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
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
by which we may perceive Athanasius being Judge how true is it that this Assembly was more for Solemnity and Ostentation than for Personal Communion in Worship and the proper ends of a Religious Assembly And thus much to let us see through the Arts used to cloud a clear passage alledged out of Athanasius if M. B. had betaken himself to such little devises in like Circumstances our Author would have taken the Liberty to tell him that he was driven to hard Shifts Before we leave Alexandria I am to take notice of what is said by our Author to part of a Letter writ by a Friend to M. B. concerning this City and the number of Christians therein in Constantius his time The Writer of it observes a gross abuse put upon him in the Vindicator's Answer to it and desires his defence may be here inserted It contains an argument to confirm what was concluded from thâ—â— passage in Athanasius here insisted on that the Catholicks then could meet in one place After that passage and to this purpose M. B. introduced it as is very apparent l Church Hist. pag. 9. 10. This our Author seems to observe when he begins with it he adds sayes he to this of Athanasius the very passage mentioned another argument given him by a learned Friend m Pag 58. And after he hath done with it n Pag. 63. because M. B. has endeavoured to represent the Church of Alexandria so inconsiderable even in Constantius his dayes c. And yet how it comes to pass I know not it is quite out of his thoughts while he is examining it He was so hasty for confuting that he staies not to take notice what he was to confute though the intent of it be most plain and obvious both by the occasion and words of the Letter But Forces that sense on it and makes that the design of it which I was far from thinking would ever come into any man's Fancy when he was awake The words of the Letter are these The City of Alexandria sayes Strabo is like a Soldiers Cloak c. and by computation about ten miles in compass a 3 d. or 4th part of this was taken up with publick buildings Temples and Royal Palaces thus is two miles and an half or three and a quarter taken up He answers I will not say this learned friend hath imposed on M. B. but there is a very great mistake betwixt them But the mistake is his own and such a one as I wonder how he could fall into it He takes it for granted that the Argument is brought to prove what Christians Alexandria had in Strabo's time Here is not the least occasion given for this unless the citing of Strabo shewing the dimensions of that City but Primate Vsher is quoted too on the same account and so as much reason to fancy the design was to shew what Christians Alexandria had in the Primate's time Jcrome Epiphanius Theodoret Socrates Sozomen are also cited there why could not these as well lead him to the right Age which their words plainly point at without the least glance at any Age before as Strabo alone cited without any respect to the time when he writ so far mislead him Nay the 4th age is expresly mentioned in the Letter and the numerousness of the Novatians and Arians in Alexandria at the time intended is insisted on could he think any man so stupid that had but the least acquaintance with those things as to speak of Arians and Novatians in Strabo's time But it may be though I would hope better our Examiner was too inclinable to fix an absurd thing upon the Writer of the Letter that he might be excused from giving a better answer when it was not ready But let us hear what he sayes to it yet what can be expected to be said by one who makes his own dream the Foundation of his Discourse However let us try if we can find any one clause that is true and pertinent in the whole and begin with the best of it Though Strabo sayes that Temples and great Palaces took up a 4th or a 3d. of the City yet our Examiner will have us think there might be inhabitants there when Epiphanius sayes as I cited him that part was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destitute of Inhabitants so he tells us Bruchium was The Examiner denies not Bruchium to be that Region of the City which Strabo sayes was taken up with Publick Buildings but adds what all the publick buildings of the Town in one Region But who said all the Publick Buildings This is his own fancy still And that an outer skirt too as it is described by the Greek Martyrology in Hillarion c. If he mean it was not a Part or Region of the City Strabo and Epiphanius will have Credit before a story out of the Greek Martyrology or him that tells it when it appears not in the words cited In Strabo it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 part of the City in Epiphanius it is a Region 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as Rome was divided into 14 Regions and de pond ut mens p. 166. C. P. in imitation of it so Alexandria was divided into 5 whereof Bruchium was one and the greatest of all So I understand Ammianus Marcellinus who upon the loss of Bruchium saith amisit regionum maximam parteni quae Bruchium apellatur Alexandria lost the greatest of its Regions which was called Bruchium This Epiphanius sayes was destitute of Inhabitants in his time and not unlikely and perhaps destitute of Publick Buildings too for it was destroyed after an obstinate siege in the Reign of Aurelian as Ammianus Marcellinus or of Claudius as Eusebius When he hath granted all that I designed that this part was destitute of Inhabitants and more too that it was destroyed yet he would have the City no less no necessity of this sayes he sure we are not yet awake can a City loose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Historian's words a 4th yea or a third part of its largeness and yet not be so much the less He hath nothing to salve this but it may be and it might be groundless surmises without either reason or authority They might inlarge upon another quarter being it may be forbid to build Bruchium they might dwell closer than before and so their multitude be undiminisht How far it is from being true that their multitude was undiminisht and how needless either to inlarge or to dwell closer may soon appear The multitude must needs be much diminished in such a War and a close siege of many years continuance for so it is reported both by Eusebius and Jerome and it was much wasted in Chronic. and in a consumptive condition before it was thus besieged and dismantled by Claudius 2. or Aurelian It was greatly diminished in numbers by Caracalla who Massacred a great part of the Inhabitants Herodian sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
the major part of the Inhabitants in all Cities and so enough not only for vast Congregations but for Diocesan Churches But Tertullian was a great Oratour and frequently uses hyperbolical expressions which ought not to be streined Such are those insisted on and by regular construction they import no more than that the Christians were very numerous in many parts of the Empire Those that will have them streined and understood as they found offer great injury to Tertullian making him intend that which hath no warrant in any Records of Antiquity Civil or Ecclesiastical that I can meet with Before they impose such a sense on him they ought in reason to make it manifest that the Christians were the major part of the inhabitants in some considerable Cities at that time when I believe they cannot produce two instances in the whole Empire I never yet could meet with one Our Author from these Oratorical expressions sticks not to conclude that it is evident that the Christians were the major part every where but in Rome more eminently so and Dr. Downham signifies that Tertullian speaks chiefly of the City of Rome g Defence l. 2. c. 5. p. 98. this Gentleman sayes that by his account it is made very probable that they were the better half of the Roman Empire and tells us it is pag. 54. certain that the number of Christians at Rome was proportionably greater than in any part of the Empire Now how far the Christians at Rome were from being the major part of the Inhabitants we may judge by the vast disproportion between the poor in the Church at Rome and those in the whole City Cornelius near 50 years after Tertullian when it was of more growth by half an Age reckons the poor of his Church to be 1500 whereas out of Suetonius and others the poorer sorts of Citizens quae è publico victitabat are computed to be 320000 h Lipsius d◠Mag. Rom. l. 3. cap. 2. Many take occasion from the thousands converted at Jerusalem Acts 2. and 4. to conclude the vast number of Christians and exceeding largeness of Churches elsewhere Our Author hath nothing from Scripture for Diocesan Churches but this which is considerable i Pag. 435 c. nor will this appear so if but a small part of those thousands can be counted inhabitants of Jerusalem and so fixed in that Church And this is as demonstrable as any thing of this nature can be For this miraculous Conversion was at Pentecost one of the three great Feasts when there was a vast concourse of Jews and Proselytes from all parts to that City These converted were not only Inhabitants of Jerusalem but Forreigners and in all reason more of these proportionably as they exceeded the Inhabitants in number And then those of the City will scarce be a 20th part of the 5 or 8000 Converts For the Forreigners that resorted to Jerusalem at these great Solemnities are reckoned to be three millions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k Joseph de Bel. Judaic Lib. 2. cap. 24. whereas the Inhabitants of that City were but about an 120000 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of this elsewhere more fully The Author of the Vindication will not have so great a part of those Converts to be Strangers and to return home when the Feast was over and assigns something like reasons for it 1st That the Scripture gives no countenance to this Conjecture but sayes all those strange Nations were Inhabitants of Jerusalem and the Original word inclines most on this side That he should say the Scripture gives no countenance to this is something strange It is plain in Scripture that God injoyned the Children of Israel to repair to Jerusalem from all quarters of the Countrey where they dwelt thrice a year for the observance of the three great Feasts And it is apparent also that they were wont to come up to Jerusalem at those Solemnities both Jews and Proselytes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a In Euseb l. 2. c. 23. And it is evident in that Chapter cited Acts 2. The Feast of Pentecost being come there was a resort of Jews and Proselytes from all those parts of the World to this City Ay but the Scripture sayes all those Strange Nations were inhabitants of Jerusalem He can't judge that the Scripture sayes this but upon a supposition that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 2. 5. can signify no other thing than inhabitants but this is a mistake for the word denotes such as abide in a place not only as inhabitants but as strangers or Sojourners Thus Dr. Hammond will have it translated abiding rather than dwelling b In loc those that were there as strangers c In Act. 10. 2. and here expresses those abiding at Jerusalem to be Jews which came up to the Feast of the Passeover and Proselytes which had come from several Nations of all Quarters of the World Thus also Mr. Mead d In Exercit. in Act. 2. 5. for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he which I translate sojourning rather than dwelling for so I understand it that they were not proper dwellers but such as came to worship at Jerusalem from those far Countreys at the Feast of the Passeover and Pentecost and so had been continuing there some good time it is true that in the usual Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify a durable mansion but with the Hellenists in whose Dialect the Scripture speaketh they are used indifferently for a stay of a shorter or longer time that is for to sojourn as well as to dwell as these two examples out of the Septuagint will make manifest Gen. 27. 44. 1 Kings 17. 20. there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to sojourn only In a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answer to the Hebrew Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies any stay or remaining in a place Grotius saith it answers the Hebrew word which is render'd not only by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. adding therefore it is not said only of them who had fixed their habitation but of those who were come to the City for the celebrating of the Passeover or Pentecost staying there for a while The best and most learned Expositors generally take it so in this place as denoting not settled Inhabitants but such as resided there only for a time Indeed when this Author would have the Scripture say all these strange Nations were inhabitants of Jerusalem he makes it speak things inconsistent For it is said ver 9. they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dwellers at Mesopotamia Judea Cappadocia Pontus Asia c. by which must be understood either that they were inhabitants or Sojourners in those Countreys that they were now Sojourners there no man will imagine nor can any man be said to be actually a sojourner in a place where he is not And if they were
their was not near so many this Gentleman is concerned to maintain there was not one thousand in the whole Christian World This is more than enough to shew that there is sufficient warrant to Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thousands more than once though that it is in that discourse which he stiles a little Pamphlet so translated more then once is another of his mistakes And a third all in two lines is that the Author grounds his Argument on it Whereas those that view the passage and the occasion of it will see it had been more for his advantage to have translated it ten thousands He that can allow himself to write at this rate may easily be voluminous and look too big to be despised as a writer of little Pamphlets The Letter mentioned pag. 45. being communicated to me by M. B. that part of it which concerns Alexandria is here added that it may appear how much it is mistaken and how farr from being answered For Alexandria it was the greatest City in the Empire next to Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Josephus de bello Judaic lib. 5. c. cult And Epiphanius gives an account of many Churches in it assigned to several Presbyters viz. besides Caesarea finished by Athanasius that of Dionysius Theonas Pierius Serapion Perseas Dizia Mundidius Annianus Baucalas adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haeres 69. page 728 This notwithstanding that the Christians at Alexandria which held Communion with Athanasius might and did meet together in one Church he himself declares expresly in his Apology to Constantius page 531. Tom. 1. Edit Commelin Anno 1601. The whole passage is too large to transcribe or translate this is the sence of it He being accused for assembling the People in the great Church before it was dedicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes this part of his defence The confluence of the People at the Paschal solemnity was so great that if they had met in several assemblies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other Churches were so little and strait that they would have been in danger of suffering by the crowd nor would the universal harmony and concurrence of the People have been so visible and effectual if they had met in parcels Therefore he appeals to him whether it was not better for the whole multitude to meet in that great Church being a place large enough to receive them altogether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to have a concurrence of all the people with one voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if says he according to our Saviviours promise where two shall agree as touching any thing it shall be done for them of my Father c. How prevalent will be the one voice of â—â— numerous a People assembled together and saying Amen to God Who therefore would not wonder who would not count it a happiness to see so great a People met together in one place And how did the people rejoice to behâ—ld one another whereas formerly they assembled in several places Hereby it is evident that in the middle of the fourth Age all the Christians at Alexandria which were wont at other times to meet in several assemblies were no more than one Church might and did contain so as they could all join at once in the Worship of God and concurre in one Amen He tells him also that Alexander his Predecessor who died An. 325 did as much as he in like circumstances viz. assembled the whole multitude in one Church before it was dedicated pag. 532. This seems clear enough but being capable of another kind of proof which may be no less satisfactory let me add that also This City was by Strabo his description of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like a Soldiers Coat whose length at either side was almost 3â— Furlongs its breadth at either end 7 or 8 urlongs Geogr. lib. 17. pag. 546. so the whole compass will be less than ten Miles A third or fourth part of this was taken up with publick Buildings Temples and Royal Palaces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. two Miles and half or three and a quarter is thus disposed of I take this to be that Region of the City which Epiphanius calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he tells us was the famous Library of Ptolomeus Philadelphus and speaks of it in his time as destitute of Inhabitants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Ponder mensur n. 9. p. 166 A great part of the City was assigned to the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Strabo indefinitely as Josephus quotes him Antiquit. Jud. l. 14. c. 12. Others tells us more punctually their share was two of the five divisions Ushers Annals Latin pag. 859. Though many of them had their habitation in the other divisions yet they had two fifth parts entire to themselves and this is I suppose the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Josephus saith the Successors of Alexander set apart for them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bello Jud. l. 2. cap. 21. Thus we see already how 6 or 7 miles of the 10 were taken up The greatest part of the Citizens as at Rome and other Cities in the beginning of the 4th Age were Heathens Otherwise Antonius wrong'd the City who iâ— Athanasius's time is brought in thus exclaiming by Jerom. vit Paul p. 243. Vae tibi Alexandria quae pro Deo portenta veneraris vae tibi civitas mereâ—â—ix in quam totius orbis daemonia confluxere c. a Charge thus formed supposes the prevailing party to be guilty But let us suppose them equa and their proportion half of the 3 or 4 miles remaining Let the rest be divided amongst the Orthodox the Arrians the Novatians and other Sects And if we be just a large part will fall to the share of Hereticks and Sectaries For not to mention others the Novatians had several Churches and a Bishop there till Cyrils time vid. Socrat. Hist l. 7. c. 7. The Arians were a great part of those who professed Christianity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. Hist l. 1. c. 14. and if we may judge of the followers by their leaders no loss than half For whereas there were 19 Presbyters and Deacons in that Church Theod. Hist l. 4. c. 23. 12 was the number of their Presbyters by their Antient Constitution as appears by Eutychius and 7 their Deacons as at Rome and elsewhere 6 Presbyters with Arius and 5 Deacons fell off from the Catholicks Sozom. Hist l. 1. c. 14. But let the â—rians be much fewer yet will not the proportion of the Catholick Bishops Diocese iâ— this City be more than that of a small Town one of 8 or 12 Furlongs in compass And so the numbers of the Christians upon this account will be no more than might well meet for Worship in one place FINIS
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
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
governed in common by Bishop and Presbyters as the antient Churches were they would not be Diocesan but more like the Model of the Churches and Government which Holland hath at present And now after all this though we have several instances out of Egypt how near Cities were together in some parts yet upon the whole account the Diocesses do appear to be large enough from the number of them He would have us think where Cities are so near together as I had shewed yet because of their number the Diocesses might be large enough But where they were so near together they could not be large enough to make any thing like the modern Diocesses no nor larger than our Countrey Parishes if they had Bishops in them And the Ancients thought themselves obliged by the Apostle's rule to have a Bishop not only in some but in every City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayes Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b In 1 Tim. Hom. 11. and Theophilact expresses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without exception of the smallness of the place or its nearness to others The reason diverse Cities had none was the want or the inconsiderable number of Christians in them Nothing but this hindered any City from having a Bishop in the four first Ages though the greatest part of their Cities as may be made manifest were no greater than our Market-Towns or fairer Villages And upon this account many Cities might want Bishops and it may be did so in Egypt particularly Heathenisme prevailing in many places there even in Athanasius his time for which I could produce sufficient evidence but will not now digress so far Afterwards the affectation of greatness in some was the occasion of new measures and orders were made that Towns which had no Bishops before should have none after though the reason why they had none before was gone and those places had as many or more Christians in them than most Episcopal Cities had of old For in Athanasius his time there were not an hundred Bishops in all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis c Athan. Apol. 2. I was a little surprized to read this and see Athanasius cited for it For I knew that Athanasius reckons 95 Bishops from Egypt besides himself at the Council of Sardica and others from Africa wherein Lybia and Pentapolis are usually included and it was never known that a major part or a third of the Bishops in a Countrey did come to a Council at such a distance as Egypt was from Sardica It is scarce credible that Athanasius would so far contradict himself as to say there were not so many Bishops in all those three Countreys when he had signifyed there were many more in one of them Some mistake I thought there must be and consulting the place I found it not intirely represented There is this Clause immediately following the words he cites left out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none of these accused me whereby it appears that the meaning of the whole passage is this there was an hundred Bishops in the Diocess of Egypt who appeared not against him or that favoured him But those who favoured Arius whom he calls Eusebians and Meletius to say nothing of Coluthus for into so many parties was that Countrey then divided are not taken into the reckoning otherwise it would have amounted to many more than an hundred Sozomen sayes the Bishops there who took Arius his part were many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d Lib. 1. c. 14. and in Athanasius there is an account of many Meletian Bishops by name e Apol. 2. p. 614. and in Epiphanius it is said that in every Region through which Meletius passed and in every place where he came he made Bishops f Ep. Haer. 68. The next thing he takes notice of is the defence of Mr. Baxter's Allegation out of Athanasius to shew that all the Christians of Alexandria M. B's words are the main body of the Christians in Alexandria could meet in one Church It is to be confessed that the expressions of that Father seem to favour him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Church did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hold all c. I am made more confident by all that is said to the contrary that the evidence is really such as will need no favour if it can meet with Justice Now suppose that all the Christians in Alexandria the Catholicks at leastwise could meet together in that great Church yet all the Diocess could not All that was undertaken to be proved by the passage in question was that the main body of Christians in Alexandria adhereing to Athanasius could and did meet in that one Church If this be granted nothing is denied that he intended to prove As for a Diocess in the Countrey if he will shew us what or where it was and that it had no other Bishop in it he will do something that may be considered yet nothing at all against what this Testimony was made use of to evince He sayes 2dly Suppose this great great Church could receive all the multitude yet if that multitude was too great for Personal Communion it is insignificant Upon this supposition it might be too great for an ordinary meeting in the Congregational way yet not big enough for a Diocesan Church But the supposition is groundless and contradicts Athanasius who sayes they had Personal Communion they all prayed together and did not only meet within the Walls but concurred in the worship and said Amen He sayes 3dly Before the Church of Alexandria met in distinct Congregations but we are told that those places were very small short and strait places All these save one I said which he ought not to have omitted And they were so small because those who were wont to meet in them severally so as to fill them could all meet in one Church and did so as Athanasius declares But that they were such Chappels or Churches as some of our Parishes in England have as great a number as Alexandria is hardly credible I know not how those places could be well expressed with more diminution than Athanasius hath done it he sayes they were not only strait and small but the very smallest If he will make it appear that our Churches or Chappels are less than those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall understand that which I could never before that something is less than that which is least of all But he will prove they were not so small because first the Church of Alexandria was very numerous from the beginning Why it should be counted so very numerous from the beginning I know no reason but the mistake of an Historian who will have a Sect of the Jews which was numerous in or about Alexandria to be Christians And if they met all in one place it must consequently be very large The ground of the consequence is removed Valesius his own Author sayes they had
but one Church to meet in in Dionysius his time almost 3 Ages from the beginning g pag. 64 If that one was large yet it is not like that it stood till Athanasius his time after so many Edicts for demolishing of all Christian Churches and a severe Execution of them in Diocletian's Persecution Nor is it likely they should divide till they were grown too numerous for the biggest Meeting-place they could conveniently have It is as likely as that Athanasius speaks truth in a matter which he perfectly knew he tells us they did divide and yet were not too numerous for one great Church in which they met conveniently too yea better than when dispersed in those little places as he sayes and proves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 2dly He sayes Though before the Empire was converted they might be confined to little places and forced to meet severally yet after Constantine became Christian it is not likely that the Alexandrians would content themselves with small and strait Chappels Nor did they content themselves with those little ones for besides this built in Athanasius his time there was one greater than those small ones finished in Alexander's time where the body of Catholicks assembled with Alexander the other places being too strait 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is that one I excepted when I said after Athanasius that the rest all save one were exceeding small But is it any proof that these were not very small which Athanasius represents as such because there was one expresly excepted from that number something larger As for what he adds that then every ordinary City built very great and magnificent Cathedrals it is easily said but will never be proved 3dly Some of these Churches had been built with a design of receiving as many as well could have personal Communion in Worship together Neither will this hold unless some of those Churches could have received all which had Personal Communion with Athanasius in this greatest Church which he denies and makes use of to Constantius as a plea why he made use of the greatest As Theonas is said by Athanasius to have built a Church bigger than any of those they had before Where Theonas is said by Athanasius to have built a Church c. I find not nor does he direct us where it may be found I suppose for very good Reason Indeed Athanasius in this Apology speaks of a Church called Theonas it's like in memory of a former Bishop of that place where he sayes the multitude of Catholicks met with Alexander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in like Circumstances as a greater multitude assembled with himself in the new Church which was greater and pleads Alexander's example in defence of what he did But Theonas could not build this Church for he was dead many years before being Predecessour to Peter whom Achillas and Alexander succeeded h Euseb l. 7. c. ult Theodoret ◠1. c. 2. And yet this and all the rest were but few and strait in comparison of the great multitude of Catholicks that were in Alexandria I expected another Conclusion but if this be all he might have spared the premisses for one part of it we assert the other we need not deny only adding with Athanasius that the greatest Church was capable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of receiving this great multitude But here he sticks and will wriggle a little more But I conceive sayes he after all this that the expressions of Athanasius do not conclude that all the Christians in Alexandria were met in this great Church That all and every one did come was never imagined It is but the main body of the Catholicks that M. B. intends as our Author observes a little before For the tumultuous manner in which they came to their Bishop to demand a general Assembly makes it probable that not only Women and Children would be glad to absent themselves but many more either apprehensive of the effect of this tumultuous proceeding or of the danger of such a crowd The Women he will not admit but was it ever known that such a great and solemn Assembly for Worship consisted only of Men Were not the Women in Communion with Athanasius's Christians that they must be left out when he sayes all the Catholicks met Can all be truly said to assemble when the farr greater part Women Children and his many more were absent Are not the Women in the Primitive Church often noted for such Zeal for the Worship of Christ as made them contemn far greater dangers than here they had any cause to be apprehensive of The supposed danger was either from the Crowd or the Tumult For the former did the Women and many more never come to Christian Assemblies when there was any danger of being crowded I think there was as great danger from a crowd in Basiliscus his Reign when the whole City of C. P. is said to have met together in a Church with the Emperour but yet the Women stayed not behind but crowded in with the men as Theodorus Lector reports it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Collect. lib. 1 Besides Athanasius here signifies the danger of a crowd was in the lesser Churches not in this where they could not meet but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so drefers their assembling together in the great Church as better As for the Tumults which might have been concealed in a Vindication of the primitive Church if there was any thing tumultuous it was over when Athanasius had complyed with their desires to meet in the great Church And so no apprehension of danger left to women or any else upon this account And even those that did assemble there were too many for one Congregation and was an assembly more for Solemnity and Ostentation than for Personal Communion in Worship and the proper ends of a religious Assembly Here he runs as cross to the great Athanasius and the account which he gives of this Assembly as if he had studied it debasing that as more for Ostentation than for Personal Communion in Worship and the proper ends of a Religious Assembly which Athanasius highly commends both for the more desirable communion which the Christians had there in Worship and for the greater efficacy of it as to the proper ends of a Religious Assembly Let any one view the passages k Apol. 2. p. 531. 532. and judge He sets forth the harmony and concurrence of the multitude in worship with one voice He preferrs it before their assemblies when dispersed in little places and not only because the unanimity of the multitude was herein more apparent but because God would sooner hear them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if sayes he according to our Saviour's promise where two shall agree concerning anything it shall be done for them by my Father c. how prevalent will be the one voice of so numerous a people assembled together and saying Amen to God and more to that purpose
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
before St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome it holds as well of James 's being Bishop of Jerusalem would confound the Offices which God made distinct for God did appoint first Apostles then Prophets then Pastors and Teachers wherefore St. Peter after he was an Apostle could not well become a Bishop it would be such an irregularity as if a Bishop should be made a Deacon Ecclesiastical History makes James the ordinary Bishop and Diocesan of the place There is nothing in Ecclesiastical History for it but what is derived from Hegesippus and Clemens whom others followed right or wrong It is strange to see Salmasius run his head so violently against such solid Testimonies as those of Hegesippus and Clemens That great person understood things better and discerned no danger in running his head against a shadow and there is nothing more of Solidity in what is alledged from those Authors Further he would prove it a Diocesan Church by a passage in Hegesippus who sayes that several of the Jewish Sectaries who beleived neither a Resurrection nor Judgment to come were Converted by James and that when a great number of the Rulers and principal men of the City were by this Ministry brought to believe the Gospel the Jews made an Uproar the Scribes and Pharisees saying that it was to be feared that all the people would turn Christians x Pag. 446. He sayes many of the prime Sectaries were converted by James but this will scarce prove such a Diocesan Church as he contends for That which would serve his turn that all the people would turn Christians was not effected but only feared by the Jews who took a course to prevent it by killing James But if this were for his purpose Hegesippus is not an Author to be relied on part of the Sentence cited is false that the Sects mentioned and he had mentioned seven did not believe the Resurrection nor Judgment whereas the Pharisees and others of them beleived both which Valesius observes In Euseb 2. c. 23. One false thing in a Testimony is enough to render it suspected but there are near twenty things false or fabulous in this account he gives of James many of them marked by Scaliger y Animad in Euseb p. 178. divers by Valesius z In Euseb l. 2. cap. 23. and some acknowledged by Petavius a Not. ad Heres 78. He would not have us suspect that the numbers of the Church at Jerusalem were not so great as he pretends because Pella an obscure little Town could receive them all besides its own Inhabitants but we must understand that Town to be their Metropolis and the Believers all scattered through the whole Countrey and this as Epiphanius writes But where does Epiphanius write this Not in the place cited he writes the contrary both there and elsewhere that all the Believers in one place b Epiph. Her 30. that all the Disciples in another place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c De Ponder Mens cap. 15. what he adds is but to describe where the Town was situated all the Disciples all the Believers dwelt beyond Jordan in Pella Archbishop Whitgift brings this as a pregnant proof that the Christians at Jerusalem were but few in comparison and no more than could all meet in one place as a little before he affirms again and again his words are how few Christians was there at Jerusalem not long before it was destroyed being above Forty years after Christ Does not Eusebius testifie d Lib. 3. cap. 5. that they all were received into a little Town called Pella yet the Apostles had spent much time and labour in Preaching there but the number of those that did not profess Christ in that City was infinite e Defence of Answer Treat 3. c. 6. pag. 175. This might be farther cleared by what Epiphanius saith of that Church in its return from Pella but I design briefness Our Author adds one Testimony more to shew that under the Government of Simeon great numbers were added to that Church many thousands of the Circumcision receiving the Christian Faith at that time and among the rest Justus c. pag. 448. But those who view the place in Eusebius will see that he does not say those many of the Circumcision were converted by Simeon or were under his Government or belonged to that Church and so it signifies nothing for his purpose And so in fine the account wherewith he concludes his Discourse of Jerusalem will not be admitted by any who impartially consider the Premisses As for his other Scripture instances there is not so much as the shadow of a proof shewed by him that there were near so many Christians as in Jerusalem or as are in some one of our Parishes yea or more than could meet in one place either in Samaria where he sayes it appears not what kind of Government was established pag. 451. or in Lydda which was but a Village though a fair one and far from having Saron for its proper Territory that being a plain between Joppa and Caesarea or in Antioch pag. 452. much less in Corinth and Ephesus which he advisedly passes by pag. 456. Our Author does in effect acknowledge that in Scripture it appears not that these Churches were Episcopal much less Diocesan It is to be confessed saies he pag. 461. that the Scriptures have not left so full and perfect an account of the Constitution and Government of the first Churches c. Thus we have no more notice of the Churches of Samaria and of Judaea Jerusalem excepted than that such were founded by the Apostles but of their Government and Constitution we have not the least Information What information then can we have that they were Diocesan or Episcopal He goes on And the prospect left of Antioch in Scripture is very confused as of a Church in fieri where a great number of eminent persons laboured together to the building of it up but only from Ecclesiastical Writers who report that this Church when it was settled and digested was committed to the Government of Euodias and after him to Ignatius c. So that after what form the Church at Antioch was constituted does not appear it may be Congregational and not Diocesan for any thing this Gentleman can see in Scripture but only from Ecclesiastical Writers But his Ecclesiastical Writers do so contradict one another as renders their testimonies of little value Nor is there much more reckoning to be made of the traditional account they and others give concerning the Succession and Government of the first Bishops than this Author makes of Eusebius his traditional Chronology pag. 454. Some make Euodias the first Bishop and he being dead Ignatius to succeed him f Euseb l. 3. c. 22. on the contrary some will have Ignatius to have been the first and make no mention of Euodias g Chrys Orat. in Ignat. others will have them to have governed that Church both
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
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
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