contexture of the Discourse or any where else that I know of or our Author either for if he had we should have heard it with both ears as he speaks elsewhere He will not have all the Brethren to be all the Believers at C. P. yet he knows that Brethren and Believers are Synonymous terms both in Scripture and ancient Authors And those were the Believers or Brethren of the Church of C. P. which had occasion to rejoyce and that was the whole Church there as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 render'd Vniversi I do not take it for all and every one of the Christians there for in all Assemblies of great Churches especially many are alwayes absent He had dealt more fairly with Theodoret if by all he would have understood the generality of Christians adhereing to Alexander at C. P. or the greatest part of them and about such an abatement of the full import of the word there had been no need to contend but his restraint of it to a particular Congregation agrees not with the words nor the occasion of them nor hath any support elsewhere Nor is that better which follows unless you will say that with all the Brethren does not signifie their personal presence but only their unanimity This looks more like a shift than a plain answer and therefore he was well advised in not venturing to own it Theodoret could not think that all the Beleivers of C. P. could come together to the Bishop's Church for he cites a Letter of Constantine's a little after where he gives an account of the great increase of that Church In the City that is call'd by my name by the Providence of God an infinite multitude of People have joined themselves to the Church and all things there wonderfully increasing it seems very requisite that more Churches should be built understanding therefore hereby what I have resolved to do I though fit to order you to provide 50 Bibles fairly and legibly written He does not say an infinite multitude the words of the Letter are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there was a very great multitude of Christians is not denied nor that he intended to build more Churches but this confirms what is signified before that these very many Churches were not yet built but only in design and that with a prospect of Christians there still increasing And the Bibles if they were intended only for C. P. might be for the future Churches not the present only His Conclusion is where Christians were so multiplied that it was necessary to build more Churches and to make such provisions for the multitude of their Assemblies it could not be that they should all make but one Congregation He should have concluded that which is denied otherwise all he hath premised will be insignificant and to no purpose it is granted that all the Christians at C. P. did make more than one Congregation and for their conveniency met at other times in several Churches That which is denied is that the main Body or generality of Christians there could not meet in one Assembly or did not so meet at this time with their Bishop Alexander as to this he hath proved nothing and therefore did well to conclude nothing against that which is affirmed to be the plain import of Theodoret's expression And it may be supposed that Theodoret if he had not expressed it might well think though the contrary be suggested that as great multitudes as Constantine's Letters signified might meet together at the Bishop's Church for himself declares what a vast Congregation he preached to at Antioch having an Auditory of many Myriads f Ep. 83. I will not ask him what Eusebius could think when he tells us the Christians had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Assemblies consisting of Myriads g Lib. 8. Cap. 1. Nor what Socrates thought when he tells us long after of C. P. that the whole City became one Assembly and meeting in an Oratory continued there all day h Lib. 7. cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I would have him tell me how he understands that passage of Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. What is the import of these words Do they signify that ten Myriads were assembled in one place to hear Chrysostome If so there will be no question but that the generality of Christians might meet in one Church with Alexander in Constantine's Reign for that then about 70 years before there was any thing neâ—â— so many Christians as an 100000 adhereing to one Bishop in this City cannot with any reason be imagined Or does he mean only that there were so many Myriads of Christians contained in that City If so then he saies here no more than in another Homily forecited where the number of Christians in C. P. is computed to be an 100000 reckoning all besides Jews and Heathens Now if they were no more in his time they cannot with reason be supposed to have been above half so many in Constantine's unless any can imagine that their numbers advanced more in 6 years than in 70 when the succeeding Emperours multiplyed the Inhabitants excessively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Zosimus tells us k Lib. 2. crouding the City so full as that they could scarce stir without danger and a great part of these were fallen off to Arius while Alexander was Bishop the Novatians also were numerous having several Churches and these with other Sects being deducted the Christians there that communicated with Alexander will be no more if so many than belong to some one of our Parishes It would swell this Preface to too great a Bulk if I should answer the rest so particularly Since he designed to be so breif and to have so short a Preface I wish he had employed more of it against that which is the strength of the Discourse he opposes and of more consequence to the main Cause and not have spent so many leaves upon a by-passage for which we have little reason to be concerned for if he could make it appear that the Christians at C. P. in Constantine's time were more than could meet in one Congregation yea or in two either that would be far from proving it a Diocesan Church unless some one or two of our Parishes can be counted so Let me add in fine that our Author has done just nothing towards the disproving of what Theodoret was alledged for unless he shew that C. P. exceeded old Rome was furnished with such an infinite number of Christians so many more than two magnificent Churches there erected the 50 Bibles thought needful to be provided and almost all the Heathen besides many Jews converted before Alexander who is said to hold this Assembly with all the brethren deceased and so unless he prove that all this was done which himself I think can scarce believe in less than a year For Valesius upon whose authority this Gentleman takes much proves at large making it the business of
the major part of the Inhabitants in all Cities and so enough not only for vast Congregations but for Diocesan Churches But Tertullian was a great Oratour and frequently uses hyperbolical expressions which ought not to be streined Such are those insisted on and by regular construction they import no more than that the Christians were very numerous in many parts of the Empire Those that will have them streined and understood as they found offer great injury to Tertullian making him intend that which hath no warrant in any Records of Antiquity Civil or Ecclesiastical that I can meet with Before they impose such a sense on him they ought in reason to make it manifest that the Christians were the major part of the inhabitants in some considerable Cities at that time when I believe they cannot produce two instances in the whole Empire I never yet could meet with one Our Author from these Oratorical expressions sticks not to conclude that it is evident that the Christians were the major part every where but in Rome more eminently so and Dr. Downham signifies that Tertullian speaks chiefly of the City of Rome g Defence l. 2. c. 5. p. 98. this Gentleman sayes that by his account it is made very probable that they were the better half of the Roman Empire and tells us it is pag. 54. certain that the number of Christians at Rome was proportionably greater than in any part of the Empire Now how far the Christians at Rome were from being the major part of the Inhabitants we may judge by the vast disproportion between the poor in the Church at Rome and those in the whole City Cornelius near 50 years after Tertullian when it was of more growth by half an Age reckons the poor of his Church to be 1500 whereas out of Suetonius and others the poorer sorts of Citizens quae è publico victitabat are computed to be 320000 h Lipsius d◠Mag. Rom. l. 3. cap. 2. Many take occasion from the thousands converted at Jerusalem Acts 2. and 4. to conclude the vast number of Christians and exceeding largeness of Churches elsewhere Our Author hath nothing from Scripture for Diocesan Churches but this which is considerable i Pag. 435 c. nor will this appear so if but a small part of those thousands can be counted inhabitants of Jerusalem and so fixed in that Church And this is as demonstrable as any thing of this nature can be For this miraculous Conversion was at Pentecost one of the three great Feasts when there was a vast concourse of Jews and Proselytes from all parts to that City These converted were not only Inhabitants of Jerusalem but Forreigners and in all reason more of these proportionably as they exceeded the Inhabitants in number And then those of the City will scarce be a 20th part of the 5 or 8000 Converts For the Forreigners that resorted to Jerusalem at these great Solemnities are reckoned to be three millions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k Joseph de Bel. Judaic Lib. 2. cap. 24. whereas the Inhabitants of that City were but about an 120000 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of this elsewhere more fully The Author of the Vindication will not have so great a part of those Converts to be Strangers and to return home when the Feast was over and assigns something like reasons for it 1st That the Scripture gives no countenance to this Conjecture but sayes all those strange Nations were Inhabitants of Jerusalem and the Original word inclines most on this side That he should say the Scripture gives no countenance to this is something strange It is plain in Scripture that God injoyned the Children of Israel to repair to Jerusalem from all quarters of the Countrey where they dwelt thrice a year for the observance of the three great Feasts And it is apparent also that they were wont to come up to Jerusalem at those Solemnities both Jews and Proselytes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a In Euseb l. 2. c. 23. And it is evident in that Chapter cited Acts 2. The Feast of Pentecost being come there was a resort of Jews and Proselytes from all those parts of the World to this City Ay but the Scripture sayes all those Strange Nations were inhabitants of Jerusalem He can't judge that the Scripture sayes this but upon a supposition that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 2. 5. can signify no other thing than inhabitants but this is a mistake for the word denotes such as abide in a place not only as inhabitants but as strangers or Sojourners Thus Dr. Hammond will have it translated abiding rather than dwelling b In loc those that were there as strangers c In Act. 10. 2. and here expresses those abiding at Jerusalem to be Jews which came up to the Feast of the Passeover and Proselytes which had come from several Nations of all Quarters of the World Thus also Mr. Mead d In Exercit. in Act. 2. 5. for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he which I translate sojourning rather than dwelling for so I understand it that they were not proper dwellers but such as came to worship at Jerusalem from those far Countreys at the Feast of the Passeover and Pentecost and so had been continuing there some good time it is true that in the usual Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify a durable mansion but with the Hellenists in whose Dialect the Scripture speaketh they are used indifferently for a stay of a shorter or longer time that is for to sojourn as well as to dwell as these two examples out of the Septuagint will make manifest Gen. 27. 44. 1 Kings 17. 20. there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to sojourn only In a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answer to the Hebrew Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies any stay or remaining in a place Grotius saith it answers the Hebrew word which is render'd not only by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. adding therefore it is not said only of them who had fixed their habitation but of those who were come to the City for the celebrating of the Passeover or Pentecost staying there for a while The best and most learned Expositors generally take it so in this place as denoting not settled Inhabitants but such as resided there only for a time Indeed when this Author would have the Scripture say all these strange Nations were inhabitants of Jerusalem he makes it speak things inconsistent For it is said ver 9. they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dwellers at Mesopotamia Judea Cappadocia Pontus Asia c. by which must be understood either that they were inhabitants or Sojourners in those Countreys that they were now Sojourners there no man will imagine nor can any man be said to be actually a sojourner in a place where he is not And if they were
together h Clemens Constitut l. 7. c. 46. some will have Euodias ordained by Peter and Ignatius by Paul others report Ignatius ordained by Peter and some modern Authors of great eminency both Protestants and Papists not only Baronius but Dr. Hammond find no more tolerable way to reconcile them than by asserting that there were more Bishops than one there at once which quite blasts the conceit of a Diocesan Church there And what is alledged for the numbers of Christians there to support this conceit of a Diocesan Church is very feeble pag. 452 453. A great number believed Acts 11. 21. and much people ver 24. The next verses shew that there were no more than Paul and Barnabas assembled within one Church meeting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a year together and there taught this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same divine Author sayes Acts 6. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a great Company of the Priests were converted and will this Gentleman hence conclude that there were Priests enough converted to make a Diocese He hath no ground from Scripture to think otherwise of Rome that we may take in all his Scripture instances together however he would perswade us that there were several Congregations there in the Apostles times Let us see how By the multitude of Salutations in the end of that Epistle he makes appear the numbers of Christians in that City Salute Priscilla and Aquila with the Church that is in their house The Dean of Pauls will have this Church in their house to be but a Family this Author will have it to be a Congregation as if it might be either to serve a turn I think it was such a Congregation as removed with Aquila from one Countrey to another for this Church which was in their house at Ephesus before 1 Cor 16. is said to be in their house at Rome Rom. 16. that is there were some of the Church which belonged to their Family It is a question whether there was now at Rome any one Congregation such as our Author intends Grotius i In Rom. 16. thinks it probable there was none at all But let us suppose this to be a Congregation where finds he his several others why where another person would scarce dream of any It is not improbable saith he that several that are mentioned with all the Saints that are with them may be the Officers of several Congregations pag. 457. 458. But it is manifest that in the Apostle's times one Congregation had many Officers how then can several Officers be a good Medium to prove several Congregations The antient Authors which count those Officers mentioned Rom. 16. do make them Bishops and some except not Narcissus nor Prisca i. e. Priscilla tho' her Husband also hath an Episcopal Chair assigned him Now if they were not Bishops at Rome but other places they are alledged to no purpose if they were Bishops at Rome there will be very many Bishops in that one Church it may be more than Priscilla's Congregation consisted of which rather than our Author will grant I suppose he will quit his plurality of Congregations here Indeed what he adds next doth no waies favour them and this number was afterwards increased considerably by the coming of Paul who converted some of the Jews and afterwards received all that came whether Jew's or Gentiles and preached to them the Kingdom of God for the space of two whole years no man forbidding him pag. 458. Paul preached at Rome in his hired house for two years all this while he received all that came to him there is no question but that all the Christians there did come to hear this most eminent Apostle so that it seems from first to last there were no more Christians at Rome than a private House could receive He would prove what he intends from Nero's Persecution who is said to have put an infinite multitude of Christians to death upon pretence that they had fired Rome pag. 458. Tacitus speaks of the Christians as guilty and sayes they confessed the Crime and detected many others Now those who suffered either confessed that they fired Rome and then they were no Christians or they did not confess it and then he wrongs them intolerably and deserves no credit But our Author to excuse him against the sense of such who best understand him Lipsius particularlay besides Baronius and others sayes they confessed not that they burn't Rome but that they were Christians Whereas the inquiry being concerning the burning of Rome the question was not whether they were Christians but whether they fired the City of this last Tacitus speaks and will be so understood by those who think he speaks pertinently But for truth in those accounts he gives of Christians it is no more to be expected than from other Heathen Authors of those Ages with whom it is customary on that subject splendidè mentiri Some other instances hereof we have in this report of Tacitus which I suppose our Author will scarce offer to excuse as when the Christian Religion is called Exitiabilis superstitio and when the Christians are said per flagitia invisos vulgô fuisse But suppose he speaks truth what is it he sayes Nero put an infinite multitude of them to death but ingens multitudo which are his words may be far less than an infinite multitude Two or three hundred may pass for a great multitude and extraordinarily great when that which is spoke of them is extraordinary The Martyrs burnt in Queen Mary's dayes were a great multitude and few may be accounted very many to suffer in such a manner as these did by Nero's Cruelty Ferarum tergis contecti ut laniatu canum interirent aut crucibus affixi aut flammandi atque ubi defecisset dies in usum nocturni luminis uterentur in the words of Tacitus To this he adds the general account which Eusebius gives of the success of the Christian faith immediately after the first discovery of it that presently in all Cities and Villages Churches abounding with innumerable multitudes were assembled c. pag. 459. If he will not deal unkindly with Eusebius he must not set his expressions upon the Rack nor stretch them beyond his intention nor forget what is observed to be usual with him Oratorem more rem amplificare These Churches consisting of innumerable multitudes are said to be not only in all Cities but Villages now I believe it will be an hard matter for our Author to shew us any Villages even in Constantine's time where there were a Thousand yea or 500 Christians Those who will not abuse themselves or their Readers must give great allowance to such expressions and not rely on them in strict arguing And here it may not be amiss to take notice of what he sayes of Rome in another Chapter M. B. had declared that he found no reason to believe that Rome and Alexandria had for 200 years more
converted in it However many more such Additions will not increase that Church beyond M. B's Measures nor make it near so numerous as that Parish to which Whitehall belongs What he next offers neither concerns Rome being Pag. 55. general expressions nor M. B. referring to the Ages after those which he is concerned for whether by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we understand the great multitudes which were gathered into the Christian Profession as Valesius or that assembled together for Christian worship as our Author is not material though the former is more likely unless we can think Eusebius an elegant Writer would use so much tautology in so few lines That from which he may expect more service is the next expression which he renders the multitude of their Meetings in every City but may with better reason be render'd the numerousness or multitudes of those that assembled in several Cities For it is so far from being true that every City had many Congregations of Christians in it that there were many Cities long after which had no Christians in them And two instances cannot be given of any Cities in the whole Empire that at this time had more Congregations than one unless where they all might have assembled in one place they thought it better in Prudence to disperse themselves into several Meetings For in Alexandria which was the greatest City next to Rome and the most populous Church in the whole World there is no appearance of more assemblies till the end of the tenth Persecution and the death of Peter Bishop there who suffered in the ninth year of it t Euseb l. 7. c. 32. And therefore the elegant gradation in discovering of which this Gentleman would have us take notice that he has a more comprehensive faculty than Valesius seems not very well founded That which follows is an hundred years or more beyond Pag. 55. the time to which M. B. limits his Assertion About this time or not long after Rome had above 40 Churches which we must not imagine to be built all at the same time but by degrees according as the number of Believers did require c. pag. 55. From the number of Churches he can't reasonably conclude such a multitude of Christians as he contends for There were many Churches in Alexandria when Athanasius was Bishop of it and yet there were no more Christians in his communion than could meet together in one place Baronius tells us that there was a City in Germany which had 400 Churches in it and yet no reason Anno 108 ◠◠to think that Town was comparable for Circuit and Populousness either to Rome or Alexandria If I should say that in Optatus there were not so many Churches but the number mistaken by the Transcribers this would be as good an answer as that of our Author who will have the 12 or 14 years of Athanasius his Banishment in Epiphanius not to be so many moneths and that years are put instead of moneths by the mistake of the Copies pag. 113. Or that other about the number of Bishops in the Council at Anticch where he will have 30 in diverse Authors to be a mistake of the Transcribers for 90 or 97 or 99. u pag. 123 124 125. Interpret vo◠Ecclos Onuphrius must have liked such an Answer to this of Optatus who tho' he was as much concerned for the greatness of the Roman Church as any and no less inquisitive into the antient state of it yet delivers it as a thing manifest and certain that Rome had but 28 Titles and this number not compleated till the fifth Age. But there 's no need to insist on any thing of this nature it is not so material how many Churches there was as when there was so many and about the time he will have Blondel to mistake and M. B. to follow him therein he had been nibbling at Blondell a little before upon a small occasion and with as little reason as might be shew'd if it were sit to follow one in his Vagaries Let us see whether here he doth not follow Valesius in his mistake who will have Optatus to speak of the Churches at Rome in the time of Diocletian 's Persecution tempore persecutionis Diocletiani w In Euseb lib. 6. c. 43. But Optatus speaks of those Churches when extant and capable of receiving Congregation as is plain by his words but what Churches were at Rome or other places in the very beginning of that Persecution were all quite demolished and that in one day sayes Theodoret x Hist l. 5. c. 38. or the Paschal dayes as Eusebius y Chron. and there 's no probability they could rebuild them while the Persecution lasted or that so many could be raised in less than many years after Nicephorus speaks but of 14 Churches at Constantinople in the reign of Theodosius junior nor meet I with any Author that gives an account of more yet this was about an hundred years after Byzantium was re-edifyed and both Constantine and the succeeding Emperours endeavoured to make that City as populous as could be and furnished it with Churches answerable to the numbers of the Inhabitants So that there 's no likelihood there could be 40 Churches in Rome at any time nearer Dioclesian's than Optatus's But to help this our Author tells us out of Optatus that there were three Donatists Bishops at Rome successively before Macrobius who was Contemporary with Optatus and that the first of them was Victor Garbiensis and he will have Optatus to speak of the State of Rome the 40 Churches there not as it was in his own time but in that of this Victor when this was he sayes is not easie to six pag. 56. Yet this is certain it cannot be in the time of Dioclesian's Persecution for the Schisme of the Donatists did not break out till Majorinus was ordained who was the first Bishop of the Faction made in Africa or elsewhere and this was sometime after the Persecution was there ended as Optatus and Valcsius after him and others declare z De Schis Denat cap. 3. and sometime must be allowed after this for the Donatists settling in Rome and such an increase of them there as to need a Bishop Baronius makes this Victor to be Bishop in Silvester's time which might be long enough after Dioclesian's Persecution for he lived till 335. All which our Author hath to alledge for the more early date of Victor's Bishoprick is that there were two or three Donatist Bishops between Victor and Optatus but this will scarce serve his turn For there were four Bishops of Rome in the former part of that very age wherein we are now concerned who held not the Chair ten years among them Marcellus Eusebius Melchiades and Marcus But we may allow the three Donatist Bishop at Rome near ten years a piece from the time of Optatus 378 as both Blondel and Valesius agree and yet Victor Garbiensis
clear account no value of the Numismata nor is there any Evidence in the Council for the Mannors he speaks of but only the felling of some wood in a certain place there named But where there was a Diocesan and Archdeacons decorum required there should be Mannors and vast Revenues for the Bishop Nor do I quarrel with it only this breaks the squares a little and disturbs the correspondence between those and our times that if the Revenues of that Church had amounted to ten times more yet the Bishop would scarce have been one jot the richer for it This will not seem strange to any who take notice of the antient Orders concerning the revenues of an Episcopal Church The Bishop was to have nothing thereof if he could maintain himself otherwise When he was necessitous nothing was allowed him for himself but necessaries food and raiment ſ Con. Antioch C. 25. He was to purchase nothing while he lived nor to leave any thing got by his Bishoprick when he died to his Relatives or others but only to the Church that maintained him t Code Justin Lex 42. Sect. 2 c. de Episc Nov◠131. c. 13. Con◠Car. 3. Can. 49 The Bishop of Edessa or any other in these Circumstances must be a poor Diocesan and one in a good English Rectory or Vicaridge is in a fairer way to be rich than any in the antient Bishopricks so ordered And if Riches or Revenues be good Arguments to prove a Diocesan one of our Vicars may be a better Diocesan than the Bishop of Edessa It is true there is some intimation from Rome that the Bishop should have the 4th part of the Churches revenues but there 's no appearance of such a distribution till after the time of the four first general Councils nor in any Countrey but Italy till an hundred years after Nor did it ever obtain that I can discover after some inquiry in the Greek Churches 3. The other proof that Ibas was a Diocesan viz. because he had excommunicating Archdeacons our Author would make good by telling us that one of his Archdeacons excommunicated Maras Now this though it prove not what it is alledged for may prove more than he likes An Archdeacon in the antient Church though he be another thing now was not so much as a Presbyter he was but in the lower Order of Deacons though chief amongst them and chosen by them as Jerome signifies u Ep. ad Evagrium Diaconi eligunt de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocant the Deacons chuse from amongst themselves one whom they know to be industrious and call him Archdeacon Now if a Deacon had the power to excommunicate there can be no doubt but the Presbyters had it being of a Superiour Order and Power And excommunication being counted the highest act of Jurisdiction it cannot be questioned but the other acts thereof belonged to them and so the Presbyters having all the Jurisdiction of Bishops all the power of Government what did they want of being Bishops but the honour of presiding in their Assemblies And if they were no farther from being Bishops they will go near to be as much Diocesan and so this Gentleman may chuse whether he will have all of both sorts to be Diocesans or none of either 4ly It is no Argument to prove a Diocesan Church to shew that it consists of such who live at a good distance one from another Dionysius had a great Congregation at Cephro a Village in Lybia but those which made up this Church were of another Countrey coming partly from Alexandria partly from other parts of Egypt as Eusebius shews us yet none ever esteemed that to be a Diocesan Church In Justin Martyr's time those that were in the Countrey and those that were in the City when those were no more than made one Congregation met together in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Meeting consisted of such as lived at a good distance but none will imagine it to be a Diocesan Church but those who will have a single Congregation to be such a Church All the Christians in City and Countrey says Dr. Downham if they had been assembled together would have made but a small Congregation w Defence l. 2. c. 4. p. 69. Our Authour would prove the largeness of Basil's Diocess by the distance between Caesarea and Sasima * x pag. 546 547 He makes much of it and takes the pains to measure the distance between these Towns or rather as he says to make some guess at it out of an Itenerary and Putinger's Tables yet tells us the distance must be as great at least as between Hippo and Fussala that so St. Basil's Diocess may be as great at least as that of St Austin's I think they will prove much alike for as I have shew'd that Austin's Diocess was not one foot larger for Fussala so it will appear that St. Basil's had not the least enlargement upon the account of Sasima That he might not be out in his measures nor have lost all his labour two things should first have been cleared neither of which is or I think can be proved 1st That Sasima was in Basil's Diocese for if it was but only in his Province how far soever it was from Caesarea his Diocese can be nothing the larger for it though his Province might To prove it in his Diocese I find nothing but his own assertion that Sasima is said expresly to be taken out of the Diocese of Basil but where is this said expresly or by whom except by himself The words in the Margin signify no such thing but only some attempt to deprive a Metropolis of Sasima For a Metropolis may be deprived of a Town which is in any part of the Province when another Metropolitan seizeth on it And I believe our Author is yet more out in taking the Metropolis which Nazianzen speaks of to be Caesarea when it appears by the Epistle to be rather Tyana For as the whole Epistle is writ to Basil so these words cited after many others by way of sharp expostulation are directed to him as endeavouring to deprive a Metropolis of this Town called ironically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now Caesarea was not the Metropolis which Basil would have deprived of Sasima he earnestly endeavoured to have it annext thereto but he would have deprived Tyana of it if Anthimus the Metropolitan there had not made a stout opposition 2dly He should have proved that after this part of Cappadocia was divided into two Provinces Sasima was in that Province which fell to Basil's share for if it was not in his Province how could his Diocese be any larger for it but instead of this our Author offers what may serve to disprove it telling us that in the antient Greek Notitia Sasima is set down in the second Cappadocia which belonged to Anthimus as the first did to Basil and so sayes he it is not likely to be
with in that Age or some Hundreds of years after names more than two very great Churches erected by Constantine in that City And if comparison be made there is no Historian of those times to be more regarded in matters which concern C. P than Socrates who tells us that he was born and educated in C. P. and continued there as an L. 9. C. 24. advocate when he wrote his History But if we should suppose that Sozomen intended more than 3 or 4 Churches or that the Emperour built no more than was requisite and only consulted conveniency and design'd not State or Magnificence which yet our Author a little after sayes he did and we know nothing is more ordinary than for great Cities to have more Churches than are needful it was so in London before the Fire and the retrenching of their number since shews it yet this will be so far from proving Alexander's Church in C. P. to be Diocesan that it will not prove it greater than some single Congregations for there were 12 Churches in Alexandria when yet the Church in that City adhereing to Athanasius consisted of no more than are in some one of our Parishes For which such Evidence has been brought as is not yet nor I think can be defaced Nor can we imagine that two Churches much less one could suffice all the Christians in C. P. when the City of Heliopolis being converted to Christianity required more and Constantine built several for them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word plurally expressed is much improved by our Author he makes out of it diverse Churches and all these Churches when yet all these were but one Church as Socrates himself makes it plain a little before l Soc. l. 1. c. 18. for having related how Constantine ordered a Church to be built near the Oak at Mambre he adds that he ordered another Church not Churches to be erected at Heliopolis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to put it past doubt Eusebius whom the Emperour employ'd about those structures and from whom in all likelihood Socrates had the Relation gives an account but of one Church there founded by the Emperour which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m l. 3. c. 56. De-vitâ Constant and that it was furnished with a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons So that the Bishop of Heliopolis had but one Church for his Diocess which our Author should not be so loath to own since it cannot be proved that at this time one Bishop in an hundred had more Valesius whom our Author much relies on in his Notes upon this place is so far from thinking that Constantine built more Churches in Heliopolis that he judges this one at present was not necessary for it the Town having then no Christians in it and assigns this as the reason why Eusebius speaks of it as a thing unusual that it should have a Bishop appointed and a Church built in it His words are Fortasse hoc novum inauditum fuisse intelligit c. He may think this new and unheard of that a Church should be built in a City where as yet there were no Christians but all were alike idolaters Therefore this Church was built at Heliopolis not for that there was any necessity of it but rather in hope that he might invite all the Citizens to the profession of the Christian Religion So that the Bishop here had none for his Diocese but one Church and that empty there being then no Christians in lib. 3. de vit Constant c. 58. p. 235. in that one Parish which yet was all he had to make him a Diocesan The better to confute Theodoret who saies for they are his words not mine that Alexander with all the Brethren met together he endeavours to shew the state of that Church about the latter end of Constantine c. this he does here and after by an undue Application of some passages in Sozomen For the account which that Historian gives of that City is not confined to Constantine's time but reaches beyond it ay and beyond Julian's too which appears as by other passages so by his mentioning the heathen Temples in the time of that Emperour And with respect to the time after Constantine must that expression be understood which makes C. P. to exceed Rome not only in Riches but in the number of Inhabitants otherwise it will be apparently false For when Chrysostome was Bishop there about 70 years after when it is like the number of the Inhabitants were doubled it cannot be questioned but they were far more numerous he who best could do it reckons the Christians then to be an 100000 n In Act. Hom. 11. pag. 674. our Author will have us look upon the Jews and Heathen there to be inconsiderable but let us count them another 100000. Yet both put together will fall incomparably short of the number in old Rome which by the computation of Lipsius was at least two millions o De Magnit Rom. lib. 3. c. 3. And in Constantine's time new Rome was as far short of the old as to its greatness in circuit for whereas Herodian declares that Severus quite demolished Byzantium for siding with Niger and reducing it to the state of a Village subjected it to Perinthus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p lib. 3. p. 68. we cannot in reason suppose it to be extraordinarily spacious yet as Zosimus reports all the inlargement which Constantine gave it was but the addition of 15 Furlongs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q lib. 2. p. 62. Now suppose it was 30 or 40 Furlongs in compass before and so larger than one City in an hundred yet this addition will leave it less than Alexandria which as Josephus describes it was 80 Furlongs that is ten miles in circumference r De Bello Jud. lib. 2. cap. 16. yet Alexandria was four times less than Rome for by Vopiscus's account in Aurelian's time not long before Constantine the walls were made by him near 50 miles in circuit So it will be in comparison of Constantinople when first built rather like a Nation than a City as Aristotle said of the other Babylon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s Pol. lib. 3. c. 2. If then we will have this passage of Sozomen to have any appearance of truth it must be extended far beyond Constantine's time when as Zosimus tells us many of the succeeding Emperours were still drawing multitudes of People to that City so that it was afterwards encompassed with walls far larger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than those of Constantine t lib. 2. p. 65. And in an Oration of Themistius it is made a question whether Theodosius junior did not add more to C. P. than Constantine did to Byzantium Many of the Jews and almost all the Heathen were converted and became Christians The expression of Sozomen does not hinder but as the main body of the Jews remained so the numbers of the Heathen might
he reckons but 466 Vindic. p. 149. taking in those of the Schismaticks too about 66 for each Province one with another counting them as he does seven and the account which others give of their numbers in the antient Roman Province the Kingdom of Naples the Island Crete Ireland to say nothing of Armenia and other parts of the World That which follows is I suppose instead of an Answer to the other part of my discourse concerning the popular election of Bishops which this Gentleman was as much concerned to take notice of as of the few passages he hath touched in the former part why he did not I will not enquire further but satisfie my self with what is obvious especially since he tells us he intends a discourse of such a Subject If in this designed work he satisfies me that it was not the general practice of the antient Church for the People to concur in the choice of their Bishops he will do me a greater displeasure than the confutation of what I have writ or any other that I can fear he intends me by taking me off from further Conversation with antient Authors as persons by whose Writings we can clearly know nothing For if that point be not clear in Antiquity I can never expect to find any thing there that is so I intended to conclude this discourse here without giving the Reader further trouble but considering there are misapprehensions about the Subject in question those being taken by diverse for Diocesan Churches which indeed are not such and arguments used to prove them so which are not competent for that purpose of which there are many instances as elsewhere so particularly in the latter end of this Authors discourse I thought it requisite for the rectifying of these mistakes and to shew the insufficiency or impertinency of such reasonings to give an account what mediums cannot in reason be esteemed to afford competent proof of Diocesan Churches In general Those who will satisfy us that any Churches in the first Ages of Christianity were Diocesan should prove them to be such Diocesans as ours are as large or near as large otherwise what they offer will scarce appear to be pertinent For the rise of this debate is the question between us whether the Bishops of these times be such as those in the primitive Church This we deny because modern Bishops will have another sort of Churches or Dioceses than were known in the best Ages Not that we reject all Dioceses or Diocesan Churches for both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used by the Antients for such Churches as we allow It is those of a later Model that we approve not as vastly differing from the antient Episcopal Churches The modern Dioceses and Churches thence denominated are exceeding great and extensive consisting of many scores or many hundred particular Churches whereas for the three first Ages we cannot find 3 Bishops that had two particular Churches in his Diocess nor in the 4th one in 50 if I may not say one in a hundred that had more So that the difference is exceeding great and more considerable in the consequence thereof which I had rather give an account of in the words of the very learned D. St. than mine own Dioceses generally sayes he in the primitive and Eastern Churches were very small and little as far more convenient for this end of them in the Government of the Church under the Bishops charge x Iren. p. 376. and elsewhere Discipline sayes he was then a great deal more strict Preaching more diligent Men more apprehensive of the weight of their Function than for any to undertake such a care and charge of Souls that it was impossible for them even to know observe or watch over so as to give an account for them y Pag. 332. Men that were imployed in the Church then did not consult for their ease and honour and thought it not enough for them to sit still and bid others work z Pag. 333. St. Austin speaking of the 3d. Age makes account of many thousand Bishops then in the World a Contra Crescon lib. 3. Our Author seems to treat that excellent Person something coursely on this occasion and goes near to question his judgment or veracity for it b Pag. 534. some may think this not over decently done to say no more when it is his business to vindicate some antient Bishops who need it to reflect upon one so untainted as to need none However since he sayes that Father judged of other Ages by his own when Dioceses were exceedingly multiplyed c Pag. 535. we may suppose he will grant there were many thousand Bishops in the 4th Age. Yet among so many thousand Bishops I do not expect that any can shew me 20 if I may not say 10. who had so many Churches in their Diocess as some Pluralists amongst us may have who yet never pretend to have a Diocesan Church Those therefore who will make proof of such Diocesan Churches as are in question must shew us some in the primitive times something like ours in largeness and extent Amongst the instances produced for this purpose by former or later Writers I find none any thing near to ours save that only of Theodoret in the 5th Age. But this in the former Discourse was shewed to be so insufficient to serve the ends it is alledged for that I may hope it will be prest no more for this Service More particularly 1st It proves not a Church to be Diocesan because it consists of more than can meet together in one place for there are Parishes in this Land that contain many hundreds or thousands more than can meet in the Parish Church and yet are but counted single Congregations Though multitudes in such Churches be far from proving them to be Diocesan yet I think two instances cannot be given in the third Age of more in one Church than are in some single Congregations amongst us nor many afterwards till Arianism and Donatism were suppressed which the latter was not in Africa till after the famous Conference at Carthage Anno 410 nor the former in other parts during the 4th Age for though Theodosius made some sharp Declarations against them and other Hereticks yet none but the Eunomians were prosecuted if we believe Socrates d Lib. 5. c. 20. that Emperour gave not the least trouble to the rest forced none to communicate with him but allowed them their Meetings and even in C. P. when afterwards the Arians divided among themselves each party had several Congregations in that City e Lib. 5. c. 23. both that which adhered to Marinus and that also which followed Dorothius these keeping the Churches which they had before and the other erecting new Churches I know there are those who from some passages in Tertullian f Apol. c. 37. ad Scapulam would infer that the Christians in his time were
Alypius Bishop of Tagesta which without reason we must take to be a considerable City r Pag. 527. and the City Milevis because Petilian sayes Tunca belonged to it once though now it had a Bishop of its own and by our Authors Art of computation Towns Villages and Cities must belong to Milevis upon the sole account of Tunca sometime appertaining to it Å¿ Pag. 528. and these with Fussala of which before are the chief instances to prove that Africa had very large Dioceses not inferiour to those of ours in extent of Territory t Pag. 516. Besides in the Council of Neocaesarea Countrey Presbyters are distinguished from others u Can. 13. and that of Antioch provides that Countrey Presbyters shall not give Canonical Epistles w Can. 8. and allows the Bishop to order his own Church and the Câ—â—â—trey places depending on it x Can. 9. Pag. 536. And Epiphanius speaks of a Church belonging to his charge which we must understand to be his Diocese though in the passage cited it is twice called his Province y Pag. 555. in fine Jerome speakes of some baptized by Presbyters or Deacons in Hamlets Castles and Places remote from the Bishop These and such like are used as good arguments for Diocesan Churches whereas there are diverse Towns in England which besides the Officers in them have many Congregations and Presbyters in Villages belonging to them and contained within the Parish and yet our Author and those of his perswasion would think Diocesans quite ruined if they were reduced and confined to the measures of those Parish Churches and left no bigger than some of our Vicarages and Parsonages though such as Mr. Hooker affirms to be as large as some antient Bishopricks he might have said most there being not one in many greater or so large I yet see no ground in antiquity nor can expect to have it proved that the larger sort of ordinary Bishopricks in the fourth age and sometime after were of more extent than two such Vicarages would be if united Yet a Bishop of such a District in our times would be counted so far from having a competent Diocese that he would scarce escape from being scorned as an Italian Episcopellus But his greatest argument in comparison of which his other Allegations he tells us are but accidental hints z Pag. 508. which he most insists on and offers many times over so that it makes a great part of his discourse on this subject a Pag. 508. to Pag. 555. to 539. Pag. 556. to 562. It is drawn from the number of Bishops in Councils by which he would evince the largeness of antient Dioceses when it no way proves Diocesan Churches of any size He proceeds upon this supposition that there were great numbers of Christians in all parts and Cities b Pag. 530. in the first age And that the Bishops were fewer in former times than afterwards The former part of his Hypothesis if he understands the numbers of Christians to be any thing comparable to what they were after Constantine when Bishops were much multiplied as he must understand it if he expect any service from it wants proof and he offers none but some passages in Tertullian strained far beyond what is agreeable to other antient Authors of which before Let me add that Nazianzen comparing the numbers of Christians in former times with those in Julian's Reign says they were not many in former Persecutions Christianity had not reached many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no not in that of Dioclesian c. though they were at that time farr more numerous than in Tertullian's age but that Christianity was found only in a few 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Orat. 3. The other part which needs no proof since it is granted and may be without any advantage to him he attempts to prove largely and industriously but by such a medium as makes that which is granted to be questionable such a one which as it is ordered may conclude backward and prove the contrary to what he designs That this may be manifest let it be observed that he will have us take an account of the number of Bishops in the Church by their appearing in Councils more or fewer and accordingly judge in several periods whether they were less numerous and consequently their Dioceses larger in former times than afterwards And to this purpose we need view no other instances than himself produces At Lambese in Africa there were 90 Bishops against Privatus but not so many in any Council after though not a few are mentioned in that Countrey till the Donatists grew numerous d pag. 509. In Spain the Council of Eliberis had 19 Bishops in the beginning of the 4th Age and the first Council of Toledo had no more in the beginning of the age after But the following Synods at Saragossa Gerunda Ilerda Valentia Arragon had not so many e pag. 557. 558 In France the Council at Valence had 21 Bishops in the fourth Age but those following them in that and the after ages had still fewer viz. That of Riez Orange the third of Arles that at Anger 's that at Tours and Vennes and another at Arles For General Councils the first at Nice had 318 Bishops in the beginning of the fourth Age that at Ephesus above an hundred yearsafter had but two hundred that at C. P. in the latter end of the fourth Age had but one hundred and fifty Bishops So that if we take account how many Bishops there were of old as he would have us by their numbers in Councils there will be more before the middle of the third Age than in the beginning of the fourth more in the beginning of the fourth than in some part of the fifth and more in the beginning of the fifth than in some part of the sixth quite contrary to the Hypothesis on which he proceeds Whether by his argument he would lead us to think Dioceses did wax and wane so odly as it makes Bishops to be more or fewer I cannot tell However since he grants that in the fourth and fifth Ages Dioceses were very small f pag. 552. and crumbled into small pieces g pag. 516. and so nothing like ours there 's no expectation he can find any larger if any thing near so great in any former age unless they can be larger when incomparably fewer Christians belonged to these Bishops which will be no less a paradox than the former For it cannot but be thought strange that the Bishops Diocese should be greater when his flock was undeniably far less And they seem not to be Christian Bishopricks whose measures must be taken by numbers of Acres rather than of Souls or by multitudes of Heathens rather than Christians He denies not that the generality of Bishops for a long while after the Apostles had but one Congregation to Govern Pag. 71. What then says he If all the Beleivers in and
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
Popery in their account The following sheets have lain by me many Months and had done so still but that the importunity of some and the misrepresenting of my silence by others forced me to publish them Diocesan Churches not yet discovered in the Primitive times TO shew that many Presbyters in one Church was not enough to prove it a Diocesan I I made it manifest that it was usual in the antient Church to multiply Presbyters beyond what we count necessary not beyond what is necessary as it is too often misrepresented For this I offer'd two Testimonies one asserting it to be so in the First Age the other in the Fourth and thought these sufficient if they could not be denied as they are not to evince it to have been so in the Third For who can reasonably suppose but that had place in the Third which was usual both in the Ages before and after The first was that of Bishop Downham who sayes at the first Conversion of Cities the number of people converted were not much greater than the number of Presbyters placed amongst them But this it s sayed can be of little use because 1. This was not the case of the Church of Carthage it was not a new converted Church but setled long before and in a flourishing condition The Church of Carthage by the fierce persecutions in Cyprians time which is the time we speak of was brought so low and reduced to so very few as if it had been but new converted and how was it in a setled and flourishing condition when it was so lamentably wasted and still harrassed one year after another or who can believe it that reads Cyprian lamenting Pressurae istius tam turbidam vastitatem quae gregem nostrum maxima ex parte populata est adhue usque populatur and that they were positi inter plangentium ruinas et timentium reliquias inter numerosam languentium stragem et exiguam stantium paucitaâ—em (a) Lib. 4. Ep. 4. Was not this much the case of the Apostolical Churches unless this of Carthage was worse and so less for our Author's advantage Or if this were otherwise the Churches in Nazianzen's time were not newly converted but setled long before and in a flourishing condition which yet cannot be denyed to have had more Presbyters than we count needful So that this was the practise in every condition of the Church whether flourishing or not 2. He sayes many more Presbyters may be ordained in a City than is necessary for the first beginning of a Church with respect to future increase c. And who will question but the many Presbyters in the Church of Carthage were for future increase both in City and Country So that herein the case is not different And the design of that number of Officers might partly be for other Congregations Episcopal Churches though not Diocesan to furnish them with Officers This is apparent afterwards in the practice of the African Churches who when a new Church was erected supplyed it with a Bishop or other Assistants from places better stored with Officers And it is exemplyfied particularly as we shall see hereafter in the provision which St. Austin made for Fussala He sayes further the multitude of Presbyters belonging to one Congregational Church might be occasion'd by the uncertain abode of most of the Apostles and their Commissioners who are the Principal if not the only Ordainers of Presbyters mentioned in Scripture But herein he does but guess and had no reason to be positive unless the Apostles and their Commissioners as he calls them had been then the only Ordainers which he will not venture to affirm knowing what evidence there is against it Lastly he sayes if this opinion of Bishop Downham had any certain ground in Antiquity we should probably hear of it with both eares and we should have it recommended upon antienter Authority than his This of Bishop Downham hath certain ground in the best antiquity if the New Testament be such where it is plain there were many Presbyters in diverse Churches such as are not yet nor ever will be proved to be Diocesan To that of Nazianzen he sayes it hath received its answer and adds he that cannot answer it to himself from the great difference between the condition of the Church in Cyprian and in Nazianzen's time hath a fondness for the Argument This is the answer it received Pag. 51. and this difference was thus expressed a little before But that any Church sixt and setled having its Bishop alwayes present should multiply Presbyters beyond necessity in the circumstances of the Primitive Christians before Constantine is altogether incredible for the necessary expences of the Church were very great the poor numerous the generality of Christians not of the Richest and the Estates they had being at the discretion of their enemies and ruin'd with perpetual persecution c. He sayes multiplying Presbyters beyond necessity and without necessity while he alters my words so as to change the sense he disputes against himself not me But this looking more like an Argument than any thing before I shall take a little more notice of it 1. Is not all this applicable to the Churches in the Apostle's times when it cannot be denyed Presbyters were multiplyed beyond what we count necessary The poor numerous the generality of Christians not of the Richest and the Estates they had being at the discretion of their enemies and ruin'd with perpetual persecution Further the Church before Constantine and Carthage particularly supposing these to be its circumstances might have many Presbyters without any great charge For 1st the Church Stock was reserved only for those in want 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is determin'd in one of the Canons which pass for Apostolical (b) Can. 4. and the same decreed in the synod at Antioch (c) Can. 25. Ambrose even in the 4th Age will have none to have a stipend who hath other revenues Qui fidei exercet militiam agelli sui fructibus si habet debet esse contentus si non habet stipendiorum suorum fructu (d) Offic. L. 1. â— 36. And Chrysostom tells us that in Elections those of the Competitors that had Estates did carry it because the Church would need to be at no charge in maintaining of such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2ly When they had no Estates and the Church e De sacerd â—er 3. Pag. 23. â—dit Savil. could not maintain them they were to provide for themselves by some honest imployment The Council of Elvira allows all sorts of Clergy men to drive a trade for their living provided they did it only in the Province where they lived (f) Can. 19. and in the 4th Council of Carthage it is ordered that the Clergy though they be learned in the word of God shall get their living by a trade (g) Can. 51. and in the next Canon that they shall get food and rayment by
be considerable Tertullian speaks of Citizens in his time as if they were almost all Christians penè omnes cives christiani u Apol. c. 37. yet no instance can be given of any one City where the Christians were the major part of the Inhabitants those that take his words in a strict sense are very injurious to him and make him speak that which no antient Records will warrant Sozomen also may suffer by straining his expression but I will not digress to take further notice of what is not material for I design not nor have any need to make any advantage of the numbers of the Heathens in this City He tells us of 950 Work-houses whose rents were allowed to defray the Funeral expences of all that died in the City for so it is expressed in the Constitution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 w Novel 43. these being performed with great solemnity and multitudes of Attendants maintained by those rents for that purpose x Nov. 59. c. 2. How this here makes the Christians in C. P. to be so very numerous as he would have them he should have shewed us I am not yet so sagacious as to discover it The number of the Decani was determined by Honorius to 950 y Cod. de Eccl. Lex 4 Our Author thinks it probable they were so many at the first establishment but there 's more ground to believe they were much fewer in Constantine's time for about 800 were counted sufficient in Justinian's Reign 200 years after when the City was both larger and much more populous and in its greatest flourish z Novel 59. c. 2. Those that consider the premisses may well think he might have form'd his conclusion in terms less confident to say no worse of it Next he forms an Objection against himself notwithstanding the number of Christians in C. P. might be much too great for one Congregation yet the major part might be Hereticks or Schismaticks such as came not to the Bishop's Church and therefore all that adhered to him might be no more than could meet in one Assembly To which he answers that the number of Hereticks and Schismaticks was inconsiderable and will not except the Arians or Novatians For the Arians he saies they had not yet made a formal Separation But if they did not separate themselves the Church would have them separated and did exclude them from communion and withstood Constantine's importunity for their admission both here and in other places Athanasius was threatned by Eusebius of Nicomedia a Soc. lib. 2. c. 1 and banished by the Emperour for this cause among others And Alexander being secured by Arius his death from admitting him to Communion was the occasion of this passage in Theodoret which gives our Author so much trouble Now the Arians being debarred from communion lessened the Bishop's Church both here and elsewhere as much as if they had separated themselves And they were numerous here this being the place where they had greatest favour in Constantine's Edict against the Hereticks whose meetings he would have suppressed the Arians were not mentioned when the other are named b Euseb de vita Constant lib. 3. cap. 62. 63. Socrates writes that the People in this City was divided into two Parties the Arians and the Orthodox they had continually sharp bickerings but while Alexander lived the Orthodox had the better as soon as he was dead which was * Vales observ in Soc. Soz. l. 2. c Soc. lib. 2. c. 6. while Constantine lived it seems they appeared equal for the contest saies he was dubious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In Nazianzen's time so far they overtopt the Orthodox that this great Diocesan Church appear'd but in the form of a private meeting held in a very little house where he kept a Conventicle with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Sozomen d Lib. 7. cap. 5. and Socrates agrees with him in the expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a diminutive place seems as unproportionable for such a Diocesan Church as a Nut-shell for Homer's Iliads or a Key-hole for a Witch to use our Author's Elegancies As for the Novatians to which he will have no more allowed than a Conventicle they were numerous in other places they had once diverse Churches in Alexandria many Churches in Rome and in other places It is like they were numerous here for here they had as much favour or more and longer too than in the Cities forementioned here Socrates sayes they had three Churches e Lib. 2. cap. 30. and if three Churches would but make one inconsiderable Conventicle it is possible the other Orthodox Churches though he will have them to be many might be comprized in one vast Congregation I might observe how much Sozomen is mis-represented in what he sayes next of those concerned in the Edict the Novatians especially He speaks not mincingly as our Author would have him but fully that the Novatians did not suffer much by the Edict he does not say only that it was probable they suffered little but sayes this only of a reason himself gives why they suffered not much He gives other reasons for it than the opinion the Novatians had of that Bishop He does not say the other Hereticks were altogether extirpated He does not confess that the Novatians suffered the same measure with others every where no nor any where else it is the Montanists that he sayes this of He dares to affirm they had a Conventicle or more for he affirms they had an eminent Bishop in C. P. and were not only numerous there before the Edict but continued so after The Gentleman was in too much haste here as himself will perceive by observing how much his account differs from the Historians At last he comes to that passage of Theodoret which occasioned all these lines but Theodoret affirms they were no more than could meet in one Church and that they did actually do so I answer sayes he that Theodoret does not say so and the passage cited does not conclude it I did not say Theodoret affirms they were no more than could meet in one Church but he sayes the same in effect viz. that all the Brethren assembled with Alexander His words are Alexander the Church rejoycing hcld an Assembly with all the Brethren praying and greatly glorifying God The words are plain and the sense I take them in is open in the face of them Nor do I believe that any disinterested person would put any other sense upon them than this that the generality of Christians of which the Church at Constantinople consisted assembled together with their Bishop Alexander to praise God joyfully for their deliverance by the death of Arius But he will not have the words taken in a general sense but will suppose them taken with respect to that particular Congregation in which Arius was to be reconciled Yet this supposition hath no ground either in the words or in the
Austin declares there was no Catholick in it This reason will hold unless they think a place may have a Bishop where there are no Christians at all when as yet they judge that a place which hath Christians enough to make a good Congregation or many ought not to have a Bishop Whereas he sayes this reason destroys its dependance upon the Diocess I wonder what dependance he imagines since it is such as both the not having of Christians and also the having of them destroys it The former he here affirms the same reason which is its not having of Catholicks destroys it the latter is undeniable for when Fussala had a competent number of Catholicks a Bishop was there constituted and then it depended no more on the Diocess of Hippo than one Bishop's Church depends on another when both are independent The dependance of Fussala upon Hippo was such as that of a Countrey place upon a greater Town well furnished with Officers for their help to convert and reduce the Inhabitants and when enough are converted to help them to a Bishop or Pastor This St. Austin did for Fussala he imployed Presbyters to reduce the Donatists there and when they were reduced he adds them not to his own charge would not have them Episcopo cedere but advises them to have a Bishop of their own and procures one for them This was the practice of the primitive times in these methods were Churches and Bishops multiplyed it was not out of use in the fifth Age this of Fussala as managed by St. Austin is a remarkable instance thereof and if other Bishops had imitated him as he did the Apostles and best Ages the Church would not have been troubled with debates about Diocesans That Austin would not take the Charge of a Place so far off as Fussala he will have it ascribed to his Modesty But it was such Modesty as this excellent Person made Conscience of being convinced certissimâ ratione by most certain reason that he was not sufficient for it If all other Bishops had been so modest so conscientious there might have been as Nazianzen speaks when Bishops were multiplyed in Cappadocia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a much more desirable thing to those that love Souls than a great Diocess He gives a reason why this must be ascribed to St. Austin's modesty because he discharged the Office of a Bishop there in more difficult times while the Presbytâ—râ— he imployed there were barbarously used I need not deny that he performed the Office of 〈◊〉 Bishop there for it is the office of a Bishop to endeavour by himself or others the converting or reducing of all that he can Only this will not prove Fussala to be then a part of his Bishoprick no more than it will prove Athanasius to have been Bishop of India because he encouraged and sent Frumentius with others thither to convert the Indians t Soc. l. 1. c. 15. Soz. l. 2. c. 23. The learned Dean had cited Austin as calling himself the Bishop of that Diocess understanding by it a Region of vast extent I observed that in the Epistle quoted he onely saith he had the Episcopal charge of Hippo. By this the Gentleman changing my words will have me to signifie that he was the Bishop of the Town only This I did not intend but that he was not the only Bishop of that whole Region But whether he was Bishop of part of the Town only or of that and some part of the Region also I am not much concerned His words are as if he had been Bishop of the Town only nay but of part of that neither for the Donatists had their Bishop there so this will strangely diminish the Bishoprick of St. Austin which at first appeared so large Then he answers for the Donatists having a Bishop there it signifies little to our present purpose since he was but an Vsurper But this signifies as much to my purpose as I need for the Donatists having a Bishoprick in Hippo St. Austin's must needs be diminished thereby and altogether as much lessened as if they had not been Vsurpers And they were counted no otherwise Vsurpers but so that if the Donatist Bishop had been reconciled by a Decree of the African Church he was to continue in his Bishop-there as a rightful Possessour and there would have been still two Diocesses such as they were in one Town He would have us believe Austin as if he declared that he was not the Bishop of the Town only but his words are Vt modum dispensationis meae non supergrediar hoc Ecclesiae ad Hipponensem Regionem pertinenti prodesse contestor which sayes our Author plainly signifies that all the Church belonging not only to the Town but but also to the Region of Hippo belonged to him But if he please to view the words again which himself hath quoted he will find it plainly signifyed that Austin's Church belonged to the Region of Hippo but not that all the Church both in Town and Region belonged to him Antonius Bishop of Fussala might have said this as truly of his Church there as Austin did it of his Church at Hippo it did ad Hipponensem Regionem pertinere belong to the Region of Hippo. And it may be as justly inferred from hence that all the Church both in the Town and Region of Hippo belonged to the Bishop of Fussala If our Author will allow of this as he must if he will stand to his own account of this passage Austin's Bishoprick will be strangely diminished indeed it must be confined to a part of Hippo and made less than I represent it For I did not say nor had I any need to assert that he was Bishop of the Town only We may allow him besides his part of the Town diverse Villages in the Countrey though I have not seen it proved without any danger of assigning him a Diocesan Church For Kidderminster as one tells us who very well knows it hath 20 Villages belonging to it and some thousands of Souls therein yet according to our modern measures will scarce make a Diocesan Church u M. B. of Episcopacy Part 2. p. 9. To shew that there were more Bishops in the Region of Hippo than St. Austin besides particular instances which he passes by I alledged a passage of his where the Donatists were desired to meet together with the Catholick Bishops that were in that Region and who there suffered so much by the Donatists to this he answers That these Bishops who are said to be in Regione Hipponensi were not the Bishops of that Region but some Bishops of the Province met together there But that these were Bishops of the Province met together there is a meer conjecture of his own without the least ground either in this passage or any other in that Epistle It will not be hard to answer any thing at this rate If there had been a Provincial Council then held in that Region
governed in common by Bishop and Presbyters as the antient Churches were they would not be Diocesan but more like the Model of the Churches and Government which Holland hath at present And now after all this though we have several instances out of Egypt how near Cities were together in some parts yet upon the whole account the Diocesses do appear to be large enough from the number of them He would have us think where Cities are so near together as I had shewed yet because of their number the Diocesses might be large enough But where they were so near together they could not be large enough to make any thing like the modern Diocesses no nor larger than our Countrey Parishes if they had Bishops in them And the Ancients thought themselves obliged by the Apostle's rule to have a Bishop not only in some but in every City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayes Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b In 1 Tim. Hom. 11. and Theophilact expresses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without exception of the smallness of the place or its nearness to others The reason diverse Cities had none was the want or the inconsiderable number of Christians in them Nothing but this hindered any City from having a Bishop in the four first Ages though the greatest part of their Cities as may be made manifest were no greater than our Market-Towns or fairer Villages And upon this account many Cities might want Bishops and it may be did so in Egypt particularly Heathenisme prevailing in many places there even in Athanasius his time for which I could produce sufficient evidence but will not now digress so far Afterwards the affectation of greatness in some was the occasion of new measures and orders were made that Towns which had no Bishops before should have none after though the reason why they had none before was gone and those places had as many or more Christians in them than most Episcopal Cities had of old For in Athanasius his time there were not an hundred Bishops in all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis c Athan. Apol. 2. I was a little surprized to read this and see Athanasius cited for it For I knew that Athanasius reckons 95 Bishops from Egypt besides himself at the Council of Sardica and others from Africa wherein Lybia and Pentapolis are usually included and it was never known that a major part or a third of the Bishops in a Countrey did come to a Council at such a distance as Egypt was from Sardica It is scarce credible that Athanasius would so far contradict himself as to say there were not so many Bishops in all those three Countreys when he had signifyed there were many more in one of them Some mistake I thought there must be and consulting the place I found it not intirely represented There is this Clause immediately following the words he cites left out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none of these accused me whereby it appears that the meaning of the whole passage is this there was an hundred Bishops in the Diocess of Egypt who appeared not against him or that favoured him But those who favoured Arius whom he calls Eusebians and Meletius to say nothing of Coluthus for into so many parties was that Countrey then divided are not taken into the reckoning otherwise it would have amounted to many more than an hundred Sozomen sayes the Bishops there who took Arius his part were many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d Lib. 1. c. 14. and in Athanasius there is an account of many Meletian Bishops by name e Apol. 2. p. 614. and in Epiphanius it is said that in every Region through which Meletius passed and in every place where he came he made Bishops f Ep. Haer. 68. The next thing he takes notice of is the defence of Mr. Baxter's Allegation out of Athanasius to shew that all the Christians of Alexandria M. B's words are the main body of the Christians in Alexandria could meet in one Church It is to be confessed that the expressions of that Father seem to favour him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Church did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hold all c. I am made more confident by all that is said to the contrary that the evidence is really such as will need no favour if it can meet with Justice Now suppose that all the Christians in Alexandria the Catholicks at leastwise could meet together in that great Church yet all the Diocess could not All that was undertaken to be proved by the passage in question was that the main body of Christians in Alexandria adhereing to Athanasius could and did meet in that one Church If this be granted nothing is denied that he intended to prove As for a Diocess in the Countrey if he will shew us what or where it was and that it had no other Bishop in it he will do something that may be considered yet nothing at all against what this Testimony was made use of to evince He sayes 2dly Suppose this great great Church could receive all the multitude yet if that multitude was too great for Personal Communion it is insignificant Upon this supposition it might be too great for an ordinary meeting in the Congregational way yet not big enough for a Diocesan Church But the supposition is groundless and contradicts Athanasius who sayes they had Personal Communion they all prayed together and did not only meet within the Walls but concurred in the worship and said Amen He sayes 3dly Before the Church of Alexandria met in distinct Congregations but we are told that those places were very small short and strait places All these save one I said which he ought not to have omitted And they were so small because those who were wont to meet in them severally so as to fill them could all meet in one Church and did so as Athanasius declares But that they were such Chappels or Churches as some of our Parishes in England have as great a number as Alexandria is hardly credible I know not how those places could be well expressed with more diminution than Athanasius hath done it he sayes they were not only strait and small but the very smallest If he will make it appear that our Churches or Chappels are less than those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall understand that which I could never before that something is less than that which is least of all But he will prove they were not so small because first the Church of Alexandria was very numerous from the beginning Why it should be counted so very numerous from the beginning I know no reason but the mistake of an Historian who will have a Sect of the Jews which was numerous in or about Alexandria to be Christians And if they met all in one place it must consequently be very large The ground of the consequence is removed Valesius his own Author sayes they had
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
cross to M. B. more than to vindicate any In St. Mark 's time Alexandria had several Churches though but one Bishop c d Euseb l. 2 c. 16 What Eusebius sayes of Churches in Alexandria at that time is grounded upon a mistake as appears because immediately after the words cited he adds so great was the multitude of Beleivers at Mark 's first attempt there that Philo in his writings thought fit to give an account of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius conceived that the Essenes as Scaliger or the Therapeutae as Valesius whom Philo describes were the Christians of Mark 's Conversion and there being Assemblies of that Sect of the Jews in Philo's time the Historian speaks of Christian Churches at Alexandria in Mark 's time but those who believe that he erred in the former can have no reason to give him credit in the latter Our Examiner does not deny that he was mistaken but sayes it is not material whether they were Jews or Christians yet those who inquire after Truth sincerely will think it material and little value a Testimony which hath no better ground than a mistake The next is no better e Pag. 62. that is an Epistle of Adrian which others are puzzled to make sense of or such sense as can have any appearance of Truth That very passage in it which is the only ground of our Author's Argument himself acknowledges to be false for he would shew the Christians in Alexandria to be numerous enough for his purpose because it is there said that some whom he takes to be Christians did force the Patriarch whoever he be to worship Christ and yet adds there is no doubt but Adrian does the Christians wrong in this point for they never forced any to their Religion Will he have us to rely upon reasonings which have no better Foundation than what is undoubtedly false by his own Confession He sayes also it is not material to our purpose whether this Patriarch were Bishop of Alexandria or chief Governour of the Jews If so then it is not material with this Gentleman either to argue from that which is not true or else from that which is nothing to his purpose For if this Patriarch was the Bishop of Alexandria that they forced him to worship Christ is not true he did it of his own accord and if it be not one who was no Christian that they forced then is not any thing in this passage to his purpose and Adrian's Epistle might have been waved as a meer impertinency That which follows f Pag. 63. hath not the shew of a reason the great Catechists of Alexandria as Pantenus Clemens Origen and Heracles did not a little advance the growth of Christian Religion in that place c. Must there needs be a Diocesan Church there because the Catechists did advance Religion not a little The next concerning Dionysius his Church meeting at Chebron Cephro it should be and Coluthio is already fully answered as it is offered with better improvement than our Examiner gives it g No Evidence for pag. 35 36. It cannot easily be apprehended how a larger Church meeting with Dionysius made up of those banished with him and others from several parts of Egypt at Cephro a Village in Lybia a distinct Province should prove that he had a Diocesan Church in Alexandria to any but those who are very inclinable to believe it without proof Nor will others understand that Dionysius is better proved to be a Diocesan by the Christians which came from Alexandria to Coluthio in Mareotes there being none there besides for the Believers in Alexandria it self were no more than one Church could hold as Valesius collects from this very place to our Examiners regret Ex hoc loco colligitur aetate quidem Dionysii unicam adhuc fuisse Alexandriae Ecclesiam in quam omnes Vrbis illius fideles Orationis causâ conveniebant h Not. in Euseb lib. 7. cap. 11. In the next Paragraph our Examiner argues for the great numbers of Christians at Alexandria from the multitude of Martyrs at Thebes Under the Persecution of Diocletian what numbers of Christians might be at Alexandria may be judged by the multitude of Martyrs that suffered at Thebes i Pag. 64. c. But here he mistakes Eusebius who gives an account not of the Martyrs which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the City Thebes but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Province Thebais which was half of that large Kingdom according to the antient division of it into the upper and lower Egypt The Superiour Egypt was Thebais the inferiour was called sometimes the Delta sometimes Egypt in a restrained sense and this division in these terms we have in Eusebius to go no further a little before k Cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he begins his account of the Martyrs in this Countrey Now if the Christians in that Provice of large extent and comprising very many Cities may be concluded to be very numerous from the multitudes of Martyrs which suffered there yet nothing at all can be inferred for any numbers to his purpose in the City Thebes by which he would conclude their numerousness in Alexandria But if M. B. had mistaken one City for so large a Countrey with multitudes of Cities in it and made that mistake the ground of his reasoning it is like our Examiner would have exposed him for it in his Preface as he does for some lesser matters In the following Paragraph l Pag. 65. there is a groundless supposition that the division of Alexandria into Parishes was antienter than Arius there being no mention of it by any antient Author as also an accusation of Petavius as mistaking Epiphanius his words without any Serm. of Seperation p. 28. cause that I can discern in those words though he sayes it is plain there That which he sayes is plain the learned Dean of Paul's could not discern but understood Epiphanius as Petavius and others did before him These I took to be preliminaries and expected his Argument but found it not unless it be couched in the first words The Division of Alexandria between several Presbyters as it were into so many Parishes c. But this signifies nothing for his purpose if those in Alexandria thus divided could all meet in one place as Athanasius declares they did and that so plainly that any one will judge so whose interest is not too hard for his judgment Valesius who had no byass unless what might lead him the other way understood it as I do and expresses it in these words deciding the matter so long insisted on against our Author Afterwards in the times of Athanasius when there were more Churches built by diverse Bishops of Alexandria the Citizens assembled in several Churches severally and in parcels as Athanasius sayes in his Apology to Constantius but on the great Festivals Easter and Pentecost no particular assemblies were held sed
inhabitants of those Regions they could not be inhabitants of Jerusalem unless they could be inhabitants of several distant Countreys at once To the same purpose Mr. Mead e Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where note by the way that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are comprehended in the number of those whom my Text saith were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which confirms my interpretation that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies sojourning and not dwelling for that they could not be said to dwell in both places 2. Suppose there were some of them strangers c. Suppose sayes this Gentleman there were some of them Strangers but does any man that understands how or by whom those Feasts were celebrated ever suppose that there were not very many thousands of strangers such as were not Inhabitants present at those Solemnities Josephus and Eusebius after him sayes there were three millions in the City at the Passover and declares what course was taken to give Cestius Gallus a certain account of their numbers but then they were all in a manner strangers for he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this vast multitude consisted of Forreigners f De bel Jud. lib. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet our Author goes on and confirms himself in the former mistake by another the verse he cites to prove them fixed Inhabitants at Jerusalem is misunderstood the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which do not signifie any fixed abode in that place but only their constancy or persevering in the duties mentioned while they were there This is the use of the Expression in the New Testament Col. 4. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Rom. 12. 12. Continuing in Prayer which they might do if they never had a fixed habitation nor continued as inhabitants in any place And thus the Evangelist Luke uses the phrase in this book of the Acts c. 1. ver 14. c. 2. 46. c 6. 4. But our Author I think will never find it used in this form for any settled or continued abode in a place and had no reason to fancy it here He thinks it not probable g Pag. 437. that the zeal and devotion of those Converts would suffer them to leave the Apostles whereas it is certain that the Primitive Zeal and Devotion though it crucified them to the World yet heightened and improved a Christian care of their Families and the Souls of their Relatives and others And their zeal for Christ and love to Souls would hasten them homeward that they migh acquaint their Families and others with Christ and the Doctrine of Salvation as those dispersed from Jerusalem did ch 8. The five thousand mention'd chap. 4. ver 4. he will have to be a new accession to the three thousand before Converted but should not have been so positive in it without reason Those who are engaged in the same cause with him besides many others are not of his opinion herein as they would have been if they had seen any ground for it Dr. Hammond h In loc takes the 5000 to be the number of the Auditory not of the Converts Bishop Downham includes the three thousand in those five i Defence l. 2. c. 5. pag. 85. and the Dean of Paul's makes account but of five thousand in all k Serm. of Separation Pag. 26. To me it is not material whether they were 5000 or 8000 or many more seeing there was not the twentieth part of them other than Forreigners and such as for any thing I can see or hear designed not to dwell at Jerusalem and so intended not fix themselves in that particular Church There can be no just reckoning of the numerousness of a Church from an occasional recourse of strangers who inhabit remote parts or forreign Countreys If there had been more Christians in the Church of Jerusalem than could meet in one place that would be no Evidence that it was a Diocesan Church whereas the whole is said in the Acts to meet in one place l Act. 2. 44. 6. 2. c. He hath nothing to say against this which is considerable but that the all may denote only those that were present m Pag. 441. and so the sense will be all that were in one place were in one place if this can please himself I think it will satisfie none else Let Dr. Hammond decide this business for in such a cause we may admit a Party to be Umpire n Answer to L. Ministers pag. 78. 79. What follows saith he of the paucity of Believers and their meeting in one place is willingly granted by us What they say of the point of time Acts 2. 41. that believers were so numerous that they could not conveniently meet in one place this is contrary to the evidence of the Text which saith expresly ver 44. that all the believers were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the last Paragraph they interpreted meeting in one and the same place the like might be said of the other places Acts 4. 3. and 5. 14. for certainly as yet though the number of Believers increased yet they were not distributed into several Congregations Concerning the dispersion Acts 8. 1. o P. 442. 443. he tells us Though they are all said to be scattered besides the Apostles yet it cannot be understood of all the Beleivers No but of the generality of them all that could commodiously fly as strangers might do Nor must it be confined to all the Officers only the generality of Expositors are mis-represented if this be made their sense nor doth it appear that Eusebius so understood it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in Scripture and other Writers and Eusebius himself to denote Believers and not Officers only As for the time of the dispersion though I need not insist on it probably it was nearer this great Pentecost than some would have it On the first day of the week in the morning were the three thousand converted the next or as some tell us the same day afternoon at the ninth hour p D. L the number of the Converts was increased to five thousand While this Sermon was preaching the Apostles are apprehended and committed to Custody till the next morning Another it is like the day after they are imprisoned but enlarged by an Angel in the night chap. 5. In or near that week were the seven Deacons chosen presently after the Disciples were thus increased and the Apostles imprisoned and dismissed The expression signifies it chap. 6. 1. It is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in those daies which may admit a latitude and some good distance of time but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these dayes which denotes the time instant or that which immediately ensues without the interposure of any such distance And so the phrase is used by St. Luke both in the Gospel and in the Acts. It is Dr. Hammond's observation upon Luk. 1. 39. The phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in
before St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome it holds as well of James 's being Bishop of Jerusalem would confound the Offices which God made distinct for God did appoint first Apostles then Prophets then Pastors and Teachers wherefore St. Peter after he was an Apostle could not well become a Bishop it would be such an irregularity as if a Bishop should be made a Deacon Ecclesiastical History makes James the ordinary Bishop and Diocesan of the place There is nothing in Ecclesiastical History for it but what is derived from Hegesippus and Clemens whom others followed right or wrong It is strange to see Salmasius run his head so violently against such solid Testimonies as those of Hegesippus and Clemens That great person understood things better and discerned no danger in running his head against a shadow and there is nothing more of Solidity in what is alledged from those Authors Further he would prove it a Diocesan Church by a passage in Hegesippus who sayes that several of the Jewish Sectaries who beleived neither a Resurrection nor Judgment to come were Converted by James and that when a great number of the Rulers and principal men of the City were by this Ministry brought to believe the Gospel the Jews made an Uproar the Scribes and Pharisees saying that it was to be feared that all the people would turn Christians x Pag. 446. He sayes many of the prime Sectaries were converted by James but this will scarce prove such a Diocesan Church as he contends for That which would serve his turn that all the people would turn Christians was not effected but only feared by the Jews who took a course to prevent it by killing James But if this were for his purpose Hegesippus is not an Author to be relied on part of the Sentence cited is false that the Sects mentioned and he had mentioned seven did not believe the Resurrection nor Judgment whereas the Pharisees and others of them beleived both which Valesius observes In Euseb 2. c. 23. One false thing in a Testimony is enough to render it suspected but there are near twenty things false or fabulous in this account he gives of James many of them marked by Scaliger y Animad in Euseb p. 178. divers by Valesius z In Euseb l. 2. cap. 23. and some acknowledged by Petavius a Not. ad Heres 78. He would not have us suspect that the numbers of the Church at Jerusalem were not so great as he pretends because Pella an obscure little Town could receive them all besides its own Inhabitants but we must understand that Town to be their Metropolis and the Believers all scattered through the whole Countrey and this as Epiphanius writes But where does Epiphanius write this Not in the place cited he writes the contrary both there and elsewhere that all the Believers in one place b Epiph. Her 30. that all the Disciples in another place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c De Ponder Mens cap. 15. what he adds is but to describe where the Town was situated all the Disciples all the Believers dwelt beyond Jordan in Pella Archbishop Whitgift brings this as a pregnant proof that the Christians at Jerusalem were but few in comparison and no more than could all meet in one place as a little before he affirms again and again his words are how few Christians was there at Jerusalem not long before it was destroyed being above Forty years after Christ Does not Eusebius testifie d Lib. 3. cap. 5. that they all were received into a little Town called Pella yet the Apostles had spent much time and labour in Preaching there but the number of those that did not profess Christ in that City was infinite e Defence of Answer Treat 3. c. 6. pag. 175. This might be farther cleared by what Epiphanius saith of that Church in its return from Pella but I design briefness Our Author adds one Testimony more to shew that under the Government of Simeon great numbers were added to that Church many thousands of the Circumcision receiving the Christian Faith at that time and among the rest Justus c. pag. 448. But those who view the place in Eusebius will see that he does not say those many of the Circumcision were converted by Simeon or were under his Government or belonged to that Church and so it signifies nothing for his purpose And so in fine the account wherewith he concludes his Discourse of Jerusalem will not be admitted by any who impartially consider the Premisses As for his other Scripture instances there is not so much as the shadow of a proof shewed by him that there were near so many Christians as in Jerusalem or as are in some one of our Parishes yea or more than could meet in one place either in Samaria where he sayes it appears not what kind of Government was established pag. 451. or in Lydda which was but a Village though a fair one and far from having Saron for its proper Territory that being a plain between Joppa and Caesarea or in Antioch pag. 452. much less in Corinth and Ephesus which he advisedly passes by pag. 456. Our Author does in effect acknowledge that in Scripture it appears not that these Churches were Episcopal much less Diocesan It is to be confessed saies he pag. 461. that the Scriptures have not left so full and perfect an account of the Constitution and Government of the first Churches c. Thus we have no more notice of the Churches of Samaria and of Judaea Jerusalem excepted than that such were founded by the Apostles but of their Government and Constitution we have not the least Information What information then can we have that they were Diocesan or Episcopal He goes on And the prospect left of Antioch in Scripture is very confused as of a Church in fieri where a great number of eminent persons laboured together to the building of it up but only from Ecclesiastical Writers who report that this Church when it was settled and digested was committed to the Government of Euodias and after him to Ignatius c. So that after what form the Church at Antioch was constituted does not appear it may be Congregational and not Diocesan for any thing this Gentleman can see in Scripture but only from Ecclesiastical Writers But his Ecclesiastical Writers do so contradict one another as renders their testimonies of little value Nor is there much more reckoning to be made of the traditional account they and others give concerning the Succession and Government of the first Bishops than this Author makes of Eusebius his traditional Chronology pag. 454. Some make Euodias the first Bishop and he being dead Ignatius to succeed him f Euseb l. 3. c. 22. on the contrary some will have Ignatius to have been the first and make no mention of Euodias g Chrys Orat. in Ignat. others will have them to have governed that Church both
Christians than some London Parishes which have 60000 Souls nor near if half so many k Church Hist p. 7. Vindicat. p. 27. The chief if not the only argument to prove them at Rome more numerous is a passage in Cornelius his Epistle shewing the number of the Officers and of the poor this was in the middle of the third Age and so not within these 200 years but yet proves not what it is alledged for in Cornelius's time near Anno 360. The number of Officers signifies no such thing as hath been made evident the number of the poor being 1500 rather proves the contrary This was cleared by comparing the proportions of the poor with the rest in other places at Antioch in particular as was shewed out of Chrysostome who reckons the poor to be a tenth part of the Inhabitants and if it was so at Rome in Cornelius's time the Christians were about 15000. This will serve M. B's purpose well enough But the time and circumstances being exceeding different makes it most probable that the Christians then at Rome did nothing near so much exceed the poor in number It is far more likely that the proportions were nearer that at Constantinople where Chrysostom sayes the poor was one half this would spoil all our Authors pretensions and so he advisedly takes no notice of it However something he would say against M. B. if one could understand it It is about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cornelius's Epistle render'd the poor Valesius observes the word is used by the Roman Clergy in an Epistle to those at Carthage sive Viduae sive Thlibomeni i. e. indigentes saith he as Rufinus translates it and tells us also that Cyprian l Ep. 4. calls them pauperes indigentes qui laborant These sayes our Author were not only poor but sick and diseased alledging that of the Roman Clergy for it after Valesius and if he mean not only the poor but the sick also and the diseased he is right for Cornelius signifies those that were maintained by the Church Widows and Indigent whether sick or well But when he sayes these poor were such only as were not able to come abroad he seems to confine it to the sick and diseased and then it contradicts the former and is without reason against the use and import of the word as render'd by all Interpreters former and later that I meet with and indeed against common sense for the number Cornelius speaks of is fixed as that of the Presbyters and Deacons such as may be constantly known and a certain account given of it whereas the number of the sick is not fixed but such a contingency as is very uncertain and various But Cornelius sayes in the same Epistle that the people of his Church were innumerable True that is according to the frequent use of the word very many it is granted they were more than in any other Church as when Dio sayes the Nations conquered by Trajan were innumerable and Socrates expresses those wounded in the fight between the Christians and Heathen in Alexandria about the demolishing of an Idol Temple were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m Lib. 5. c. 15. which in Sozomen is but many n Lib. 7. c. 15. and another antient Author sayes there were innumerable Bishops in Africa which yet this Gentleman can easily count and tells us that Schismaticks and all were but 466 o Pag. 131 M. B. may allow him what he falls short in this reckoning which is more than half and may grant there were many more hundreds of Christians in Rome than any of these innumerables come to and yet make good what he supposes The great liberality of the Roman Church is offered as no small argument of its greatness they sent to a great many Churches releiving those that were in want and sending necessaries to such as were condemned to the Mines thus in Severus's time and in the time of Dionysius the Provinces of Syria with Arabia were thereby relieved every one pag. 53. M. B. need not doubt but some one Parish near him might do what is equivalent to this if the antient Charity were revived which opened the hearts of Christians in those times further than their Purses could well extend But the words are odly stretched for they did not relieve every one in all those places but such as were in great want and those particularly who were condemned to the Mines and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must denote as it were the alsufficiency of the Roman Church which some would say is as it were Blasphemy but our Author meant better the proper import of the word is no more than stipem conferre He alledges two passages in Eusebius p Pag. 54. the former concerns not Rome more than any other place in the Empire the import of it is this not that every soul of every sort but that many of all sorts were lead to the Christian Religion if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be stretched to every soul Eusebius is made to speak what is in a manner notoriously false and monstrously extravagant The later which concerns Rome does but signify that more of Good quality for Riches and Birth with their Families and Relatives came over for Salvation q Lib. 5. c. 21. These he will have to be of the Nobility but those were counted noble who descended from such as had been Magistrates in Cities or free Towns How this can make that Church near so great as our Author would have it or greater than M. B. supposes I don't understand What he subjoyns is very surprizing and must seem Pag. 54. strange to those who are acquainted with the state of Church in those times that the Christians were the better half of the Roman Empire that they were the major part every where but in Rome more eminently This hath no good warrant from antient Authors no not from Tertullian though he writ many years after Commodus He like an Oratour draws something bigger than the life as our Author sayes of Nazianzen pag. 137. and must have allowance on this account by those who will not be injurious to him In that very Age wherein Commodus reigned it is said the Christians were so often slaughtered that few could be sound in Rome who professed the name of Christ r Platina vâ—â— Xysti And near 150 years after when Constantine had reigned near 20 years in Rome the generality of the Inhabitants shewed such disaffection to Christianity as that is given for one reason why he transferred the seat of the Empire to Byzantium Å¿ Zosimus Hist l. 2. p. 61. He runs beyond M. B's bounds towards the middle of the third Century and tells us the greatest part of Alexander Severus his Family were Christians And so they might be and yet no more Christians in Rome for that if they were Christians before they came into his family which is more likely than that they were
may not be Bishop till Anno 350 and so nearer to Optatus his time than Dioclesians 2dly It is no proof of Diocesan Churches that those who belong to it do occasionally divide themselves into distinct Meetings A large Church and sometimes a small Congregation may have occasion to divide and meet in parcels for their convenience or security Particularly in time of Persecution that they may assemble with more safety and be the better concealed from those who would disturb or apprehend them The people that belonged to Cyprian did meet all together on several occasions as is apparent in his Epistles yet when Persecution was hot he thought it advisable cautè non glomeratim nec per multitudinem simul junctam conveniendum l Ep. 5. they durst not in some parts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the beginning of Constantine's Reign m Soz. l. 1. c. 2. Damasus the supposed Author of the Pope's lives sayes Euaristus Titulos Presbyteris divisit divided the Titles in Rome to the Presbyters and by Titles some will have us to understand Parish Churches But it is incredible that the Christians in Trajan's time when Euaristus was Bishop could erect any structures in form of Churches or had any distinguishable from other houses so as the Heathen might take notice of them as used or designed for the religious exercises of Christians Who can imagine that when it was death for any one to be known to be a Christian they should frequent any known places for Christian Worship It is far more reasonable which Platina sayes of Calistus's time more than an hundred years after that then the meeting of Christians were all secret and rather in Chappels and those hidden and for the most part underground than in open and publick places Cum eâ tempestate ob crebras persecutiones occulta essent omnia sacella potius atque eadem abdita plerumque subterranea quam apertis in locis ac publicis fierent Dr. St. sayes I confess it seems not probable to me that those Tituli were so soon divided as the Iren. pag. 357. time of Euaristus who lived in the time of Trajan when the Persecution was hot against the Christians but Damasus seems not to believe himself for in the life of Dionysius he saith Hic Presbyteris Ecclesias divisit His reason concludes as much or more against the Titles under this notion ascribed to Marcellus 200 years after which some will have to be 25 but Onuphrius shews they could not be more than 15 n Interpret Voc. Eccles for Marcellus was Bishop of Rome for six years of the tenth Persecution begun by Dioclesian which was the longest and fiercest that ever befel the Church when the Christians were so far from erecting any Churches that all before erected were by severe Edicts to be quite demolished But what is said of Titles divided by Euaristus may be true in this sense that since they could not safely meet together in the Persecution under Trajan they dispersed themselves into distinct meetings and had Presbyters assigned to officiate in each of them And yet the Christians at Rome were then no more nor long after than might all meet together for Worship and did so when it could be done in safety In the time of Xystus who had the Chair at Rome under Adrian it is said because of the frequent slaughters of the Christians there were few found who durst profess the name of Christ propter frequentes caedes pauci reperirentur qui nomen Christi profiteri auderent o Platina And there was an order in that Church that when the Bishop celebrated all the Presbyters should be present Zepherinus voluit Presbyteros omnes adesse celebrante Episcopo quod etiam Euaristo placuit this is said to be made in the time of Euaristus to whom this division of Titles is ascribed and it was in force an hundred years after being renewed by Zepherinus who was Bishop till Anno 218 about 30 years before Cornelius who speaks of 46. Presbyters at Rome Now the Lords Supper was frequently administred in those times at least every Lords-day and when the Bishop was present he himself did celebrate and if all the Presbyters were to be present when he did celebrate then all the People likewise were to be present or else they had no Publick Worship for they could have none without Bishop or Presbyters 3dly A Church is not proved to be Diocesan by the numbers of Presbyters in it this I have made evident before and made it good against our Authors exceptions But he brings a new instance p Pag. 552. and will have Edessa to have been a Diocesan Church because of the numerous Clergy the Clergy sayes he of the City of Edessa was above 200 persons not reckoning that of the Countrey within his Diocese and this was a Diocesan Bishop to purpose He did well not to reckon that of the Countrey in his Diocese unless he had kown that something of the Countrey was within his Diocese It was not unusual for the Bishops charge to be confined to a Town or City Rome it self is an instance of it q Innocent Ep. ad Decentium Cum omnes Ecclesiae nostrae intra Civitatem constitutae sunt But why it should be judged to be a Diocesan Church because 200 such Persons belonged to it seeing the great Church at C. P. had above 500 Officers assigned it after Justinian had retrenched the numbers r Novel 3. c. 3. and yet was never couned a Diocese I do not well understand But he hath some other reasons for it and because he thinks they prove the Bishop of Edessa to have been a Diocesan to purpose let us on the by a little examine them these he gives in summarily This was a Diocesan Bishop to purpose who besides a large Diocese had excommunicating Archdeacons and a great revenue I find nothing alledged to shew he had a large Diocese or any at all but this the City of Battina was in the Diocese of Edessa for Ibas is accused of having endeavoured to make one John Bishop of it c. Battina had a Bishop of its own how then can it be said to be in the Diocese of Edessa unless Province and Diocese be confounded Edessa was the Metropolis of Mesopotamia the Bishop of it was the third Metropolitan in the Patriarchate of Antioch as they are ordered in the antient Notitia The Bishop of Battina was one of the many Suffragans belonging to that Metropolitan How then comes the Diocese of Edessa to be any wayes large upon this account Is the Diocese of Canterbury one foot the larger because there is a Bishop of Peterborough in that Province These things are not easily apprehended nor can be well digested 2dly The greatness of his Revonue is no more apparent there is nothing to prove it but the riches of that Church and its great Revenues and hereof our Author gives us no
about a City would hardly make a Congregation that is to be ascribed to the condition of those times Dioceses with him were largest in the first times but Bishops being still multiplyed they became less and less and so were very small and crumbled into very little pieces in the fourth and fifth Ages This is the tendency of his discourse all along Thus Dioceses must be largest when a Bishop had but one Congregation but in after ages when he had more Congregations under his inspection Dioceses were very small If he will stand to this our differences may be easily compromized Let him and those of his perswasion be content with the Dioceses in the first ages when he counts them largest and we shall never trouble any to reduce them to the measures of the fourth and fifth ages when in his account they were so lamentably little and crumbled so very small The particulars premised contain enough to satisfie all that I have yet seen alledged out of Antiquity for Diocesan Churches so that no more is needful yet let me add another which will shew there is a medium between Congregational and Diocesan Churches So that if some Churches should be shewed out of the Antients exceeding the Congregational measures as some there were in the times of the four first General Councils yet it cannot thence be immediately inferred that they were Diocesan since they may prove a third sort of Churches and such as will as little please those of this Gentleman's perswasion as Congregational 6. It 's no argument for a Diocesan Church that there were several fixed Churches with their proper Presbyters in a City or its Territory so long as these Churches how many soever were governed in common by the Bishop and Presbyters in such a Precinct For though few instances can be given of such Churches in or belonging to a City in the 4th Age yet wherever they were extant in that or the following Age in things of common concern to those Churches they were ordered in common by a Presbytery that is the Bishop with the Presbyters of that Precinct Jerome declares it de jure they ought to be governed in common in communi debere Ecclesiam regere h In Titus 1. And Felix 3 Bishop of Rome than whom no Bishop was higher or more absolute in those times declares it de facto when he speaks of the Presbyters of that Church as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ruling that Church with him It is the same word that the governing of Churches by other Bishops is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Alexander saith of Narcissus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Euseb l. 6. c 11 It imports no less than praesidere and is ascribed to Bishops and Presbyters jointly by Tertullian k Apol. c. 39 Cyprian l Lib. 1. Ep. 3. and Firmilian m Ep. 75 Hence the Presbyters are frequently said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Bishop n Theod. Hist l. 4. c. 8. Epiphan Her 42. for then the Governing power of Bishops was but counted a Ministry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o Isidore Lib. 4. Ep. 260. and the Presbyters fellow Ministers with him and joint Administrators in the Government They are styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p Naz. Orat. 1. Orat. 7. fellow Pastors they did not then dream that a Bishop was sole Pastor of many Churches They are also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q Ignat. ad Tral in Chrysost Tom 7. Hom. ζ. a. for the Presbyters had their Thrones with the Bishop So Nazianzen speaks of Basil when ordained Presbyter as promoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Sacred Thrones of the Presbyters r Orat. 20. They are also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s Chyys in Tim. Hom. 1. But further evidence is needless though abundance may be produced since the great Patrons of Episcopacy seems not to question it that the Church was governed in common and the Bishop was to do nothing of importance without the Presbyters it is acknowledged by Bishop Bilson t Perpet Govern Cap. 11. Bishop Downham u Defence lib. 3. L. 1. c. 8. Bishop Hall asserts it as that which is Vniversally accorded by all antiquity that all things in the antient Church were ordered and transacted by the general consent of Presbyters w Iren. P. 47. Mr. Thorndike proves at large that the Government of Churches passed in common x Prim. Govern Primate Vsher more succinctly but effectually y Reduct of Episcopacy Add but Dr. St. who both asserts and proves it z Iren. Pag. 354. 355. 356. there was still one Ecclesiastical Senate which ruled all the several Congregations of those Cities in common of which the several Presbyters of the Congregations were Members and in which the Bishop acted as the President of the Senate for the better Governing the affairs of the Church c. Let me add when the Churches were so multiplyed in City and Territory as that it was requisite to divide them into Parishes and constitute several Churches the Bishop was not the proper Ruler or Pastor of the whole Precinct and the Churches in it or of any Church but one The Parishes or Churches were divided among Presbyters and Bishop they had their several distinct cures and charges the Bishops peculiar charge was the Ecclesia principalis the chief Parish or Church so called or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Presbyters performed all Offices in their several Cures and ordered all affairs which did particularly concern the Churches where they were incumbents those that were of more common concern were ordered by Bishop and Presbyters together and thus it was in the Bishops Church or Parish he performed all Offices administred all Ordinances of Worship himself or by Presbyters joyned with him as Assistants He was to attend this particular cure constantly he was not allowed to be absent no not under pretence of taking care for some other Church if he had any business there which particularly concerned him he was to make quick dispatch and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Zonaras stay there with the neglect of his proper flock this is all evident by a Canon of the Council of Carthage a Rursum r In Zona N. 77 in Code 71. placuit ut nemini sit facultas relicta principali Cathedra ad aliquam Ecclesiam in Diocesi constitutam se conferre vel in re propria diutius quam oportet constitutum curam vel frequentationem propriae Cathedrae negligere Of this Church or Parish he was the proper Pastor or Ruler called there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and elsewhere b Can. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in contradistinction to other parts of the Precinct called here Dioceses and the people of it are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the ancient Canonist c Zona in loc his proper flock or people his own
their was not near so many this Gentleman is concerned to maintain there was not one thousand in the whole Christian World This is more than enough to shew that there is sufficient warrant to Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thousands more than once though that it is in that discourse which he stiles a little Pamphlet so translated more then once is another of his mistakes And a third all in two lines is that the Author grounds his Argument on it Whereas those that view the passage and the occasion of it will see it had been more for his advantage to have translated it ten thousands He that can allow himself to write at this rate may easily be voluminous and look too big to be despised as a writer of little Pamphlets The Letter mentioned pag. 45. being communicated to me by M. B. that part of it which concerns Alexandria is here added that it may appear how much it is mistaken and how farr from being answered For Alexandria it was the greatest City in the Empire next to Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Josephus de bello Judaic lib. 5. c. cult And Epiphanius gives an account of many Churches in it assigned to several Presbyters viz. besides Caesarea finished by Athanasius that of Dionysius Theonas Pierius Serapion Perseas Dizia Mundidius Annianus Baucalas adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haeres 69. page 728 This notwithstanding that the Christians at Alexandria which held Communion with Athanasius might and did meet together in one Church he himself declares expresly in his Apology to Constantius page 531. Tom. 1. Edit Commelin Anno 1601. The whole passage is too large to transcribe or translate this is the sence of it He being accused for assembling the People in the great Church before it was dedicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes this part of his defence The confluence of the People at the Paschal solemnity was so great that if they had met in several assemblies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other Churches were so little and strait that they would have been in danger of suffering by the crowd nor would the universal harmony and concurrence of the People have been so visible and effectual if they had met in parcels Therefore he appeals to him whether it was not better for the whole multitude to meet in that great Church being a place large enough to receive them altogether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to have a concurrence of all the people with one voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if says he according to our Saviviours promise where two shall agree as touching any thing it shall be done for them of my Father c. How prevalent will be the one voice of â—â— numerous a People assembled together and saying Amen to God Who therefore would not wonder who would not count it a happiness to see so great a People met together in one place And how did the people rejoice to behâ—ld one another whereas formerly they assembled in several places Hereby it is evident that in the middle of the fourth Age all the Christians at Alexandria which were wont at other times to meet in several assemblies were no more than one Church might and did contain so as they could all join at once in the Worship of God and concurre in one Amen He tells him also that Alexander his Predecessor who died An. 325 did as much as he in like circumstances viz. assembled the whole multitude in one Church before it was dedicated pag. 532. This seems clear enough but being capable of another kind of proof which may be no less satisfactory let me add that also This City was by Strabo his description of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like a Soldiers Coat whose length at either side was almost 3â— Furlongs its breadth at either end 7 or 8 urlongs Geogr. lib. 17. pag. 546. so the whole compass will be less than ten Miles A third or fourth part of this was taken up with publick Buildings Temples and Royal Palaces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. two Miles and half or three and a quarter is thus disposed of I take this to be that Region of the City which Epiphanius calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he tells us was the famous Library of Ptolomeus Philadelphus and speaks of it in his time as destitute of Inhabitants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Ponder mensur n. 9. p. 166 A great part of the City was assigned to the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Strabo indefinitely as Josephus quotes him Antiquit. Jud. l. 14. c. 12. Others tells us more punctually their share was two of the five divisions Ushers Annals Latin pag. 859. Though many of them had their habitation in the other divisions yet they had two fifth parts entire to themselves and this is I suppose the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Josephus saith the Successors of Alexander set apart for them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bello Jud. l. 2. cap. 21. Thus we see already how 6 or 7 miles of the 10 were taken up The greatest part of the Citizens as at Rome and other Cities in the beginning of the 4th Age were Heathens Otherwise Antonius wrong'd the City who iâ— Athanasius's time is brought in thus exclaiming by Jerom. vit Paul p. 243. Vae tibi Alexandria quae pro Deo portenta veneraris vae tibi civitas mereâ—â—ix in quam totius orbis daemonia confluxere c. a Charge thus formed supposes the prevailing party to be guilty But let us suppose them equa and their proportion half of the 3 or 4 miles remaining Let the rest be divided amongst the Orthodox the Arrians the Novatians and other Sects And if we be just a large part will fall to the share of Hereticks and Sectaries For not to mention others the Novatians had several Churches and a Bishop there till Cyrils time vid. Socrat. Hist l. 7. c. 7. The Arians were a great part of those who professed Christianity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. Hist l. 1. c. 14. and if we may judge of the followers by their leaders no loss than half For whereas there were 19 Presbyters and Deacons in that Church Theod. Hist l. 4. c. 23. 12 was the number of their Presbyters by their Antient Constitution as appears by Eutychius and 7 their Deacons as at Rome and elsewhere 6 Presbyters with Arius and 5 Deacons fell off from the Catholicks Sozom. Hist l. 1. c. 14. But let the â—rians be much fewer yet will not the proportion of the Catholick Bishops Diocese iâ— this City be more than that of a small Town one of 8 or 12 Furlongs in compass And so the numbers of the Christians upon this account will be no more than might well meet for Worship in one place FINIS