The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 8
Sect. 8. 2. I now come to consider the Plea of those, who hold our Diocesan Episcopacy to be unlawfull. In my Sermon, as it is printed, I set down this saying of Mr. Baxter,p. 24. That to devise new species of Churches (beyond Parochial or Congregational) without God's Authority, and to impose them on the world (yea in his name) and to call all Dissenters Schismaticks,True and onelyonly way of Concord. p III. is a far worse usurpation, than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies. Which I said doth suppose Congregational Churches to be so much the Institution of Christ; that any other Constitution above these is both unlawfull and insupportable: which is more than the Independent Brethren themselves do assert. Now for our better understanding Mr. B.'s meaning, we must consider his design in that place from whence those words are quoted. 1. He saith, Christ hath instituted onelyonly Congregational or Parochial Churches. 2. That Diocesan Episcopacy is a new species of Churches devised by men without God's Authority, and imposed in such a manner, that those are called Schismaticks who dissent from it. 3. That such an imposition is worse than that of Ceremonies and Liturgies; and consequently affords a better plea for Separation. But to prevent any misunderstanding of his meaning, I will set down his own Cautions. Premonition to the true way of Concord.1. That the Question is not whether every particular Church should have a Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons: i.e. whether every Rectour of a Parish be not a Bishop, if he hath Curates under him. This he calls Parochial Episcopacy. 2. Nor, whether these should have Archbishops over them, as Successours to the Apostolical and general Overseers of the first Age, in the ordinary continued parts of their Office. 3. Nor, whether Partriarchs, Diocesans and Lay-chancellours be lawfull, as Officers of the King, exercising under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings, to which in such exercise all Subjects must for conscience sake submit. 4. Nor, if Diocesans become the sole Bishops over many hundred Parishes, all the Parochial Bishops and Parish Churches being put down and turned into Curates and Chappels, whether a Minister ought yet to live quietly and peaceably under them. You will ask then, where lies this horrible imposition, and intolerable usurpation? It is in requiring the owning the lawfulness of this Diocesan Episcopacy; and joyning with Parochial Churches as parts of it. But wherein lies the unsufferable malignity of that? 1. It is making a new species of Churches without God's Authority. 2. It is overthrowing the species of God's making: which, according to Mr. B. requires two things. 1. Local and presential Communion, as he calls it, i.e. That it consists onelyonly of so many, as can well meet together for Church Society. 2. The full exercise of Discipline within it self by the Pastours; which being taken away, they are onelyonly Curates, and their Meetings Oratories and no Churches. This I think is a true and fair representation of Mr B.'s opinion in this matter. Which tending so apparently to overthrow our present Constitution as insupportable, and to justifie separation from our Parochial Churches as members of a Diocesan Church; Therefore to vindicate the Constitution of our Church, I shall undertake these three things.
1. To shew that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church.
2. That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ, nor devising a new species of Churches without God's Authority.
3. That the accidental alterations in Discipline do not overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches.
1. That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church. This I begin with, because Mr. B. so very often makes his Appeal to Antiquity in this matter. And my first inquiry shall be into the Episcopacy practised in the African Churches;Plea for peace, p. 66. Church-History. p. 37. because Mr. B. expresseth an esteem of them above others; for in Saint Cyprian's time he saith they were the best ordered Churches in the world; and that the Bishops there were the most godly, faithfull, peaceable company of Bishops since the Apostles times. And of the following times he thus speaks, p. 73.Most of the African Councils, saith he, were the best in all the world.Church-History, p. 57. Many good Canons for Church order were made by this and most of the African Councils, no Bishops being faithfuller than they. Therefore concerning the Episcopacy there practised, I shall lay down these two Observations.
Obs. 1. That it was an inviolable Rule among them, That there was to be but one Bishop in a City, though the City were never so large, or the Christians never so many. This one Observation made good, quite overthrows Mr. B.'s Hypothesis. For upon his principles, where ever the Congregation of Christians became so great,Answ. to Serm. p. 74. that they could not conveniently assemble at one place so as to have personal Communion in presence, as he speaks; there either they must alter the instituted species of Government, or they must have more Bishops than one in a City. For, he saith, the Church must be no bigger, than that the same Bishop may perform the Pastoral Office to them in present Communion, and for this he quotes 1 Thess. 5. 12, 13. Heb. 13. 7, 17. i.e. their Bishops must be such as they must hear preach, and have Conversation with. But that this was not so understood in the African Churches, appears by their strict observance of this Rule; of having but one Bishop in a City how large soever it was. And how punctually they thought themselves bound to observe it, will appear by this one Instance, That one of the greatest and most pernicious Schisms that ever happened, might have been prevented if they had yielded to more Bishops than one in a City; and that was the Schism of the Donatists, upon the competition between Majorinus and Coecilian; as the Novatian Schism began at Rome upon a like occasion between Cornelius and Novatian. Now was there not all the Reason imaginable upon so important an occasion to have made more Bishops in the same City, unless they had thought some Divine Rule prohibited them? When there were 46 Presbyters at Rome, had it not been fair to have divided them? or upon Mr. B.'s principles made so many Bishops that every one might have had three or four for his share? But instead of this, how doth Saint Cyprian, even the holy and meek Saint Cyprian, as Saint Augustin calls him,Aug. de Bapt. l. 2. c. 4. aggravate the Schism of Novatian for being chosen a Bishop in the same City, where there was one chosen before? His words are so considerable to our purpose, that I shall set them down.Cypt. Ep. 52. n. 4. Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit, quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat, factus est, non jam secundus ille sed nullus est. Since there cannot be a second after the first, whosoever is made Bishop when one is made already, who ought to be alone, he is not another Bishop, but none at all. Let Mr. B. reconcile these words to his Hypothesis if he can. What! in such a City of Christians, as Rome then was, where were 46 Presbyters, to pronounce it a meer nullity to have a second Bishop chosen? Mr. B. would rather have thought there had been need of 46 Bishops; but Saint Cyprian who lived somewhat nearer the Apostles times, and I am apt to think, knew as well the Constitution of Churches then, thought it overthrew that Constitution to have more Bishops than one in a City. At Carthage it seems some turbulent Presbyters that were not satisfied with Saint Cyprian's Government, or it may be looking on the charge as too big for one, chose one Fortunatus to be Bishop there:Cypr. Ep. 55. n. 6, 9. with this Saint Cyprian acquaints Cornelius; and there tells him, how far they had proceeded, and what mischief this would be to the Church, since the having one Bishop was the best means to prevent Schisms. After the election of Cornelius, some of the Confessours who had sided with Novatian deserted his Party,Ep. 46. n. 3. and were received back again at a solemn Assembly, where they confessed their fault, and declared, That they were not ignorant, that as there was but one God, and one Christ, and one Holy Ghost, so there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church. Not according to the senseless interpretation of Pamelius, who would have it understood of one Pope; but that according to the ancient and regular Discipline and Order of the Church, there ought to be but one Bishop in a City. After the Martyrdom of Cornelius at Rome, Ep. 58. n. 2.Saint Cyprian sends to Rome to know who that one Bishop was, that was chosen in his place. And the necessity of this Vnity, De Vnit. Eccl. n. 3, 4.he insists on elsewhere; and saith, Our Saviour so appointed it, unam Cathedram constituit, & unitatis ejusdem originem, ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Which the Papists foolishly interpret of Saint Peter's Chair; for in his following words he utterly overthrows the supremacy, saying, all the Apostles were equal; and a little after, Episcopatus unus est, cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. But this is sufficient to my purpose, to shew that these holy men, these Martyrs and Confessors, men that were indeed dying daily, and that for Christ too, were all agreed that a Bishop there must be, and that but one in a City, though never so large and full of Christians. S. August. Ep. 162. N. E. Ep. 43.Saint Augustin in his excellent Epistle to the Donatists, gives an account of the proceedings about Caecilian after the election of Majorinus, and that Melchiades managing that matter with admirable temper, offer'd for the healing of the Schism to receive those who had been ordained by Majorinus, with this Proviso, that where by reason of the Schism there had been two Bishops in a City, he that was first consecrated was to remain Bishop, and the other to have another People provided for him. For which Saint Augustin commends him, as an excellent man, a true Son of Peace, and Father of Christian People. By which we see the best, the wisest, the most moderate Persons of that time, never once thought that there could be more Bishops than one in a City. In the famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholick and Donatist Bishops, the Rule on both sides was,Collat. Carthage 1. but one Bishop to be allowed of either side of a City and Diocese; and if there had been any new made, to increase their number, as it was objected on both sides; if it were proved, they were not to be allowed: for generally then, every Diocese had two Bishops of the different Parties; but in some places they had but one, where the People were of one mind; and nothing but this notorious Schism gave occasion to such a multiplication of Bishops in Africa; both Parties striving to increase their Numbers.