which had a metropolitan and suffragans before and being now destitute the Bishops in the Vicinity were careful to provide others Which being so that it should be part of Basil's Province seems as incongruous as if it were said that the Province of York is part of the Province of Canterbury but if this could be digested that one Province is part of another yet Isauria would rather be part of Amphilochius his province who as he tells us was to constitute a Metropolitan and other Bishops therein than of Basil's who is only represented as giving advice about it Or if giving advice and direction would prove any thing of this nature the Papists might think it a good argument that Africa was part of the Roman Province because Leo Bishop of Rome gives advise how Bishops should be there constituted e Ibid. Next he brings in the Chore-piscopi in order to his design and tells us f Pag. 550. they were Countrey Bishops and their Church consisted of many Congregations and those at a good distance one from another and also that some of them had the inspection of a large Territory no less it is like than the County of Fussala But not a word for proof of this save Basil's mentioning a Chor-episcopus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of some places Whereas if he had been the Bishop of two or three Villages this might be enough to satisfie the import of that expression Yet he knows there is some one Countrey Parish that hath ten times as many or more Villages in it but never pretended to be a Diocesan Church and that such a pretence would be now counted ridiculous He adds that which if it were true wouldgo near to dethrone these Countrey Bishops for Basil speaks of them as having their Thrones in Villages and render them less than antient Presbyters for all their large Territory and there being Diocesans But yet these were but the Deputies or Surrogates of the City Bishops in point of jurisdiction for they were to do nothing of moment without their Bishop If this be so it would be less wonder that the Pope will have Bishops to be but his substitutes and that some Bishops will have the Pastors of Parochial Churches to be but their Vicars or Curates I hope our Author intends better however it is well that such odd Hypotheses have no better support than that which is added for sayes he they were to do nothing of moment without their Bishop this is his argument and he is not alone in urging it Let us see whether it will not do the Bishops for whose advancement it is designed as much disservice as it can do the Chorepiscopi or Presbyters divesting them of that which is counted more necessary and advantagious to them than a large Diocese The Provincial Bishops were obliged to do nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop of the Metropolis this the synod at Antioch decrees according to an antient Canon of the Fathers g Can. 9. Can. Apost 35. Concil Milev Can. 13. By this argument we must conclude that the Bishops in a Province were but the Deputies and Surrogates of the Metropolitan And it may proceed proportionably against the Metropolitans with respect to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primates and also to their prejudice in reference to the Patriarchs It will go near to destroy the Bishops likewise if we follow it downwards In the antient Church the Bishops were to do nothing of moment without the Presbyters this the most judicious and Learned Asserters of Episcopacy acknowledge h B. Bilson Dr. Field Dr. Downham B. Hall M. Thorndike B. Usher Nay further in the best Ages of the Church the Bishops were to do nothing without the people that is without their presence and consent This is most evident in Cyprian's Epistles and is acknowledged by such Prelatists as are otherwise reserved enough i Vide defence of Dr. St. Pag. 407. Now by this Argument we may conclude that Bishops were but the Deputies or Surrogates of the Presbyters or which will be counted more intolerable that Bishops had their jurisdiction from the people by Deputation and Vicarage It may be this Gentleman will not like his argument so well when he sees what improvement it is capable of yet in pursuance of it he adds Basil is so resolute upon his prerogative that he will not endure they should ordain as much as the inferiour Clergy without his consent and if they do let them know sayes he that whosoever is admitted without our consent shall be reputed but a Layman I suppose the Prerogative for which he will have Basil so resolute is a Negative in ordinations upon the Countrey Bishops but this cannot be concluded from the words cited For the Council of Nice gives the Metropolitan a power as to ordinations in the same words k Can. 6. declaring that if a Bishop be ordained by the Provincials 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the judgment of the Metropolitan the great Council will have him accounted no Bishop and yet the Metropolitan had no Negative upon the Provincials in Ordinations for the same Council determines that in ordinations plurality of Votes shall prevail which is utterly inconsistent with any ones Negative voice What then is the import of Basil's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take it in the words of a very Learned and Judicious Dr. of this Church it is indeed there said that none should be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the opinion of the Metropolitan but that doth not import a Negative voice in him but that the transaction should not pass in his absence or without this knowledge advice and suffrage c. l Barrow of the Popes Supremacy Pag. 314 5. It is no proof of a Diocesan Church to shew that a Town besides the Clergy or Officers in it had some Presbyters or Congregations in the Countrey belonging to it The instances which signifie no more or not so much are produced as sufficient arguments to prove there were such Churches As that of Gaius Diddensis Presbyter supposed with what ground I examine not to have been a Countrey Presbyter belonging to Carthage and under Cyprian m Vindication p. 504. And that of Felix said to do the Office of a Presbyter under Decimus another Presbyter a thing unheard of in those times but let us take it as we find it and upon the very slender reason alledged against Goulartius who is of another Judgment believe that he was a Priest in some Village belonging to Caldonius his Diocese n Pag. 506. 507. And that order for the Presbyters from their Churches to repair to their proper Bishop for Chrism in Africa o Con. 4. Can. 36. in Spain p Tol. 1. Cap. 20. and in France q Vascon Can. 3. To these are added for further evidences the Churches said without ground to be many belonging to Hippo Diaeritorum Also the Church of Thyana belonging to
DIOCESAN CHURCHES NOT Yet Discovered in the Primitive Times OR A Defence of the Answer to Dr. Stillingfleets Allegations out of Antiquity for such Churches Against the Exceptions offered in the Preface to a late Treatise called a Vindication of the Primitive Church WHERE What is further produced out of Scripture and Antient Authors for Diocesan Churches is also Discussed LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and three Crowns at the lower end of Cheap-side near Mercers Chappel 1682. Errata PAge 59. l. 4. r. Sirmond p. 67. l. 33. r. to p. 76. r. Euodius p. 80. l. 14. r. oratorum p. 86. l. 16. r. Congregations p. 87. l. 27. r. Bishops p. 95. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. ult l. 9. r. less besides mis-accenting some Greek words and other mis-pointings THE PREFACE DIssenters are accused of Schism by some of this Church both these and the other are branded not only as Schismaticks but as Hereticks by the Papists who upon this account judge us unworthy to live and had actually destroyed both together if God in Mercy had not discoverâ—d their devilish Plot. The discovery gave them some interruption and put them upon an after-game to retrieve what had miscarryed And this was so to divide us as that our selves should help them in their design to ruine us all when they had less hopes to do it alone In pursuance hereof such influence they have had upon too many as to raise in them a greater aversation to Dissenters than to Papists These the Conspirators count their own and think they may well do so since they are too ready to concurre with them in their design to exterminate those who are true Protestants in every point and differ no more from this Church than those in France do who by the same Counsels are at this time in extreme danger to be utterly extirpated Others are so far prevailed with as to make use of one of the sharpest weapons they have against dissenting Protestants and that is the charge of Schisme lately renewed and re-inforced In these hard circumstances while we do what we can against the common Enemy we are put to ward off the blows of such as notwithstanding some present distemper we will count our Friends Amongst other expedients sufficient to secure us against this attaque it was thought not unuseful to answer the allegations out of Antiquity concerning two points wherein only the Antients were made use of to our prejudice viz. 1. For Diocesan Churches and then 2ly Against the Election of Bishops by the people in the primitive times Something was performed and published in reference to both these in a late discourse One half of which where the latter is discussed concerning the popular Elections of Bishops hath yet passed without any exception that I can see or hear of yet this alone is enough to defend us against the aforesaid charge For those who will not make the primitive Church Schismatical must not condemn any as Schismaticks for declining such Bishops as that Church would not own Against the former part of the Discourse concerning Diocesan Churches some exception hath been made but very little a late Author in his Preface to a Treatise of another Subject hath touched about 5 pages in 40. but so as he hath done them no more harm than another who to find one fault therein runs himself into two or three about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 render'd indefinitely according to the mind of the Author who uses it and the most common use of it I disparage not the Gentleman's Learning who attaques me in his Preface he shews that which with answerable care and Judgment might be serviceable in a cause that deserves it But much more than he shews would not be enough to support what he would establish And he might have forborn the vilifying of those who are known to be Masters of much more valueable Learning than appears in either of us The neglect of some accurateness in little things remote from the merits of the cause in one who is not at leisure to catch flies is no argument that he is destitute of Learning I complain not of his proceeding with me but am obliged by him that he treats me not with so much contempt as he does others who less deserve it I wish he had dealt more temperately with M. B. it would have been more for his reputation and no prejudice to his undertaking a good cause when it hath a sufficient Advocate does not need any undecent supplements After I have cleared my Discourse front this Gentleman's exceptions I thought it not impertinent to shew what in reason cannot be counted competent proofs of Diocesan Churches that if any will pursue this debate farther instead of opposing us they may not beat the Air and amuse those that enquire after truth with what is insignificant Withal I have given an account of what other allegations out of Scripture and Antiquity this Author hath brought in other parts of his Treatise for such Churches and shew'd that there is no evidence in them as to the purpose they are alledged for In short I find nothing in this Author or any other before him which may satisfie a judicious and impartial man that in the two first Ages of Christianity any Bishop had more than one particular Church or Congregation for his proper charge or that in the third Age there was any Bishop which had a Church consisting of more than are in some one of our Parishes unless it was the Church of Rome nor is there sufficient evidence produced for that Or that in the middle of the fourth Age there were 4 Churches each of which comprised more than could assemble in one place though if they had contained more that might be far enough from making them Diocesans Or that afterwards within the time of the four first General Councils where there were several Churches belonging to one Bishop he did exercise jurisdiction over them alone or only by himself and his Delegates It will be time enough to censure us as Schismaticks for declining Diocesan Churches when they have made it appear that there was such in the best ages of Christianity which not appearing the censure falls upon the primitive Christians from whom it will slide of upon themselves If they will forbear us till this be performed we need desire no more Vnless we may prevail with those who sincerely profess themselves Protestants to regard the securing themselves and their Religion from the destructive designs of the Papists more than those things which are not properly the concern either of Protestant or of Religion As for those who prefer the Papists before Dissenters and revile these as worse though they differ in no one point of Religion from other true Protestants We need not wonder if we meet with no better treatment from them then from declared Papists since by such preference they too plainly declare the Protestant Religion to be worse than
universi in majorem Ecclesiam conveniebant ut ibidem testatur Athanasius but all of them assembled together in the great Church as Athanasius testifies So that there can be no pretence that the Church in Alexandria was Diocesan at this time unless those who could meet together in one place might make such a Church Yet this was then the greatest Church in the Empire save that at Rome and what he adds makes that at Rome very unlike such Diocesan Churches as are now asserted Valesius inferrs from the same passage of Pope Innocent's Epistle to Decentius which Petavius brings to prove the contrary that though there were several Titles or Churches in Rome then and had been long before yet none of them was as yet appropriated to any Presbyter but they were served in common as great Cities in Holland and some other reformed Countreys that have several Churches and Ministers c. The Advocates for these Churches who assign the bounds of a Diocess with most Moderation will have it to comprize a City with a Territory belonging to it but there was no Church in the Territory which belonged to the Bishop of Rome he had none but within the City as Innocentius declares in the cited Epistle whereas now the greatest City with a Territory larger than some antient Province is counted little enough for a Diocess Further it is now judged to be no Diocess which comprises not very many Churches with Presbyters appropriated to them but he tells us none of the Churches in Rome were appropriated to any Presbyter but they were served in common How as greater Cities in Holland and some other reformed Countreys and then they were ruled in common as these Cities are The Government of many Churches is not there nor was of old ever entrusted in one hand and thus the Bishop of Rome was no more a Diocesan than the Presbyters of that City He concludes m Pag. 66. with two Assertions which will neither of them hold good The first that it is evident out of Athanasius how the Bishop of that City had from the beginning several fixed Congregations under him This is so far from being evident in Athanasius that he hath not one word which so much as intimates that the Bishop of Alexandria from the beginning had any such Congregations under him The other is that those of Mareotes must be supposed to receive the faith almost as early as Alexandria How true this is we may understand by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria towards the latter end of the third Age who declares that then Mareotes was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n Euseb l. 7. c. 11. it was so far from having any true Christians in it that it had none of our Author 's old Christians i. e. virtuous good men o pag. 60. Nor is it likely that the faith was there generally received till many years after and therefore not almost so early as Alexandria unless the distance of above 200 years will consist with his almost For Alexandria received the Faith by the preaching of Mark who arrived there sayes Eusebius in the 2d of Claudius p Chron. Euseb others in the 3d. of Caligula q Chron. Alex. But in the time of Dionysius it doth not appear that Mareotes had so many Christians as Bishop Ischyras his Church there consisted of though those were but seven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r Athan. Apol. 2. pag. 615. But enough of Alexandria though our Author is far from bringing enough to prove it even in the 4th age a Diocesan Church He may be excused for doing his utmost to this purpose considering the consequence of it for if this Church was not now so numerous as to be Diocesan it will be in vain to expect a discovery of any such Churches in the whole Christian World in those times for this is acknowledged to be the greatest City and Church in the Roman Empire next to Rome So that there cannot be so fair a pretence for any other inferiour to this such as Jerusalem Carthage Antioch c. much less for ordinary Cities which were 10 times less considerable than some of the former as may be collected from what Chrysostome sayes of one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was able to maintain the poor of ten Cities ſ In Mat Hom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So far the Writer of the Letter Let me now return to our Author's Preface To shew that the Christians in Alexandria adhereing to Athanasius were not so exceeding numerous as is pretended and not to be compared with the Christians now in London I had said that the greatest part of the Inhabitants of that City were at this time Heathens or Jews of those who passed for Christians it is like Athanasius had the lesser share u Pag. 34. the Novatians and other Sects the Meletians especially and the Arians did probably exceed his flock in numbers it may be the Arians there were more numerous This last clause which appears by the expression I was not positive in he alone sixes on and would disprove it by a passage out of Athanasius But the Greek is false printed and and the sense defective for want of some word and so no Judgment can be well passed thereon unless I saw it and where to see it he gives no direction My concern therein is not so great as to search for it through so voluminous an Author It will serve my turn well enough if the Arians were but very numerous or as Sozomen expresses them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 w Lib. 1. c. 14 which cannot be denied though they alone were not more numerous The last thing he would take notice of is the Diocess of Theodoret but this is remitted to the Dean of Paul's yet one thing he sayes he cannot omit though some may think that he had better have passed it as he had many other things than being so much in haste to slip at almost every line as he does in those few which concern it If these 800 Churches not 80 as this Gentleman reckons them it was not he but the Printer that so reckoned them as the Errata shew belonged to him as Metropolitan and they were all Episcopal Churches I never met with any before that took them for Episcopal Churches and how he should fall into this mistake I cannot imagine I will not believe that he creates it to make himself work this poor Region of Cyrus would have more Bishops than all Africa not so neither for by the conference at Carthage and the abbreviation of it by St. Austin much more to be relyed on than the Notitia published by Simond which is neither consistent with others nor with it self Africa had many more Bishops than 800 notwithstanding they were more numerous there than in any part of the World besides Nor will this pass for true with those who take his own account concerning their numbers in Africa which
converted in it However many more such Additions will not increase that Church beyond M. B's Measures nor make it near so numerous as that Parish to which Whitehall belongs What he next offers neither concerns Rome being Pag. 55. general expressions nor M. B. referring to the Ages after those which he is concerned for whether by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we understand the great multitudes which were gathered into the Christian Profession as Valesius or that assembled together for Christian worship as our Author is not material though the former is more likely unless we can think Eusebius an elegant Writer would use so much tautology in so few lines That from which he may expect more service is the next expression which he renders the multitude of their Meetings in every City but may with better reason be render'd the numerousness or multitudes of those that assembled in several Cities For it is so far from being true that every City had many Congregations of Christians in it that there were many Cities long after which had no Christians in them And two instances cannot be given of any Cities in the whole Empire that at this time had more Congregations than one unless where they all might have assembled in one place they thought it better in Prudence to disperse themselves into several Meetings For in Alexandria which was the greatest City next to Rome and the most populous Church in the whole World there is no appearance of more assemblies till the end of the tenth Persecution and the death of Peter Bishop there who suffered in the ninth year of it t Euseb l. 7. c. 32. And therefore the elegant gradation in discovering of which this Gentleman would have us take notice that he has a more comprehensive faculty than Valesius seems not very well founded That which follows is an hundred years or more beyond Pag. 55. the time to which M. B. limits his Assertion About this time or not long after Rome had above 40 Churches which we must not imagine to be built all at the same time but by degrees according as the number of Believers did require c. pag. 55. From the number of Churches he can't reasonably conclude such a multitude of Christians as he contends for There were many Churches in Alexandria when Athanasius was Bishop of it and yet there were no more Christians in his communion than could meet together in one place Baronius tells us that there was a City in Germany which had 400 Churches in it and yet no reason Anno 108 ◠◠to think that Town was comparable for Circuit and Populousness either to Rome or Alexandria If I should say that in Optatus there were not so many Churches but the number mistaken by the Transcribers this would be as good an answer as that of our Author who will have the 12 or 14 years of Athanasius his Banishment in Epiphanius not to be so many moneths and that years are put instead of moneths by the mistake of the Copies pag. 113. Or that other about the number of Bishops in the Council at Anticch where he will have 30 in diverse Authors to be a mistake of the Transcribers for 90 or 97 or 99. u pag. 123 124 125. Interpret vo◠Ecclos Onuphrius must have liked such an Answer to this of Optatus who tho' he was as much concerned for the greatness of the Roman Church as any and no less inquisitive into the antient state of it yet delivers it as a thing manifest and certain that Rome had but 28 Titles and this number not compleated till the fifth Age. But there 's no need to insist on any thing of this nature it is not so material how many Churches there was as when there was so many and about the time he will have Blondel to mistake and M. B. to follow him therein he had been nibbling at Blondell a little before upon a small occasion and with as little reason as might be shew'd if it were sit to follow one in his Vagaries Let us see whether here he doth not follow Valesius in his mistake who will have Optatus to speak of the Churches at Rome in the time of Diocletian 's Persecution tempore persecutionis Diocletiani w In Euseb lib. 6. c. 43. But Optatus speaks of those Churches when extant and capable of receiving Congregation as is plain by his words but what Churches were at Rome or other places in the very beginning of that Persecution were all quite demolished and that in one day sayes Theodoret x Hist l. 5. c. 38. or the Paschal dayes as Eusebius y Chron. and there 's no probability they could rebuild them while the Persecution lasted or that so many could be raised in less than many years after Nicephorus speaks but of 14 Churches at Constantinople in the reign of Theodosius junior nor meet I with any Author that gives an account of more yet this was about an hundred years after Byzantium was re-edifyed and both Constantine and the succeeding Emperours endeavoured to make that City as populous as could be and furnished it with Churches answerable to the numbers of the Inhabitants So that there 's no likelihood there could be 40 Churches in Rome at any time nearer Dioclesian's than Optatus's But to help this our Author tells us out of Optatus that there were three Donatists Bishops at Rome successively before Macrobius who was Contemporary with Optatus and that the first of them was Victor Garbiensis and he will have Optatus to speak of the State of Rome the 40 Churches there not as it was in his own time but in that of this Victor when this was he sayes is not easie to six pag. 56. Yet this is certain it cannot be in the time of Dioclesian's Persecution for the Schisme of the Donatists did not break out till Majorinus was ordained who was the first Bishop of the Faction made in Africa or elsewhere and this was sometime after the Persecution was there ended as Optatus and Valcsius after him and others declare z De Schis Denat cap. 3. and sometime must be allowed after this for the Donatists settling in Rome and such an increase of them there as to need a Bishop Baronius makes this Victor to be Bishop in Silvester's time which might be long enough after Dioclesian's Persecution for he lived till 335. All which our Author hath to alledge for the more early date of Victor's Bishoprick is that there were two or three Donatist Bishops between Victor and Optatus but this will scarce serve his turn For there were four Bishops of Rome in the former part of that very age wherein we are now concerned who held not the Chair ten years among them Marcellus Eusebius Melchiades and Marcus But we may allow the three Donatist Bishop at Rome near ten years a piece from the time of Optatus 378 as both Blondel and Valesius agree and yet Victor Garbiensis
about a City would hardly make a Congregation that is to be ascribed to the condition of those times Dioceses with him were largest in the first times but Bishops being still multiplyed they became less and less and so were very small and crumbled into very little pieces in the fourth and fifth Ages This is the tendency of his discourse all along Thus Dioceses must be largest when a Bishop had but one Congregation but in after ages when he had more Congregations under his inspection Dioceses were very small If he will stand to this our differences may be easily compromized Let him and those of his perswasion be content with the Dioceses in the first ages when he counts them largest and we shall never trouble any to reduce them to the measures of the fourth and fifth ages when in his account they were so lamentably little and crumbled so very small The particulars premised contain enough to satisfie all that I have yet seen alledged out of Antiquity for Diocesan Churches so that no more is needful yet let me add another which will shew there is a medium between Congregational and Diocesan Churches So that if some Churches should be shewed out of the Antients exceeding the Congregational measures as some there were in the times of the four first General Councils yet it cannot thence be immediately inferred that they were Diocesan since they may prove a third sort of Churches and such as will as little please those of this Gentleman's perswasion as Congregational 6. It 's no argument for a Diocesan Church that there were several fixed Churches with their proper Presbyters in a City or its Territory so long as these Churches how many soever were governed in common by the Bishop and Presbyters in such a Precinct For though few instances can be given of such Churches in or belonging to a City in the 4th Age yet wherever they were extant in that or the following Age in things of common concern to those Churches they were ordered in common by a Presbytery that is the Bishop with the Presbyters of that Precinct Jerome declares it de jure they ought to be governed in common in communi debere Ecclesiam regere h In Titus 1. And Felix 3 Bishop of Rome than whom no Bishop was higher or more absolute in those times declares it de facto when he speaks of the Presbyters of that Church as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ruling that Church with him It is the same word that the governing of Churches by other Bishops is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Alexander saith of Narcissus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Euseb l. 6. c 11 It imports no less than praesidere and is ascribed to Bishops and Presbyters jointly by Tertullian k Apol. c. 39 Cyprian l Lib. 1. Ep. 3. and Firmilian m Ep. 75 Hence the Presbyters are frequently said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Bishop n Theod. Hist l. 4. c. 8. Epiphan Her 42. for then the Governing power of Bishops was but counted a Ministry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o Isidore Lib. 4. Ep. 260. and the Presbyters fellow Ministers with him and joint Administrators in the Government They are styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p Naz. Orat. 1. Orat. 7. fellow Pastors they did not then dream that a Bishop was sole Pastor of many Churches They are also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q Ignat. ad Tral in Chrysost Tom 7. Hom. ζ. a. for the Presbyters had their Thrones with the Bishop So Nazianzen speaks of Basil when ordained Presbyter as promoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Sacred Thrones of the Presbyters r Orat. 20. They are also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s Chyys in Tim. Hom. 1. But further evidence is needless though abundance may be produced since the great Patrons of Episcopacy seems not to question it that the Church was governed in common and the Bishop was to do nothing of importance without the Presbyters it is acknowledged by Bishop Bilson t Perpet Govern Cap. 11. Bishop Downham u Defence lib. 3. L. 1. c. 8. Bishop Hall asserts it as that which is Vniversally accorded by all antiquity that all things in the antient Church were ordered and transacted by the general consent of Presbyters w Iren. P. 47. Mr. Thorndike proves at large that the Government of Churches passed in common x Prim. Govern Primate Vsher more succinctly but effectually y Reduct of Episcopacy Add but Dr. St. who both asserts and proves it z Iren. Pag. 354. 355. 356. there was still one Ecclesiastical Senate which ruled all the several Congregations of those Cities in common of which the several Presbyters of the Congregations were Members and in which the Bishop acted as the President of the Senate for the better Governing the affairs of the Church c. Let me add when the Churches were so multiplyed in City and Territory as that it was requisite to divide them into Parishes and constitute several Churches the Bishop was not the proper Ruler or Pastor of the whole Precinct and the Churches in it or of any Church but one The Parishes or Churches were divided among Presbyters and Bishop they had their several distinct cures and charges the Bishops peculiar charge was the Ecclesia principalis the chief Parish or Church so called or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Presbyters performed all Offices in their several Cures and ordered all affairs which did particularly concern the Churches where they were incumbents those that were of more common concern were ordered by Bishop and Presbyters together and thus it was in the Bishops Church or Parish he performed all Offices administred all Ordinances of Worship himself or by Presbyters joyned with him as Assistants He was to attend this particular cure constantly he was not allowed to be absent no not under pretence of taking care for some other Church if he had any business there which particularly concerned him he was to make quick dispatch and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Zonaras stay there with the neglect of his proper flock this is all evident by a Canon of the Council of Carthage a Rursum r In Zona N. 77 in Code 71. placuit ut nemini sit facultas relicta principali Cathedra ad aliquam Ecclesiam in Diocesi constitutam se conferre vel in re propria diutius quam oportet constitutum curam vel frequentationem propriae Cathedrae negligere Of this Church or Parish he was the proper Pastor or Ruler called there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and elsewhere b Can. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in contradistinction to other parts of the Precinct called here Dioceses and the people of it are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the ancient Canonist c Zona in loc his proper flock or people his own
a Trade or Husbandry with this proviso that it be not a prejudice to their Office Our Author sayes indeed (h) Pag. 154. that this is contrary to the usage of all other Churches how true this is may be seen by the Canon before cited He sayes also that this is forbidden by the 3 d. Council of Carthage but neither is this so that Canon adds but another restriction viz. that they get not their livings by an employment that is sordid or dishonest where the i Can. 15. in Cod. 16. Latine and Greek both agree in it 3ly The Church was to allow none of them no not Bishops more than necessary even after Constantine's time That Canon call'd the Apostles and the other Antioch forecited express this in the same words the Bishop may have of the Church Stock what is needfull if he be necessitous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for necessary uses and these are afterwards explain'd to be food and rayment Zonaras expresses it fully and clearly whom he that the Canon doth not satisfie may consult Having shew'd out of Justinian that 60 Presbyters belonged to the great Church in Constantinople and thence inferr'd they were numerous in Constantine's time the number sayes he was become extravagant in Justinians time but what is this to their number in Cyprian's He should have asked the Dean this who to prove Diocesan Churches from the number of Presbyters immediately after Testimonies out of Cyprian brings this of Justinian For this very edict of Justinian shews that this multiplying of Church Officers was an innovation and therefore would have them reduced to the first establishment Justinian took order to retrench the numbers of Presbyters not therefore because it was an innovation but because the Church revenue could not maintain so many which is express in the Novel But that first establishment it seems admitted great numbers for one Church had 60. True but it must also be noted first that these 60 were to serve more than one Church Some may be ready to ask how it can be true that one Church should have 60 and yet more than one had these 60 amongst them For there were three more besides St. Sophia to be supplyed by these Presbyters c. True but this still confirms what I answer'd to their argument from the multitude of Presbyters that in the antient Church the Officers were multiplyed above what we count needful For it is not now thought needful that any 3 or 4 Churches in a City should have 60 Presbyters 100 Deacons 90 Subdeacons Readers 110. c. Yet after all there is no argument to be drawn from this number for these were Canons of a particular foundation design'd for the service of a Collegiate Church and no measure to be taken from thence concerning the numbers of Presbyters belonging to the Diocess This is evident from the Preface of the said Novel If no argument is to be drawn from this number why did the Learned Dean draw one from it 2ly This seems scarce consistent with the former Period there these Presbyters were for 3 or 4 Churches here they are but for one Collegiate Church of which they were Canons and this said to be evident in the Preface where I cannot see it 3ly Since no measure is to be taken from hence concerning the numbers of Presbyters belonging to a Diocess it seems there may be this number of Presbyters in a place which cannot be counted a Diocess as this one great Church never was nor can be and then no argument drawn from the number of Presbyters at Rome Carthage Edessa c. will prove a Diocesan Church for here was the greatest number which any where we meet with Dr. St. to prove Diocesan Churches from the numerousness of Presbyters mentioned 60 in C. P. in Justinian's time from hence on the by I thought it reasonable to suppose they were numerous in Constantine's time when yet Theodoret sayes all the Brethren met together with the Bishop That the number of Presbyters is no proof of a Diocesan Church was evinced sufficiently before this fell in occasionally and was added ex abundanti Yet upon this supernumerary stragler he turns his main force spending about 12 Pages on it I am little concerned what becomes of it since the main Hypothesis is already secured by the premisses but that this Gentleman may not quite loose all his labour I am willing to loose a little in taking some notice of it I must confess that what is added concerning the Church of C. P. is somewhat surprizing no doubt sayes he that the Presbyters were more numerous in C. P. Indeed it might have been surprizing if I had said as he reports me that they were more numerous but I saw reason not to say so though what reason there was to impose it on me I know not I cited Soc misprinted Soz. saying Constantine built two Churches at C. P. but laid no stress on it at all (k) Soc. l. 1. c. 12. It is true he sayes not that he built no more than two but his expression plainly implyes it and he was concerned if he had known any more to have mention'd it when in the same Line he sayes Constantine intended to make it equal to Rome Eusebius's words agree well enough herewith he sayes Constantine adorn'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with more Churches and that 's true if he built but two more or any more than was there formerly or any more than was usual And these more Churches were not in the City but as the Historian speaks partly there and partly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as the word is used may denote places many Miles distant from the City as the Gentleman elsewhere observes after Valesius Sozomen sayes he built 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Churches not very many as he will have it but if he thereby meant more than are named by Socrates we need not understand that done before the time Theodoret speaks of Nor should a lax expression be more relyed on than one that is punctual and definite unless we have a mind either to be misled or to set the two Historians together by the ears Sozomen names but one Church more than Socrates did and that not in but a good distance from the City 70 Furlongs by Land and 3 may pass for many when it was a rare thing for any City to have more than one The best Authors as they sometimes express very few by none and a generality by all so they express more than ordinary by many and two or three such Churches in one City were more than ordinary at that time when one City in an Hundred had not two Churches and one in a Thousand had not three Churches that could be styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that Constantine built here were such both Eusebius his more and Sozomen's many are said by them to be very great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But no considerable Author that I meet
be considerable Tertullian speaks of Citizens in his time as if they were almost all Christians penè omnes cives christiani u Apol. c. 37. yet no instance can be given of any one City where the Christians were the major part of the Inhabitants those that take his words in a strict sense are very injurious to him and make him speak that which no antient Records will warrant Sozomen also may suffer by straining his expression but I will not digress to take further notice of what is not material for I design not nor have any need to make any advantage of the numbers of the Heathens in this City He tells us of 950 Work-houses whose rents were allowed to defray the Funeral expences of all that died in the City for so it is expressed in the Constitution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 w Novel 43. these being performed with great solemnity and multitudes of Attendants maintained by those rents for that purpose x Nov. 59. c. 2. How this here makes the Christians in C. P. to be so very numerous as he would have them he should have shewed us I am not yet so sagacious as to discover it The number of the Decani was determined by Honorius to 950 y Cod. de Eccl. Lex 4 Our Author thinks it probable they were so many at the first establishment but there 's more ground to believe they were much fewer in Constantine's time for about 800 were counted sufficient in Justinian's Reign 200 years after when the City was both larger and much more populous and in its greatest flourish z Novel 59. c. 2. Those that consider the premisses may well think he might have form'd his conclusion in terms less confident to say no worse of it Next he forms an Objection against himself notwithstanding the number of Christians in C. P. might be much too great for one Congregation yet the major part might be Hereticks or Schismaticks such as came not to the Bishop's Church and therefore all that adhered to him might be no more than could meet in one Assembly To which he answers that the number of Hereticks and Schismaticks was inconsiderable and will not except the Arians or Novatians For the Arians he saies they had not yet made a formal Separation But if they did not separate themselves the Church would have them separated and did exclude them from communion and withstood Constantine's importunity for their admission both here and in other places Athanasius was threatned by Eusebius of Nicomedia a Soc. lib. 2. c. 1 and banished by the Emperour for this cause among others And Alexander being secured by Arius his death from admitting him to Communion was the occasion of this passage in Theodoret which gives our Author so much trouble Now the Arians being debarred from communion lessened the Bishop's Church both here and elsewhere as much as if they had separated themselves And they were numerous here this being the place where they had greatest favour in Constantine's Edict against the Hereticks whose meetings he would have suppressed the Arians were not mentioned when the other are named b Euseb de vita Constant lib. 3. cap. 62. 63. Socrates writes that the People in this City was divided into two Parties the Arians and the Orthodox they had continually sharp bickerings but while Alexander lived the Orthodox had the better as soon as he was dead which was * Vales observ in Soc. Soz. l. 2. c Soc. lib. 2. c. 6. while Constantine lived it seems they appeared equal for the contest saies he was dubious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In Nazianzen's time so far they overtopt the Orthodox that this great Diocesan Church appear'd but in the form of a private meeting held in a very little house where he kept a Conventicle with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Sozomen d Lib. 7. cap. 5. and Socrates agrees with him in the expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a diminutive place seems as unproportionable for such a Diocesan Church as a Nut-shell for Homer's Iliads or a Key-hole for a Witch to use our Author's Elegancies As for the Novatians to which he will have no more allowed than a Conventicle they were numerous in other places they had once diverse Churches in Alexandria many Churches in Rome and in other places It is like they were numerous here for here they had as much favour or more and longer too than in the Cities forementioned here Socrates sayes they had three Churches e Lib. 2. cap. 30. and if three Churches would but make one inconsiderable Conventicle it is possible the other Orthodox Churches though he will have them to be many might be comprized in one vast Congregation I might observe how much Sozomen is mis-represented in what he sayes next of those concerned in the Edict the Novatians especially He speaks not mincingly as our Author would have him but fully that the Novatians did not suffer much by the Edict he does not say only that it was probable they suffered little but sayes this only of a reason himself gives why they suffered not much He gives other reasons for it than the opinion the Novatians had of that Bishop He does not say the other Hereticks were altogether extirpated He does not confess that the Novatians suffered the same measure with others every where no nor any where else it is the Montanists that he sayes this of He dares to affirm they had a Conventicle or more for he affirms they had an eminent Bishop in C. P. and were not only numerous there before the Edict but continued so after The Gentleman was in too much haste here as himself will perceive by observing how much his account differs from the Historians At last he comes to that passage of Theodoret which occasioned all these lines but Theodoret affirms they were no more than could meet in one Church and that they did actually do so I answer sayes he that Theodoret does not say so and the passage cited does not conclude it I did not say Theodoret affirms they were no more than could meet in one Church but he sayes the same in effect viz. that all the Brethren assembled with Alexander His words are Alexander the Church rejoycing hcld an Assembly with all the Brethren praying and greatly glorifying God The words are plain and the sense I take them in is open in the face of them Nor do I believe that any disinterested person would put any other sense upon them than this that the generality of Christians of which the Church at Constantinople consisted assembled together with their Bishop Alexander to praise God joyfully for their deliverance by the death of Arius But he will not have the words taken in a general sense but will suppose them taken with respect to that particular Congregation in which Arius was to be reconciled Yet this supposition hath no ground either in the words or in the
contexture of the Discourse or any where else that I know of or our Author either for if he had we should have heard it with both ears as he speaks elsewhere He will not have all the Brethren to be all the Believers at C. P. yet he knows that Brethren and Believers are Synonymous terms both in Scripture and ancient Authors And those were the Believers or Brethren of the Church of C. P. which had occasion to rejoyce and that was the whole Church there as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 render'd Vniversi I do not take it for all and every one of the Christians there for in all Assemblies of great Churches especially many are alwayes absent He had dealt more fairly with Theodoret if by all he would have understood the generality of Christians adhereing to Alexander at C. P. or the greatest part of them and about such an abatement of the full import of the word there had been no need to contend but his restraint of it to a particular Congregation agrees not with the words nor the occasion of them nor hath any support elsewhere Nor is that better which follows unless you will say that with all the Brethren does not signifie their personal presence but only their unanimity This looks more like a shift than a plain answer and therefore he was well advised in not venturing to own it Theodoret could not think that all the Beleivers of C. P. could come together to the Bishop's Church for he cites a Letter of Constantine's a little after where he gives an account of the great increase of that Church In the City that is call'd by my name by the Providence of God an infinite multitude of People have joined themselves to the Church and all things there wonderfully increasing it seems very requisite that more Churches should be built understanding therefore hereby what I have resolved to do I though fit to order you to provide 50 Bibles fairly and legibly written He does not say an infinite multitude the words of the Letter are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there was a very great multitude of Christians is not denied nor that he intended to build more Churches but this confirms what is signified before that these very many Churches were not yet built but only in design and that with a prospect of Christians there still increasing And the Bibles if they were intended only for C. P. might be for the future Churches not the present only His Conclusion is where Christians were so multiplied that it was necessary to build more Churches and to make such provisions for the multitude of their Assemblies it could not be that they should all make but one Congregation He should have concluded that which is denied otherwise all he hath premised will be insignificant and to no purpose it is granted that all the Christians at C. P. did make more than one Congregation and for their conveniency met at other times in several Churches That which is denied is that the main Body or generality of Christians there could not meet in one Assembly or did not so meet at this time with their Bishop Alexander as to this he hath proved nothing and therefore did well to conclude nothing against that which is affirmed to be the plain import of Theodoret's expression And it may be supposed that Theodoret if he had not expressed it might well think though the contrary be suggested that as great multitudes as Constantine's Letters signified might meet together at the Bishop's Church for himself declares what a vast Congregation he preached to at Antioch having an Auditory of many Myriads f Ep. 83. I will not ask him what Eusebius could think when he tells us the Christians had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Assemblies consisting of Myriads g Lib. 8. Cap. 1. Nor what Socrates thought when he tells us long after of C. P. that the whole City became one Assembly and meeting in an Oratory continued there all day h Lib. 7. cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I would have him tell me how he understands that passage of Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. What is the import of these words Do they signify that ten Myriads were assembled in one place to hear Chrysostome If so there will be no question but that the generality of Christians might meet in one Church with Alexander in Constantine's Reign for that then about 70 years before there was any thing neâ—â— so many Christians as an 100000 adhereing to one Bishop in this City cannot with any reason be imagined Or does he mean only that there were so many Myriads of Christians contained in that City If so then he saies here no more than in another Homily forecited where the number of Christians in C. P. is computed to be an 100000 reckoning all besides Jews and Heathens Now if they were no more in his time they cannot with reason be supposed to have been above half so many in Constantine's unless any can imagine that their numbers advanced more in 6 years than in 70 when the succeeding Emperours multiplyed the Inhabitants excessively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Zosimus tells us k Lib. 2. crouding the City so full as that they could scarce stir without danger and a great part of these were fallen off to Arius while Alexander was Bishop the Novatians also were numerous having several Churches and these with other Sects being deducted the Christians there that communicated with Alexander will be no more if so many than belong to some one of our Parishes It would swell this Preface to too great a Bulk if I should answer the rest so particularly Since he designed to be so breif and to have so short a Preface I wish he had employed more of it against that which is the strength of the Discourse he opposes and of more consequence to the main Cause and not have spent so many leaves upon a by-passage for which we have little reason to be concerned for if he could make it appear that the Christians at C. P. in Constantine's time were more than could meet in one Congregation yea or in two either that would be far from proving it a Diocesan Church unless some one or two of our Parishes can be counted so Let me add in fine that our Author has done just nothing towards the disproving of what Theodoret was alledged for unless he shew that C. P. exceeded old Rome was furnished with such an infinite number of Christians so many more than two magnificent Churches there erected the 50 Bibles thought needful to be provided and almost all the Heathen besides many Jews converted before Alexander who is said to hold this Assembly with all the brethren deceased and so unless he prove that all this was done which himself I think can scarce believe in less than a year For Valesius upon whose authority this Gentleman takes much proves at large making it the business of
the major part of the Inhabitants in all Cities and so enough not only for vast Congregations but for Diocesan Churches But Tertullian was a great Oratour and frequently uses hyperbolical expressions which ought not to be streined Such are those insisted on and by regular construction they import no more than that the Christians were very numerous in many parts of the Empire Those that will have them streined and understood as they found offer great injury to Tertullian making him intend that which hath no warrant in any Records of Antiquity Civil or Ecclesiastical that I can meet with Before they impose such a sense on him they ought in reason to make it manifest that the Christians were the major part of the inhabitants in some considerable Cities at that time when I believe they cannot produce two instances in the whole Empire I never yet could meet with one Our Author from these Oratorical expressions sticks not to conclude that it is evident that the Christians were the major part every where but in Rome more eminently so and Dr. Downham signifies that Tertullian speaks chiefly of the City of Rome g Defence l. 2. c. 5. p. 98. this Gentleman sayes that by his account it is made very probable that they were the better half of the Roman Empire and tells us it is pag. 54. certain that the number of Christians at Rome was proportionably greater than in any part of the Empire Now how far the Christians at Rome were from being the major part of the Inhabitants we may judge by the vast disproportion between the poor in the Church at Rome and those in the whole City Cornelius near 50 years after Tertullian when it was of more growth by half an Age reckons the poor of his Church to be 1500 whereas out of Suetonius and others the poorer sorts of Citizens quae è publico victitabat are computed to be 320000 h Lipsius d◠Mag. Rom. l. 3. cap. 2. Many take occasion from the thousands converted at Jerusalem Acts 2. and 4. to conclude the vast number of Christians and exceeding largeness of Churches elsewhere Our Author hath nothing from Scripture for Diocesan Churches but this which is considerable i Pag. 435 c. nor will this appear so if but a small part of those thousands can be counted inhabitants of Jerusalem and so fixed in that Church And this is as demonstrable as any thing of this nature can be For this miraculous Conversion was at Pentecost one of the three great Feasts when there was a vast concourse of Jews and Proselytes from all parts to that City These converted were not only Inhabitants of Jerusalem but Forreigners and in all reason more of these proportionably as they exceeded the Inhabitants in number And then those of the City will scarce be a 20th part of the 5 or 8000 Converts For the Forreigners that resorted to Jerusalem at these great Solemnities are reckoned to be three millions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k Joseph de Bel. Judaic Lib. 2. cap. 24. whereas the Inhabitants of that City were but about an 120000 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of this elsewhere more fully The Author of the Vindication will not have so great a part of those Converts to be Strangers and to return home when the Feast was over and assigns something like reasons for it 1st That the Scripture gives no countenance to this Conjecture but sayes all those strange Nations were Inhabitants of Jerusalem and the Original word inclines most on this side That he should say the Scripture gives no countenance to this is something strange It is plain in Scripture that God injoyned the Children of Israel to repair to Jerusalem from all quarters of the Countrey where they dwelt thrice a year for the observance of the three great Feasts And it is apparent also that they were wont to come up to Jerusalem at those Solemnities both Jews and Proselytes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a In Euseb l. 2. c. 23. And it is evident in that Chapter cited Acts 2. The Feast of Pentecost being come there was a resort of Jews and Proselytes from all those parts of the World to this City Ay but the Scripture sayes all those Strange Nations were inhabitants of Jerusalem He can't judge that the Scripture sayes this but upon a supposition that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 2. 5. can signify no other thing than inhabitants but this is a mistake for the word denotes such as abide in a place not only as inhabitants but as strangers or Sojourners Thus Dr. Hammond will have it translated abiding rather than dwelling b In loc those that were there as strangers c In Act. 10. 2. and here expresses those abiding at Jerusalem to be Jews which came up to the Feast of the Passeover and Proselytes which had come from several Nations of all Quarters of the World Thus also Mr. Mead d In Exercit. in Act. 2. 5. for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he which I translate sojourning rather than dwelling for so I understand it that they were not proper dwellers but such as came to worship at Jerusalem from those far Countreys at the Feast of the Passeover and Pentecost and so had been continuing there some good time it is true that in the usual Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify a durable mansion but with the Hellenists in whose Dialect the Scripture speaketh they are used indifferently for a stay of a shorter or longer time that is for to sojourn as well as to dwell as these two examples out of the Septuagint will make manifest Gen. 27. 44. 1 Kings 17. 20. there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to sojourn only In a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answer to the Hebrew Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies any stay or remaining in a place Grotius saith it answers the Hebrew word which is render'd not only by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. adding therefore it is not said only of them who had fixed their habitation but of those who were come to the City for the celebrating of the Passeover or Pentecost staying there for a while The best and most learned Expositors generally take it so in this place as denoting not settled Inhabitants but such as resided there only for a time Indeed when this Author would have the Scripture say all these strange Nations were inhabitants of Jerusalem he makes it speak things inconsistent For it is said ver 9. they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dwellers at Mesopotamia Judea Cappadocia Pontus Asia c. by which must be understood either that they were inhabitants or Sojourners in those Countreys that they were now Sojourners there no man will imagine nor can any man be said to be actually a sojourner in a place where he is not And if they were
together h Clemens Constitut l. 7. c. 46. some will have Euodias ordained by Peter and Ignatius by Paul others report Ignatius ordained by Peter and some modern Authors of great eminency both Protestants and Papists not only Baronius but Dr. Hammond find no more tolerable way to reconcile them than by asserting that there were more Bishops than one there at once which quite blasts the conceit of a Diocesan Church there And what is alledged for the numbers of Christians there to support this conceit of a Diocesan Church is very feeble pag. 452 453. A great number believed Acts 11. 21. and much people ver 24. The next verses shew that there were no more than Paul and Barnabas assembled within one Church meeting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a year together and there taught this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same divine Author sayes Acts 6. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a great Company of the Priests were converted and will this Gentleman hence conclude that there were Priests enough converted to make a Diocese He hath no ground from Scripture to think otherwise of Rome that we may take in all his Scripture instances together however he would perswade us that there were several Congregations there in the Apostles times Let us see how By the multitude of Salutations in the end of that Epistle he makes appear the numbers of Christians in that City Salute Priscilla and Aquila with the Church that is in their house The Dean of Pauls will have this Church in their house to be but a Family this Author will have it to be a Congregation as if it might be either to serve a turn I think it was such a Congregation as removed with Aquila from one Countrey to another for this Church which was in their house at Ephesus before 1 Cor 16. is said to be in their house at Rome Rom. 16. that is there were some of the Church which belonged to their Family It is a question whether there was now at Rome any one Congregation such as our Author intends Grotius i In Rom. 16. thinks it probable there was none at all But let us suppose this to be a Congregation where finds he his several others why where another person would scarce dream of any It is not improbable saith he that several that are mentioned with all the Saints that are with them may be the Officers of several Congregations pag. 457. 458. But it is manifest that in the Apostle's times one Congregation had many Officers how then can several Officers be a good Medium to prove several Congregations The antient Authors which count those Officers mentioned Rom. 16. do make them Bishops and some except not Narcissus nor Prisca i. e. Priscilla tho' her Husband also hath an Episcopal Chair assigned him Now if they were not Bishops at Rome but other places they are alledged to no purpose if they were Bishops at Rome there will be very many Bishops in that one Church it may be more than Priscilla's Congregation consisted of which rather than our Author will grant I suppose he will quit his plurality of Congregations here Indeed what he adds next doth no waies favour them and this number was afterwards increased considerably by the coming of Paul who converted some of the Jews and afterwards received all that came whether Jew's or Gentiles and preached to them the Kingdom of God for the space of two whole years no man forbidding him pag. 458. Paul preached at Rome in his hired house for two years all this while he received all that came to him there is no question but that all the Christians there did come to hear this most eminent Apostle so that it seems from first to last there were no more Christians at Rome than a private House could receive He would prove what he intends from Nero's Persecution who is said to have put an infinite multitude of Christians to death upon pretence that they had fired Rome pag. 458. Tacitus speaks of the Christians as guilty and sayes they confessed the Crime and detected many others Now those who suffered either confessed that they fired Rome and then they were no Christians or they did not confess it and then he wrongs them intolerably and deserves no credit But our Author to excuse him against the sense of such who best understand him Lipsius particularlay besides Baronius and others sayes they confessed not that they burn't Rome but that they were Christians Whereas the inquiry being concerning the burning of Rome the question was not whether they were Christians but whether they fired the City of this last Tacitus speaks and will be so understood by those who think he speaks pertinently But for truth in those accounts he gives of Christians it is no more to be expected than from other Heathen Authors of those Ages with whom it is customary on that subject splendidè mentiri Some other instances hereof we have in this report of Tacitus which I suppose our Author will scarce offer to excuse as when the Christian Religion is called Exitiabilis superstitio and when the Christians are said per flagitia invisos vulgô fuisse But suppose he speaks truth what is it he sayes Nero put an infinite multitude of them to death but ingens multitudo which are his words may be far less than an infinite multitude Two or three hundred may pass for a great multitude and extraordinarily great when that which is spoke of them is extraordinary The Martyrs burnt in Queen Mary's dayes were a great multitude and few may be accounted very many to suffer in such a manner as these did by Nero's Cruelty Ferarum tergis contecti ut laniatu canum interirent aut crucibus affixi aut flammandi atque ubi defecisset dies in usum nocturni luminis uterentur in the words of Tacitus To this he adds the general account which Eusebius gives of the success of the Christian faith immediately after the first discovery of it that presently in all Cities and Villages Churches abounding with innumerable multitudes were assembled c. pag. 459. If he will not deal unkindly with Eusebius he must not set his expressions upon the Rack nor stretch them beyond his intention nor forget what is observed to be usual with him Oratorem more rem amplificare These Churches consisting of innumerable multitudes are said to be not only in all Cities but Villages now I believe it will be an hard matter for our Author to shew us any Villages even in Constantine's time where there were a Thousand yea or 500 Christians Those who will not abuse themselves or their Readers must give great allowance to such expressions and not rely on them in strict arguing And here it may not be amiss to take notice of what he sayes of Rome in another Chapter M. B. had declared that he found no reason to believe that Rome and Alexandria had for 200 years more
Christians than some London Parishes which have 60000 Souls nor near if half so many k Church Hist p. 7. Vindicat. p. 27. The chief if not the only argument to prove them at Rome more numerous is a passage in Cornelius his Epistle shewing the number of the Officers and of the poor this was in the middle of the third Age and so not within these 200 years but yet proves not what it is alledged for in Cornelius's time near Anno 360. The number of Officers signifies no such thing as hath been made evident the number of the poor being 1500 rather proves the contrary This was cleared by comparing the proportions of the poor with the rest in other places at Antioch in particular as was shewed out of Chrysostome who reckons the poor to be a tenth part of the Inhabitants and if it was so at Rome in Cornelius's time the Christians were about 15000. This will serve M. B's purpose well enough But the time and circumstances being exceeding different makes it most probable that the Christians then at Rome did nothing near so much exceed the poor in number It is far more likely that the proportions were nearer that at Constantinople where Chrysostom sayes the poor was one half this would spoil all our Authors pretensions and so he advisedly takes no notice of it However something he would say against M. B. if one could understand it It is about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cornelius's Epistle render'd the poor Valesius observes the word is used by the Roman Clergy in an Epistle to those at Carthage sive Viduae sive Thlibomeni i. e. indigentes saith he as Rufinus translates it and tells us also that Cyprian l Ep. 4. calls them pauperes indigentes qui laborant These sayes our Author were not only poor but sick and diseased alledging that of the Roman Clergy for it after Valesius and if he mean not only the poor but the sick also and the diseased he is right for Cornelius signifies those that were maintained by the Church Widows and Indigent whether sick or well But when he sayes these poor were such only as were not able to come abroad he seems to confine it to the sick and diseased and then it contradicts the former and is without reason against the use and import of the word as render'd by all Interpreters former and later that I meet with and indeed against common sense for the number Cornelius speaks of is fixed as that of the Presbyters and Deacons such as may be constantly known and a certain account given of it whereas the number of the sick is not fixed but such a contingency as is very uncertain and various But Cornelius sayes in the same Epistle that the people of his Church were innumerable True that is according to the frequent use of the word very many it is granted they were more than in any other Church as when Dio sayes the Nations conquered by Trajan were innumerable and Socrates expresses those wounded in the fight between the Christians and Heathen in Alexandria about the demolishing of an Idol Temple were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m Lib. 5. c. 15. which in Sozomen is but many n Lib. 7. c. 15. and another antient Author sayes there were innumerable Bishops in Africa which yet this Gentleman can easily count and tells us that Schismaticks and all were but 466 o Pag. 131 M. B. may allow him what he falls short in this reckoning which is more than half and may grant there were many more hundreds of Christians in Rome than any of these innumerables come to and yet make good what he supposes The great liberality of the Roman Church is offered as no small argument of its greatness they sent to a great many Churches releiving those that were in want and sending necessaries to such as were condemned to the Mines thus in Severus's time and in the time of Dionysius the Provinces of Syria with Arabia were thereby relieved every one pag. 53. M. B. need not doubt but some one Parish near him might do what is equivalent to this if the antient Charity were revived which opened the hearts of Christians in those times further than their Purses could well extend But the words are odly stretched for they did not relieve every one in all those places but such as were in great want and those particularly who were condemned to the Mines and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must denote as it were the alsufficiency of the Roman Church which some would say is as it were Blasphemy but our Author meant better the proper import of the word is no more than stipem conferre He alledges two passages in Eusebius p Pag. 54. the former concerns not Rome more than any other place in the Empire the import of it is this not that every soul of every sort but that many of all sorts were lead to the Christian Religion if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be stretched to every soul Eusebius is made to speak what is in a manner notoriously false and monstrously extravagant The later which concerns Rome does but signify that more of Good quality for Riches and Birth with their Families and Relatives came over for Salvation q Lib. 5. c. 21. These he will have to be of the Nobility but those were counted noble who descended from such as had been Magistrates in Cities or free Towns How this can make that Church near so great as our Author would have it or greater than M. B. supposes I don't understand What he subjoyns is very surprizing and must seem Pag. 54. strange to those who are acquainted with the state of Church in those times that the Christians were the better half of the Roman Empire that they were the major part every where but in Rome more eminently This hath no good warrant from antient Authors no not from Tertullian though he writ many years after Commodus He like an Oratour draws something bigger than the life as our Author sayes of Nazianzen pag. 137. and must have allowance on this account by those who will not be injurious to him In that very Age wherein Commodus reigned it is said the Christians were so often slaughtered that few could be sound in Rome who professed the name of Christ r Platina vâ—â— Xysti And near 150 years after when Constantine had reigned near 20 years in Rome the generality of the Inhabitants shewed such disaffection to Christianity as that is given for one reason why he transferred the seat of the Empire to Byzantium Å¿ Zosimus Hist l. 2. p. 61. He runs beyond M. B's bounds towards the middle of the third Century and tells us the greatest part of Alexander Severus his Family were Christians And so they might be and yet no more Christians in Rome for that if they were Christians before they came into his family which is more likely than that they were
special charge This was the particular Church under his personal Government but he was not Ruler of the Precinct or any other Churches in it save only in common and in conjunction with the other Presbyters who jointly took cognizance of what in his Church or theirs was of greater or more general consequence and concerned the whole and gave order in it by common consent And while this was the form of Government if there had been as many Churches there thus associated as Optatus in the fourth age says there was at Rome or far more they could not make a Diocesan Church unless a Diocesan and a Presbyterian Church be all one For this is plainly a Presbyterian Church the antient Presbyteries differing from the modern but in a matter of smaller moment In those their President being fixed and constant in these commonly though not always circular The Presbyteries in Scotland comprized some twelve some twenty some more Churches their Moderators were at first and for some years circular King James afterwards Anno 1606 d Hist p. 559. would have them to be constant and so it was ordered yet when they were fixed no man ever counted these Presbyteries to be Diocesan Churches The Church of Geneva consists of twenty four Parishes governed in common by a Presbytery with a Moderator who is sometimes changed sometimes continued for Life Calvin was President while he lived yet that of Geneva is not wont to be taken for a Diocesan Church Nor were those antient Churches such while they were governed not by one Bishop but by a Senate of Presbyters where he presided as in the Council of Constantinople all things in the Province are said to be governed not by the Metropolitan but by the Provincial Synod e Can. 2. Soc. l. 5. cap. 8. Finally the Presbyters are in the antient Church acknowledged to have had the power of the keys both as to the ministration of the Word and Sacraments and the exercise of Government and censures This power they exercised either jointly in conjunction with the Bishop and Senate of Presbyters or distinctly in the particular Churches whereof they had the charge The former power concerning the Word and Sacraments is not questioned nor is there any ground to question the latter if some were not swayed more by the practice of their own times than the principles and declarations of the antients Chrysostom ascribes to Presbyters not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power of order but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power of Government f giving this as the reason why the In 1 Tim. Iom 11. Apostle gives the same rules for the ordering both of Bishops and Presbyters there is but little difference betwixt them says he for they are ordained both to the teaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ruling of the Church Now that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes jurisdiction or presidentiam cum potestate and is as Hesychius renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is plain in Chrysostome himself he tells us the Apostle Paul had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g In 1 Cor. Hom. 23. Hom 25. which he elsewhere expresses by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h In 2 Cor. Hom. 25. and speaking of Moses he says it was wonderful that he who was to be a Ruler 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be born at such a time i In Act. Hom. 16. Theophilact makes the difference as little between Bishop and Presbyters and ascribes as much power to the later almost in the same words k In 1 Tim. So Theodoret declares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jurisdiction to belong to every Presbyter l In 1 Tim. 5. 19. against an Elder especially no less than two Witnesses must be admitted because he having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Government of the Church and in the exercise of it often grieving Delinquents they being ill affected to him will be apt to bring false accusations And this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 included in the Presbyters Office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nazzanzen speaks and much more to that purpose m Orat. 1. And besides many other passages of like import the Title of Governours is all a long in antient Writers given to Presbyters and all the expressions which signifie Authority and Government are ascribed to them Thereby those that would curtail their power and make it no more of old than it is now are not a little encumbred to extricate themselves a distinction is devised of a power internal and external the former they will allow to Presbyters in their respective Churches not the later But this is devised to disentangle themselves and salve the deviations and irregularities of later times not that there is any ground for it in Antiquity For the highest act of that external power of jurisdiction is Excommunication and if this was in the Presbyters power of old no other act of that power will or can in reason be denied them but this the antients ascribe to them So Jerome n Ad Heliodorum Mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet illi si peccavero licet me tradere satanae ad interritum carnis ut spiritus salvus sit Chrysostome threatned some of his Auditory while he was a Presbyter to Excommunicate them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o Hom. 17. in Matth. to wave all of like nature insisted on by others Justinian in the 6th Age signifies plainly that not only Bishops but Presbyters might Excommunicate Offenders in his Constitutions he forbids Bishops and Presbyters to exclude any from Communion till such cause was declared for which the Canons appointed it to be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and will have the sentence of Excommunication rescinded which was passed by Bishops or Presbyters without cause p Novel 123. c. 11. In the Code both Bishops and Clergy are forbid to Excommunicate in certain cases and then mentions the cases for which they must not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although they had been accustomed to it q Lex 39 Sec. 2. Tit. de Episc Clericis Now while Presbyters had this power there could be no Diocesan Churches whether they exercised it in common as was shewed before or particularly in their several Churches as will now be made apparent For by virtue of these powers the Presbyters were really Bishops though they had not alwayes the Title yea they are called Bishops as a Learned Prelatist observes by the antientest Authors Clemens Ignatius Tertullian r Thornd Prim. Govern Pag. 73. 74. and have frequently the Names and Titles which some would appropriate to Bishops and which the Fathers use to express the Office of Bishops by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praepositi Antistites Praesidentes ſ Idem service Pag. 68. c. And so there was as many Bishops really in every Diocese as there were particular Churches and Presbyters there And well may they be said to be really the same since
their was not near so many this Gentleman is concerned to maintain there was not one thousand in the whole Christian World This is more than enough to shew that there is sufficient warrant to Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thousands more than once though that it is in that discourse which he stiles a little Pamphlet so translated more then once is another of his mistakes And a third all in two lines is that the Author grounds his Argument on it Whereas those that view the passage and the occasion of it will see it had been more for his advantage to have translated it ten thousands He that can allow himself to write at this rate may easily be voluminous and look too big to be despised as a writer of little Pamphlets The Letter mentioned pag. 45. being communicated to me by M. B. that part of it which concerns Alexandria is here added that it may appear how much it is mistaken and how farr from being answered For Alexandria it was the greatest City in the Empire next to Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Josephus de bello Judaic lib. 5. c. cult And Epiphanius gives an account of many Churches in it assigned to several Presbyters viz. besides Caesarea finished by Athanasius that of Dionysius Theonas Pierius Serapion Perseas Dizia Mundidius Annianus Baucalas adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haeres 69. page 728 This notwithstanding that the Christians at Alexandria which held Communion with Athanasius might and did meet together in one Church he himself declares expresly in his Apology to Constantius page 531. Tom. 1. Edit Commelin Anno 1601. The whole passage is too large to transcribe or translate this is the sence of it He being accused for assembling the People in the great Church before it was dedicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes this part of his defence The confluence of the People at the Paschal solemnity was so great that if they had met in several assemblies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other Churches were so little and strait that they would have been in danger of suffering by the crowd nor would the universal harmony and concurrence of the People have been so visible and effectual if they had met in parcels Therefore he appeals to him whether it was not better for the whole multitude to meet in that great Church being a place large enough to receive them altogether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to have a concurrence of all the people with one voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if says he according to our Saviviours promise where two shall agree as touching any thing it shall be done for them of my Father c. How prevalent will be the one voice of â—â— numerous a People assembled together and saying Amen to God Who therefore would not wonder who would not count it a happiness to see so great a People met together in one place And how did the people rejoice to behâ—ld one another whereas formerly they assembled in several places Hereby it is evident that in the middle of the fourth Age all the Christians at Alexandria which were wont at other times to meet in several assemblies were no more than one Church might and did contain so as they could all join at once in the Worship of God and concurre in one Amen He tells him also that Alexander his Predecessor who died An. 325 did as much as he in like circumstances viz. assembled the whole multitude in one Church before it was dedicated pag. 532. This seems clear enough but being capable of another kind of proof which may be no less satisfactory let me add that also This City was by Strabo his description of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like a Soldiers Coat whose length at either side was almost 3â— Furlongs its breadth at either end 7 or 8 urlongs Geogr. lib. 17. pag. 546. so the whole compass will be less than ten Miles A third or fourth part of this was taken up with publick Buildings Temples and Royal Palaces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. two Miles and half or three and a quarter is thus disposed of I take this to be that Region of the City which Epiphanius calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he tells us was the famous Library of Ptolomeus Philadelphus and speaks of it in his time as destitute of Inhabitants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Ponder mensur n. 9. p. 166 A great part of the City was assigned to the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Strabo indefinitely as Josephus quotes him Antiquit. Jud. l. 14. c. 12. Others tells us more punctually their share was two of the five divisions Ushers Annals Latin pag. 859. Though many of them had their habitation in the other divisions yet they had two fifth parts entire to themselves and this is I suppose the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Josephus saith the Successors of Alexander set apart for them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bello Jud. l. 2. cap. 21. Thus we see already how 6 or 7 miles of the 10 were taken up The greatest part of the Citizens as at Rome and other Cities in the beginning of the 4th Age were Heathens Otherwise Antonius wrong'd the City who iâ— Athanasius's time is brought in thus exclaiming by Jerom. vit Paul p. 243. Vae tibi Alexandria quae pro Deo portenta veneraris vae tibi civitas mereâ—â—ix in quam totius orbis daemonia confluxere c. a Charge thus formed supposes the prevailing party to be guilty But let us suppose them equa and their proportion half of the 3 or 4 miles remaining Let the rest be divided amongst the Orthodox the Arrians the Novatians and other Sects And if we be just a large part will fall to the share of Hereticks and Sectaries For not to mention others the Novatians had several Churches and a Bishop there till Cyrils time vid. Socrat. Hist l. 7. c. 7. The Arians were a great part of those who professed Christianity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. Hist l. 1. c. 14. and if we may judge of the followers by their leaders no loss than half For whereas there were 19 Presbyters and Deacons in that Church Theod. Hist l. 4. c. 23. 12 was the number of their Presbyters by their Antient Constitution as appears by Eutychius and 7 their Deacons as at Rome and elsewhere 6 Presbyters with Arius and 5 Deacons fell off from the Catholicks Sozom. Hist l. 1. c. 14. But let the â—rians be much fewer yet will not the proportion of the Catholick Bishops Diocese iâ— this City be more than that of a small Town one of 8 or 12 Furlongs in compass And so the numbers of the Christians upon this account will be no more than might well meet for Worship in one place FINIS