about a City would hardly make a Congregation that is to be ascribed to the condition of those times Dioceses with him were largest in the first times but Bishops being still multiplyed they became less and less and so were very small and crumbled into very little pieces in the fourth and fifth Ages This is the tendency of his discourse all along Thus Dioceses must be largest when a Bishop had but one Congregation but in after ages when he had more Congregations under his inspection Dioceses were very small If he will stand to this our differences may be easily compromized Let him and those of his perswasion be content with the Dioceses in the first ages when he counts them largest and we shall never trouble any to reduce them to the measures of the fourth and fifth ages when in his account they were so lamentably little and crumbled so very small The particulars premised contain enough to satisfie all that I have yet seen alledged out of Antiquity for Diocesan Churches so that no more is needful yet let me add another which will shew there is a medium between Congregational and Diocesan Churches So that if some Churches should be shewed out of the Antients exceeding the Congregational measures as some there were in the times of the four first General Councils yet it cannot thence be immediately inferred that they were Diocesan since they may prove a third sort of Churches and such as will as little please those of this Gentleman's perswasion as Congregational 6. It 's no argument for a Diocesan Church that there were several fixed Churches with their proper Presbyters in a City or its Territory so long as these Churches how many soever were governed in common by the Bishop and Presbyters in such a Precinct For though few instances can be given of such Churches in or belonging to a City in the 4th Age yet wherever they were extant in that or the following Age in things of common concern to those Churches they were ordered in common by a Presbytery that is the Bishop with the Presbyters of that Precinct Jerome declares it de jure they ought to be governed in common in communi debere Ecclesiam regere h In Titus 1. And Felix 3 Bishop of Rome than whom no Bishop was higher or more absolute in those times declares it de facto when he speaks of the Presbyters of that Church as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ruling that Church with him It is the same word that the governing of Churches by other Bishops is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Alexander saith of Narcissus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Euseb l. 6. c 11 It imports no less than praesidere and is ascribed to Bishops and Presbyters jointly by Tertullian k Apol. c. 39 Cyprian l Lib. 1. Ep. 3. and Firmilian m Ep. 75 Hence the Presbyters are frequently said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Bishop n Theod. Hist l. 4. c. 8. Epiphan Her 42. for then the Governing power of Bishops was but counted a Ministry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o Isidore Lib. 4. Ep. 260. and the Presbyters fellow Ministers with him and joint Administrators in the Government They are styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p Naz. Orat. 1. Orat. 7. fellow Pastors they did not then dream that a Bishop was sole Pastor of many Churches They are also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q Ignat. ad Tral in Chrysost Tom 7. Hom. ζ. a. for the Presbyters had their Thrones with the Bishop So Nazianzen speaks of Basil when ordained Presbyter as promoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Sacred Thrones of the Presbyters r Orat. 20. They are also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s Chyys in Tim. Hom. 1. But further evidence is needless though abundance may be produced since the great Patrons of Episcopacy seems not to question it that the Church was governed in common and the Bishop was to do nothing of importance without the Presbyters it is acknowledged by Bishop Bilson t Perpet Govern Cap. 11. Bishop Downham u Defence lib. 3. L. 1. c. 8. Bishop Hall asserts it as that which is Vniversally accorded by all antiquity that all things in the antient Church were ordered and transacted by the general consent of Presbyters w Iren. P. 47. Mr. Thorndike proves at large that the Government of Churches passed in common x Prim. Govern Primate Vsher more succinctly but effectually y Reduct of Episcopacy Add but Dr. St. who both asserts and proves it z Iren. Pag. 354. 355. 356. there was still one Ecclesiastical Senate which ruled all the several Congregations of those Cities in common of which the several Presbyters of the Congregations were Members and in which the Bishop acted as the President of the Senate for the better Governing the affairs of the Church c. Let me add when the Churches were so multiplyed in City and Territory as that it was requisite to divide them into Parishes and constitute several Churches the Bishop was not the proper Ruler or Pastor of the whole Precinct and the Churches in it or of any Church but one The Parishes or Churches were divided among Presbyters and Bishop they had their several distinct cures and charges the Bishops peculiar charge was the Ecclesia principalis the chief Parish or Church so called or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Presbyters performed all Offices in their several Cures and ordered all affairs which did particularly concern the Churches where they were incumbents those that were of more common concern were ordered by Bishop and Presbyters together and thus it was in the Bishops Church or Parish he performed all Offices administred all Ordinances of Worship himself or by Presbyters joyned with him as Assistants He was to attend this particular cure constantly he was not allowed to be absent no not under pretence of taking care for some other Church if he had any business there which particularly concerned him he was to make quick dispatch and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Zonaras stay there with the neglect of his proper flock this is all evident by a Canon of the Council of Carthage a Rursum r In Zona N. 77 in Code 71. placuit ut nemini sit facultas relicta principali Cathedra ad aliquam Ecclesiam in Diocesi constitutam se conferre vel in re propria diutius quam oportet constitutum curam vel frequentationem propriae Cathedrae negligere Of this Church or Parish he was the proper Pastor or Ruler called there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and elsewhere b Can. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in contradistinction to other parts of the Precinct called here Dioceses and the people of it are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the ancient Canonist c Zona in loc his proper flock or people his own
special charge This was the particular Church under his personal Government but he was not Ruler of the Precinct or any other Churches in it save only in common and in conjunction with the other Presbyters who jointly took cognizance of what in his Church or theirs was of greater or more general consequence and concerned the whole and gave order in it by common consent And while this was the form of Government if there had been as many Churches there thus associated as Optatus in the fourth age says there was at Rome or far more they could not make a Diocesan Church unless a Diocesan and a Presbyterian Church be all one For this is plainly a Presbyterian Church the antient Presbyteries differing from the modern but in a matter of smaller moment In those their President being fixed and constant in these commonly though not always circular The Presbyteries in Scotland comprized some twelve some twenty some more Churches their Moderators were at first and for some years circular King James afterwards Anno 1606 d Hist p. 559. would have them to be constant and so it was ordered yet when they were fixed no man ever counted these Presbyteries to be Diocesan Churches The Church of Geneva consists of twenty four Parishes governed in common by a Presbytery with a Moderator who is sometimes changed sometimes continued for Life Calvin was President while he lived yet that of Geneva is not wont to be taken for a Diocesan Church Nor were those antient Churches such while they were governed not by one Bishop but by a Senate of Presbyters where he presided as in the Council of Constantinople all things in the Province are said to be governed not by the Metropolitan but by the Provincial Synod e Can. 2. Soc. l. 5. cap. 8. Finally the Presbyters are in the antient Church acknowledged to have had the power of the keys both as to the ministration of the Word and Sacraments and the exercise of Government and censures This power they exercised either jointly in conjunction with the Bishop and Senate of Presbyters or distinctly in the particular Churches whereof they had the charge The former power concerning the Word and Sacraments is not questioned nor is there any ground to question the latter if some were not swayed more by the practice of their own times than the principles and declarations of the antients Chrysostom ascribes to Presbyters not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power of order but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power of Government f giving this as the reason why the In 1 Tim. Iom 11. Apostle gives the same rules for the ordering both of Bishops and Presbyters there is but little difference betwixt them says he for they are ordained both to the teaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ruling of the Church Now that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes jurisdiction or presidentiam cum potestate and is as Hesychius renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is plain in Chrysostome himself he tells us the Apostle Paul had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g In 1 Cor. Hom. 23. Hom 25. which he elsewhere expresses by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h In 2 Cor. Hom. 25. and speaking of Moses he says it was wonderful that he who was to be a Ruler 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be born at such a time i In Act. Hom. 16. Theophilact makes the difference as little between Bishop and Presbyters and ascribes as much power to the later almost in the same words k In 1 Tim. So Theodoret declares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jurisdiction to belong to every Presbyter l In 1 Tim. 5. 19. against an Elder especially no less than two Witnesses must be admitted because he having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Government of the Church and in the exercise of it often grieving Delinquents they being ill affected to him will be apt to bring false accusations And this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 included in the Presbyters Office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nazzanzen speaks and much more to that purpose m Orat. 1. And besides many other passages of like import the Title of Governours is all a long in antient Writers given to Presbyters and all the expressions which signifie Authority and Government are ascribed to them Thereby those that would curtail their power and make it no more of old than it is now are not a little encumbred to extricate themselves a distinction is devised of a power internal and external the former they will allow to Presbyters in their respective Churches not the later But this is devised to disentangle themselves and salve the deviations and irregularities of later times not that there is any ground for it in Antiquity For the highest act of that external power of jurisdiction is Excommunication and if this was in the Presbyters power of old no other act of that power will or can in reason be denied them but this the antients ascribe to them So Jerome n Ad Heliodorum Mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet illi si peccavero licet me tradere satanae ad interritum carnis ut spiritus salvus sit Chrysostome threatned some of his Auditory while he was a Presbyter to Excommunicate them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o Hom. 17. in Matth. to wave all of like nature insisted on by others Justinian in the 6th Age signifies plainly that not only Bishops but Presbyters might Excommunicate Offenders in his Constitutions he forbids Bishops and Presbyters to exclude any from Communion till such cause was declared for which the Canons appointed it to be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and will have the sentence of Excommunication rescinded which was passed by Bishops or Presbyters without cause p Novel 123. c. 11. In the Code both Bishops and Clergy are forbid to Excommunicate in certain cases and then mentions the cases for which they must not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although they had been accustomed to it q Lex 39 Sec. 2. Tit. de Episc Clericis Now while Presbyters had this power there could be no Diocesan Churches whether they exercised it in common as was shewed before or particularly in their several Churches as will now be made apparent For by virtue of these powers the Presbyters were really Bishops though they had not alwayes the Title yea they are called Bishops as a Learned Prelatist observes by the antientest Authors Clemens Ignatius Tertullian r Thornd Prim. Govern Pag. 73. 74. and have frequently the Names and Titles which some would appropriate to Bishops and which the Fathers use to express the Office of Bishops by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praepositi Antistites Praesidentes ſ Idem service Pag. 68. c. And so there was as many Bishops really in every Diocese as there were particular Churches and Presbyters there And well may they be said to be really the same since
they were of the very same Office for Bishops in the antient Church were not a superiour Order to Presbyters but had only a Precedency in the same Order This some of the most judicious and learned Defenders of Episcopacy assert And those who hold that Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops differed not in Order but in degree only which is the common opinion of Episcopal Divines and yet contend that Bishops and Presbyters were of a different order will never be able to prove it The difference they assign between Bishops and Metropolitans is that these presided in Synode and had a principal interest in Ordinations and what more did the preeminence of antient Bishops distinguishing them from Presbyters amount to It consisted in nothing material but their presidency in Presbyteries and their power in Ordinations This last is most insisted on as making the difference wider between these than the other But with little reason all things considered For those to be ordained were first to be examined and approved by the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t Theophilus Commonitor cap. 6. the ordaining of one to the Presbytery was to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 u Clem. Constitut lib. 8. cap. 18. It was a crime for which the greatest Bishop in the World was censurable to preferr any or make Ordinations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by what Chrysostome was accused of though it is like falsly w Phot. in Chry Tom. 8. pag. 155 Concil Carth. â— cap. 22. Turon 2 and this is counted by some the substance of Ordination wherein the Presbyters had no less share to say no more than the Bishop And in imposing hands which was the Rite of Ordaining the Presbyters were to concurr with the Bishop for which there is better Authority than the Canon of an African Council for saith a very learned Doâ—â—or x Iren. p. 27â— to this purpose the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery y 1 Tim. 1. â— is no ways impertinently alledged although we suppose St. Paul â—o concurr in the action because if the Presbytery had nothing to do in the Ordination to what purpose were their hands laid upon him Was it only to be Witnesses of the fact or to signifie their consent Both these might have been done without their use of that Ceremony which will scarce be instanced in to be done by any but such as had power to conferr what was signifyed by that Ceremony And diverse instances are brought by the same hand to shew that Ordinations by Presbyters was valid in the antient Church z pag. 379. But if the Presbyters had been quite excluded from Ordination and this power had been intirely reserved to the Bishops yet this would not be sufficient to constitute them a superiour Order For the Rite of Ordaining was so farr from being an act of Government or jurisdiction that it did not inferre any superiority in the Ordainer nothing being more ordinary in the practice of the Antient Church than for those were of a lower Degree and Station to Ordain their Superiours While there was no more distance betwixt Bishop and Presbyters but only in Degree so that as the Bishop was but primus Presbyter as Hilary under the name of Ambrose and others a In 1 Tim. Autor Quest in V. â—t N. T. or Primicerius as Optatus defined by a Learned Civilian to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Gothofrid in Code the first Presbyter so the Presbyter was a second Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nazianzen As the Bishop was summus sacerdos in the style of Tertullian and others that is cheif Presbyter so the Presbyter was Bishop a degree lower not that he had less pastoral power but because he wanted that degree of dignity or preeminence for which the other was styled chief As the Praeter Vrbanus was called Maximus yet he had no more Power than the other Praetorum idem erat collegium eadem potestas c Bodin lib. 3. c. 6. but only some more priviledge and dignity dignitate coeteros anteibat propterea maximus dicebatur d Fest in verb. major and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was Praetor maximus yet all the rest were pares potestaet e Ibid. Bishops and Presbyters had idem ministerium as Jerome eadem Ordinatio as Hilary f In 1 Tim. 3. they were of the same Order and Office had the same power the power of the Keys all that which the Scripture makes essential to a Bishop While it was thus there could be no Diocesan Churches that is no Churches consisting of many Congregations which had but one Bishop only POST-SCRIPT A Late Writer presumes he has detected a notable mistake in the Author of No Evidence for Diocesan Churches ascribed to one who owns it not about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I suppose he would have Translated Ten Thousands definitely but there it is rendred indefinitely thousands as we are wont to express a great many when the precise number is not known Those who understand the Language and have observed the use of the Word will be farr from counting this a fault and those who view the passage will count it intolerable to render it as that Gentleman would have it That of Atticus Bishop of C. P. may satisfie any concerning the import and use of the word who sending mony for the releif of the poor at Nice to Calliopius he thus writes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he tells him that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he understands a multitude whose number he did not exactly know thus i. e. indefinitely is the word most frequently used by Greek Writers and particularly by Eusebius the Author of the passage cited So he tells us Nero killed his Hist l. 2. c. Mother his Brothers his Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of her Kindred And Timotheus of Gaza he â— l. 8. C. 13. says indured 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many more might be added where the word is not rendred by the best Translators Valesius particularly ten thousand but still indefinitly innumerabiles or infiniti or sexcenti c. Nor have I met with one instance though possibly there may be some in him where it is used to express ten thousand precisely However it had been an unpardonable injury to Eusebius to have rendred it so in this place as if he would have deluded the World with a most palpable untruth which both he and all men acquainted with the state of the Church in those times know to be so For this make him say that ten thousand Bishops met in Councel at Antioch in the third Age when as he never knew a Synod of six hundred Bishops in the fourth Age while he lived though then Bishops were farr more numerous and had all encouragement to meet in greatest numbers This makes him signifie that ten thousand Bishops assembled in the skirts of the East part of the Empire When as
clear account no value of the Numismata nor is there any Evidence in the Council for the Mannors he speaks of but only the felling of some wood in a certain place there named But where there was a Diocesan and Archdeacons decorum required there should be Mannors and vast Revenues for the Bishop Nor do I quarrel with it only this breaks the squares a little and disturbs the correspondence between those and our times that if the Revenues of that Church had amounted to ten times more yet the Bishop would scarce have been one jot the richer for it This will not seem strange to any who take notice of the antient Orders concerning the revenues of an Episcopal Church The Bishop was to have nothing thereof if he could maintain himself otherwise When he was necessitous nothing was allowed him for himself but necessaries food and raiment ſ Con. Antioch C. 25. He was to purchase nothing while he lived nor to leave any thing got by his Bishoprick when he died to his Relatives or others but only to the Church that maintained him t Code Justin Lex 42. Sect. 2 c. de Episc Nov◠131. c. 13. Con◠Car. 3. Can. 49 The Bishop of Edessa or any other in these Circumstances must be a poor Diocesan and one in a good English Rectory or Vicaridge is in a fairer way to be rich than any in the antient Bishopricks so ordered And if Riches or Revenues be good Arguments to prove a Diocesan one of our Vicars may be a better Diocesan than the Bishop of Edessa It is true there is some intimation from Rome that the Bishop should have the 4th part of the Churches revenues but there 's no appearance of such a distribution till after the time of the four first general Councils nor in any Countrey but Italy till an hundred years after Nor did it ever obtain that I can discover after some inquiry in the Greek Churches 3. The other proof that Ibas was a Diocesan viz. because he had excommunicating Archdeacons our Author would make good by telling us that one of his Archdeacons excommunicated Maras Now this though it prove not what it is alledged for may prove more than he likes An Archdeacon in the antient Church though he be another thing now was not so much as a Presbyter he was but in the lower Order of Deacons though chief amongst them and chosen by them as Jerome signifies u Ep. ad Evagrium Diaconi eligunt de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocant the Deacons chuse from amongst themselves one whom they know to be industrious and call him Archdeacon Now if a Deacon had the power to excommunicate there can be no doubt but the Presbyters had it being of a Superiour Order and Power And excommunication being counted the highest act of Jurisdiction it cannot be questioned but the other acts thereof belonged to them and so the Presbyters having all the Jurisdiction of Bishops all the power of Government what did they want of being Bishops but the honour of presiding in their Assemblies And if they were no farther from being Bishops they will go near to be as much Diocesan and so this Gentleman may chuse whether he will have all of both sorts to be Diocesans or none of either 4ly It is no Argument to prove a Diocesan Church to shew that it consists of such who live at a good distance one from another Dionysius had a great Congregation at Cephro a Village in Lybia but those which made up this Church were of another Countrey coming partly from Alexandria partly from other parts of Egypt as Eusebius shews us yet none ever esteemed that to be a Diocesan Church In Justin Martyr's time those that were in the Countrey and those that were in the City when those were no more than made one Congregation met together in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Meeting consisted of such as lived at a good distance but none will imagine it to be a Diocesan Church but those who will have a single Congregation to be such a Church All the Christians in City and Countrey says Dr. Downham if they had been assembled together would have made but a small Congregation w Defence l. 2. c. 4. p. 69. Our Authour would prove the largeness of Basil's Diocess by the distance between Caesarea and Sasima * x pag. 546 547 He makes much of it and takes the pains to measure the distance between these Towns or rather as he says to make some guess at it out of an Itenerary and Putinger's Tables yet tells us the distance must be as great at least as between Hippo and Fussala that so St. Basil's Diocess may be as great at least as that of St Austin's I think they will prove much alike for as I have shew'd that Austin's Diocess was not one foot larger for Fussala so it will appear that St. Basil's had not the least enlargement upon the account of Sasima That he might not be out in his measures nor have lost all his labour two things should first have been cleared neither of which is or I think can be proved 1st That Sasima was in Basil's Diocese for if it was but only in his Province how far soever it was from Caesarea his Diocese can be nothing the larger for it though his Province might To prove it in his Diocese I find nothing but his own assertion that Sasima is said expresly to be taken out of the Diocese of Basil but where is this said expresly or by whom except by himself The words in the Margin signify no such thing but only some attempt to deprive a Metropolis of Sasima For a Metropolis may be deprived of a Town which is in any part of the Province when another Metropolitan seizeth on it And I believe our Author is yet more out in taking the Metropolis which Nazianzen speaks of to be Caesarea when it appears by the Epistle to be rather Tyana For as the whole Epistle is writ to Basil so these words cited after many others by way of sharp expostulation are directed to him as endeavouring to deprive a Metropolis of this Town called ironically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now Caesarea was not the Metropolis which Basil would have deprived of Sasima he earnestly endeavoured to have it annext thereto but he would have deprived Tyana of it if Anthimus the Metropolitan there had not made a stout opposition 2dly He should have proved that after this part of Cappadocia was divided into two Provinces Sasima was in that Province which fell to Basil's share for if it was not in his Province how could his Diocese be any larger for it but instead of this our Author offers what may serve to disprove it telling us that in the antient Greek Notitia Sasima is set down in the second Cappadocia which belonged to Anthimus as the first did to Basil and so sayes he it is not likely to be
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
these dayes saith he hath for most part a peculiar signification differing from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in those daies The latter signifies an indefinite time sometimes a good way off but the former generally denotes a certain time then present instantly then at that time so here that which is said of Mary's going to Elizabeth was sure immediately after the departing of the Angel from her and therefore it is said she rose up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very hastily so ver 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. immediately Elizabeth conceived so chap. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. then at that point of time he went out to the Mountain See Chap. 23. 7. c. 24. 18. Acts 1. 5. c. 11. 27. and 21. 15. Immediately after the choice of the Deacons Stephen one of the Seven is apprehended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as soon as ever he was ordained as if he had been ordained for this alone saith Eusebius l. 2. c. 1. And at the same time the Persecution began which dispersed that Church Whereas he saith whatsoever numbers were forced away it is likely they returned if he understand it of the strangers driven from Jerusalem that they returned to fix there or otherwise than occasionally it is no more likely nor will be sooner proved than what he asserts a little after pag. 444. viz. that the empty Sepulcher preached with no less efficacy than the Apostles This is enough to satisfy what our Author would draw out of Scripture concerning the Church of Jerusalem After some trifling about Objections which he forms himself and then makes sport with he comes to prove that Jerusalem was a Diocesan Church in the Apostles time But first he would have us believe that James was the proper Bishop of that Church and would evince it by two Testimonies that of Clemens and Hegesippus But what sayes his Clemens He saith not only that James was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem presently after our Saviours Ascension but what I think our Author was loth to mention If he had given us the intire sentence it might have been better understood After the Ascension of our Saviour Peter James and John the most honoured by our Lord would not yet contend for the first degree of honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but chose James the just Bishop of Jerusalem Apostolorum Episcopum Ruffinus reads it This seems to signify that his being made a Bishop there was some degree of Honour above their being Apostles A learned Romanist tells us q Valâ—â— that the books where Eusebius had this did so abound with Errours that they were not thought worth preserving and so are lost as those of Papias and Hegisippus are for the same reason this may prove one instance of those many Errours That which seems to be the sense of his words is more fully expressed by one who goes under the name of Clemens too r l. 2. Recognit James the Lord's Brother was Prince of Bishops and by his Episcopal Authority commanded all the Apostles and so the former Clemens in Ruffinus calls him the Bishop of the Apostles Å¿ Hist l. â— c. 2. If he means such a Bishop as ours and otherwise his meaning will not serve our Authors purpose then the Apostles were but the Vicars or Curates of James This is bad enough if James was an Apostle the absurdest Papist will scarce ascribe as much to Peter But if he was not an Apostle it is yet more intolerable If our Author can believe his own Witness some may admire but I think few will follow him Let us hear Hegesippus not quite so antient as this Gentleman makes him since he was alive in the Reign of Commodus he sayes James ruled that Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we take this as it is render'd in Jerome after the Apostles it is not only against Grammar but without Truth and makes James to be Bishop when he was dead for he was martyred about the 4th of Nero and all the Apostles but the other James survived him But if the meaning be that he ruled that Church with the Apostles it speaks him no more the Bishop of Jerusalem than the rest of the Apostles who were not fixed or topical Bishops but Oecumenical Officers of an extraordinary Office and Power and accordingly is James described One antient Author sayes that he no less than Peter did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Epiphanius reports t Heres Cerdon that Hyginus after James Peter and Paul was the ninth Bishop of Rome successively signifying that he was as much Bishop of Rome as Paul and Peter I need not quote that other Author who sayes he ruled the holy Church of the Hebrews as also he did all Churches every where founded u Ep. to James However certain it is that James was Bishop of Jerusalem not only from Hegisippus and Clemens Alex. but also from St. Paul who mentions him as one of the Apostles that he had Conversed with in Jerusalem and it is likely there were no more there at that time but he and Peter This is no way certain from Clemens and Hegesippus and so far from being certain by St. Paul that his mentioning him as an Apostle makes it rather certain that he was not a Bishop for the Offices of an Apostle and of a Bishop are inconsistent as is acknowledged and proved by an excellent Person of your own w Dr. Barrow Suprem p. 120 121. The Offices of an Apostle and of a Bishop are not in their nature well consistent for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office charged with the instruction and Government of the whole World and calling for an answerable care the Apostles being Rulers as St. Chrysostom saith ordained by God Rulers not taking several Nations and Cities but all of them in common intrusted with the whole world but Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to one place and requiring a special attendance there Bishops being Pastors who as Chrysostome saith do sit and are imployed in one place Now he that hath such a general care can hardly discharge such a particular Office and he that is fixed to so particular an attendance can hardly look well after so general a charge c. Baronius saith of St. Peter that it was his Office not to stay in one place but as much as it was possible for one man to travel over the whole world and to bring those who did not yet believe to the Faith and throughly to establish believers If so how could he be Bishop of Rome which was an Office inconsistent with such vagrancy It would not have beseemed St. Peter the prime Apostle to assume the charge of a particular Bishop it had been a degradation of himself a disparagement to the Apostolical Majesty for him to take upon him the Bishoprick of Rome as if the King should become Mayor of London as if the Bishop of London should be Vicar of Pancras And little
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