The Controversies about Church-Government turn upon questions of Right and not of Fact But matters of Fact are pertinently alledg'd to prove a Right where the Fact does involve a Judgment of Right but where it is purely accidental it has no consequence on either side Two great Casuists upon a certain time fell into Dispute about the Lawfulness of taking Tobacco the Dispute was carried on with great Learning and Niceness one made it out clearly that none of the Primitive Christians ever used it and that for many Centuries there was not one Christian Smoker in the World The other desired to know the Principle upon which they condemn'd it and was told very seriously that there were no Church censures against it nor could there well be any for the Plant had not yet been brought to these Parts of the World So the Controversy remain'd undecided by this negative instance of the Primitive Church because their forbearance was not the effect of Judgment or Choice but from an absolute ignorance of the matter Now for deciding of Controversies and bringing things to a happy composure I was resolv'd to signalize my Complyance and submit to a Paradox not for the sake of any Testimony brought by the Author but to avoid Importunity and upon the account of Peace But seeing all our Controversies about Church-Government remain in the same state after all my yeelding I conceive that I am at liberty to revoke my Concession and to Contest the matter of Fact and to shew that the Testimonies alleg'd by Mr. Clerkson do not make sufficient proof of the point under debate that a Bishop in the three first Centuries was no more than Pastour to a single Congregation For the Scripture-times there will be little difficulty since as much is acknowledged by the most Learned and Judicious Assertors of Prelacy as need be desired (a) Prim. Ep. p. 2. Arch-Bishop Whitgift is brought in to witness that the Gospel was not generally receiv'd any where when it was first Preach'd That when Matthias was chosen the whole Church was gathered in one place and so it was when the Deacons were chosen this may be true and yet not reach to the whole extent of Scripture-times but only to those instances of Popular Election which were alledg'd by Cartwright the latest of which seems to be within a Year of our Saviour's Ascension and if for the first Year of the Apostles Preaching the Church might not Increase beyond a single Congregation it will be of no great consequence either for or against Diocesan Episcopacy yet it is plain from Scripture that the matter of Fact was otherwise For in the Election of Matthias the Assembly consisted of about a hundred and twenty (b) Acts 1. whereas our Saviour before his Ascension appear'd in an Assembly of five hundred Brethren (c) 1 Cor. 15. so that not a fourth part of the Church was present at that Election When the Deacons were elected the whole Church of Jerusalem could not be present in that Assembly for the number of the Converts was then too great especially considering the Christians had not the convenience of very capacious places to meet in A great part of the Church was not concern'd to be present on that occasion for the Women had no part in Election nor perhaps Servants nor Children tho' of Age while they liv'd in their Fathers House But that the whole Church could not be present I shall then shew more fully when I consider the ways by which our Author endeavours to diminish the first-Fruits of the Gospel and to lessen the Church of Jerusalem Bishop Downham is alledg'd to as little purpose For all he affirms is that at the very first Conversion of Cities the whole number of People converted was able to make but a small Congregation For who can tell how far he intended the very first Conversions should extend The closing of the Scriptures of the New Testament was above sixty Years after the first Conversions of many great Cities and therefore tho' at the first Conversions the number of Christians might be but small yet a Church may improve something in threescore Years and grow up from one small to many great Congregations No instance says our Author can be brought against this but the three thousand Converted at Jerusalem (a) Acts 2.41 to which some would add five thousand more Some would add Let it not displease any zealous Brother of the Congregational way that St. Luke has recorded the number of those Converts his words are so plain and his sense so necessary that they cannot be avoided by any shift (b) Acts 4.4 many of those who heard the word i. e. then Preach'd not in a set Assembly but occasionally in the Temple believ'd and the number of the men was about five thousand But can there no instance be brought against the Independent fancy besides these two Our Author it seems was willing to overlook such passages as testify the great Increase of Christians in Jerusalem after this happy beginning (c) Acts 5.13 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Luke relates that after the fearful end of Ananias and his Wife Believers were the more added to the Church multitudes both of Men and Women The Ethiopick Version deserves to be considered in this place for instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Author of that Version seems to have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the Jewish Magistrates durst not then restrain the Preaching the Apostles because the People magnified them for their Miracles and then great additions were made to the Church But St. Luke proceeds to give yet greater Instances of the Increase of the Church of Jerusalem (a) Acts 6.1 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before the choice of the Deacons the number of the Disciples was multiplied and immediately after the Institution of these Officers the word of God increas'd and the number of the Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly and a great company of the Priests or as the Syriack reads of the Jews were obedient or submitted to the Faith It may be said that no certain Number is express'd in these places and therefore they conclude nothing It is true the Numbers of these later Converts are not set down but must they therefore be lost to the Church and Bishop of Jerusalem These Expressions of multitudes of Men and Women of Increasing greatly or mightily of great Company or Croud are of very great content and capable of receiving many Myriads and if we compare them with these general terms of which we know the definite sum it must be allow'd by all rules of speaking that those indefinite expressions must exceed the other For instance when an accession of five thousand was made to the Church it is said that many of those who heard the word believ'd If the Relator had not express'd the Number but left it to the discretion of independent Calculators I am afraid this Indefinite
our Saviour not to depart from Jerusalem in twelve years we must conclude the numbers of Proselytes must needs surpass the measure of a Congregation if the success of following years did in any proportion answer this beginning All the endeavours therefore of deduction from the numbers of Converts expressed by St. Luke can have no place in the Church of Jerusalem For 1. All that were converted on Pentecost are said to continue in the Apostles (a) Acts 2. Fellowship and breaking of Bread and in Prayer i. e. to stay with them in Jerusalem So that though they were not dwellers before upon this occasion they became such 2. The five thousand added to these according to the circumstances of the Story and the exposition of all the ancient Writers will afford no occasion for any deduction 3. The increase of which the numbers are not express'd may reasonably be presum'd no way inferior to the other where the number is set down but if we observe the Expressions seem to surpass them For when five thousand were converted it is said that many of those who heard the Word believed If the number had not follow'd this would have pass'd for a little matter with our Author but in other places it is said that great multitudes both of Men and Women a great number of Priests c. 4. While the Apostles continued in Jerusalem we have reason to believe the Church was still increasing and the People being generally of their side upon the account of the Miracles they wrought so as to give a check to the Rulers and to restrain them from persecuting the Apostles it cannot be well doubted but the Apostles improv'd this good disposition to a perfect conversion 5. Besides the preaching of the Apostles the influence of the Converts who were generally men upon their Families could not fail of having great effect and of making no small addition to the sum of Believers The Authority the Masters of families had over them among the Jews being very great and the submission of Wives and Children to them being in that Nation very implicit (a) Letter 17. from Baghdad It being the receiv'd custom of the East as De la Valle observ'd that the Women and Children should accomodate themselves to the Father of the family in matters of Religion though the Women had before they married been bred up in other Rules 6. That the Multitude converted could have no convenience in Jerusalem of meeting in one Assembly The Apostles went from House to House 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. in several Houses there were several religious Assemblies and so consequently several Congregations so that the Multitude though it might in a very great Theater or Temple have come together yet for want of such accommodation began in the Diocesan way and dispersed into several Assemblies which still made up but one Church (b) Prim. Ep. p. 6. It is confessed says Mr. Clerkson that in those times and after there was more than one Bishop in a City and if the Christians in any City were but few and those divided betwixt several Bishops how small a Diocese would the share of each make up For this he cites Dr. Hammond on the Rev. c. 11. p. 662. It is true indeed D. H. was of opinion that the Believers of the Circumcision did for some time keep at some distance from the Gentile Converts and had their Assemblies and Officers apart and that the Apostles having no other remedy were obliged to manage the matter so tenderly as to connive for some time at this separation But this can by no means concern the case of the Church of Jerusalem within the time of her increase before the death of St. Stephen and the conversion of St. Paul for as yet no Gentile had been baptized Cornelius being the first and that some time after these many thousands had been converted in Jerusalem Besides were this allow'd that the Jews and Gentiles in each City had a distinct Bishop yet that makes nothing for the Congregational way for this happened upon another Account And after the ruin of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish Commonwealth the Jews came to an accommodation and joyned with the Gentiles under the same Officers before the second Century and therefore can be of no consequence to the point in hand And if those Dioceses were small it was in order to greater increase that the Jews might be for a little while indulg'd and then united with the Gentiles in one Church But after all this matter of separate Churches is no more than the conjecture of some learned men and our Author himself is willing to dismiss it by saying (a) P. 7. That there is no need of this acknowledgment nor will he insist on the grounds on which he proceeds Nor is there any reason he should if he can make out what he affirms in the same place that there is evidence enough in Scripture for a plurality of Bishops in several Cities which may be easily vindicated from the attempts of some that would deface it His first instance is Phil. 1.1 To all the Saints that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons That these were Bishops of the Province as Dr. Hammond contends and not of the City of Philippi our Author will by no means allow nor will I be very importunate with him that he should But one thing I would learn of him what sort of Bishops he takes these to be For if in his opinion they are no other than Presbyters then this place is impertinently alledg'd since many Presbyters are by all sides acknowledg'd to have belong'd to one Church But if he speak of Bishops in the common Ecclesiastical sence and then concludes from this passage that there were many in the Church of Philippi his opinion is as singular as that of the Doctor he endeavours to refute For my part I must profess that I am not much concern'd in this Dispute between our Author and Dr. Hammond about these Bishops I could never find sufficient reason to believe them any other than Presbyters as the generality of Fathers and of the Writers of our own Church have done And tho' I have great reverence for the name and memory of Dr. Hammond yet where he is alone I may without any imputation of disrespect take the common liberty of leaving his opinion to stand or fall according to the strength of the Arguments upon which it is founded Yet there are some things in our Authors reply which may be taken notice of Dr. Hammond (a) 16 12. from a passage in the Acts where Philippi is said to be the first City of Macedonia and a Colony infers that it was a Metropolis To which our Author answers that it is first in Situation (b) P. 8. and not in dignity and preheminence This conjecture of Camerarius and Zanchius may after all be more ingenious than solid For Bezas M S. has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the head or chief not the first in Situation and the Syriack and Arabick Versions follo wit Now the most ancient Copy as it is suppos'd of the New Testament now extant confirm'd by two old Versions may weigh as much as a late conjecture Besides Philippi was not the first in Situation as is pretended but Neapolis And it would be something strange if Dover be indeed the first Town of England that he who pass'd that way should call Canterbury the first It might not be very considerable when Macedon was reduc'd by Paulus Aemilius but it might be the chief Town of that part of the Country when St. Luke wrote (c) Brev. c. 5 Liberatus mentions the Arch-Bishop of Philippi and in the Council of Ephesus the Bishop subscribes among the Metropolitans tho' it be express'd that he had the Proxy of the Bishop of Thessalonica In an old Notitia he is Metropolitan of the Province of Macedon And so Sedulius styles him and Tertullian (a) de Praescrip names it before Thessalonica Nor will I contend with our Author about the other Argument of Dr. Hammond which he rejects that Philippi was a Metropolis because it was a Colonie It does not indeed necessarily follow but yet Roman Colonies were generally placed in the principal Cities of Provinces and endow'd with the chief Dignities and Jurisdictions in the Countries where they were So Carthage Corinth Caesarea and many others might be nam'd But if it was the Head of that part of the Country and a Colony as Beza's old Copy has it this Dispute is over and nothing I am sure Mr. Clerkson has produc'd does make out that it was not a Metropolis when St. Paul was there Now this Debate concerning the Bishops of Philippi had soon been at an end if our Author had thought fit to explain himself and told us what he meant by Bishops For were they Pastors of single elect Congregations respectively in covenant Then there must have been several Churches or Congregations in that one City But on other occasions he will not allow more than one Congregation for three hundred years after Christ even in Rome it self But if we allow such an obscure place as Philippi to have many Churches so early we cannot avoid yielding to Alexandria and Antioch and other great Cities many more and what will prove worse than all those Churches must be acknowledg'd to be all under one Bishop Or were these Bishops only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal Authority Then our Author must give up the Question and instead of making many Bishops must own that there was none at all there but only Presbyters Will he contend that there were no other Bishops than Presbyters This will be to abuse his Reader with the ambiguity of a word which he takes in one sense and the Church in another That many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation none ever deny'd that many Bishops in the allow'd and ecclesiastical sense of the word had the oversight of one City sounds strange and incredible to the ancient Christians Chrysostom observing this expression of the Bishops of Philippi seems to be startled with it What many Bishops in one City By no means it cannot be What then They were not Bishops properly so call'd but Presbyters The same poor Sophistry is carry'd on (a) Prim. Ep. p. 10. under the colour of another Text. (b) Acts 20.17 St. Paul from Miletus sent to Ephesus and call'd the Elders of the Church who are say'd v. 28. to be made Bishops by the Holy Ghost Now these Elders or Bishops belong'd to the City-Church of Ephesus as our Author contends and not to the Province and therefore there were several Bishops in the same City But if we demand here again what Bishops are here meant whether these were Bishops in the sense of the present question or Presbyters only The objection vanishes and leaves the Reader to wonder that any man should so solemnly undertake to prove what no man ever doubted that in Scripture-times there were many Presbyters over one Church But Dr. Hammond will have these Bishops to be Suffragans of Ephesus And Mr. Clerkson with all his force does endeavour to disprove them to have been City Bishops Now in the midst of this contention we may be very safe from the danger of Congregational Episcopacy For if Dr. Hammond's way prevail these Bishops must have each a City and Territory and be Diocesans either actually or in right If Mr. Clerkson carries it then properly speaking there might not be a Bishop among them all for they are but Presbyters belonging not to several Independent Congregations but to one Church and might have a Bishop to whom they were subject as the Ancients believ'd they had and thought Timothy to be the Person And here he musters up great forces against Dr. Hammond's opinion and affirms (a) Pr. Ep. p. 10 11. that the Text it self the Syriack Version Chrysostom Theophilact Oecumenius and Theodoret and the whole stream of Ancients are against this new sense not any favoring it but one among them all But what sense are these Ancients for that there were many Bishops of one City-Church Nothing less for they all declare the contrary and that these were no other than Presbyters But there hapned to be one for the Doctors new sense our Author does not name him it was Irenaeus and it seems something incongruous to call that sense new which is vouch'd by so ancient Authority For this Father is judg'd by (a) Diss 3. in Iraen Mr. Dodwel to be born in the later end of the first Century or the very beginning of the second He convers'd with Polycarp as himself declares whose Martyrdom according to the computation of Bishop (b) Diss Post 2. c. 14. et seq Pearson could not be later than the year 147. And therefore must have liv'd forty years of the first Century He was Bishop of Smyrna which was under the Jurisdiction of Ephesus and might understand from the Tradition of the place more of St. Paul's visitation than is recorded by St. Luke and so be more particular in noting the quality of the Persons that the Apostle call'd to him to Miletus and express'd himself therefore in that manner c having call'd together the Bishops and Presbyters of Ephesus and the other Neighbouring Cities Now if Authority go by weight and not by number Dr. Hammond's case will not appear so desperate for though many names are produced against him yet several of them are very light For Oecumenius and Theophilact may be discounted as Transcribers of Chrysostom who with Theodoret will scarce weigh down the credit of Irenaeus in a case of this nature for they speak only by conjecture whereas he might have nearer notices from Tradition Howe'er it were yet our Author should have call'd this sense any thing rather than new since it is
possession of his own people To this he adds a marvellous remark that the word (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which some will have him to understand a Diocese is frequently said to be in the City And of this expression he cites many examples as if this implied that out of the City there was no Diocese But let that instance of Alexandria answer for all the rest since it is produced to this purpose For besides the City Athanasius affirms the Bishop had Mareotes a Region containing many Country Parishes and that there never had been so much as a Chorepiscopus to govern those Churches but that they were under the immediate Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria We are farther told (g) Prim. ep p. 123. that the Apostles designed there should be such Bishops as they instituted in Country Towns and not in Cities only If he means by such Bishops Presbyters only then indeed not only every Church but every Congregation required such but the Bishops of the Apostles Ordination had the care of many Congregations And it is plain in Scripture that such general Officers they did appoint and they themselves were of that kind Some Prelatists he observes will have Bishop and City to be adequate but he will have it that Church and Bishop should be so for it is not the City as such requires a Bishop but because it had a Church in it It is true but the narrowness of the Independent spirit confounds a Church with a Congregation For as in the civil community of a City there were several subordinate Assemblies yet but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly so called which was endued with the authority of the whole Body So it might be in the Churches planted by the Apostles Where therefore there was one competent Church there was a Bishop but this might consist of several Congregations The Church of Jerusalem may be still mentioned to this purpose after all Mr. Clerkson's attempts to diminish it The number of Converts there was too great for one Congregation (h) Acts 11.22 yet they all made but one Church and so it was where ever Christians increased in the same proportion And therefore I hope to be excused if in this case I take the practice of the Apostles and of the Church in succeeding ages to be safer Interpreters of their design than the novel conjectures of men addicted to singularity The instance of Majuma the Port of Gaza is directly against the purpose for which it is brought for it had no Bishop till it was a City And one thing in this citation of Mr. Clerkson concerning it deserves to be noted For where Sozomen says that the bounds of each Diocese were appointed and what Altars should belong to each our Author thought fit to change the number and to write distinct Altar as agreeing better with his notion though this way does not agree well with common honesty and good faith The weak objection which he makes for Episcopal men and the suitable answer he returns to it are not worth notice For here he speaks only to himself and I do not wonder he should argue so weakly for us when his arguments against us are so harmless So the Mother of Sisera and her wise Ladies did doubt and reply and fancy Triumphs when the day was lost The difference between the modern and ancient models is apparent as Mr. Clerkson thinks in England and Ireland The ancient model of Episcopacy in England is something hard to find For the Saxons being Pagans when they subdued this Country and driving the old Inhabitants into the remote corners of it all the bounds of civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within this Kingdom were lost But the model he speaks of is that of Gregory the Great who had no more design to plant Congregational Episcopacy in England than he had to make it Independent He intended twelve Bishops for the Province of York as Mr. Clerkson observes but that might have been done and the Dioceses be large enough For that Province then reached from Humbre to the Frith of Edinburgh and about the year 681. had five Bishops however Mr. Clerkson affirms that for many ages it had no more than three and every one of them had Dioceses of very great extent Those in the South were not all so great but yet comprehended many Congregations and some of them as Canterbury London and Rochester do remain still under the same limits that were at first appointed them by Augustin the Archbishop How they stood before the coming of the Saxons is now beyond all memory and there is little hope left of making any new discovery in this matter which hath been treated by so many great men and diligent inquirers into the Antiquities of their Country Marcianus Heracleota (i) Peripl p. 92. reckons fifty nine Cities in Britain which I suppose he took out of Ptolomy (l) Ptol. l. 2. Many of these are placed in Scotland and about forty remain for England and Wales If they observed the general rule of the Church the number of their Bishops might be equal to that of their Cities and so their Dioceses would be much too wide for Mr. Clerkson's purpose But it seems this number was reduced afterwards For Bede (m) Bed H. E. l. 1. c. 1. mentions but twenty eight when he would set out the most flourishing condition of this Country in the Roman times As for the Canon of the Synod of Herudford for augmenting the number of Bishops which Mr. Clerkson insists on there was good reason for it For at that time there were no more than seven Bishops in all the Saxon part of Britain which then reaching to the Frith of Edinburg was as large as all England and Wales joyned together are now The ancient model in Ireland is as little known for the Legends of St. Patrick are but sorry evidence of the ancient state of the Irish Church and that Fable has been already examined In Phaenicia indeed the Latins did reduce the Bishopricks to a lesser number in the twelfth Century because the condition of that Country was much altered and most of the ancient Episcopal Cities destroyed or the people Mahometans But that it was the humour of that age instead of multiplying to reduce Bishopricks is only a fancy of Mr. Clerkson For I have shewed the practice of Italy at that time to be quite contrary where instead of reducing they raised a great number of new Bishopricks and have been increasing of them ever since Nor does it serve to any purpose to produce the Patriarchat of Antioch so different in the time of the Latins from what it had been anciently since the condition of those Countries had been much altered and the Christians were reduced to a very small number under the long and heavy Tyranny of the Mahometans Mr. Clerkson bestows a whole Chapter to confirm his notion of the smallness of ancient Bishopricks by repeating those observations he
ancienter than any thing he can produce to the contrary As to the (e) Iren. l. 3. c. 14. Text it self it determines positively on neither side and for the Syriack version if it be against the Dr. in Ephesus it must be remembred that it was for him at Philippi But after all the present question is not concern'd in this Dispute for tho' these Elders who are call'd Bishops were not of the Province but of the City of Ephesus yet it does not follow that there were several Bishops properly so call'd and distinguish'd from Presbyters at the same time in one Church And our Author's stream of Ancients are against him who understand these not to be proper Bishops but Presbyters I should dismiss this point about the Ephesine Bishops if our Author did not say he did insist upon another Argument as new and altogether his own The sum of it is this The Apostle Paul resolv'd to be at Jerusalem (a) Acts 20.16 at the day of Pentecost But he could not be there at the day if he stay'd long at Miletus And he could not Assemble the Bishops of Asia there if he stay'd not long there Ephesus was fifty miles from Miletus and so four days journey going and coming And if Paul stay'd longer than three or four days at the most at Miletus he could not be at Jerusalem at Pentecost Now the chief Cities of Asia he shews were at a great distance from Ephesus and at a greater from Miletus and therefore the Elders sent for could not be those of the several Cities of Asia but of Ephesus and then it cannot be deny'd but in that Church there was a plurality of Elders or Bishops That there was there a plurality of Elders or Presbyters has been often granted That these were Bishops in the Ecclesiastical use of the word is still denied Upon that the Question turns and our Author says not a word to it But this ruins Dr. Hammond's notion For the account given by St. Luke of the Apostle's Journey will not permit the Bishops of Asia to assemble at Miletus Should it be granted that this notion is not tenable Diocesan Episcopacy will not be much concern'd For it has been always maintain'd and may be so still without this support But yet after all this pains the Argument on which Mr. Clerkson does so much insist does it no hurt at all For what if the Apostle did not reach Jerusalem by Pentecost St. Luke does no where affirm it and no circumstance of his Journey or Arival does evince it Nay the very account of his Voyage makes it incredible Chrysostom reckons forty-two days from the days of Unleaven'd Bread when he was at Philippi to his arival (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Acts 21. Ser. 45. at Caesarea where he stay'd many days i. e. more than he tarry'd any where else which at lowest reckoning must be eight And so the Pentecost must find him at Caesarea as that Father affirms though (b) Annal. 58. S. 117. Baronius mistaketh his words and would understand them of Jerusalem And Chrysostom upon those words intending if it were possible to be at Jerusalem observes how the Apostle is mov'd after the manner of men (c) Chrys in Act. 21. Ser. 43. How he designs hom he hastens and yet often times misses of his end Which implies that in his opinion that he had not attain'd what he intended so earnestly i. e. to be at Jerusalem by Pentecost Nay so uncertain is this whole matter that to some Writers (a) Theophil in Acts 21. Paul seem'd to pass the Pentecost at Troas twelve days after he had set out By our Author's computation he has scarce two days left for seventy five miles which were between Caesarea and Jerusalem But our Author's reckoning has omissions For he makes no allowance between Tyre and Ptolemais which is thirty two miles The time in which Paul's company went before by Sea from Troas to Assos and Paul went by Land is not reckon'd For St. Luke speaks of the whole company (b) Acts 20.6 13 14. We abode there seven days And then we went before the ship and sayl'd to Assos And when he met with us at Assos What time this took up is uncertain as well as the distance between Troas and Assos Besides three or four days is something of the shortest allowance for his stay at Miletus that the Elders of Ephesus might be sent for and come to him The Journey took up four days and less than one day cannot be well allow'd them to confer The Voyage from Miletus to Tyre is of an uncertain time and five days seems something of the least What is to be allow'd for the many days stay at Caesarea is still uncertain And in common understanding of the phrase it cannot signify so few as would permit the Apostle to be at Jerusalem at Pentecost Bishop Pearson (a) Annal. Paulini A. 59. p. 16. therefore a person of great Exactness having considered this matter concluded that Paul could not be at Jerusalem till after Pentecost These are his words Venit Hierosolyma cum collectis post Pentecosten mense Junio ubi tumultu concitato c. If therefore this be all Mr. Clerkson has to insist on that St. Paul could not stay above four days at Miletus because he could not otherwise arrive at Jerusalem before Pentecost his proof amounts to little For it appears much more probable that the Apostle arriv'd not thither till after that Feast and therefore might have stay'd at Miletus as long as he had pleas'd But since Dr. Hammond allow'd St. Paul to reach Jerusalem within the time design'd I must confess that the Argument is good against him but not against his notion of the Bishops of Asia or the passage of Irenaeus unless we may suppose those Bishops assembled at Ephesus in expectation of St. Paul's coming thither and by that means in a readiness to meet him at Miletus This is all the account our Author thought fit to give out of Scripture concerning the plurality of Bishops in one City How well he has made good his Paradox let the Reader judge It is Acknowledg'd says he (b) Prim. Ep. p. 14. that both in Scripture-times and long after the Bishops Diocese was so small that one Altar was sufficient for it See Mr. Mede 's Proof of Churches in the Second Century p. 29. Nay more than this it should seem that in those first times before Dioceses were divided into the lesser and subordinate Churches we now call Parishes and Presbyters assign'd to them they had not only one Altar in one Church or Dominicum but one Altar to a Church taking Church for the Company or Corporation of the Faithful united under one Bishop and that was in the City and place where the Bishop had his residence It should seem says Mr. Mede and again thus perhaps is Ignatius to be understood and then however I here determine nothing With
they were ordain'd Without this concession the argument will have no force and before we grant let us consider what our Author offers concerning these places Antioch was the Metropolis of Pisidia and a great City yet not so great but all the Inhabitants (y) Prim. Episc p. 25 26. in a manner could meet together to hear the word St. Luke (b) Acts 13.44 indeed says that the whole City almost came together to hear the word but that the Jews Synagogue would contain all the City he neither says nor can we reasonably believe For expressions of this nature have an allow'd favour of construction among all men and when a whole City is said to come together men understand only a great multitude without any rigorous computation what proportion such an assembly may bear to the whole City Moses is said (c) Deut. 31.30 to speak in the Ears of all the Congregation of Israel the words of his song (d) Deut. 32.45 and he made an end of speaking all these words to all Israel When Moses number'd the people they were above six hundred thousand men fit for service besides women and children which could not be less than three times as many And to speak in the ears of all these together had been one of the greatest miracles that ever Moses had done and such as the holy Ghost would not have passed unobserved (e) Theodoret. Hist Relig. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the people of the great Antioch are said to come together to see Julian the Monk All the People of C. P. come daily to us say (f) Apud Conc. Ephes the Oriental Bishops who were stoped at Chalcedon by the Emperor's order And the Author of the life of Paul Bishop of C. P. says that the whole City of C. P. came to the Church call'd by the name of the Apostles And Cyrill (g) Phot. cod 257. says that all the people of the City of Ephesus attended him to the Council St. Jerom speaking of the Penance Fabiola did on Easter Eve for marrying while her first Husband whom she had divorc'd was alive (h) Tota spectante Urbe Romana Hier. Epit. Fabiolae saith that it was in the sight of the whole City of Rome and in the same Treatise says that all the people of Rome came to the funeral of that Lady And if the greatest Cities of the world may be thought so thin of people as to be able to furnish but one Assembly what shall we say to that expression (l) Tota ad funus ejus Palestinarum Urbium turba convenit Hieron Epit. Paula of Jerom that all the people of the Cities of Palestine came to the funeral of Paula Wherefore if our Author's remark may diminish Antioch in Pisidia to the Congregational measure because the whole City almost came together to hear the Apostles the greatest Cities in the world must shrink into a single Congregation because the same expression is used of them too and without any such guard or correction as almost or in a manner (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 13. which St. Luke thought fit to interpose It may seem very unnecessary to insist so much upon the proof of a matter so obvious to every Reader But the importunity and cavils of my Adversary who snatches at such expressions as these the whole Town all the People as arguments for his Congregational Episcopacy have oblig'd me to it And whoever (i) Totius Urbis populum ad exequias Congregabat Ibid. is once engag'd with a Caviller cannot well avoid the mean drudgery of descending to very jejune explanations (n) Prim. Ep. p. 26. Iconium in Strabo (o) Str. l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but a small Town but well built by which we may judge of those places which were Bishops seats under it There are fifteen of them in Leo's Diatyposis There is but little reason to fancy any of these Bishops seats to be Villages since in the civil Notitia of the Eastern Empire ascribed to Hierocles there are seventeen Cities under the Metropolis of Iconium And tho' it might not be a very great City in Strabo's time yet being made the Residence of the chief Roman Magistrate in that Country it may reasonably be thought to have received considerable increase and so it seems to have done For Pliny (p) Datur Tetrarchia Lycaonia civitatum 14. urbe celeberrima Iconio Plin. l. 5. c. 27. takes notice of a Tetrarchy of Lycaonia on that side where it joyns to Galatia in which there were fourteen Cities of which Iconium was the most renown'd Among other Cities belonging to the Metropolis of Iconium we find Homona or Homonada◠in the whole Territory there were no less than 44. fortify'd places in the time of Pliny (q) Ibid. It was not long when Strabo wrote since those Countries had been recovered from the Tyrants and Pirats who oppress'd them and Strabo (r) Pr. l. 12. tells us that he had seen Servilius Isauricus In Constantius his time Iconium belonged (s) Ammian Marc. l. 14. Oppidum Pisidiae to Pisidia but was then so considerable that it had an Amphitheatre and publick shews which were not ordinarily exhibited but in the place where the chief Governour of the Province resided And Basil (t) Bas ep 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accounts it to Pisidia and gives (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some intimation of the rise of it into a Metropolis that anciently it was the second City i. e. after Antioch But now it is become a Metropolis and presides over a part which being made up of several pieces makes up one Province And that Lycaonia was then under it the same (x) Bas Ep. 397. Basil intimates and what else at this distance we cannot tell since the Province belonging to it is said to be made up of several parcels So that Strabo's calling it a litle Town does not conclude it to be so in after-times when it was made a Metropolis nor lessen the Towns depending upon it And this way of reasoning is as if one should observe that in Julian the Apostate's time Paris is (y) Julian in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 call'd a little Town therefore by this we may judg what pitiful Towns those of France are now which are and have for a long time been subject to that royal City Nor does it always happen that the Metropolis is greater than all the Cities under her jurisdiction (z) Prim. Ep. p. 26. Derbe in Stephanus (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strab. l. 12. is a Fort or Castle of Isauria the seat of the Tyrant Antipater This Fort being the fittest receptacle for such a person this could not be populous because of no large compass This Derbe call'd a Fort by Stephanus out of some Ancient Author is by St. Luke (b) Acts 14.6 call'd a City of Lycaonia Nor does it diminish the
offer themselves to Martyrdom what couldst thou do with so many thousands of people when Men and Women every sex every age and condition should offer themselves What fires what swords would be sufficient to destroy them How much must Carthage suffer which then would be decimated by thee Every one would suffer in his Relation or his Friend and there might appear among the sufferers persons of thy own rank and of the highest quality If thou wilt not spare us spare thy self if thou wilt not spare thy self spare Carthage All this must appear very absurd and provoke the derision of the Heathen if this multitude so populously set out might be summed up in one assembly and that no great one Since the Christians had not the convenience of great and capacious Churches at that time and might not be very willing to raise extraordinary Fabricks lest they should expose themselves too much to the observation and envy of their enemies He who is not yet perswaded that there was no more than one Congregation of Christians in Carthage when Tertullian wrote this let him if he thinks fit make himself the Advocate of some Sect in London that makes but one Congregation and plead their cause in this Harangue and then see how well it will fit them Now if the Christians in Carthage were so numerous in the beginning of the third Century that it is incredible they could meet in one Church and such a Church as the condition of those times could bear the forty years that follow must exceedingly increase their numbers since they were the most favourable that the Church met with in the three first ages And in Afric especially where Mr. Dodwell (c) Dissert Cypr. xi ss 48. 52. finds no Persecution from the tenth year of Severus Anno 202 to the first of Decius Anno 250. And in general Origen observes the increase of Christians within this time to be extraordinary and much greater than it had been in former times (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Cont. Cels p. l. 3. p. 120. because they were not then oppressed by the Emperours as they had been formerly (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the rigours of the Heathen against them had for a long time ceased This long peace tho' it corrupted the manners of the Christians yet it added much to their numbers as Cyprian (e) Disciplinam longa pax corruperat populi aliquando numerosi lamentanda jactura Cypr. de laps p. 123. observes who speaking of the Christians of Carthage before Decius his Persecution extols their numbers while he bewails the ruin of those who yielded to the enemy Yet (f) Prim. ep p. 104. In Cyprians time in all Church administrations and transactions of moment in the Church and Bishoprick of Carthage all the people were to be present Tota fraternitas plebs Universa stantes Laici as he declares every where in his Epistles And how all could be present if they were more than could meet together is not intelligible Alas how difficult is it for some men to understand the plainest things in the World when they have no mind to it It is an incomprehensible figure of speech it seems to say that what is transacted in an Assize is done before the whole County and yet there is scarce any Hall so large as to hold the people of one Hundred much less a whole County and still people will talk after this unintelligible rate But of this Topick we have said more than enough To the same effect is that of Optatus concerning the Election of Caecilian suffragio totius populi And the deductions he makes upon the account of the Donatists in Carthage so as to leave the Catholick Christians but one Congregation are by much too liberal to the Schismaticks For it is known to every body that has but looked into St. Austin that those of the Catholick Communion in that City had many and great Churches for their assemblies in the fourth Century To the four greatest Cities of the Empire our Author (g) Prim. ep p. 106. thinks fit to add Jerusalem altho ' far inferiour in greatness because of the many thousands converted there by the Apostles But I have shewed that of those five thousand Converted the twentieth part cannot in reason be accounted inhabitants of the City What he has said of this matter hath been examined at large In Jerusalem many accessions of Converts are mentioned in the beginning of the Acts which he does account for and all this in a few years before the calling of the Gentiles and the Conversion of St. Paul Nor did the progress of Christianity in Jerusalem stop where St. Luke breaks off his relation of the numerous Conversions but before the destruction of that City and the Jewish Nation we are told by Hegesippus (h) Apud Euseb l. 2. c. 23. that the Scribes made an uproar and cried that the whole City was in danger of becoming Christian Their apprehensions had been very childish if the Christians had not yet increased beyond one Congregation when the Rabbins will have near five hundred Synagogues to have been in Jerusalem at that time About forty years after this Church consisted of no more than Pella a small City could entertain together with its own inhabitants What might happen to this Church a few years before the destruction of Jerusalem is altogether unknown But that not long before it was very flourishing we learn from the Acts and Hegesippus If Persecutions or Apostacies had diminished it a little before that fatal Revolution we are not to take the measures of it from such a calamitous state Nay this story of the transmigration to Pella comes from no certain Authority And Valesius (i) Annot. in Euseb l. 3. c. 5. hints his mistrust of it when he observes that Eusebius quotes no Author and probably took all this matter from Tradition which is no very certain way of conveying any thing to posterity Nor is it unlikely (l) Epiph. Haer. Nazar n. 7. Id. de Pond Mens n. 15. Joseph Scalig. Anim. in Euseb p. 212. that this story should come from the Nazarens who dwelt about Pella and in the Region of Decapolis who to give themselves greater credit might pretend to be the remainder of the Apostolick Church of Jerusalem (m) Prim. ep p. 107. Not long after they setled in the ruins of a part of that desolate City no fit place to entertain multitudes where they had a few houses and a little Church and therefore one would judg they could not be very many The story of these houses and Church and several Synagogues in Mount-Sion that escaped in the first desolation are all Jewish Fables and inconsistent with our Saviours Prophesie of that City that one stone should not be left upon another as Scaliger (n) Animadv in Euseb Chron. has observed and any one may see it who will but read the story in Epiphanius who