manner to be dropped and all the difficulty now to remain concerning the bounds of the Bishops Territory and the numbers belonging to his Inspection yet in ancient times this made no difference For Sozomen (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soz. l. 7. c. 19. observing the great inequality of ancient Dioceses and some other little usages in which the Churches of one Country differed from those of another commends the wisdom of ancient Bishops who looked upon it as a great piece of folly to divide communion about these matters The greatness or smallness of a Diocese making in their opinion no difference in the office The Synod assembled at Antioch in their Letter (b) Soz l. 3. c. 8. to Julius Bishop of Rome let him understand that they do not account themselves inferiour to him in authority though their Churches were not so great or populous as his but are far from disowning him to be of their Order because his Diocese did exceed theirs And Jerom (c) Hieron Ep. ad Evagr. declares himself freely upon this point that the greater or lesser compass of a Diocese made no alteration in the Episcopacy but the poor Bishop of Eugubium had the same authority and order with that of Rome Yet now it seems this difference is become fundamental And Mr. Clarkson contends that there is but one sort of Bishops to be endured such only who have the charge of no more than a single Congregation This we are told by him the Apostles intended this the first three or four Ages practised and within that space of time there was no other Episcopacy How well he hath performed this undertaking will appear from this Book in which I have been so far from dissembling or passing by any Testimony that might seem material that I am afraid to have incurred very just censure for being too minute and punctual in my answers beyond the merit of the Objections Yet for this I may be allowed to use the plea of Apuleius (d) Ne videar cuipiam si quid ex frivolis praeteriero id agnovisse potius quam contempsisse quod si forte inepta videbor oppido frivola velle defendere illis debet ea res vitio verti quibus turpe est etiam haec objectasse non mihi culpae dari cui honestum erit etiam haec diluisse Apul. Apol. on the like occasion that I have taken notice of many frivolous things least to some I might seem to decline them as unanswerable and not to omit them out of just contempt And if my answers to some mean and captious remarks may seem sometimes to tast of the futility of the Objections yet I hope this will be imputed to him who was not ashamed to offer such things in evidence and not to me who was concerned to disprove them Some may perhaps expect an Apology for delay that the Book came not out sooner But for this I am not solicitous for an excuse apprehending rather the contrary fault that it is come out too soon For I found in the Book I answer so many marks of haste and precipitation that I thought my self obliged to take warning though the design of that work seems to have taken up a great part of the Author's life In such variety of facts so remote and many of them so obscure there are too many things to be considered to admit of haste And after all the care and the leisure one can take it is neither easie nor usual in this kind of work to avoid oversights and omissions of some things very material The Author of the Preface may perhaps think himself neglected that he is not thought considerable enough to deserve an answer He promised himself it seems that the Epistle Recommendatory should find the same entertainment with the worthy Treatise of Mr. Clarkson But Diviners are sometimes disappointed For my part I am resolved to make a difference between the Book and the Recommendation And I hope Mr. Chauncey will see some reason why he should not take it ill I wish he had been able to have represented the references right But we must forgive where it is not to be had and I dare say the good man did his best But why should he be angry with Dr. Sherlock for defending Protestant Principles against the Papists upon the grounds of the Church of England Why did not he or some of his Brethren step out to vindicate Congregational Episcopacy against Father Ellis and his three Collegues who made but four Dioceses of this whole Kingdom For God's sake tell me who maintained Protestant Principles then upon the foundation of the Dissenters But the Serpent and the venomous Vermine are subtler than the other Beasts of the field for in hard weather they are not to be found on the face of the Earth but are crept into their holes but when a warmer season comes they crawl out to snap at the heels of those who had endured the severities of the winter If he expected the same Treatment with Mr. Clarkson he should have written intelligibly and writ sense But when he runs the Changes upon Jus Divinum Humanum and Apostolicum when he talks of Hermaphroditick Divinity of Office-Charge of Office Discrimination of Appendix-Courts and Vestments and Canons among the Heteroclites of his Divinity what can a man do but wonder and keep silence Believe me I would as soon dispute with a Paper-mill as undertake to answer a man of such amazing language But for the Heteroclites I may perhaps know what they may import it is when a thing changes its kind As for Example when a man leaves his shop and the business of his Calling to write Letters Recommendatory of what he does not understand Errata's which disturb the Sense PAge 18. Line 14. for Passover read Pentecost p. 31. l. 6. for disprove r. prove p. 37. l. 18. for future r. further p. 69. l. 6. for useful r. unfit p. 78. l. 20. for first r. fifth p. 98. l. 9. after Bishop of add the City p. 358. l. 27. for populously r. pompously p. 361. l. 16. after he does add not p. 406. l. 8. for Fermissus r. Telmissus A DEFENCE OF Diocesan Episcopacy c. IT is an easie matter for those who confine their Charity as they do their Primitive Episcopacy to a single Congregation to charge all who differ from them as Men wholly governed by Prejudice and Interest The fondness they have for their own Conceits renders them incapable of any Jealousie of their Truth or Evidence and if these Notions do not receive such Entertainment as the Indulgent Author is perswaded they deserve and Success do not answer (a) Mr. Clarkson's Primitive Episcopacy pag. 1. Opinion it must be ascrib'd to the unequal Encounter they had with Prejudice and Interest Things that do frequently baffle the best Evidence in Persons otherwise very discerning and judicious It is just indeed that they should bear the reproach of Insincerity
who refuse full or competent Evidence when the Proofs rise up to a Demonstration or are direct and suitable to the nature of the Matter But for Men to advance new Notions and Paradoxes concerning things at very great Distance of which the Proofs are obscure and the Evidence only conjectural and then to cry out upon those who are not convinc'd as Persons of no Faith or Equity argues a Confidence very unusual and rarely to be seen either in understanding or good Men. That for the space of the first three Centuries a Bishop was no more than a Pastor to a single Congregation is in the first place a Conclusion very new and never heard that I can learn before the last Age. The space of time intervening between the nearest point of the three Centuries assign'd and the Birth of this Notion wants little of Thirteen compleat Centuries and therefore the Evidence of a matter so remote ought to be positive and direct and it must be expected that some Ancient Witnesses who liv'd within the compass of that Term or in the next Age at least should be produced and have declared expresly that no Bishop had more than one single Congregation or that it was the Opinion of those Times that a Bishop ought to have no more If but one Author of Credit had left this Testimony the circumstantial Evidence might reasonably be admitted for Confirmation but when all the Proof of a Fact so distant consists only of Conjectures and Suspicions and unconcluding Circumstances I hope that in this time of Liberty an honest Man may refufe to believe so obscure and unnecessary Inferences without any Diminution of his Reputation It may be very true that some Villages had Bishops that several Cities were not greater than some of our Market-Towns that all the People may be said in an usual sense to be present at Church in the greatest Cities all this may be true and yet very far from proving the Point in Question The Conclusion Congregational Episcopacy may remain still at as great a distance from these Premises as the Primitive Times we speak of are from the present Age or as some gifted Mens Discourses are from the Text. When this fancy of Primitive Congregational Episcopacy came first into Mens heads the Diocesan way had been every where Establish'd and that we may not take this for a piece of Popery no Churches came nearer to the Congregational Standard than those that were under the immediate Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome nor was it pretended that Diocesan Bishops were new they had an acknowledg'd Prescription of above twelve hundred years but the time of its rise was not so positively assign'd Cartwright pretended to trace some footsteps of the Congregational way in the two first Centuries but I do not find that he or the Dissenters of his Time had made the Conclusion so universal that no Bishop within that compass of Time had more than one Congregation Rome and Alexandria and the greatest Cities seem'd to stand out and remain'd Exceptions but now they too are taken in and reduc'd to the Congregational Model It is something hard to conceive how the Species of Church-Government should come to be chang'd and no Account of so important a Change be transmitted to Posterity Those who fancy Presbytery turn'd into Episcopacy in the former part of the second Century make some shew of Reply when they say that it is a very obscure Age and hath left little or nothing of its Story behind it But the Ages in which Primitive Episcopacy is pretended to have been transform'd into Diocesan were of another Character they abounded with Learning and Writers and a great many of their Books have been preserv'd but not the least hint of this Fundamental Alteration of Church-Government What! so just an Offence given by the Church and no Sectary no Schismatick to reproach her Those who were so minute and trifling in their Cavils could they overlook so obvious a Topick as this of Diocesan Innovation Nay these very Sects where their Numbers made them capable liv'd themselves under the Diocesan Way If then in times of so much Division Contention and Dispute such a change as this could be introduc'd without any Opposition and all Parties of different Opinions and Interest conform'd to it for my part I cannot see how it can be denied that it was done by Miracle For what greater Miracle can we well imagin than that so many sorts of Christians divided by Principles and mutual Aversions should conspire to receive this pretended alteration of Episcopacy So that those who deny it to be Primitive must allow it a higher Title since Miracle carries with it much greater Authority than Prescription Mr. Clerkson therefore had great reason to aprehend that it would appear a great Paradox to hear that a Bishop of Old was but the Pastor of a single Church or that his Diocese was no larger than one Communion Table might serve It does indeed seem very strange not only to those who take the Measures of Ancient times and things by their own or are much concern'd they should not be otherwise than they are now but most of all to those who have competent knowledg of those Times and who are qualify'd to make some Judgment of the State of the Primitive Church from the Testimonies of Ecclesiastical Writers It is a great weakness to take the measures of Ancient times by our own (a) P. 116. but I know none more unfortunate in this way of reckoning than the Author himself who measures the Ancient Territories of Greek and Roman Cities by Liberties that belong to Ours and demands with more Zeal than Knowledg How many Cities in the Roman Empire can be shâ—wn us where this Jurisdiction of the City Magistrates reach'd farther than it doth in our English Cities Vrbem quam dicunt Romam Melibaee puâ—avi Stultus Ego huic nostrae similem But of this in its proper place How great Advantages may be expected from a clear discovery of what the Author thinks to be true in this particular I cannot readily discern having not the assistance of his Prospective to discover things at so vast a distance much less can I see that it may contribute much to the deciding of the Controversies among us about Church-Government and bringing them to a happy Composure Now to deal liberally with this Notion of Primitive Episcopacy let us yield up the point at once and grant that no Bishop for the three first Centuries had more than one Congregation But at the same time let us take the Reason along with us that for so long time no City had more Christians then might meet in one Church no Bishop then could have more Congregations then all the Christians of his City and Territory did compose But the Controversies about Church-Government are still undecided for this does not preclude the Bishops from a right of having many Congregations under their inspections if more had been
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the head or chief not the first in Situation and the Syriack and Arabick Versions follo wit Now the most ancient Copy as it is suppos'd of the New Testament now extant confirm'd by two old Versions may weigh as much as a late conjecture Besides Philippi was not the first in Situation as is pretended but Neapolis And it would be something strange if Dover be indeed the first Town of England that he who pass'd that way should call Canterbury the first It might not be very considerable when Macedon was reduc'd by Paulus Aemilius but it might be the chief Town of that part of the Country when St. Luke wrote (c) Brev. c. 5 Liberatus mentions the Arch-Bishop of Philippi and in the Council of Ephesus the Bishop subscribes among the Metropolitans tho' it be express'd that he had the Proxy of the Bishop of Thessalonica In an old Notitia he is Metropolitan of the Province of Macedon And so Sedulius styles him and Tertullian (a) de Praescrip names it before Thessalonica Nor will I contend with our Author about the other Argument of Dr. Hammond which he rejects that Philippi was a Metropolis because it was a Colonie It does not indeed necessarily follow but yet Roman Colonies were generally placed in the principal Cities of Provinces and endow'd with the chief Dignities and Jurisdictions in the Countries where they were So Carthage Corinth Caesarea and many others might be nam'd But if it was the Head of that part of the Country and a Colony as Beza's old Copy has it this Dispute is over and nothing I am sure Mr. Clerkson has produc'd does make out that it was not a Metropolis when St. Paul was there Now this Debate concerning the Bishops of Philippi had soon been at an end if our Author had thought fit to explain himself and told us what he meant by Bishops For were they Pastors of single elect Congregations respectively in covenant Then there must have been several Churches or Congregations in that one City But on other occasions he will not allow more than one Congregation for three hundred years after Christ even in Rome it self But if we allow such an obscure place as Philippi to have many Churches so early we cannot avoid yielding to Alexandria and Antioch and other great Cities many more and what will prove worse than all those Churches must be acknowledg'd to be all under one Bishop Or were these Bishops only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal Authority Then our Author must give up the Question and instead of making many Bishops must own that there was none at all there but only Presbyters Will he contend that there were no other Bishops than Presbyters This will be to abuse his Reader with the ambiguity of a word which he takes in one sense and the Church in another That many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation none ever deny'd that many Bishops in the allow'd and ecclesiastical sense of the word had the oversight of one City sounds strange and incredible to the ancient Christians Chrysostom observing this expression of the Bishops of Philippi seems to be startled with it What many Bishops in one City By no means it cannot be What then They were not Bishops properly so call'd but Presbyters The same poor Sophistry is carry'd on (a) Prim. Ep. p. 10. under the colour of another Text. (b) Acts 20.17 St. Paul from Miletus sent to Ephesus and call'd the Elders of the Church who are say'd v. 28. to be made Bishops by the Holy Ghost Now these Elders or Bishops belong'd to the City-Church of Ephesus as our Author contends and not to the Province and therefore there were several Bishops in the same City But if we demand here again what Bishops are here meant whether these were Bishops in the sense of the present question or Presbyters only The objection vanishes and leaves the Reader to wonder that any man should so solemnly undertake to prove what no man ever doubted that in Scripture-times there were many Presbyters over one Church But Dr. Hammond will have these Bishops to be Suffragans of Ephesus And Mr. Clerkson with all his force does endeavour to disprove them to have been City Bishops Now in the midst of this contention we may be very safe from the danger of Congregational Episcopacy For if Dr. Hammond's way prevail these Bishops must have each a City and Territory and be Diocesans either actually or in right If Mr. Clerkson carries it then properly speaking there might not be a Bishop among them all for they are but Presbyters belonging not to several Independent Congregations but to one Church and might have a Bishop to whom they were subject as the Ancients believ'd they had and thought Timothy to be the Person And here he musters up great forces against Dr. Hammond's opinion and affirms (a) Pr. Ep. p. 10 11. that the Text it self the Syriack Version Chrysostom Theophilact Oecumenius and Theodoret and the whole stream of Ancients are against this new sense not any favoring it but one among them all But what sense are these Ancients for that there were many Bishops of one City-Church Nothing less for they all declare the contrary and that these were no other than Presbyters But there hapned to be one for the Doctors new sense our Author does not name him it was Irenaeus and it seems something incongruous to call that sense new which is vouch'd by so ancient Authority For this Father is judg'd by (a) Diss 3. in Iraen Mr. Dodwel to be born in the later end of the first Century or the very beginning of the second He convers'd with Polycarp as himself declares whose Martyrdom according to the computation of Bishop (b) Diss Post 2. c. 14. et seq Pearson could not be later than the year 147. And therefore must have liv'd forty years of the first Century He was Bishop of Smyrna which was under the Jurisdiction of Ephesus and might understand from the Tradition of the place more of St. Paul's visitation than is recorded by St. Luke and so be more particular in noting the quality of the Persons that the Apostle call'd to him to Miletus and express'd himself therefore in that manner c having call'd together the Bishops and Presbyters of Ephesus and the other Neighbouring Cities Now if Authority go by weight and not by number Dr. Hammond's case will not appear so desperate for though many names are produced against him yet several of them are very light For Oecumenius and Theophilact may be discounted as Transcribers of Chrysostom who with Theodoret will scarce weigh down the credit of Irenaeus in a case of this nature for they speak only by conjecture whereas he might have nearer notices from Tradition Howe'er it were yet our Author should have call'd this sense any thing rather than new since it is
acquiesced in the Decree of Nice (m) Socr. l. 1. c. 26. which received no open contradiction during the reign of Constantine (n) Euseb vit Const l. 3. c. 57. and prodigious accessions being made to the Church under that reign the Cities must be thronged with Christians and the generality of Bishops even in respect of the Towns where they resided must be Diocesan All Sects were very inconsiderable in his time being suppressed by publick authority and all their Meetings forbid by the Emperour's Edicts (o) Euseb vit Const l. 3. c. 63 64 65 66. which had that effect that the greatest part joyned themselves sincerely to the Church and all the rest in appearance so that there remained no meeting of Dissenting Christians in all the Empire and even the Novatians were comprehended in the same Law Under the next reign the Arrians covered themselves with a pretence of owning no other Doctrin but that already established in the Church and laid all the blame upon Athanasius as a man of a restless and turbulent spirit that would not suffer the Church to be in peace Nor were there many separate Congregations upon this account the people generally following the Bishops set over them under a perswasion that they were sound as to the Faith and for those Bishops who were displaced care was taken that they should be thought to suffer not upon the account of their Faith but of some other high misdemeanors In some few of the greatest Cities there were tumults on this occasion but in general there was a submission to publick order and a great part of the World was carried away not by the doctrin but the dissimulation of the Arrians Yet still the Episcopal Dioceses remained as they were without any considerable seperations When Athanasius died it s said there were but few Arrians in (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. l. 4. c. 22. Alexandria In (q) Basil ep 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil's time there were but very few in comparison of the whole infected with that disease At Rome there were scarce any And (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. l. 2. c. 2. in the West they were hardly known otherwise than by report till the Goths had planted themselves in that part of the Empire So that the Orthodox Bishops were not reduced to a single Congregation by the separation of the Arrians their Cities only being supposed to make up their whole Dioceses Our Author is liberal and will not insist upon the prevailing of the Donatists and therefore I need not say that the case of Afric was singular being torn into very small Dioceses and yet even in that there were some large some free from the Donatists and had no other Bishop but that of the established Church as appears by several answers of the Bishops in the Conference at Carthage Nor will he tell us how the Macedonians did abound in many places Nor will he so much as name the other numerous Sects which had their distinct Churches and Bishops so that there were sometimes four or five of several perswasions seated in that City I have I think made allowance enough for them all and yet in great Cities left more Churches for the Bishops than all the Conventicles of Sectaries thrice told would amount to Now to sum up this evidence and (s) Prim. ep p. 84. to draw this Discourse into an issue Suppose we a City forty furlongs in compass than which there were few bigger let us allow half to Heathens and a third or fourth to Jews and Novatians and the proportion left Christians will not exceed the dimensions of a small Town c. But we have taken notice of some Cities of more than forty furlongs that were wholly Christian I have mentioned others exceeding great in which there were but very few Heathen I have instanced in some that had no Dissenters or Sectaries and shew'd in general that all the World over those who were without the pale of the Church of all Sects were nothing so considerable as our Author would represent them And here we might conclude this Chapter but for the particulars which follow and require further examination When our Author had made the largest allowances for Heathens and Jews and Sectaries as if they had been all to poll for the Dissenters and left the Catholick Christians so destitute that there seemed to be no place left them in the greatest Cities he thought (a) Prim. ep p. 84. it might be more satisfactory yet to make this evident in some particular Cities and those of the greater nay some of the greatest Berytus he says was an eminent City and yet it had but one Church in Julian 's time which was then burnt by Magnus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not one of the Churches but the Church of Berytus Theod. l. 4. c. 20. If our Author had been a little better versed in the language of the ancient Church he could not have thought this instance or his deduction from it very satisfactory For the Church in Ecclesiastical Writers does not denote the only Church or signifie to the exclusion of any other but expresses only the Cathedral or Bishops Church And that this may be clear beyond all cavil I will offer some passages where the same expression is used in Cities known to have a great number of Churches Alexandria is allowed by all to have had many Churches in the beginning of the fourth Century and the testimony of Athanasius (b) Athan. Apol. 2. and Epiphanius (c) Epiph. Haer. 69. sets it beyond contradiction yet Gregory the Arrian Bishop is said (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. l. 2. c. 14. to be removed because he had become odious to the people for the burning of the Church He says not one of the Churches would our Author reason but the Church yet for all this there were many other Churches in that City To the same purpose when Athanasius was forced to fly from Alexandria the Soldiers are said (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. Apol 2. p. 717. Socr. l. 2. c. 11. to encompass the Church without any distinction which it was and the Bishop said to be driven out of the Church intending only the principal Church and that which was called so by way of eminence which is sometimes styled the great Church So Theodorus Lector (f) Theod. Lect. l. 1. p. 553. Ed. Val. speaking of Gennadius Bishop of Constantinople takes notice that he was the first that appropriated to the City Parishes all the oblations that should be made in them whereas before the great Church carried away all And Nicephorus (g) Niceph. H E. l. 15. c. 22. speaking of the same thing calls it the Catholick Church In the same manner likewise is Epiphanius (h) Epiph. Haer. 69. understood by Valesius (i) H. Vales in Theodor. Lect. p. 162. when he speaks of the Catholick Church of
the Church could have been ordered according to the principles desires and endeavours of the most pious and conscientious their Dioceses would not have been so execessively numerous in the fourth or fifth Ages above what they were in the third By Dioceses being numerous I suppose he means the number of people belonging to each Diocese for otherwise it will destroy what he contends for Dioceses being by so much more large as they are less numerous Chrysostom he says may satisfie us here What In his judgment and conscience was he against a large bishoprick bred in the Diocese of Antioch than which there were few greater in the world and receiving the orders of Deacon and Presbyter in that Church Afterwards removed from thence to be Bishop of the Imperial City having so many Congregations in the City so many Parishes in the Country such a number of Provinces under his Jurisdiction as made the better part of the Eastern Empire Does he express his conscience against a very large Bishoprick Surely a person of so exalted eloquence could not be guilty of such a solecism his Chair would have born testimony against him and refuted all his Sermon If this was his conscience why did he not divide Why did he not appoint one Bishop in Sycae another in Hestiae where Constantine had built a Church that might have become a Bishop Or if these places were too near why did he not erect new Bishopricks in the remoter part of his Territory or in his Provinces since as Patriarch he had sufficient authority to make what number of Bishops he pleased He deposed indeed a great number of unworthy Bishops and ordained others in their places but there is no account of any new erections of his in Market Towns and Villages And his friends make bold to censure Theophilus for making Bishops in small places where there had been none before It is therefore very marvellous that the conscience of so great and holy a person should declare against his own practice and condemn a large Bishoprick while himself was possessed of one of the largest in world without discovering the least desire or endeavour to part it between several Congregational Pastors As for his Principles he had no other in this matter than the rule and practice of the Church One City according to his principles could have but one Bishop and therefore he seems to be startled at St. Paul's direction to the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi What more Bishops than one says he in one City No by no means therefore he concludes they were received not Bishops in the sense of the word in his times but Presbyters only And therefore according to his principles if a City were never so great it ought to have but one Bishop However let us hear what Chrysostom says in the places cited by Mr. Clerkson Tell me says that excellent Bishop (z) Chrys in Act. 3. p. 655. Ed. Savil. what can a multitude avail us Wilt thou understand that the desirable multitude are the Holy not the many What care I for the multitude What advantage is in them But here is no comparison between a great Bishoprick and a small as such but between many bad and few good And in this case Chrysostom's judgment cannot be contested it is clear that we are to go by weight not by number The people of Constantinople as they were exceeding numerous so they were very dissolute and this holy Bishop flamed against the vices of the place with a zeal becoming his character He is not content only to reprove and to rebuke with authority but threatens to use the utmost of his spiritual censures against those that disgraced Christianity by their wicked lives In this Resolution of reforming his people he bids defiance to all discouragements and opposition Some urged the multitude of offenders against him that too rough dealing might drive them to joyn with Sectaries But this did not at all abate the resolution of the Bishop He scorns the multitude upon this account and cries what care I for a multitude It was far from his intention to cast off this multitude or to divide them into several distinct Congregations under other Bishops but his design was to reform their lives and to build up and adorn the Church committed to him with many that were good with a multitude not only numerous but approved And for this purpose he offers himself a sacrifice and is content to be cut off so that he might gain many to Christ If Chrysostom had proceeded upon the principles of Mr. Clerkson he must have given his discourse another turn and said that since one Bishop is not sufficient for so great a people and a hundred and fifty Persons are a charge more than one can well discharge it is fit that you chuse your selves Pastors after your own hearts and enter into Covenant with them For this great dissoluteness proceeds from the excessive greatness of the flock and the disproportion that is between it and the ability of a single Shepherd For this Diocesan way is an innovation and raised upon the ruin of ancient discipline Wherefore separate your selves for I will not undertake the charge of above a hundred and fifty souls To this effect he must have expressed his conscience if his principles had been the same with Mr. Clerkson's But he on the contrary lays claim to the whole flock numerous and disordered as it was he thought himself bound in conscience to endeavour the reformation of it and to use fullness of Episcopal authority to reduce them He does not complain that they are many but that they are unprofitable would they but reform their lives let them be as numerous as they please for the greater their number the greater would be his joy So far is Chrysostom from expressing his conscience against large Bishopricks in the places cited by Mr. Clerkson Nor do his other Arguments drawn out of the Sermons of Chrysostom come any thing nearer to the point The Episcopate says he (a) Prim. ep p. 203 204. is so called from the inspecting all He ought to be an Overseer of all bearing the burdens of all he had need of many thousand Eyes He ought to go the rounds night and day more than any Commander in an Army We must give account of all their souls when we have been defective in any thing I wonder if any Bishops can ever be saved considering the greatness of the threatning and their negligence All this is very true but not to our Author's purpose Bishops are certainly accountable for those who perish by their neglect of their proper Office But then the duty of a general overseer is not the same with that of a subordinate Office A Parish Presbyter will not be condemned for not performing the duty of a Master of a Family nor a Bishop for not doing the office of a Presbyter to all the particulars of his Diocese But these words are to be understood with
this diffidence and caution does that Learn'd Man propose his Opinion which together with the testimonies upon which it is grounded (a) Vindic. of the Prim. Ch. p. 34. and Seq has been considered at large in another place and I am not willing here to transcribe Yet that I may not seem to decline an Answer in this place I will give the sum of what is there answer'd and add something for future explication First then Altar in the primitive sense signify'd not only the Communion Table but the whole place where the Chair of the Bishop and the Seats of the Presbyters were plac'd and in this sense there was but one Altar in one Diocese as there is now but one Consistory This is explain'd by passages out of Ignatius Cyprian and Arch-Bishop Vsher and to be within the Altar which is Ignatius his phrase is no other than to be in Communion with the Bishop and his Clergy And the one Altar is no more than one Communion which may be held in different places and at several Tables Besides some passages cited out of Ignatius about one Altar are only allusive to the Jewish Temple and Altar and therefore are not to be urg'd too strictly Lastly the name of Altar might be appropriated to that of the Bishop's Church upon another account and that is in respect of the oblations of the Faithful which were presented there only and from thence distribution was made according to the occasions of the Church Among other oblations was the Bread and the Wine which were to serve for the Sacrament these were always bless'd at the Bishops Altar though not always consecrated there Concerning these oblations preparatory to the Sacrament Mr. Mede has given a judicious account in his Treatise of the Sacrifice where he shews these Offerings were in the nature of a Sacrifice and upon the account of these gifts the Table might receive its name of Altar For as the Jews had but one Altar on which their Sacrifices were offer'd and sanctify'd yet were they eaten at several Tables so the Bishops Altar might serve to the same purpose at least within the same City to receive those Oblations which were to be communicated in different places This was the practice of Rome in Pope Innocent (a) Innoc. Ep. ad Decent the first his time who sent the Bread allready consecrated to all the Churches of the City but did not send any to such Presbyters as were plac'd in remote Cemiteries since they might consecrate themselvs and as for Country Parishes he did not think it convenient the Holy Consecrated Bread should be sent to them for it was not fit it should be carry'd to places remote So all though not present in the same place did yet partake of one Altar and eat of the same Spiritual Bread And to this purpose perhaps may most commodiously be understood that noted passage of Justin Martyr concerning the administration of the Eucharist in Christian Assemblies where he says that the Deacons distribute it to all that are present and carry it to those who are not present For to all who were not present as they were dispers'd in their several dwellings it could not conveniently be carry'd by the Deacons besides that in numerous Congregations it was not easy to know who was not present Nor is Valesius (a) Annot. in Euseb l. 5. c. 24. his conjecture very probable who would send it to persons of other Dioceses So that it seems most probable that it was carry'd from the Bishop's Church to other Assemblies in the same City Nor will this look strange for those times that the Holy Bread should be sent from the Bishops Altar to other Churches of the same City when it was usual to send it into remote Countries and Dioceses as a symbol of Communion The old Bishops of Rome before (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb H. E. l. 5. c 24. Victor's time us'd to send such presents and (c) Act. Lucian ap Metaph. 7. Jan. Lucian the Martyr sent them from his Prison So Paulinus (d) Paul Ep. 1. did to Severus This practice was forbid by the Synod (e) Can. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Ladicea that the holy Mysteries should not be sent abroad into other Dioceses which Zonaras observes to have been a very ancient custom And this forbidding it to be carry'd into other Dioceses seems to allow its being carry'd from the Bishop's Church to other places of the same Diocese After Mr. Mede (a) Prim. Ep. p. 16. Dr. Hammond is brought in a witness of this notion of one Altar (b) In re incomperta non est audacter nimis pronunciandum Ham. Diss 3. c. 8. s. 15. He mentions it indeed as the opinion of some learned Men but he himself makes no judgment concerning it leaving the matter as uncertain and declining to pronounce any thing in a point so obscure Bishop Taylor (c) Episc Assert is likewise forc'd to appear in this cause meerly because he cited Damasus in the life of Pope Marcellus who is said to have made twenty five Titles as so many Dioceses for Baptism and Penance From whence the Bishop is said (d) Prim. ep p. 16. to infer that there was yet no preaching in Parishes and but one pulpit in a Diocese And further Damasus and the Doctor out of him leaves us evidently to conclude that there was no Communion Table but in the mother Church And this three hundred and five years after Christ and at Rome too It is not very advisable to conclude any thing too hastily upon the authority of this pretended Damasus it costs such counterfeits nothing to build twenty Churches in a day and to consign them to what use they please But this Impostor as he had little wit so in this instance his luck was very bad to make so many Converts and to erect so many Titles in the year three hundred and five when the Roman Emperors were persecuting the Christians to utter extirpation and when there was not a Church or Title standing in Rome This was the third year of the Persecution according to (a) Baluz Chron. Mart. ex Lact. Dodw. Di. 8. Cypr. XI Lactantius or the second according to Eusebius and therefore a sorry time for Converts and making of Titles and Baptistries So that the relation being fabulous and forg'd by one who had no knowledg of those times the inferences made from it must drop It was surely not very well contriv'd to multiply Churches for Baptism and to leave but one Communion Table for all the Christians of Rome For one Baptistry may serve the greatest City because men are baptiz'd but once and that not all together but at several times and in ancient times no City had more unless where the magnificence of Emperors or Bishops made as it were many Cathedrals And at this time in the City of Florence (b) Pflaumern Merc. Ital. Lasselina reckon'd among
this division there are 17 Bishops in all 52. At the bottom of this last division we have this Remark that this Armenia is Independent and belongs to no Patriarch upon the account of St. Gregory of Armenia and it has 200 Cities and fortify'd Towns So far were all the Armenia's from having 1000 Bishops in the ninth Century And before this about the middle of the fifth Century we find in the first Armenia but six Bishops subscribing to the Synodical Epistle (h) Conc. Chalced. Pars. 3. of that Province in confirmation of the Council of Chalcedon and in the second Armenia but three And yet the Metropolitans of each speak (i) Cum Sancto Concilio quod mecum est Ep. Arm. 1. Una cum Episcopis nostrae Provinciae Ep. Episc Arm. 2. of their Synod as entire So far is the most ancient state of Armenia from the fabulous pretences of those Legats Nor do the Armenian Legats say there were 1000 Bishops in Armenia but under the Armenian Catholick whose Jurisdiction might reach much farther than Armenia Some affirm that all the Christians in Cathaia and India were under this Armenian Patriarch So Josephus Indus (l) Jos Indi Nav. c. 133. p. 204. Muller Disque de Cathaia p. 89. and how many Bishops might be in those Countries in the twelfth Century will be something hard to be inform'd And even now that Catholick is not confin'd to Armenia though the condition of his Churches be very low For in a Catalogue (m) Hist Critique de la creance de rel du Levant p. 217. of the present Bishopricks under the Armenian Patriarch we find several in Persia and others in Cappadocia and others belonging to other Provinces and all together scarce make up an hundred Arch-Bishops and Bishops But to speak freely and to conclude this point the relation of the Armenian Legats seems to need confirmation For besides that there is no account of the tenth part of this number of Bishops belonging to the Catholick either before or since There is otherwise very little credit to be given to the report of these Legats For one of them (n) Baron A. 1145. 523. when the Pope said Mass affirm'd he saw a Sun beam of unusual brightness rest upon the Pope's head and two Doves ascending and descending in it How easie was it for these to make 1000 Bishops in a remote Country when they had the confidence to put such gross fictions upon the Court of Rome But both had one end to flatter the Pope who was now in some distress driven out of Rome and residing at Viterbo And therefore (o) Deficientibus Romanis Arnaldistis universus terrarum Orbis confluit Baron the new accession of so ample Communion as that of a 1000 remote Bishops was to comfort him for the undutifulness of those nearer home and it is the usual artifice of that See when its authority declines at home to dress up some Impostor who shall come from the ends of the earth to worship the Pope in the name of some great Patriarch or some numerous Eastern Sect. In Lazica Justinian (p) Nov. 28. finds seven Castles and but one City and that made so by himself (q) Prim. ep p. 25. Petravon Yet in the Diatyposis of Leo in Lazica there are fifteen Bishops belonging to one Metropolis It is a miserable thing to travel so far for an Argument and to bring back such a trifle Lazica in Justinian's time had but one City And in Leo the Wise his Reign i. e. 350 years after had 15 Bishops So long tract of time may have made great alteration in that Country and produce as many Cities as there were Bishops and therefore this Argument for so many Village-Bishops in that Country is but an humble begging of the Question and depends entirely upon the good nature of the Reader But the fact it self is as uncertain as the conclusion drawn from it For it does not appear that in Leo the Wise his time Lazica had so many Bishops For in the (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Notitia Printed by Car a S. Paulo and after him by Goar and last of all by Dr. Beveridge said to be made in that Emperors reign A. D. 890. Lazica had but 4 Bishops under the Metropolis of Phasis and in an old Notitia of the Patriarchat of C. P. we find the same number But that which our Author cites and commonly passes under the name of Leo's Diatyposis is of the later date as appears by several names of places later than Leo's time And even in that Lazica had not the same bounds as it had in Justinian's time partly mentioned in his Novel but more exactly by Procopius (s) Procop. B. Pers l. 2. For when Lazica had 15 Bishops they were under the Metropolis of Trapezus which belong'd to Pontus Polemoniacus and in the Ancient Notitiae placed under Neocaesarea but at a great distance from Justinian's Lazica and that exhibited in the old Notitiae For from Trapezus to Phasis Strabo (t) Str. l. 12. reckons 300 miles and we are told by Procopius (u) Probel Pers l. 2. that all that lyes off Lazica on the West of the River Phasis is but a days journey for a Footman These 15 Bishops therefore will do no service to the Congregational design since it is uncertain what sort of places they had for their Seats or what extent of Diocese each may have Only this will appear that supposing Trapezus the Metropolis in Leo's Diatyposis to be the remotest place of the Province Westward the length will be near 400 miles to be distributed between 15 Bishops I ought not to dismiss this instance without taking notice of the condescension of our Author in following the blundering Translatour of the Novels and putting Petravon or Petraeon (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Petra by the same Grammar as one might take the Nominative of London to be Londinensium In Lycaonia and the parts adjacent we have more instances hereof Here (z) Act. 14.2 3. the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church Those Elders were Bishops as they assure us who have modell'd the Principles by which Prelacy may be maintain'd with most advantage and without which whatever their Predecessours thought they judg'd it not defensible If one should be so peevish as to deny that these Presbyters were Bishops and oppose to the opinion of Dr. Hammond the stream of ancient and modern Interpreters an elaborate and hopeful argument would come to nothing But because it is so meek and harmless a thing let these Presbyters be Bishops by courtesie and let us abide the consequence (a) Prim. Ep. p. 26. The places where these Bishops were constituted are mention'd v. 20 21. Antioch Iconium Derbe Lystra lesser Towns or Country Granges and Villages Be it so But did the Apostles confine the care and authority of these Bishops wholly to these Villages in which
place to be call'd a Fort or Tyrant's Seat For I have before observ'd that the (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word which our Author commonly translates by Castle Fort and sometimes childishly by Country-Grange signifies any Fortified place whether great or small whether it be a City or a lesser Town For in Countries exposed to War such places are for common refuge and most of our old Cities bear still the names of Castles to which they ow'd their rise and preservation and for its being a Tyrant's Seat that does by no means imply it to be a narrow place for Syracuse Agrigentum and several Cities of the largest size might very properly pass under the very same title Hierocles his Notitia (d) Ap. Car. a S. Paulo Georg. Sac. placeth it among the Cities of Lycaonia and it is very probable that it was one of the fourteen Cities of that Tetrarchy of which Iconium was the principal mention'd by Pliny in the gross but not named That this place could not be populous because of no compass our Author takes an extraordinary way of proving Polybius talks of Teichos such a Fort which was but a furlong and an half in compass But how does our Author find it was such a Fort did he survey or compare them or doth any ancient Author mention the compass of Derbe No But both have one common Appellation This way of reasoning is very dangerous and will dis-people great Cities worse than the plague London must not be populous because Ely or Rochester which are Cities too have no great compass and but few Inhabitants Nor does our Author's Criticism about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do him any great service for the diminishing of any Town call'd by that general name For tho' it be sometimes distinguish'd from a City yet are there instances of some of the greatest Cities that are call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Aquileia was a City of the largest size and yet Procopius (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Procop. Bell. Vandal l. 1. p. 97. Ed. Hoeschel who was a master of propriety of speech does not stick to call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For having represented it as a great and exceeding populous City he adds that Attilas was not able to take the place (f) Prim. Ep. p. 27. Lystra seems a place no more considerable it was a small place call'd by Ptolomy Ausira by Strabo Isaura yet St. Luke calls it a City more than once Nay Ptolomy (g) Ptol. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 places it among the Cities of Isauria and distinguishes it from Isaura Florus (h) Validissimas Urbes eorum Phaselin Olympon evertit Isaurumque ipsam arcem Ciliciae unde conscius sibi magni laboris Isaurici cognomen adamavit Flor. l. 3. c. 6. names Isaura among the Cities of Cilicia and makes it the most considerable place of all those the Pirats held in those parts and therefore Servilius who reduc'd those Robbers took the name of Isauricas from it Pliny (i) Oppida ejus intus Isaura Olibanus c. Plin. l. 5. c. 27. names Isaura among the Cities of Cilicia and Stephanus (l) Steph. in Isaura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Diodorus Siculus (m) Diod. Sic. l. 18. style it a City of Isauria and Gregory (n) Greg. Regist l. 12. Ep. 2 3. the Great mentions the Bishop of Isaura But Strabo (o) Strab. l. 12. mentions two places of this name and calls them both Villages I will only add a few words that follow in that Author and then let the Brethren of the Congregational way make what use they please of this instance Isauria saith Strabo (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has two Villages of its name but a great many other Villages were subject to these And if the civil subjection of so many Villages should draw after it an Ecclesiastical and Religious dependance the Diocese of Lystra might be large enough So that after all our Author's diligence to find or to make Villages for St. Paul's Bishops he does not appear to have ordain'd any in such inconsiderable places nor (q) Prim. Ep. p. 28. left the practice warranted by Apostolical example and authority To proceed (r) Prim. Ep. p. 28. Artemidorus says our Author giving an account of the Cities of Pisidia reckons but eleven whereas there are twenty two Bishopricks in the Catalogue of Leo. It is pity so great diligence should have so little good fortune In summing up those Cities he has lost two for Artemidorus (s) Strab. l. 12. reckons thirteen But to pass by small mistakes let us consider the main consequence In Artemidorus his time (t) Marcian Heracl Peripl who liv'd in the 169th Olympiad i. e. about a hundred years before the Birth of our Lord the Pisidians had but thirteen Cities In Leo the Wise his time who began (u) Baron An. 886. to reign in the year of our Lord 886 Pisidia had 22 Bishops therefore half of them could not have Cities but Villages for their seats This way of reasoning must be of that sort which we call eternal for it has no regard at all to time and a thousand years with such Reasoners go for nothing Antioch it seems the Metropolis of the Country was not built when Artemidorus describ'd it much less could Adrianople and several others of later names mention'd in the Civil and Ecclesiastical Notitiae But that it may appear how much the number of Cities was increas'd in this Country before Leo the Wise let us appeal to the civil Notitia (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Car. a S. Paulo that goes under the name of Hierocles where we have 26 Cities under a Consular Governour And if all of them remain'd to Leo's time some Bishops of that Province must have two Cities under his care So far is Pisidia from affording Village-Bishops After this Cappadocia comes (y) Prim. Ep. p. 28. under search for primitive Village-Bishops Strabo divides Cappadocia Taurica into five Praefectures three of which had no Cities and yet there were many Bishopricks in them It must be confess'd that in Strabo's time the Praefectures of Melitene Cataonia and Isauritis had no City but it is as certain that then they had no Bishops That Writer published (z) Vass de Hist Graec. his Geography in the fourth year of Tiberius eleven years before our Saviour's Baptism and was then a very old man as Vossius computes by his being acquainted with Aelius Gallus and seems to be farther confirm'd from what he relates (a) Strab. l. 12. of having seen Servilius Isauricus But these Countries saith our Author had many Bishops afterwards tho' they had no Cities That they had Bishops cannot be denied that they had no Cities then our Author does not so much as pretend to prove unless we admit his usual way of reasonirg that because these Praefectures had no Cities before the preaching
yet there was the Bishop of Acheruntia in Calabria of Vibon in Brutia of Canusium in Apulia and on the other side of Rome there was the Bishop of Ariminum and several others whose seats were far beyond the Provinces assigned by Salmasius to the Roman Diocese A general Synod (c) Anastas in Symmach of Italy under the same Pope had 115 Bishops which is the only Synod besides that mentioned above that the Writer of his life takes notice of under that Pope (d) Syn. Rom. 4. sub Sym. but certainly the most remarkable for number of any then held It was this confirm'd Symmachus his Election and condemn'd his Competitor and his Guardians and the occasion being extraordinary it cannot be doubted but the greatest part (e) Totius fere Italiae Episcopi Ennod. Ticin 2. Synod Defensor of the Bishops of Italy were there And though the subscriptions be imperfect yet from those that are left we may find that there were some from every Province The greatest objection it seems which the Enemies of this Synod could make against it was (f) Testis est Roma si omnes Episcopi senes debiles convenerunt Ennod. that all the old and infirm Bishops were not there and then that all were not call'd by the King 's Writ attending to two or three only who were too far engaged in the cause to become Judges of it which Ennodius exposes rather as Cavils than Arguments Which he could not have done with any sincerity or modesty if much the greater part had not been assembled upon that occasion There is indeed a Synod (g) Synod 5. sub Symmacho under this Pope whose Title bespeaks 218 Bishops but there might have been as many more if borrowed subscriptions might pass muster this is the case For more than half the subscriptions of this Council are taken from that of Chalcedon and there are not a hundred of Italy the rest were discharged from the Synodical attendance and now no longer able to answer to their Names Under Damasus we have another general Council (h) Conc. Rom. sub Dam. Anno 369. Theod. H. E. l. 2. c. 22. Collect. Rom. Holsten p. 163. Vales Annot. in Soz. l. 6. c. 23. of Italy consisting of 93 Bishops in which Auxentius was deposed But besides Italians there were some Gallick Bishops in this Council and it cannot be doubted but Damasus assembled all he could in a cause that required the authority of the greatest number he could make since the Arians had for some time began to plead a majority And it is certain some came from far for the Bishop of Aquileia was there Under Julius the first we have a Roman Synod (i) Julii Epistola apud Athan. Ap. 2. that seems to be general in which above fifty Bishops were assembled where Vito presided as the Bishop of Rome's Deputy This seems to be the same Vito who was sent Legat to the Council of Nice Here Athanasius was received into Communion And Julius (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Letter to the Bishops of the East alluding to this Synod tells them that what he writ as in his own name was the judgment of all Italy Valesius would not have Vito preside in this Council but would render the words so that those Bishops assembled in Vito's Parish-Church But I do not see any reason to depart from Nannius his Translation of this passage The Copy that he translated is very different from the Greek that is printed and may possibly have a relative which may take away the ambiguity of that Expression I have seen some Greek pieces of Athanasius in Manuscript varying often from the printed Copy but exactly answering Nannius his version in all those variations which I have mention'd here upon this occasion that the frequent variations of that Version from the Original may not be thought to proceed from affectation of liberty or mistake To return then to the purpose for which this passage was produc'd if the judgment of between fifty and sixty Bishops be represented as the sentence of all the Bishops of Italy surely in those days their number must be very much short of what they are at present I will conclude this Disquisition concerning the Bishopricks of Italy with the Roman Synod (m) Anno 251. under Cornelius which by Eusebius (n) Euseb l. 6. c. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called a very great Synod and by Cyprian (o) Cornelius cum plurimis Episc Cypr. Ep. 55. Ed. Ox. said to consist of very many Bishops They were in all sixty which could never have been observ'd as a very great Synod if every good Village or Town in Italy where there were some thousands of such had been provided of a Bishop But whether this were a Synod of the Province of Rome only or of all Italy is a question about which learned men are divided The words of Eusebius are ambiguous and not easie to be determined For he says that Cornelius sent Letters to Fabian Bishop of Antioch giving (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. an account of the Synod at Rome and the judgment of all in Italy and Africk St. Jerom speaking of these Letters of Cornelius says (q) De Synodo Romana-Italica Hieron de Script Eccles in Cornel. that he wrote about the Roman the Italick and African Synods as if besides that of Rome there had been another at the same time in some other place of Italy Now if Jerom had seen no more of Cornelius his Epistles than what Eusebius has excerpted this of the Italick Synod may be a mistake Bishop Pearson (r) Jo. Cestrens Annal. Cppr. p. 31. has demurr'd upon this matter and the Conclusion of that Chapter in Eusebius seems to make all clear At the end of his Letter he sets down the names of those who were present in the Roman Synod and their Dioceses and he sent likewise the names of the persons (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and of their places who came not to this Synod but signified their consent by Letters to what was there determined Here is no place left then to an Italick Synod for by this account all who were not at Rome consented by their Letters And that much the greater part of the Bishops of Italy appear'd in this Synod cannot well be doubted considering this assembly was for common direction in a case very difficult and nice and so nearly concerning the peace of the Church And he who observes it as an extraordinary thing that out of all Italy sixty Bishops should be assembled in one Synod could not but have taken notice of the number of the rest who approved the acts of this Council by their Letters if it had been any thing proportionable to this Therefore we have reason to conclude that at that time there were not very many more Bishops in all Italy I know it is suggested by some that there were
were in Spain 71 Bishops and 7 Metropolitans In a Controversy between the Arch-bishops of Toledo and Valentia it is said that Constantine had divided the Country into Provinces and Dioceses much to the same effect with what has been already produc'd with this agrees the observations of Luitprandus which are taken from the same Books For speaking of the 13th Council of Toledo he saith the number of the Bishops there were 76 of whom 27 subscrib'd by Proxies And in his Chronicon he gives notice of several new Bishopricks erected in Spain in the later end of the seventh Century The Dioceses of Spain must be very large then when so great a Country was divided between 70 or 80 Bishops and especially considering the Province of Narbon was then reckon'd to Spain At the time of the Council of Illiberis Spain seems to have but few Bishops For tho' we find by the Subscriptions that the Bishops had met there from all the Provinces of Spain yet were there in all but 19. And long before this (g) Anno. 254. in St. Cyprians time two Cities in Spain seem'd to belong to one Bishop as may be gather'd from the Inscription of St. Cyprians (h) Ep. 67. Epistle Foelici Presbytero plebibus consistentibus ad Legionem Asturicae Upon which Vasaeus (i) Vasaeus in Chron. Hisp Anno. 256. has this Remark Colligi videtur Legionenses atque Asturicenses eo tempore eidem Episcopo fuisse subjectos licet postea divisi Episcopatus fuerint Our Author (l) Prim. ep p. 40. cites Rabanus Maurus to very little purpose when he makes him to say that there were fewer Bishops at first but in process of time they were Ordain'd not only in Cities but in places where there was no need Which then is the most Primitive way the first or that which comes after After a tedious peregrination our Author (f) Anno. 305. Conc. Illib (m) Prim. ep p. 40. is very kind to let us come nearer home I need not tell you how few Cities there are in Ireland yet Primat Usher tells us out of Nennius that St. Patrick founded there 365 Churches and as many Bishops I hope no reasonable man will blame me as too difficult of belief if I refuse this fable for evidence The authority of Nennius may be question'd without imputation of scepticism and can never pass as long as men have judgment enough to distinguish between History and Legend But I take Nennius his way of writing to be a degree even below Legend But since this fabulous Calendar of Irish Bishops has pass'd without contradiction not that any body ever believ'd it but because it is too gross to be refuted and since it has been and is still urg'd for History in the behalf of Primitive Episcopacy I will endeavour to trace it to its Original and when the ground of the Story is understood it will do the Congregational way but very slender service Arch-Bishop Vsher (n) Antiquit. Eccl. Brit. p. 473. ult Ed. publish'd a Catalogue of old Irish Saints which is divided into three ranks which are distinguish'd one from another as well by time as by merit The first is the best they consisted all of Bishops and their number was 350 they were founders of Churches c. This Order of Saints lasted for four Reigns the last of which was Tuathail but they were not all Irish but Romans and Franks and Britans Now according to Arch bishop Vshers (o) Antiquit. p. 490. Ed. ult Chronology of those Reigns there is above a hundred years from the beginning of St. Patrick's Apostleship to the end of Tuathail only there is one King before him in that Chronological Table which the old Catalogue does not mention That these were the Bishops of St. Patrick's ordination we may find in Jocelin (p) Usher Antiq. p. 492. who says that St. Patrick ordain'd just so many with his own hand and founded 700 Churches To compleat the Irish Calendar Nennius increas'd their number to 365 a singular complement to a lazy Nation to make it holiday for them all the year round Now whether all these liv'd in Ireland or were all ordained by Patrick the Catalogue does not say But it says expresly That they were of several other Nations besides Irish So that this may rather represent the Communion of Patrick and the number of Bishops in Britain and France that kept Easter on the fourteenth of the Moon than his Suffragans of Ireland And the fewness of Bishops in succeeding times and under the second order seems to represent a great change not in the lives of the Bishops for if I mistake not it is the cause that is in the bottom of that Catalogue but in the observances which are there mention'd For whether the Franks by this time had taken another way and the Brittish Churches were under great calamities or Augustin the Monk had introduc'd the Roman customs there are but few Bishops in the second order But supposing these holy Bishops had been all of Ireland yet there is no need of so many Cathedrals for them for they lasted four Reigns which makes up a hundred years And though all the Bishops seats in Ireland had not been above fifty they might easily have afforded 350 Saints in the compass of a hundred years But because there are but sixty years allow'd for St. Patrick's Government in Ireland even in that and the surviving generation this number of Bishops might easily rise from fifty I mention this number because sometimes Ireland has had so many Dioceses or more as we may see in a copy of the Provincial publish'd by (q) Geogr. Sacr. S. Paulo which hath more Seats in it than that of which Cambden speaks After all I am not well satisfi'd but all St. Patrick's Bishops may be a fable and he himself only a Saint of imagination For who can tell but Patricius Arvernensis may have sunk a day lower in the Calendar and made the Irish a Patricius Hibernensis Or the Spanish Patrick (r) Luitpr Advers of Malaga who according to Luitprandus lays claim to that day might appear to the Irish in a Dream as St. George did to our Country-men and become their Protector and at last their Apostle For the Calendar is the ground upon which the Legendaries run divisions and as barren as it seems to be it has produced a world of devout Fables For in old time give a Monk but a name and he would quickly write a life Our Author taking S. Patrick's (s) Prim. Ep. p. 40. 365 fabulous Bishopricks for effective is not content but would increase their number about the twelfth Century Afterwards says he the number of Bishops increased in Ireland so that when Malachias went into Ireland near 600 years after S. Patrick Anno 1150. (t) Bern. vit Malach. Vnus Episcopatus non esset contentus uno Episcopo sed singulae paene Ecclesiae singulos haberent
near adjoyning made but one Church Now because Churches of so large extent required many Ministers of the word and sacraments and yet of one Church there must be but one Pastor the Apostles in setling the state of these Churches did so constitute in them many Presbyters Now according to Dr. Field every Episcopal Church as laid out by the Apostles having so large extent as to require many Ministers and yet but one Pastor or Bishop was plainly not a Congregational Church but Diocesan Bishop Bilson (t) Bils Perpet Gov. c. 14. p. 295 298 306 321. is yet plainer against the purpose for which he is alledg'd We have says that learned Prelate one Bishop in a Church ty'd to the Laws of God the Church and the Prince you would have 300 in a Diocese and some more all of equal power and set at liberty to consult and determine at their pleasure Neither had the Jews that kind of Government which you would establish in the Church neither did our Lord and Master ever prescribe to the Gentiles the judicial part of Moses Law And again As the people did increase so did the pains in each place and consequently the number of Presbyters one man being no more able to serve the necessities of a great City than to bear the burden of the Earth upon his back and yet in each Church and City one chief among them that as principal Pastor of the place c. And to conclude you dislike a Bishop should have any Diocese or Church besides that one wherein he teacheth which nice conceit of yours not only condemneth the Primitive Church of Christ that assigned Dioceses to Bishops but contradicteth the very ground of Government which the Apostles left behind them (u) Prim. Ep. p. 48. Now in what places the Jews had their Synagogues if it were not plain Matth. 9.35 that they were far from being alway great Cities will appear from the seats of their Consistories I never yet heard of any who denied that the Jews had Synagogues in Villages as well as Cities But that the Village-Synagogues were independent and free from any subjection to the Cities in Ecclesiastical causes is now the question and our Author is wise in saying nothing of it For those who have taken his side of the question though men of good reading have not been able to produce any thing about it but their own affirmations It is not to be doubted but every good Village of the Jews had a Synagogue as every Parish with us hath a Church and great Cities had many Synagogues as our great Towns have many Parishes and Jerusalem particularly is said to have had 480. But that every Village-Synagogue had supream authority in matters Ecclesiastical and no dependance upon any other Court or the chief officers of the City Synagogues is very unlikely For so many Independent and Co ordinate Officers could never without a miracle have preserved themselves one year under one National communion And in those great Cities where the Jews had many Congregations it cannot well be conceived that every one had supream authority but that there must be some Chief or Council to which all those Synagogues were subject This is most likely because common order and National agreement cannot well subsist without it I know there are some great men (x) Grot. de jure sum pot c. 11. Gotof. in l. 2. de Cod. Theod. have been very positive on the other side and have asserted the Independence of every Synagogue that every such Assembly had a chief Officer answering to our Bishops and all co-ordinate and of equal authority But for all this no evidence is produced and when learned men speak without book about distant matter of fact their authority is but small for then they do not speak from their knowledge and learning but their affection The Scriptures of the old Testament give no directions concerning Synagogues and do not so much as mention those Assemblies From whence some have concluded that in those times there were no such religious Assemblies among the Jews In the new Testament we have frequent mention of them and sometimes their Officers are named but how they were ordered in respect of one another and of general Communion the new Testament does not give the least hint Nay as to this matter the writings of the Jews are not plain and though they were yet they taste too much of the fable to be depended upon Great men may guess and affirm according as they stand affected but when all is done this matter is still in the same obscurity for want of sufficient evidence After the establishment of Christian Religion we find general Officers of the Jews endued with the power of Excommunication and Absolution but that every Village or City-consistory had that power then we do not find and for ought appears they might have no more power than our Church-wardens and Vestries Nay in the complaint the Jews make to Arcadius and Honorius (y) L. 8. de Jud. Coeli Sam. l. 15. de Jud. l. 29. Codesh that the civil Officers had restor'd to Communion several whom the Primates of their Law had cast out without the consent of those Primates the power seems to belong chiefly to these and they too derived their Jurisdiction not from the Synagogues but from the Patriarchs by whom they were appointed And this Invasion of the Imperial Officers is represented not as an injury to the Vestries of Village or City Synagogues but only to these Primates whose office was of greater compass than the inspection of a single Synagogue as appears from the last of those Laws cited in the margin where we are informed that upon extinction of the Patriarchs these Primates succeeded to all their power But while I was thinking of the learned men who treat of this matter I had almost forgot our Author who tells (z) Prim. ep p. 48. us That something will appear from the seats of their Consistories Let us therefore attend In Cities of less than sixscore Families they plac'd their Consistories of three In Cities of more than a hundred and twenty Families the Courts of twenty three Maimon in Sanedr c. 1. Sect. 5. Seld. de Synedr l. 2. c. 5. And it is well known that many of our Country Towns with their Precincts have more than 120 Families and our lesser Villages are as great as the Cities in the lower account They must be very sore distress'd who repair to Rabbins for propriety of expression or evidence of Antiquity In Maimonides his language it seems a place that had not 120 Families was a City And what if it had but three It was sufficient to furnish a Triumviral Consistory and therefore may pass for a Rabbinical City But Cunaeus (a) Cun. de R. P. Hebr. l. 1. c. 13. Ego vero Aristoteli assentior ne quidem eam esse civitatem Civitas nomen amittit modus si defit who lov'd to
possession of his own people To this he adds a marvellous remark that the word (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which some will have him to understand a Diocese is frequently said to be in the City And of this expression he cites many examples as if this implied that out of the City there was no Diocese But let that instance of Alexandria answer for all the rest since it is produced to this purpose For besides the City Athanasius affirms the Bishop had Mareotes a Region containing many Country Parishes and that there never had been so much as a Chorepiscopus to govern those Churches but that they were under the immediate Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria We are farther told (g) Prim. ep p. 123. that the Apostles designed there should be such Bishops as they instituted in Country Towns and not in Cities only If he means by such Bishops Presbyters only then indeed not only every Church but every Congregation required such but the Bishops of the Apostles Ordination had the care of many Congregations And it is plain in Scripture that such general Officers they did appoint and they themselves were of that kind Some Prelatists he observes will have Bishop and City to be adequate but he will have it that Church and Bishop should be so for it is not the City as such requires a Bishop but because it had a Church in it It is true but the narrowness of the Independent spirit confounds a Church with a Congregation For as in the civil community of a City there were several subordinate Assemblies yet but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly so called which was endued with the authority of the whole Body So it might be in the Churches planted by the Apostles Where therefore there was one competent Church there was a Bishop but this might consist of several Congregations The Church of Jerusalem may be still mentioned to this purpose after all Mr. Clerkson's attempts to diminish it The number of Converts there was too great for one Congregation (h) Acts 11.22 yet they all made but one Church and so it was where ever Christians increased in the same proportion And therefore I hope to be excused if in this case I take the practice of the Apostles and of the Church in succeeding ages to be safer Interpreters of their design than the novel conjectures of men addicted to singularity The instance of Majuma the Port of Gaza is directly against the purpose for which it is brought for it had no Bishop till it was a City And one thing in this citation of Mr. Clerkson concerning it deserves to be noted For where Sozomen says that the bounds of each Diocese were appointed and what Altars should belong to each our Author thought fit to change the number and to write distinct Altar as agreeing better with his notion though this way does not agree well with common honesty and good faith The weak objection which he makes for Episcopal men and the suitable answer he returns to it are not worth notice For here he speaks only to himself and I do not wonder he should argue so weakly for us when his arguments against us are so harmless So the Mother of Sisera and her wise Ladies did doubt and reply and fancy Triumphs when the day was lost The difference between the modern and ancient models is apparent as Mr. Clerkson thinks in England and Ireland The ancient model of Episcopacy in England is something hard to find For the Saxons being Pagans when they subdued this Country and driving the old Inhabitants into the remote corners of it all the bounds of civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within this Kingdom were lost But the model he speaks of is that of Gregory the Great who had no more design to plant Congregational Episcopacy in England than he had to make it Independent He intended twelve Bishops for the Province of York as Mr. Clerkson observes but that might have been done and the Dioceses be large enough For that Province then reached from Humbre to the Frith of Edinburgh and about the year 681. had five Bishops however Mr. Clerkson affirms that for many ages it had no more than three and every one of them had Dioceses of very great extent Those in the South were not all so great but yet comprehended many Congregations and some of them as Canterbury London and Rochester do remain still under the same limits that were at first appointed them by Augustin the Archbishop How they stood before the coming of the Saxons is now beyond all memory and there is little hope left of making any new discovery in this matter which hath been treated by so many great men and diligent inquirers into the Antiquities of their Country Marcianus Heracleota (i) Peripl p. 92. reckons fifty nine Cities in Britain which I suppose he took out of Ptolomy (l) Ptol. l. 2. Many of these are placed in Scotland and about forty remain for England and Wales If they observed the general rule of the Church the number of their Bishops might be equal to that of their Cities and so their Dioceses would be much too wide for Mr. Clerkson's purpose But it seems this number was reduced afterwards For Bede (m) Bed H. E. l. 1. c. 1. mentions but twenty eight when he would set out the most flourishing condition of this Country in the Roman times As for the Canon of the Synod of Herudford for augmenting the number of Bishops which Mr. Clerkson insists on there was good reason for it For at that time there were no more than seven Bishops in all the Saxon part of Britain which then reaching to the Frith of Edinburg was as large as all England and Wales joyned together are now The ancient model in Ireland is as little known for the Legends of St. Patrick are but sorry evidence of the ancient state of the Irish Church and that Fable has been already examined In Phaenicia indeed the Latins did reduce the Bishopricks to a lesser number in the twelfth Century because the condition of that Country was much altered and most of the ancient Episcopal Cities destroyed or the people Mahometans But that it was the humour of that age instead of multiplying to reduce Bishopricks is only a fancy of Mr. Clerkson For I have shewed the practice of Italy at that time to be quite contrary where instead of reducing they raised a great number of new Bishopricks and have been increasing of them ever since Nor does it serve to any purpose to produce the Patriarchat of Antioch so different in the time of the Latins from what it had been anciently since the condition of those Countries had been much altered and the Christians were reduced to a very small number under the long and heavy Tyranny of the Mahometans Mr. Clerkson bestows a whole Chapter to confirm his notion of the smallness of ancient Bishopricks by repeating those observations he
had already made That all the people should be present at the election of Bishops that the Bishop was to examine the state of the Penitents that he was to preach to all the Brethren that there was but one Communion table in a Diocese All these have been answered already and it is evident by many instances as well as the necessity of the thing it self that the Christians of the Country had distinct Congregations and setled Presbyters to attend them all in subordination to the City Bishop that their Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper were administred there by those Presbyters that as for Discipline and Confirmation the Bishop visited those places in person that those Congregations were not obliged to repair to the City-Church so much as on Easter or the most solemn Festivals These things are as plain as words can express Athanasius Basil Augustin and several others give an account of their visitations And Jerom (n) Hieron Cont. Lucif cannot deny it to be an ancient custom that the Bishop of the City should visit the Villages and Burroughs and remote places of his Diocese to confirm those who had been baptized there by Presbyters or Deacons There is nothing more precarious and more destitute of the appearance of truth than the deduction our Author makes of the progress of Diocesan Episcopacy and the rise of it from the destruction of the Congregational model (o) Prim. ep p. 191. A Bishop of a Country Parish would be striving to get another Parish under him The third Council of Carthage Can. 46. takes notice of such Bishops Nothing can be more directly against his purpose than that Canon by which it appears that such Country places as had Bishops were of new erection that they had been ever before parts of a greater Diocese (p) Quae exempta de fasce multarum sola meruit honorem Episcopatus suscipere Can. 46. and taken out of a multitude which belonged all to one Bishop that some of these new Bishops challenged other parts of the Diocese out of which their Bishoprick was taken besides that which was appointed them So that the design of Mr. Clerkson is defeated by his own evidence For whereas he would suggest that Dioceses did rise by the incroachment of the Bishop of one Parish upon another and by joyning Parish to Parish The quite contrary appears from the place alledged that the Bishop of one Parish as he calls him was raised by crumbling of ancient Dioceses and that the other Parish which he is said to challenge was not such a one as had a Parish Bishop to it self but was part of a Diocese consisting of many such and that this large Bishoprick was the ancient the small an innovation I perceive that conscience does not always operate alike in those who pretend so great niceness For while they take offence and start at a trifle they make no scruple of sins of unfaithfulness and represent that as truth and reality which in their own conscience they know to be otherwise (q) Prim. ep p. 191. When a Bishop had part of a City he was unsatisfied till he had got the whole Thus Flavianus at Antioch would not suffer a Bishop to be made to succeed Evagrius that he might have the City intire to himself One may be apt to imagine that in ancient time Antioch was divided between many Bishops and that this Flavianus was the first ambitious man who would have the City entire to himself Whereas before the Schisms that distracted the Church of that place the City had ever had but one Bishop But the Arrians having the possession of the publick Churches and being established there by authority the Catholick Party which was very low there at that time happened (r) Socr. l. 3. c. 6. 9. Soz. l. 7. c. 15. to be divided Meletius being Bishop of one part and Paulinus of the other This being against the rule and constant practice of the Church it was agreed to put an end to this irregularity by uniting all when one should die under the Survivor Flavianus broke this agreement for when Meletius died he procured himself to be made Bishop in his stead against Paulinus who was the Survivor And he likewise dying his party chose Evagrius in opposition to Flavianus who when that Competitor was dead endeavoured to hinder the ordination of a successour And this is the story which Mr. Clerkson thinks fit to bring as a proof how a Bishop of a part of a City was unsatisfied till he had the whole as if it were the rule or allowed practice of the ancient Church to divide a City between many Bishops (s) Prim. ep p. 192. When a Bishop had a great City yet some Village in the vicinity he could not endure should be exempt from his Jurisdiction Majuma found this to its trouble This had always been under Gaza until it was made a City by Constantine So that its separation from the Diocese of Gaza was the Innovation It s dependance upon that Bishop was its ancient and primitive state and the Bishop of the City did not desire to make a new accession to his Bishoprick but to recover what had been taken from it (t) Prim. ep p. 192. Not satisfied with one City some would have two So four Bishops in Europa a Province of Thrace got each of them two Cities under him Yet is it positively affirmed of those Cities that they had always belonged to one Bishop this was their primitive constitution It is possible some of them were but lately made Cities and having been Villages before in the Territory of another City they continued in their Ecclesiastical subjection after they were made Cities Yet these were afterwards parted so far were succeeding Ages from reducing the number of Bishopricks For Arcadiopolis which was joyned to Byzia in the Council of Ephesus and there affirmed to have been so immemorially under Justinian had a Bishop of its own as we find by the subscriptions (u) Not. Graec. Leon. in Append. Geogr. Sacr. of the fifth Synod Panium joyned to Heraclea was afterwards divided from it and made a distinct Bishoprick had a Bishop of its own in the Council under Menna (x) Conc. C. P. sub Menna Act. 2. So that this instance as well as the rest proves directly contrary to the purpose for which it is produced That which follows concerning the incroachment of one Metropolitan upon the Province of another I am not concerned to take notice of since it does not belong to the present question Having abused so many Testimonies of ancient Writers directly against the intention of the Authors to countenance his dream of Congregational Episcopacy he does not think fit to conclude without (y) Prim. ep p. 197. taking notice what thoughts some of the best and most eminent Bishops of the fourth and fifth Ages had of a very large Bishoprick And thereby he thinks he shall perceive that if
our Saviour not to depart from Jerusalem in twelve years we must conclude the numbers of Proselytes must needs surpass the measure of a Congregation if the success of following years did in any proportion answer this beginning All the endeavours therefore of deduction from the numbers of Converts expressed by St. Luke can have no place in the Church of Jerusalem For 1. All that were converted on Pentecost are said to continue in the Apostles (a) Acts 2. Fellowship and breaking of Bread and in Prayer i. e. to stay with them in Jerusalem So that though they were not dwellers before upon this occasion they became such 2. The five thousand added to these according to the circumstances of the Story and the exposition of all the ancient Writers will afford no occasion for any deduction 3. The increase of which the numbers are not express'd may reasonably be presum'd no way inferior to the other where the number is set down but if we observe the Expressions seem to surpass them For when five thousand were converted it is said that many of those who heard the Word believed If the number had not follow'd this would have pass'd for a little matter with our Author but in other places it is said that great multitudes both of Men and Women a great number of Priests c. 4. While the Apostles continued in Jerusalem we have reason to believe the Church was still increasing and the People being generally of their side upon the account of the Miracles they wrought so as to give a check to the Rulers and to restrain them from persecuting the Apostles it cannot be well doubted but the Apostles improv'd this good disposition to a perfect conversion 5. Besides the preaching of the Apostles the influence of the Converts who were generally men upon their Families could not fail of having great effect and of making no small addition to the sum of Believers The Authority the Masters of families had over them among the Jews being very great and the submission of Wives and Children to them being in that Nation very implicit (a) Letter 17. from Baghdad It being the receiv'd custom of the East as De la Valle observ'd that the Women and Children should accomodate themselves to the Father of the family in matters of Religion though the Women had before they married been bred up in other Rules 6. That the Multitude converted could have no convenience in Jerusalem of meeting in one Assembly The Apostles went from House to House 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. in several Houses there were several religious Assemblies and so consequently several Congregations so that the Multitude though it might in a very great Theater or Temple have come together yet for want of such accommodation began in the Diocesan way and dispersed into several Assemblies which still made up but one Church (b) Prim. Ep. p. 6. It is confessed says Mr. Clerkson that in those times and after there was more than one Bishop in a City and if the Christians in any City were but few and those divided betwixt several Bishops how small a Diocese would the share of each make up For this he cites Dr. Hammond on the Rev. c. 11. p. 662. It is true indeed D. H. was of opinion that the Believers of the Circumcision did for some time keep at some distance from the Gentile Converts and had their Assemblies and Officers apart and that the Apostles having no other remedy were obliged to manage the matter so tenderly as to connive for some time at this separation But this can by no means concern the case of the Church of Jerusalem within the time of her increase before the death of St. Stephen and the conversion of St. Paul for as yet no Gentile had been baptized Cornelius being the first and that some time after these many thousands had been converted in Jerusalem Besides were this allow'd that the Jews and Gentiles in each City had a distinct Bishop yet that makes nothing for the Congregational way for this happened upon another Account And after the ruin of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish Commonwealth the Jews came to an accommodation and joyned with the Gentiles under the same Officers before the second Century and therefore can be of no consequence to the point in hand And if those Dioceses were small it was in order to greater increase that the Jews might be for a little while indulg'd and then united with the Gentiles in one Church But after all this matter of separate Churches is no more than the conjecture of some learned men and our Author himself is willing to dismiss it by saying (a) P. 7. That there is no need of this acknowledgment nor will he insist on the grounds on which he proceeds Nor is there any reason he should if he can make out what he affirms in the same place that there is evidence enough in Scripture for a plurality of Bishops in several Cities which may be easily vindicated from the attempts of some that would deface it His first instance is Phil. 1.1 To all the Saints that are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons That these were Bishops of the Province as Dr. Hammond contends and not of the City of Philippi our Author will by no means allow nor will I be very importunate with him that he should But one thing I would learn of him what sort of Bishops he takes these to be For if in his opinion they are no other than Presbyters then this place is impertinently alledg'd since many Presbyters are by all sides acknowledg'd to have belong'd to one Church But if he speak of Bishops in the common Ecclesiastical sence and then concludes from this passage that there were many in the Church of Philippi his opinion is as singular as that of the Doctor he endeavours to refute For my part I must profess that I am not much concern'd in this Dispute between our Author and Dr. Hammond about these Bishops I could never find sufficient reason to believe them any other than Presbyters as the generality of Fathers and of the Writers of our own Church have done And tho' I have great reverence for the name and memory of Dr. Hammond yet where he is alone I may without any imputation of disrespect take the common liberty of leaving his opinion to stand or fall according to the strength of the Arguments upon which it is founded Yet there are some things in our Authors reply which may be taken notice of Dr. Hammond (a) 16 12. from a passage in the Acts where Philippi is said to be the first City of Macedonia and a Colony infers that it was a Metropolis To which our Author answers that it is first in Situation (b) P. 8. and not in dignity and preheminence This conjecture of Camerarius and Zanchius may after all be more ingenious than solid For Bezas M S. has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
these therefore (b) D. D. l. 2. c. 7. Tayl. op Assert p. 304. tell their opponents That the most learned of them have not been able with great labour and hard study to produce above five instances thereof And yet more have been and may be produc'd for Bishops in Villages than some are willing to take notice of Altho' I profess my self concern'd for Diocesan Episcopacy because I believe it to be Apostolical and Primitive yet I do not find in my self any aversion to these instances of Village-Bishops nor can I find that they ever had any quarrel with or were irreconcilable to Diocesans Before the Conquest this Country (c) Malms l. 3. vil 1. had several Bishops seated in Villages who were afterwards translated to Cities but they were no less Diocesans before than after their translations And at this time in Wales there are four Bishops who are content with Villages for their Sees and yet have large Dioceses to govern Of old the Chorepiscopi who seem to have been rather Presbyters than Bishops had their residence in Villages but each of them had many Villages under his visitation What hurt then can these instances of Bishops in Villages do to the Diocesan way Or why are they represented so formidable to Episcopal Writers that they will not endure to hear of them Had every Village that might furnish a Congregation a Bishop residing it it Or those Bishops who were Seated in Villages were they only Parish-Pastors and confin'd within the bounds of their respective Villages If our Author had prov'd this there had been some ground to set Village-Bishops against Diocesan but since he has not thought fit to do this I may take leave to say that he has left his Argument imperfect and far short of the purpose for which it is produced To make this general Answer yet more plain let us suppose the bounds of our English Dioceses to become as much unknown to after-ages as those of the old Egyptian or Syrian Dioceses are now to us and that the Books of Mr. Baxter Mr. Clerkson and others against Diocesan Bishops in this Country should be lost for the Genius does not promise immortality Under this suppos'd ignorance of the present distribution of our Bishopricks if a dabler in antiquity finding that St. Davids Landaf and St. Asaph had been Bishops seats some ages before and that in elder times Dorchester and Selsea and Kirton and Elmham and Hexham and some other Villages in England had been honoured with Episcopal Chairs should upon this discovery entertain a conceit that our Episcopacy was parochial and that a Bishop in our time and many ages before us was no more than a Parish-Minister and write a Book to maintain this vainfancy Such an undertaking and such a work would be the exact copy of this Chapter of Village-Bishops It may perhaps seem a needless labour to examine the instances he has collected of Villages that were Episcopal seats since they reach not the point in question nor make the least colour of proof that the Bishops residing in Villages were but Pastors of a single Congregation But since he pleased himself so much with this performance that he seems to triumph and say That the instances of Bishops in Villages were more than some are willing to take notice of he has laid a sort of a necessity upon his Answerer not to pass them by lest his Disciples might mistake a just neglect of impertinence for a despair or diffidence of being able to reply I will therefore take notice of every instance he has produc'd upon this head tho' I may have just reason to apprehend the censure or contempt of my Readers for insisting so minutely upon the examination of things which to the first view sufficiently appear to be beside the purpose But I hope the defiance and importunity of my Adversary may excuse this digression tho' a matter of curiosity rather than of argument or of weight To begin then In the Diocese of Egypt we are told (d) Prim. Ep. p. 19. Hydrax and Palaebisca two Villages had their Bishops He should have said Bishop for they had but one as appears from the Epistle of Synesius (e) Synes Ep. 67. who had orders from the Bishop of Alexandria to ordein a Pastor for those Villages But from the account which was put into his hands by the people of that place we find that these †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes ep 67. Villages were far from being Primitive Bishopricks for at the time of which we are speaking which was about the year of Christ 400 thy had but one Bishop For by Apostolick authority as well as by the Law of the Country those Churches had ever belong'd to Erythros and were Parishes of that Diocese The people further declare That they were not divided from the Diocese of Erythros until the time of Valens the Emperor when all things were in confusion and that then one Syderius who came from Valens his Army was made Bishop there in a very unusual manner without the knowledg or approbation of the Bishop of Alexandria by the hands of one Bishop only i. e. Philo of Cyrene and all this done to engage the protection of Syderius who by the Commission he had from Court had it in his power to do much good or hurt to that Country (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes Ep. 67. Before this they had no Bishop nor did any succeed him Wherefore they beseech Synesius in the most earnest and importunate manner in the world that he would not force them to chuse another but that they might be allow'd to continue in their former condition as Parishes and dependences (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes ibid. of Erythros for they had put themselves already under Paul the Bishop of that City and prayed they might not be made Orphans in their Father's life time nor be violently torn from their mother-Church Especially since they had returned to their first estate by the approbation of Theophilus of Alexandria Judge then by this instance which was the Primitive Episcopacy of this place By Apostolick Authority and Prescription they were members of a Diocese and depended on a City but to have a Bishop of their own did in their opinion agree neither with the Apostles rule nor the usage of their Country It is pity some Independent had not liv'd in those days to have informed this people better concerning their Christian Priviledges and to let them know that every Parish not only might but ought to have a Bishop of their own Olbium (h) Prim. Ep. p. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes Ep. 76. a Village in the same region had a Bishop After the death of Athamas Bishop there the election of a Bishop was needful and Antonius was chosen There is no mention either of this place or people any where else that I can find and from this (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
expression of Synesius it does not appear whether they were the People of one Village or rather a people dwelling in Villages such as in the old Testament are call'd Perizites Of this sort (l) Proximis nullae quidem urbes stant tamen domicilia sunt quae Mapalia apellantur Mela. l. 1. in Cyren Nusquam pauci degunt ibid. there were several in the region of Pentapolis and all over Africk where there were but few Cities as Pomponius Mela observes but where the country People inhabited they were generally in great numbers And (m) Plin. l. 5. c. 5. Pliny names several little Nations of this Country from the titles of Cornelius Balbus his triumph Besides Synesius his (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesych Jul. Pollux Suid. phrase may signify not a Village-people but a Neighbouring-people Such a people as I mention'd before render'd in the (o) Tabidium Oppidum Nitenii Natio Nigligimela Oppid Bubeium Natio c. triumphal titles of Balbus by Nation And it is not unlikely that Synesius who affects antique phrase might mean no more than a neighbouring People without regarding whether they were Villages or Cities However it was I shall not forget to allow for this as a Village-Bishop together with some others when I come to take my leave of Egypt (p) Prim ep p. 20. Zygus is an Egyptian Village in Ptolomy And Athanasius (q) Athan. ep ad Antioch gives us the name of the place and of the person that was Bishop there But this Village as it had a Bishop so it (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Ptol. l. 4. had a territory along the Sea side and the whole Sea-coast of Lybia was divided between that and two other Villages (s) Prim. ep p. 20. We meet with Antia a Village in Diodorus Siculus and in the Council of Ephesus with Episcopus Anteensis I cannot find any other place that will suit him It is well enough guess'd for it is in the same place something (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subser Ephes differently writ in the subscriptions of the Council of Ephesus from what it is in Diodorus it is the Town of Antaeus or Antaeopolis accounted for a City by (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steph. ib. Stephanus and by (x) Plut. de Solert Animal Plutarch Nor was this all but this City was likewise the Metropolis of that Nomus or Praefecture of Egypt which bears its name (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pol. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Apol. 2. p. 784. l. 1. when Ptolomy wrote his Geography So this Village in the account of our Author was a City and a Metropolis of a Country long before the Council of Ephesus and before it had a Bishop (z) Prim. ep p. 20. Schaedia in (a) Strab. l. 17. (a) Athan ep ad Antioch Strabo is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 render'd pagus urbi similis b Athanasius tells us who was Bishop of it It is some comfort that in Strabo's time this Village was not inferior to a City and before Athanasius his time or any mention of a Bishop in this place it might be a City for ought our Author knew However the walls or the charter or title of a City signifie little to the present question If a Town be populous and have a Territory sufficient to make a competent Diocese the Bishop of the place will be a Diocesan and such was the Bishop of Schaedia For besides that Town he had a (c) Agathodaemon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. Ep. ad Antioch p. 580. Region belonging to his Diocese call'd (d) Menelaites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steph. Menelaites and he is styl'd by both Titles Now Menelaites was a Nomus or as we should say a County of Egypt of which Canopus (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ptol. l. 4. Plin. l. 5. c. 9. was the Metropolis part of which it seems belong'd to the Bishop of Schaedia and this Region had a City of the same name in the time of (f) Menelaitem Vrbem Lybiae adjecimus Justin Ed. 13. c. 18 19. Justinian and possibly it might be a City at this time when Agathodaemon was Bishop So that instead of a Bishop of a Village our Author seems to have stumbl'd upon one who had two Cities And among the subscriptions in Athanasius (g) Athan. Ep. ad Antioch there are other Bishops who bear double titles as Agathus Bishop of Phragonis and part of Elearchia and Ammonius Bishop of Pachnemomi and the remaining part of Elearchia (h) Prim. Ep. p. 20. In the Breviary of Meletius wherein he gives Alexander an account what Bishops he had made among the rest (i) Athan. Ap. 2. p. 189. T. 1. id Ep. ad Antioch there is Cronius in Metole and a place call'd Andromene was the Episcopal seat of Zoilus as Athanasius informsus which two last are in all probability Villages since there are no such Cities discover'd in Egypt What this Metole should be where Meletius set up a schismatick Bishop is not very material to our question since the practice of Meletius can be of little authority in a dispute concerning Primitive Episcopacy Schismaticks are too apt to innovate to be cited for examples of primitive practice Yet considering the rest of the places furnish'd by Meletius with Bishops were the chief of Egyyt and that this Metole is plac'd in his Catalogue (l) Metelis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steph. Ptol. l. 4. next the Region of Alexandria I am apt to suspect this reading and think this Metole is no other then Metilis (m) Metilis Mela. l. 1. c. 9. which gave name to a Prefecture and was the Metropolis of it But for this Andromene it is a monster compos'd of a City and a man and in pity they ought to be parted For so they are in the Paris Edition (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zoilus was Bishop of Andron and Menas was Bishop of Antiphrae now Andron or Andropolis (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ptol. l. 4. Strab. l. 17. Steph. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the chief City of a Nomus of that name and Antiphrae was a small City in Strabo's time not far from Alexandria Our Author (p) Prim. Ep. p. 20. goes on still in quest of Episcopal villages in Egypt and not finding any more for his turn he takes upon him to reduce Cities into Villages Hypselis says he is a Village in Stephanus and had two Bishops at once Ausonius he would say Arsenius of the Meletian faction and Paul for the Orthodox (q) Athan. Apol. 2. That Hypselis had an Orthodox Bishop at that time I do not question but that his name was Paul I cannot find in Athanasius there was indeed a Person of that name who liv'd there and is mention'd by Athanasius (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pennes Ep. ad Joh. apud Athan. Ap. 2. but
times even the Dioceses of that Country were large Besides the allowance of these erections was not from the fitness of the thing it self much less from any Apostolick rule but for reasons peculiar to that Country and those times For the Donatists had so distracted the Church of that Country that the Catholicks found themselves under a necessity of suffering many things though contrary to the old practice of that Church by way of temporary Oeconomy and Dispensation And the same Canon makes farther proof that even after these new Bishopricks permitted in Villages the old ones from which they were taken remain'd still Diocesan and therefore takes care that all the remaining Parishes or Dioceses for both words are used should belong to the first Bishop and that only (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that one district or Parish taken one of many should belong to the new Bishop (q) Prim. Ep. p. 33. For Europe and the more Eastern parts of it he gives some instances jumbled together as it were in haste and without marking the places where they are to be found But these are like the rest and if it were possible less to the purpose Melanicus is a Castle in Cedrenus but was no Bishoprick either in primitive or ancient times Tzulurum is a Castle in Zonaras but is not found to have had any Bishop before the seventh general Council or the second Nicene near eight hundred years after Christ Byzia and Macrontichos are likewise Castles in Aemylius Probus These instances are too early as the other are too late Alcibiades indeed is said by that Author in his Life to have built Castles in those places but that they ever after remain'd Castles or Villages no body has hitherto said But these places happen'd to become Cities without any notice given to our Author though he might have found it if he had consulted the book he sometimes quotes Biza is call'd a City of Thrace by Ptolomy (r) Ptol. l. 3. Stephanus (s) Steph. in Beza and Suidas and is joyn'd with Arcadiopolis in the subscriptions of the Council of Chalcedon those two Cities having immemorially belong'd to one Bishop according to the Testimony given by the Bishops of that Country in the first Ephesine Council And in the fifth general Council this place was a Metropolis So accurate is our Author in his account of his Episcopal Villages and Castles The other was a City before it could well have a Bishop For in Pliny's (t) Plin. l. 4. ◠11. time it was so accounted and called Bizantha Diabolis another of our Author's Castles in Nicephorus he says but tells us not which nor where for there are more writers than one of that name is to be found in no ancient Author and it therefore signifies little to the present purpose And if there were a hundred more Bishops in Castles in Europe there would be no danger to Diocesan Episcopacy nor can I think that any one of those Episcopal Forts could be brought to declare for the Congregational way It was well for the Bishops of some Countries that they had Castles in their Dioceses to retire to in the time of need And Gregory (u) Greg. Reg. l. 2. c. 12. the Great directs his Bishops to remove from their Cities into such places within their Dioceses as were fortified If they had been Bishops of single Parishes in Italy at that time this direction had not been very proper Alalcomenae no great Village of Baeotia in Pausanias is added to the Episcopal Villages yet I do not find any Bishop of it in ancient times although it be a City in Stephanus who follows perhaps some ancienter Author who speaks of it in its first and more flourishing estate And to conclude we have Cenchrea put upon us for a Bishop's seat out of Clemens (x) Clem. Const l. 7. c. 48. his Constitutions who speaking in the person of St. Paul pretends to have made Lucius Bishop of that place Such counterfeits as this when they once presume to personate the Apostles care not where nor whom they make Bishops But the world is now grown too wise to take Fable for History and Forgery for ancient Records Our Author y seems to be displeased with the Council of Sardica because it was the only Synod in Europe for 600 years after Christ that forbad the making of Bishops in small Towns and Villages Indeed there appears little reason from those parts in which the Synod was held given for such a prohibition For our Author could not find one Village-Bishop in those parts within the six hundred years he speaks of for his instances and his Authors are but late and improper vouchers of Antiquity Learned men are of opinion that the occasion of this Canon against making Bishops in Villages proceeded not from Europe but from Egyyt and that the Bishops had the case of Ischyras in their view when they made this order The Arians had begun a foul practice in Athanasius his Diocese taking away a part from it and erecting it into a new Bishoprick and perhaps this was not the only instance Wherefore the good Bishops in Sardica thought they had reason and authority sufficient to oppose such ill-intended Innovations that tended to overthrow all that had been setled of old time and to introduce endless confusion and dispute If our Author has a dislike to all things that tend to secure old Establishment he was in the true spirit of his party which is too active to endure any setled and perpetual order But our Author is half reconcil'd to this Synod and doubts whether this can be counted a Prohibition because in the (u) Prim. Ep. p. 34. Latin which is the Original the restraint is laid upon foreign Bishops that they shall not erect such Bishopricks in another Province Because our Author endeavours to raise a mist here about a very plain matter it may not be amiss to lay down the sum of that Canon (z) Can. Sard. 6. Gr. 5 6. Lat. and to rescue it from cavil The Bishops assembled at Sardica thought fit to order that if in a Province which had several Bishops there should happen to be left but one which cannot be supposed if such Bishops were but as Rectors of our Parishes and that sole remaining Bishop should refuse to ordain others such as the people should desire that then the people might apply themselves to the Bishops of the next Province And then it follows (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Licentia non est danda Vers Vet. that it shall be by no means lawful to ordain any Bishops in Villages or small Cities that the dignity of a Bishop may not grow contemptible from the meaness of the place Our Author then would have it that only Extra-provincial Bishops are concern'd in this prohibition But why is it because the dignity of a Bishop is less contemptible from a Village when strangers place him there then when those of
very easie to receive satisfaction I will take notice of every particular and if I have not the good fortune to satisfie I may perhaps leave them less room for cavil As to Nice though it were the Metropolis of Bythinia it was not the greatest City there for Nicomedia was (a) Nicomedia Bythiniae Praeclara Plin. l. 6. c. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pausan l. 5. much greater and was after Strabo's time made a Metropolis of the greatest part of Bythinia though Nice still maintained a right of primacy or precedence which gave offence to the greater City and occasioned some tumults for the composing of which Dio Chrysostomus employ'd his eloquence and authority And if Dio's complement to Nice was not beyond all measure extravagant this City must have great Suburbs or be much enlarged for he tells (b) Dion Chrys Or. 39 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dio. Or. 39. those Citizens that their City was not inferiour either for strength or greatness to any of the renowned Cities For if it were but two miles in compass there were some above ten times as great and the generality of Cities accounted great about twice as big unless we may suspect the reading of Strabo as to the sixteen furlongs for immediately after it is plain there is something amiss Famagusta is too young to be brought in Evidence for the measure of ancient Cities for I do not know that it is mentioned any where before the Holy War (c) Radulph de Dicet inter X Script p. 660. and could not be very long before because Constantia in whose place this is supposed to rise is to be found in the Greek Notitia so often mentioned which cannot be older than the ninth Century And we may presume it to be exact in Cyprus since it was written by one George a Cypriot out of another Book indeed but he would in probability have corrected any thing that had been amiss in his own Country Nor was Famagusta the chief City in Cyprus when it was taken (d) Anno 1570. by the Turks For Nicosia was (e) Gratian de Bello Cypr. l. 1. then the Capital City of the Island and its Circuit double to that of Famagusta for it was then four miles about That the famous Tyre before it was taken by Alexander was about that bigness i. e. of sixteen furlongs we have not from our Authors reading but his invention and it is from the same authority that we have another piece of new History that Alexander had much enlarged it He joyned it indeed to the continent by filling up that arm of Sea that divided it and made a causway of a hundred paces broad to approach it but that it was enlarged by this is only a vision of our Author's head Pomponius Mela who is of better credit in this matter tells us a quite contrary story that (f) Tyros aliquando Insula nunc annexa terris deficit Mel. l. 1. c. 12. Voss Observ in Mel. in Append. Tyre was once an Island but now it is joyned to the Continent it decays Strabo (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strab. l. 16. says it recovered it self from that calamity into which it fell but that it was improved he does not give the least intimation And Pliny (h) Nunc omnis ejus nobilitas conchylio purpura constat Plin. l 5. c. 19. comparing its ancient Greatness and its Colonies with the condition of it in his time intimates it to have fallen much from its ancient splendor for now says he the place is famous only for its Purple The greatness of it when it was taken by Alexander may be best judged from the descriptions of the siege of Diodorus Siculus (i) Diodor. Sic. l. 16. Arrian (l) Arian Exped Alex. l. 3. and Quintus Curtius (m) Q. Curt. l. 4. It had eighty Ships of war and Inhabitants innumerable For when the Town was taken there were 8000 killed 30000 Captives 15000 were saved by the Sydonians a great number of women and children were sent to Carthage in the beginning of the siege And now let any man judge whether this would not be accounted a great City in our days and whether any of our Market-Towns or Cities besides London can enter into comparison with old Tyre As to the Circuit of this famous City I must confess I am not well satisfied because I cannot reconcile the descriptions of Strabo (n) Strab. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Pliny (o) Circuitus xix M. P. est intra Palaetyro inclusa Oppidum ipsum xxii Stadia obtinet The first says the City is all an Island like Aradus and the buildings of many stories and higher than those of Rome so that according to this Author the whole Island was taken up by the City The relations of the siege seem to to agree with this that the walls of the Town reached to the Sea on all sides of the Island for all the attacks were made out of the ships and there seems to be no ground without the walls for the besiegers to lodge themselves on Yet Pliny tells us that this Island taking in old Tyre was nineteen miles in compass and yet the City but two and twenty furlongs I cannot dissemble my suspicion of this place though the Criticks think fit to pass it over Some mistake there is in the numbers and the sense is not very perfect But I know no remedy since all Copies agree and that ancient one so much magnified by the Paris Editors does not vary here from the rest It might be but 22 furlongs as our Author tells us it was when enlarged The Enlargement is a dream the compass of the Island and of the City was the same both before and since the taking of it by Alexander and though it might be but narrow in respect of Cities accounted great yet the height of the houses made amends for the smallness of the Area and made it equal to the chiefest Cities And if we may compute this as Aristides in his panegyrick does Rome and measure it upward we may say that here were many Cities laid one on the top of another If Sidon were as great as Tyre it might be called a great City without a complement and be much beyond the comparison of our Market-Towns and Cities yet this in the Roman times was fallen something from its ancient greatness For before it had been taken by the Persians it was the greatest of all the Maritime Towns of that Country and was still wealthy when Mela (p) Adhuc opulenta Sidon antequam caperetur â—a Persis Maritimarum Urbium maxima P. Mel. l. 1. c. 12. wrote his Geography and at the same time equal to Tyre as Strabo (q) Strab. l. 16. observes New Carthage (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polyb. l. 3. p. 236. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polyb. l. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was indeed the principal City
one Presbyter may suffice Now the practice of antiquity was very different in this case from what our Author fancies for there were several Towns that had no Bishops which had not only many Presbyters but many Congregations Bethleem was but a Village belonging to Jerusalem (e) Hieron ep ad Joh. Hieros and yet it had many Presbyters belonging to it the great resort of Christians thither from all parts making it too populous for one Presbyter to supply it Nicopolis near Alexandria (f) Strab. l. 17. Voss Var. Obser was not inferior to a City but never had a Bishop of its own and therefore must have many Presbyters and Congregations without a Bishop There were many Villages in the Territory of Antioch (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liban Antioche superior to many Cities and these had no Bishops but Presbyters and the greatness attributed to them makes it necessary they should have several Ministers and Congregations Fussala (h) Aug. ep 209. which before S. Augustins time had always belong'd to the Diocese of Hippo had several Congregations or Parishes in it And as for single Presbyters they had of old Country Parishes large enough for those of Mareotes (i) Athanas Ap. 2. had some ten some more Villages to make up their several Parishes And these Congregations must far exceed the stint of Mr. Clerkson or those Villages must be very mean and yet one of the meanest of them was thought capable of a Bishop by the Arrian party Libanus (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. Hist Rel. in Abr. a very great Village had but one Presbyter one Abram who Converted it and in the Territory of Antioch (m) Id. in vit Policron there were many Villages under one Presbyter In conclusion when he had qualifi'd the Canon so often mention'd to his own mind and made it allow Latitude enough for Congregational Episcopacy he finds (n) Prim. ep p. 65. fault with both Greeks and Latins that they did not think themselves concern'd to observe it Sometimes he thinks fit to lessen that Synod because neither the Eastern or Western Churches had receiv'd it and now he is discontented that all had not observ'd it When some have puzzled long upon a matter that does not easily comply with their Hypothesis they are apt to lose their first design and to forget what it was they would have But our Author tho' in some things he seem to forget himself is sure to keep to the conclusion that those Cities lesser or greater the greatest being no bigger than Villages with them and Market-Towns with us They contain'd no more than might meet together for Christian Communion What we assert concerning the smallness of ancient Bishopricks is clear for incomparably the greatest number of them How effectually he has perform'd this let the Learned Reader be judge when he has compar'd the Allegations on both sides And after all tho' what he contends for in this Chapter should be admitted the smallness of ancient Bishopricks is not clear unless it be first prov'd that the City where the Bishop resided made up his whole Bishoprick and how far this is from being true will appear in more proper place CHAP. IV. THE great Cities come now under consideration (o) Prim. ep p. 66. and about these our Author allows there may be more question Concerning these he insists earnestly upon two points The first That even those great Cities were not very large nor populous The second That for many ages after Christ there were but few Christians in them at least no more than might meet in one Assembly and comply with the measure of Congregational Episcopacy Those were counted great Cities which had sixteen or twenty furlongs in circumference And even such Cities might be so well inhabited that they could not all meet in one Congregation for Christian Communion But this compass was never accounted great tho' some other circumstances might render such Cities considerable but hereof he says he has given instances before and those instances have been examin'd Yet here he adds four instances more Pelusium a Metropolis of a great part of Egypt (p) Strab. l. 17. was but twenty furlongs in circumference That Pelusium was accounted a great City in Strabo's time or was Metropolis of any part of Egypt is only an imagination of our Author which is always very favourable and subservient to his notion This place had indeed in very old times been very great And Manetho (q) Ap. Joseph cont Appion p. 921. Ed. Frob. Marsh Can. Chron. p. 107. reports that it had a Garrison of two hundred and forty thousand men and then it must have a wider circumference than Strabo speaks of (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diod. Sic. l. 16. Diodorus Siculus therefore calls it an ordinary Town with respect to that condition of which our Author speaks and uses a diminutive name of City to express it Tanis was once a great place and Metropolis of a Nomus and is stil'd a great City by Strabo (s) Strab. l. 17. yet Jerom (t) Hieron Ep. ad Evag. makes it an instance of one of the meanest Cities of Egypt Phocaea (u) Prim. ep p. 66. one of the greatest Cities in Aeolis had no more as Livy (x) Duum millium quingentorum passuum spacium murus amplectitur Liv. D. 4. l. 7. describes it This instance has been examin'd already and our Author is destitute of any authority for making this a great City I am sure Eusebius (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Praepar l. 4. p. 157. mentions the place with some slight as if it had been some condescension to take notice of them Sebaste built by Herod designing to make it comparable to the most eminent Cities was no longer than twenty furlongs Yet it was not the compass but the magnificence of this City that made it equal to the most eminent For in Stephanus (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steph. it is mention'd with some diminution and call'd a small City and it is familiar with Josephus to magnifie the works of Herod something beyond the justness of History Byzantium is the last instance of a great Town of little circuit but how unfortunate our Author was in this allegation I have shewed already and take no delight to expose mistakes which his too great addictedness to his notion so often betrays him to I have in the preceding Chapter given instances of several sizes of Cities accounted great and the lowest of them double to what our Author would make a general standard for the measure of great Cities I will add a few here to compare with the additional instances he thought fit to produce by way of Reserve Xenophon (a) Xenoph. Exp. Cyri. l. 3. Larissa on the Tigris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his expedition of Cyrus mentions some Cities with the character of Great He gives the circuit but of two of
this was in the fourth Century in the Persecution raised by Maximian Anno. 312. That this was a small Town we have from Eusebius (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he notes farther that they had Magistrates but that it had a Bishop neither Eusebius nor Lactantius mention and for ought that appears it might belong to the Bishop of some other place However let the City be as little as it will the Bishop might be Diocesan though all his Town made but one Congregation c How predominant Heathenism was in the Cities of the Roman Empire before Constantine may be collected says our Author in and after his Reign If it was spreading and prevalent when the power of it was so much broken it will be easie to infer what it was before It cannot be denied that Christianity received very great increase by the favour and the zeal of Constantine yet it must be remembred that the desolations under Dioclesian and his Collegues were so great and the numbers of Christians destroyed and frighted out of their Profession so excessive that it must be a great while before the Christians could recover themselves to that condition in which the Persecution found them And though under Constantine and his Sons the Church had a great seeming increase yet many of the new Converts being induced by human considerations and arguments extrinsick to Religion made greater shew than strength and in Julian's reign when worldly advantages were on the Heathen side many of these turned again to their old superstitions and most of the instances which are brought by our Author to shew the number of Heathen after (d) Prim. ep p. 71. Constantine are in that reign Yet let us hear the particulars (d) Prim. ep p. 71. That we may afford the greatest advantage to Christianity let us instance principally in Palestine where the Gospel first moving may in reason be thought to have made the greatest progress Some are never to be more narrowly observed than when they pretend to offer favour and advantage I am apt to believe that if our Author had found any instances more to the advantage of his cause he might have wav'd this complement to Christianity Here he says the Gospel first mov'd and therefore should have made the greatest Progress But the great Revolutions that happened in that Country soon after the planting of the Gospel may possibly have rendred the condition of Christianity there much worse than it was some time after in other Countries nay worse than it was in some of the Cities of Palestine in the Apostles time For instance Sebaste which is Samaria is brought as an Example of a City much addicted to Heathenism after Constantine's time and yet at the preaching of Philip the Deacon all the City is said (e) Act. 8.6 8 10 12 14. to be converted Lydda was a City of Judaea called also Diospolis and St. Luke (f) Act. 9.32 33. affirms that it was all converted by S. Peter All that dwell'd at Lydda turned unto the Lord. Yet about three hundred years after Christianity had made so little progress that both Villages and Cities there were exceeding Heathenish But we must find no fault because he pretends to afford Christianity greater advantage by these Examples Gaza above all the rest is stigmatiz'd by all as most Heathenish yet as Heathenish as it was after Constantine's time the Bishops of it had many Congregations before for Silvanus who suffered Martyrdom in the last Persecution is styl'd by Eusebius (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb H. E. l. 8. c. 13. Bishop of the Churches of Gaza Caesarea too in our Author's judgment seems not much better and yet there the Bishop had many Churches too in the former part of Constantine's reign as his letter to Eusebius (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. Const ad Euseb Theod. l. 1. c. 15. mentions In Palestine therefore our Author mentions many Cities where there were Heathens after Constantine's reign and instances chiefly in those where in Julian's time the Heathen Party raised tumults and committed many murders and barbarities but this does not prove them to be the major part For a small number under the countenance and instigation of the Emperour may do a great deal of mischief without opposition We have a fresh instance how insolent a small party may grow under the countenance of Authority not quite so absolute nor so implicitly obeyed as that of the Roman Emperours was And that the Christians were then when they endured these indignities much the greater number Sozomen who relates most of those tumults does plainly shew and that upon this very account Julian found himself obliged to use artifice rather than force in the restoring of his superstition Julian says that Historian (i) Soz. l. 5. c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zealous to make Heathenism prevail was much greiv'd to see it overcome by the Christian Religion which was in the general esteem preferr'd to it and it troubled him to think that his Religion must sink as soon as he is dead For though the Temples were opened again and the old Rites restored yet he observed that the wives and children and servants even of the Heathen Priests were generally Christian From hence it is clear how the greater part and body of the People stood affected to Christianity And though here and there a City might abound with Heathen it is no wonder for where there is a mixture of Religions a party which to the whole does not bear the proportion of one to ten may in some few places happen to be predominant Phaenicia follows Palestine and these our Author (l) Prim. ep p. 72. observes from Theodoret were madd upon their Idols and idolatrous Rites and this observed by Chrysostom in Arcadius his reign That there were superstitious people in Phaenicia at that time I do not deny and perhaps more than in most places but that they were the greater part or near equal to the Christians there does not appear from any thing produced by our Author Nay the contrary appears from that relation of Theodoret how Chrysostom with the assistance of a few Monks pulled down the Heathen Temples of the Country In Syria our Author (m) Prim. ep p. 73. meets with Heliopolis a place singular for superstition and beastliness where not one would endure to hear the name of Christ and Arethusa he thinks was not much better furnished with Christians because they all joyn'd in the murdering of their Bishop Yet in the same Chapter Sozomen assigns the reason of the Bishops return when he had once fled because (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soz. l. 5. c. 10. there were many like to be brought in danger upon his account Apamea is mentioned to the same purpose and this was a Metropolis says our Author here the multitude was only restrained through fear from hindering the demolishing of Jupiter 's Temple Theodor. l. 5. c. 21.
that were maintained by the Church were but a small part in comparison of the whole number of the poor For exhorting the rich men to contribute towards the maintenance of the poor he observes how easy it would be to provide for them For the Church says he (t) Chrys Hom. 66. in Matth. p. 421. 422. maintains many Widows and Virgins and Prisoners and Sick and Clergy the number of those upon the role maintained by the publick stock of the Church is about three thousand Now the income of the Church is scarce equal to one of the lowest of those accounted rich If therefore but ten such rich men would dispose of their Estates as the Church does there would not be a poor man in all Antioch unprovided Nay if all the rich men would but give a tenth part to Charity it would answer all occasions So that upon the computation of Chrysostom the Church did not relieve above a tenth part of the poor And yet this must be more in proportion than the Roman Church can be supposed able to do in Cornelius his time when it had no other revenue than the oblations of the Faithful whereas in Chrysostom's time besides these it was endowed with great possessions and was maintained from the rents or product of her Estate the Capital remaining undiminished as he observes in the same place Our Author having laid this false foundation proceeds to build upon it in this manner That at Constantinople Chrysostom computes the poor to have been half as many as all the other Christians there At Antioch the same Father supposes the poor a tenth part The first is unreasonable and without example in any City the latter multiplies the poor that stand in need of relief I think beyond what we can find in any rich City such as Antioch was yet upon this foot let us reckon The fifteen hundred Roman poor we will suppose according to Chrysostom to be the tenth part of the poor Christians of the place The sum will be fifteen thousand These multiplied by ten will make an hundred and fifty thousand And this may be supposed about a seventh part of the inhabitants in Rome of all ages and conditions And considering the great ostentation which Tertullian makes of the numbers of the Christians in the beginning of this age and the great increase they received in the time intervening between Tertullian and Cornelius under Alexander Severus and Philip I cannot but think I set their proportion too low when I reckon them but a seventh part I cannot pass by one passage in the same Homily of Chrysostom that I cannot reconcile with his supposition that makes the poor of Antioch the tenth part of the City When he had divided the people into ten parts he makes one to consist of rich Men another of very poor Men the other eight to consist of such as had competence of estate and were neither very rich nor very poor Yet having made this distribution he says that if the poor were divided between those who were rich and those who were not poor there would not one poor Man fall to the share of fifty or a hundred whereas according to his distribution there will be a poor Man left between nine I cannot think Chrysostom so little skilled in Arithmetick as to commit a mistake in so obvious a reckoning I had rather suspect the reading in this place of the tenth part which with small variation may be reconciled with the following computations But having not the countenance of any Critick nor the authority of any Copy I am content to leave it as I find it However as it stands it does but small service for the diminishing of Christians in ancient times Alexandria follows dressed up in a magnificent character (u) Prim. ep p. 96. the greatest after Rome the Mart of the World and the top of Cities But presume not ye Christians to take too much upon you for these glorious things belong to Jews and Heathens and it is but a small skirt of this Macedonian cloak that comes to your share Nay since you are found so inconsiderable in so great a place this very instance will preclude all your pretensions to number and greatness in all other Cities Here our Author undertakes to shew that the Christians were not more than could meet in one place and thinks fit to skirmish at first with arguments so slight that he himself does not think fit to insist on them In the latter end of the third age Dionysius calls the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a scrupulous member of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot but commend his discretion for not insisting upon such things as these tho' I think the alledging of them argues more of diligence than judgment For tho' this critical observation should be allowed that the Church of Alexandria is sometimes called a Synagogue the consequence that our Author makes that therefore there was but one Assembly of Christians in that City is invisible But the misfortune is that Dionysius says no such thing For he calls not the whole Church of Alexandria by that name But relating the case of a person who was troubled in conscience concerning his Baptism says (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 7. c. 9. he did partake of the Communion of the Faithful and assembled with them But whether there was then but one Church or Congregation in Alexandria or several cannot be deduced from that expression and all it imports in that place is only that the person was in full and entire Communion and so the same Author uses the word in his Epistle (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 7. c. 7. to Philemon a Roman Presbyter when he speaks of Hereticks who did outwardly communicate with the Church The other passage which our Author will not insist upon seems to surpass the former in impertinence The place of their panegyrical assembly which was their greatest of all was in his time a place of no great reception not only a field and a desert but a ship an inn or a prison Wonderful that a field and a desert should not be places of great reception and that the Christians must be accounted few because they chose such places for their assembly where not only the Church of one City might assemble but Nations might inhabit But to let this pass and to consider the pertinence of this allegation Dionysius speaking of the calamitous estate of the Christians of Alexandria scattered by persecution from the Heathen and at the same time visited with a pestilence and comforting his brethren from the consideration of the approaching festival of Easter To others says he (z) Euseb H. E. l. 7. c. 22. this may scarce seem a Festival and to the Heathen neither this nor any other can be accounted such tho' it might have a greater appearance of happiness For now grief and lamentation fill every place and there is not a
about limits the Apostles made no new distributions but followed the form of the Empire planting in every City a compleat and entire Church that consisted not only of the Inhabitants of the City but of the Region belonging to it If any were converted and if their distance or number made them incapable of repairing to the City-Church upon all their Religious occasions they had Congregations apart and subordinate Officers to attend them as it was in the civil disposition our Saviour having appointed several Orders in his Church and the Apostles propagating those and appointing some new as occasion required Only as in greater causes the Country people sued in the City Courts so likewise in such causes of Religion that concerned the whole community such as that of receiving in and turning out of the communion the Christians of the Territory were under the authority of the City-Church Hence it is that the Canons of ancient Councils mention a Territory belonging to every City Bishop The thirty fourth Canon (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. Ap. 34. of those called Apostolick forbids a Bishop to do any thing without the concurrence of his Metropolitan but what related to his own Diocese and the Territories under it And the ninth of Nice that provides so favourably for the Puritans when they should return to the communion of the Church supposeth Bishops to have a considerable Diocese besides their City For by this it is ordered that if a Bishop of the Puritans should embrace Catholick Communion and there were another Bishop of the Catholick Church in the same City that then (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. Nicen. 8. the Puritan should either retain the title of a Bishop in the same City if the other did think fit or else be received as a Presbyter But least this may have the appearance of two Bishops in the same Town some place is to be provided for him that he may be either a Chorepiscopus or a Presbyter in the Country The Synod of Antioch forbids the Presbyters of the Territories to send Canonical letters and in another gives the Bishop of the City full authority (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. Antioch 9. to order Ecclesiastical affairs not only in his City but in the whole Territory that belongs to it to ordain Presbyters and Deacons to exercise Jurisdiction within the extent of his Diocese And in the next Canon forbids (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. Antioch 10. the Chorepiscopi to ordain Presbyters or Deacons in the Country without the consent of the Bishop of the City to which they and the Territory did belong The Council of Elvira speaks of Deacons (a) Diaconus regens plebem Can. Eliber 77. that had Country cures and that the Bishop to whom they belonged was to perfect those who were baptized by these Curees by confirmation Basil (b) Basil ep 192. salutes the Country Clergy of the Diocese of Nicopolis distinct from those of the City and Theodoret who had a Diocese forty miles square reckoned (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. ep 42. his Episcopacy of divine institution and that his large Territory as well as his City was committed into his hands by God Theodosius Bishop of Synnada is said to drive the Macedonian Hereticks not only out of his City but (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. l. 7. c. 3. out of all his Territories And Eustathius (e) Basil ep 73. overthrew all the Altars of Basilides in all the Territory of Gangrae And Synesius writing to the whole Church of Ptolemais addresseth to the people of the City and to those of the Country Parishes that belonged to it It would be an endless labour to alledge all the instances of this nature since nothing is more obvious and occurs more frequently in Ecclesiastical Writers I have shewed how great Territories belonged anciently to the Greek and Roman Cities how unlike their constitution was to ours and especially in this respect I have also shewed that the civil and Ecclesiastical Territories were the same and Mr. Clerkson confesses it His demands therefore concerning this matter receive a full answer and the proof which he (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes ep 11. required not without intimation of despair made good and beyond all reasonable exception To make this matter yet more clear I will instance in some Bishopricks whose extent are known or so much at leastwise as discovers them to be Dioceses consisting of many Country Parishes besides the City Churches I will begin with the Bishoprick of Theodoret because the limits of it have been described with greatest exactness and particularity The Diocese of Cyrus was forty miles in length and as much in breadth And Theodoret (h) Theod. ep 42. proceeds to describe it so minutely that he sets down the number of acres together with the condition and tenure of the land There were fifty thousand free from any service ten thousand belonging to the Fisc about fifteen thousand more subject to taxes but unable to pay according to the proportion then set So that this instance seems clear beyond all exception And as to the Ecclesiastical state of this Territory in his Epistle to Leo he says (i) Theod. ep 113. there were eight hundred Churches in it all belonging to his care Yet some have endeavoured to take off the evidence of this Epistle to Leo when it was urged by the learned Bishop of Worcester Mr. Baxter suspects it because it came from the Vatican Library and Mr. Clerkson (l) No evid of Dioc. Ep. p. 39. suggests the same suspition But this frivolous cavil hath been answered by the same hand that alledged the instance I will take the liberty to add only this that it happens fortunately to this Epistle that it hath an ancient voucher and a clear testimony in the next age after it was written For Liberatus (m) Quos secutus Theodoretus Papae suggessit quanta mala pertulerit rogans ut tali causae subveniretur Liber Brev. c. 12. makes mention of it and informs us that Theodoret wrote to Leo suggesting how much he had suffered of Dioscorus and desiring that for the remedy of these evils another Council might be called And (n) Constat ex ep p. 113 116. Garner in Liber p. 83. Garnerius in his observation upon this place directs us to this Epistle to Leo. Mr. Clerkson instead of eight hundred Churches constantly reads eighty without so much as giving notice that it is only his conjecture But be the number how it will we must lay aside all thoughts of Congregational Episcopacy in this Region Another exception against this instance is offered by Mr. Clerkson (o) No evid of Dioc. p. 39. that this was not a Diocese but a Province and that Theodoret was a Metropolitan And for this he quotes the learned Author whose testimonies he pretended to answer although he expresly says that this is not to be
223. tells us that we ought to be cautious of charging one another with Schism for such things wherein the ancient Churches are like to be involved in the same Condemnation As tho ancient Churches had any thing parallel to the case of our Dissenters or indeed any other Church Sure I am that the instances alledged by Mr. Clerkson are very wide of it as I have shewed already For we charge no other Churches with Schism because they have not the same rites that we use nor do we so much as condemn the Dissenters upon that account But in this we charge them with Schism that they have departed from the Communion of our Church upon the account of rites and they indeed condemning us by their Separation upon that reason do truly involve the ancient Churches in the same condition To make the end answer the beginning Mr. Clerkson concludes with a manifest calumny Hereby says he (l) Prim. ep p. 226. it appears with what judgment and charity some among us will have none to be true Churches that want Diocesan Bishops they hereby blast all the Churches in the Apostles times and the best Ages after as no Churches Herein they are as wise and friendly as if one to secure the height of his own Turret should attempt to blow up all the Houses in the best part of the world nay they blow up their own too It is neither wise nor friendly to charge men with absurd opinions of which neither they nor perhaps any other were ever guilty What witness what evidence of this matter What Books or conversation ever betrayed so great a weakness I never yet heard of any man who made it essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations under them The Papists have several Bishops with a very small flock and such as one Parish-Church may contain They have others who have not so much as one Congregation nor perhaps one Christian within their Diocese But we may guess at the men our Author intends they indeed distinguish with all the ancient Churches between a Bishop and a Presbyter But for the measure of Episcopal Churches They willingly subscribe to S. Jerom's (m) Ep. ad Evagr. judgment that the Bishop of Eugubium is no less a Bishop than he of Rome and the Bishop of Tanis is as much a Bishop as he of Alexandria since it is not the greatness of the City but the Ordination that makes a Bishop In the Primitive times and those next succeeding the extent of Dioceses were very different In Scythia (n) Soz. l. 7. c. 19. there was but one though many Cities and in some places there were Bishops in Villages Some Cities had very large Territories belonging to their Bishops others but small yet all this while these Bishops accounted themselves all of equal authority though their Dioceses might be very unequal and never broke Communion upon that account But if some Presbyters should attempt then to separate from their Bishops and to set up Altar against Altar they incurred the censure (o) Can. Ant. 5. of all Christian Churches and were shut out of Catholick Communion by universal consent As to matter of fact it is plain that in the Primitive times there were no Churches without Bishops such as were acknowledged different from Presbyters And Ignatius (p) Ign. Ep. ad Traâ— is bold to say that without a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons it cannot be called a Church But as for those who separate from their Bishops whose doctrin they acknowledge to be sound and set up Churches and make Ordinations in opposition to them and the whole establishment of a National or Provincial Church These I shall not scruple to Unchurch since in this I have not only the suffrage of antiquity but the consent of all Protestant Churches on my side In France while the Reformed Religion stood there if any departed from the established order of those Churches they were excommunicated and if they should attempt to set up separate Congregations they would have been accounted no Churches (q) Hist Eccles de Bez. T. 2. l. 6. How zealous they were of the Orders appointed in their Synods will sufficiently appear from the case of Morelli and the proceedings against him Nor is it otherwise in Holland or Germany or where-ever the Reformed Religion is received they unchurch all who upon such frivolous pretences as our Dissenters use against us would leave their Communion By this notion of Primitive Episcopacy Mr. Clerkson (r) Prim. Ep. p. 23â— thinks that some mistakes concerning Episcopal Ordinations of ill consequence may be rectified A Bishop in the best ages was no other than the Pastor of a single Church a Pastor of a single Congregation now is as truly a Bishop Why they should not be esteemed to be duly ordained who are set apart by a Pastor of a single Church now I can discern no reason after I have looked every way for it It is the hardest thing in the world for some men to see a reason that makes against them and the fear of finding it makes them commonly look where they are not likely to meet it However it does not seem to be so difficult a matter to assign a reason in the case proposed It is not the being Pastor of one or many Congregations that makes a Bishop but the Order For a Presbyter may be the Pastor of a Congregation and in the Primitive times there were many such but this does not make him a Bishop Nay the Chorepiscopi were Pastors of many Congregations and yet these were not Bishops If these in ancient times should have proceeded upon Mr. Clerkson's grounds and presumed to ordain Presbyters or Deacons or Bishops the Church of those times would have made no difficulty to pronounce the Ordinations null Ischyras pretended to be a Presbyter because Colluthus had ordained him but Athanasius represents it as monstrous that one should esteem himself a Presbyter who was ordained by one who died himself a Presbyter of the Church of Alexandria Nor was Ischyras so absurd as to think that the Ordination received from a simple Presbyter would be valid For in Truth that Colluthus was made a Bishop by Meletius and his name is still in the Catalogue of his Ordinations but renouncing his Schism and those Orders he was received into communion as Presbyter for so he was before he joyned with Meletius and in that degree he died Nor can I find in all Antiquity any one instance of Presbyters making Ordinations without a Bishop nay the Hereticks and Schismaticks of old among all their irregularities are not charged by any of this presumption In the Diocese of Alexandria there were many Presbyters who were the Pastors of single Congregations and so it was in most of the ancient Dioceses as we have shewed before In the Province of Scythia there must be yet a greater number of such Parish Pastors Yet none of these are found to have claimed any right to
they were ordain'd Without this concession the argument will have no force and before we grant let us consider what our Author offers concerning these places Antioch was the Metropolis of Pisidia and a great City yet not so great but all the Inhabitants (y) Prim. Episc p. 25 26. in a manner could meet together to hear the word St. Luke (b) Acts 13.44 indeed says that the whole City almost came together to hear the word but that the Jews Synagogue would contain all the City he neither says nor can we reasonably believe For expressions of this nature have an allow'd favour of construction among all men and when a whole City is said to come together men understand only a great multitude without any rigorous computation what proportion such an assembly may bear to the whole City Moses is said (c) Deut. 31.30 to speak in the Ears of all the Congregation of Israel the words of his song (d) Deut. 32.45 and he made an end of speaking all these words to all Israel When Moses number'd the people they were above six hundred thousand men fit for service besides women and children which could not be less than three times as many And to speak in the ears of all these together had been one of the greatest miracles that ever Moses had done and such as the holy Ghost would not have passed unobserved (e) Theodoret. Hist Relig. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the people of the great Antioch are said to come together to see Julian the Monk All the People of C. P. come daily to us say (f) Apud Conc. Ephes the Oriental Bishops who were stoped at Chalcedon by the Emperor's order And the Author of the life of Paul Bishop of C. P. says that the whole City of C. P. came to the Church call'd by the name of the Apostles And Cyrill (g) Phot. cod 257. says that all the people of the City of Ephesus attended him to the Council St. Jerom speaking of the Penance Fabiola did on Easter Eve for marrying while her first Husband whom she had divorc'd was alive (h) Tota spectante Urbe Romana Hier. Epit. Fabiolae saith that it was in the sight of the whole City of Rome and in the same Treatise says that all the people of Rome came to the funeral of that Lady And if the greatest Cities of the world may be thought so thin of people as to be able to furnish but one Assembly what shall we say to that expression (l) Tota ad funus ejus Palestinarum Urbium turba convenit Hieron Epit. Paula of Jerom that all the people of the Cities of Palestine came to the funeral of Paula Wherefore if our Author's remark may diminish Antioch in Pisidia to the Congregational measure because the whole City almost came together to hear the Apostles the greatest Cities in the world must shrink into a single Congregation because the same expression is used of them too and without any such guard or correction as almost or in a manner (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 13. which St. Luke thought fit to interpose It may seem very unnecessary to insist so much upon the proof of a matter so obvious to every Reader But the importunity and cavils of my Adversary who snatches at such expressions as these the whole Town all the People as arguments for his Congregational Episcopacy have oblig'd me to it And whoever (i) Totius Urbis populum ad exequias Congregabat Ibid. is once engag'd with a Caviller cannot well avoid the mean drudgery of descending to very jejune explanations (n) Prim. Ep. p. 26. Iconium in Strabo (o) Str. l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but a small Town but well built by which we may judge of those places which were Bishops seats under it There are fifteen of them in Leo's Diatyposis There is but little reason to fancy any of these Bishops seats to be Villages since in the civil Notitia of the Eastern Empire ascribed to Hierocles there are seventeen Cities under the Metropolis of Iconium And tho' it might not be a very great City in Strabo's time yet being made the Residence of the chief Roman Magistrate in that Country it may reasonably be thought to have received considerable increase and so it seems to have done For Pliny (p) Datur Tetrarchia Lycaonia civitatum 14. urbe celeberrima Iconio Plin. l. 5. c. 27. takes notice of a Tetrarchy of Lycaonia on that side where it joyns to Galatia in which there were fourteen Cities of which Iconium was the most renown'd Among other Cities belonging to the Metropolis of Iconium we find Homona or Homonada◠in the whole Territory there were no less than 44. fortify'd places in the time of Pliny (q) Ibid. It was not long when Strabo wrote since those Countries had been recovered from the Tyrants and Pirats who oppress'd them and Strabo (r) Pr. l. 12. tells us that he had seen Servilius Isauricus In Constantius his time Iconium belonged (s) Ammian Marc. l. 14. Oppidum Pisidiae to Pisidia but was then so considerable that it had an Amphitheatre and publick shews which were not ordinarily exhibited but in the place where the chief Governour of the Province resided And Basil (t) Bas ep 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accounts it to Pisidia and gives (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some intimation of the rise of it into a Metropolis that anciently it was the second City i. e. after Antioch But now it is become a Metropolis and presides over a part which being made up of several pieces makes up one Province And that Lycaonia was then under it the same (x) Bas Ep. 397. Basil intimates and what else at this distance we cannot tell since the Province belonging to it is said to be made up of several parcels So that Strabo's calling it a litle Town does not conclude it to be so in after-times when it was made a Metropolis nor lessen the Towns depending upon it And this way of reasoning is as if one should observe that in Julian the Apostate's time Paris is (y) Julian in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 call'd a little Town therefore by this we may judg what pitiful Towns those of France are now which are and have for a long time been subject to that royal City Nor does it always happen that the Metropolis is greater than all the Cities under her jurisdiction (z) Prim. Ep. p. 26. Derbe in Stephanus (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strab. l. 12. is a Fort or Castle of Isauria the seat of the Tyrant Antipater This Fort being the fittest receptacle for such a person this could not be populous because of no large compass This Derbe call'd a Fort by Stephanus out of some Ancient Author is by St. Luke (b) Acts 14.6 call'd a City of Lycaonia Nor does it diminish the
Earthquake that destroyed this whole Century of Cities at once but he provided by this destruction that no body else should ever find them But Scaliger (p) Scal. Not. in Euseb Chron. p. 258. rebukes this extravagant destroyer and corrects the figures instead of a hundred directing us to read ten I shall add no more here since I have given an account already of the number of the Cretian Bishops and Cities (q) Prim. Ep. p. 60. For one Bishop in a great City there was ten sometimes twenty sometimes more in the lesser Towns and more there had been had not the ambition of following Ages with a non obstante to the Apostles rule judged a small place unbeseeming the honour and greatness of a Bishop That the lesser Cities were much more numerous than the great is readily granted that these lesser Cities were no bigger than the generality of our Market-Towns after all our Author has done requires farther proof We have indeed some Market-Towns that are not inferiour to Cities but then they are not for our Author's purpose for they have many Parishes and Churches and cannot be crowded into one Congregation Cities very small were likewise very rare and the generality were too great for a Congregational Bishop It was not the ambition of after-ages that forbad the making of Bishops in mean places but when a Bishop was a name of great honour and had many civil priviledges annexed to it it was the ambition of vain men that instigated them to endeavour to be Bishops though in a Village and places where there never had been any before and it was the wisdom of the Church to put a stop to that ambition and by that means to secure the unity of the Church and the possibility of a general Communion But our Author complains that in some such places where they had been settled they were extinguished and in other places they were united So Phulla was united to Sugdaea and so Tyropolis to Alania These Instances might have been spared for they are too new for our present purpose being of the twelfth or thirteenth Century And these were not joyn'd because the Dioceses were small For those of Bulgary to which the first instance appertain were very large without those Unions and in the other Alania is not the name of a Town but of a Nation But the question being about Primitive Dioceses it had been more to the purpose to have shewn of what extent they were for the first three hundred years and then to have inform'd us what alterations succeding ages had made as to the bounds of ancient Bishopricks how some came to be extinguish'd and others to be united But the ages that next followed the time to which our Author confines his Primitive Episcopacy were so far from sinking or uniting Bishopricks that they divided those old ones and made many of one and yet after all they were still of the Diocesan way as will appear hereafter The reducing of the Bishopricks of Sardinia to seven is likewise late and when they were most they were Diocesan and not Congregational And in the fifth Century (r) Not. Africae Ed. Sirmond they were not so many as they are now for they were but five As for the Bishopricks of Ireland and of Italy they have been already consider'd at large and may be dismiss'd without farther reply The Council of Sardica is once more arraign'd (s) Prim. ep p. 61. for forbidding Bishops in the least Cities but the equity of that Canon as well as of several others to the same effect has been already defended from the cavils of Mr. Clerkson and therefore ought in reason to be discharg'd from farther vexation Yet since these exceptions are made not only against this Canon but the Authority of that Synod for curiosities sake they may be examin'd (t) Prim. ep p. 61. I will not say that many of the Bishops there were Arrians tho' the Oriental Prelates present there shew'd themselves immediately after at Philippopolis and the Arrians were branded for not being contented with small Bishopricks Some men can use very crafty figures of speech when they have nothing to the purpose I will not say But why I pray There lies no Action of Scandalum Magnatum from those Bishops he might safely venture to say any thing of them that he knew to be true Yet the modest diffident man will not say they were Arrians No he will not say it forsooth But is there any ground for such a suspicion The good man will not say it Why then does he say that he will not say it Tho' the Oriental Prelates present there shew'd themselves presently after at Philippolis Yet for all this he will not say that many of them were Arrians A captious man may take this to be nonsense but I will not say it When a Dissenter mumbles after this manner it is not altogether for the elegance of the figure but when he knows that what he offers for an argument is either a lye or not to the purpose then such reserves as this serve to bring him off in case of detection for he would not say it then for all the World and this is the present case Our Author had a mind to disparage the Council of Sardica for this Canon that forbids the making of Bishops in Villages and such small Cities where there had been none before to take away their credit he intimates that many of the Bishops were Arrians Some Arrian Bishops came (u) Ep. Synod Sardic ap Theodor. l. 2. c. 8. indeed to Sardica but they had no more to do in making that Canon than Mr. Clerkson For they never joyn'd with the Western Bishops so far as to be present with them and (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. l. 2. c. 20. they refus'd so much as to confer or to speak with them unless they would first put Athanasius and Paul Bishop of C. P. out of their Communion and when they could not obtain that they left Sardica and went to Philippopolis And tho' our Author was not ignorant of this yet he could not forbear excepting against that Synod upon the account of those Arrians who he knew had not the least hand in any of the Canons made at Sardica Yet the close of this exception surpasses all the rest The Arrians were branded for not being contented with small Bishopricks By which observation our Author would suggest if the Reader will take it that these Arrians made that Canon which forbids Bishops to be ordein'd in small Cities because they were not content with small Bishopricks whereas this Canon was made against the Innovations of the Arrians who made Bishops in such small places where there never had been any before And Ischyras (y) Socrat. l. 2. c. 20 ordein'd in a small Village in Egypt was among the Eastern Bishops at Sardica and it may be imagin'd would not very readily subscribe to that Canon which condemn'd his
Ordination The next exception against this Synod is (z) Prim. ep p. 62. that it was of little authority not admitted by the Greeks into their Code till the Trullan Council Nor by the Latins some ages after it was held c. Nor by the African Churches who rejected and would not be oblig'd by its Canons for Appeals to Rome How soon or late this Synod was generally receiv'd does little concern the Canon in dispute which does not establish any thing new but only affirms ancient Practice And if the matter of this Canon was generally observ'd where the Synod of Sardica was not yet owned it is plain that this matter depends upon better authority than the sanction of a Council immemorial Custom and the general agreement of Churches Without regard to this Canon the bounds of ancient Bishopricks were accounted sacred and not lightly to be changed Some Villages in Pentapolis accounted considerable enough to make a Diocese in troublesom times because they had immemorially been annex'd to the Episcopal City were judged by their poeple to have been settl'd in that condition by Apostolical Order and therefore the people of those places were earnest they should return again to their first dependance The Region Mareotes was large enough to make a good Diocese of it self yet when a Bishop was set up in one part of it Athanasius complains that it was done against ancient Tradition which in such cases as these was to take place Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria having made a Bishop in a mean place where there had been none before is blam'd as a violator of the establish'd Order of the Church So that if the Synod of Sardica was not received any where for many ages after it was held yet this Canon against making Bishops in small places where there had been none before was it seems generally approv'd at leastwise the matter of it was accounted equal and fit There are Orders of other Synods in the same age to the same effect and I do not know of any ancient Assembly or so much as a single Writer that ever made any exception against this Rule But on the contrary when Bishops were ordein'd in small places where there had been none before we find complaints against it as a violation of old establishment and even in Afric where such innovations grew frequent the complaints were loud on both sides In the Conference at Carthage the Donatists as well as Catholicks complaining of these violations of ancient limits (a) Prim. ep p. 62. Nor need I say that this Synod is misunderstood and that this restraint is laid on Bishops of another Province Our Author speaks reason for surely he needs not say what he had said already and to so little purpose nor need I repeat here what I have reply'd before But what he adds deserves consideration for the newness and singularity of the Argument It would be much says our Author for our satisfaction if we could understand punctually what numbers they thought sufficient for one Presbyter and we may have the best direction that can be expected in such a case from Chrysostom (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Or. in Ignat. who affirms that one hundred and fifty Souls was thought as much as one Pastor could well and more than he could without great labour discharge His words are It is a very laborious thing for one man to have the charge of a hundred and fifty How much this was to the satisfaction of Mr. Clerkson I will not enquire how little it is to the purpose will I hope sufficiently appear from what I am going to reply First then Chrysostom makes not the least mention of a Presbyter nor of the number sufficient for his cure but in general says It is a difficult thing for one man to take the care of a hundred and fifty only Whether one Presbyter or one Bishop or one Captain he does not say And this is clear that at the same time he makes such a little flock so formidable a charge he makes (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in Ign. T. 5. P. 501. the Apostles to commit a City of twenty myriads or two hundred thousand to the cure of Ignatius and therefore from thence gives an estimate of the person and of what talents he must be possessed to whom the Apostles would deliver so great a charge The design therefore of Chrysostom in that passage is to set out the character of Ignatius to advantage from the greatness of the City of which he was Bishop and to set off the City he compares it with the lowest or meanest Congregations but does not give the least intimation that no one Presbyter had greater or that a place of more inhabitants than a hundred and fifty requir'd the care of a Bishop If to commend the chief Magistrate of some very great City one should borrow this of Chrysostom and say that it is a difficult thing to govern a Family of twenty people or to keep good order in a Town of but two hundred inhabitants and therefore his endowments must be extraordinary into whose hands the government of so great a City is committed he would be thought a very strange Critick who from such a complement should remark that a Family ought to consist of no more than twenty or that a Constable ought not to undertake the keeping of the peace in a Village that has more than two hundred inhabitants and therefore where there is a greater number it requires a Mayor and Aldermen to undertake the charge Or if upon a Commemoration of some Bishop of London the Preacher should think fit to turn the greatness of the City into a Topic of that Bishops commendation and say that a cure of a hundred and fifty Souls is a great and difficult charge and great care to be us'd in providing even for such a place an able Pastor and therefore what wonderful abilities must he be thought master of who was judg'd capable of being the Pastor of so vast a City Would any man that is awake conclude from hence that there is never a Parish-Presbyter in England that had a greater cure So pertinent is that direction which our Author fancy'd to have found in Chrysostom for understanding punctually what numbers they anciently thought sufficient for one Presbyter To the same effect he proceeds to tell us (d) Prim. ep p. 63. that upon this account one Presbyter was not thought sufficient for a place that contain'd three or four hundred inhabitants For this we desire some proof but I am affraid we must expect long There is one thing more in our Authors remarks upon the Canon of Sardica that deserves to be taken notice of and that is that where one Presbyter is not sufficient there a Bishop ought to be ordein'd It is a rule he has made to himself by inverting the Canon of Sardica that forbids the making of a Bishop in a very little City where even