12.20.17.  and others to take care of the poor, lest that Office taking up much time; might be a hindrance to those who were to guide the Assembly in Doctrine and Worship: Now this constitution does not take away the relation that was between this Church and the Apostle that founded it, and these Officers act in subordination to him whether present or absent: and St. Paul therefore looks upon himself as the Apostle, or Bishop of the Corinihians though he could not hold personal Communion with them: 
1 Cor. 5.3. Acts 15.36.  for sometimes he goes a Circular visitation to examine the State of those Churches which he had planted: or if the distance, and oceasions of that Church where he resided, or his imprisonment, and other outward Circumstances, would not admit this personal visitation, he sends his letters and orders what is to be done: If any open Scandal be permitted he sends his Excommunication to be published in that Church whereof the offender was a member, 
1 Cor. 5.3, 4, 5. Cum meo spiritu quipro me erat praesens, sive in mearum literarum authoritate. Hiero●.  he judges as though he were present; he order that when they are met together in his spirit, they would deliver the Criminal to Satan: And because some of the Teachers in the Church of Corinth began to set up themselves in opposition to the Apostle, taking advantage of his absence, 
1 Cor. 4.18, 19.9.1, 2.5.19.  and using all means to lessen him in the esteem of that people, he is forced to assert his Authority, and to justify his Title, to let them know that he was their Father, their Apostle, and that they owed him still the duty of Children notwithstanding his absence; and lastly, that he would come to them shortly by way of Apostolical visitation and examine the power of those that entered into competition with him: For as far as his Line or Diocese, or Province did extend, so far he pretended a peculiar Authority to govern, 
Rom 15.19. 2 Cor. 10.13. to 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dioecesis sive certus Pastorum & Ec●lesiarum numerus: Unit. Frat. Bohem. Sect. de Antist. Regulam vocat Ditionem, & praescriptum Praedicationis Terminum. Salmeron.  and exercised Diocesan jurisdiction upon all within his Rule.  
But when this Line was so far extended, that he neither was able to visit every part himself, and his communication by Letters would not answer all the occasions of those Churches he had planted, 
1. Tim. 1.3, 18. c. 2.14, 15. c. 4.12, 14. c. 5.21.22. Tit. 1.5. c. 2.15.  he provides for them not by leaving every Congregation Independent, and resigning all Authority into the hands of every particular Presbytery; but by sending Persons endued not only with extraordinary gifts, but with Apostolical power to ordain Elders, to end disputes, to censure the unruly and irregular, whether of the Clergy or People, to confute Heretics, to preach the Gospel, and in short by all means to provide for thee welfare of those Churches committed to them: And now as the Apostle had before ordained assistant Elders in the several Churches which he had planted, for the ordinary attendance of the Congregation; so now he takes to himself Assistants of another sort, Suffragans for the Service of his Province, which he distributed as he found most expedient, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 1. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod in 1 Tim. 3. Phil. 3.25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acceperat in illis Apostolatus officium. Hieron in locum. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Anonym. 〈◊〉 Phot. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. in Timoth.   and these in the Apostles time were sometimes called Apostles, or Evangelists, Bishops, Presbyters, Fellow. Labourers, Helpers, Deacons, etc. but their successors leaving greater and more invidious titles contented themselves with the name of Bishops, which was common to them with ordinary Presbyters at first, though the Offices were always distinct.  
Of this kind we have several mentioned in Scripture of St. Paul's Province, as Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Crescens, Epaphraditus, Sosthenes, and some others that had no relation to him, as James the Just, Mark, Linus, Clemens, etc. These exercised Episcopal jurisdiction in that district where they were appointed, Ordained Presbyters, received accusations against them, Reproved and censured them as there was cause, and in short governed those Churches over which they were appointed by full Apostolical power, which was transmitted to their successors.  
But the extraordinary abilities of some of these men, and the occasions of several other Churches, made their residence less constant in the Diocese where they were placed, 
2 Tim. 4.9.  than otherwise might have been expected, 
Phil. 2.  and therefore Timothy the Bishop and Apostle of Ephesus is called to Rome by St. Paul to be employed as the necessities of the Church should require; Titus is sent to Dalmatia, though Crete were his first Province, but this concludes no more against their being Diocesans, than the Voyage of Germanus and Lupus into Britain, to oppose the Pelagian Heresy, would conclude against their being Bishops. Now what care was taken for those Churches which these Apostolic Diocesans left, whether they returned again to their Provinces is not mentioned in Scripture: But Ecclesiastical Records show an uninterrupted Succession from the Bishops in several Churches.  
Nor do we find that they were all so unfixed as they are represented by the adversaries of Episcopacy, for Mark who was the first Bishop of Alexandria, remained in that Province, 
Euseb. Hist. l. 2. c. 16. Niceph. l. 2. c. 43. Gelas. in Conc. Rom. in decr. de lib. Auth.  planting Churches in the Country round about, and governing them by Apostolical Authority, which after his Martyrdom there, was derived to his successuors in the same charge.  
Now this order being of perpetual use, and necessity in the Church, to ordain Presbyters, and Deacons, to exercise discipline, to preserve unity, they were multiplied according as the Apostles found most expedient for the Church, and the most eminent Cities became the Residence of these first Bishops, not because God takes greater care of Cities than he does of lesser Towns and Villages, but because the Apostles thought it the most natural way to follow the distribution that was then in the more civilzed part of the world: St. John a little while before his death mentions seven in the Lydian Asia, under the name of Angels of the Churches, nor is it probable there were any more in that Province: The Seven Churches being the same with all the Churches mentioned in the next Chapter, 
Rev. 1.20.2.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Andr. Caesar. 
Ego puto simul inveniri posse Angelum & hominem bonos Ecclesia Episcopos. Origen in Lucam, Hom. 13.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut Collegas moneat Beza.  
Ad Episcopum loci dirigitur. Paraus.   and Carolus à Sancto Paulo concludes the same thing out of St. John, Cum in Asia septem tantum hisce temporibus essent Episcopi ut in Apocalypsi legere est, nec majorem corum numerum in Ponto tunc fuisse probalile est: 
Geogr. Sacra, p. 289. Dissert. 4. c. 5. Quod si de Angelis superiorum Coelorum, & non de praepositis Ecclesie intelligi vellet, none consequenter diceret.— Laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositas Ecclesiae, Aug. Ep. 162.  But Dr. Hammond makes all these Angels to be Metropolitans, having several Bishops under them, for the reasons I must refer the reader to his Dissertations.  
Thus far the Scripture discovers the rise and progress of Diocesan Episcopacy, which was the form of Church Government under the Apostles, who had large Provinces to supervise, and their suffragans, such as are commonly called Evangelists, had several Congregations to govern, and this was undeniably the constitution of the Church in the first age; the next thing we are to inquire is, whether the Office expired with those Persons, or was designed to be of perpetual use in the Church.  
The Adversaries of Episcopacy are not all agreed as to this point, the Presbyterians generally looking upon the offices of Apostles and Evangelists, extraordinary as the persons were: Mr. B. is something more scrupulous, because he does not find any where, that Christ designed to have this altered, and yet he condemns Diocesan Episcopacy as being altogether different from it. I have said something to this already, and therefore I shall answer here more briefly:  
1. That we have no reason to believe from Scripture that the Office of Apostles or Evangelists which concerned the Government of the Church was extraordinary, and for a time only; and the extraordinariness of their gifts can be no argument against their continuance, for notwithstanding they did many miraculous things, yet they never could contrive to be in two places a the same time, and as to their governing of several Congregations, they were under the same inconveniences with their successors: They visited from place to place, they called the Presbyters of some Churches to them to give them directions, they proceeded by information, and legal evidence, and what was possible to them to do in these cases, is not become impossible to those that succeed them.  
2. All other offices had extraordinary men in those days, and the same argument will hold against Presbyters and Deacons as against Bishops, for the first Deacons that were elected were men full of the Holy Ghost.  
3. The unfixedness of these is no argument against the reason of their continuance, and all that will follow from that is no more than this, that if it was essential to their office to be unfixed they ought to be so still, and not to cease to be at all.  
4. All of them were not unfixed, and if they had been so, it does not follow that the nature of their office requires it, it might be no more than accidental.  
5. That they governed several Churches, and were Arch-Bishops; As to the notion of Church or Churches, it is not very material whether we say, Bishop of one or of many Churches; for many worshipping Churches may make but one Governing Church, and worshipping Churches may have their officers too, as our Parishes, but still in subordination to the Bishop, as the several Churches under these Evangelists and Apostles were subordinated to them, in matter of Discipline, and Ordination.  
But because many depend upon the title, which these secondary Apostles have in Scripture, as Timothy is commanded to do the work of an Evangelist, it is necessary to observe that it was not all their work, to Preach and Propagate the Gospel, but to settle Churches, to govern them, to ordain Officers, to censure offenders, these are the things particularly given in Charge, that of Evangelists was common to them with divers others. But ordination is made their peculiar right: For why did Paul leave Timothy and Titus, one in Ephesus, the other in Crete to ordain Elders? Were there not Presbyters in Ephesus already? Might not they ordain? Might not they receive Accusations, and Excommunicate? Why then was there one single Person left to do all this? and in Crete, it is not to be conceived, but that since St. Paul had converted several to the faith in that Island, he also had ordained some Church Officers in those places of the Island where he most resided: Or what need had he to leave a Bishop behind him to ordain, when he might by the ordination of a few Presbyters in one City provided sufficiently for ordination in the rest? or lastly since this ordination is made so insignificant by Mr. B. why might not these Believers have appointed their own Teachers without any further circumstance; and by an instance of their power have freed Posterity from the superstition of thinking Apostolical Ordination, and succession so requisite to Authorise Pastors? But since the Apostles ordained all Ecclesiastical Officers by themselves, or their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Assistants, their suffragan Bishops, and left some of them on purpose to do this work, it is plain that they conceived some kind of necessity for it, and did not look upon the power so common or insignificant, as later projectors of Church settlements would make us believe.  
Now as the Scripture discovers no other sort of Episcopacy, than such as we have described; so the ancient Bishops knew of no other Original of their Office, for they conceived themselves to be derived from the Apostles, not as ordinary Presbyters or Deacon, but to succeed them in such a pre-eminence of dignity and power as their first Assistants were endued with: And Eusebius whose diligence nothing could escape, and whose judgement was not easily imposed on, a●ter all his search could find no other Original of Episcopacy, and derives the Bishops of the most eminent Cities of the Empire from the Apostles, and their Assistants whom they appointed as the first Bishops of the Church: 
Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  How many (says he) and who they were that followed the example of the Apostles, and were thought worthy to govern those Churches which they founded is not easy to say; besides these which St. Paul mentions in his Epistles, he indeed had a great number of Assistants, and as he calls them fellow Soldiers whose names are preserved in his Epistle: And Luke in the Acts of the Apostles makes mention of some of them: Among these Timothy is said to have been first Bishop of Ephesus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Titus the Bishop of the Churches of Crete. Crescens was sent to Gallatia, as the present reading of St. Paul's Epistle is, but as Eusebius read it, to Gallia; Linus whom he mentions in his second to Timothy, was made Bishop of the Church of Rome next to Peter and Clemens, who succeeded Linus, is owned by Paul as his fellow labourer. And Lastly, Dionysius the Areopagite whom St. Paul mentions as the first Convert of Athens is reported to have been the first Bishop of that Church, by another Dionysius a very Ancient writer and Bishop of Corinth: This was the rise of Episcopacy according to Eusebius and the progress of it he takes care to show by setting down the successors of these and other Bishops to his own time: 
Ep. ad Smyrn. ad Ephes. ad Magn.  Ignatius derives the Original of Episcopacy a little higher yet, from Christ himself the Universal Bishop, and compares the Bishop with his Bench of Presbyters, to Christ sitting in the midst of his Apostles, and is the most express and vehement of all the Ancients in setting out the dignity and pre-eminence of the Bishop: Irenaus deduces the Episcopal Authority from the same Original; and makes the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles, to be his principal argument against the Heretics and Schismatics of his time; and because it was endless to make a perfect enumeration of those who succeeded the Apostles in all the Churches of the World, 
Valde longum esset in tali volumine enumerare Successiones. l. 3. c. 3  he instances in that of Rome where Linus was first ordained Bishop, 
Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecelesiae tradiderunt Apofloli. ibid. Polycarpus ab Apostolis in eâ qua est Smyrnis constitutus Episcopus— qui usque adbue successerunt Polycarpe. ibid.  than Clemens, and so on to his own time; and in another place proposes it as the only remedy against Heresy, to obey those that have a due succession from the Apostles, who though they are there called Presbyteri, yet it is plain who he means by them when he adds, that they are the same which he shown before to have succeeded the 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 Heretics that disturbed the Church, and draws an argument from their Apostolic 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 Heretics a succession from the Apostles; and Origen speaking of Bishops makes them likewise to succeed the Apostles in their office: 
Omnes enim two 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 Heretic, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 judgement and knowledge 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 than 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 endeavour 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 signify 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 College 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 signify 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 chief 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 sense 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 myself 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 citys 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, than Bishops might be of a superior degree to Presbyters though they might some time be so called: or if it be replied 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 owned them as Brethren, and called them their fellow Presbyters, or fellow Deacons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which he did not take at all to derogate from the dignity of their Order, no more than the modesty of the Apostles calling themselves Presbyters or Deacons could be a prejudice to the Pre-eminence of their Apostleship, which they took care to vindicate when they were forced to it by the ambition of some teachers that entered into competition with them: 
Theodor. ubi supra in Ep. ad Phil. ad Tim. Tit.  Theodoret observed the same promiscuous use of Bishop and Presbyter, but could yet see that there were Bishops then superior to Presbyters, and in that time properly called Apostles: The Greek Scholiast, Theophylact, and Oecumenus saw the same, but were still of opinion that the Episcopal office was always distinct from the Presbyters; so that the ground upon which Jerom built his conjecture, was rejected by the current of Ecclesiastical writers, who could discern the pre-eminence of Bishops above Presbyters, notwithstanding the names were confounded: And yet this is the foundation upon which that conceit doth wholly stand: all Jeroms allegations are to this effect, all the additional confirmations of Salmasius and Blondel, are no other than from the phrase of some of the Ancients, who do not always distinguish between Bishops and Presbyters, but speak in the phrase of the Scriptures, and yet there is nothing more evident than that at that time, when these Authors writ, Bishops and Presbyters were distinguished, and excepting only Clemens Romanus, Blondel and Salmasius do both acknowledge it.  
But to return to Jerom, Let us considet the account he gives of the Original of Episcopacy something more particularly: Before there were factions in Religion, the Church was governed by Presbyters of equal Authority: But what factions were these that gave birth to Episcopacy? What time was that when the Church was under Presbyterian government? He informs us in the following words: Before it was said, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo's, and I of Cephas: If we understand this according to the letter, we must conclude this to be very early: For this Epistle to the Corinthians, where that division is mentioned, was written in the year of Christ 52: And then this notion will do little service against Episcopacy: for this will make it of Apostolic institution. Besides I do not see how it can be true: for the Church was now Governed by Apostles, and not by Presbyters: and if in most Cities there were no particular Bishop ordained yet, it was because the Apostles were their Bishops, and visited them to establish good order, to ordain officers, to punish the disorderly, as they had opportunity; and when they were not able to be present, they sent their orders in writing, and exercised Episcopal Authority at a distance: But Blondel contends earnestly against the literal understanding of that passage, and shows that Jerom could not mean this of the Church of Corinth, but of some following Schism that sprung up after the example of this of Corinth. His reason is, that the passages whereby Jerom confirms his opinion of Bishops and Presbyters being the same, were written after that Epistle to the Corinthians. I have showed before how probable it is that Jerom spoke without a figure; and I need not repeat it here. But these things you will say cannot cannot consist. It may be so: and it is not certain that Jerom when he wrote this passage, did consider in what order of time St. Paul's Epistles were written: what if it was an oversight for want of stating the Chronelogy of the New Testament? If it be replied that Jerom a man of that great learning and diligence, and particular knowledge also in Chronology, as we may conclude from his translating of Eusebius his Chronicon, could hardly commit such a mistake; It is to be considered that according to Blondels computation, who makes him to speak of the second Century, he will be as inconsistent with himself: for suppose w● should say that Jerom pointed to the year 135, as the precise time when the Presbyterian Government was changed, how shall we reconcile Jerom to himself: For in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, he reckons several Bishops long before that time, he makes James to be Bishop of Jerusalem, statim post Ascensionem, presently after the Ascension of Christ. He calls Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, he makes Anianus to succeed Mark in Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero. How shall we make all these things to consist? did he think James to be no more than a simple Presbyter, or Timothy could he fancy him to have no superiority over the Elders he was to ordain or to govern? it is not possible: or shall we say that in these relations he only transcribes out of others, and that he does not speak his own opinion: Well suppose this: Either he must have some Authority for his opinion greater than that of such Authors he follows in that Book; or not: if he had none, why should we believe him against all Antiquity? Nay why should we believe so uncharitably of him, as that he would deliver those things he did not believe without the least warning to the reader, or that he would believe any matter of fact against all the tradition and History of the Church, and yet have no Authority for it? Or if he had any Authority from Ecclesiastical writers to ground his opinion upon, why are they not produced? Nay we may be assured in this point that he had none from that Catalogue of writers we are speaking of, since he had seen none but what Eusebius had seen before him, and citys as we have showed before for the contrary opinion, to confirm Episcopacy to be Apostolical, and to have begun long before this time, which Blondel would have Jerom thought to assign for its Original. So that what way soever Jerom be understood of the Original of Episcopacy, he is either manifestly inconsistent with himself, or with Scripture and Antiquity.  
But his Scripture Authorities, you will say, do sufficiently prove that Episcopacy was not yet introduced into the Church. Nothing less: unless they can prove that those Presbyteries were not governed by the Apostle that established them, or by some Assistant, or Suffragan; or unless they can make out that Timothy, Titus and divers others of that rank, were no more than simple Presbyters.  
After this time (whensoever it was) St. Jerom adds, It was decreed over all the world, that one of the Presbyters (who governed before in common) should be set over the rest. In what Church in the whole world was this Decree Registered? Who ever heard of it before St. Jerom? What general Council passed it? What Authority made it Authentic? Or by what means did all the Churches in the World agree to this change? What, was there no opposition made against this alteration of the Apostolical Government? What, did all the little Ecclesiastic Aristocracies submit without dispute to this innovation? We may as well believe that there was a time when all the Republics in the world, upon the consideration of their being obnoxious to Factions, became Monarchies by mutual consent: Nay this might with greater reason be believed, for it is not impossible but that men who are satisfied of their power to set up what form of Government they please, might agree to shake off together, a form that they find very incommodious: but that so many Societies as there were Churches in the World, appointed by divine direction, should so universally change what the Apostles had instituted without any noise or resistance, and that by one common decree, is altogether incredible, and one may say with the same reason, that they conspired at the same time to change their Creed.  
Having examined St. Jeroms singular opinion concerning the rise of Episcopal Government, I should now conclude that point, if Clemens Romanus in his excellent Epistle to the Corinthians did not seem to favour this opinion; therefore I think it necessary to consider such passages in it as are alleged against Episcopacy, and from the whole to make a conjecture of the state of that Church when that Epistle was written.  
The Inscription of it affords Blondel an argument against Episcopacy, for it is not in the name of the Bishop or Clergy, but of the whole Church that it is written: The Church of God at Rome to the Church of God at Corinth. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  From whence Blondel infers, that since there is no mention of the Clergy, it follows, that the Church was governed then not by the pleasure of one man, but by the common Counsel of those that were set over it: This way of reasoning I must confess to be very extraordinary: Because there is no mention of the prerogative of the Roman Clergy, 
Ubi cum nulla peculiaris vel scribentis mentio, vel cleri Romani Praerogativa vel Corinthiaci Presbyterii a plebe discretio appareat, sed omnes ad omnes confertim scripsisse compertum sit: luce meridiana clarius clucescit tune temporis Ecclesias communi Praepositorum Consilio gubernatas, non unius regi mini à cujus ●utu penderent omnes subjacuisse.  or of that of Corinth as distinguished from the Laity, it's clear, nay clearer than the day, that there was no Bishop. It would be a very strange thing to see two men with their eyes open, dispute fiercely whether it were noonday or midnight: and yet this is our case; that consequence which to him is as clear as the Sun, does not at all appear to others. If he had said, because there is no mention of the Clergy in the Inscription as the Governing part, therefore there was no Clergy, or the Clergy did not govern, the inference would have appeared, but what truth there would be in it I need not say. Others inscribe Epistles in the same style, to the Church of such a Place, where notwithstanding there is a Bishop and a Clergy: 
Dionys. Corinth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet in the body of these Letters he mentions the Bishops of those Churches. Irenaeus ubi supra. Euseb. l. 4. c. 23.  And this Argument of Blondel may be justly suspected, when we consider that the Ancients though they were well acquainted with this Epistle of Clemens and its Inscription, yet they could by no means see this consequence that is now drawn from it. Irenaeus had doubtless seen that Epistle, for it was in his time commonly read in Churches: and yet he thought Clemens who wrote it to be Bishop of Rome, notwithstanding his name be not mentioned in it. Dionysius Bishop of Corinth says it was read in his Church, and yet he could not find any thing in it to persuade him that at that time there were no Bishops, but on the contrary he was of opinion that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles, and that Dionysius Areopagita was ordained by St. Paul the first Bishop of Athens: so that these ancient writers it seems were as blind as we, and could not observe either in the Inscription, or body of this Epistle what Blondel at such a distance of time could perceive as clear as the noon day, and yet those writers if they had suspected any such thing might have been easily satisfied by their Fathers, who might have seen the state of the Church, about which the difficulty was, and so told them upon their own knowledge whether the Government was Episcopal or Presbyterian: And therefore this is our comfort that if we cannot discern this light which Blondel talks of, that those who lived nearer the East, the rising of it, could see no more than we: But some men surely have glasses for distance of time, as well as place, and can see farther in the Apostolic times than the next Generation that followed them. But to proceed.  
Clemens owned but two orders in the Church of Apostolic Institution, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Bishops and Deacons, which he says the Apostles ordained out of the first-fruits of the Gospel, over those that should afterwards believe. And these were appointed in Cities, and the Country, or Regions round about: from whence Blondel draws many observations, and out of him Mr. B. as 1. That in those days no body thought of what the Council of Sardica did afterwards decree; that no Bishop should be made in any Village, or small City, lest the dignity of that office should be undervalved, and grow cheap: This is grounded as most of the rest of Blondels and Mr. B.'s Arguments from this Epistle, upon a mistake, and I fear a wilful one concerning the name of Bishop: For if the Bishops of Clemens who he says were apponited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were only Presbyters, than the Council of Sardica did not do any extraordinary thing by that prohibition of Bishops in little Dioceses, for Presbyters were still allowed in the Country Villages by that Council: and therefore if Episcopacy was an institution later than Clemens, this Council has done nothing so contrary to this, by forbidding Bishops properly so called, and allowing Presbyters to reside in Country Villages. Some there are that interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Provinces, but there is no necessity at all for this, though the phrase will very well bear it, for these Bishops I believe with Blondel and Mr. B. were no other than Presbyters, such as were first appointed to govern the Church, but in subordination to the Apostles, who were the proper Bishops of those Churches they founded, and as they found occasion, appointed others to succeed them in that eminence of Authority, over such districts of the Apostolical Provinces, as they judged most convenient for the edification and unity of the Church. And this distribution of Church Officers, by Clemens into Bishops and Deacons is the less to be depended upon as exact, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Esay 60.17.  because it seems to be made only with allusion to a place in the Old Testament where those titles are mentioned: Besides, the mentioning but these two sorts of Church Officers, may be done only according to the distinction of the several employments 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. storm. l. 6. p. 283. Ed. Silburgii, in 1 Tim. 1.  as the Governing or Teaching, and the Ministering Parts; yet he does elsewhere acknowledge 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 i● 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 supre●● 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 says 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 expressly 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 show 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, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 insolences of the people against their Rulers there are commonly some persons of note that first animate the sedition, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  it was not otherwise here; a few ambitious discontented men and they too not very extraordinary Persons for knowledge or endowments; instigated the common people against their Governors, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  & 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 public. Therefore Clemens aggravates this sedition by comparing it with that mentioned by St. Paul, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  when they cried some for him, some for Cephas, some for Apollo's, for they were two of them great Apostles, and the other one highly esteemed by the Church, But now (says 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 expressly 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 persuaded them that they had a right to turn out their Pastors, therefore Clemens shows 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 choose 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 Bishopric. 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 prevailed 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 happy are those that enter that way, behaving themselves peaceably. For let a man be faithful, let him be never so powerful a Preacher, let him be never so wise and discerning, holy in his life, yet by how much he seems to excel others, by so much ought he to behave himself more humbly, and seek the common good of all, and not his own particular.  
Besides this the passionate expostulation of Clemens with the Ringleaders of this sedition makes this conjecture yet more probable; Who is there among you generous, and charitable? Let him say, if this Schism and Sedition has been raised upon my account, I will withdraw, I will be gone whithersoever ye please, only let the Fold of Christ live in unity and peace with the Presbyters that are over it: and to encourage them to this generous resignation, he tells them of many Kings that have offered themselves a Sacrifice for the safety of their Countries? How many to put an end to sedition have left their own Cities? 
Apud Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 45.  with more to that effect, which Dionysius of Alexandria borrows out of this Epistle, and sends it as an exhortation to Novatus to put an end to that Schism he had caused: and what is there so proper against a Schismatic Bishop, we may judge not without reason to have been applied by the first Author upon the same occasion. And thus much of the state of the Church of Corinth at the writing of this Epistle.  
The last thing I shall observe out of Clemens is a passage that seems to favour the distribution of the Clergy into three Orders, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Bishop, Priests, and Deacons: The Highpriest (says he) hath his proper office, the Priests have a proper place appointed for them, and the Levites have their peculiar Ministry, and the Layman is obliged to keep himself within the bounds of his own station. Brethren let every one of you glorify God in his own place, and keep himself within his own line, not breaking over the bounds of his own Office and Ministry.  
Having now given an account of the Original of Diocesan Episcopacy out of Scripture and Antiquity, and examined the singular opinion of St. Jerom concerning it, I come now to give a short view of the progress and advancement of it.  
The first Bishops after the Apostles according to the opinion of Rabanus Maurus, 
In 1 Tim. 4.  had very large Dioceses, Primis temporib●● Episcopi Provincias integras regebant, Apost●lorum nomine nuncupati: i. e. In those first times Bishops governed whole Provinces being called then Apostles: and this conformable to Theodoret who affirms not only the same thing of the first Bishops being called Apostles, 
Is Argumento Ep. ad Tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. in 1 Tim. 3.  but also that they had large Dioceses too; for speaking of Titus, he calls him Bishop of Crete, though it were a very great Island; and in another place he says, that Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians, Titus of the Cretians, and Timothy of the Asians. i e. In his language their Bishops, and the Canons of the Apostles signify as much, where they order every Bishop to medale only with his own Diocese and the Regions that belong to it. 
Can. Ap. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
But as Christians were multiplied in the World, so the number of Bishops increased, every considerable City with the Country about becoming Dioceses; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Phil: 1. Chrysost in loc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oecum. Theoph. nor. ●●i● una in urbe plures. Episcopi esse potuissent. Hieron. It could not be: It was against the design of the institution. Loci ipsius Episc●●o scribendum esset, non duobus aut tribus. Ambr. in Loc.  so Asia towards the latter end of St. John had seven Bishops, and by proportion we may conjecture of other Countries: and the first advances of Christianity being very wonderful, and the success of our Religion giving occasion to envy and persecution, the condition of those times seems to have proportioned the distribution of the Church, and to multiply Dioceses. For in those troublesome times, it being very difficult to maintain▪ such a communication as aught to be, between a Bishop and all the parts of his Diocese, it was found necessary to multiply Churches, and that every City with some Portion of Country belonging to it should have its own Bishop: who though his flock might at first be but small, and not exceed a Congregation; yet was he properly the Bishop of the place, i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of those that afterwards should believe. Whatever accessions were made to this Church, though the whole City and Country should be converted, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cornel. ap. E●seb. l. 6. c. 43.  Episcope cedunt; they accrue to the Bishop of the place into how many Congregations soever they might after be distributed; and therefore the Church of a Bishop retained still the singular number, though distributed into several Congregations: and in such a Church they contended there aught to be but one Bishop, though it had never so many Presbyters, as that of Rome had, when Cornelius pretended there aught to be but one Bishop, and Novatus did not contradict him; but the dispute was about this, which of them were the rightful Bishop.  
Episcopacy being settled upon these foundations with a regard to the future increase, as well as the first condition and small beginnings of the Church, we do not find that for the first three Centeries the number of Bishops was near so great as it became afterwards; although in a little while the multitude of believers was so great, that there was no Country, no City, no village in several Provinces of the Roman Empire, where there was not a good number of Christians. Before the persecution of Trajan they were so increased that in the Province of Bythinia, as Pliny complains, the Heathen Temples were become desolate, 
Prope jam desolata Templa coepisse celebrari, & Sacra Solemnia diu intermissa repetl; paffimque venire victimas quarum ad hu● rarissimus emptor inveniebatur, ex quo facile est opinari quae turba hominum emendati possit. Yet after the Apostasy of so many, the numbers are still great: Visa est mihi res consultations digna, maxim proper periclitantiam numerum, multi enim omnis aetatis, omnis or di●is, utriusque sexus,— neque enim Civitates tantum, sed & vicos & agros superstitionis istius contagio pervagata est. Plin. Ep. l. 10. Ep. 100  the Sacrifices neglected and laid aside; and notwithstanding the severity of that persecution made great numbers fall off, yet those that remained unshaken and resolved to die Martyrs for their Religion, were exceeding numerous. Not long after Arrius Antoninus found so many of them in Asia that it was an endless thing to put them to death, though they made no resistance; and when they thronged so much about his Tribunal, offering themselves to death, he sends them back again, desiring them if they had such a passion to die, that they would hang themselves, because he had not Executioners enough: And at Carthage the number of Christians was so great that they could not have been destroyed without making the City desolate, as Tertullian tells Stapula the Governor of the Province: If thou shouldest go about to destroy the Christians here, what wouldst thou do with so many thousands of people? when men and women of all degrees, of all ages, should offer themselves to the Executioners, how many Swords, 
Tertull. l. ad Scap. c. 5. Hoc si placuerit & hic furi, quid facies de tantis millibus hominum, tot viris ac foeminis omnis Sexus, omnis ●tatis, omnis dignitatis, offerentibus se tibi, quantis ignibus, quantis gladiis opus erit? paree tibi si non nobis, parce Carthagini si non tibi.  what fires would be necessary for the Execution of so great a multitude? Spare the City by sparing us. Nor are we to imagine Carthage to abound more with Christians than the rest of the Empire, for the same Author tells us, that the whole world was oversprend with Believers, and that the Heathen cried that they had ever run the City and the Country, 
Obsessm vociserantur Civitatem, in agris, in Castellis, in Insulis, Christianos: omnem sexum, 〈◊〉 a●●m, dignitatem transgredi ad hoc nomen, quasi detrmento moerent. Apol. c. 1.  and every place was full of Christians: that persons of all conditions, sexes, and age was over to this name. Nay, so great were their numbers, that it was not want of strength but want of will that hindered them from becoming masters of the Empire: Loyalty was part of their Religion, and that was the reason why they did not force the Government to a Toleration of, or a submission to it. The barbarous Nations that  the Empire were not near so numerous: 
Plares nimirum Mauri, & Marcomanni, ipsique Parthi omnia vestra implevimus, urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, contillabula, castra ipsa, Tribus, Decarias, Pala●ium, Senatum, forum.  The Christians had filled all Places, their Cities, their Towns, their Councils, their Tribes, the Court, the Senate, and what not: and though they had been yet inferior in number and force, yet their contempt of death would render them a very formidable Enemy: Nay without Rebellion we might easily ruin our Persecutors, should we but withdraw, 
Potuimus inermes, nec Rebels, sed tantummodo discords, solius divortii invidia adversus vos dimicasse; si enim tanta vis hominum in aliquem orbis remoti sinum abrupissemus à nobis, suffudisset vestram dominationem tot qualiumcunque Civium amissio, imo etiam ipsa destitutione punisset, proculdubio expavissetis, ad solitudinem vestram, ad silentium rerum & stuporem quendam quasi mortuae urbis, quaesiss●tis quibus in ea imperassetis, plures bosles quam Civis remansissent, nunc autem pauciores hostes habetis prae multitudine Christianorum, pene Omnium Civium, pe●e Omnes Cives Christianos habe●do. Apol. c. 37.  and retire to any corner of the World, the loss of so many subjects of any kind would unavoidably ruin the Government; How you would be astonished at the strange solitude our departure should cause, at the silence, and stillness of your City, as if it had expired by our departure? you would be to seek for Subjects to govern, and wore enemies than Citizens would remain with you; but now your enemies are more inconsiderable by reason of the great multitude of Christians, who are your Citizens, and almost all your Citizns are Christians.  
And because the Heathens complained that Christian Religion was an enemy to trade, and that it would destroy the commerce of the East, which depended upon the consumption of Frankincense and Spices in the Temples, the Apologist answers: that the Arabians sell more for the Christian funerals than they do to the Heathen Temples: and the Christian Charity spent more in a street, than the Heathen superstition did in a Temple. 
Sciant Sabaei pluris & charioris suas merces Christianis sepeliendis profligari, quam diis fumigardis— Interim plus misericordia nostra insumit vicatim quam vestra Religio Timplatim. c. 42.   
Now the largeness of the Dioceses of those times will appear by comparing the vast multitude of Christians and the small number of Bishops; and first no City how great soever had more than one Bishop: this is so well known that it would be great impertinence to go about to prove it by instances, and I have showed already how the Fathers were of opinion that there ought to be no more. Besides, the Bishops of most Cities if not all, had a considerable Territory belonging to their jurisdiction, which was commonly the Country lying round about their City: So Alexandria besides the Ager Alexandrinus, which was of very large extent, had likewise all the Region called Mareotes, containing above an hundred and fifty Villages, as Athanasius rightly understood, computes them. For every Presbyter had ten or more Villages under him, 
Athan. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Singuli autem Presbyteri p●●prios habent pages, ●osque maxemos, denos interdum aut pl●res: ex bis apparet singul●s Mareotice pages non habuisse snum Presbyterum, sed unicum Presbyterum denos pages rexisse, atque interdum plures. Valesius.  and probably some Assistants or Curates to take care of some of them: This Region always belonged to the Diocese of Alexandria, and never had as much as a Chorepiscopus. But I have before given a particular account of Rome and Alexandria, and therefore I shall say no more here, than that there being but one Bishop in each of those Cities, his Diocese must be very large, and contain several distinct Congregations.  
The African Dioceses, which Mr. B. fancies to be no bigger than our Parishes, were at first very large, till the Schism of the Donatists had divided that Church into small pieces: the manner and the reason of this change I shall show in due place, and even then it will appear that there were some very large Bishoprics in afric.  
Carthage in Tertullia's time had an infinite multitude of Christians, as we have showed already; and Cyprian who was made Bishop there not long after, gives us hints enough of the greatness of his Diocese. 
Tempestas maxima ex parts plebem nostram prostravit— ita ut cleri portionem sua strage perstringeret. Ep. 6. Multi adhuc de Clero absentes. 28. Presbyteri qui illic apud confessores offerunt, singuli cum singulis Diaconis per vices alternent, quia mutatio●ersonarum, & vicissitudo convenientium minuit invidian. Ep. 5.  The number of the Clergy there even in time of persecution, when he confesses several of them to have fallen away; yet even then there were so many Presbyters left in the City that he advises them to go to the Confessors in Prison by turns to Administer the Communion to them, that the changing of the Persons, and the seeing of new faces daily may render it less envied or observed. Besides when four of his Presbyters, and those probably living at some distance from Carthage, had writ to him about something relating to the Church, he tells his Clergy that he was resolved from the time he was made Bishop, 
Ad id vero quod scripserunt mihi Compresbyteri nostri, Donatus, & Fortunatus, & Gordias & Novatus; solus rescribere nihil potui, quando à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim, nihil sine consilio vestro, & sine consensu plebis meae privatae sententia gerere, sed cum ad vos— venere— in common tractabimus. Ep. 6. Decipientes quosdam fratres ex plebe nostra. Ep. 28.  to determine nothing without advising with his Clergy; which intimates, that they were not of the Clergy residing at Carthage: for it is not likely that four persons would pretend to write to their Bishop about any public concern of the Church without consulting their Brethren, if they lived together with them, and met daily at the same Altar; and Cyprian's speaking of them with this strangeness, makes it improbable that they were among this Clergy, to whom he wrote concerning them. Besides we have express mention of one Country Presbyter and Deacon belonging to the Diocese of Carthage, Gaius, Diddensis Presbyter, who from several passages of that Epistle appears to have been near the City and under its jurisdiction; and it is not improbable that this is one of those Presbyters Cyprian complains of in another place for their presumption in receiving the lapsed into communion 
Quorundam immoderata praesumptio plebis universae tranquillitatem turbare conetur— aliqui de Presbyteris. nec sibi praepositum Episcopum cogitantes, quod nunquam omnino sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est, cum contumelia & contemptu Prapositi totum sibi vendicent. Interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos, & apud confessores ipsos, & apud universam plebem, causam suam. Ep. 10.  without consulting their Bishop, or the Clergy; and the nature of their fault makes it evident that there were several Congregations now in Carthage, for this could never have been done by a few in the Episcopal Church in the presence of all the Presbytery, it is not probable they would have endured it; or if they had, than they had been all in equal fault, which Cyprian does by no means lay to their charge, but lays it upon a few, and orders they should be suspended from their office by the rest of the Presbyters, and their cause reserved to be tried before him and the whole Church at his return: Beside this the Charity of the Diocese of Carthage towards the redemption of the Numidian Captives, was so considerable, that it cannot be supposed to be gathered in one o● a few Congregations, 
Misimus autem Sestertia centum millia nummum, quae istic in Ecclesia cui de Domini indulgentia praesu●us, cleri & plebis apud nos consistentis collatione collecta sunt:— And if the like should happen again, he makes no doubt but his Diocese will relieve them: libenter & largiter Subsidia praestare ad hoc opus tam necessarium Fratres & Sorores prompt & libenter operati sunt. Ep. 60. 
LL. S. centum millia: LL. centum, as Pamelius corrects it, though without the Authority of any MS S. Potest inter caeteros, qui alimentis Ecclesia sustinentur, hujus (Histrionis) necessitas adjuvari— Si illic Ecclesia non sufficit ut laborantibus pr●stet alimenta, poterit se ad nos transfer, & hic quod sibi ad victum & vestitum necessarium fuerit, accipere.   especially when we consider, that Cyprian when he sends it to the Bishops of Numidia with a Letter, and particulars, does not take notice of it as any extraordinary matter; and all the observation he makes of the Contributions of his flock is, that they were done prompt & libenter, readily and willingly, and he promises that they will be as ready upon any such occasion. 2. The Ordinary charge of that Church was so great for the support of the Bishop, Presbyters, and a very numerous Clergy, besides poor, who were plentifully relieved, and especially in dangerous times, besides the maintenance of such, as when they became Christians were obliged to quit their former callings as inconsistent with that holy profession, and the extraordinary charge of Messengers that passed perpetually between them and other Churches; This ordinary charge was so great, that the sum collected in this Diocese for the redemption of those Captives, at the lowest computation, must suppose a considerable Diocese to furnish it, especially so soon after a terrible persecution, as that which this is supposed to follow. Lastly, the Diocese of Carthage is not extraordinary in all these circumstances, but the rest of afric were some of them distributed into several Parishes: For Caldonius an African Bishop makes mention of one Felix, 
Faelix qui Presbyterium subministrabat sub Decimo, proximus mihi vicinus— plenius c●gnevi ●●ndem.— Cum ergo universi pacem preterent— quamvis mihi videa●tur debere pacem accipere, tamen ad consultum vestrum ●●s dimisi, ●e videar aliquid temere praesumere. Caldon. Ep. ad Cypr. 19  who did the office of a Presbyter, under one Decimus, another Presbyter of Caldoniu●'s Diocese, as will appear from some passages of that Epistle, though Goulartius be of opinion this Decimus was a Bishop, and Felix his Presbyter: But Pamelius his conjecture is much better grounded, who makes him the Vicar or Curate of Decimus. For 1. If he and his wife Victoria had belonged to another Bishop, why do they make their Application to Caldonius to reconcile them to the Church? Why do not they go to their own Bishop Decimus; or if he were dead and no other yet ordained in his place, Why not to the Presbytery there who ought to have reconciled them? and in a vacance took care of Ecclesiastical. Discipline, as the Clergy of Rome declare, that at such a time they are to take care of the Church, Cum nobis incumbat, 
Ap. Cypr. ep. 3.  qui praepositi esse videmur, & vice Pastoris custodire gregem. But their making their application to Caldonius makes it clear that he was their Diocesan, that the Cure in which Felix officiated was in his Diocese. 2. Caldonius his remitting them to Cyprian as the first Bishop, makes it probable that he was their Ordinary; for what else had he to do to meddle with, or remit the cognizance of any persons belonging to another Church, to any other than their own Clergy, and let them remit them to the Primate if they judged the case difficult? Therefore it is much more probable that Caldonius was the Bishop of the Suppliants, and that the Priest mentioned, exercised his charge in some Village or Town in his Diocese.  
But since there is no Record left as Ancient as the times we speak of that gives the just extent of any Diocese, and what we mentioned already are only accidental hints; we must take some other way to make more just observations of the magnitude of those Stars, and of the Orbs in which they moved.  
And since most of the Remains of Ancient writings do either concern Religion in general, and are taken up in the defence of it against Idolatry, and Blasphemous Heresies; or else in giving some account of the general administration of the Church, by Bishops met in Councils: we must try whether we may not ground a probable computation of the Bishoprics of those times in some Provinces, upon the number of Bishops that usually met there, to determine such things as concerned the general Union and the peace not only of the Churches within such a district, but also the Church Universal.  
Now the Church of afric at this distance of time stands in the best light of any, which is owing to the excellent writings of Cyprian, who gives several particulars concerning the state of the Churches of that part of the world in and before his time. The first Council mentioned there, was under Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage, about rebaptising of Heretics; but the number is not mentioned, which if it had been any thing extraordinary, Cyprian would not have forborn to allege, to add weight and Authority to the precedent he citys in favour of his own opinion. 
Cypr. Ep. 71. Agrippinus bonae memoriae vir cum caeteris Coepiscopis suis qui illo tempore in Provincia Africa & Numidia Ecclesiam Dei gubernabant.   
The next we find is at Lambese against one Privatus of that place, where there were present ninety Bishops, the most numerous Council we read of in afric before the Schism of the Donatists: 
Ep. 55. compared with 30.  nor is it to be wondered there should be so many Bishops met together in a Provincial Synod, since the Province of Cyprian contained Africa properly so called, Numidia and the two Mauritania's; 
Latius fusa est nostra Provincia, habet enim Numidiam & Mauritanias duas sibi cohaerentes. Ep. 45.  and we find several Councils composed of the Bishops of all these Provinces less numerous than this against Privatus: 
Nanc cum in unum convenissemus tam Provinciae Africaequam Numidiae Episcopi, numero 71. Ep. 73.  However this passage of Cyprian of Provincia nostra, whether it be understood here of the Civil or Ecclesiastical Province, yet it was usual for the Bishops of those Provinces in Cyprians time to meet at Carthage to consult as the occasions of the Church did require. 
Cum in unum Carthe●ini Convenissent Kal. Sept. Episcopi plurimi ex Provincia Africa, Numidia, Maurit●nia. Sententiae Episc. ap. Cypr. T. 2. ed Goulart.  And it is further observable that there is a great difference in the number of the Councils of Africa properly so called, and the other more general ones of the several Provinces united: all the Bishops of that Country or the greatest part coming together upon extraordinary occasions, as we shall show presently from the simplicity of their constitution, which continued longer in that Church than in any other of the Christian World; and the strict obligations every particular Bishop had of coming to the Synods, which here were more indispensable, because there were no Metropolitans to represent the Suffragans of their Province, but of this hereafter.  
After the persecution that forced Cyprian from Carthage, was ceased, a Council was assembled to settle the Discipline of the Church relating to the lapsed, 
Cum quies & tranquillitas data esset, & Episcopis in unum convenire indulgentia divina permitteret, tune communicate & librato de omnium collatione, consilio, statueremque quid fieri oporteret: Si quis vero ante concilium nostrum, & ante sententiam de omnium Consilio statutam lapsis temere communicare●, ●yse●● communion● arceatur. 
Persecutione s●pita, copi●sus Episcoporum numerus, quos integros & incolumes, fides sua & Domini tutela protexit.  
Ac si minus sufficing i● Africa Episc●porum numerus, etiam R●mam, etc. Ep. 52. & Epigraph. Ep. 54.  
Cypria●u● liberalis, etc. Numero 42.   or such as had fallen away in time of Temptation: and since Cyprian in his recess would never determine any thing concerning it, before the storm were over, and all the Bishops permitted to come together to establish a general rule concerning it, it is to be imagined that all that could possibly come together would meet upon this occasion, where they were all concerned: and so no doubt they did, and Cyprian intimates as much, where he says that all that had stood and persevered under that persecution came together, and their number did hardly exceed forty; it is likely that only the Bishops of the Province of afric appeared here, the business requiring some speedy remedy, and all of that Province that had not lapsed doubtless came together; and Cyprian with regard to the number of Bishops in the Province, calls this a great number of Bishops.  
Another Syned is said to be called shortly after by the Author of the Libellus Synodicus in the cause of Novatian which appears to be after that which we have mentioned last, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. Synod. 
Sed cum statuissemus Collegae complures qui in unum conveneramus (perhaps in Hadrumettina Colonia) & legatis ad vos coepiscopis nostris, omnia interim in't egrasuspenderentur, ut t● universi nostri Collega & communicationem tuam, i. e. Catholicae Ecclesie unitatem— probarent, firmiter ac tenerent: and these universi Collegae it seems were the 84. above mentioned: who came from afric, Numidia, and the two Mauritani●'s, for the Union and consent of all these was designed by Cyprian, in order to which some Bishops were sent to Rome to inform them of the whole matter. Cypr. Ep. 45.   as well from the number which was eighty four, and supposed the Church in a peaceable condition, as from Cyprians Letter to Cornelius about the Clergy in Hadrumettina Colonia, which though it be placed in the order of Pamelius before the Synod of Carthage about the lapsed; yet from several circumstances I conceive was written some time after: For 1. From the Epistle of the Synod last mentioned it appears that it was the first after the Persecution: 2. It makes no mention at all of Novatian: 3. The Letter of Cyprian about Polycarp and his Clergy gives the reason why they deferred to determine the difference between Cornelius and Novatian: because they stayed for an account of the whole matter from those Bishops they had sent to Rome, that the cause of Cornelius might want no advantage of evidence to justify and clear it, though he, Cyprian, was well enough satisfied of the justice of it, and had communicated with Cornelius before; All this he says in the same place was done in order to establish a general consent about communicating with Cornelius, which was to be done in a full Council of all the Provinces, the same that we have set down here from the Libellus Synodicus.  
Another African Council whose Epistle to Fidus about the Baptism of Infants is still extant, 
Ap. Cypr. Ep. 59 Aug. ●●●tr. du●● Ep. ●th. l. 4. c. ●.  had sixty six Bishops, as St. Augustine reports, and names the number as extraordinary, to add greater Authority to their Testimony. That concerning Basilides and Martialis had but a very small number; and the first about the validity of Baptism by a Heretic, had no great number, as we may conclude from the Inscription of it, which shows that the Bishops of Numidia were not there, and that it consisted only of the Province of Africa properly so called. 
Cyp. Ep. 68.70. Ep. ad Januarium & caeteros Episcopos Numidas.  And Cyprian though he mentions this Council in several places, yet he says nothing of the number; nay though he mentions it in the very same period with that which followed upon the same account, yet he does not say any thing of the multitude of Bishops there, but expresses that of the other, because he thought it remarkable, considering the number of Bishops at that time, when we had met together the Bishops of Africa and Numidia seventy one in number: 
Quid in Concilio cum complures adessemus, decreverimus— Et nunc quoque cum in unum convenissemus tam Provinciae Africae quam Numidiae Episcopi septuaginta unus. Ep. 73.  And this Council as if it had not been full enough is confirmed by another of greater extent and number, 
Cum in unum convenissent Episcopi plurimi, ex Provincia Africa, Numidia, Mauritania, Sententiae 87. Epis●c ap. Cypr. T. 2. c. 15  consisting of eighty seven Bishops assembled out of the Provinces of Africa, Numidia, Mauritania; and of these eighty seven, two left their suffrages with Proxies: and this is the most numerous of all the Councils in Cyprians time, and the last of that Country we have any account of in that age.  
This was the state of the Church of afric and the number of their Bishops, which if we compare with the vast increase of Christians there described by Tertullian, and the Accession, we may probably conceive to have been made after by the care and ministry of those good Bishops that governed that Church: we must conclude the African Dioceses to be very large, and to contain each of them not only a very great number of Believers, but those also dispersed throughout a great extent of Country.  
But it may be objected that all the Bishops of afric might not meet in these Councils, and therefore there is no computation to be made of their number from this observation: To which I answer first, that it is possible every individual Bishop might not be present, yet the greatest part was, and none was to absent himself without absolute necessity, as of sickness or the like: and the number of such would be inconsiderable. And the Canons of that Church are very strict in this point in after times, 
Codex Canon. Afric. c. 53. vid. Conc. Carth. 3. c. 43.  and give strange encouragements to such as have otherwise but ill titles to their Bishoprics, to hold them to the prejudice of him who has the juster title, if the one frequent their Councils, and the other neglect them: On the otherside neglect of duty in this particular is made liable to deprivation. 
Carth. 4. c. 21. Episcopus ad Synodum ir● non sine satis gravi necessitate inhib●atur, sic tamen ut in sua persona ●egatum mittat.  2. In Cyprians time when the African Bishops had no dependence one upon another, and no subordination to Metropolitans, and the Decrees of their Synods did, and could oblige only such as were present and consented to them; it was necessary that all should come together or send their Proxy, in order to establish that Unity among them which was the design of these Councils, and yet all the number even of their most solemn Councils is not great. 3. The practice of the African Church within half an àge after this time confirms this inference from the number of the Bishops at Councils, to the number of Dioceses in that Country: for we find presently, as Bishoprics were multiplied by the Schism of the Donatists, so Councils became much more numerous: and whereas ninety was the greatest number that ever met there before this Schism, afterwards we find several hundreds. But however this inference will hold, it is some comfort to find some others of great knowledge and judgement in antiquity to hold the conclusion: that the number of Bishoprics was not great in Cyprians time; which is assigned as a reason why his Province was so large. 
Aucto numero sedium Episcopalium, adeo ut omnibus invigilare haud facile esset Carthag●nensi Episc●po. Carol. à S. Paulo. Geogr. sacr. p. 84.   
But to make this point clear beyond all exception, I will endeavour to show from unquestionable testimonies, how Bishoprics came to be multiplied in afric more than in any other part: and then notwithstanding this, I will make it evident that those Bishops were Diocesans, and some of them after the crumbling of that Church into small pieces, had yet very large Dioceses, not inferior to most of ours for extent of Territory.  
The Schism of the Donatists, though it broke not forth with any violence till after Caecilianus was made Bishop of Carthage, yet it was hatching long before in the time of Mensurius, 
Aug. Ep. 163.  when the faction was kept up under hand, and had its Agents in several places: But being grown ripe, it took occasion from the promotion of Caecilianus to declare itself. Secundus Tisnigensis being called to Carthage with his Numidian Bishops to set up another, He came accordingly with about seventy Bishops, all the strength he could make, and perhaps more than his own Province could afford him: These declare they would not communicate with Caecilianus, and therefore set up Majorinus against him; and in like manner, where ever they could make the least party imaginable, they appointed a Schismatical Bishop; and not content to equal the number of the Catholics, they divided the ancient Dioceses, and erected several new Episcopal seats, that by the number of their Bishops at least they might appear to be Catholics, as they afterwards laid claim to the title upon that account: It was not long after this breach, 
Aug. Ep. 48.  but we hear of unusual numbers of Bishops met in Council; and one of the Donatists of Carthage according to Tychonius his relation, 
vid. Valesii Dissert de Schism. Donat.  had no less than two hundred and seventy Bishops, which if it be true shows this change to have been very sudden; though it cannot be so soon as Balduinus, and out of him Baronius would understand it to be: but of this I have said enough before.  
Some time after when they quarrelled among themselves, they called a Council of three hundred and ten, Bagatense against Maximianus. The Catholics observing what advantage this reputation of having a great number of Bishops gave their adversaries, 
Conc. Carth. 2. c. 5. Codex integ. can. Eccles. Afr. c. 53.98.  thought it necessary to make use of the same course themselves, and to make as many Bishops as they could; therefore they order, that where part of a large Diocese should be willing to have a Bishop of its own, if the Bishop under whom they were should consent, a new Bishopric might be erected. But it was commonly at the cost of the Schismatics that they multiplied Dioceses; for where there were two Bishops in a Diocese, the one a Catholic and the other a Donatist, and the Donatists would return to the unity of the Church, 
Codex Can. 118.  the Diocese was to be equally divided between them, and that with so much exactness, that if the number of the Towns happened to be odd, the odd Town was adjudged who it should belong to: nor was this all, but where the Donatists had driven out or perverted all the Catholics, there they set up a Bishop as soon as ever they had any party, and sometimes in the same Donatist Diocese there were three or four Catholic Bishops. This is made out so clearly in the conference at Carthage, that I need only cite some passages out of it, and leave them to the Reader without farther inference or application.  
Petilianus Episcopus dixit sapientissimè ac praescie ommá pravidisti vir nobilis, 
Collatlo Carthag. Cogn. Primae gesta. 65.  nam in Plebe mea, i.e. in Civitate Constantmensi adversarium habeo Fortunatum, in medio autem Dioecesis meae, nunc institutum habeo, imo ipsi habent, Delphinum: pervidet jam hinc prastantiatua duos in unius plebe fuisse imaginarie constitutos, ut & numerum augeant, & tamen plebium numerus non sit, qui sit illarum, scilicet, Personarum: & hoc Argumenti est maximi, ut videantur nos hoc genere superare, si du● contra unum constituti sunt vel tres: Nam etíam in plebe praesentis sanctissimi Collegae, ac fratris mei Adeodati, i. e. in Civitate Milevitana, ita commissa res est, ut unum ibidem habeat Adversarium, alterum in Tuncensi Civitate, qui ad hujus scilicet plebem antiquitus pertinet, & ante biennium esse videtur constitutus: Tertius vero sit in loco qui dicitur Ceramussa: Ergo cum unus sit Civitatis Milevitanae Episcopus à partibus nostris, tres videntur ab his constituti fuisse, ut illorum numerus augeretur, aut fortasse excederet numerum veritatis: Requirendum est igitur quando auctus est illorum numerus, quam Originem ha●●e●it, utrumhoc novitas fecerit, an dederit Antiquitas, utrum ut ita dixerim, contra vetustatem canam vitium h●c● fuerit novitatis.  
Petilianus (Donatist Bishop of Constantina said: Noble Sir, you have wisely foreseen all things: for in my Diocese, i. e. in the City of Constantina, I have Fortunatus an opposite Bishop; and in the middle of my Diocese, I have, nay they have, Delphinus another Bishop: Your excellence may perceive by this, how they have set up two imaginary Bishops in the Diocese of one to increase their number, and yet the number of Dioceses will not be so great as that of their Bishops: and this is a great argument that they would seem to out do us in this kind, if they do but set up two or three against ones for in the Diocese of my worthy colleague Adeodat●s who is here pesent, i. e. in the City of Milevis, the matter is so ordered, that he has one Anti Bishop there in the City, another in the City of Tunca which has belonged of old to his Diocese, and it is not above two years since he is set up there▪ a third is in a place called Ceramussa. Therefore whereas there is but one? Bishop of Mil●●is of our party, they have three, that they may increase their number, and perhaps exceed the number of the truth, or of the True Church: we ought therefore to ask them when their number increased thus, what was the Original of it? Whether this be an innovation, or Reverend Antiquity, or rather whether this novelty has not been irregularly introduced against reverend Antiquity.  
And what Answer is there to all this? No other than that it was impertinent, it was nothing to the business of the conference, which was to dispute the cause of the Church, whether it were to be found among the Catholics, or only amongst the Donatists.  
Fortunatianus Episcopus Ecclesia Catholica dixit, Multiloquio Ecclesia causam agi non debere perspicit mecum tua dignationis sensus, Cognitorum optime.  
Fortunatianus Bishop of the Catholic Church said, Best of Jndges, you perceive as well as I that the cause of the Church ought not to be maintained by much impertinent talk.  
Therefore the Catholics could not deny the matter of fact, but despised the argument, and perhaps looked upon it as a credit to their cause to be so watchful and industrious in it; and since Schism would needs divide the Church, they thought it allowable to return them the same measure and divide Schism too, by parcelling their Dioceses between several Catholic Bishops.  
And that we may not think this instance▪ singular, 
Col. Carth. Cogn. 1.117.  I will proceed to cite some more passages to the same effect.  
Petilianus Episcop●s dixit, in una Pleb● Jan●●ri● Collegae nostu● praefer●is, in una dic●cosi qu●●icor sunt constuenti contra ips●●n, 〈◊〉 numer●● stilicet augeretur.  
Petilianus said, In the single Diocese of my Brother Januarius, there are no less than four Bishops set up against him, that their number may be increased.  
To this and some other little reffections the Answer of Marcellinus the Precedent was, Hac ad praesentem non pertinent actionem: These things are not to the purpose.  
And these, checks were the cause why we have not many more particulars of the divisions of Dioceses in afric; yet for all this, some could not forbear making their complaints when it came to their turn to speak.  
Verissimus Episcopus dixit, Agnosco illum, 
Coll. Carth. Cog. 1.121.  quatuor sunt in plebe mea, Datianus, Aspidius, Fortunatus & Octavian's.  
Verissimus said▪ I know him, (for before the Conference the subscriptions were to be examined, and the Donatist Bishops were to confront the Catholics, i e. the Bishop of each City his opposite Bishop there) there are four Bishops in my Diocese, and names them.  
Now that we may not think this way was taken up by the Catholics only to increase their party, 
In ipsa antem Ecclesia Mustitana apparuit & ipsos Episcop●● alium antiqua Cachedrae addidisse, & bot in allis locis se fuisse po●●●● doclarat●m, 25. Bre●. Col.  they when it comes to their turn charge the Donatists with the very same Arts. For,  
Sumnius Episcopus Tiguallensis idem dixit, praesto sum: in Dioecesi mea duo sunt Gaianus & Privatus.  
Alypius Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae dixit, animadvertat nobilitas tua etiam in nostrorum Dioecesi eos ordinasse Episcopos.  
Sumnius Bishop of Tigualla said: I am here: there are two set up against me in my Diocese, and names them.  
Alypius Bishop of the Catholic Church said, Your Honour may please to observe, that they have set up several Bishops in single Dioceses of ours.  
Marcellinus V C. Tribunus & Notarius dixit: 
ibid.  Talia ab utrisque partibus constat objecta; si haec vultis diligenter inquiri, ad hanc causam superflue venisse noscemur.  
Marcellinus, Tribune and Notary, (the moderator of this Conference) said: It is evident that these things are objected on both sides; if this be the business you would examine, I am come hither to little purpose, for this is not the thing I came about.  
This check had so much effect that we do not find any make this impertinent complaint for a long while together, but the opposite Bishops own the knowledge one of another, and so the subscriptions are read and passed with little interruption. At last Alypius not being able to hold out longer, would make his general remark upon a great number of Donatist Bishops.  
Alypius Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae dixit: Scriptum sit illos omnes in villis vel in fundis esse Episcopos ordinatos, non in aliquibus Civitatibus.  
Alypius said, Let it be recorded that all these were made Bishops in Villages and Hamlets, and not in any Cities.  
Petilianus Ep. dixit: Sic & tu multos habes per omnes Agros dispersos, immo crebros ubi habes, sane & sme populis habes.  
Petilianus Answered: And you have many dispersed in the Country, and of those several without any people to govern.  
And now the reader may perceive by wha methods the Dioceses of afric came to be so numerous: 
Subscribed 266, 14 present that did not subscribe: absent of the Catholics 120. Brevic. Col.  It was not the example of the Bees that made Bishops swarm so much there, but an unhappy Schism, and the affectation of number to support the credit of it, than a necessity that lay on the Catholics to add number to their weight, and to turn the balance on their side, no less in point of reputation, than it inclined of itself as to the justice of their cause: and yet after all this the Dioceses were not so little as our Parishes; 
C●ll. Carth. Cog. 1.212.215.  for reckoning after the utmost computation there will be a great difference: for the number of subscribers on the part of the Catholics in this Conference was two hundred sixty six, vacant Sees sixty four, absent two hundred and twenty: in all five hundred and fifity Dioceses: The Donatists had two hundred seventy nine subscribers, said they had more absent than the Catholics, 
Augustine writes but 120, which probably is the truth, Brev. Coll. c. 12.  besides vacant Sees, but mention no number: 
Augustine shows from the confession of the Donatists, that they had not not so great a number absent as the Catholics, because they had confessed that all their Bishops young and old were there, excepting only those that were hindered by sickness. ibid.  and since by this Conference it appears every Diocese had two Bishops at least one with another, the Dioceses will not be found to be very small; and perhaps if the absents and vacancies of the Catholics were to be examined, they would not all have proved effective, or not far to exceed the number of the Dioceses of afric as they were after reduction by the Emperor's edict at the time of Hunnericus his conquest of that Country, which I have mentioned before out of the Notitia Africa published by Syrmond.  
And yet in all this division several Bishoprics in afric had the fortune to remain entire, 
Conc. Carthag. 3. c. 39  and so large that they were not inferior to our Dioceses in England for largeness of Territory: For in the whole Province of Tripoli there were but five Dioceses, 
Codex Can. 49. A●. 397. Tripolita●a Provincia abortu habet aram Philenorum, & lineam ab ea ductam ad Lybicas gentes, ab occasu Tritonem flavium qu● dividitur a Bizacend, à Septentrione terminatur mari Africo, à meridie desertis Libycis. Carol. à S. Paul. p. 91.  at the time of the third Council of Carthage, and the Notitia Africa which was taken some years after, sets down but one more, for which reason the African Councils made several exceptions in their favour, as that there should be required the presence but of one Bishop of that Province in any Council: and that few Bishops might be allowed to ordain there, in consideration of their number.  
Besides there were several large Bishoprics in the other Provinces: 
Codex Can. 56.  for we find in the Canons of the African Councils, that one Bishop had such extent of Territory as might be divided into several Dioceses, and where it is permitted any part of a Diocese, as a considerable Town, and the Territory belonging to it, to choose a Bishop for themselves, with the consent of him, part of whose Diocese they were; It is added, ut ●adem Dioecesis permissa proprium tantum habeat Episcopum, caeteras sibi non vindicet Dioeceses, quia exempta de fasce multarum sola meruit honorem Episcopatus suscipere: It is enough, when a Bishop gives way that another Bishop should be set up in part of his Diocese, that that part which he grants this to, may have their own Bishop; but this new Bishop is not to assume any right over the other parts of his Diocese: Because his part being taken out of the bundle of several Dioceses, (i. e. such as would make several like his, but belonging all to the same Cathedral,) was alone designed for this new Bishopric: And to the same effect he calls that ancient entire Diocese out of which another is to be taken Massa Dioecesium, an aggregation of Dioceses, or as we would now speak, of Rural Deaneries: The same thing is supposed by the Canon that forbids a Bishop to leave his Cathedral, and live in any other Church in his Diocese. 
Con. Carth. 5. c. 5. Con. Carth. 4.36.  And by another to this effect, That the Presbyters who are Rectors of Churches in a diocese, aught before Easter to repair to their proper Bishop for Chrism, and not to take it of any other, who perhaps may be nearer: It would be endless to cite all the circumstances that imply the greatness of the African Dioceses even at this time; I will select some Dioceses there whose extent is mentioned occasionally, but without any remark of their being extraordinary in comparison of others.  
The Diocese of Hippo Diaretorum, 
Codex Ca●. 78.  not Regia, where St. Augustin was Bishop 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 Diocese 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 Diocese 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 not small trouble: Malliana, Turres, Ciran, Vitalis, etc. And such was the number of Churches in his Diocese, 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 Diocese than of any other in afric, 
id Ep. 261. Volens prodesse quibusdam in nostra vicinitate. This Neighbourhood which Mr. B. sometimes argues from, to show 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 Diocese, 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. Augustine's 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. T●e place is called Fussala, a Town adjoining to the Territory of Hippo, which never had a Bishop of it own, but belonged to the Diocese 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 Diocese of Hippo was singularly great above all the rest of afric, 
Collat. Carth. 1.65.  but that Carthage, Cirta, Milevis, and many others of the more eminent Bishoprics, had more Churches under the inspection of their Bishops: and the Diocese 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 Bishop's 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 irreconcilable 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 showed the progress of Diocesan Episcopacy in afric, 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 show the progress of Diocesan Episcopacy in other Nations, and show 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 multiplied, 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  Synod assembled at Lions under Irenaeus, 
Ex Libello Synod.  against Martion and other Heretics, 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. ●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 Victor's attempt to excommunicate them: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Euseb. l. 5. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Libàl Synod.  Polycrates in his Letter to Victor says 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.  
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 Lions 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 Precedent 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 contrary 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 showed 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 Diocese, 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 Apostolic constitution of Bishoprics, 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 multiplied every where, and most Cities had such numbers belonging to them, as must be distributed into several Congregations, the Diocese of the first constitution became too great, and every City with some of the Territory belonging to it, became a Diocese, 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 Rebaptising Heretics 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 smallness 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? says 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 public 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 multiplied 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 smallness 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, etc. Conc. Illib c. 77. 
Hic regere posse plebem Diaconum, hoc est curam Parochiae habere, Hispani Episcopi docent, & Baptizare posse, Mendoza.   where it is ordered, That if a Deacon who has the government of a Congregation or Parish without a Bishop or Presbyter, shall Baptise any, the Bishop shall perfect it by Confirmation; or if in the mean time the party dies, we are to hope well of him  
The Council of Neocaesarea in like manner does signify the same distribution of Dioceses into several Parishes, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Conc. Neocaes. c. 13.  where the Country Presbyters are distinguished from those of the City, and the former are forbid to officiate in the city's Cathedral in the presence of the Bishops or Presbyters belonging to them.  
Now when Constantine's conversion had made so great and happy a change in the affairs of the Church, when the Civil power that hitherto used all means possible to destroy it, took it not only into its protection, but to special favour and kindness; and studied all means possible to render it great and honourable, the number of Bishops and Dioceses were so far from being diminished, that they soon after were exceedingly increased, partly by the Emperor's multiplying Metropoles, partly by the unhappy Divisions that soon after afflicted the Church, as will appear by the progress of this deduction.  
When Constantine Indicted the Council of Nice, it appears from Eusebius that he used all means to have as great an Assembly of Bishops as could well come together; 
Euseb. ●e vita Constant. l 3. c. 6.  for which purpose he furnished many of them, especially such as were at a great distance with convenience for Travail: and there is no doubt but as many as could have any means of going, would be carried thither by their curiosity to see and enjoy the Presence of a Christian Emperor, that new Miracle that God had wrought in favour of his Church: and accordingly they came from all parts of the Roman Empire, and some from the Nations beyond it. The Countries that lay next to Nice did doubtless send the greatest part of their Bishops: as may be inferred by comparing the subscriptions of the Bishops of Palestine Phoenicia, Coelosyria, Egypt, and some other Countries, either with the Ancient Noti●●● of the Dioceses of those Countries, or the subscriptions of following Councils; and it is observable that the Province of Bythinia where this Council was held, had but 13 Bishops Present, though the principal Bishop of the Province were extremely concerned, and at last condemned by this Synod therefore we cannot but conclude that that Province had very few more. Yet after all this care to make a full assembly, the number of Bishops scarce exceeded 250. as Eusebius who was present does affirm; 
232. according to the MS. cited by Mr. Selden in Eutich 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Sandius takes to be Sabinus often mentioned by Socrates: and one that exposed this Council, as consisting of poor Illiterate men.  and Eustatius Bishop of Antioch reckons but 20 more, though the Common opinion reckons 318. and yet how small a number is this in comparison of some succeeding Councils, where we find without half the Apparatus, that belonged to the Nicene Council, double the number meet together: The Council of Sardica on the part of the Catholics, had near 300. the Heretics had great numbers at the same time in Philippopolis: the Arrian Council of Sirmium had 300 Western Bishops besides those of the East; that of Ariminum had 400. Bishops from the Western parts of the Empire; for in the East there was another Council called at Seleucca: and lastly, that of Chalcedon had no less than 600. There can be no reasonable account given of this difference, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3.17.  but that the multitude of Dioceses was strangely increased; for Constantine designed the Council of Nice to be as great and Magnificent as was possible, and yet it was nothing in comparison with those that followed, nay was outdone by some Provincial Councils of afric.  
And as the number of the Council of Nice shows that Dioceses in those times were not so many, nor small as they became afterwards; so the Canons of the same Council, do suppose Bishoprics to be very large, and forbidden the dividing of them: for one Canon orders that every Bishop should be ordained by all the Bishops of his Province. 
Can. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And considering how large Ecclesiastical Provinces were then, they cannot suppose all the Pastors of every Congregation to meet, nor indeed the Ministers of every good Town or substantial Village, which in several Provinces would amount to several thousands, without making such an Assembly more numerous than any general Council that ever was in the world: 
Can. ●.  another Canon provides against the dividing of Dioceses in case a Novatian Bishop shall happily be willing to be reconciled to the Church; but that he should be content with the place of Presbyter, unless the Catholic Bishop should think fit to leave him the title of a Bishop; if not, 
Inveniat e● locum ut sit in Parochia Chorepiscopus.  then to make him a Chorepiscopus, i. e. the Rector of a Country Parish in his Diocese, or a City Presbyter, lest there should be two Bishops in the same City: The African Councils took another course as we have seen, and divided the Diocese in such a Case; but when they considered the Authority of this Council, we find them changing their Practice: for Augustin when he had designed his Successor, yet would not suffer him to be ordained in his life time, because he would not violate this Canon, although his Predecessor had permitted his Ordination while he was alive; 
August. Ep.  but Augustin makes his excuse, that he did not know of this Canon then, and yet his Diocese was large enough to hold two; but he understood this one City with all its dependencies; and thought that by virtue of this Canon there ought not to be two Bishops together in the Diocese of Hippo that was above forty miles in length. The Diocese of Constantinople to which Constantine was so great a Patron, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 46.  was very considerable in his time; for it had so far outgrown the measure of one Congregation, that the Emperor thought it necessary to build a great many Churches, and very large Temples, or Martyria, because they were dedicated to the memory of Martyrs; and this not only within the City, but in the Suburbs, that is, in the language of that time, the Territory belonging to it: And it is great pity there was no Bishop or Presbyter that could inform the well-meaning Emperor, that this was mistaken devotion, to submit all these Churches to one Bishop.  
The Council of Antioch supposes Bishops to have large Dioceses, 
An. Ch. 341. Can. 8.  and therefore provides that Country Presbyters shall not give Canonical Epistles, not so much as to the next neighbouring Bishop, but the Chorepiscopi may send such as were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for friendly correspondence and concord. And the next Canon about the power of Metropolitans, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 9  where it is forbid any Bishop to do any thing of great moment that may concern the whole Province without the concurrence of the Metropolitan, does notwithstanding allow, that he may govern his own Church, and all the Regions under his jurisdiction.  
Another Canon supposes more than one City in a Diocese, and therefore Orders, That a Bishop shall not Ordain a Presbyter or a Deacon in another City than his own, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Can. 22.  or that is not subject to him.  

Council Agrippin An. 346. Non opinion, sed veritate cognovi, pro finitimi loci conjuncta Civitate  The Council of Colen discovers the Dioceses thereabout to be very large, for the Bishops assembled had most of them their Seats at a great distance from Colen: Sêrvatius Bishop of Tongres in his Subscription adds something concerning his own knowledge of Euphratas Bishop of Colen; and he gives for his reason that he was his next neighbour, and yet their Cities are fifty or sixty English miles distant one from the other: and the extent of the Diocese of Colen appears from the same Council, where not only the people of the City exhibit their complaint against him; but of all the Towns of the second Germany, 
Subscriptio Servatii. Cumque recitata fuisset Epifiola plebis Agrippinensis, sed & omnium Castrorum Germaniae secundae. Ap. Conc. acta. 
Provincia Germaniae secundae Metropolis. Civitas Agrippinens, Colozia. Libel. Provinciar.   whereof Colen was Metropolis, and most of them belonged to that Diocese.  
The Council of Sardica considering what course the Arians took to strengthen their party, by increasing the number of Bishops, as the instance of Ischyras Presbyter of Mareotes shows, who was Ordained Bishop of a Village by the Arian Council of Tyre, thought fit to declare against such proceed, as derogating from the dignity of a Bishop: and therefore Decree; That no Village or inconsiderable City shall have a Bishop, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Con. Sard. c. 6.  or any place where a Presbyter may suffice:— and lest you may imagine this an innovation to favour the growing greatness of the Bishops, they add immediately, That the Bishops of a Province shall Ordain Bishops in those Cities where there were any before; which supposes, that there were several Cities after the Empire became Christian, that had never yet had Bishops: Nay they add farther, That when a City grows very populous, so as to be fit to receive a Bishop, it may have one: To the same purpose is the Decree of the Council of Laodicea, held after that of Sardica, and much later than is generally pretended: That Bishops ought not to be made in Villages, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Visitatores qui circumtant, Isid. Merca.  or in the Country but Visitors: who by the name they bear appear to be Diocesans, because they have several Congregations under them which they are to visit: and as for such Country Bishops as are already, they must take care to act nothing of moment without the advice and privity of the City Bishops.  
Yet all this while Dioceses do multiply against all means used to prevent it: as we may perceive by the extraordinary numbers that met in Councils, 
Acciti atque tracti 400, & àmplius Episcopi. Sul. Seu. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Synod. ap. Athan. de Synod.  exceeding very much the greatest of those that had gone before: Extraordinary numbers met at Sirmium and Ariminum; at the latter all the Bishops of the West are said to have met; for the Emperperors' Officers were sent all over Illyricum, Italy, afric, Spain, France, to summon the Bishops to meet at Ariminum: and all the Bishops are said to come thither from all the Cities of the West.  
And now as we may observe the number of Bishops and Dioceses to increase; so we may make some judgement concerning the occasion, from that little light that is left in this particular: We have but a very obscure account of the erecting of Bishoprics, how and when most of them were founded; but those instances that are preserved are sufficient to make us comprehend how the numbers came to increase so sensibly after the breaking out of the Arian controversy: and in Egypt some time before upon the occasion of the Meletian Schism, 
Epiph. Her. 68  Meletius having left the Communion of the Catholic Church, form a separate faction, and Ordained Bishops and Presbyters in every Country, and in every place through which he passed; nor was he content to set up only one Altar against another, but to erect several in the same Diocese.  
Nor is there yet any end of dividing Dioceses, but these increase in proportion to the divisions of the Church; 
Meletius: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Epiph. Haer. 68  and as the Meletian Schism multiplied Bishops in Egypt, the Author of that Sect Ordaining Bishops in every Region, and in every place that he passed through, several in the same Diocese, and as the Arian Controversy made Bishops where there never were any before: so it is not to be doubted but the Controversies which followed, 
Athan. Ap. 2.  multiplied Dioceses no less than these.  
But besides this the multiplying of Metropolitans by the Christian Emperors contributed no less to multiply Bishops. We have an eminent instance of this in the Province of Cappadocia in the time of Basil the Great: The province being divided between two Civil Metropoles; the Bishop of Tyana the new Metropolis thought that accordingly all that part of the Country that belonge●●o the Civil jurisdiction of his City, became no less subject to him as his Ecclesiastical Province, which occasioned great disputes and animosities between the two Metropolitans. Basil complains of the Bishops of the second Cappadocia that they presently renounced him in a manner: 
Ep. 259.  and when he made any difficulty of Ordaining any Bishop belonging to his Province, Anthimus was ready to admit him, as it happened in the case of Faustus. Therefore to oppose the power of this new Usurping Metropolitan, he betakes himself to the ordinary relief of making more Suffragans▪ that by this means he might have some remedy from a Provincial Synod: 
Epist. 58. & 195. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Naz. de Vit. suâ: & Ep. 22, 23.  To this purpose Sasima a small Town belonging to Caesarea is made an Episcopal Seat, and Gregory Nazianzen is preferred to it much against his will, as a Person that might be of use to him against his Antagonist, which he complains of in his Epistles to Basil, and in his account of his own life, and so sensible was he of Basil's engaging him in this quarrel, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Naz. Or. de Basil.  that he cannot forbear expressing his resentments even in the Funeral Oratition of his friend: where besides this new Bishopric he shows that se●●●al others were erected upon that contention, and that the Church had this advantage that, By the increase of Bishops there would be a more exact and particular care taken of Souls, and every City should be governed in all Ecclesiastical affairs within itself: which before in that Country it seems they were not used to: And Lastly That by this means the strife endeds, After what manner he does not say, perhaps this increase of Bishops carried the cause for Basil against Anthimus, and so the controversy ended: However Nazianzen commends Basil here for multiplying Dioceses, yet in the Verses before cited, he makes it a very unnecessary innovation for him to set up a Bishop at Sasima having no less than fifty Suffragan Bishops in his Province already; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  yet if we consider how far Sasima was probably from Caesarea we must conclude the Diocese of Basil out of which this is expressly said to be taken, to have been very large: for that this place was at some good distance from Basil, we may perceive from Nazianzen's complaint as if he had been banished by this promotion into some remote place. 2. If any guess may be made by comparing the itinerary from Constantinople to Jerusalem, Printed ●●th that of Antonius with the Tabulae Peuterigeranae, 
Apud Itinerarium Antonini Sasus in finibus Ciliciae: But this cannot be the same with Sasime in the other Itinerary.  the distance must be as great at least as between Hippo and Fussala; for in that Itinerary there is reckoned sixteen miles from Sasima to Andavalis, which in Peutingers tables is a great way from Caesarea. 3. Sasima in the Ancient Greek Notitiae Printed with others by Carolus â S. Paulo, 
Ordo Metropolitarum prout descriptus est in Chartophylacio.  is set down in the second Cappadocia, which was under the Metropolis of Thyana: and therefore it is not likely to be very near Caesarea the Metropolis of the other Cappadocia: And one may observe that the Dioceses of Cappadocia notwithstanding this division were yet very considerable, and far from being reduced into Congregational Churches. It is plain from Nazianzen that Cappadocia had but fifty Bishops, for so many he says Basil had under him, (and no doubt he owned him as Metropolitan of the whole Province) and considering the extent of that Country, the Dioceses must needs be large: for the Country as Strabo computes, 
Strab. l. 12.  is near four hundred miles in length, and little less in breadth, as Causabon restores the reading of one thousand eight hundred furlongs in the twelfth book, by a passage in the second, where the breadth is made two thousand eight hundred. And in this compass Bishops may contrive fifty Dioceses of very competent extent, and not inferior to many of ours.  
Basil writing to the Presbyte●● of Nicopolis, Salutes the Clergy of the City, and the Clergy of the Diocese. And in a Letter to the Citizens of the same place, 
Bas. Ep. 592. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  desires them to show a good example of affection towards their new Bishop, to the rest of the Diocese: 
Ep. 94.  And in another to the Brethren of Colonia whence Euphronius was chosen to Nicopolis, he tells them that he who was their Chorepiscopus before may take care of them still, and continue to be their Bishop: The same Father in another Epistle, 
Ep. 72. Evasenis.  shows that Ancyra was a Diocese of good extent, for Eustathius passing through the Territory of that City, is said to have overthrown the Altars of Basilides the Bishop of it, and to set up his own Tables; which supposes several Country Churches under the jurisdiction of that Diocesan. 
Bas. Ep. 406. Amphilochio sub nomine H●racleidae. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  And Lastly when Basil directs Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium to constitute Bishops in the Province of Isauria which at that time was it seems destitute, upon what occasion I know not; he enters upon a comparison between the convenience of large and small Dioceses, and debates for sometime, whether it were best to Ordain one Bishop of the Metropolis, Seleucia I suppose, who shall take care of the whole Province, and Ordain more Bishops as he shall find expedient, or else appoint a number of lesser Bishops first: And here he confesses that if he could find one that would answer the character of St. Paul, that were a workman, who needed not to be ashamed, such a one would go a great way, and be worth many little Bishops; would be of greater use to the Church, and by that means we might with less hazard undertake the care of the Souls of the Province: But if this cannot be done, then let there be made Bishops in the lesser Cities and Villages where there were Bishops before, and the matter be so ordered that the Bishop of the Principal City may not disturb us hereafter in point of Ordinations. By which it appears that Isauria was then part of Basils' Province; and we may perceive the reason why he chose rather to Ordain the Country Bishops first, to form an interest in the first place, and to diminish the strength and power, and to prevent the usurpations of the Bishop of the chief City.  
Nor were these Chorepiscopi Country Bishops other than Diocesan, as to the extent of their Church, which consisted of many Congregations, and those at a good distance one from the other; for these were not as Rectors of a single Parish, but Visitors of several Churches, to the proportion it may be of our Rural Deaneries, though like them they were more immediately related to a certain Parish or Town: But their Episcopacy was in relation to the association of several Churches. So Basil says he sent to the Chorepiscopus of those places, not of one Country Town; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bas. Ep. 355.  and therefore the Council of Laodicia calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Visitors; and where Cities were not very thick, some of them had the inspection of a large Territory: But yet these were but the Deputies or Surrogates of the City Bishops in point of jurisdiction, for they were to do nothing of moment without their Bishop, and several Councils provide against their Usurpations. Basil whose Diocese and Province we come from giving an account of, is so resolute upon his prerogative, that he will not endure they should ordain as much as the inferior Clergy, as Deacons, Subdeacons', Readers, and several others which the Church of that time reckoned among the Clergy without his consent, 
Bas. 181.  and if they do let them know (says he) that whosoever is admitted without our consent, shall be reputed but a Layman: What would he have said if they had pretended to ordain Presbyters or Bishops in opposition to them? The Bishops of the Church of England desire no more than S. Basil assumed, That none should be reputed Priests 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 always have been had in veneration with all Christians; not one of these would have ever been persuaded 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 Diocese; so extreme 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 Bishoprics, 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 entire in the the measure of their first Constitution.  
The Diocese 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 Heretics and Schismatics had reduced Bishoprics to be very small. For 1. some of the misdemeanours charged upon Ibas Bishop of this place, show that Diocese to be extremely rich: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The Collection for redemption of Captives amounted to fifteen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and tho' it is not easy to reduce that sum 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 sum, 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 Manors called Lafargaritha is mentioned there) and two hundred pound weight of Church Plate. 2. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The City of Battina was in the Diocese of Edessa; for Ibas is accused of having endeavoured to make one John Bishop of it; who was suspected of Magic: But Ibas his Archdeacon of that place opposed it. 3. Maras who was one of Ibas his accusers was Excommunicated by another Archdeacon of his. 4. The Clergy of the City of Edessa was above two hundred persons, not reckoning that of the Country within his Diocese; and this was a Diocesan Bishop to purpose, who besides a large Diocese had Excommunicating Arch-Deacons, and a great Revenue: And if Mr. B. or his Brethren had been of that Diocese we might have found them among his accusers.  
The Diocese 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 Paul's, 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 Critic; 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 than if any thing shall appear against what they have once fanfied, 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 Lie?  
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 Diocese was of good extent: John had a quarrel with him for having Ordained a Presbyter in his Diocese, though it was only for the use of a Monastery: and he excuses himself by showing how common a thing this was, and how frequently it was done in his own Diocese; 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 myself 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 Diocese; 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 Diocese, 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 him; and that being in his particular Diocese only, it follows that this great Province was no other than his own Diocese or Parochia as he calls it also in the same passage.  
Nor were the Dioceses of the West generally any thing inferior to those we have been speaking of: Italy indeed had the smallest, not only by reason of the great multitude of Cities there; but by the policy of the Bishops of Rome who having always had some Authority over the greatest part of the Country, strengthened themselves by making as many Bishops as they could within the dependence of their City; and by that means secured themselves from all such dangers as might threaten them from general Councils; having a strong party of Bishops at hand to send whither the Pope's occasions should require their service: What effect this policy of multiplying Bishops in Italy had we see in the History of the Council of Trent, whither several Bishops came from France, Spain, and Germany, with design of reforming most of the grossest abuses in the Church, and to moderate, if not wholly to remove that insupportable Yoke of the Papacy: But the Italian Pensioners being too many for the well-meaning Bishops, that Yoke was settled more grievous than before, and weight added to the oppression; No remedy being left but vain complaints, (and Dudithius makes a very lamentable one to the Emperor) and then submission. Yet after all this the Italian Dioceses were never reduced to a single Congregation, and some of them remain still of a very considerable extent.  
The Bishoprics of Spain were at first very large as may be observed from the small numbers of Bishops that met in the Councils of that Country: The Council of Eliberis had but nineteen Bishops, and the first of Toledo had the same number; 
Hinc colligo Nationale fuisse Concilium cum to tempore sede● Toletana tot Suffraganeos non haberet Episcopos: Similiter de Eliberitano statuo, cum eodem Episcoporum numero fuisset celebratum:— add etiam quod in subscriptionibus Marcellus subscribit qui suit Episcopus Hispalensis. Gar. Loyasa.  from whence Garsias Loyasa infers that these were general Councils of all Spain, because the Province of Toledo (says he) had not so many Suffragans at that time; and that Marcellus Bishop of Sevil who was a Metropolitan of another Province was there. But the extent of the Spanish Dioceses does appear not only from the number of Bishops in their Councils, but also from the Canons made in them: As that of the Council of Toledo is very express about the making of Chrism, that it belonged only to the Bishop, 
Quamvis paene ubique custodiatur ut absque Episcopo Chrisma nemo conficicat; tamen quia in aliquibus locis vel Provinciis Presbyteri dicuntur Chrisma conficere, placuit ex hac die nullum alium nisi Episcopum Chrisma facere, & per Dioecesin destinare, ita ut de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum ante Diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur, ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere, Conc. Tolet. 1. Can. 20. Fratri autem Ortygie Ecclesias de quibus pulsus fuerat, pronunciavimus esse reddendas. Exemplar. Defin. sent.  and that all the Churches of his Diocese should send before Easter every year for it to the Bishop, who was to be put in mind of it by the Arch Deacon. And in the same Council there is a definitive sentence, whereby Ortygius is restored to his Bishopric, out of which he had been unjustly ejected, that shows that his Diocese consisted of several Churches; for so the Sentence runs, That he be restored to his Churches.  
Nor can any one think it strange that these should be general Councils of all Spain, when he considers the numbers that usually met in Provincial Synods of that Country. For the Council of Saragossa had but twelve, and that number is extraordinary compared with some following Councils: Concilium Gerundense had but seven Bishops; that of Ilerda eight, whereof one was present but by Proxy; that of Valentia seven: And lest we may imagine the Bishops of Spain neglected their Synods, the sixth Canon of the Council of Arragon (which consisted of ten Bishops) Order, That if any Bishop having received Summons from his Metropolitan, 
Si quis Episcoporum commonitus à Metropolitano ad Synodum nulla gravi intercedente necessitate Corporali, venire contempserit, sicut statuta Patrum sanxierunt, usque ad futurum Concilium cunctorum Episcoporum Charitatis Communione privetur. Conc. Tarracon. c. 6.  shall neglect to come to Council, being not hindered by sickness, shall according to the Decrees of the Ancient Fathers be excluded the communion of the other Bishops until the next Council following. And the same Council by another Canon signifies the extent of the Dioceses in Spain, 
Multorum casuum experientia magistrante reperimus non nullas Dioecesanas Ecclesias esse destitutas, ob quam rem hac constitutione decrevimus ut Antiquae consuetudinis Ordo servetur, & annis vicibus ab Episcopo Dioeceses visitentur, & siqua Basilica reperta fuerit destituta, Ordi●atione ipsius reparari praecipiatur, etc. Can. 8.  where it Order every Bishop once in a year to visit his Dioceses according to the ancient usage of that Church, and see what Churches there were out of repair, and ordered them to be repaired out of the Revenues of those Churches, there being a third part reserved for that purpose by ancient custom and tradition; and the thirteenth Canon of the same Council makes a distinction between the Presbyters of the Cathedral, and those of the Diocese; 
Non solum è Cathedralis Ecclesiae Presbyteris, verum etiam de Dioecesanis ad Concilium trabant. Can. 13.  and that the Metropolitan take care to summon some of both sorts to the Council of the Province. And this was the state of the Dioceses in Spain from the time of the first Council of Nice, to the latter end of the fifth, and the beginning of the sixth Century.  
The Churches of France as they had a near correspondence with those of Spain in several other things, 
Bona de Reb. Litur. l. 1. c. 12.  and as Bona conjectures had anciently the same Liturgy before Pipin's time; so they were not unlike in the extent of their Dioceses: For Gallia before the time of the Council of Nice, seems to have had but very few Bishoprics; although it is to be supposed the number of Christians there was much greater than in any other part of the Empire Constantius the Father of Constantine the Great having favoured the Christians in the Provinces under his Government, 
Euseb. de vit Const. l. 1. c. 13.  while his Colleagues used all manner of Violence and Arts to root them out every where else: 
vid. Conc. Arelat. 1. apud Sirmond. Conc. Gall.  Yet when Constantine the Great called a Council at Arles to resume the cause of the Donatists, the Gallican Bishops it seems were so few that we find but eight of them subscribe in that Council.  
The Council of Valence had twenty one Bishops, and this is very extraordinary for the Province of one Metropolitan, in these times; and therefore it is more probable that it was a general one of several Provinces, or of all Gallia: For there is an Epistle of this Synod directed to all the Bishops and Churches of Gallia, by way of Preface to the Canons of it, a thing never assumed by the particular Synods of a Province; and this will appear yet more probable by comparing this with other Councils that followed.  
(The Council of Regium or Riez▪) consisted but of thirteen Bishops personally present, and one Presbyter who was Proxy for a Bishop.  
The first Council of Orange had but sixteen personally present, and one Proxy. And that we may not imagine the Gallican Bishops to be so negligent as not to attend these Provincial Synods; let us but consider the eighteenth and nineteenth Canons of the second Council of Arles, which provide against this neglect: There it's ordered, That if any Bishop be hindered by sickness, he shall not fail to send his Proxy: But if any Bishop shall neglect to come, or departed before the conclusion of the Assembly, let him know that he is shut out of his brethren's communion, and so to continue until the next Synod shall restore him. Yet for all this injunction the Synod of Angers assembled the year following had but eight Bishops, and the third Council of Arles, within three years after had but thirteen Bishops; The Synod of Tours ten, whereof one subscribed by Proxy, and another subscribed being absent, the Canons being sent to him: The Council of Vennes (Venetum) had but six Bishops, and there were but two more in the whole Province, as appears by the Epistle of that Synod to those two that were absent, desiring their confirmation of such Canons as they had made: And Lastly another Council at Arles about Predestination, had but twelve subscriptions. From whence it appears how large the Dioceses of Gallia were at that time.  
The Ancient Notitia Galliae published by Sirmond, and written as is conjectured in the time of Honorius and Arcadius, reckons in all the seventeen Provinces of Gallia one hundred and fifteen Cities, taking in all the Country between the Rhine, and the British Sea: Carolus à Sancto Paulo will by no means allow this to be an Ecclesiastical Notitia, 
Geogr. sacra Galliae, p. 124.  because there are several Cities mentioned in it that never were Episcopal seats, and several Episcopal Sees are omitted; indeed the Ancient Notitia of the Gallican Bishoprics published by that Author, reckons about one hundred twenty and six in all that vast tract of Country; nor are they so few at this day, taking in Savoy, Suitzerland, Alsace, and all the Countries bordering upon the Rhi●●, to Cologn and the Country of Cleaves, besides all the Spanish Netherlands, all reckoned within the Ancient Gallia, which will afford very fair Dioceses.  
But the Acts of the ancient  Councils do make yet clearer proof of the largeness of the Dioceses there: Proculus Bishop of Marseilles lays claim to several Churches as having been anciently Parishes of his Dioceses; 
Con. Taurin. c. 1. Easdem Ecclesias vel Parochias suas fuisse, vel Episcopos à se in ilsdem Ecclesiis ordinatos,  and left that the ambiguity of the word Parochia may make the sense doubtful, he lays claim in the same place to others as depending upon his Metropolis, and where he had Ordained Bishops.  
The Council of Regium Orders, That if one be Ordained against his will Bishop of any City by fewer than three Bishops, 
Liceat ei unam Parochiarum Ecclesiam cedere,— nec u●quam duarum Ecclesiarum gubernationem obtineat.  or without the consent of the Metropolitan, that he may be made Rector of one Parish in the Diocese, if the Bishop thinks fit; but is to have the government of no more than one Parish, and the City Bishop to Ordain all his Assistants.  
The First Council of Orange appoints, That if a Bishop shall build a Church in another Bishop's Territory; 
Gon. Arans. 1. Can. 10.  the Ordination of Minister to serve it shall belong to the Bishop in whose Territory it is; but the right of Presentation and Patronage shall be in the Founder of that Church: which supposes a Diocese of more Congregations than one.  
The Council of Vaison (Vasense) enjoins all the Ministers of Parishes within every Diocese to repair to their Proper Bishop for Chrism every year before Easter, 
Per singula Territoria Presby●eri vel Ministri ab Episcopis, non prout libitum fuerit vicinioribus, sed à suis propriis per annos singulos chrisma petant, appropinquante solemnitate Paschali. Con. vas. c. 3.  and not to go to other Bishops that may be nearer to them.  
There would be no end of instances of this kind, within the space of five hundred years after Christ: but this is sufficient for our present design, which is only to give a view of Diocesan Episcopacy; of the Rise and Propress of it in several parts of the Christian World.  
As to our own Country of Britain, for whose use Mr. B.'s Church History is more especially calculated, and against whose Bishops all the Venom is directed, it is certain indeed that we had Bishops betimes; for we find some of their Subscriptions to the great Council of Arles. 
A. D. 314. Sulp. Sever. l. 2.  And there were some of them present about forty years after in the Council of Ariminum: But how large their Bishops were then will be a very hard matter to demonstrate. 
Hist. Briton. l. 2. c. 1. ed Ascens.  Jeffrey of Monmouth reckons twenty eight Bishops, and three Arch-Bishops in Lucius his time, set up in the place of so many Flamens and Arch-Flamins, who were the directours of the Heathen Religion here; 
Vid. usser de Primord. Eccl. Brit. p. 57 Gild. bis denis bisque quaternis Ciut tibus munita. Bede Hist. l. 1. c. 1. Bede, l, 2. c. 2  and this it seems he had from Gildas de Victoria Aurelii Ambrosii: But all this I suppose has no other foundation than a passage out of Gildas de exidio Britanniae, where he mentions twenty eight Cities in Brittian; and another out of Bede who follows Gildas: The Flamens I suppose were added for ornament afterwards, by some imposture under the name of Gildas. But all the account that I know of the number of Bishops here, is in Bede, who says, That in a Synod assembled in Worcestershire about the receiving Augustine the Monk, there were seven British Bishops present, and probably all the Bishops in the Country were there, this being the second Synod assembled upon that subject, and that wherein the matter in controversy was to be finally decided, the Bishops that were present in the first Conference pretending they had not sufficient Authority to make an Accommodation.  
But whether it were upon the Authority of this Testimony, or of something else more express, so it is that the succeeding Historians deliver it for certain, that Wales had but seven Bishops: Jeffrey of Monmouth tells us that when Austin came over, 
Hist. Brit. li● 1. c. 12. Ed. Heid. Gyrald de Eccles. Men. dist. 2. & Itiner. Camb. l. 2. c. 1.  he found in the Province of the Ancient Britain's seven Bishoprics, and one Arch-Bshoprick. And Gyraldus Cambrensis gives the reasons why there were but four in Wales in his time, since anciently there were seven: Either (says he) there were more Cathedrals within the compass of Wales in former times, or rather because Wales was of a larger extent heretofore than it was in his days, and reached as far aa Severn: And so indeed it was of much greater extent than it is now, having all the Country of Hereford, a good part of Glocestershire, Worcester, Salop, and Cheshire belonging to it. And Baleus gives this account of the Bishops assembled in that Synod mentioned before out of Bede: That seven British Bishops met there, for in those days the Britain's had just so many under the Archbishop of Menevia, according to the number of the Bishops of Asia mentioned in the Revelation of St. John: 
Baleus Script. Brit Cent. 1. c. 70.  and then gives their names: Hereford, Landaff, Llanbaderne, Vowr, Bangor, Asaph, Worcester, and Morganensis or Glamorgan, though this was the same with Landaff: And therefore Bishop Usher thinks, that either Chester must make up the seventh, or Caer Ilyby, i. e. Holyhead in the Isle of Anglesey; and so perhaps it is Episcopus Monensis, and not Morganensis. But as to the number of the Welsh Bishops at Augustine's coming over, if any one desire to know any thing more particularly, he may consult the learned Primate of Armach, 
Usher de Primord. Eccles. Brit. 〈◊〉 87, & seque.  who has exhausted that point: But as to the form of the British Church Government, that it was Diocesan, and not Presbyterian or Independent, we have a modern Testimony, which though it be of no great Authority for the Credit or Learning of the persons that give it; yet it is something remarkable, because they were professed enemies of the Church of England, and of all Diocesan Churches: It is the testimony of an Independent Synod assembled in the Savoy, 
Preface to their Declaration of Faith, near the end.  A. D. 1658. For Novelty (say they) for which we are both charged, (i. e. the Presbyterians and Independents) by the enemies of both: It is true in respect of the public and open profession, either of Presbytery of Independency, this Nation has been a stranger to each way, it is possible ever since it has been Christian.  
And now having given an account of the Rise and Progress of Diocesan Episcopacy, and the extent of Ancient Dioceses in several parts of the Christian World, I shall conclude this Chapter with a general Testimony of St. Jerom concerning the custom of the Church in and before his time: Jerom speaking of Confirmation, makes the Orthodox person in the Dialogue say these words: I do not deny (says he) this to be the custom of the Church, 
Non quidem abnuo hanc esse Ecclesiarum consuetudinem, ut eos qui long in minoribus Urbibus per Presbyteros & Diaconos baptizati sunt, Episcopus ad invocationem S. Sprritus manum impositurus excurrat. Hieron adv Lucifer.  for the Bishop to go about his Diocese to confirm by imposition of hands, such as are Baptised in dat Cities remote from the Episcopal Seat by Presbyters and Deacons And the same Father speaking to the same purpose, that this was done rather to honour Episcopacy than by any absolute necessity, adds: Otherwise (says he) those are to be mightily bewailed, 
In viculis & Castellis, & re. motioribus locis per Presbyteros aut Diaconos Baptizati.  who being Baptised in Villages, Towns and places remote from the Bishop, have died before they were confirmed. Therefore it was the custom of the Church then; nor does he speak only of his own time, but of the constant practice of the Church, that Bishops should have Presbyters and Deacons under their jurisdiction in places very remote from their Cathedrals; and that little Cities, Towns or Castles, i. e. fortified Towns and Villages, might be remote from their Bishop's Seat: and so Dioceses be then and before that time of a very considerable extent.   
FINIS.   

Books sold by Moses Pitt at the Angel in St. Paul's Church yard, Are  
All that are Printed at the Theatre in Oxford (a catalogue of which he gives gratis to all that please to send to him for it) As Bibles in Folio for Churches, Bibles in Quarto, Octavo, and Twelves. Testaments in Octavo and Twelves. Common Prayers in Folio for Churches. Common Prayers in Quarto, Octavo, Twelve and Twentyfours.  
The English Atlas, or a description of the whole Word: the which will be twelve Volumes in Folio: The two first Volumes whereof are published, the third is now in the Press. The price to subscribers is Forty shill. a Volume in quires, they paying Forty shill. always before hand on the delivery of every Volume.  

Catalogue of the Books in the public Library at Oxford, Folio.  
Historia Vniversitatis Oxoniensis, Fol.  
Marmora Oxoniensia, Folio.  
Pocock on Micha and Malichi, Folio.  
Jamblichus de mysteriis Aegyptiorum, Gr. Lat. Folio.  
Charltoni Onomasticon Zoicon. Fol.  
Sir William Dugdale's History of our Civil-Wars, Fol.  
Dr. Henry Hammond's Sermons. Fol.  
Dr. Cole's four Controversial Dialogues, Quarto.  
Lord Clarendon against Hebs, Quarto.  
Prideaux maimonidis Heb. Lat. Qua.