one of his Books that Alexander died and yet must live some while after this panegyrical Assembly in the year 331. L. 2. observ iâ— Soc. Soz. And its manifest that C. P was not built nor had that name till 331. For tho' it was building the year before yet it was not finished till 25 of Constantine's Reign as Jerome and others and the beginning of his Reign is Chronic. reckoned from the death of Constantius his Father who was Consul with Maximiunus in the year 306 and Fast Consul died in the middle of it There needs not a word more to shew that all his discourse on this subject is wholly insignificant and not at all for his purpose tho' this be the most considerable part of his Preface 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 c. Jerusalem is the first instance c. I wonder to find a man of Learning cite this passage than which nothing can be more disadvantageous to his Cause There is one who I suppose passes for a man of learning who for the same purpose makes use of this instance since mine was published We have saith he Examples in Ecclesiastical story of of two Bishop's at the same time in the same See and yet this was never thought Schismatical when the second was advanced by the consent of the first Thus Alexander a Bishop in Cappadocia was made Bishop of Jerusalem while Narcissus was living but very old and Anatolius at the same time sate in the Church of Caesarea with Theotecnus and this was St. Austin 's own case who was made Bishop of Hippo while there was another Bishop living l Defence of Dr. St. p. 178. He sayes also Nothing can be more disadvantageous to my cause than this passage If it had been no advantage to my cause I should have thought it bad enough but if nothing could be more disadvantageous I am very unhappy let us see how it is made good Narcissus having retired and the people not knowing what had become of him the neighbouring Bishops ordained Dius in his place who was succeeded by Gordius and after by Germanico it should be by Germanico and after by Gordius in whose time Narcissus returned and was desired to resume his Office and did so What became of Germanico he means Gordius is not said but probably he resigned or died presently There is nothing to make either of these probable it is altogether as likely if not more that he continued Bishop there with Narcissus for some time but because Eusebius sayes nothing of it I insist not on it But besides he tells us Narcissus took Alexander into the participation of the charge That signifies Narcissus was not excluded from the Episcopal charge both had their parts therein No but sayes he Alexander was the Bishop Narcissus retained but the name and title only that is he was but a Titular not really a Bishop and why so because Alexander sayes he joined with him in prayers and the Historian sayes he was not able to officiate by reason of his great age He was not able it may be to perform all the Offices of a Bishop but what he was able to do no doubt he performed Now if they must be but titular Bishops who perform not personally all the Offices of a Pastoral charge when they cannot pretend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how many real Bishops shall we find in the World But besides the Name and Title did he not retain the Power and Authority of a Bishop If not how came he to loose it Did he resign or was he deposed That he resigned there is not the least intimation in this Historian or any other nor any instance in the antient Church that ever any Bishop divested himself of all pastoral Power upon this account To have deposed him for his great age had been a barbarous Act and such as the Church in those times cannot be charged with No doubt but he retained the Episcopal power though through Age he could not exercise it in all instances and if he had not only the Title but the Power he was really a Bishop and there were two Bishops at once in one Church and then this instance is so far from being most disadvantageous that it serves me with all the advantage I designed in alledging it As for the words of Valesius cited by him if they be taken in the sense which our Author would have them that learned man will not agree with himself For but a very few lines before he says these two were Co-Episcopi Bishops together in that City superstite episcopo adjutor coepiscopus est adjunctus And tho' he says but says it doubtfully with a ni fallor this was forbidden at Sardica above 100 years after yet he adds that notwithstanding it was still usual in the Church nihil ominus identidem in ecclesia usurpatum est which is all that I need desire And afterwards where Eusebius in l. 7. c. 32. again mentions two Bishops in one City he observes that in one of his Copies the Scholiast hâ—s this note upon it in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here also there were two Bishops of one Church Valesius adds the Scholiast understands Alexander who was Bishop of Jerusalem together with Narcissus The next instance is of Theotecnus and Anatolius who were Bishops of Caesarea together Against this he hath little to say I suppose because nothing can be said against it in reason Only he seems willing that Anatolius should pass but as Episcopus designatus whereby if he mean one who is not yet actually a Bishop but designed to be one hereafter as Eradius was by Augustine it is inconsistent with what Eusebius sayes and himself quotes but one line before viz. that Theotecnus ordained him Bishop in his life-time for if he was not actually Bishop after he was thus ordained he was never Bishop at all m Euseb l. 7. c. 32. Another instance was of Macarius and Maximus both Bishops at once of Jerusalem He would not have Maximus to be Bishop while Macarius lived because it is said he was to rule the Church after his Death But Maximus was to govern the Church not only after his death if he survived him as he was like to do being much younger but while he lived and so did actually together with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which denotes the exercise of the same Function together n Sez l. 2. c. 19. besides the Historian sayes Maximus was before this ordained Bishop of Diospolis and if he had officiated at Jerusalem where they were so desirous of him in a lower Capacity their kindness to him had been a degrading him which it cannot be supposed they would either offer or he yeild to I alledged Epiphanius who signifies
DIOCESAN CHURCHES NOT Yet Discovered in the Primitive Times OR A Defence of the Answer to Dr. Stillingfleets Allegations out of Antiquity for such Churches Against the Exceptions offered in the Preface to a late Treatise called a Vindication of the Primitive Church WHERE What is further produced out of Scripture and Antient Authors for Diocesan Churches is also Discussed LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and three Crowns at the lower end of Cheap-side near Mercers Chappel 1682. Errata PAge 59. l. 4. r. Sirmond p. 67. l. 33. r. to p. 76. r. Euodius p. 80. l. 14. r. oratorum p. 86. l. 16. r. Congregations p. 87. l. 27. r. Bishops p. 95. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. ult l. 9. r. less besides mis-accenting some Greek words and other mis-pointings THE PREFACE DIssenters are accused of Schism by some of this Church both these and the other are branded not only as Schismaticks but as Hereticks by the Papists who upon this account judge us unworthy to live and had actually destroyed both together if God in Mercy had not discoverâ—d their devilish Plot. The discovery gave them some interruption and put them upon an after-game to retrieve what had miscarryed And this was so to divide us as that our selves should help them in their design to ruine us all when they had less hopes to do it alone In pursuance hereof such influence they have had upon too many as to raise in them a greater aversation to Dissenters than to Papists These the Conspirators count their own and think they may well do so since they are too ready to concurre with them in their design to exterminate those who are true Protestants in every point and differ no more from this Church than those in France do who by the same Counsels are at this time in extreme danger to be utterly extirpated Others are so far prevailed with as to make use of one of the sharpest weapons they have against dissenting Protestants and that is the charge of Schisme lately renewed and re-inforced In these hard circumstances while we do what we can against the common Enemy we are put to ward off the blows of such as notwithstanding some present distemper we will count our Friends Amongst other expedients sufficient to secure us against this attaque it was thought not unuseful to answer the allegations out of Antiquity concerning two points wherein only the Antients were made use of to our prejudice viz. 1. For Diocesan Churches and then 2ly Against the Election of Bishops by the people in the primitive times Something was performed and published in reference to both these in a late discourse One half of which where the latter is discussed concerning the popular Elections of Bishops hath yet passed without any exception that I can see or hear of yet this alone is enough to defend us against the aforesaid charge For those who will not make the primitive Church Schismatical must not condemn any as Schismaticks for declining such Bishops as that Church would not own Against the former part of the Discourse concerning Diocesan Churches some exception hath been made but very little a late Author in his Preface to a Treatise of another Subject hath touched about 5 pages in 40. but so as he hath done them no more harm than another who to find one fault therein runs himself into two or three about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 render'd indefinitely according to the mind of the Author who uses it and the most common use of it I disparage not the Gentleman's Learning who attaques me in his Preface he shews that which with answerable care and Judgment might be serviceable in a cause that deserves it But much more than he shews would not be enough to support what he would establish And he might have forborn the vilifying of those who are known to be Masters of much more valueable Learning than appears in either of us The neglect of some accurateness in little things remote from the merits of the cause in one who is not at leisure to catch flies is no argument that he is destitute of Learning I complain not of his proceeding with me but am obliged by him that he treats me not with so much contempt as he does others who less deserve it I wish he had dealt more temperately with M. B. it would have been more for his reputation and no prejudice to his undertaking a good cause when it hath a sufficient Advocate does not need any undecent supplements After I have cleared my Discourse front this Gentleman's exceptions I thought it not impertinent to shew what in reason cannot be counted competent proofs of Diocesan Churches that if any will pursue this debate farther instead of opposing us they may not beat the Air and amuse those that enquire after truth with what is insignificant Withal I have given an account of what other allegations out of Scripture and Antiquity this Author hath brought in other parts of his Treatise for such Churches and shew'd that there is no evidence in them as to the purpose they are alledged for In short I find nothing in this Author or any other before him which may satisfie a judicious and impartial man that in the two first Ages of Christianity any Bishop had more than one particular Church or Congregation for his proper charge or that in the third Age there was any Bishop which had a Church consisting of more than are in some one of our Parishes unless it was the Church of Rome nor is there sufficient evidence produced for that Or that in the middle of the fourth Age there were 4 Churches each of which comprised more than could assemble in one place though if they had contained more that might be far enough from making them Diocesans Or that afterwards within the time of the four first General Councils where there were several Churches belonging to one Bishop he did exercise jurisdiction over them alone or only by himself and his Delegates It will be time enough to censure us as Schismaticks for declining Diocesan Churches when they have made it appear that there was such in the best ages of Christianity which not appearing the censure falls upon the primitive Christians from whom it will slide of upon themselves If they will forbear us till this be performed we need desire no more Vnless we may prevail with those who sincerely profess themselves Protestants to regard the securing themselves and their Religion from the destructive designs of the Papists more than those things which are not properly the concern either of Protestant or of Religion As for those who prefer the Papists before Dissenters and revile these as worse though they differ in no one point of Religion from other true Protestants We need not wonder if we meet with no better treatment from them then from declared Papists since by such preference they too plainly declare the Protestant Religion to be worse than
there might have been some pretence for what he sayes but there is not any hint of this in the whole Epistle That which is desired is a Meeting for conference Hoc est ergo desiderium nostrum c. Primum si fieri potest ut cum Episcopis nostris pacificè conferatis ideo nos conferre volumus and the prime occasion of it was the outrages committed in that Region by the Donatists wherein the Bishops of that place were particularly concerned This is signifyed as in other parts of the Epistle so particularly in the passage cited Episcopos nostros qui sunt in Regione Hipponensi ubi tanta mala patimur This Meeting was to be with the Catholick Bishops upon the place in Regione Hipponensi not any to be call'd from other parts And these words seem brought in to prevent an objection which the Donatists might make against a more general or more publick meeting as that which might bring them in danger of the Laws in force against them An fortè istae leges Imperatoris vos non permittunt nostros Episcopos convenire and then immediately follows these words in answer to it Ecce interim Episcopos nostros qui sunt in Regione Hipponensi c. so that this to me seems the plain sence of both Objection and answer If because of the Laws you dare not meet us in a more General or Provincial Council yet give a Meeting to the Bishops of this particular Region where there can be no apprehension of danger All which makes me judge what he sayes concerning the Bishops of the Province as here intended to be no better than an Evasion To prove that there was but one Bishop in the Region of Hippo he tells us That the Clergy there called in the Inscription of an Epistle Clerici Regionis Hipponensium speaking of the Bishop of Hippo do call him their Bishop and not one of their Bishops c. But the Clergy so called may be only the Clergy of Hippo and so they are in the Title of the Epistle Clerici Hippone Catholici and well may they of Hippo be called the Clergy of the Region both because they were in that Region and were the Clergy of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if the expression should be extended to more or to all in the Region their calling him Episcopus noster will be no proof that they had no other Bishop but him at Hippo. For that phrase Episcopus noster or Episcopi nostri all along in this Epistle doth not denote the Bishop of that particular Church to which they belonged as he would have it but a Bishop of their party or perswasion So they call Valentinus nostrum Catholicum Episcopum who yet was not Bishop of Hippo. So they call them Episcopos nostros whom they desired the Donatists to meet once and again w pag. 373 and thrice in another page where our Author finds Episcopos nostros x pag. 371. He may have many more instances hereof in that Epistle If there was so many Bishops in Hippo or in that Region as the Clergy call Episcopos nostros he must grant many more Bishops in that Region than I need desire So that this Phrase however it be understood is a medium unhappily chosen if it be taken in my sense it is impertinent and can conclude nothing for him if it be taken in his own sense it will conclude directly against him He passes to Alexandria and to pag. 32. The instance of Mareotis he sayes little to so our Author I might think it enough where there was so little occasion He insinuates as if Mareotis might not have number enough of Christians to have a Bishop but this Athanasius does sufficiently shew to be a groundless conjecture I had no intention or occasion to signifie that Mareotis had not Christians enough to have a Bishop I knew that it both had many Christians and a Bishop also and named him too and therefore the groundless conjecture may be fixed somewhere else And even before Athanasius the generality of the People there were Christians How long before Dionysius in the latter part of the third Age declares it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quite destitute of Christians y Euseb l. 7. c. 11. and the gaining the generality there to the Faith required some considerable time and it is like proceeded not far till Christianity generally prevailed Besides Ischyras I had mentioned Dracontius both Bishops in the Territory of Alexandria as Agathammon also was z Apol. 2. p. 612. of Dracontius he takes notice and sayes possibly he was a Chorepiscopus But a Chorepiscopus is elsewhere with him a Diocesan a and here he sayes that he did accept a pag. 590. Bishoprick Now these put together will go near to make a Diocesan Bishop But then if there were two or three Bishops in the Diocess of Alexandria besides Athanasius they will scarce be so much as half Diocesans He sayes Athanasius press'd him to accept it If so this great Person was no more unwilling to have another Bishop in his Diocess and in a Countrey place too than Austin was to have one at Fussala He sayes further this was an extraordinary case though what was extraordinary in it I cannot imagine to prove any thing there mentioned to be so will be an hard task And allowing this man a Countrey Bishoprick that of Alexandria would be a great deal too bigg for the Congregational measure And so it might be and yet be no Diocesan Church if that will satisfie him which is too big for those measures he seems content to drop his cause and may leave it in the hands of Presbyterians And he is in the more danger because he seems not apprehensive of it but counts it enough if he thinks a Church is any where found larger than one Congregation I had given instances of several Towns that had Bishops and were but two or three or four c. miles distant one from another this he denies not but asks what does this conclude might not those Diocesses be yet much larger than one Congregation I might conclude that these were just such Diocesses as our Countrey Parishes are and had such Congregations as those Parish Churches have And some of them in time might have provision as some of ours have for more Congregations than one And if our modern Diocesses were of this proportion they would be much more conformable to the antient Modells Suppose the chief Congregations of Holland had each a Bishop yet I conceive they would be Diocesans though those Cities lie very close together He might have laid the scene at home where we are better acquainted and supposed this of our Countrey Towns or of both the chief and lesser Towns in Holland if he had designed what would be most parallel But to take it as it is formed though those Cities lay not further distant and had each of them a Bishop yet if their Churches were
but one Church to meet in in Dionysius his time almost 3 Ages from the beginning g pag. 64 If that one was large yet it is not like that it stood till Athanasius his time after so many Edicts for demolishing of all Christian Churches and a severe Execution of them in Diocletian's Persecution Nor is it likely they should divide till they were grown too numerous for the biggest Meeting-place they could conveniently have It is as likely as that Athanasius speaks truth in a matter which he perfectly knew he tells us they did divide and yet were not too numerous for one great Church in which they met conveniently too yea better than when dispersed in those little places as he sayes and proves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 2dly He sayes Though 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 strait Chappels Nor did they content themselves with those little ones for besides this built in Athanasius his time there was one greater than those small ones finished in Alexander's time where the body of Catholicks assembled with Alexander the other places being too strait 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is that one I excepted when I said after Athanasius that the rest all save one were exceeding small But is it any proof that these were not very small which Athanasius represents as such because there was one expresly excepted from that number something larger As for what he adds that then every ordinary City built very great and magnificent Cathedrals it is easily said but will never be proved 3dly Some of these Churches had been built with a design of receiving as many as well could have personal Communion in Worship together Neither will this hold unless some of those Churches could have received all which had Personal Communion with Athanasius in this greatest Church which he denies and makes use of to Constantius as a plea why he made use of the greatest As Theonas is said by Athanasius to have built a Church bigger than any of those they had before Where Theonas is said by Athanasius to have built a Church c. I find not nor does he direct us where it may be found I suppose for very good Reason Indeed Athanasius in this Apology speaks of a Church called Theonas it's like in memory of a former Bishop of that place where he sayes the multitude of Catholicks met with Alexander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in like Circumstances as a greater multitude assembled with himself in the new Church which was greater and pleads Alexander's example in defence of what he did But Theonas could not build this Church for he was dead many years before being Predecessour to Peter whom Achillas and Alexander succeeded h Euseb l. 7. c. ult Theodoret ◠1. c. 2. And yet this and all the rest were but few and strait in comparison of the great multitude of Catholicks that were in Alexandria I expected another Conclusion but if this be all he might have spared the premisses for one part of it we assert the other we need not deny only adding with Athanasius that the greatest Church was capable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of receiving this great multitude But here he sticks and will wriggle a little more But I conceive sayes he after all this that the expressions of Athanasius do not conclude that all the Christians in Alexandria were met in this great Church That all and every one did come was never imagined It is but the main body of the Catholicks that M. B. intends as our Author observes a little before For the tumultuous manner in which they came 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 The Women he will not admit but was it ever known that such a great and solemn Assembly for Worship consisted only of Men Were not the Women in Communion with Athanasius's Christians that they must be left out when he sayes all the Catholicks met Can all be truly said to assemble when the farr greater part Women Children and his many more were absent Are not the Women in the Primitive Church often noted for such Zeal for the Worship of Christ as made them contemn far greater dangers than here they had any cause to be apprehensive of The supposed danger was either from the Crowd or the Tumult For the former did the Women and many more never come to Christian Assemblies when there was any danger of being crowded I think there was as great danger from a crowd in Basiliscus his Reign when the whole City of C. P. is said to have met together in a Church with the Emperour but yet the Women stayed not behind but crowded in with the men as Theodorus Lector reports it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Collect. lib. 1 Besides Athanasius here signifies the danger of a crowd was in the lesser Churches not in this where they could not meet but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so drefers their assembling together in the great Church as better As for the Tumults which might have been concealed in a Vindication of the primitive Church if there was any thing tumultuous it was over when Athanasius had complyed with their desires to meet in the great Church And so no apprehension of danger left to women or any else upon this account And even those that did assemble there 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 Here he runs as cross to the great Athanasius and the account which he gives of this Assembly as if he had studied it debasing that as more for Ostentation than for Personal Communion in Worship and the proper ends of a Religious Assembly which Athanasius highly commends both for the more desirable communion which the Christians had there in Worship and for the greater efficacy of it as to the proper ends of a Religious Assembly Let any one view the passages k Apol. 2. p. 531. 532. and judge He sets forth the harmony and concurrence of the multitude in worship with one voice He preferrs it before their assemblies when dispersed in little places and not only because the unanimity of the multitude was herein more apparent but because God would sooner hear them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if sayes he according to our Saviour's promise where two shall agree concerning anything it shall be done for them by my Father c. how prevalent will be the one voice of so numerous a people assembled together and saying Amen to God and more to that purpose