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

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

p. 77And 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 foreign, for a year together, and there taught this foreign or foreign. The ſame divine Author ſayes, Acts 6. 7. foreign, 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 p. 78Family. It is a queſtion whether there was now at Rome any one Congregation ſuch as our Author intends, Grotius iiIn Rom. 16.Rom 16thinks 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.

p. 79He 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 p. 80ſuffer 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 kkChurch 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 p. 81the 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 foreign 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 llEp. 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, p. 82ſuch 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 foreign mmLib. 5. c. 15., which in Sozomen is but many nnLib. 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 ooPag. 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 p. 83to the Mines; and foreign 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 ppPag. 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 foreign 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 qqLib. 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 rrPlatina v… Xyſti.. And near 150 years after, when Conſtantine had reigned near 20 years in Rome the generality p. 84of the Inhabitants ſhewed ſuch diſaffection to Chriſtianity, as that is given for one reaſon why he transferred the ſeat of the Empire to Byzantium ſſZoſimus, 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 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 foreign 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 p. 85Rome, 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 ttEuſeb. 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. uupag. 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 p. 86Church 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 wwIn 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 xxHiſt. l. 5. c. 38., or the Paſchal dayes, as Euſebius yyChron.; 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, p. 87that 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 zzDe 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 may not be Biſhop till Anno 350 and ſo nearer to Optatus his time, than Diocleſians.

2dly, It is no proof of Dioceſan Churches that thoſe who belong to it, do occaſionally divide themſelves into diſtinct Meetings, A large Church, and ſometimes p. 88a ſmall Congregation may have occaſion to divide and meet in parcels for their convenience or ſecurity. Particularly in time of Perſecution, that they may aſſemble with more ſafety, and be the better concealed from thoſe who would diſturb or apprehend them. The people that belonged to Cyprian did meet all together on ſeveral occaſions, as is apparent in his Epiſtles; yet when Perſecution was hot, he thought it adviſable, cautè non glomeratim nec per multitudinem ſimul junctam, conveniendum llEp. 5., they durſt not in ſome parts foreign, in the beginning of Conſtantine's Reign mmSoz. l. 1. c. 2..

Damaſus, the ſuppoſed Author of the Pope's lives, ſayes, Euariſtus Titulos Presbyteris diviſit, divided the Titles in Rome to the Presbyters, and by Titles ſome will have us to underſtand Pariſh Churches. But it is incredible that the Chriſtians in Trajan's time when Euariſtus was Biſhop, could erect any ſtructures in form of Churches, or had any diſtinguiſhable from other houſes, ſo as the Heathen might take notice of them, as uſed or deſigned for the religious exerciſes of Chriſtians. Who can imagine that when it was death for any one to be known to be a Chriſtian, they ſhould frequent any known places for Chriſtian Worſhip? It is far more reaſonable which Platina ſayes of Calistus's time, more than an hundred years after, that then the meeting of Chriſtians were all ſecret, and rather in Chappels, and thoſe hidden, and for the moſt part underground; than in open and publick places Cum eâ tempeſtate ob crebras perſecutiones occulta eſſent omnia, & ſacella potius, atque eadem abdita & plerumque ſubterranea; quam apertis in locis ac publicis fierent. Dr. St. ſayes, I confeſs it ſeems not probable to me that thoſe Tituli were ſo ſoon divided as the Iren. pag. 357.time of Euariſtus, who lived in the time of Trajan, when the Perſecution was hot againſt the Chriſtians; but Damaſus p. 89ſeems not to believe himſelf, for in the life of Dionyſius he ſaith, Hic Presbyteris Eccleſias diviſit. His reaſon concludes as much or more againſt the Titles under this notion aſcribed to Marcellus 200 years after (which ſome will have to be 25, but Onuphrius ſhews they could not be more than 15 nnInterpret. Voc. Eccleſ.) for Marcellus was Biſhop of Rome for ſix years of the tenth Perſecution begun by Diocleſian, which was the longeſt and fierceſt that ever befel the Church; when the Chriſtians were ſo far from erecting any Churches, that all before erected were by ſevere Edicts to be quite demoliſhed. But what is ſaid of Titles divided by Euariſtus may be true in this ſenſe, that ſince they could not ſafely meet together in the Perſecution under Trajan, they diſperſed themſelves into diſtinct meetings, and had Presbyters aſſigned to officiate in each of them. And yet the Chriſtians at Rome were then no more, nor long after, than might all meet together for Worſhip, and did ſo when it could be done in ſafety. In the time of Xyſtus who had the Chair at Rome under Adrian, it is ſaid becauſe of the frequent ſlaughters of the Chriſtians, there were few found who durſt profeſs the name of Chriſt, propter frequentes caedes pauci reperirentur qui nomen Chriſti profiteri auderent ooPlatina.. And there was an order in that Church that when the Biſhop celebrated, all the Presbyters ſhould be preſent. Zepherinus voluit Presbyteros omnes adeſſe celebrante Epiſcopo, quod etiam Euariſto placuit, this is ſaid to be made in the time of Euariſtus to whom this diviſion of Titles is aſcribed, and it was in force an hundred years after, being renewed by Zepherinus who was Biſhop till Anno 218 about 30 years before Cornelius, who ſpeaks of 46. Presbyters at Rome. Now the Lords Supper was frequently adminiſtred in thoſe times, at leaſt every Lords-day, and when the Biſhop was preſent, he himſelf did celebrate, and if all the Presbyters p. 90were to be preſent when he did celebrate, then all the People likewiſe were to be preſent, or elſe they had no Publick Worſhip, for they could have none without Biſhop or Presbyters.

3dly, A Church is not proved to be Dioceſan by the numbers of Presbyters in it, this I have made evident before, and made it good againſt our Authors exceptions. But he brings a new inſtance ppPag. 552., and will have Edeſſa to have been a Dioceſan Church becauſe of the numerous Clergy, the Clergy, ſayes he, of the City of Edeſſa was above 200 perſons, not reckoning that of the Countrey within his Dioceſe, and this was a Dioceſan Biſhop to purpoſe.

He did well not to reckon that of the Countrey in his Dioceſe: unleſs he had kown that ſomething of the Countrey was within his Dioceſe. It was not unuſual for the Biſhops charge to be confined to a Town or City Rome it ſelf is an inſtance of it qqInnocent. Ep. ad Decentium., Cum omnes Eccleſiae noſtrae intra Civitatem conſtitutae ſunt. But why it ſhould be judged to be a Dioceſan Church becauſe 200 ſuch Perſons belonged to it, ſeeing the great Church at C. P. had above 500 Officers aſſigned it after Juſtinian had retrenched the numbers rrNovel. 3. c. 3., and yet was never couned a Dioceſe, I do not well underſtand. But he hath ſome other reaſons for it, and becauſe he thinks they prove the Biſhop of Edeſſa to have been a Dioceſan to purpoſe, let us on the by a little examine them; theſe he gives in ſummarily, This was a Dioceſan Biſhop to purpoſe, who beſides a large Dioceſe, had excommunicating Archdeacons, and a great revenue.

I find nothing alledged to ſhew he had a large Dioceſe or any at all, but this, the City of Battina was in the Dioceſe of Edeſſa, for Ibas is accuſed of having endeavoured to make one John Biſhop of it, &c.

p. 91Battina had a Biſhop of its own, how then can it be ſaid to be in the Dioceſe of Edeſſa, unleſs Province and Dioceſe be confounded? Edeſſa was the Metropolis of Meſopotamia, the Biſhop of it was the third Metropolitan in the Patriarchate of Antioch, as they are ordered in the antient Notitia. The Biſhop of Battina was one of the many Suffragans belonging to that Metropolitan. How then comes the Dioceſe of Edeſſa to be any wayes large upon this account? Is the Dioceſe of Canterbury one foot the larger, becauſe there is a Biſhop of Peterborough in that Province? Theſe things are not eaſily apprehended nor can be well digeſted.

2dly, The greatneſs of his Revonue is no more apparent, there is nothing to prove it but the riches of that Church, and its great Revenues, and hereof our Author gives us no clear account, no value of the Numiſmata, nor is there any Evidence in the Council for the Mannors he ſpeaks of but only the felling of ſome wood in a certain place there named. But where there was a Dioceſan and Archdeacons, decorum required there ſhould be Mannors and vaſt Revenues for the Biſhop. Nor do I quarrel with it, only this breaks the ſquares a little, and diſturbs the correſpondence between thoſe and our times; that if the Revenues of that Church had amounted to ten times more, yet the Biſhop would ſcarce have been one jot the richer for it. This will not ſeem ſtrange to any, who take notice of the antient Orders, concerning the revenues of an Epiſcopal Church. The Biſhop was to have nothing thereof if he could maintain himſelf otherwiſe. When he was neceſſitous, nothing was allowed him for himſelf but neceſſaries, food and raiment ſſCon. Antioch C. 25.. He was to purchaſe nothing while he lived, nor to leave any thing got by his Biſhoprick when he died, to his Relatives or others, but only to the Church that maintained him ttCode Juſtin. Lex 42. Sect. 2▪ c. de Epiſc. Nov… 131. c. 13. Con… Car. 3. Can. 49▪. The Biſhop of p. 92Edeſſa, or any other in theſe Circumſtances, muſt be a poor Dioceſan, and one in a good Engliſh Rectory or Vicaridge, is in a fairer way to be rich, than any in the antient Biſhopricks, ſo ordered. And if Riches or Revenues be good Arguments to prove a Dioceſan, one of our Vicars may be a better Dioceſan than the Biſhop of Edeſſa. It is true there is ſome intimation from Rome, that the Biſhop ſhould have the 4th. part of the Churches revenues, but there's no appearance of ſuch a diſtribution, till after the time of the four firſt general Councils; nor in any Countrey but Italy till an hundred years after: Nor did it ever obtain (that I can diſcover after ſome inquiry) in the Greek Churches.

3. The other proof that Ibas was a Dioceſan, viz. becauſe he had excommunicating Archdeacons, our Author would make good by telling us, that one of his Archdeacons excommunicated Maras. Now this though it prove not what it is alledged for, may prove more than he likes. An Archdeacon in the antient Church (though he be another thing now) was not ſo much as a Presbyter, he was but in the lower Order of Deacons, though chief amongſt them, and choſen by them, as Jerome ſignifies uuEp. ad Evagrium., Diaconi eligunt de ſe quem induſtrium noverint, & Archidiaconum vocant, the Deacons chuſe from amongst themſelves one whom they know to be induſtrious, and call him Archdeacon. Now if a Deacon had the power to excommunicate, there can be no doubt but the Presbyters had it, being of a Superiour Order and Power. And excommunication being counted the higheſt act of Juriſdiction, it cannot be queſtioned but the other acts thereof belonged to them; and ſo the Presbyters having all the Juriſdiction of Biſhops (all the power of Government) what did they want of being Biſhops but the honour of preſiding in their Aſſemblies? p. 93And if they were no farther from being Biſhops, they will go near to be as much Dioceſan, and ſo this Gentleman may chuſe, whether he will have all of both ſorts to be Dioceſans, or none of either.

4ly, It is no Argument to prove a Dioceſan Church to ſhew that it conſiſts of ſuch who live at a good diſtance one from another. Dionyſius had a great Congregation at Cephro, a Village in Lybia, but thoſe which made up this Church were of another Countrey, coming partly from Alexandria, partly from other parts of Egypt, as Euſebius ſhews us, yet none ever eſteemed that to be a Dioceſan Church. In Juſtin Martyr's time thoſe that were in the Countrey, and thoſe that were in the City, when thoſe were no more than made one Congregation, met together in one place, foreign, the Meeting conſiſted of ſuch as lived at a good diſtance, but none will imagine it to be a Dioceſan Church, but thoſe who will have a ſingle Congregation to be ſuch a Church. All the Chriſtians in City and Countrey, ſays Dr. Downham, if they had been aſſembled together, would have made but a ſmall Congregation. wwDefence l. 2. c. 4. p. 69..

Our Authour would prove the largeneſs of Baſil's Dioceſs by the diſtance between Caeſarea and Saſima. *. x pag. 546, 547He makes much of it and takes the pains to meaſure the diſtance between theſe Towns, or rather, as he ſays, to make ſome gueſs at it out of an Itenerary and Putinger's Tables; yet tells us the diſtance muſt be as great at leaſt as between Hippo and Fuſſala, that ſo St. Baſil's Dioceſs may be as great at leaſt as that of St Auſtin's. I think they will prove much alike, for as I have ſhew'd that Auſtin's Dioceſs was not one foot larger for Fuſſala, ſo it will appear that St. Baſil's had not the leaſt enlargement upon the account of Saſima. That he might not be out in his meaſures nor have loſt all his labour, two p. 94things ſhould firſt have been cleared, neither of which is (or I think can be proved; 1ſt, That Saſima was in Baſil's Dioceſe, for if it was but only in his Province, how far ſoever it was from Caeſarea, his Dioceſe can be nothing the larger for it, though his Province might. To prove it in his Dioceſe I find nothing but his own aſſertion, that Saſima is ſaid expreſly to be taken out of the Dioceſe of Baſil; but where is this ſaid expreſly, or by whom, except by himſelf? The words in the Margin ſignify no ſuch thing, but only ſome attempt to deprive a Metropolis of Saſima. For a Metropolis may be deprived of a Town which is in any part of the Province, when another Metropolitan ſeizeth on it. And I believe our Author is yet more out in taking the Metropolis which Nazianzen ſpeaks of to be Caeſarea, when it appears by the Epiſtle to be rather Tyana. For as the whole Epiſtle is writ to Baſil, ſo theſe words cited, after many others by way of ſharp expoſtulation, are directed to him as endeavouring to deprive a Metropolis of this Town, called ironically foreign: Now Caeſarea was not the Metropolis which Baſil would have deprived of Saſima, he earneſtly endeavoured to have it annext thereto; but he would have deprived Tyana of it, if Anthimus the Metropolitan there, had not made a ſtout oppoſition. 2dly, He ſhould have proved, that after this part of Cappadocia was divided into two Provinces, Saſima was in that Province which fell to Baſil's ſhare (for if it was not in his Province how could his Dioceſe be any larger for it?) but inſtead of this our Author offers what may ſerve to diſprove it, telling us that in the antient Greek Notitia, Saſima is ſet down in the ſecond Cappadocia (which belonged to Anthimus as the firſt did to Baſil) and ſo, ſayes he, it is not likely to be very near Caeſarea. No indeed, it is thereby proved to be ſo far from Caeſarea, that it did p. 95not enlarge Baſil's Province, much leſs his Dioceſe. Thus it is alſo placed in the foreign of Leo Sophus under the Metropolitan of Tyana, not of Caeſarea. It is true Baſil laid claim to it, but after ſome conteſt he yeilded, and Anthimus carried it, placing Eulalius there as one of his Suffragans, when Nazianzen had quitted it.

He goes farther on to ſhew the largeneſs of Dioceſes in Baſil's Province.

It is plain by Nazianzen that Cappadocia had but 50 Biſhops, for ſo many he ſayes Baſil had under him, and conſidering the extent of that Countrey the Dioceſes muſt needs be large.

He does not ſay Baſil had no more under him, nor that he was making no more; he knew Baſil was conſtituting more Biſhops in that part of Cappadocia which was his Province, and Nazianzen commends him for it as an excellent undertaking on ſeveral accounts yyOrat. de Bal..

Conſidering the extent of that Countrey, the Dioceſes muſt needs be large, for the Countrey as Strabo computes, is near 400 miles in length, and little leſs in breadth.

If he means Baſil's own Province, where he told us there were 50 Suffragans under him beſides Saſima, &c zzPag. 546.: (as I know not what he can mean elſe, if his Diſcourſe be not impertinent and inconſiſtent; for Baſil as Metropolitan had no Biſhops under him, but thoſe in his proper Province) Strabo is ſtrangely miſrepreſented to ſerve a turn; for it is the whole Countrey which paſſed under the name of Cappadocia, that the Geographer gives us the dimenſions of in the place cited, and tell us it was divided into ten Prefectures, Meletena, Cataonia, Cilica, Tyanitis, Iſauritis, &c. whereof Baſil's Province was but one, viz. that called Cilica, and that of Anthimus, Tyanitis, another, &c. Mazaca p. 96(afterwards called Caeſarea) being Metropolis of Baſil's and Tyana of Tyanitis, &c. and after he hath given ſome account of theſe ten Praefectures, he adds the dimenſions of the whole Countrey, in theſe words, the extent of Cappadocia in breadth from the Euxine to Taurus, is 1800 Furlongs, in length 3000. So that our Author will have the extent of Baſil's Province to be no leſs than that of the whole Countrey, when it is but the tenth part thereof. And as if this were not enough, he makes the breadth of the whole Countrey, to be near twice as much as it is in Strabo; but he hath ſome ſalvo for this, ſuch as it is.

And little leſs in breadth, as Cauſabon reſtores the reading of 1800 Furlongs in the 12th. Book, by a paſſage in the ſecond where the breadth is made 2800.

It is true Cauſabon obſerves ſome difference in the places cited, but he ſhews how they may be eaſily reconciled, without changing the Text here, or making the Countrey broader than it is here deſcribed, viz. by taking Pontus in one place for the Sea, in the other for the Region ſo called, ſeparated from Cappadocia by mountains parallel to Taurus; and then concludes, Sic non erit diſcedendum à vulgatâ lectione. So that he hath no relief by Cauſabon without curtailing the Paſſage.

And in this compaſs Biſhops may contrive 50 Dioceſes of very competent extent, and not inferiour to many of ours.

Let him try how in Baſil's Province of about 40 miles in length, he can contrive room for above 50 Biſhops, with as large Dioceſes as thoſe he pleads for. That which is now thought little enough for one Biſhop Baſil conceived too big for Fifty.

p. 97What Dioceſes Baſil (and others before him) thought ſufficient for Biſhops both then, and in formertimes, appears by a paſſage which our Author next cites, where Amphilochius Biſhop of Iconium, is directed to conſtitute Biſhops for the Province of Iconium, in little Corporation, and Villages. aaEp. 406.Hundreds of inſtances might be brought of Biſhops elſewhere, in ſuch little places and Villages, but I will go no further now, than the inſtance himſelf offers us, whereby it is manifeſt that a little Corporation, or a Village might furniſh a Biſhop with ſuch a Dioceſe, as was then thought competent, both by Baſil, and the Church before him. For in ſuch little places there was Biſhops before, as Baſil there ſignifies, and he gives direction that it ſhould be ſo ſtill. Yet he, that would adviſe the reducing of Biſhops to ſuch Sees now, would be counted an enemy to Epiſcopacy; and his advice deſtructive to Biſhops. So much do we now differ, both from the judgment and practice of the antient Church, and the moſt eminent Biſhops in it.

Hereby alſo it appears that the multiplying of Metropolitans was no ſuch occaſion of multiplying Biſhops, but that their numbers increaſed, when there was not that occaſion; And this in Cappadocia, which is our Author's eminent inſtance. bbPag. 545.For Biſhops were multiplyed by erecting Epiſcopal Sees in Villages, and little places, this was done in Iſauria, a Province in Cappadocia, as appears by theſe paſſages in Baſil, before the conteſt between him and Anthimus, upon the conſtituting of a new Metropolitan: and after that difference was Compoſed, Baſil thought it adviſeable that it ſhould be done ſtill. And the like may be ſaid of Africa, the inſtance he moſt inſiſts on, and ſpends many Pages upon it, pretending the occaſion why Biſhops were ſo numerous there, was the Schiſm of the Donatiſts, p. 98Whereas the rule by which the African Fathers proceeded in erecting Biſhopricks in little places, and ſo increaſing the number of Biſhops, was as themſelves declare, who beſt knew it, the increaſe of the number of Christians: ccConcil. Carth. 2 Can. 5.Where theſe were multiplyed, and deſired a Biſhop, they thought themſelves obliged to let them have one; not excepting the meanneſs or ſmalneſs of the places, where he was to be conſtituted. And we muſt believe (if we have any reverence for thoſe Fathers) that they would have done, what they judged themſelves obliged to, though there had been no Donatiſts amongſt them. And when there can be no ſuch pretence of occaſion from the Donatiſts, the practice was continued, as appears by St. Auſtin's procuring a Biſhop for Fuſſala, which he calls a Caſtle, upon ſome increaſe of the Catholicks there, diverſe years after the noted conference at Carthage, where the heart of the Donatiſts was broken; Nay, many years after the invaſion of the Vandals, and the death of St. Auſtin they proceeded in the ſame methods, or rather exceeded their Predeceſſors in multiplying Biſhops, by erecting Epiſcopal ſeats in ſmaller, and more inconſiderable places, if Leo his Epiſtle may be credited.ddEp. 85.

But to return to our Author, and the paſſage of Baſil, inſiſted on, by which ſayes he, it appears that Iſauria was part of Baſil's Province; How this appears by any thing therein, I cannot imagine, our Author ſignifies before that Iſauria was a diſtinct Province, the Metropolis of it (as he ſuppoſes) Seleucia, 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, p. 99that 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.eeIbid.

Next he brings in the Chore-piſcopi in order to his deſign, and tells us ffPag. 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 foreign 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.

p. 100If 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, foreign, without the Biſhop of the Metropolis, this the ſynod at Antioch decrees, according to an antient Canon of the Fathers. ggCan. 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 foreign 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; hhB. 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. iiVide 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 p. 101had 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, kkCan. 6.declaring that if a Biſhop be ordained by the Provincials, foreign, 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 foreign? 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 foreign 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.llBarrow 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 p. 102prove 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. mmVindication. 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. nnPag. 506. 507.And that order for the Presbyters from their Churches, to repair to their proper Biſhop for Chriſm in Africa, ooCon. 4. Can. 36.in Spain, ppTol. 1. Cap. 20.and in France. qqVaſcon. 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 Alypius Biſhop of Tagesta, which without reaſon, we muſt take to be a conſiderable City, rrPag. 527.and the City Milevis, becauſe Petilian ſayes Tunca belonged to it once, though now it had a Biſhop of its own; and by our Authors Art of computation, Towns, Villages and Cities muſt belong to Milevis, upon the ſole account of Tunca, ſometime appertaining to it, ſſPag. 528.and theſe with Fuſſala, (of which before) are the chief inſtances to prove that Africa had very large Dioceſes not inferiour to thoſe of ours, in extent of Territory. ttPag. 516.Beſides in the Council of Neocaeſarea Countrey Presbyters are diſtinguiſhed from others; uuCan. 13.and that of Antioch provides that Countrey Presbyters ſhall not give Canonical Epistles, wwCan. 8.and allows the Biſhop to order his own Church, and the C…trey places depending on it. xxCan. 9. Pag. 536.And Epiphanius ſpeaks of a Church belonging to his charge, which we muſt underſtand to be his Dioceſe, though in the paſſage cited, it is twice called his Province, yyPag. 555.in fine, Jerome ſpeakes of ſome baptized by Presbyters or Deacons p. 103in Hamlets, Caſtles, and Places remote from the Biſhop.

Theſe and ſuch like are uſed as good arguments for Dioceſan Churches, whereas there are diverſe Towns in England, which beſides the Officers in them, have many Congregations and Presbyters in Villages belonging to them, and contained within the Pariſh; and yet our Author and thoſe of his perſwaſion would think Dioceſans quite ruined, if they were reduced, and confined to the meaſures of thoſe Pariſh Churches, and left no bigger than ſome of our Vicarages and Parſonages, though ſuch as Mr. Hooker affirms to be as large as ſome antient Biſhopricks; he might have ſaid moſt, there being not one in many greater or ſo large. I yet ſee no ground in antiquity, nor can expect to have it proved, that the larger ſort of ordinary Biſhopricks in the fourth age, and ſometime after, were of more extent than two ſuch Vicarages would be, if united. Yet a Biſhop of ſuch a Diſtrict in our times would be counted ſo far from having a competent Dioceſe, that he would ſcarce eſcape from being ſcorned as an Italian Epiſcopellus.

But his greateſt argument, (in compariſon of which his other Allegations, he tells us, are but accidental hints, zzPag. 508..) which he moſt inſiſts on, and offers many times over; ſo that it makes a great part of his diſcourſe on this ſubject. aaPag. 508. to Pag. 555. to 539. Pag. 556. to 562.It is drawn from the number of Biſhops in Councils, by which he would evince the largeneſs of antient Dioceſes, when it no way proves Dioceſan Churches of any ſize. He proceeds upon this ſuppoſition that there were great numbers of Chriſtians in all parts and Cities, bbPag. 530.in the first age: And that the Biſhops were fewer in former times than afterwards. The former part of his Hypotheſis, if he underſtands the numbers of Chriſtians to be any thing comparable to what p. 104they were after Conſtantine, when Biſhops were much multiplied; (as he muſt underſtand it, if he expect any ſervice from it) wants proof, and he offers none but ſome paſſages in Tertullian, ſtrained far beyond what is agreeable to other antient Authors, of which before. Let me add that Nazianzen comparing the numbers of Chriſtians in former times, with thoſe in Julian's Reign, ſays, they were not many in former Perſecutions, (Chriſtianity had not reached many, foreign,) no, not in that of Diocleſian, &c. (though they were at that time, farr more numerous, than in Tertullian's age) but that Chriſtianity was found only in a few foreign ccOrat. 3.. The other part which needs no proof, ſince it is granted, (and may be without any advantage to him) he attempts to prove largely and induſtriouſly; but by ſuch a medium as makes that which is granted to be queſtionable, ſuch a one which as it is ordered may conclude backward, and prove the contrary to what he deſigns. That this may be manifeſt, let it be obſerved, that he will have us take an account of the number of Biſhops in the Church by their appearing in Councils, more or fewer; and accordingly judge in ſeveral periods, whether they were leſs numerous, and conſequently their Dioceſes larger in former times than afterwards. And to this purpoſe we need view no other inſtances than himſelf produces. At Lambeſe in Africa there were 90 Biſhops againſt Privatus; but not ſo many in any Council after (though not a few are mentioned in that Countrey) till the Donatiſts grew numerous ddpag. 509.. In Spain the Council of Eliberis had 19 Biſhops in the beginning of the 4th. Age, and the firſt Council of Toledo had no more in the beginning of the age after. But the following Synods, at Saragoſſa, Gerunda, Ilerda, Valentia, Arragon, had not ſo many eepag. 557. 558. In France the Council at Valence had 21 Biſhops in the fourth Age, p. 105but thoſe following them, in that and the after ages had ſtill fewer, viz. That of Riez, Orange, the third of Arles, that at Angers, that at Tours, and Vennes and another at Arles. For General Councils, the firſt at Nice had 318 Biſhops in the beginning of the fourth Age, that at Epheſus above an hundred yearsafter, had but two hundred, that at C. P. in the latter end of the fourth Age had but one hundred and fifty Biſhops.

So that if we take account how many Biſhops there were of old, as he would have us, by their numbers in Councils, there will be more before the middle of the third Age, than in the beginning of the fourth; more in the beginning of the fourth than in ſome part of the fifth; and more in the beginning of the fifth, than in ſome part of the ſixth; quite contrary to the Hypotheſis on which he proceeds. Whether by his argument he would lead us to think Dioceſes did wax and wane ſo odly, as it makes Biſhops to be more or fewer, I cannot tell. However ſince he grants that in the fourth and fifth Ages Dioceſes were very ſmall ffpag. 552., and crumbled into ſmall pieces ggpag. 516., (and ſo nothing like ours): there's no expectation he can find any larger, if any thing near ſo great, in any former age: unleſs they can be larger when incomparably fewer Chriſtians belonged to theſe Biſhops; which will be no leſs a paradox than the former. For it cannot but be thought ſtrange, that the Biſhops Dioceſe ſhould be greater when his flock was undeniably far leſs. And they ſeem not to be Chriſtian Biſhopricks, whoſe meaſures muſt be taken by numbers of Acres rather than of Souls; or by multitudes of Heathens rather than Chriſtians.

He denies not, that the generality of Biſhops, for a long while after the Apoſtles, had but one Congregation to Govern. Pag. 71.What then? ſays he, If all the Beleivers in and p. 106about 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 p. 107belonging 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.hhIn Titus 1.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 foreign, ruling that Church with him. It is the ſame word that the governing of Churches by other Biſhops, is expreſſed by foreign, as Alexander ſaith of Narciſſus, foreign. iiEuſeb. l. 6. c: 11:It imports no leſs than praeſidere, and is aſcribed to Biſhops and Presbyters, jointly by Tertullian, kkApol. c. 39!Cyprian llLib. 1. Ep. 3.and Firmilian. mmEp. 75:Hence the Presbyters are frequently ſaid to be foreign with the Biſhop, nnTheod. Hiſt. l. 4. c. 8. Epiphan. Her. 42.for then the Governing power of Biſhops was but counted a Miniſtry, foreign, ooIſidore Lib. 4. Ep. 260.and the Presbyters fellow Miniſters with him, and joint Adminiſtrators in the Government. They are ſtyled foreign, ppNaz. Orat. 1. Orat. 7.fellow Paſtors, they did not then dream that a Biſhop was ſole Paſtor of many Churches. They are alſo called foreign, which is no leſs than foreign, qqIgnat. 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 foreign to the Sacred Thrones of the Presbyters. rrOrat. 20.They are alſo called foreign.ſ Chyyſ. in Tim. Hom. 1.

But further evidence is needleſs, though abundance may be produced, ſince the great Patrons of Epiſcopacy p. 108ſeems 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, ttPerpet Govern. Cap. 11.Biſhop Downham, uuDefence. lib. 3. L. 1. c. 8.Biſhop Hall aſſerts it, as that which is Ʋniverſally accorded by all antiquity, that all things in the antient Church were ordered and tranſacted by the general conſent of Presbyters. wwIren. P. 47.Mr. Thorndike proves at large, that the Government of Churches paſſed in common; xxPrim. Govern.Primate Ʋſher more ſuccinctly but effectually. yyReduct. of Epiſcopacy.Add but Dr. St. who both aſſerts and proves it, zzIren. 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 foreign. 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, p. 109no, 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 (foreign, 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 foreign, and elſewhere bbCan. 53.foreign, in contradiſtinction to other parts of the Precinct, called here Dioceſes; and the people of it are called foreign by the ancient Canoniſt ccZona. in loc., his proper flock or people, his own ſpecial charge. This was the particular Church under his perſonal Government, but he was not Ruler of the Precinct, or any other Churches in it, ſave only in common, and in conjunction with the other Presbyters; who jointly took cognizance of what in his Church or theirs, was of greater or more general conſequence, and concerned the whole, and gave order in it by common conſent.

And while this was the form of Government, if there had been as many Churches there, thus aſſociated, as Optatus in the fourth age ſays there was at Rome, or far more, they could not make a Dioceſan Church, unleſs a Dioceſan and a Presbyterian Church be all one. For this is plainly a Presbyterian Church, the antient Presbyteries differing from the modern but in a matter of ſmaller moment. In thoſe their Preſident being fixed and conſtant, in theſe commonly though not always circular. The Presbyteries in Scotland comprized ſome twelve, ſome twenty, ſome more Churches, p. 110their Moderators were at firſt, and for ſome years, circular, King James afterwards, Anno 1606 ddHiſt. 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 eeCan. 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 foreign, the power of order, but foreign 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 p. 111teaching (foreign,) and ruling of the Church Now that foreign, denotes juriſdiction or preſidentiam cum poteſtate, and is as Heſychius renders it, foreign, is plain in Chryſoſtome himſelf; he tells us the Apoſtle Paul had foreign, ggIn 1 Cor. Hom. 23. & Hom, 25.which he elſewhere expreſſes by foreign hhIn 2 Cor. Hom. 25.: and ſpeaking of Moſes, he ſays, it was wonderful, that he who was to be a Ruler, foreign, ſhould be born at ſuch a time iiIn 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 kkIn 1 Tim.. So Theodoret declares foreign, juriſdiction to belong to every Presbyter llIn 1 Tim. 5. 19.1 Tim 5:19, against an Elder eſpecially, no leſs than two Witneſſes muſt be admitted, becauſe he having foreign, 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 foreign included in the Presbyters Office, foreign, as Nazzanzen ſpeaks and much more to that purpoſe mmOrat. 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 p. 112in reaſon be denied them; but this the antients aſcribe to them; So Jerome, nnAd 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, foreign, ooHom. 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, foreign, &c. and will have the ſentence of Excommunication reſcinded, which was paſſed by Biſhops or Presbyters without cauſe. ppNovel. 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, foreign, although they had been accustomed to it.qqLex 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, rrThornd. 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, foreign Praepoſiti, Antiſtites, Praeſidentes, ſſIdem. 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 p. 111may they be ſaid to be really the ſame, ſince they were of the very ſame Office; for Biſhops in the antient Church, were not a ſuperiour Order to Presbyters, but had only a Precedency in the ſame Order. This ſome of the moſt judicious and learned Defenders of Epiſcopacy aſſert. And thoſe who hold that Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Biſhops differed not in Order, but in degree only, which is the common opinion of Epiſcopal Divines, and yet contend that Biſhops and Presbyters were of a different order, will never be able to prove it. The difference they aſſign between Biſhops and Metropolitans is, that theſe preſided in Synode, and had a principal interest in Ordinations, and what more did the preeminence of antient Biſhops, diſtinguiſhing them from Presbyters amount to? It conſiſted in nothing material but their preſidency in Presbyteries, and their power in Ordinations. This laſt is moſt inſiſted on, as making the difference wider, between theſe than the other. But with little reaſon all things conſidered. For thoſe to be ordained, were firſt to be examined and approved by the Presbyters, foreign ttTheophilus Commonitor. cap. 6., the ordaining of one to the Presbytery was to be foreign uuClem. Constitut. lib. 8. cap. 18.It was a crime for which the greateſt Biſhop in the World was cenſurable, to preferr any, or make Ordinations foreign, as appears by what Chryſoſtome was accuſed of, though it is like falſly wwPhot. in Chry Tom. 8. pag. 155 Concil. Carth. … cap. 22. Turon. 2, and this is counted by ſome the ſubſtance of Ordination, wherein the Presbyters had no leſs ſhare (to ſay no more) than the Biſhop. And in impoſing hands, which was the Rite of Ordaining, the Presbyters were to concurr with the Biſhop, for which there is better Authority than the Canon of an African Council, for ſaith a very learned Do…or xxIren. p. 27…, to this purpoſe, the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery yy1 Tim. 1. ….1 Tim 1, is no ways impertinently alledged, although p. 112we ſuppoſe St. Paul …o concurr in the action; becauſe if the Presbytery had nothing to do in the Ordination, to what purpoſe were their hands laid upon him? Was it only to be Witneſſes of the fact, or to ſignifie their conſent? Both theſe might have been, done without their uſe of that Ceremony, which will ſcarce be inſtanced in, to be done by any but ſuch, as had power to conferr what was ſignifyed by that Ceremony. And diverſe inſtances are brought by the ſame hand to ſhew that Ordinations by Presbyters was valid in the antient Church zzpag. 379..

But if the Presbyters had been quite excluded from Ordination, and this power had been intirely reſerved to the Biſhops, yet this would not be ſufficient to conſtitute them a ſuperiour Order. For the Rite of Ordaining was ſo farr from being an act of Government or juriſdiction, that it did not inferre any ſuperiority in the Ordainer; nothing being more ordinary in the practice of the Antient Church, than for thoſe were of a lower Degree and Station, to Ordain their Superiours.

While there was no more diſtance betwixt Biſhop and Presbyters but only in Degree, ſo that as the Biſhop was but primus Presbyter, (as Hilary under the name of Ambroſe, and others aaIn 1 Tim. Autor. Queſt. in V. …t N. T.; or Primicerius as Optatus, defined by a Learned Civilian to be foreign) bbGothofrid. in Code.the first Presbyter, ſo the Presbyter was a ſecond Biſhop foreign, as Nazianzen. As the Biſhop was ſummus ſacerdos, in the ſtyle of Tertullian and others, that is, cheif Presbyter, ſo the Presbyter was Biſhop a degree lower; not that he had leſs paſtoral power, but becauſe he wanted that degree of dignity or preeminence, for which the other was ſtyled chief. As the Praeter Ʋrbanus was called Maximus, yet he p. 113had no more Power than the other, Praetorum idem erat collegium, eadem poteſtas ccBodin. lib. 3. c. 6., but only ſome more priviledge and dignity, dignitate coeteros anteibat propterea maximus dicebatur ddFeſt. in verb. major., and the foreign, at Athens was Praetor maximus, yet all the reſt were pares poteſtaet eeIbid.; Biſhops and Presbyters had idem ministerium as Jerome, eadem Ordinatio, as Hilary ffIn 1 Tim. 3.1 Tim 3, they were of the ſame Order and Office, had the ſame power, the power of the Keys, all that which the Scripture makes eſſential to a Biſhop. While it was thus, there could be no Dioceſan Churches, that is, no Churches conſiſting of many Congregations which had but one Biſhop only.