a Trade or Husbandry with this proviso that it be not a prejudice to their Office Our Author sayes indeed (h) Pag. 154. that this is contrary to the usage of all other Churches how true this is may be seen by the Canon before cited He sayes also that this is forbidden by the 3 d. Council of Carthage but neither is this so that Canon adds but another restriction viz. that they get not their livings by an employment that is sordid or dishonest where the i Can. 15. in Cod. 16. Latine and Greek both agree in it 3ly The Church was to allow none of them no not Bishops more than necessary even after Constantine's time That Canon call'd the Apostles and the other Antioch forecited express this in the same words the Bishop may have of the Church Stock what is needfull if he be necessitous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for necessary uses and these are afterwards explain'd to be food and rayment Zonaras expresses it fully and clearly whom he that the Canon doth not satisfie may consult Having shew'd out of Justinian that 60 Presbyters belonged to the great Church in Constantinople and thence inferr'd they were numerous in Constantine's time the number sayes he was become extravagant in Justinians time but what is this to their number in Cyprian's He should have asked the Dean this who to prove Diocesan Churches from the number of Presbyters immediately after Testimonies out of Cyprian brings this of Justinian For this very edict of Justinian shews that this multiplying of Church Officers was an innovation and therefore would have them reduced to the first establishment Justinian took order to retrench the numbers of Presbyters not therefore because it was an innovation but because the Church revenue could not maintain so many which is express in the Novel But that first establishment it seems admitted great numbers for one Church had 60. True but it must also be noted first that these 60 were to serve more than one Church Some may be ready to ask how it can be true that one Church should have 60 and yet more than one had these 60 amongst them For there were three more besides St. Sophia to be supplyed by these Presbyters c. True but this still confirms what I answer'd to their argument from the multitude of Presbyters that in the antient Church the Officers were multiplyed above what we count needful For it is not now thought needful that any 3 or 4 Churches in a City should have 60 Presbyters 100 Deacons 90 Subdeacons Readers 110. c. Yet after all there is no argument to be drawn from this number for these were Canons of a particular foundation design'd for the service of a Collegiate Church and no measure to be taken from thence concerning the numbers of Presbyters belonging to the Diocess This is evident from the Preface of the said Novel If no argument is to be drawn from this number why did the Learned Dean draw one from it 2ly This seems scarce consistent with the former Period there these Presbyters were for 3 or 4 Churches here they are but for one Collegiate Church of which they were Canons and this said to be evident in the Preface where I cannot see it 3ly Since no measure is to be taken from hence concerning the numbers of Presbyters belonging to a Diocess it seems there may be this number of Presbyters in a place which cannot be counted a Diocess as this one great Church never was nor can be and then no argument drawn from the number of Presbyters at Rome Carthage Edessa c. will prove a Diocesan Church for here was the greatest number which any where we meet with Dr. St. to prove Diocesan Churches from the numerousness of Presbyters mentioned 60 in C. P. in Justinian's time from hence on the by I thought it reasonable to suppose they were numerous in Constantine's time when yet Theodoret sayes all the Brethren met together with the Bishop That the number of Presbyters is no proof of a Diocesan Church was evinced sufficiently before this fell in occasionally and was added ex abundanti Yet upon this supernumerary stragler he turns his main force spending about 12 Pages on it I am little concerned what becomes of it since the main Hypothesis is already secured by the premisses but that this Gentleman may not quite loose all his labour I am willing to loose a little in taking some notice of it I must confess that what is added concerning the Church of C. P. is somewhat surprizing no doubt sayes he that the Presbyters were more numerous in C. P. Indeed it might have been surprizing if I had said as he reports me that they were more numerous but I saw reason not to say so though what reason there was to impose it on me I know not I cited Soc misprinted Soz. saying Constantine built two Churches at C. P. but laid no stress on it at all (k) Soc. l. 1. c. 12. It is true he sayes not that he built no more than two but his expression plainly implyes it and he was concerned if he had known any more to have mention'd it when in the same Line he sayes Constantine intended to make it equal to Rome Eusebius's words agree well enough herewith he sayes Constantine adorn'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with more Churches and that 's true if he built but two more or any more than was there formerly or any more than was usual And these more Churches were not in the City but as the Historian speaks partly there and partly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as the word is used may denote places many Miles distant from the City as the Gentleman elsewhere observes after Valesius Sozomen sayes he built 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Churches not very many as he will have it but if he thereby meant more than are named by Socrates we need not understand that done before the time Theodoret speaks of Nor should a lax expression be more relyed on than one that is punctual and definite unless we have a mind either to be misled or to set the two Historians together by the ears Sozomen names but one Church more than Socrates did and that not in but a good distance from the City 70 Furlongs by Land and 3 may pass for many when it was a rare thing for any City to have more than one The best Authors as they sometimes express very few by none and a generality by all so they express more than ordinary by many and two or three such Churches in one City were more than ordinary at that time when one City in an Hundred had not two Churches and one in a Thousand had not three Churches that could be styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that Constantine built here were such both Eusebius his more and Sozomen's many are said by them to be very great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But no considerable Author that I meet
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
there might have been some pretence for what he sayes but there is not any hint of this in the whole Epistle That which is desired is a Meeting for conference Hoc est ergo desiderium nostrum c. Primum si fieri potest ut cum Episcopis nostris pacificè conferatis ideo nos conferre volumus and the prime occasion of it was the outrages committed in that Region by the Donatists wherein the Bishops of that place were particularly concerned This is signifyed as in other parts of the Epistle so particularly in the passage cited Episcopos nostros qui sunt in Regione Hipponensi ubi tanta mala patimur This Meeting was to be with the Catholick Bishops upon the place in Regione Hipponensi not any to be call'd from other parts And these words seem brought in to prevent an objection which the Donatists might make against a more general or more publick meeting as that which might bring them in danger of the Laws in force against them An fortè istae leges Imperatoris vos non permittunt nostros Episcopos convenire and then immediately follows these words in answer to it Ecce interim Episcopos nostros qui sunt in Regione Hipponensi c. so that this to me seems the plain sence of both Objection and answer If because of the Laws you dare not meet us in a more General or Provincial Council yet give a Meeting to the Bishops of this particular Region where there can be no apprehension of danger All which makes me judge what he sayes concerning the Bishops of the Province as here intended to be no better than an Evasion To prove that there was but one Bishop in the Region of Hippo he tells us That the Clergy there called in the Inscription of an Epistle Clerici Regionis Hipponensium speaking of the Bishop of Hippo do call him their Bishop and not one of their Bishops c. But the Clergy so called may be only the Clergy of Hippo and so they are in the Title of the Epistle Clerici Hippone Catholici and well may they of Hippo be called the Clergy of the Region both because they were in that Region and were the Clergy of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if the expression should be extended to more or to all in the Region their calling him Episcopus noster will be no proof that they had no other Bishop but him at Hippo. For that phrase Episcopus noster or Episcopi nostri all along in this Epistle doth not denote the Bishop of that particular Church to which they belonged as he would have it but a Bishop of their party or perswasion So they call Valentinus nostrum Catholicum Episcopum who yet was not Bishop of Hippo. So they call them Episcopos nostros whom they desired the Donatists to meet once and again w pag. 373 and thrice in another page where our Author finds Episcopos nostros x pag. 371. He may have many more instances hereof in that Epistle If there was so many Bishops in Hippo or in that Region as the Clergy call Episcopos nostros he must grant many more Bishops in that Region than I need desire So that this Phrase however it be understood is a medium unhappily chosen if it be taken in my sense it is impertinent and can conclude nothing for him if it be taken in his own sense it will conclude directly against him He passes to Alexandria and to pag. 32. The instance of Mareotis he sayes little to so our Author I might think it enough where there was so little occasion He insinuates as if Mareotis might not have number enough of Christians to have a Bishop but this Athanasius does sufficiently shew to be a groundless conjecture I had no intention or occasion to signifie that Mareotis had not Christians enough to have a Bishop I knew that it both had many Christians and a Bishop also and named him too and therefore the groundless conjecture may be fixed somewhere else And even before Athanasius the generality of the People there were Christians How long before Dionysius in the latter part of the third Age declares it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quite destitute of Christians y Euseb l. 7. c. 11. and the gaining the generality there to the Faith required some considerable time and it is like proceeded not far till Christianity generally prevailed Besides Ischyras I had mentioned Dracontius both Bishops in the Territory of Alexandria as Agathammon also was z Apol. 2. p. 612. of Dracontius he takes notice and sayes possibly he was a Chorepiscopus But a Chorepiscopus is elsewhere with him a Diocesan a and here he sayes that he did accept a pag. 590. Bishoprick Now these put together will go near to make a Diocesan Bishop But then if there were two or three Bishops in the Diocess of Alexandria besides Athanasius they will scarce be so much as half Diocesans He sayes Athanasius press'd him to accept it If so this great Person was no more unwilling to have another Bishop in his Diocess and in a Countrey place too than Austin was to have one at Fussala He sayes further this was an extraordinary case though what was extraordinary in it I cannot imagine to prove any thing there mentioned to be so will be an hard task And allowing this man a Countrey Bishoprick that of Alexandria would be a great deal too bigg for the Congregational measure And so it might be and yet be no Diocesan Church if that will satisfie him which is too big for those measures he seems content to drop his cause and may leave it in the hands of Presbyterians And he is in the more danger because he seems not apprehensive of it but counts it enough if he thinks a Church is any where found larger than one Congregation I had given instances of several Towns that had Bishops and were but two or three or four c. miles distant one from another this he denies not but asks what does this conclude might not those Diocesses be yet much larger than one Congregation I might conclude that these were just such Diocesses as our Countrey Parishes are and had such Congregations as those Parish Churches have And some of them in time might have provision as some of ours have for more Congregations than one And if our modern Diocesses were of this proportion they would be much more conformable to the antient Modells Suppose the chief Congregations of Holland had each a Bishop yet I conceive they would be Diocesans though those Cities lie very close together He might have laid the scene at home where we are better acquainted and supposed this of our Countrey Towns or of both the chief and lesser Towns in Holland if he had designed what would be most parallel But to take it as it is formed though those Cities lay not further distant and had each of them a Bishop yet if their Churches were
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
universi in majorem Ecclesiam conveniebant ut ibidem testatur Athanasius but all of them assembled together in the great Church as Athanasius testifies So that there can be no pretence that the Church in Alexandria was Diocesan at this time unless those who could meet together in one place might make such a Church Yet this was then the greatest Church in the Empire save that at Rome and what he adds makes that at Rome very unlike such Diocesan Churches as are now asserted Valesius inferrs from the same passage of Pope Innocent's Epistle to Decentius which Petavius brings to prove the contrary that though there were several Titles or Churches in Rome then and had been long before yet none of them was as yet appropriated to any Presbyter but they were served in common as great Cities in Holland and some other reformed Countreys that have several Churches and Ministers c. The Advocates for these Churches who assign the bounds of a Diocess with most Moderation will have it to comprize a City with a Territory belonging to it but there was no Church in the Territory which belonged to the Bishop of Rome he had none but within the City as Innocentius declares in the cited Epistle whereas now the greatest City with a Territory larger than some antient Province is counted little enough for a Diocess Further it is now judged to be no Diocess which comprises not very many Churches with Presbyters appropriated to them but he tells us none of the Churches in Rome were appropriated to any Presbyter but they were served in common How as greater Cities in Holland and some other reformed Countreys and then they were ruled in common as these Cities are The Government of many Churches is not there nor was of old ever entrusted in one hand and thus the Bishop of Rome was no more a Diocesan than the Presbyters of that City He concludes m Pag. 66. with two Assertions which will neither of them hold good The first that it is evident out of Athanasius how the Bishop of that City had from the beginning several fixed Congregations under him This is so far from being evident in Athanasius that he hath not one word which so much as intimates that the Bishop of Alexandria from the beginning had any such Congregations under him The other is that those of Mareotes must be supposed to receive the faith almost as early as Alexandria How true this is we may understand by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria towards the latter end of the third Age who declares that then Mareotes was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n Euseb l. 7. c. 11. it was so far from having any true Christians in it that it had none of our Author 's old Christians i. e. virtuous good men o pag. 60. Nor is it likely that the faith was there generally received till many years after and therefore not almost so early as Alexandria unless the distance of above 200 years will consist with his almost For Alexandria received the Faith by the preaching of Mark who arrived there sayes Eusebius in the 2d of Claudius p Chron. Euseb others in the 3d. of Caligula q Chron. Alex. But in the time of Dionysius it doth not appear that Mareotes had so many Christians as Bishop Ischyras his Church there consisted of though those were but seven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r Athan. Apol. 2. pag. 615. But enough of Alexandria though our Author is far from bringing enough to prove it even in the 4th age a Diocesan Church He may be excused for doing his utmost to this purpose considering the consequence of it for if this Church was not now so numerous as to be Diocesan it will be in vain to expect a discovery of any such Churches in the whole Christian World in those times for this is acknowledged to be the greatest City and Church in the Roman Empire next to Rome So that there cannot be so fair a pretence for any other inferiour to this such as Jerusalem Carthage Antioch c. much less for ordinary Cities which were 10 times less considerable than some of the former as may be collected from what Chrysostome sayes of one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was able to maintain the poor of ten Cities ſ In Mat Hom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So far the Writer of the Letter Let me now return to our Author's Preface To shew that the Christians in Alexandria adhereing to Athanasius were not so exceeding numerous as is pretended and not to be compared with the Christians now in London I had said that the greatest part of the Inhabitants of that City were at this time Heathens or Jews of those who passed for Christians it is like Athanasius had the lesser share u Pag. 34. the Novatians and other Sects the Meletians especially and the Arians did probably exceed his flock in numbers it may be the Arians there were more numerous This last clause which appears by the expression I was not positive in he alone sixes on and would disprove it by a passage out of Athanasius But the Greek is false printed and and the sense defective for want of some word and so no Judgment can be well passed thereon unless I saw it and where to see it he gives no direction My concern therein is not so great as to search for it through so voluminous an Author It will serve my turn well enough if the Arians were but very numerous or as Sozomen expresses them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 w Lib. 1. c. 14 which cannot be denied though they alone were not more numerous The last thing he would take notice of is the Diocess of Theodoret but this is remitted to the Dean of Paul's yet one thing he sayes he cannot omit though some may think that he had better have passed it as he had many other things than being so much in haste to slip at almost every line as he does in those few which concern it If these 800 Churches not 80 as this Gentleman reckons them it was not he but the Printer that so reckoned them as the Errata shew belonged to him as Metropolitan and they were all Episcopal Churches I never met with any before that took them for Episcopal Churches and how he should fall into this mistake I cannot imagine I will not believe that he creates it to make himself work this poor Region of Cyrus would have more Bishops than all Africa not so neither for by the conference at Carthage and the abbreviation of it by St. Austin much more to be relyed on than the Notitia published by Simond which is neither consistent with others nor with it self Africa had many more Bishops than 800 notwithstanding they were more numerous there than in any part of the World besides Nor will this pass for true with those who take his own account concerning their numbers in Africa which
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
these dayes saith he hath for most part a peculiar signification differing from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in those daies The latter signifies an indefinite time sometimes a good way off but the former generally denotes a certain time then present instantly then at that time so here that which is said of Mary's going to Elizabeth was sure immediately after the departing of the Angel from her and therefore it is said she rose up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very hastily so ver 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. immediately Elizabeth conceived so chap. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. then at that point of time he went out to the Mountain See Chap. 23. 7. c. 24. 18. Acts 1. 5. c. 11. 27. and 21. 15. Immediately after the choice of the Deacons Stephen one of the Seven is apprehended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as soon as ever he was ordained as if he had been ordained for this alone saith Eusebius l. 2. c. 1. And at the same time the Persecution began which dispersed that Church Whereas he saith whatsoever numbers were forced away it is likely they returned if he understand it of the strangers driven from Jerusalem that they returned to fix there or otherwise than occasionally it is no more likely nor will be sooner proved than what he asserts a little after pag. 444. viz. that the empty Sepulcher preached with no less efficacy than the Apostles This is enough to satisfy what our Author would draw out of Scripture concerning the Church of Jerusalem After some trifling about Objections which he forms himself and then makes sport with he comes to prove that Jerusalem was a Diocesan Church in the Apostles time But first he would have us believe that James was the proper Bishop of that Church and would evince it by two Testimonies that of Clemens and Hegesippus But what sayes his Clemens He saith not only that James was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem presently after our Saviours Ascension but what I think our Author was loth to mention If he had given us the intire sentence it might have been better understood After the Ascension of our Saviour Peter James and John the most honoured by our Lord would not yet contend for the first degree of honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but chose James the just Bishop of Jerusalem Apostolorum Episcopum Ruffinus reads it This seems to signify that his being made a Bishop there was some degree of Honour above their being Apostles A learned Romanist tells us q Valâ—â— that the books where Eusebius had this did so abound with Errours that they were not thought worth preserving and so are lost as those of Papias and Hegisippus are for the same reason this may prove one instance of those many Errours That which seems to be the sense of his words is more fully expressed by one who goes under the name of Clemens too r l. 2. Recognit James the Lord's Brother was Prince of Bishops and by his Episcopal Authority commanded all the Apostles and so the former Clemens in Ruffinus calls him the Bishop of the Apostles Å¿ Hist l. â— c. 2. If he means such a Bishop as ours and otherwise his meaning will not serve our Authors purpose then the Apostles were but the Vicars or Curates of James This is bad enough if James was an Apostle the absurdest Papist will scarce ascribe as much to Peter But if he was not an Apostle it is yet more intolerable If our Author can believe his own Witness some may admire but I think few will follow him Let us hear Hegesippus not quite so antient as this Gentleman makes him since he was alive in the Reign of Commodus he sayes James ruled that Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we take this as it is render'd in Jerome after the Apostles it is not only against Grammar but without Truth and makes James to be Bishop when he was dead for he was martyred about the 4th of Nero and all the Apostles but the other James survived him But if the meaning be that he ruled that Church with the Apostles it speaks him no more the Bishop of Jerusalem than the rest of the Apostles who were not fixed or topical Bishops but Oecumenical Officers of an extraordinary Office and Power and accordingly is James described One antient Author sayes that he no less than Peter did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Epiphanius reports t Heres Cerdon that Hyginus after James Peter and Paul was the ninth Bishop of Rome successively signifying that he was as much Bishop of Rome as Paul and Peter I need not quote that other Author who sayes he ruled the holy Church of the Hebrews as also he did all Churches every where founded u Ep. to James However certain it is that James was Bishop of Jerusalem not only from Hegisippus and Clemens Alex. but also from St. Paul who mentions him as one of the Apostles that he had Conversed with in Jerusalem and it is likely there were no more there at that time but he and Peter This is no way certain from Clemens and Hegesippus and so far from being certain by St. Paul that his mentioning him as an Apostle makes it rather certain that he was not a Bishop for the Offices of an Apostle and of a Bishop are inconsistent as is acknowledged and proved by an excellent Person of your own w Dr. Barrow Suprem p. 120 121. The Offices of an Apostle and of a Bishop are not in their nature well consistent for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office charged with the instruction and Government of the whole World and calling for an answerable care the Apostles being Rulers as St. Chrysostom saith ordained by God Rulers not taking several Nations and Cities but all of them in common intrusted with the whole world but Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to one place and requiring a special attendance there Bishops being Pastors who as Chrysostome saith do sit and are imployed in one place Now he that hath such a general care can hardly discharge such a particular Office and he that is fixed to so particular an attendance can hardly look well after so general a charge c. Baronius saith of St. Peter that it was his Office not to stay in one place but as much as it was possible for one man to travel over the whole world and to bring those who did not yet believe to the Faith and throughly to establish believers If so how could he be Bishop of Rome which was an Office inconsistent with such vagrancy It would not have beseemed St. Peter the prime Apostle to assume the charge of a particular Bishop it had been a degradation of himself a disparagement to the Apostolical Majesty for him to take upon him the Bishoprick of Rome as if the King should become Mayor of London as if the Bishop of London should be Vicar of Pancras And little
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
which had a metropolitan and suffragans before and being now destitute the Bishops in the Vicinity were careful to provide others Which being so that it should be part of Basil's Province seems as incongruous as if it were said that the Province of York is part of the Province of Canterbury but if this could be digested that one Province is part of another yet Isauria would rather be part of Amphilochius his province who as he tells us was to constitute a Metropolitan and other Bishops therein than of Basil's who is only represented as giving advice about it Or if giving advice and direction would prove any thing of this nature the Papists might think it a good argument that Africa was part of the Roman Province because Leo Bishop of Rome gives advise how Bishops should be there constituted e Ibid. Next he brings in the Chore-piscopi in order to his design and tells us f Pag. 550. they were Countrey Bishops and their Church consisted of many Congregations and those at a good distance one from another and also that some of them had the inspection of a large Territory no less it is like than the County of Fussala But not a word for proof of this save Basil's mentioning a Chor-episcopus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of some places Whereas if he had been the Bishop of two or three Villages this might be enough to satisfie the import of that expression Yet he knows there is some one Countrey Parish that hath ten times as many or more Villages in it but never pretended to be a Diocesan Church and that such a pretence would be now counted ridiculous He adds that which if it were true wouldgo near to dethrone these Countrey Bishops for Basil speaks of them as having their Thrones in Villages and render them less than antient Presbyters for all their large Territory and there being Diocesans But yet these were but the Deputies or Surrogates of the City Bishops in point of jurisdiction for they were to do nothing of moment without their Bishop If this be so it would be less wonder that the Pope will have Bishops to be but his substitutes and that some Bishops will have the Pastors of Parochial Churches to be but their Vicars or Curates I hope our Author intends better however it is well that such odd Hypotheses have no better support than that which is added for sayes he they were to do nothing of moment without their Bishop this is his argument and he is not alone in urging it Let us see whether it will not do the Bishops for whose advancement it is designed as much disservice as it can do the Chorepiscopi or Presbyters divesting them of that which is counted more necessary and advantagious to them than a large Diocese The Provincial Bishops were obliged to do nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop of the Metropolis this the synod at Antioch decrees according to an antient Canon of the Fathers g Can. 9. Can. Apost 35. Concil Milev Can. 13. By this argument we must conclude that the Bishops in a Province were but the Deputies and Surrogates of the Metropolitan And it may proceed proportionably against the Metropolitans with respect to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primates and also to their prejudice in reference to the Patriarchs It will go near to destroy the Bishops likewise if we follow it downwards In the antient Church the Bishops were to do nothing of moment without the Presbyters this the most judicious and Learned Asserters of Episcopacy acknowledge h B. Bilson Dr. Field Dr. Downham B. Hall M. Thorndike B. Usher Nay further in the best Ages of the Church the Bishops were to do nothing without the people that is without their presence and consent This is most evident in Cyprian's Epistles and is acknowledged by such Prelatists as are otherwise reserved enough i Vide defence of Dr. St. Pag. 407. Now by this Argument we may conclude that Bishops were but the Deputies or Surrogates of the Presbyters or which will be counted more intolerable that Bishops had their jurisdiction from the people by Deputation and Vicarage It may be this Gentleman will not like his argument so well when he sees what improvement it is capable of yet in pursuance of it he adds Basil is so resolute upon his prerogative that he will not endure they should ordain as much as the inferiour Clergy without his consent and if they do let them know sayes he that whosoever is admitted without our consent shall be reputed but a Layman I suppose the Prerogative for which he will have Basil so resolute is a Negative in ordinations upon the Countrey Bishops but this cannot be concluded from the words cited For the Council of Nice gives the Metropolitan a power as to ordinations in the same words k Can. 6. declaring that if a Bishop be ordained by the Provincials 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the judgment of the Metropolitan the great Council will have him accounted no Bishop and yet the Metropolitan had no Negative upon the Provincials in Ordinations for the same Council determines that in ordinations plurality of Votes shall prevail which is utterly inconsistent with any ones Negative voice What then is the import of Basil's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take it in the words of a very Learned and Judicious Dr. of this Church it is indeed there said that none should be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the opinion of the Metropolitan but that doth not import a Negative voice in him but that the transaction should not pass in his absence or without this knowledge advice and suffrage c. l Barrow of the Popes Supremacy Pag. 314 5. It is no proof of a Diocesan Church to shew that a Town besides the Clergy or Officers in it had some Presbyters or Congregations in the Countrey belonging to it The instances which signifie no more or not so much are produced as sufficient arguments to prove there were such Churches As that of Gaius Diddensis Presbyter supposed with what ground I examine not to have been a Countrey Presbyter belonging to Carthage and under Cyprian m Vindication p. 504. And that of Felix said to do the Office of a Presbyter under Decimus another Presbyter a thing unheard of in those times but let us take it as we find it and upon the very slender reason alledged against Goulartius who is of another Judgment believe that he was a Priest in some Village belonging to Caldonius his Diocese n Pag. 506. 507. And that order for the Presbyters from their Churches to repair to their proper Bishop for Chrism in Africa o Con. 4. Can. 36. in Spain p Tol. 1. Cap. 20. and in France q Vascon Can. 3. To these are added for further evidences the Churches said without ground to be many belonging to Hippo Diaeritorum Also the Church of Thyana belonging to
they were of the very same Office for Bishops in the antient Church were not a superiour Order to Presbyters but had only a Precedency in the same Order This some of the most judicious and learned Defenders of Episcopacy assert And those who hold that Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops differed not in Order but in degree only which is the common opinion of Episcopal Divines and yet contend that Bishops and Presbyters were of a different order will never be able to prove it The difference they assign between Bishops and Metropolitans is that these presided in Synode and had a principal interest in Ordinations and what more did the preeminence of antient Bishops distinguishing them from Presbyters amount to It consisted in nothing material but their presidency in Presbyteries and their power in Ordinations This last is most insisted on as making the difference wider between these than the other But with little reason all things considered For those to be ordained were first to be examined and approved by the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t Theophilus Commonitor cap. 6. the ordaining of one to the Presbytery was to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 u Clem. Constitut lib. 8. cap. 18. It was a crime for which the greatest Bishop in the World was censurable to preferr any or make Ordinations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by what Chrysostome was accused of though it is like falsly w Phot. in Chry Tom. 8. pag. 155 Concil Carth. â— cap. 22. Turon 2 and this is counted by some the substance of Ordination wherein the Presbyters had no less share to say no more than the Bishop And in imposing hands which was the Rite of Ordaining the Presbyters were to concurr with the Bishop for which there is better Authority than the Canon of an African Council for saith a very learned Doâ—â—or x Iren. p. 27â— to this purpose the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery y 1 Tim. 1. â— is no ways impertinently alledged although we suppose St. Paul â—o concurr in the action because if the Presbytery had nothing to do in the Ordination to what purpose were their hands laid upon him Was it only to be Witnesses of the fact or to signifie their consent Both these might have been done without their use of that Ceremony which will scarce be instanced in to be done by any but such as had power to conferr what was signifyed by that Ceremony And diverse instances are brought by the same hand to shew that Ordinations by Presbyters was valid in the antient Church z pag. 379. But if the Presbyters had been quite excluded from Ordination and this power had been intirely reserved to the Bishops yet this would not be sufficient to constitute them a superiour Order For the Rite of Ordaining was so farr from being an act of Government or jurisdiction that it did not inferre any superiority in the Ordainer nothing being more ordinary in the practice of the Antient Church than for those were of a lower Degree and Station to Ordain their Superiours While there was no more distance betwixt Bishop and Presbyters but only in Degree so that as the Bishop was but primus Presbyter as Hilary under the name of Ambrose and others a In 1 Tim. Autor Quest in V. â—t N. T. or Primicerius as Optatus defined by a Learned Civilian to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Gothofrid in Code the first Presbyter so the Presbyter was a second Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nazianzen As the Bishop was summus sacerdos in the style of Tertullian and others that is cheif Presbyter so the Presbyter was Bishop a degree lower not that he had less pastoral power but because he wanted that degree of dignity or preeminence for which the other was styled chief As the Praeter Vrbanus was called Maximus yet he had no more Power than the other Praetorum idem erat collegium eadem potestas c Bodin lib. 3. c. 6. but only some more priviledge and dignity dignitate coeteros anteibat propterea maximus dicebatur d Fest in verb. major and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was Praetor maximus yet all the rest were pares potestaet e Ibid. Bishops and Presbyters had idem ministerium as Jerome eadem Ordinatio as Hilary f In 1 Tim. 3. they were of the same Order and Office had the same power the power of the Keys all that which the Scripture makes essential to a Bishop While it was thus there could be no Diocesan Churches that is no Churches consisting of many Congregations which had but one Bishop only POST-SCRIPT A Late Writer presumes he has detected a notable mistake in the Author of No Evidence for Diocesan Churches ascribed to one who owns it not about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I suppose he would have Translated Ten Thousands definitely but there it is rendred indefinitely thousands as we are wont to express a great many when the precise number is not known Those who understand the Language and have observed the use of the Word will be farr from counting this a fault and those who view the passage will count it intolerable to render it as that Gentleman would have it That of Atticus Bishop of C. P. may satisfie any concerning the import and use of the word who sending mony for the releif of the poor at Nice to Calliopius he thus writes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he tells him that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he understands a multitude whose number he did not exactly know thus i. e. indefinitely is the word most frequently used by Greek Writers and particularly by Eusebius the Author of the passage cited So he tells us Nero killed his Hist l. 2. c. Mother his Brothers his Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of her Kindred And Timotheus of Gaza he â— l. 8. C. 13. says indured 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many more might be added where the word is not rendred by the best Translators Valesius particularly ten thousand but still indefinitly innumerabiles or infiniti or sexcenti c. Nor have I met with one instance though possibly there may be some in him where it is used to express ten thousand precisely However it had been an unpardonable injury to Eusebius to have rendred it so in this place as if he would have deluded the World with a most palpable untruth which both he and all men acquainted with the state of the Church in those times know to be so For this make him say that ten thousand Bishops met in Councel at Antioch in the third Age when as he never knew a Synod of six hundred Bishops in the fourth Age while he lived though then Bishops were farr more numerous and had all encouragement to meet in greatest numbers This makes him signifie that ten thousand Bishops assembled in the skirts of the East part of the Empire When as
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
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
one of his Books that Alexander died and yet must live some while after this panegyrical Assembly in the year 331. L. 2. observ iâ— Soc. Soz. And its manifest that C. P was not built nor had that name till 331. For tho' it was building the year before yet it was not finished till 25 of Constantine's Reign as Jerome and others and the beginning of his Reign is Chronic. reckoned from the death of Constantius his Father who was Consul with Maximiunus in the year 306 and Fast Consul died in the middle of it There needs not a word more to shew that all his discourse on this subject is wholly insignificant and not at all for his purpose tho' this be the most considerable part of his Preface This Author gives several instances of several Bishops being in one City at the same time in answer to the Dean of Paul's who affirmed that it was an inviolable rule of the Church to have but one c. Jerusalem is the first instance c. I wonder to find a man of Learning cite this passage than which nothing can be more disadvantageous to his Cause There is one who I suppose passes for a man of learning who for the same purpose makes use of this instance since mine was published We have saith he Examples in Ecclesiastical story of of two Bishop's at the same time in the same See and yet this was never thought Schismatical when the second was advanced by the consent of the first Thus Alexander a Bishop in Cappadocia was made Bishop of Jerusalem while Narcissus was living but very old and Anatolius at the same time sate in the Church of Caesarea with Theotecnus and this was St. Austin 's own case who was made Bishop of Hippo while there was another Bishop living l Defence of Dr. St. p. 178. He sayes also Nothing can be more disadvantageous to my cause than this passage If it had been no advantage to my cause I should have thought it bad enough but if nothing could be more disadvantageous I am very unhappy let us see how it is made good Narcissus having retired and the people not knowing what had become of him the neighbouring Bishops ordained Dius in his place who was succeeded by Gordius and after by Germanico it should be by Germanico and after by Gordius in whose time Narcissus returned and was desired to resume his Office and did so What became of Germanico he means Gordius is not said but probably he resigned or died presently There is nothing to make either of these probable it is altogether as likely if not more that he continued Bishop there with Narcissus for some time but because Eusebius sayes nothing of it I insist not on it But besides he tells us Narcissus took Alexander into the participation of the charge That signifies Narcissus was not excluded from the Episcopal charge both had their parts therein No but sayes he Alexander was the Bishop Narcissus retained but the name and title only that is he was but a Titular not really a Bishop and why so because Alexander sayes he joined with him in prayers and the Historian sayes he was not able to officiate by reason of his great age He was not able it may be to perform all the Offices of a Bishop but what he was able to do no doubt he performed Now if they must be but titular Bishops who perform not personally all the Offices of a Pastoral charge when they cannot pretend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how many real Bishops shall we find in the World But besides the Name and Title did he not retain the Power and Authority of a Bishop If not how came he to loose it Did he resign or was he deposed That he resigned there is not the least intimation in this Historian or any other nor any instance in the antient Church that ever any Bishop divested himself of all pastoral Power upon this account To have deposed him for his great age had been a barbarous Act and such as the Church in those times cannot be charged with No doubt but he retained the Episcopal power though through Age he could not exercise it in all instances and if he had not only the Title but the Power he was really a Bishop and there were two Bishops at once in one Church and then this instance is so far from being most disadvantageous that it serves me with all the advantage I designed in alledging it As for the words of Valesius cited by him if they be taken in the sense which our Author would have them that learned man will not agree with himself For but a very few lines before he says these two were Co-Episcopi Bishops together in that City superstite episcopo adjutor coepiscopus est adjunctus And tho' he says but says it doubtfully with a ni fallor this was forbidden at Sardica above 100 years after yet he adds that notwithstanding it was still usual in the Church nihil ominus identidem in ecclesia usurpatum est which is all that I need desire And afterwards where Eusebius in l. 7. c. 32. again mentions two Bishops in one City he observes that in one of his Copies the Scholiast hâ—s this note upon it in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here also there were two Bishops of one Church Valesius adds the Scholiast understands Alexander who was Bishop of Jerusalem together with Narcissus The next instance is of Theotecnus and Anatolius who were Bishops of Caesarea together Against this he hath little to say I suppose because nothing can be said against it in reason Only he seems willing that Anatolius should pass but as Episcopus designatus whereby if he mean one who is not yet actually a Bishop but designed to be one hereafter as Eradius was by Augustine it is inconsistent with what Eusebius sayes and himself quotes but one line before viz. that Theotecnus ordained him Bishop in his life-time for if he was not actually Bishop after he was thus ordained he was never Bishop at all m Euseb l. 7. c. 32. Another instance was of Macarius and Maximus both Bishops at once of Jerusalem He would not have Maximus to be Bishop while Macarius lived because it is said he was to rule the Church after his Death But Maximus was to govern the Church not only after his death if he survived him as he was like to do being much younger but while he lived and so did actually together with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which denotes the exercise of the same Function together n Sez l. 2. c. 19. besides the Historian sayes Maximus was before this ordained Bishop of Diospolis and if he had officiated at Jerusalem where they were so desirous of him in a lower Capacity their kindness to him had been a degrading him which it cannot be supposed they would either offer or he yeild to I alledged Epiphanius who signifies
that other Cities had two Bishops together and excepts only Alexandria To which he answers that Epiphanius cannot mean that all other Cities had two Bishops at a time nor did I say that he meant this but his expression imports no less than that it was usual for other Cities to have two Bishops Nor is there any reason to think that Epiphanius respects only the cases alledged it was quite another case that was the occasion of his words and diverse other instances might be brought of a different nature and occasion though this be sufficient to shew that the rule against two Bishops in one City was not inviolable He adds I do not see what advantage can be made of this passage This passage shews that there was commonly two Bishops in a City at once Alexandria is only excepted as varying herein from other Cities And this is advantage enough for me and it is enough against him too and leaves no reason for his pretence that it was only in extraordinary cases I affirmed it could not be Epiphanius his meaning as a great Antiquary would have it that Alexandria was never so divided as that several parties in it should have their respective Bishops there and brought several Instances to evince it for so it was divided in the time of Epiphanius when the Catholicks had Athanasius the Arians had Gregorius and then Georgius and afterwards the one had Peter the other Lucius and the Novatians had their Bishops successively in that City till Cyril 's time He answers however I do not see why that learned Antiquarie's opinion may not be maintained against this Gentleman's objections he sayes that Alexandria was divided before Epiphanius his time between several Bishops I said in Epiphanius's time it cannot be denied But that is not the thing Epiphanius speaks of but that before the Election of Theonas against Athanasius there were never two opposite Bishops as in other Churches But this doth neither agree with the one nor defend the other it agrees not with Epiphanius but makes him contradict himself for he tells us there were two opposite Bishops at Alexandria before Theonas was chosen For this was not till Alexander's death but he sayes Pistus was made Bishop there by the Arians while Alexander was living o Her 69. Num. 8. p. 733. And he could not be ignorant of what Eusebius declares p Vita Const. l. 3. cap. 4. that upon the division in Egypt occasioned by Arius in every City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there was Bishop against Bishop and People against People Nor doth it defend the Antiquary for he speaks universally without limiting himself to the Election of Theonas Ecclesiam Alexandrinam nunquam in partes scissam quarum singulae Episcopum suum habebant that Church was never divided so as to have opposite Bishops The instances are all later than this Fact and therefore are insignificant sayes he They are fully significant both in reference to the Antiquary against whom they are brought to prove that he mistook Epiphanius when he would have it to be his meaning that Alexandria was never so divided as to have two opposite Bishops for they shew it was often so divided and also in reference to Epiphanius they were so late as his time on purpose to shew more unquestionably that could not be his meaning which was against his knowledge and notorious instances in his own time But he will not deny the instance of the Novatians to be significant only Socrates does not say that they had their Bishops successively to Cyril 's time Nor do I say he does but he sayes Cyrill shut up the Novatian Churches there and took away all the sacred treasure in them and deprived their Bishop Theopompus of all he had Now when our Author meets with Churches and a Bishop over them he is not wont to question a Succession unless it appears he was the first It may be they began there after this time for there is little Account in Church-History that I know of any Novatians in Alexandria before Athanasius We are little concerned about this yet it may be they began before this time for there is no account at all in Church History that the Novatians began there in or after Athanasius his time I had produced evidence that many African Bishops declared in the case of Valerius and Austin that it was usual in all parts to have two Bishops in a City at once to this he answers but suppose all this true that this might be maintained by the Examples of several Churches what is it that two Bishops may be in one Church no that is not the matter but that a Bishop when he growes old may appoint or ordain his Successour to prevent the mischiefs that are usually produced by popular Elections If what the African Bishops did alledge were restrained to that particular case he contends for yet this is enough to make good all I intend viz. that usually in the antient Church there were two Bishops together in one place For when one is ordained Bishop in the same place when another is still living with whatever design upon what occasion soever this is done yet there are two Bishops at once in the same place I see no reason why this should be restrained to that particular case the occasion of what the Bishops affirm may clear it and that was Austin's scruple not to succeed Valerius but to be made Bishop of Hippo while his Bishop there was living Episcopatum suscipere suo vivente Episcopo recusabat for so there would be two together which he took to be against the Custom of the Church contra morem Ecclesiae but they all perswade him that this was usually done id fieri solere and prove it by examples in all parts q Possidon vita August cap. 8. And Valerius his desire and proposal was that Austin might be ordained Bishop of Hippo Qui suae Cathedrae non tam succederet sed Consacerdos accederet not as one that was to succeed him only but to be Bishop together with him When he assigns this as the reason of appointing a Successour to prevent the mischiefs that are usually produced by popular elections he speaks his own sence not theirs for they were better advised than to brand the general practice of the ancient Church as mischievous and how this suggestion becomes one who undertakes to write a vindication of the Primitive Church let himself consider Others may judge it a more intollerable reflection upon the universal Church in the best and after times than any M. B. can be justly charged with However the reason assigned for it by Possidonius is another thing than appears in this Authors whole account it was because Valerius feared left some other Ibid. Church should seek him for their Bishop and get a person so approved from him Whereas in fine he sayes These Cases specified were not thought to violate the Rule that allowed but one Bishop to
a City Yet it was thought so by St. Austin when he excuses his suffering himself to be made Bishop with Valerius by this that he knew no◠it was forbidden by a rule of the Nicene Council Quod Concilio Niceno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam and gives this as the reason why he would not so ordain Eradius Next he would prove that this provision for a Successour does not destroy that Rule by an instance I need not transcribe it at large the sum of it is this when the Government is Monarchical if it fall out once in many Ages as it did in England once in above 500 years that another King be crowned besides him who hath the Throne yet it will be true enough that it is the rule of those Kingdoms to have but one King To which I say briefly if it be usual to have two Kings in such a Government it will scarce be thought true that it is the inviolable Rule of those Kingdoms to have but one King And then how this instance will sute his purpose let those judge who take notice that I have already proved it usual in the antient Church for Cities in all parts to have two Bishops at once From pag. 12. he passes to pag. 23. To shew there were more Bishopricks than one in the Region or Diocess of Hippo I brought several instances and might have produced more but that I confined my self to those which the learned Dean alledged to the contrary Fussala is one of them and tha alone this Gentleman takes notice of St. Austin calls it Castellum diverse times in one Epistle He finds fault that I translate Castellum a Castle I did no more expect to be blamed for this than if I had render'd Oppidum a Town But I suppose he counts it no great crime since he runs into it himself and in a few lines after calls it a Castle But these Castles sayes he were Garrison Towns with a good dependance of Villages belonging to them They were Fortresses and sometimes had Villages depending on them and might contain so many buildings as there are in some Village or little Town however he calls them Castles and may give me leave to do so too He adds It was 40 miles distant from Hippo and was in St. Austine's Diocess and never had a Bishop of its own It is said indeed to belong to the Diocess of Hippo but I do not find it said to be in St. Austine's Diocess or Bishoprick these are two things and should not be confounded When it is said to belong to the Diocess of Hippo so farr distant Diocess is not taken as an Ecclesiastical sense as it is with us for part of a Countrey under the Government of one Bishop but as it was used in Africa in a civil sense for part of a Province without respect to one Bishop or to any one Bishop at all Some parts there call'd Diocesses had no Bishops nor were to have any by Decrees of the African Councils r Con. Carth. 2. Can. 5. Code Affric 53. Other places called a Diocess had more Bishops than one Petilian sayes that in the place where his Collegue Januarius was Bishop there were 4 Bishops besides all five in unâ Dioecesi s Coll. Carth. D. 1 Num. 117. And thus it was in many other places particularly in that called the Diocess of Hippo as I shew'd by diverse instances and St. Austin's own Testimony Hereby it appears that in Africa a Diocess and a Bishoprick were not the same thing though they be with us There were diverse Diocesses and no Bishopricks and many Bishopricks where but one Diocess so that Fussala and 20 other Castles and Towns might be in the Diocess of Hippo at 40 miles distance or more and yet St. Austin's Bishoprick not one jot the larger for it nor he more a Diocesan Whereas he adds that it never had a Bishop of its own It is unquestionable that Fussala had a Bishop of its own in Austin's time and this renders it wholly unserviceable to their purpose for the Bishoprick of Hippo said to be of 40 miles extent will not upon the count of Fussala be 40 yards larger Nor will either of these Bishops nor any other in that Region be Diocesans unless there can be two Diocesans and I know not how many more in one Diocess I assigned this reason why Fussala had not a Bishop sooner because Austin declares there was not one Catholick in it and supposed this might serve the turn not dreaming that those who count all the people in a very large Parish or in an 100 Parishes little enough for a Diocesan could think his Diocess competently furnished when he had not one Soul or but some few in communion with him He sayes the Town or Castle indeed had none but the County belonging to it had some he will have the Territory or Parish depending on this Castle to be a County I cannot but observe the admirable power of a fancy tinctured and prepossessed It will turn a Parish into a County and a Castle into a County Town and since a County with us was a Province with them one Province must be as much as all Africa and a very small part of Numidia must be far greater than the whole But there are some Hypotheses which may stand in need of such imaginations However he likes not my reason and why because though it had no Catholicks in it then it might have some before and concludes it had because it belonged heretofore to the Diocess of Hippo. But that it formerly had Catholicks saies he we may conclude by Mr. Baxter's reasoning because it belonged heretofore to the Diocess of Hippo. If Diocess be taken in a civil sense as it is frequently in African Authors this will be no proof that there had been any Catholicks in it because in this sense Fussala might belong to that Diocess though there had not been either Christian or Bishop in the whole Region Nor will it be hereby proved taking it in the Ecclesiastical sense for that part of Hippo which was under the Donatist Bishop had no Catholick and yet de jure as he tells us belonged to the Diocess as he calls it or charge of St. Austin Yet since he allows Mr. Baxter's Argument he must admit what it concludes viz. that a place that hath no Christians or Catholicks in it belongs to no Bishop and then Fussala never belonged to St. Austin as its Bishop either before it had Catholicks for against this the Argument is admitted to be conclusive not after for then it had a Bishop of its own And so all they have to alledge for the largeness of St. Austin's Bishoprick comes to nothing So that I conceive the reason will not hold for its having no Bishop of its own since the same reason destroys its dependence upon the the Diocess of Hippo which is expresly affirmed The reason I gave for its having no Bishop was because St.
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
c. the slaughter was such that with the streams of bloud which ran from the place not only the vastest outlets of Nilus but the Sea all along the Shore of Alexandria was discoloured o Hist Lib. 4. Towards the latter end of the third Age Dionysius gives an account of the strange diminution of the Alexandrians p In Euseb lib. 7. cap. 22. signifying that in former daies the elderly men were more numerous than in his time both young and old comprizing all from infancy to extream old age 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 However certain it is that this City long after the destruction of Bruchium retained its ancient Greatness and is represented by no Author as diminisht either in Number or Wealth This is certain no otherwise than the former i. e. quite the wrong way For not long after the destruction of Bruchium in the Egyptian War made by Diocletian upon Achilleus which Eusebius Eutropius and others mention It was greatly diminisht both in numbers and wealth For Alexandria after a long siege was taken by force and plundred great Execution done upon the Citizens and the Walls of the Town demolished A great part of the City sayes the Letter was assigned to the Jews so Strabo indefinitely as Josephus quotes him others tell us more punctually that their share was two of the five divisions though many of them had their habitations in the other divisions yet they had two 5th parts intire to themselves and this is I suppose the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Josephus sayes the Successors of Alexander set apart for them thus we see how 6 or 7 miles of the 10 are disposed of To this he sayes The number of those Jews was much lessened within a little while after Strabo by an insurrection of the Alexandrians against them I suppose he means by that slaughter of them which Josephus mentions q De Bello Judaic l. 2. c. 21. where 50000 were destroyed but what were these to the vast number of Jews in Egypt which Philo r Legat. ad Caium sayes amounted to no less than a million The civil Wars afterwards under Trajan and his Successor had almost extirpated them It was in Palestine where these Tragedies were acted and was so far from extinguishing them in Egypt or Alexandria that thereby in all probability their numbers were there increased for being divested of about 1000 Towns and Garrisons by Severus Adrian's General as Dion reports and forbidden all access to Jerusalem as Aristo Pelleus in Eusebius ſ Lib. 4. cap. 6. this made other places more desireable those particularly where they might have good entertainment as they were wont to have at Alexandria and what Dion Chrysostome sayes confirms it But all this which he sayes if there were truth in it is impertinent for the Letter is not concerned what Jews were there near Strabo or Adrian's time but in the fourth Age. Yet this is all that he hath to say to the rest of the Letter besides the publishing and repeating of his own mistake and upon no other ground making himself sport with the Writer of it Thus he begins by the same rule he might have disposed of all at once and concluded out of Strabo 's division of the Town that there was not one Christian in it and repeats it thrice in the same Page No matter what number of Jews or Heathens it had in Strabo 's dayes it is kindly done to provide for Christians before they were in being surely Strabo who makes the distribution never intended the Christians one foot of ground in all that division and this learned Friend might have spared his little Town of 8 or 10 Furlongs which he so liberally bestows upon the Bishop of Alexandria before our Saviour was born and he is at it again several times in the following discourse t Pag. 69. 94. How desirable a thing is it to have M. B. and his Friend render'd ridiculous when rather than it shall not be done our Examiner will publish his own indiscretion so many times over to effect it But I will forbear any sharper reflections upon this Author for taking him to be an ingenuous Person I may expect he will be severe upon himself when he discerns his errour which I doubt not but he will see clearly by once more reading that Letter Next he would disprove M. B's representation of the Church of Alexandria in Constantius's time by giving a view of that Churches greatness from the first Foundation of it u Pag. 61. which because it may concern the Letter duly understood I shall take some notice of it very briefly But there is something interposed between this and the Letter which requires some observance there we may have an instance of this Gentleman's severity upon M. B. and how reasonable it is His remark sayes he upon two Bishops living quietly in Alexandria is so disingenuous a suggestion that he hath reason to be asham'd of it But what is there in this so disingenuous and shameful Does not Epiphanius say this and our Examiner acknowledge it b pag. 107. Ay but M. B. means that there were not only two Bishops but their distinct Churches in this City Well and does not Epiphanius give him suffici-ground for it Does he not tell us that Meletius made Bishops who had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every place where he came Does he not signifie that the Meletians in Alexandria had their distinct Churches or Meetings both in the time of Alexander and Athanasius sayes he not particularly of Meletius that being familiar with Alexander he stayed long in that City having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a distinct Meeting with those of his own Party Were there not innumerable Cities in that Age which had two Bishops and their Churches some three or four at once those of the Arians the Donatists the Novatians the Meletians c. besides those who were styled Catholicks Would this Gentleman take it well if M. B. should tell him that he who denies this is disingenuous if he know it and hath some reason to be ashamed if he know it not Ay but Epiphanius was deceived in this account of the Meletians and mis-represents them Indeed our Examiner makes as bold with Epiphanius a Bishop of great Zeal and Holiness a Metropolitan a famous Writer as he does with M. B. charging him with much weakness as one easily imposed upon many oversights gross mistakes diverse absurd things and such stories that he will scarce wish worse to his Adversary than to believe him c Pag. 112. 113. c. Nor does Epiphanius alone fall under his censure in his Vindication of the Primitive Church as he calls it he goes near to accuse more particular Persons Bishops amongst others of eminency in the antient Church than he defends so that one may suspect his design was not so much to defend eminent Bishops as great Bishopricks such as the antient Church had none and to run
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
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
very near Caesarea No indeed it is thereby proved to be so far from Caesarea that it did not enlarge Basil's Province much less his Diocese Thus it is also placed in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Leo Sophus under the Metropolitan of Tyana not of Caesarea It is true Basil laid claim to it but after some contest he yeilded and Anthimus carried it placing Eulalius there as one of his Suffragans when Nazianzen had quitted it He goes farther on to shew the largeness of Dioceses in Basil's Province It is plain by Nazianzen that Cappadocia had but 50 Bishops for so many he sayes Basil had under him and considering the extent of that Countrey the Dioceses must needs be large He does not say Basil had no more under him nor that he was making no more he knew Basil was constituting more Bishops in that part of Cappadocia which was his Province and Nazianzen commends him for it as an excellent undertaking on several accounts y Orat. de Bal. Considering the extent of that Countrey the Dioceses must needs be large for the Countrey as Strabo computes is near 400 miles in length and little less in breadth If he means Basil's own Province where he told us there were 50 Suffragans under him besides Sasima c z Pag. 546. as I know not what he can mean else if his Discourse be not impertinent and inconsistent for Basil as Metropolitan had no Bishops under him but those in his proper Province Strabo is strangely misrepresented to serve a turn for it is the whole Countrey which passed under the name of Cappadocia that the Geographer gives us the dimensions of in the place cited and tell us it was divided into ten Prefectures Meletena Cataonia Cilica Tyanitis Isauritis c. whereof Basil's Province was but one viz. that called Cilica and that of Anthimus Tyanitis another c. Mazaca afterwards called Caesarea being Metropolis of Basil's and Tyana of Tyanitis c. and after he hath given some account of these ten Praefectures he adds the dimensions of the whole Countrey in these words the extent of Cappadocia in breadth from the Euxine to Taurus is 1800 Furlongs in length 3000. So that our Author will have the extent of Basil's Province to be no less than that of the whole Countrey when it is but the tenth part thereof And as if this were not enough he makes the breadth of the whole Countrey to be near twice as much as it is in Strabo but he hath some salvo for this such as it is And little less in breadth as Causabon restores the reading of 1800 Furlongs in the 12th Book by a passage in the second where the breadth is made 2800. It is true Causabon observes some difference in the places cited but he shews how they may be easily reconciled without changing the Text here or making the Countrey broader than it is here described viz. by taking Pontus in one place for the Sea in the other for the Region so called separated from Cappadocia by mountains parallel to Taurus and then concludes Sic non erit discedendum à vulgatâ lectione So that he hath no relief by Causabon without curtailing the Passage And in this compass Bishops may contrive 50 Dioceses of very competent extent and not inferiour to many of ours Let him try how in Basil's Province of about 40 miles in length he can contrive room for above 50 Bishops with as large Dioceses as those he pleads for That which is now thought little enough for one Bishop Basil conceived too big for Fifty What Dioceses Basil and others before him thought sufficient for Bishops both then and in formertimes appears by a passage which our Author next cites where Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium is directed to constitute Bishops for the Province of Iconium in little Corporation and Villages a Ep. 406. Hundreds of instances might be brought of Bishops elsewhere in such little places and Villages but I will go no further now than the instance himself offers us whereby it is manifest that a little Corporation or a Village might furnish a Bishop with such a Diocese as was then thought competent both by Basil and the Church before him For in such little places there was Bishops before as Basil there signifies and he gives direction that it should be so still Yet he that would advise the reducing of Bishops to such Sees now would be counted an enemy to Episcopacy and his advice destructive to Bishops So much do we now differ both from the judgment and practice of the antient Church and the most eminent Bishops in it Hereby also it appears that the multiplying of Metropolitans was no such occasion of multiplying Bishops but that their numbers increased when there was not that occasion And this in Cappadocia which is our Author 's eminent instance b Pag. 545. For Bishops were multiplyed by erecting Episcopal Sees in Villages and little places this was done in Isauria a Province in Cappadocia as appears by these passages in Basil before the contest between him and Anthimus upon the constituting of a new Metropolitan and after that difference was Composed Basil thought it adviseable that it should be done still And the like may be said of Africa the instance he most insists on and spends many Pages upon it pretending the occasion why Bishops were so numerous there was the Schism of the Donatists Whereas the rule by which the African Fathers proceeded in erecting Bishopricks in little places and so increasing the number of Bishops was as themselves declare who best knew it the increase of the number of Christians c Concil Carth. 2 Can. 5. Where these were multiplyed and desired a Bishop they thought themselves obliged to let them have one not excepting the meanness or smalness of the places where he was to be constituted And we must believe if we have any reverence for those Fathers that they would have done what they judged themselves obliged to though there had been no Donatists amongst them And when there can be no such pretence of occasion from the Donatists the practice was continued as appears by St. Austin's procuring a Bishop for Fussala which he calls a Castle upon some increase of the Catholicks there diverse years after the noted conference at Carthage where the heart of the Donatists was broken Nay many years after the invasion of the Vandals and the death of St. Austin they proceeded in the same methods or rather exceeded their Predecessors in multiplying Bishops by erecting Episcopal seats in smaller and more inconsiderable places if Leo his Epistle may be credited d Ep. 85. But to return to our Author and the passage of Basil insisted on by which sayes he it appears that Isauria was part of Basil's Province How this appears by any thing therein I cannot imagine our Author signifies before that Isauria was a distinct Province the Metropolis of it as he supposes Seleucia
special charge This was the particular Church under his personal Government but he was not Ruler of the Precinct or any other Churches in it save only in common and in conjunction with the other Presbyters who jointly took cognizance of what in his Church or theirs was of greater or more general consequence and concerned the whole and gave order in it by common consent And while this was the form of Government if there had been as many Churches there thus associated as Optatus in the fourth age says there was at Rome or far more they could not make a Diocesan Church unless a Diocesan and a Presbyterian Church be all one For this is plainly a Presbyterian Church the antient Presbyteries differing from the modern but in a matter of smaller moment In those their President being fixed and constant in these commonly though not always circular The Presbyteries in Scotland comprized some twelve some twenty some more Churches their Moderators were at first and for some years circular King James afterwards Anno 1606 d Hist p. 559. would have them to be constant and so it was ordered yet when they were fixed no man ever counted these Presbyteries to be Diocesan Churches The Church of Geneva consists of twenty four Parishes governed in common by a Presbytery with a Moderator who is sometimes changed sometimes continued for Life Calvin was President while he lived yet that of Geneva is not wont to be taken for a Diocesan Church Nor were those antient Churches such while they were governed not by one Bishop but by a Senate of Presbyters where he presided as in the Council of Constantinople all things in the Province are said to be governed not by the Metropolitan but by the Provincial Synod e Can. 2. Soc. l. 5. cap. 8. Finally the Presbyters are in the antient Church acknowledged to have had the power of the keys both as to the ministration of the Word and Sacraments and the exercise of Government and censures This power they exercised either jointly in conjunction with the Bishop and Senate of Presbyters or distinctly in the particular Churches whereof they had the charge The former power concerning the Word and Sacraments is not questioned nor is there any ground to question the latter if some were not swayed more by the practice of their own times than the principles and declarations of the antients Chrysostom ascribes to Presbyters not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power of order but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power of Government f giving this as the reason why the In 1 Tim. Iom 11. Apostle gives the same rules for the ordering both of Bishops and Presbyters there is but little difference betwixt them says he for they are ordained both to the teaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ruling of the Church Now that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes jurisdiction or presidentiam cum potestate and is as Hesychius renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is plain in Chrysostome himself he tells us the Apostle Paul had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g In 1 Cor. Hom. 23. Hom 25. which he elsewhere expresses by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h In 2 Cor. Hom. 25. and speaking of Moses he says it was wonderful that he who was to be a Ruler 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be born at such a time i In Act. Hom. 16. Theophilact makes the difference as little between Bishop and Presbyters and ascribes as much power to the later almost in the same words k In 1 Tim. So Theodoret declares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jurisdiction to belong to every Presbyter l In 1 Tim. 5. 19. against an Elder especially no less than two Witnesses must be admitted because he having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Government of the Church and in the exercise of it often grieving Delinquents they being ill affected to him will be apt to bring false accusations And this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 included in the Presbyters Office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nazzanzen speaks and much more to that purpose m Orat. 1. And besides many other passages of like import the Title of Governours is all a long in antient Writers given to Presbyters and all the expressions which signifie Authority and Government are ascribed to them Thereby those that would curtail their power and make it no more of old than it is now are not a little encumbred to extricate themselves a distinction is devised of a power internal and external the former they will allow to Presbyters in their respective Churches not the later But this is devised to disentangle themselves and salve the deviations and irregularities of later times not that there is any ground for it in Antiquity For the highest act of that external power of jurisdiction is Excommunication and if this was in the Presbyters power of old no other act of that power will or can in reason be denied them but this the antients ascribe to them So Jerome n Ad Heliodorum Mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet illi si peccavero licet me tradere satanae ad interritum carnis ut spiritus salvus sit Chrysostome threatned some of his Auditory while he was a Presbyter to Excommunicate them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o Hom. 17. in Matth. to wave all of like nature insisted on by others Justinian in the 6th Age signifies plainly that not only Bishops but Presbyters might Excommunicate Offenders in his Constitutions he forbids Bishops and Presbyters to exclude any from Communion till such cause was declared for which the Canons appointed it to be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and will have the sentence of Excommunication rescinded which was passed by Bishops or Presbyters without cause p Novel 123. c. 11. In the Code both Bishops and Clergy are forbid to Excommunicate in certain cases and then mentions the cases for which they must not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although they had been accustomed to it q Lex 39 Sec. 2. Tit. de Episc Clericis Now while Presbyters had this power there could be no Diocesan Churches whether they exercised it in common as was shewed before or particularly in their several Churches as will now be made apparent For by virtue of these powers the Presbyters were really Bishops though they had not alwayes the Title yea they are called Bishops as a Learned Prelatist observes by the antientest Authors Clemens Ignatius Tertullian r Thornd Prim. Govern Pag. 73. 74. and have frequently the Names and Titles which some would appropriate to Bishops and which the Fathers use to express the Office of Bishops by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praepositi Antistites Praesidentes ſ Idem service Pag. 68. c. And so there was as many Bishops really in every Diocese as there were particular Churches and Presbyters there And well may they be said to be really the same since