Diocesan Churches Not Yet Discovered in Primitive Times, Text (2 of 3)

Diocesan Churches Not Yet Discovered in Primitive Times · Text (2 of 3)

p. 39The next thing he takes notice of is the defence of Mr. Baxter's Allegation out of Athanaſius, to ſhew, that all the Chriſtians of Alexandria (M. B's words are, the main body of the Chriſtians in Alexandria) could meet in one Church.

It is to be confeſſed that the expreſſions of that Father ſeem to favour him, foreign and that the Church did foreign hold all, &c.

I am made more confident by all that is ſaid to the contrary, that the evidence is really ſuch, as will need no favour, if it can meet with Juſtice.

Now ſuppoſe that all the Chriſtians in Alexandria, the Catholicks at leaſtwiſe, could meet together in that great Church, yet all the Dioceſs could not.

All that was undertaken to be proved by the paſſage in queſtion, was, that the main body of Christians in Alexandria adhereing to Athanaſius could, and did meet in that one Church. If this be granted nothing is denied that he intended to prove. As for a Dioceſs in the p. 40Countrey, if he will ſhew us what, or where it was, and that it had no other Biſhop in it, he will do ſomething that may be conſidered; yet nothing at all againſt what this Teſtimony was made uſe of to evince.

He ſayes 2dly, Suppoſe this great great Church could receive all the multitude, yet if that multitude was too great for Perſonal Communion it is inſignificant.

Upon this ſuppoſition it might be too great for an ordinary meeting in the Congregational way, yet not big enough for a Dioceſan Church. But the ſuppoſition is groundleſs and contradicts Athanaſius who ſayes they had Perſonal Communion, they all prayed together, and did not only meet within the Walls, but concurred in the worſhip, and ſaid, Amen.

He ſayes 3dly, Before the Church of Alexandria met in diſtinct Congregations, but we are told that thoſe places were very ſmall, ſhort and ſtrait places.

All theſe ſave one, I ſaid, which he ought not to have omitted. And they were ſo ſmall, becauſe thoſe who were wont to meet in them ſeverally, ſo as to fill them, could all meet in one Church, and did ſo as Athanaſius declares.

But that they were ſuch Chappels or Churches, as ſome of our Pariſhes in England have as great a number as Alexandria, is hardly credible.

I know not how thoſe places could be well expreſſed with more diminution than Athanaſius hath done it, he ſayes they were not only ſtrait and ſmall, but the very ſmallest. If he will make it appear that our Churches or Chappels are leſs than thoſe that were foreign, I ſhall underſtand that which I could never before, that ſomething is leſs than that which is least of all. But he will prove they were not ſo ſmall, becauſe firſt the Church of Alexandria was very numerous from the beginning. p. 41Why it ſhould be counted ſo very numerous from the beginning, I know no reaſon, but the miſtake of an Hiſtorian who will have a Sect of the Jews (which was numerous in or about Alexandria) to be Chriſtians.

And if they met all in one place it muſt conſequently be very large.

The ground of the conſequence is removed, Valeſius his own Author ſayes they had but one Church to meet in, in Dionyſius his time, almoſt 3 Ages from the beginning ggpag. 64. If that one was large, yet it is not like that it ſtood till Athanaſius his time; after ſo many Edicts for demoliſhing of all Chriſtian Churches, and a ſevere Execution of them in Diocletian's Perſecution.

Nor is it likely they ſhould divide till they were grown too numerous for the biggeſt Meeting-place they could conveniently have.

It is as likely as that Athanaſius ſpeaks truth, in a matter which he perfectly knew; he tells us they did divide, and yet were not too numerous for one great Church, in which they met conveniently too; yea, better than when diſperſed in thoſe little places, as he ſayes and proves, foreign, &c.

2dly, He ſayes, Though before the Empire was converted they might be confined to little places, and forced to meet ſeverally; yet after Conſtantine became Chriſtian, it is not likely that the Alexandrians would content themſelves with ſmall and ſtrait Chappels.

Nor did they content themſelves with thoſe little ones, for beſides this built in Athanaſius his time, there was one greater than thoſe ſmall ones finiſhed in Alexander's time, where the body of Catholicks aſſembled with Alexander, the other places being too ſtrait, foreign, this is that one I excepted, when I ſaid (after Athanaſius) that the reſt, all ſave one, were exceeding ſmall. But is it any proof that theſe were not p. 42very ſmall which Athanaſius repreſents as ſuch, becauſe there was one (expreſly excepted from that number) ſomething larger? As for what he adds, that then every ordinary City, built very great and magnificent Cathedrals, it is eaſily ſaid, but will never be proved.

3dly, Some of theſe Churches had been built with a deſign of receiving as many as well could have perſonal Communion in Worſhip together.

Neither will this hold, unleſs ſome of thoſe Churches could have received all, which had Perſonal Communion with Athanaſius in this greateſt Church; which he denies, and makes uſe of to Conſtantius as a plea why he made uſe of the greateſt.

As Theonas is ſaid by Athanaſius to have built a Church bigger than any of thoſe they had before.

Where Theonas is ſaid by Athanaſius to have built a Church, &c. I find not, nor does he direct us where it may be found, I ſuppoſe for very good Reaſon. Indeed Athanaſius in this Apology ſpeaks of a Church called Theonas (it's like in memory of a former Biſhop of that place) where he ſayes the multitude of Catholicks met with Alexander, foreign; in like Circumſtances, as a greater multitude aſſembled with himſelf in the new Church, which was greater, and pleads Alexander's example in defence of what he did. But Theonas could not build this Church, for he was dead many years before, being Predeceſſour to Peter whom Achillas and Alexander ſucceeded hhEuſeb. l. 7. c. ult. Theodoret …. 1. c. 2..

And yet this and all the reſt were but few and ſtrait in compariſon of the great multitude of Catholicks that were in Alexandria.

I expected another Concluſion, but if this be all, he might have ſpared the premiſſes; for one part of it we aſſert, the other we need not deny, only adding with Athanaſius, that the greateſt Church was capable foreign, of receiving this great multitude.

p. 43But here he ſticks, and will wriggle a little more, But I conceive, ſayes he, after all this, that the expreſſions of Athanaſius do not conclude that all the Chriſtians in Alexandria were met in this great Church.

That all and every one did come, was never imagined. It is but the main body of the Catholicks that M. B. intends, as our Author obſerves a little before.

For the tumultuous manner in which they came to their Biſhop to demand a general Aſſembly, makes it probable that not only Women and Children, would be glad to abſent themſelves, but many more, either apprehenſive of the effect of this tumultuous proceeding, or of the danger of ſuch a crowd.

The Women he will not admit; but was it ever known that ſuch a great and ſolemn Aſſembly for Worſhip conſiſted only of Men? Were not the Women in Communion with Athanaſius's Chriſtians, that they muſt be left out, when he ſayes all the Catholicks met? Can all be truly ſaid to aſſemble when the farr greater part (Women, Children and his many more) were abſent? Are not the Women in the Primitive Church often noted for ſuch Zeal for the Worſhip of Chriſt, as made them contemn far greater dangers, than here they had any cauſe to be apprehenſive of? The ſuppoſed danger was either from the Crowd or the Tumult. For the former, did the Women and many more never come to Chriſtian Aſſemblies, when there was any danger of being crowded? I think there was as great danger from a crowd in Baſiliſcus his Reign, when the whole City of C. P. is ſaid to have met together in a Church with the Emperour, but yet the Women ſtayed not behind but crowded in with the men, as Theodorus Lector reports it, foreign iiCollect. lib. 1▪. Beſides Athanaſius here ſignifies the danger of a crowd was in the leſſer Churches, (not in this) p. 44where they could not meet but foreign, and ſo drefers their aſſembling together in the great Church as better.

As for the Tumults (which might have been concealed in a Vindication of the primitive Church) if there was any thing tumultuous, it was over when Athanaſius had complyed with their deſires to meet in the great Church. And ſo no apprehenſion of danger left to women, or any elſe, upon this account.

And even thoſe that did aſſemble there were too many for one Congregation, and was an aſſembly more for Solemnity and Oſtentation than for Perſonal Communion in Worſhip, and the proper ends of a religious Aſſembly.

Here he runs as croſs, to the great Athanaſius and the account which he gives of this Aſſembly as if he had ſtudied it, debaſing that as more for Oſtentation than for Perſonal Communion in Worſhip, and the proper ends of a Religious Aſſembly, which Athanaſius highly commends both for the more deſirable communion which the Chriſtians had there in Worſhip, and for the greater efficacy of it as to the proper ends of a Religious Aſſembly. Let any one view the paſſages kkApol. 2. p. 531. 532.and judge. He ſets forth the harmony, and concurrence of the multitude in worſhip with one voice. He preferrs it before their aſſemblies, when diſperſed in little places, and not only becauſe the unanimity of the multitude was herein more apparent, but becauſe God would ſooner hear them, foreign. For if, ſayes he, according to our Saviour's promiſe, where two ſhall agree concerning anything it ſhall be done for them by my Father, &c. how prevalent will be the one voice of ſo numerous a people, aſſembled together and ſaying Amen to God? and more to that purpoſe, by which we may perceive, Athanaſius being Judge, how true is it that this Aſſembly was more for p. 45Solemnity and Oſtentation, than for Perſonal Communion in Worſhip and the proper ends of a Religious Aſſembly. And thus much to let us ſee through the Arts uſed to cloud a clear paſſage alledged out of Athanaſius; if M. B. had betaken himſelf to ſuch little deviſes, in like Circumſtances; our Author would have taken the Liberty to tell him, that he was driven to hard Shifts.

Before we leave Alexandria I am to take notice of what is ſaid by our Author, to part of a Letter writ by a Friend to M. B. concerning this City and the number of Chriſtians therein in Conſtantius his time. The Writer of it obſerves a groſs abuſe put upon him in the Vindicator's Anſwer to it, and deſires his defence may be here inſerted. It contains an argument to confirm what was concluded from th… paſſage in Athanaſius here inſiſted on, that the Catholicks then could meet in one place. After that paſſage and to this purpoſe M. B. introduced it, as is very apparent llChurch Hist. pag. 9. 10.. This our Author ſeems to obſerve when he begins with it; he adds, ſayes he, to this of Athanaſius (the very paſſage mentioned) another argument given him by a learned Friend mmPag: 58.. And after he hath done with it nnPag. 63., becauſe M. B. has endeavoured to repreſent the Church of Alexandria ſo inconſiderable even in Conſtantius his dayes, &c. And yet, how it comes to paſs I know not, it is quite out of his thoughts while he is examining it. He was ſo haſty for confuting, that he ſtaies not to take notice what he was to confute, though the intent of it be moſt plain and obvious, both by the occaſion and words of the Letter: But Forces that ſenſe on it, and makes that the deſign of it; which I was far from thinking, would ever come into any man's Fancy, when he was awake. The words of the Letter are theſe; The City of Alexandria, ſayes Strabo, is like a Soldiers Cloak, &c. and by computation about ten miles in compaſs, a 3d. or 4th. part of this was taken up with p. 46publick buildings, Temples and Royal Palaces; thus is two miles and an half or three and a quarter taken up. He anſwers, I will not ſay this learned friend hath impoſed on M. B. but there is a very great miſtake betwixt them.

But the miſtake is his own, and ſuch a one, as I wonder how he could fall into it. He takes it for granted, that the Argument is brought to prove what Chriſtians Alexandria had in Strabo's time. Here is not the leaſt occaſion given for this, unleſs the citing of Strabo ſhewing the dimenſions of that City: but Primate Ʋſher is quoted too, on the ſame account; and ſo as much reaſon to fancy the deſign was to ſhew what Chriſtians Alexandria had in the Primate's time. Jcrome, Epiphanius, Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen are alſo cited there; why could not theſe as well lead him to the right Age, which their words plainly point at, without the leaſt glance at any Age before, as Strabo alone (cited without any reſpect to the time when he writ) ſo far miſlead him? Nay, the 4th. age is expreſly mentioned in the Letter; and the numerouſneſs of the Novatians and Arians in Alexandria at the time intended, is inſiſted on; could he think any man ſo ſtupid, that had but the leaſt acquaintance with thoſe things, as to ſpeak of Arians, and Novatians in Strabo's time? But it may be, though I would hope better, our Examiner was too inclinable to fix an abſurd thing upon the Writer of the Letter; that he might be excuſed, from giving a better anſwer when it was not ready.

But let us hear what he ſayes to it; yet what can be expected to be ſaid by one who makes his own dream the Foundation of his Diſcourſe? However let us try if we can find any one clauſe that is true and pertinent in the whole, and begin with the beſt of it.

Though Strabo ſayes that Temples and great Palaces took up a 4th. or a 3d. of the City, yet our Examiner p. 47will have us think there might be inhabitants there; when Epiphanius ſayes, as I cited him, that part was foreign, deſtitute of Inhabitants, ſo he tells us Bruchium was. The Examiner denies not Bruchium to be that Region of the City which Strabo ſayes, was taken up with Publick Buildings, but adds, what all the publick buildings of the Town in one Region? But who ſaid all the Publick Buildings? This is his own fancy ſtill.

And that an outer skirt too, as it is deſcribed by the Greek Martyrology in Hillarion, &c.

If he mean it was not a Part or Region of the City Strabo and Epiphanius will have Credit before a story out of the Greek Martyrology, or him that tells it, when it appears not in the words cited. In Strabo it is foreign part of the City, in Epiphanius it is a Region, foreign. For as Rome was divided into 14 Regions, and de pond. ut mens p. 166.C. P. in imitation of it, ſo Alexandria was divided into 5, whereof Bruchium was one, and the greateſt of all. So I underſtand Ammianus Marcellinus, who upon the loſs of Bruchium ſaith, amiſit regionum maximam parteni quae Bruchium apellatur; Alexandria loſt the greateſt of its Regions, which was called Bruchium.

This Epiphanius ſayes was deſtitute of Inhabitants in his time, and not unlikely, and perhaps deſtitute of Publick Buildings too, for it was deſtroyed after an obſtinate ſiege in the Reign of Aurelian as Ammianus Marcellinus, or of Claudius as Euſebius.

When he hath granted all that I deſigned, that this part was deſtitute of Inhabitants, and more too, that it was deſtroyed, yet he would have the City no leſs, no neceſſity of this, ſayes he, ſure we are not yet awake? can a City looſe foreign, in the Hiſtorian's words, a 4th. yea, or a third part of its largeneſs, and yet not be ſo much the leſs? He hath nothing to ſalve this, but it may be, and it might be, p. 48groundleſs ſurmiſes, without either reaſon or authority.

They might inlarge upon another quarter, being it may be forbid to build Bruchium—they might dwell cloſer than before, and ſo their multitude be undiminiſht.

How far it is from being true, that their multitude was undiminiſht; and how needleſs either to inlarge—or to dwell cloſer, may ſoon appear. The multitude muſt needs be much diminiſhed in ſuch a War, and a cloſe ſiege of many years continuance, for ſo it is reported both by Euſebius and Jerome; and it was much waſted in Chronic.and in a conſumptive condition, before it was thus beſieged and diſmantled by Claudius 2. or Aurelian.

It was greatly diminiſhed in numbers by Caracalla who Maſſacred a great part of the Inhabitants. Herodian ſayes, foreign, &c. the ſlaughter was ſuch that with the ſtreams of bloud, which ran from the place, not only the vaſteſt outlets of Nilus, but the Sea, all along the Shore of Alexandria was diſcoloured ooHiſt. Lib. 4.. Towards the latter end of the third Age, Dionyſius gives an account of the ſtrange diminution of the Alexandrians ppIn Euſeb. lib. 7. cap. 22., ſignifying that in former daies the elderly men were more numerous, than in his time, both young and old, comprizing all from infancy, to extream old age, foreign.

However certain it is, that this City long after the deſtruction of Bruchium, retained its ancient Greatneſs; and is repreſented by no Author as diminiſht either in Number or Wealth.

This is certain no otherwiſe than the former, i. e. quite the wrong way. For not long after the deſtruction of Bruchium, in the Egyptian War made by Diocletian upon Achilleus, which Euſebius, Eutropius and others mention: It was greatly diminiſht both in numbers and wealth. For Alexandria after a long ſiege, was taken by force p. 49and plundred, great Execution done upon the Citizens, and the Walls of the Town demoliſhed.

A great part of the City (ſayes the Letter) was aſſigned to the Jews, ſo Strabo indefinitely as Joſephus quotes him, others tell us more punctually, that their ſhare was two of the five diviſions; though many of them had their habitations in the other diviſions, yet they had two 5th. parts intire to themſelves; and this is I ſuppoſe the foreign which Joſephus ſayes the Succeſſors of Alexander, ſet apart for them; thus we ſee how 6 or 7 miles of the 10 are diſpoſed of. To this he ſayes, The number of thoſe Jews was much leſſened within a little while after Strabo by an inſurrection of the Alexandrians againſt them.

I ſuppoſe he means by that ſlaughter of them which Joſephus mentions qqDe Bello Judaic. l. 2. c. 21., where 50000 were deſtroyed; but what were theſe to the vaſt number of Jews in Egypt, which Philo rrLegat. ad Caium.ſayes amounted to no leſs than a million?

The civil Wars afterwards under Trajan and his Succeſſor had almoſt extirpated them.

It was in Palestine where theſe Tragedies were acted, and was ſo far from extinguiſhing them in Egypt or Alexandria, that thereby, in all probability; their numbers were there increaſed; for being diveſted of about 1000 Towns and Garriſons by Severus (Adrian's General) as Dion reports, and forbidden all acceſs to Jeruſalem as Aristo Pelleus in Euſebius ſſLib. 4. cap. 6., this made other places more deſireable, thoſe particularly where they might have good entertainment as they were wont to have at Alexandria, and what Dion Chryſostome ſayes, confirms it.

But all this which he ſayes, if there were truth in it, is impertinent; for the Letter is not concerned what Jews were there near Strabo or Adrian's time, but in p. 50the fourth Age. Yet this is all that he hath to ſay to the reſt of the Letter, beſides the publiſhing and repeating of his own miſtake, and upon no other ground making himſelf ſport with the Writer of it.

Thus he begins, by the ſame rule he might have diſpoſed of all at once, and concluded out of Strabo's diviſion of the Town, that there was not one Chriſtian in it: and repeats it thrice in the ſame Page, No matter what number of Jews or Heathens it had in Strabo's dayes—, it is kindly done to provide for Chriſtians before they were in being, ſurely Strabo, who makes the diſtribution, never intended the Chriſtians one foot of ground in all that diviſion, and this learned Friend might have ſpared his little Town of 8 or 10 Furlongs, which he ſo liberally beſtows upon the Biſhop of Alexandria, before our Saviour was born—, and he is at it again ſeveral times in the following diſcourſe ttPag. 69. 94..

How deſirable a thing is it to have M. B. and his Friend render'd ridiculous? when rather than it ſhall not be done, our Examiner will publiſh his own indiſcretion ſo many times over to effect it. But I will forbear any ſharper reflections upon this Author, for taking him to be an ingenuous Perſon, I may expect he will be ſevere upon himſelf, when he diſcerns his errour; which I doubt not but he will ſee clearly by once more reading that Letter.

Next he would diſprove M. B's repreſentation of the Church of Alexandria in Constantius's time, by giving a view of that Churches greatneſs from the firſt Foundation of it uuPag. 61.; which becauſe it may concern the Letter duly underſtood, I ſhall take ſome notice of it very briefly. But there is ſomething interpoſed, between this and the Letter, which requires ſome obſervance; there we may have an inſtance of this Gentleman's ſeverity upon M. B. and how reaſonable it is; His remark, ſayes he, upon two Biſhops living quietly in Alexandria is ſo p. 51diſingenuous a ſuggeſtion, that he hath reaſon to be aſham'd of it.

But what is there in this ſo diſingenuous and ſhameful? Does not Epiphanius ſay this, and our Examiner acknowledge it bbpag. 107.? Ay, but M. B. means that there were not only two Biſhops, but their diſtinct Churches in this City. Well, and does not Epiphanius give him ſuffici-ground for it? Does he not tell us that Meletius made Biſhops, who had their foreign in every place where he came? Does he not ſignifie that the Meletians in Alexandria had their diſtinct Churches or Meetings both in the time of Alexander and Athanaſius? ſayes he not particularly of Meletius that being familiar with Alexander he ſtayed long in that City, having foreign a diſtinct Meeting with thoſe of his own Party? Were there not innumerable Cities in that Age which had two Biſhops and their Churches, ſome three or four at once (thoſe of the Arians, the Donatiſts, the Novatians, the Meletians, &c. beſides thoſe who were ſtyled Catholicks) Would this Gentleman take it well if M. B. ſhould tell him, that he who denies this is diſingenuous if he know it, and hath ſome reaſon to be aſhamed if he know it not? Ay, but Epiphanius was deceived in this account of the Meletians, and miſ-repreſents them. Indeed our Examiner makes as bold with Epiphanius (a Biſhop of great Zeal and Holineſs, a Metropolitan, a famous Writer (as he does with M. B. charging him with much weakneſs (as one eaſily impoſed upon) many overſights, groſs miſtakes, diverſe abſurd things, and ſuch stories, that he will ſcarce wiſh worſe to his Adverſary, than to believe him ccPag. 112. 113. &c.. Nor does Epiphanius alone fall under his cenſure in his Vindication of the Primitive Church (as he calls it) he goes near to accuſe more particular Perſons (Biſhops amongſt others) of eminency in the antient Church, than he defends; ſo that one p. 52may ſuſpect his deſign was, not ſo much to defend eminent Biſhops, as great Biſhopricks ſuch as the antient Church had none, and to run croſs to M. B. more than to vindicate any.

In St. Mark's time Alexandria had ſeveral Churches, though but one Biſhop, &c ddEuſeb. l. 2 c. 16.

What Euſebius ſayes of Churches in Alexandria at that time, is grounded upon a miſtake, as appears, becauſe immediately after the words cited, he adds, ſo great was the multitude of Beleivers at Mark's firſt attempt there, that Philo in his writings thought fit to give an account of them, foreign. Euſebius conceived that the Eſſenes, as Scaliger, or the Therapeutae, as Valeſius, whom Philo deſcribes, were the Chriſtians of Mark's Converſion; and there being Aſſemblies of that Sect of the Jews in Philo's time, the Hiſtorian ſpeaks of Chriſtian Churches at Alexandria in Mark's time; but thoſe who believe that he erred in the former, can have no reaſon to give him credit in the latter. Our Examiner does not deny that he was miſtaken, but ſayes, it is not material whether they were Jews or Chriſtians; yet thoſe who inquire after Truth ſincerely, will think it material; and little value a Teſtimony which hath no better ground than a miſtake.

The next is no better eePag. 62., that is an Epiſtle of Adrian, which others are puzzled to make ſenſe of, or ſuch ſenſe as can have any appearance of Truth. That very paſſage in it, which is the only ground of our Author's Argument, himſelf acknowledges to be falſe; for he would ſhew the Chriſtians in Alexandria to be numerous enough for his purpoſe, becauſe it is there ſaid that ſome (whom he takes to be Chriſtians) did force the Patriarch (whoever he be) to worſhip Chriſt, and yet adds, there is no doubt but Adrian does the Chriſtians wrong in this point, for they never forced any to their p. 53Religion. Will he have us to rely upon reaſonings, which have no better Foundation, than what is undoubtedly falſe by his own Confeſſion? He ſayes alſo it is not material to our purpoſe whether this Patriarch were Biſhop of Alexandria, or chief Governour of the Jews. If ſo, then it is not material with this Gentleman, either to argue from that which is not true, or elſe from that which is nothing to his purpoſe. For if this Patriarch was the Biſhop of Alexandria, that they forced him to worſhip Chriſt, is not true, he did it of his own accord: and if it be not one, who was no Chriſtian, that they forced; then is not any thing in this paſſage to his purpoſe, and Adrian's Epiſtle might have been waved as a meer impertinency.

That which follows ffPag. 63., hath not the ſhew of a reaſon, the great Catechiſts of Alexandria, as Pantenus, Clemens, Origen and Heracles, did not a little advance the growth of Chriſtian Religion in that place, &c.

Muſt there needs be a Dioceſan Church there becauſe the Catechiſts did advance Religion not a little?

The next concerning Dionyſius his Church meeting at Chebron (Cephro it ſhould be) and Coluthio, is already fully anſwered, as it is offered with better improvement than our Examiner gives it ggNo Evidence for pag. 35, 36.. It cannot eaſily be apprehended how a larger Church meeting with Dionyſius, made up of thoſe baniſhed with him, and others from ſeveral parts of Egypt, at Cephro, a Village in Lybia, a diſtinct Province; ſhould prove that he had a Dioceſan Church in Alexandria, to any, but thoſe who are very inclinable to believe it without proof. Nor will others underſtand that Dionyſius is better proved to be a Dioceſan by the Chriſtians which came from Alexandria to Coluthio in Mareotes; (there being none there beſides) for the Believers in Alexandria it ſelf, were no more than one Church could hold, as Valeſius collects p. 54from this very place to our Examiners regret, Ex hoc loco colligitur, aetate quidem Dionyſii, unicam adhuc fuiſſe Alexandriae Eccleſiam, in quam omnes Ʋrbis illius fideles, Orationis causâ, conveniebant hhNot. in Euſeb. lib. 7. cap. 11..

In the next Paragraph our Examiner argues for the great numbers of Chriſtians at Alexandria, from the multitude of Martyrs at Thebes.

Under the Perſecution of Diocletian what numbers of Chriſtians might be at Alexandria, may be judged by the multitude of Martyrs that ſuffered at Thebes iiPag. 64., &c.

But here he miſtakes Euſebius, who gives an account not of the Martyrs which were foreign, in the City Thebes, but foreign, the Province Thebais: which was half of that large Kingdom, according to the antient diviſion of it into the upper and lower Egypt. The Superiour Egypt was Thebais, the inferiour was called ſometimes the Delta, ſometimes Egypt in a reſtrained ſenſe, and this diviſion in theſe terms we have in Euſebius (to go no further) a little before kkCap. 6., foreign, where he begins his account of the Martyrs in this Countrey. Now if the Chriſtians in that Provice of large extent, and compriſing very many Cities may be concluded to be very numerous from the multitudes of Martyrs which ſuffered there; yet nothing at all can be inferred for any numbers to his purpoſe in the City Thebes, by which he would conclude their numerouſneſs in Alexandria. But if M. B. had miſtaken one City for ſo large a Countrey with multitudes of Cities in it, and made that miſtake the ground of his reaſoning; it is like our Examiner would have expoſed him for it in his Preface, as he does for ſome leſſer matters.

In the following Paragraph llPag. 65., there is a groundleſs ſuppoſition, that the diviſion of Alexandria into Pariſhes was antienter than Arius, there being no mention of it p. 55by any antient Author: as alſo an accuſation of Petavius as miſtaking Epiphanius his words, without any Serm. of Seperation p. 28.cauſe that I can diſcern in thoſe words, though he ſayes, it is plain there. That which he ſayes is plain, the learned Dean of Paul's could not diſcern, but underſtood Epiphanius as Petavius and others did before him. Theſe I took to be preliminaries and expected his Argument, but found it not, unleſs it be couched in the firſt words.

The Diviſion of Alexandria between ſeveral Presbyters, as it were into ſo many Pariſhes, &c.

But this ſignifies nothing for his purpoſe, if thoſe in Alexandria thus divided could all meet in one place, as Athanaſius declares they did; and that ſo plainly that any one will judge ſo, whoſe intereſt is not too hard for his judgment. Valeſius (who had no byaſs unleſs what might lead him the other way) underſtood it as I do; and expreſſes it in theſe words. (deciding the matter ſo long inſiſted on, againſt our Author) Afterwards in the times of Athanaſius, when there were more Churches built by diverſe Biſhops of Alexandria, the Citizens aſſembled in ſeveral Churches ſeverally and in parcels, as Athanaſius ſayes in his Apology to Conſtantius; but on the great Feſtivals, Eaſter and Pentecoſt, no particular aſſemblies were held, ſed 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.

p. 56Valeſius 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 mmPag. 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.

p. 57The 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 foreign nnEuſeb. 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 oopag. 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 ppChron. Euſeb., others in the 3d. of Caligula qqChron. 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, foreign rrAthan. 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 foreign, that it was able to maintain the poor of ten Cities ſſIn Mat: Hom. foreign..

So far the Writer of the Letter. Let me now return to our Author's Preface; To ſhew that the Chriſtians p. 58in 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 uuPag. 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, foreign wwLib. 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 p. 59Biſhops 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 he reckons but 466 Vindic. p. 149.taking in thoſe of the Schiſmaticks too; about 66 for each Province one with another, counting them as he does ſeven:) and the account which others give of their numbers, in the antient Roman Province, the Kingdom of Naples, the Iſland Crete, Ireland, to ſay nothing of Armenia, and other parts of the World.

That which follows, is I ſuppoſe, inſtead of an Anſwer to the other part of my diſcourſe concerning the popular election of Biſhops, which this Gentleman was as much concerned to take notice of, as of the few paſſages he hath touched in the former part, why he did not I will not enquire further, but ſatisfie my ſelf with what is obvious; eſpecially ſince he tells us he intends a diſcourſe of ſuch a Subject. If in this deſigned work he ſatisfies me, that it was not the general practice of the antient Church, for the People to concur in the choice of their Biſhops, he will do me a greater diſpleaſure, than the confutation of what I have writ, or any other that I can fear he intends me; by taking me off from further Converſation with antient Authors, as perſons by whoſe Writings we can clearly know nothing. For if that point be not clear in Antiquity. I can never expect to find any thing there that is ſo.

I intended to conclude this diſcourſe here, without giving the Reader further trouble; but conſidering there are miſapprehenſions about the Subject in queſtion, p. 60thoſe being taken by diverſe, for Dioceſan Churches which indeed are not ſuch, and arguments uſed to prove them ſo which are not competent for that purpoſe, (of which there are many inſtances, as elſewhere ſo particularly in the latter end of this Authors diſcourſe): I thought it requiſite for the rectifying of theſe miſtakes, and to ſhew the inſufficiency or impertinency of ſuch reaſonings, to give an account what mediums cannot in reaſon be eſteemed, to afford competent proof of Dioceſan Churches.

In general, Thoſe who will ſatisfy us that any Churches, in the firſt Ages of Chriſtianity, were Dioceſan, ſhould prove them to be ſuch Dioceſans as ours are, as large or near as large; otherwiſe what they offer, will ſcarce appear to be pertinent. For the riſe of this debate is the queſtion between us, whether the Biſhops of theſe times be ſuch as thoſe in the primitive Church. This we deny, becauſe modern Biſhops will have another ſort of Churches or Dioceſes, than were known in the beſt Ages. Not that we reject all Dioceſes or Dioceſan Churches, for both foreign and foreign are uſed by the Antients for ſuch Churches as we allow. It is thoſe of a later Model, that we approve not, as vaſtly differing from the antient Epiſcopal Churches. The modern Dioceſes, and Churches thence denominated are exceeding great and extenſive, conſiſting of many ſcores, or many hundred particular Churches, whereas for the three firſt Ages we cannot find 3 Biſhops that had two particular Churches in his Dioceſs, nor in the 4th. one in 50 (if I may not ſay one in a hundred) that had more. So that the difference is exceeding great, and more conſiderable in the conſequence thereof, which I had rather give an account of in the words of the very learned D. St. than mine own. Dioceſes generally, ſayes he, in the primitive, and Eaſtern Churches were very ſmall p. 61and little, as far more convenient for this end of them in the Government of the Church under the Biſhops charge xxIren. p. 376., and elſewhere, Diſcipline, ſayes he, was then a great deal more ſtrict, Preaching more diligent, Men more apprehenſive of the weight of their Function, than for any to undertake ſuch a care and charge of Souls, that it was impoſſible for them even to know, obſerve or watch over, ſo as to give an account for them yyPag. 332., Men that were imployed in the Church then did not conſult for their eaſe and honour, and thought it not enough for them to ſit ſtill, and bid others work zzPag. 333.. St. Auſtin ſpeaking of the 3d. Age, makes account of many thouſand Biſhops then in the World aaContra Creſcon. lib. 3.. Our Author ſeems to treat that excellent Perſon ſomething courſely on this occaſion, and goes near to queſtion his judgment or veracity for it, bbPag. 534.ſome may think this not over decently done (to ſay no more) when it is his buſineſs, to vindicate ſome antient Biſhops who need it, to reflect upon one, ſo untainted, as to need none. However ſince he ſayes that Father judged of other Ages by his own, when Dioceſes were exceedingly multiplyed ccPag. 535., we may ſuppoſe he will grant there were many thouſand Biſhops in the 4th. Age. Yet among ſo many thouſand Biſhops I do not expect that any can ſhew me 20 (if I may not ſay 10.) who had ſo many Churches in their Dioceſs, as ſome Pluraliſts amongſt us may have, who yet never pretend to have a Dioceſan Church. Thoſe therefore who will make proof of ſuch Dioceſan Churches as are in queſtion, muſt ſhew us ſome in the primitive times ſomething like ours in largeneſs and extent. Amongſt the inſtances produced for this purpoſe by former or later Writers, I find none any thing near to ours, ſave that only of Theodoret in the 5th. Age. But this in the former Diſcourſe was ſhewed to be ſo inſufficient to ſerve the ends it is alledged for, that I may hope it will be preſt no more for this Service.

p. 62More particularly. 1ſt. It proves not a Church to be Dioceſan becauſe it conſiſts of more than can meet together in one place, for there are Pariſhes in this Land that contain many hundreds or thouſands more than can meet in the Pariſh Church, and yet are but counted ſingle Congregations. Though multitudes in ſuch Churches be far from proving them to be Dioceſan, yet I think two inſtances cannot be given in the third Age of more in one Church than are in ſome ſingle Congregations amongſt us; nor many afterwards, till Arianiſm and Donatiſm were ſuppreſſed; which the latter was not in Africa till after the famous Conference at Carthage, Anno 410; nor the former in other parts during the 4th. Age; for though Theodoſius made ſome ſharp Declarations againſt them and other Hereticks, yet none but the Eunomians were proſecuted, if we believe Socrates ddLib. 5. c. 20.; that Emperour gave not the leaſt trouble to the reſt, forced none to communicate with him, but allowed them their Meetings, and even in C. P. when afterwards the Arians divided among themſelves, each party had ſeveral Congregations in that City eeLib. 5. c. 23.; both that which adhered to Marinus, and that alſo which followed Dorothius, theſe keeping the Churches which they had before and the other erecting new Churches.

I know there are thoſe, who from ſome paſſages in Tertullian ffApol. c. 37. & ad Scapulam., would infer that the Chriſtians in his time were 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 p. 63as 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 ggDefence 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 hhLipſius 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 iiPag. 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 p. 64any 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, foreign kkJoſeph de Bel. Judaic. Lib. 2. cap. 24., whereas the Inhabitants of that City were but about an 120000 foreign, 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, foreign aaIn 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.

p. 65He can't judge that the Scripture ſayes this, but upon a ſuppoſition that the word foreign, 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 bbIn loc., thoſe that were there as strangers ccIn Act. 10. 2.Acts 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 ddIn Exercit. in Act. 2. 5.Acts 2:5, for the word foreign, 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, foreign and foreign 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 foreign is to ſojourn only. In a word foreign and foreign anſwer to the Hebrew Verb foreign which ſignifies any ſtay or remaining in a place. Grotius ſaith it anſwers the Hebrew word which is render'd not only by foreign but foreign, &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. p. 66For it is ſaid ver. 9. they were foreign, 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 inhabitants of thoſe Regions they could not be inhabitants of Jeruſalem, unleſs they could be inhabitants of ſeveral diſtant Countreys at once. To the ſame purpoſe Mr. Mead eeIbid.. foreign, where note by the way, that foreign are comprehended in the number of thoſe whom my Text ſaith were foreign, which confirms my interpretation that foreign there ſignifies ſojourning, and not dwelling; for that they could not be ſaid to dwell in both places.

2. Suppoſe there were ſome of them ſtrangers, &c.

Suppoſe, ſayes this Gentleman, there were ſome of them Strangers? but does any man that underſtands how or by whom thoſe Feaſts were celebrated, ever ſuppoſe that there were not very many thouſands of ſtrangers, ſuch as were not Inhabitants, preſent at thoſe Solemnities? Joſephus (and Euſebius after him) ſayes, there were three millions in the City at the Paſſover, and declares what courſe was taken to give Ceſtius Gallus a certain account of their numbers; but then they were all in a manner ſtrangers, for he adds, foreign, this vaſt multitude conſiſted of Forreigners ffDe bel. Jud. lib. 7. c. foreign.. Yet our Author goes on and confirms himſelf in the former miſtake by another; the verſe he cites to prove them fixed Inhabitants at Jeruſalem is miſunderſtood, the words are foreign, which do not ſignifie any fixed abode in that place, but only their conſtancy or perſevering in the duties mentioned while they were there. This is the uſe of the Expreſſion in p. 67the New Teſtament, Col. 4. 2. foreign, and ſo Rom. 12. 12. Continuing in Prayer, which they might do if they never had a fixed habitation, nor continued as inhabitants in any place. And thus the Evangelist Luke uſes the phraſe in this book of the Acts c. 1. ver. 14. c. 2. 46. c, 6. 4. But our Author I think will never find it uſed in this form for any ſettled or continued abode in a place, and had no reaſon to fancy it here.

He thinks it not probable ggPag. 437.that the zeal and devotion of thoſe Converts would ſuffer them to leave the Apoſtles, whereas it is certain that the Primitive Zeal and Devotion, though it crucified them to the World, yet heightened and improved a Chriſtian care of their Families and the Souls of their Relatives and others. And their zeal for Chriſt, and love to Souls would haſten them homeward, that they migh acquaint their Families and others with Chriſt and the Doctrine of Salvation, as thoſe diſperſed from Jeruſalem did, ch. 8.

The five thouſand mention'd chap. 4. ver. 4. he will have to be a new acceſſion to the three thouſand before Converted, but ſhould not have been ſo poſitive in it without reaſon. Thoſe who are engaged in the ſame cauſe with him (beſides many others) are not of his opinion herein, as they would have been if they had ſeen any ground for it. Dr. Hammond hhIn loc.takes the 5000 to be the number of the Auditory, not of the Converts, Biſhop Downham includes the three thouſand in thoſe five iiDefence l. 2. c. 5. pag. 85., and the Dean of Paul's makes account but of five thouſand in all kkSerm. of Separation Pag. 26.. To me it is not material whether they were 5000 or 8000 or many more, ſeeing there was not the twentieth part of them other than Forreigners, and ſuch as for any thing I can ſee or hear deſigned not to dwell at Jeruſalem, and ſo intended not fix themſelves in that particular Church. There can be no juſt reckoning of the numerouſneſs of a Church, from p. 68an occaſional recourſe of ſtrangers, who inhabit remote parts or forreign Countreys.

If there had been more Chriſtians in the Church of Jeruſalem than could meet in one place, that would be no Evidence that it was a Dioceſan Church, whereas the whole is ſaid in the Acts to meet in one place llAct. 2. 44. 6. 2. &c.Acts 2:44Acts 2:6Acts 2:2. He hath nothing to ſay againſt this which is conſiderable, but that the all, may denote only thoſe that were preſent mmPag. 441., and ſo the ſenſe will be, all that were in one place, were in one place, if this can pleaſe himſelf, I think it will ſatisfie none elſe. Let Dr. Hammond decide this buſineſs, for in ſuch a cauſe we may admit a Party to be Umpire nnAnſwer to L. Miniſters. pag. 78. 79., What follows, ſaith he, of the paucity of Believers, and their meeting in one place, is willingly granted by us. What they ſay of the point of time, Acts 2. 41. that believers were ſo numerous, that they could not conveniently meet in one place, this is contrary to the evidence of the Text, which ſaith expreſly ver. 44. that all the believers were foreign, which in the laſt Paragraph they interpreted meeting in one and the ſame place: the like might be ſaid of the other places, Acts 4. 3. and 5. 14. for certainly as yet, though the number of Believers increaſed, yet they were not diſtributed into ſeveral Congregations.

Concerning the diſperſion, Acts 8. 1. ooP. 442. 443.he tells us, Though they are all ſaid to be ſcattered beſides the Apoſtles, yet it cannot be underſtood of all the Beleivers.

No, but of the generality of them, all that could commodiouſly fly as ſtrangers might do. Nor muſt it be confined to all the Officers only, the generality of Expoſitors are miſ-repreſented if this be made their ſenſe, nor doth it appear that Euſebius ſo underſtood it, foreign is uſed in Scripture and other Writers, and Euſebius himſelf, to denote Believers and not Officers only. As for p. 69the time of the diſperſion (though I need not inſiſt on it) probably it was nearer this great Pentecoſt than ſome would have it. On the firſt day of the week in the morning were the three thouſand converted, the next or (as ſome tell us) the ſame day afternoon, at the ninth hour ppD. L:, the number of the Converts was increaſed to five thouſand. While this Sermon was preaching the Apoſtles are apprehended and committed to Cuſtody till the next morning. Another, it is like the day after, they are impriſoned, but enlarged by an Angel in the night, chap. 5. In or near that week were the ſeven Deacons choſen, preſently after the Diſciples were thus increaſed and the Apoſtles impriſoned and diſmiſſed. The expreſſion ſignifies it, chap. 6. 1. It is not foreign, in thoſe daies which may admit a latitude and ſome good diſtance of time, but foreign, in theſe dayes, which denotes the time inſtant, or that which immediately enſues, without the interpoſure of any ſuch diſtance. And ſo the phraſe is uſed by St. Luke both in the Goſpel and in the Acts. It is Dr. Hammond's obſervation upon Luk. 1. 39. The phraſe foreign, in theſe dayes, ſaith he, hath for moſt part a peculiar ſignification, differing from foreign, in thoſe daies. The latter ſignifies an indefinite time, ſometimes a good way off, but the former generally denotes a certain time then preſent, inſtantly, then at that time; ſo here, that which is ſaid of Mary's going to Elizabeth was ſure immediately after the departing of the Angel from her, and therefore it is ſaid ſhe roſe up foreign, very haſtily, ſo ver. 24. foreign, i. e. immediately Elizabeth conceived, ſo chap. 6. 12. foreign, i. e. then, at that point of time he went out to the Mountain. See Chap. 23. 7. c. 24. 18. Acts 1. 5. c. 11. 27. and 21. 15.

p. 70Immediately after the choice of the Deacons, Stephen one of the Seven is apprehended foreign, as ſoon as ever he was ordained, as if he had been ordained for this alone, ſaith Euſebius (l. 2. c. 1.) And at the ſame time the Perſecution began which diſperſed that Church. Whereas he ſaith, whatſoever numbers were forced away; it is likely they returned, if he underſtand it of the ſtrangers driven from Jeruſalem, that they returned to fix there, or otherwiſe than occaſionally, it is no more likely nor will be ſooner proved than what he aſſerts a little after (pag. 444.) viz. that the empty Sepulcher preached with no leſs efficacy than the Apoſtles.

This is enough to ſatisfy what our Author would draw out of Scripture concerning the Church of Jeruſalem. After ſome trifling about Objections which he forms himſelf, and then makes ſport with, he comes to prove that Jeruſalem was a Dioceſan Church in the Apoſtles time. But firſt he would have us believe that James was the proper Biſhop of that Church, and would evince it by two Teſtimonies, that of Clemens and Hegeſippus. But what ſayes his Clemens? He ſaith not only that James was ordained Biſhop of Jeruſalem preſently after our Saviours Aſcenſion, but what I think our Author was loth to mention. If he had given us the intire ſentence it might have been better underſtood. After the Aſcenſion of our Saviour, Peter, James and John, the moſt honoured by our Lord, would not yet contend for the firſt degree of honour, foreign, but choſe James the juſt Biſhop of Jeruſalem, Apoſtolorum Epiſcopum. Ruffinus reads it, This ſeems to ſignify that his being made a Biſhop there, was ſome degree of Honour above their being Apoſtles. A learned Romaniſt tells us qqVal…., that the books where Euſebius had this did ſo abound with Errours, that they were not thought p. 71worth preſerving, and ſo are loſt (as thoſe of Papias and Hegiſippus are for the ſame reaſon) this may prove one inſtance of thoſe many Errours. That which ſeems to be the ſenſe of his words is more fully expreſſed by one who goes under the name of Clemens too rrl. 2. Recognit., James the Lord's Brother was Prince of Biſhops, and by his Epiſcopal Authority commanded all the Apoſtles, and ſo the former Clemens in Ruffinus calls him the Biſhop of the Apoſtles ſſHiſt. l. …. c. 2.. If he means ſuch a Biſhop as ours (and otherwiſe his meaning will not ſerve our Authors purpoſe) then the Apoſtles were but the Vicars or Curates of James. This is bad enough if James was an Apoſtle, the abſurdeſt Papiſt will ſcarce aſcribe as much to Peter. But if he was not an Apoſtle, it is yet more intolerable. If our Author can believe his own Witneſs, ſome may admire, but I think few will follow him.

Let us hear Hegeſippus (not quite ſo antient as this Gentleman makes him, ſince he was alive in the Reign of Commodus) he ſayes, James ruled that Church foreign. If we take this as it is render'd in Jerome after the Apoſtles, it is not only againſt Grammar, but without Truth, and makes James to be Biſhop when he was dead, for he was martyred about the 4th. of Nero, and all the Apoſtles but the other James ſurvived him. But if the meaning be that he ruled that Church with the Apoſtles, it ſpeaks him no more the Biſhop of Jeruſalem than the reſt of the Apoſtles, who were not fixed or topical Biſhops, but Oecumenical Officers of an extraordinary Office and Power and accordingly is James deſcribed▪ One antient Author ſayes that he no leſs than Peter did foreign. And Epiphanius reports ttHeres. Cerdon:, that Hyginus after James, Peter and Paul was the ninth Biſhop of Rome ſucceſſively, ſignifying that he was as much Biſhop of p. 72Rome as Paul and Peter. I need not quote that other Author who ſayes he ruled the holy Church of the Hebrews, as alſo he did all Churches every where founded uuEp. to James..

However certain it is that James was Biſhop of Jeruſalem, not only from Hegiſippus and Clemens Alex. but alſo from St. Paul, who mentions him as one of the Apoſtles that he had Converſed with in Jeruſalem, and it is likely there were no more there at that time but he and Peter.

This is no way certain from Clemens and Hegeſippus, and ſo far from being certain by St. Paul, that his mentioning him as an Apoſtle makes it rather certain that he was not a Biſhop; for the Offices of an Apoſtle and of a Biſhop are inconſiſtent, as is acknowledged and proved by an excellent Perſon of your own. wwDr. Barrow Suprem. p. 120, 121.The Offices of an Apoſtle and of a Biſhop are not in their nature well conſiſtent, for the Apoſtleſhip is an extraordinary Office, charged with the inſtruction and Government of the whole World, and calling for an anſwerable care (the Apoſtles being Rulers, as St. Chryſoſtom ſaith, ordained by God, Rulers not taking ſeveral Nations and Cities, but all of them in common intruſted with the whole world) but Epiſcopacy is an ordinary ſtanding charge affixed to one place, and requiring a ſpecial attendance there, Biſhops being Paſtors who, as Chryſoſtome ſaith, do ſit, and are imployed in one place. Now he that hath ſuch a general care can hardly diſcharge ſuch a particular Office, and he that is fixed to ſo particular an attendance, can hardly look well after ſo general a charge, &c. Baronius ſaith of St. Peter, that it was his Office not to ſtay in one place, but as much as it was poſſible for one man to travel over the whole world, and to bring thoſe who did not yet believe to the Faith, and throughly to eſtabliſh believers. If ſo how could he be Biſhop of Rome, which was an Office p. 73inconſiſtent with ſuch vagrancy. It would not have beſeemed St. Peter the prime Apoſtle to aſſume the charge of a particular Biſhop, it had been a degradation of himſelf, a diſparagement to the Apoſtolical Majeſty for him to take upon him the Biſhoprick of Rome, as if the King ſhould become Mayor of London, as if the Biſhop of London ſhould be Vicar of Pancras. And little before, St. Peter's being Biſhop of Rome (it holds as well of James's being Biſhop of Jeruſalem) would confound the Offices which God made diſtinct, for God did appoint firſt Apoſtles, then Prophets, then Paſtors and Teachers, wherefore St. Peter after he was an Apoſtle could not well become a Biſhop, it would be ſuch an irregularity as if a Biſhop ſhould be made a Deacon.

Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory makes James the ordinary Biſhop and Dioceſan of the place.

There is nothing in Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory for it, but what is derived from Hegeſippus and Clemens, whom others followed right or wrong.

It is ſtrange to ſee Salmaſius run his head ſo violently againſt ſuch ſolid Teſtimonies as thoſe of Hegeſippus and Clemens.

That great perſon underſtood things better, and diſcerned no danger in running his head againſt a ſhadow, and there is nothing more of Solidity in what is alledged from thoſe Authors.

Further he would prove it a Dioceſan Church by a paſſage in Hegeſippus, who ſayes, that ſeveral of the Jewiſh Sectaries who beleived neither a Reſurrection nor Judgment to come, were Converted by James, and that when a great number of the Rulers and principal men of the City were by this Miniſtry brought to believe the Goſpel, the Jews made an Uproar, the Scribes and Phariſees ſaying, that it was p. 74to be feared that all the people would turn Chriſtians xxPag. 446..

He ſayes many of the prime Sectaries were converted by James, but this will ſcarce prove ſuch a Dioceſan Church as he contends for. That which would ſerve his turn (that all the people would turn Chriſtians) was not effected, but only feared by the Jews, who took a courſe to prevent it by killing James. But if this were for his purpoſe, Hegeſippus is not an Author to be relied on, part of the Sentence cited is falſe, that the Sects mentioned (and he had mentioned ſeven) did not believe the Reſurrection nor Judgment, whereas the Phariſees and others of them beleived both, which Valeſius obſerves. In Euſeb. 2. c. 23.One falſe thing in a Teſtimony is enough to render it ſuſpected, but there are near twenty things falſe or fabulous in this account he gives of James, many of them marked by Scaliger yyAnimad. in Euſeb. p. 178., divers by Valeſius zzIn Euſeb. l. 2. cap. 23., and ſome acknowledged by Petavius aaNot. ad Heres 78..

He would not have us ſuſpect that the numbers of the Church at Jeruſalem were not ſo great as he pretends, becauſe Pella, an obſcure little Town, could receive them all beſides its own Inhabitants, but we muſt underſtand that Town to be their Metropolis, and the Believers all ſcattered through the whole Countrey, and this as Epiphanius writes.

But where does Epiphanius write this? Not in the place cited, he writes the contrary both there and elſewhere, that all the Believers (in one place bbEpiph. Her. 30.) that all the Diſciples (in another place) foreign ccDe Ponder. & Menſ. cap. 15., what he adds is but to deſcribe where the Town was ſituated, all the Diſciples, all the Believers dwelt beyond Jordan in Pella. Archbiſhop Whitgift brings this as a pregnant proof that the Chriſtians at Jeruſalem were but few in compariſon (and no more than could all meet in one place, as a little before he affirms p. 75again and again) his words are how few Chriſtians was there at Jeruſalem not long before it was deſtroyed, being above Forty years after Chriſt? Does not Euſebius teſtifie ddLib. 3. cap. 5.that they all were received into a little Town called Pella? yet the Apoſtles had ſpent much time and labour in Preaching there; but the number of thoſe that did not profeſs Chriſt in that City was infinite eeDefence of Anſwer. Treat. 3. c. 6. pag. 175.. This might be farther cleared by what Epiphanius ſaith of that Church in its return from Pella, but I deſign briefneſs.

Our Author adds one Teſtimony more, to ſhew that under the Government of Simeon great numbers were added to that Church, many thouſands of the Circumciſion receiving the Chriſtian Faith at that time, and among the reſt Juſtus, &c. pag. 448.

But thoſe who view the place in Euſebius will ſee, that he does not ſay thoſe many of the Circumciſion were converted by Simeon, or were under his Government, or belonged to that Church; and ſo it ſignifies nothing for his purpoſe. And ſo in fine, the account wherewith he concludes his Diſcourſe of Jeruſalem will not be admitted by any who impartially conſider the Premiſſes.

As for his other Scripture inſtances, there is not ſo much as the ſhadow of a proof ſhewed by him, that there were near ſo many Chriſtians as in Jeruſalem, or as are in ſome one of our Pariſhes, yea, or more than could meet in one place, either in Samaria (where he ſayes it appears not what kind of Government was establiſhed, pag. 451.) or in Lydda, which was but a Village, though a fair one, and far from having Saron for its proper Territory, that being a plain between Joppa and Caeſarea; or in Antioch, pag. 452. much leſs in Corinth and Epheſus which he adviſedly paſſes by, pag. 456.

p. 76Our Author does in effect acknowledge that in Scripture it appears not that theſe Churches were Epiſcopal, much leſs Dioceſan; It is to be confeſſed, ſaies he, pag. 461. that the Scriptures have not left ſo full and perfect an account of the Conſtitution and Government of the firſt Churches, &c. Thus we have no more notice of the Churches of Samaria and of Judaea (Jeruſalem excepted) than that ſuch were founded by the Apoſtles; but of their Government and Conſtitution we have not the leaſt Information. What information then can we have that they were Dioceſan or Epiſcopal? He goes on, And the proſpect left of Antioch in Scripture is very confuſed, as of a Church in fieri, where a great number of eminent perſons laboured together to the building of it up; but only from Eccleſiaſtical Writers, who report that this Church, when it was ſettled and digeſted, was committed to the Government of Euodias, and after him to Ignatius, &c. So that after what form the Church at Antioch was conſtituted does not appear (it may be Congregational and not Dioceſan, for any thing this Gentleman can ſee in Scripture) but only from Eccleſiaſtical Writers.

But his Eccleſiaſtical Writers do ſo contradict one another as renders their teſtimonies of little value. Nor is there much more reckoning to be made of the traditional account they and others give concerning the Succeſſion and Government of the firſt Biſhops, than this Author makes of Euſebius his traditional Chronology, pag. 454. Some make Euodias the firſt Biſhop and he being dead Ignatius to ſucceed him ffEuſeb. l. 3. c. 22.; on the contrary ſome will have Ignatius to have been the firſt, and make no mention of Euodias ggChryſ. Orat. in Ignat.; others will have them to have governed that Church both together hhClemens 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 p. 77Authors 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.