The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 10 – Section 11

The Unreasonableness of Separation · Part 3 · Section 10 – Section 11

p. 253Sect. 10. But that he may not think this sort of Episcopacy was onelyonly in these parts of Africa, let us enquire into the Episcopacy of the Church of Alexandria. And we may suppose Athanasius did not spend all his zeal upon doctrinal points, but had some for the right Constitution of Churches; and yet it is most certain the Churches under his care could not have personal Communion with him.Epiph. haer. 68. n. 6. It is observed by Epiphanius, that Athanasius did frequently visit the neighbour Churches, especially those in Maraeotis; of which Athanasius himself gives the best account.Athanas. Ap. p. 781. 802. Maraeotis, saith he, is a Region belonging to Alexandria, which never had either Bishop or Suffragan in it; but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria; but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village; and here they had Churches erected in which these Presbyters did officiate. All this we have expressly from Athanasius himself, whence we observe, (1.) That here were true Parochial Churches; for so Athanasius calls them p. 254Churches, and not bare Oratories. (2.) That these had Presbyters fixed among them, who performed divine Offices there. (3.) That these were under the immediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria, so that the whole Government belonged to him. (4.) That these were at that distance, that they could not have local Communion with their Bishop in his Church at Alexandria. Which is directly contrary to Mr. Baxter's Episcopacy. So in Alexandria it self,Haeres. 68. n. 4. 69. n. 1. there were many distant Churches with fixed Presbyters in them, as Epiphanius several times observes: and it would be a very strange thing indeed, if so many Presbyters should have fixed Churches in Alexandria, and yet the whole Church of Alexandria be no bigger than to make one Congregation for personal Communion with the Bishop. Abridgment of Chur. hist. p. 9.But Mr. Baxter's great argument is, from the meeting of the whole multitude with Athanasius in the great Church at Alexandria to keep the Easter Solemnity; whence he concludes, that the Christians in Alexandria were no more than that the main body of them could meet and hear in one Assembly. Athanas. Ap. p. 682.Whereas all that Athanasius saith, amounts to no more than this, that the multitude was too great to meet in one of the lesser Churches, and therefore a great clamour was raised among them that they might go into the New Church; Athanasius pressed them to bear with the inconveniency and disperse themselves into the lesser Churches; the People grew impatient, and so at last he yielded to them. But what is there in all this to prove that all the Christians in the whole City were then present, and that this Church would hold them all? If a great Assembly should meet at one of the lesser Churches in London upon some Solemn Occasion, and finding themselves p. 255too big for that place should press the Bishop to open Saint Paul's for that day before it were quite finished, because of the greater capacity of the Church for receiving such a number, would this prove that Saint Paul's held all the Christians in London? Athanasius saith not a word more, than that it was Easter, and there appeared a great number of People, such a one as Christian Princes would wish in a Christian City. Doth he say, or intimate, that all the Christians of the City were present? that none of them went to the lesser Churches? or were absent, though the Croud was so great? Doth he not say, the multitudes were so great in the smaller Churches in the Lent Assemblies, that not a few were stifled and carried home for dead? And therefore it was necessary to consider the multitude at such a time. In my mind Mr. Baxter might as well prove that the whole Nation of the Iews made but one Congregation; because at the dedication of Solomon's Temple there was so great a multitude present, that one of the lesser Synagogues could not hold them. But the argument is of greater force in this respect, that God himself appointed but one Temple for the whole Nation of the Iews: and therefore he intended no more than a single Congregational Church. But to serve this hypothesis, Alexandria it self must be shrunk into a less compass;Euseb. l. 7. c. 21. although Dionysius Alexandrinus who was Bishop there saith it was foreign a very great City; and the Geographer published by Gothofred saith it was foreign,Vetus Orbis descript. p. 18. an exceeding great City; so great that it was foreign past mens comprehension: Amm. Marc. l. 22.and Ammianus Marcellinus saith it was the top of all Cities. Euseb. l. 7. c. 11.And for the number of Christians there long before the time of Athanasius, Dionysius Alexandrinus saith in a time of great p. 256persecution, when he was banished, he kept up the Assemblies in the City; and at Cephro he had a large Church, partly of the Christians of Alexandria which followed him, and partly from other places, and when he was removed thence to Colluthion, which was nearer the City, such numbers of Christians flocked out of the City to him, that they were forced to have distinct Congregations: so the words foreign signifie, and so Athanasius useth them,Athan. Apol. p. 683. foreign, for the Christians meeting in several Congregations. If there were such a number of Christians at Alexandria so long before, under the sharpest persecution, is it possible to imagin, in so great a City, after Christianity had so long been the Religion of the Empire, that the number of Christians there should be no greater than to make one large Congregation? There is no hopes of convincing men, that can build Theories upon such strange improbabilities. I shall onelyonly add one Instance more from Antiquity, which is plain enough of it self to shew the great extent of Diocesan Power then; and that is of Theodoret, a great and learned Bishop; and although his Bishoprick was none of the largest, yet in his Epistle to Leo he saith,Theodor. Ep. 113. he had the Pastoral charge of 800 Churches; for so many Parishes, saith he, are in my Diocese, which he had then enjoyed twenty six years. Doth Mr. B. believe that all the Christians in these 800 Churches had personal Communion with Theodoret? And yet these Parishes did not change their species, for he saith, they were Churches still.

This Testimony of Theodoret is so full and peremptory,Treatise of Episcopacy, p. 67. that Mr. Baxter hath no other way to avoid the force of it, but to call in question the Authority of p. 257the Epistle. But without any considerable ground, unless it be that it contradicts his Hypothesis. For, what if Theodoret's Epistles came out of the Vatican Copy? Is that a sufficient argument to reject them, unless some inconsistency be proved in those Epistles, with the History of those times, or with his other Writings?Critic. Sacr. l. 4. c. 21. Which are the Rules, Rivet gives for judging the sincerity of them. That Epistle which Bellarmin and others reject as spurious, is contradicted by other Epistles of his still extant; which shew a full reconciliation between Cyril of Alexandria and him before his death. And it is supposed, that Iohn of Antioch was dead some considerable time before Cyril; which manifestly overthrows the Authority of it. But what is there like that in this Epistle to Leo? when the matter of fact is proved by other Epistles? As to the unreasonable proceedings of Dioscorus against him, (which was the occasion of writing it) his other Epistles are so full of it, that Mr. B. never read the rest, if he calls this into question upon that account. That Hypatius, Abramius and Alypius were sent into the West upon Theodoret's account, appears by the Epistles to Renatus and Florentius, Theod. Ep. 116. Ep. 117.which follow that to Leo. What if several Epistles of his are lost, which Nicephorus saw, doth that prove all that are remaining to be counterfeit? But he is much mistaken, if he thinks, there was no other Copy but the Vatican translated by Metius;Sirmond. Praef. ad Theod. Opera. for Sirmondus tells us he met with another Copy at Naples, which he compared with the Vatican, and published the various Readings of the Epistles from it. What if Leontius saith that Hereticks feigned Epistles in Theodoret's name? Doth that prove an Epistle wherein he vindicates himself from the imputation of Heresie, to be spurious? p. 258What Mr. B. means by the printing this Epistle alone after Theodoret's Works, I do not well understand, unless he never saw any other than the Latin Edition of Theodoret. But it is a very bold thing to pronounce concerning the Authority of a man's Writings, without so much as looking into the latest and best Editions of them. But there are two things he objects which seem more material. (1.) That it seems incredible that a Town within two days journey of Antioch should have 800 Churches in it at that time. (2.) That he proves from other places in Theodoret, that it is very improbable that Dioceses had then so many Churches.

1. As to the first; certainly no man in his wits ever undertook to prove, that one such City as Cyrus then was, had 800 Churches in it. But by Cyrus, Theodoret means the Diocese of Cyrus; as will afterwards appear. If Cyrus were taken for the Regio Cyrrhestica with the bounds given it by Ptolemy, Ptolem. l. 5. c. 15.Strabo and Pliny, then there would not appear the least improbability in it,Strab. l. 16. since many considerable Cities were within it;Plin. l. 5. c. 24. as Beroea (now Aleppo) and Hierapolis, and extended as far as Euphrates; Zeugma being comprehended under it. The Ecclesiastical Province was likewise very large, and by the ancient Notitiae it is sometimes called Euphratensis, Amm. Marcel. l. 14.which in Ammianus his time took in Comagena and extended to Samosata (but the Regio Cyrrhestica before was distinct from Comagena as appears by Strabo and others) in that Province there was a Metropolitan,Notitiae Antiq. Append. ad Car. à S. Paulo, p. 59. who was called the Metropolitan of Hagiopolis, which by the same Notitiae appears to have been then one of the names of Cyrus, or Cyrrhus. But notwithstanding, I p. 259do not think the words of Theodoret are to be understood of the Province, but of his own peculiar Diocese; Theodor. Ep. 16.for Theodoret mentions the Metropolitan he was under. By Cyrus therefore we understand the Region about the City, which was under Theodoret's care; within which he was confined by the Emperour's Order,Theodor. Ep. 79, 81. as he complains in several Epistles, and there it is called by him, foreign, Regio Cyrrhestica; and Theodoret himself sets down the extent of it in his Epistle to Constantius, Ep. 42.where he saith, it was forty miles in length and forty in breadth. And he saith in another Epistle, Ep. 72.that Christianity was then so much spread among them, that not onelyonly the Cities, but the Villages, the Fields, and utmost bounds were filled with Divine Grace. And that these Villages had Churches and Priests settled in them under the care of the Bishop, appears expresly from a passage in the Life of Symeon; Religios. Hist. Vit. Symeon. p. 879.where he speaks of Bassus visiting the Parochial Churches; foreign. If there were then Parochial Churches settled with Presbyters in them, and these under the care of the Diocesan Bishop, then Mr. B.'s Hypothesis is utterly overthrown.Ep. 81. In his Epistle to Nomus, he mentions eight Villages in his Diocese that were overrun with the Heresie of Marcion, another with the Eunomian, another with the Arian Heresie; which were all converted by his care: Ep. 145.and in another place he saith, he had brought ten thousand Marcionists to Baptism. In another he mentions the spreading of Marcion's Doctrine in his Diocese, Vita Jacobi jun. p. 860. 861, &c. 858, 869, 876, 877, 878, 879.and the great pains he took to root it out; and the success he had therein. And we find the names of many of the Villages in his Lives, as Tillima, Targala, Nimuza, Teleda, Telanissus, which are sufficient p. 260to shew, that Theodoret had properly a Diocesan Church, and that his Episcopal care and Authority did extend to many Parochial Churches; his Diocese being forty miles in length, and as many in breadth. So that Mr. B. must reject, not onley that Epistle to Leo, but the rest too, and his other Works, if he hopes to make good his Parochial Episcopacy; which is too hard a task to be undertaken, without better evidence than he hath hitherto brought.

2. But he offers to produce other Testimonies out of Theodoret to shew the improbability that Dioceses had so many Churches. The question is not about the bare number of Churches in Dioceses, which all men know to have been very different; but about the extent of Episcopal Power, whether it were limited to one Parochial Church, or was extended over many. And what is there in Theodoret which contradicts this? I extreamly failed of my expectation, as to the other places of Theodoret, which he promised to produce;Treatise of Episcopacy, part 2. p▪ 49, 50. For I find five or six places cited out of his History, but not one that comes near any proof of this matter. The (1.) proves that in a time of Persecution at Alexandria, nineteen Presbyters and Deacons were banished to Heliopolis in Phoenicia, where there were no Christians. Theod. Hist. l. 4. c. 19.Therefore in Theodoret's time, there was no Diocesan Episcopacy. The (2.) shews that in a small City of Thebais,l. 4. c. 15. Whither Eulogius and Protogenes were banished, and there were but a few Christians, yet there was a Bishop. Who ever denied this, where there was a prospect of converting more, as appears by the endeavours of Eulogius and Protogenes there? But he ought to have proved that as the Christians increased, new Bishops were p. 261made, which this is very far from. The (3.) proves that Lucius of Alexandria was made Bishop by force, l. 4. c. 19.without any Synod of Bishops, or Choice of the Clergy, or Request of the People. I suppose by this time, Mr. B. had forgotten what he promised to prove from Theodoret. But I wonder, how it came into his mind to say the Church of Alexandria at that time was like a Presbyterian Church: which I am sure he had not from Theodoret, nor from the Epistle of Peter of Alexandria. l. 4. c. 21.The (4.) is intended to prove, that in the time of Valens the Patriarchal Orthodox Church of Alexandria was but one Assembly, which met onelyonly in one place at once. But it is very unhappy, that Theodoret shews just the contrary in that place, for he saith, that Valens expelled the Orthodox Christians out of their Churches, foreign, are his very words: to whom, he saith, Iovianus had likewise given the new built Church. Which Mr. B. thus translates, Valens found the Orthodox, even in the great Patriarchial City of Antioch in possession but of one Church, which good Jovinian the Emperour had given them, of which he dispossessed them. I desire any one who relies on Mr. B.'s skill and fidelity in these matters, but to compare this Translation with the Text in Theodoret; and I dare say, he will see cause to admire it. But if any one can imagin that the Patriarchal Church of Antioch in the time of Valens could consist but of one Congregation, for my part, I must give him over, as one uncapable of being convinced of any thing by me. I do not speak what the Church in a time of great persecution might be driven to, but of what it was in its settled state. l. 4. c. 2▪The (5.) is, from Terentius his begging One Church for the Orthodox of Valens; which saith Mr. B. intimates their numbers. p. 262I am ashamed to reade, much more to confute such arguments as these. For if the Papists should desire the liberty but of one Church in London, doth that prove they are no more than can make one Congregation? l. 5. c. 4.The (6.) proves that Maris was made Bishop of Dolicha a small Town infected with Arianism. It is true, Theodoret saith, Doliche was a little City, and so he tells us, Cyrus was no great one; but he doth not set down the bounds of the Diocese; which for any thing we see in Theodoret, might be as large, as, we have evidently proved from him, the Diocese of Cyrrhus was. Let the Reader now judge, whether Theodoret doth not plainly overthrow Mr. B.'s notion of Parochial Episcopacy.

But Mr. B. insists upon the Institution of Christ; and if Christ hath appointed one sort of Churches, viz. for personal Communion, and men make another, is not this a violation of Christ's Command, and setting up Man against God? I see no evidence produced for any such Institution of Christ, which limits Episcopal Power to a single Congregation; and therefore the extending it to more, can be no violation of Christ's Command, or setting up a new species of Churches, as will appear from Mr. B. himself under the next particular. Yet Mr. B. according to his wonted meekness towards his Adversaries, charges me, for speaking against this principle of his, Answ. to Serm. p. 73.with pleading for presumption, profanation, usurpation, uncharitableness, schism, what not? What is the reason of all this rage and bitterness? Why, I set down a saying of his, as going beyond the Independents in making the devising new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority, and to impose p. 263them on the world, yea in his name, and call all dissenters Schismaticks, a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies. But is not all this true supposing that such new species of Churches be so devised and so imposed? That is not to the business; for that which I quoted it for, was to shew that Mr. B. looked upon all Churches beyond Parochial, as Churches meerly of mens devising; and that to charge men with Schism for opposing any such Constitution is unreasonable; and that the imposing it as Divine, is an intolerable usurpation; and all this at the same time, when he pretends to write for Peace and Concord. My business is now to shew

Sect. 11. 2. That such an Episcopacy as is practised here, and was so in the Primitive Church is no devising a new species of Churches, nor hath any thing repugnant to any Institution of Christ. And to prove this, I need no more than one of Mr. B.'s own Cautions in his Premonition; viz. that he doth not dispute the lawfulness of Archbishops, as he calls them, over Parochial Bishops, as Successours to the Apostolical and other general Overseers of the first Age, in the ordinary continued parts of their Office. And what he saith in his own name and others in his Plea for Peace:p. 263. There are some of us, that much incline to think that Archbishops, that is, Bishops that have oversight of many Churches with their Pastours, are lawfull Successours of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their Work. But I cannot here omit Mr. Baxter's Arguments to prove, that the Ordinary governing part of the Apostolical Office,Christian Directory. Eccles. Cases, Q. 56. p. 831. was settled for all following Ages. 1. Because we reade of the settling of that form, but we never reade of any abolition, discharge, or cessation of the Institution.

p. 264… affirm a cessation without proof, we seem to accuse God of mutability, as settling one form of Government for one Age onelyonly, and no longer. 3. We leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions, as Pastours, Sacraments, &c. and to say, they were but for an Age. 4. It was general Officers Christ promised to be with, to the end of the world, Matt. 28. 20. Which being joyned with the Consent of the Christian Church of the Ages succeeding the Apostles, that the Apostles did leave Successours in the care and Government of Churches, have a great deal of weight in them, and overballance the difficulties on the other side. As upon this occasion I think fit to declare. From whence I argue thus, That which is onelyonly a Continuance of the same kind of Churches which were in being in the Apostolical times is no devising a new species of Churches, nor hath any thing repugnant to any Institution of Christ. But that is the case as to our Episcopacy. We intend no quarrel about names: If it be Mr. B.'s pleasure to call our Bishops, Archbishops, let him enjoy his own fancy. It already appears from Saint Cyprian, and might much more be made plain from many others if it were needfull, that the Bishops of the several Churches were looked on as Successours to the Apostles in the care and Government of Churches. Now the Office of Mr. B.'s Parochial Bishops was onelyonly to attend to one particular Congregation; but the Apostolical Office was above this, while the Apostles held it in their own hands; and did not make a new species of Churches, nor overthrow the Constitution of Parochial Churches. It seems then a strange thing to me, that the continuance of the same kind of Office in the Church, should be called the devising a new species of Churches.

p. 265But Mr. B. runs upon this perpetual mistake, that our English Episcopacy is not a succession to the Ordinary part of the Apostolical Power in Governing Churches; but a new sort of Episcopacy not heard of in the ancient Church, which swallows up the whole Power of Presbyters, and leaves them onelyonly a bare name of Curates, and destroyes the being of Parochial Churches. But if I can make the contrary to appear from the Frame and Constitution of this Church, I hope Mr. B. will be reconciled to our Episcopal Government, and endeavour to remove the prejudices he hath caused in Peoples minds against it.