which had a metropolitan and suffragans before and being now destitute the Bishops in the Vicinity were careful to provide others Which being so that it should be part of Basil's Province seems as incongruous as if it were said that the Province of York is part of the Province of Canterbury but if this could be digested that one Province is part of another yet Isauria would rather be part of Amphilochius his province who as he tells us was to constitute a Metropolitan and other Bishops therein than of Basil's who is only represented as giving advice about it Or if giving advice and direction would prove any thing of this nature the Papists might think it a good argument that Africa was part of the Roman Province because Leo Bishop of Rome gives advise how Bishops should be there constituted e Ibid. Next he brings in the Chore-piscopi in order to his design and tells us f Pag. 550. they were Countrey Bishops and their Church consisted of many Congregations and those at a good distance one from another and also that some of them had the inspection of a large Territory no less it is like than the County of Fussala But not a word for proof of this save Basil's mentioning a Chor-episcopus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of some places Whereas if he had been the Bishop of two or three Villages this might be enough to satisfie the import of that expression Yet he knows there is some one Countrey Parish that hath ten times as many or more Villages in it but never pretended to be a Diocesan Church and that such a pretence would be now counted ridiculous He adds that which if it were true wouldgo near to dethrone these Countrey Bishops for Basil speaks of them as having their Thrones in Villages and render them less than antient Presbyters for all their large Territory and there being Diocesans But yet these were but the Deputies or Surrogates of the City Bishops in point of jurisdiction for they were to do nothing of moment without their Bishop If this be so it would be less wonder that the Pope will have Bishops to be but his substitutes and that some Bishops will have the Pastors of Parochial Churches to be but their Vicars or Curates I hope our Author intends better however it is well that such odd Hypotheses have no better support than that which is added for sayes he they were to do nothing of moment without their Bishop this is his argument and he is not alone in urging it Let us see whether it will not do the Bishops for whose advancement it is designed as much disservice as it can do the Chorepiscopi or Presbyters divesting them of that which is counted more necessary and advantagious to them than a large Diocese The Provincial Bishops were obliged to do nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop of the Metropolis this the synod at Antioch decrees according to an antient Canon of the Fathers g Can. 9. Can. Apost 35. Concil Milev Can. 13. By this argument we must conclude that the Bishops in a Province were but the Deputies and Surrogates of the Metropolitan And it may proceed proportionably against the Metropolitans with respect to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primates and also to their prejudice in reference to the Patriarchs It will go near to destroy the Bishops likewise if we follow it downwards In the antient Church the Bishops were to do nothing of moment without the Presbyters this the most judicious and Learned Asserters of Episcopacy acknowledge h B. Bilson Dr. Field Dr. Downham B. Hall M. Thorndike B. Usher Nay further in the best Ages of the Church the Bishops were to do nothing without the people that is without their presence and consent This is most evident in Cyprian's Epistles and is acknowledged by such Prelatists as are otherwise reserved enough i Vide defence of Dr. St. Pag. 407. Now by this Argument we may conclude that Bishops were but the Deputies or Surrogates of the Presbyters or which will be counted more intolerable that Bishops had their jurisdiction from the people by Deputation and Vicarage It may be this Gentleman will not like his argument so well when he sees what improvement it is capable of yet in pursuance of it he adds Basil is so resolute upon his prerogative that he will not endure they should ordain as much as the inferiour Clergy without his consent and if they do let them know sayes he that whosoever is admitted without our consent shall be reputed but a Layman I suppose the Prerogative for which he will have Basil so resolute is a Negative in ordinations upon the Countrey Bishops but this cannot be concluded from the words cited For the Council of Nice gives the Metropolitan a power as to ordinations in the same words k Can. 6. declaring that if a Bishop be ordained by the Provincials 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the judgment of the Metropolitan the great Council will have him accounted no Bishop and yet the Metropolitan had no Negative upon the Provincials in Ordinations for the same Council determines that in ordinations plurality of Votes shall prevail which is utterly inconsistent with any ones Negative voice What then is the import of Basil's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take it in the words of a very Learned and Judicious Dr. of this Church it is indeed there said that none should be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the opinion of the Metropolitan but that doth not import a Negative voice in him but that the transaction should not pass in his absence or without this knowledge advice and suffrage c. l Barrow of the Popes Supremacy Pag. 314 5. It is no proof of a Diocesan Church to shew that a Town besides the Clergy or Officers in it had some Presbyters or Congregations in the Countrey belonging to it The instances which signifie no more or not so much are produced as sufficient arguments to prove there were such Churches As that of Gaius Diddensis Presbyter supposed with what ground I examine not to have been a Countrey Presbyter belonging to Carthage and under Cyprian m Vindication p. 504. And that of Felix said to do the Office of a Presbyter under Decimus another Presbyter a thing unheard of in those times but let us take it as we find it and upon the very slender reason alledged against Goulartius who is of another Judgment believe that he was a Priest in some Village belonging to Caldonius his Diocese n Pag. 506. 507. And that order for the Presbyters from their Churches to repair to their proper Bishop for Chrism in Africa o Con. 4. Can. 36. in Spain p Tol. 1. Cap. 20. and in France q Vascon Can. 3. To these are added for further evidences the Churches said without ground to be many belonging to Hippo Diaeritorum Also the Church of Thyana belonging to
very near Caesarea No indeed it is thereby proved to be so far from Caesarea that it did not enlarge Basil's Province much less his Diocese Thus it is also placed in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Leo Sophus under the Metropolitan of Tyana not of Caesarea It is true Basil laid claim to it but after some contest he yeilded and Anthimus carried it placing Eulalius there as one of his Suffragans when Nazianzen had quitted it He goes farther on to shew the largeness of Dioceses in Basil's Province It is plain by Nazianzen that Cappadocia had but 50 Bishops for so many he sayes Basil had under him and considering the extent of that Countrey the Dioceses must needs be large He does not say Basil had no more under him nor that he was making no more he knew Basil was constituting more Bishops in that part of Cappadocia which was his Province and Nazianzen commends him for it as an excellent undertaking on several accounts y Orat. de Bal. Considering the extent of that Countrey the Dioceses must needs be large for the Countrey as Strabo computes is near 400 miles in length and little less in breadth If he means Basil's own Province where he told us there were 50 Suffragans under him besides Sasima c z Pag. 546. as I know not what he can mean else if his Discourse be not impertinent and inconsistent for Basil as Metropolitan had no Bishops under him but those in his proper Province Strabo is strangely misrepresented to serve a turn for it is the whole Countrey which passed under the name of Cappadocia that the Geographer gives us the dimensions of in the place cited and tell us it was divided into ten Prefectures Meletena Cataonia Cilica Tyanitis Isauritis c. whereof Basil's Province was but one viz. that called Cilica and that of Anthimus Tyanitis another c. Mazaca afterwards called Caesarea being Metropolis of Basil's and Tyana of Tyanitis c. and after he hath given some account of these ten Praefectures he adds the dimensions of the whole Countrey in these words the extent of Cappadocia in breadth from the Euxine to Taurus is 1800 Furlongs in length 3000. So that our Author will have the extent of Basil's Province to be no less than that of the whole Countrey when it is but the tenth part thereof And as if this were not enough he makes the breadth of the whole Countrey to be near twice as much as it is in Strabo but he hath some salvo for this such as it is And little less in breadth as Causabon restores the reading of 1800 Furlongs in the 12th Book by a passage in the second where the breadth is made 2800. It is true Causabon observes some difference in the places cited but he shews how they may be easily reconciled without changing the Text here or making the Countrey broader than it is here described viz. by taking Pontus in one place for the Sea in the other for the Region so called separated from Cappadocia by mountains parallel to Taurus and then concludes Sic non erit discedendum à vulgatâ lectione So that he hath no relief by Causabon without curtailing the Passage And in this compass Bishops may contrive 50 Dioceses of very competent extent and not inferiour to many of ours Let him try how in Basil's Province of about 40 miles in length he can contrive room for above 50 Bishops with as large Dioceses as those he pleads for That which is now thought little enough for one Bishop Basil conceived too big for Fifty What Dioceses Basil and others before him thought sufficient for Bishops both then and in formertimes appears by a passage which our Author next cites where Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium is directed to constitute Bishops for the Province of Iconium in little Corporation and Villages a Ep. 406. Hundreds of instances might be brought of Bishops elsewhere in such little places and Villages but I will go no further now than the instance himself offers us whereby it is manifest that a little Corporation or a Village might furnish a Bishop with such a Diocese as was then thought competent both by Basil and the Church before him For in such little places there was Bishops before as Basil there signifies and he gives direction that it should be so still Yet he that would advise the reducing of Bishops to such Sees now would be counted an enemy to Episcopacy and his advice destructive to Bishops So much do we now differ both from the judgment and practice of the antient Church and the most eminent Bishops in it Hereby also it appears that the multiplying of Metropolitans was no such occasion of multiplying Bishops but that their numbers increased when there was not that occasion And this in Cappadocia which is our Author 's eminent instance b Pag. 545. For Bishops were multiplyed by erecting Episcopal Sees in Villages and little places this was done in Isauria a Province in Cappadocia as appears by these passages in Basil before the contest between him and Anthimus upon the constituting of a new Metropolitan and after that difference was Composed Basil thought it adviseable that it should be done still And the like may be said of Africa the instance he most insists on and spends many Pages upon it pretending the occasion why Bishops were so numerous there was the Schism of the Donatists Whereas the rule by which the African Fathers proceeded in erecting Bishopricks in little places and so increasing the number of Bishops was as themselves declare who best knew it the increase of the number of Christians c Concil Carth. 2 Can. 5. Where these were multiplyed and desired a Bishop they thought themselves obliged to let them have one not excepting the meanness or smalness of the places where he was to be constituted And we must believe if we have any reverence for those Fathers that they would have done what they judged themselves obliged to though there had been no Donatists amongst them And when there can be no such pretence of occasion from the Donatists the practice was continued as appears by St. Austin's procuring a Bishop for Fussala which he calls a Castle upon some increase of the Catholicks there diverse years after the noted conference at Carthage where the heart of the Donatists was broken Nay many years after the invasion of the Vandals and the death of St. Austin they proceeded in the same methods or rather exceeded their Predecessors in multiplying Bishops by erecting Episcopal seats in smaller and more inconsiderable places if Leo his Epistle may be credited d Ep. 85. But to return to our Author and the passage of Basil insisted on by which sayes he it appears that Isauria was part of Basil's Province How this appears by any thing therein I cannot imagine our Author signifies before that Isauria was a distinct Province the Metropolis of it as he supposes Seleucia
he reckons but 466 Vindic. p. 149. taking in those of the Schismaticks too about 66 for each Province one with another counting them as he does seven and the account which others give of their numbers in the antient Roman Province the Kingdom of Naples the Island Crete Ireland to say nothing of Armenia and other parts of the World That which follows is I suppose instead of an Answer to the other part of my discourse concerning the popular election of Bishops which this Gentleman was as much concerned to take notice of as of the few passages he hath touched in the former part why he did not I will not enquire further but satisfie my self with what is obvious especially since he tells us he intends a discourse of such a Subject If in this designed work he satisfies me that it was not the general practice of the antient Church for the People to concur in the choice of their Bishops he will do me a greater displeasure than the confutation of what I have writ or any other that I can fear he intends me by taking me off from further Conversation with antient Authors as persons by whose Writings we can clearly know nothing For if that point be not clear in Antiquity I can never expect to find any thing there that is so I intended to conclude this discourse here without giving the Reader further trouble but considering there are misapprehensions about the Subject in question those being taken by diverse for Diocesan Churches which indeed are not such and arguments used to prove them so which are not competent for that purpose of which there are many instances as elsewhere so particularly in the latter end of this Authors discourse I thought it requisite for the rectifying of these mistakes and to shew the insufficiency or impertinency of such reasonings to give an account what mediums cannot in reason be esteemed to afford competent proof of Diocesan Churches In general Those who will satisfy us that any Churches in the first Ages of Christianity were Diocesan should prove them to be such Diocesans as ours are as large or near as large otherwise what they offer will scarce appear to be pertinent For the rise of this debate is the question between us whether the Bishops of these times be such as those in the primitive Church This we deny because modern Bishops will have another sort of Churches or Dioceses than were known in the best Ages Not that we reject all Dioceses or Diocesan Churches for both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used by the Antients for such Churches as we allow It is those of a later Model that we approve not as vastly differing from the antient Episcopal Churches The modern Dioceses and Churches thence denominated are exceeding great and extensive consisting of many scores or many hundred particular Churches whereas for the three first Ages we cannot find 3 Bishops that had two particular Churches in his Diocess nor in the 4th one in 50 if I may not say one in a hundred that had more So that the difference is exceeding great and more considerable in the consequence thereof which I had rather give an account of in the words of the very learned D. St. than mine own Dioceses generally sayes he in the primitive and Eastern Churches were very small and little as far more convenient for this end of them in the Government of the Church under the Bishops charge x Iren. p. 376. and elsewhere Discipline sayes he was then a great deal more strict Preaching more diligent Men more apprehensive of the weight of their Function than for any to undertake such a care and charge of Souls that it was impossible for them even to know observe or watch over so as to give an account for them y Pag. 332. Men that were imployed in the Church then did not consult for their ease and honour and thought it not enough for them to sit still and bid others work z Pag. 333. St. Austin speaking of the 3d. Age makes account of many thousand Bishops then in the World a Contra Crescon lib. 3. Our Author seems to treat that excellent Person something coursely on this occasion and goes near to question his judgment or veracity for it b Pag. 534. some may think this not over decently done to say no more when it is his business to vindicate some antient Bishops who need it to reflect upon one so untainted as to need none However since he sayes that Father judged of other Ages by his own when Dioceses were exceedingly multiplyed c Pag. 535. we may suppose he will grant there were many thousand Bishops in the 4th Age. Yet among so many thousand Bishops I do not expect that any can shew me 20 if I may not say 10. who had so many Churches in their Diocess as some Pluralists amongst us may have who yet never pretend to have a Diocesan Church Those therefore who will make proof of such Diocesan Churches as are in question must shew us some in the primitive times something like ours in largeness and extent Amongst the instances produced for this purpose by former or later Writers I find none any thing near to ours save that only of Theodoret in the 5th Age. But this in the former Discourse was shewed to be so insufficient to serve the ends it is alledged for that I may hope it will be prest no more for this Service More particularly 1st It proves not a Church to be Diocesan because it consists of more than can meet together in one place for there are Parishes in this Land that contain many hundreds or thousands more than can meet in the Parish Church and yet are but counted single Congregations Though multitudes in such Churches be far from proving them to be Diocesan yet I think two instances cannot be given in the third Age of more in one Church than are in some single Congregations amongst us nor many afterwards till Arianism and Donatism were suppressed which the latter was not in Africa till after the famous Conference at Carthage Anno 410 nor the former in other parts during the 4th Age for though Theodosius made some sharp Declarations against them and other Hereticks yet none but the Eunomians were prosecuted if we believe Socrates d Lib. 5. c. 20. that Emperour gave not the least trouble to the rest forced none to communicate with him but allowed them their Meetings and even in C. P. when afterwards the Arians divided among themselves each party had several Congregations in that City e Lib. 5. c. 23. both that which adhered to Marinus and that also which followed Dorothius these keeping the Churches which they had before and the other erecting new Churches I know there are those who from some passages in Tertullian f Apol. c. 37. ad Scapulam would infer that the Christians in his time were