Diocesan Churches Not Yet Discovered in Primitive Times, Text (1 of 3)
Dioceſan Churches not yet diſcovered in the Primitive times.
TO ſhew that many Presbyters in one Church was not enough to prove it a Dioceſan, I I made it manifeſt that it was uſual in the antient Church, to multiply Presbyters, beyond what we count neceſſary; (not beyond what is neceſſary, as it is too often miſrepreſented:) For this I offer'd two Teſtimonies, one aſſerting it to be ſo in the First Age, the other in the Fourth, and thought theſe ſufficient, if they could not be denied, (as they are not) to evince it to have been ſo in the Third: For who can reaſonably ſuppoſe, but that had place in the Third, which was uſual both in the Ages before and after? The firſt was that of Biſhop Downham, who ſayes, at the firſt Converſion of Cities, the number of people converted were not much greater than the number of Presbyters placed amongſt them. But this, its ſayed can be of little uſe; becauſe, 1. This was not the caſe of the Church of Carthage, it was not a new converted Church, but ſetled long before, and in a flouriſhing condition.
The Church of Carthage by the fierce perſecutions in Cyprians time (which is the time we ſpeak of) was brought ſo low, and reduced to ſo very few, as if it had been but new converted, and how was it in a ſetled and flouriſhing condition, when it was ſo lamentably waſted, and ſtill harraſſed one year after another? or who can believe it, that reads Cyprian lamenting; Preſſurae iſtius tam turbidam vaſtitatem, quae gregem nostrum maxima ex parte populata eſt, adhue & uſque populatur, and that they were poſiti inter plangentium ruinas, et timentium reliquias, inter numeroſam & languentium ſtragem, et exiguam ſtantium paucita…em? (a)Lib. 4. Ep. 4.Was not this much the caſe of the Apoſtolical Churches, unleſs this of Carthage was worſe, and ſo leſs for our Author's advantage? Or if this were otherwiſe, the Churches in Nazianzen's time were not newly converted, but ſetled long before, and in a flouriſhing condition; which yet cannot be denyed to have had more Presbyters than we count needful. So that this was the practiſe in every condition of the Church, whether flouriſhing or not.
2. He ſayes, many more Presbyters may be ordained in a City, than is neceſſary for the firſt beginning of a Church, with reſpect to future increaſe. &c.
And who will queſtion, but the many Presbyters in the Church of Carthage were for future increaſe both in City and Country? So that herein the caſe is not different; And the deſign of that number of Officers might partly be for other Congregations, (Epiſcopal Churches, though not Dioceſan) to furniſh them with Officers. This is apparent afterwards in the practice of the African Churches, who when a new Church was erected, ſupplyed it with a Biſhop or other Aſſiſtants from places better ſtored with Officers; And it is exemplyfied particularly (as we ſhall ſee hereafter) in the proviſion which St. Auſtin made for Fuſſala.
He ſayes further, the multitude of Presbyters belonging to one Congregational Church, might be occaſion'd by the uncertain abode of moſt of the Apoſtles and their Commiſſioners, who are the Principal, if not the only Ordainers of Presbyters mentioned in Scripture.
But herein he does but gueſs, and had no reaſon to be poſitive, unleſs the Apoſtles and their Commiſſioners, (as he calls them,) had been then the only Ordainers, which he will not venture to affirm, knowing what evidence there is againſt it.
Laſtly, he ſayes, if this opinion of Biſhop Downham had any certain ground in Antiquity, we ſhould probably hear of it with both eares, and we ſhould have it recommended upon antienter Authority than his.
This of Biſhop Downham hath certain ground in the beſt antiquity, if the New Teſtament be ſuch; where it is plain there were many Presbyters in diverſe Churches, ſuch as are not yet, nor ever will be proved to be Dioceſan.
To that of Nazianzen; he ſayes, it hath received its anſwer, and adds, he that cannot anſwer it to himſelf, from the great difference between the condition of the Church in Cyprian, and in Nazianzen's time, hath a fondneſs for the Argument.
This is the anſwer it received, Pag. 51. and this difference was thus expreſſed a little before; But that any Church ſixt and ſetled, having its Biſhop alwayes preſent, ſhould multiply Presbyters beyond neceſſity, in the circumſtances of the Primitive Chriſtians before Conſtantine, is altogether incredible; for the neceſſary expences of the Church were very great, the poor numerous, the generality of Chriſtians not of the Richeſt, and the Eſtates they had being at the diſcretion of their enemies, and ruin'd with perpetual perſecution, &c. He ſayes, multiplying Presbyters beyond neceſſity, and without neceſſity; while he alters my words ſo as to change the ſenſe, he diſputes againſt himſelf, not me; But this looking more like an Argument than any thing before, I ſhall take a little more notice of it. 1. Is not all this applicable to the Churches in the Apoſtle's times, when it cannot be denyed Presbyters were multiplyed beyond what we count neceſſary? The poor numerous, the generality of Christians not of the Richeſt, and the Eſtates they had being at the diſcretion of their enemies, and ruin'd with perpetual perſecution.
Further, the Church before Constantine and Carthage particularly, ſuppoſing theſe to be its circumſtances, might have many Presbyters without any great charge: For 1ſt. the Church Stock was reſerved only for thoſe in want, foreign, as is determin'd in one of the Canons which paſs for Apoſtolical, (b)Can. 4.and the ſame decreed in the ſynod at Antioch. (c)Can. 25.Ambroſe even in the 4th. Age, will have none to have a ſtipend who hath other revenues, Qui fidei exercet militiam, agelli ſui fructibus, ſi habet, debet eſſe contentus; ſi non habet, stipendiorum ſuorum fructu. (d)Offic. L. 1. …. 36.And Chryſoſtom tells us that in Elections, thoſe of the Competitors that had Eſtates did carry it, becauſe the Church would need to be at no charge in maintaining of ſuch, foreign. 2ly. When they had no Eſtates, and the Church (e) De ſacerd. …er. 3. Pag. 23. …dit. Savil.could not maintain them, they were to provide for themſelves by ſome honeſt imployment. The Council of Elvira allows all ſorts of Clergy men to drive a trade, for their living, provided they did it only in the Province where they lived, (f)Can. 19.and in the 4th. Council of Carthage it is ordered, that the Clergy, though they be learned in the word of God, ſhall get their living by a trade. (g)Can. 51.and in the next Canon that they ſhall get food and rayment by a Trade or Husbandry, with this proviſo, that it be not a prejudice to their Office. Our Author ſayes indeed, (h)Pag. 154.that this is contrary to the uſage of all other Churches; how true this is may be ſeen by the Canon before cited. He ſayes alſo, that this is forbidden by the 3d. Council of Carthage; but neither is this ſo, that Canon adds but another reſtriction, viz. that they get not their livings by an employment that is ſordid or diſhoneſt, where the (i) Can. 15. in Cod. 16.Latine and Greek both agree in it. 3ly. The Church was to allow none of them, no not Biſhops more than neceſſary, even after Conſtantine's time. That Canon call'd the Apoſtles, and the other Antioch forecited, expreſs this in the ſame words, the Biſhop may have of the Church Stock what is needfull, if he be neceſſitous, foreign, for neceſſary uſes, and theſe are afterwards explain'd to be food and rayment. Zonaras expreſſes it fully and clearly, whom he that the Canon doth not ſatisfie, may conſult.
Having ſhew'd out of Juſtinian, that 60 Presbyters belonged to the great Church in Conſtantinople, and thence inferr'd they were numerous in Conſtantine's time, the number (ſayes he,) was become extravagant in Justinians time; but what is this to their number in Cyprian's?
He ſhould have asked the Dean this, who to prove Dioceſan Churches from the number of Presbyters, immediately after Teſtimonies out of Cyprian, brings this of Justinian.
For this very edict of Juſtinian ſhews that this multiplying of Church Officers was an innovation, and therefore would have them reduced to the firſt eſtabliſhment.
Juſtinian took order to retrench the numbers of Presbyters, not therefore becauſe it was an innovation, but becauſe the Church revenue could not maintain ſo many, which is expreſs in the Novel.
But that firſt eſtabliſhment it ſeems admitted great numbers, for one Church had 60. True; but it muſt alſo be noted firſt, that theſe 60 were to ſerve more than one Church.
Some may be ready to ask how it can be true, that one Church ſhould have 60, and yet more than one had theſe 60 amongſt them.
For there were three more beſides St. Sophia to be ſupplyed by theſe Presbyters. &c.
True; but this ſtill confirms what I anſwer'd to their argument from the multitude of Presbyters, that in the antient Church the Officers were multiplyed above what we count needful: For it is not now thought needful that any 3 or 4 Churches in a City, ſhould have 60 Presbyters, 100 Deacons, 90 Subdeacons, Readers 110. &c.
Yet after all, there is no argument to be drawn from this number, for theſe were Canons of a particular foundation, deſign'd for the ſervice of a Collegiate Church; and no meaſure to be taken from thence concerning the numbers of Presbyters belonging to the Dioceſs. This is evident from the Preface of the ſaid Novel.
If no argument is to be drawn from this number, why did the Learned Dean draw one from it? 2ly. This ſeems ſcarce conſiſtent with the former Period: there, theſe Presbyters were for 3 or 4 Churches, here they are but for one Collegiate Church of which they were Canons, and this ſaid to be evident in the Preface, where I cannot ſee it. 3ly. Since no meaſure is to be taken from hence concerning the numbers of Presbyters belonging to a Dioceſs; it ſeems there may be this number of Presbyters in a place which cannot be counted a Dioceſs, (as this one great Church never was, nor can be) and then no argument drawn from the number of Presbyters at Rome, Carthage, Edeſſa, &c. will prove a Dioceſan Church; for here was the greateſt number, which any where we meet with.
Dr. St. to prove Dioceſan Churches from the numerouſneſs of Presbyters, mentioned 60 in C. P. in Juſtinian's time; from hence on the by, I thought it reaſonable to ſuppoſe they were numerous in Conſtantine's time, when yet Theodoret ſayes, all the Brethren met together with the Biſhop. That the number of Presbyters is no proof of a Dioceſan Church was evinced ſufficiently before: this fell in occaſionally, and was added ex abundanti; Yet upon this ſupernumerary ſtragler he turns his main force, ſpending about 12 Pages on it. I am little concerned what becomes of it, ſince the main Hypotheſis is already ſecured by the premiſſes; but that this Gentleman may not quite looſe all his labour, I am willing to looſe a little, in taking ſome notice of it.
I muſt confeſs that what is added concerning the Church of C. P. is ſomewhat ſurprizing, no doubt ſayes he, that the Presbyters were more numerous in C. P.
Indeed it might have been ſurprizing if I had ſaid as he reports me, that they were more numerous; but I ſaw reaſon not to ſay ſo, though what reaſon there was to impoſe it on me I know not: I cited Soc: miſprinted Soz. ſaying, Conſtantine built two Churches at C. P., but laid no ſtreſs on it at all. (k)Soc. l. 1. c. 12.It is true, he ſayes not that he built no more than two, but his expreſſion plainly implyes it, and he was concerned if he had known any more to have mention'd it, when in the ſame Line, he ſayes Conſtantine intended to make it equal to Rome. Euſebius's words agree well enough herewith, he ſayes Conſtantine adorn'd it, foreign, with more Churches, and that's true, if he built but two more, or any more than was there formerly, or any more than was uſual. And theſe more Churches were not in the City, but (as the Hiſtorian ſpeaks) partly there, and partly foreign, which as the word is uſed, may denote places many Miles diſtant from the City, as the Gentleman elſewhere obſerves after Valeſius. Sozomen ſayes he built foreign, many Churches, (not very many as he will have it) but if he thereby meant more than are named by Socrates, we need not underſtand that done before the time Theodoret ſpeaks of; Nor ſhould a lax expreſſion be more relyed on, than one that is punctual and definite; unleſs we have a mind either to be miſled, or to ſet the two Hiſtorians together by the ears. Sozomen names but one Church more than Socrates did, and that not in, but a good diſtance from the City, (70 Furlongs by Land,) and 3 may paſs for many, when it was a rare thing for any City to have more than one. The beſt Authors, as they ſometimes expreſs very few by none, and a generality by all; ſo they expreſs more than ordinary by many; and two or three ſuch Churches in one City were more than ordinary at that time, when one City in an Hundred had not two Churches, and one in a Thouſand had not three Churches, that could be ſtyled foreign: all that Conſtantine built here were ſuch, both Euſebius his more, and Sozomen's many, are ſaid, by them to be very great, foreign. But no conſiderable Author that I meet with in that Age, or ſome Hundreds of years after, names more than two very great Churches erected by Constantine in that City. And if compariſon be made, there is no Hiſtorian of thoſe times, to be more regarded in matters which concern C. P, than Socrates who tells us, that he was born and educated in C. P., and continued there (as an L. 9. C. 24.advocate) when he wrote his Hiſtory.
But if we ſhould ſuppoſe that Sozomen intended more than 3 or 4 Churches, or that the Emperour built no more than was requiſite, and only conſulted conveniency, and deſign'd not State or Magnificence, (which yet our Author a little after ſayes he did; and we know nothing is more ordinary than for great Cities to have more Churches than are needful: it was ſo in London before the Fire, and the retrenching of their number ſince ſhews it:) yet this will be ſo far from proving Alexander's Church in C. P. to be Dioceſan, that it will not prove it greater than ſome ſingle Congregations: for there were 12 Churches in Alexandria, when yet the Church in that City adhereing to Athanaſius conſiſted of no more than are in ſome one of our Pariſhes. For which ſuch Evidence has been brought, as is not yet, nor I think, can be defaced. Nor can we imagine that two Churches, much leſs one, could ſuffice all the Chriſtians in C. P. when the City of Heliopolis being converted to Chriſtianity required more, and Conſtantine built ſeveral for them, foreign.
The word plurally expreſſed is much improved by our Author, he makes out of it diverſe Churches, and all theſe Churches, when yet all theſe were but one Church, as Socrates himſelf makes it plain a little before lSoc. l. 1. c. 18.; for having related how Conſtantine ordered a Church to be built near the Oak at Mambre, he adds, that he ordered another Church (not Churches) to be erected at Heliopolis, foreign. And to put it paſt doubt, Euſebius whom the Emperour employ'd about thoſe ſtructures, and from whom in all likelihood Socrates had the Relation, gives an account but of one Church there founded by the Emperour, which he calls foreign ml. 3. c. 56. Devitâ Conſtant., and that it was furniſhed with a Biſhop, Presbyters and Deacons. So that the Biſhop of Heliopolis had but one Church for his Dioceſs, which our Author ſhould not be ſo loath to own, ſince it cannot be proved that at this time one Biſhop in an hundred, had more.
Valeſius (whom our Author much relies on) in his Notes upon this place, is ſo far from thinking that Conſtantine built more Churches in Heliopolis, that he judges this one at preſent was not neceſſary for it, the Town having then no Chriſtians in it: and aſſigns this as the reaſon why Euſebius ſpeaks of it as a thing unuſual, that it ſhould have a Biſhop appointed, and a Church built in it. His words are, Fortaſſe hoc novum & inauditum fuiſſe intelligit, &c. He may think this new and unheard of, that a Church ſhould be built in a City, where as yet there were no Chriſtians but all were alike idolaters. Therefore this Church was built at Heliopolis, not for that there was any neceſſity of it, but rather in hope that he might invite all the Citizens to the profeſſion of the Chriſtian Religion. So that the Biſhop here had none for his Dioceſe but one Church, and that empty, there being then no Chriſtians in lib. 3. de vit. Conſtant. c. 58. p. 235.in that one Pariſh; which yet was all he had to make him a Dioceſan.
The better to confute Theodoret, who ſaies (for they are his words, not mine) that Alexander with all the Brethren met together, he endeavours to ſhew the ſtate of that Church about the latter end of Conſtantine, &c. this he does here and after by an undue Application of ſome paſſages in Sozomen. For the account which that Hiſtorian gives of that City is not confined to Conſtantine's time, but reaches beyond it, ay, and beyond Julian's too, which appears, as by other paſſages, ſo by his mentioning the heathen Temples in the time of that Emperour. And with reſpect to the time after Conſtantine muſt that expreſſion be underſtood, which makes C. P. to exceed Rome, not only in Riches, but in the number of Inhabitants, otherwiſe it will be apparently falſe. For when Chryſoſtome was Biſhop there, about 70 years after (when it is like the number of the Inhabitants were doubled, it cannot be queſtioned but they were far more numerous) he who beſt could do it, reckons the Chriſtians then to be an 100000 nIn Act. Hom. 11. pag. 674.; our Author will have us look upon the Jews and Heathen there to be inconſiderable but let us count them another 100000. Yet both put together will fall incomparably ſhort of the number in old Rome, which by the computation of Lipſius was at leaſt two millions oDe Magnit. Rom. lib. 3. c. 3.. And in Conſtantine's time new Rome was as far ſhort of the old as to its greatneſs in circuit, for whereas Herodian declares that Severus quite demoliſhed Byzantium for ſiding with Niger, and reducing it to the state of a Village ſubjected it to Perinthus, foreign plib. 3. p. 68.we cannot in reaſon ſuppoſe it to be extraordinarily ſpacious; yet as Zoſimus reports, all the inlargement which Constantine gave it, was but the addition of 15 Furlongs, foreign qlib. 2. p. 62.Now ſuppoſe it was 30 or 40 Furlongs in compaſs before (and ſo larger than one City in an hundred) yet this addition will leave it leſs than Alexandria, which, as Joſephus deſcribes it, was 80 Furlongs, that is, ten miles in circumference rDe Bello Jud. lib. 2. cap. 16., yet Alexandria was four times leſs than Rome, for by Vopiſcus's account, in Aurelian's time, not long before Conſtantine, the walls were made by him near 50 miles in circuit. So it will be in compariſon of Conſtantinople when firſt built, rather like a Nation than a City, as Ariſtotle ſaid of the other Babylon, foreign sPol. lib. 3. c. 2.. If then we will have this paſſage of Sozomen to have any appearance of truth, it muſt be extended far beyond Conſtantine's time, when, as Zoſimus tells us, many of the ſucceeding Emperours were ſtill drawing multitudes of People to that City, ſo that it was afterwards encompaſſed with walls far larger, foreign, than thoſe of Conſtantine tlib. 2. p. 65.. And in an Oration of Themiſtius, it is made a queſtion whether Theodoſius junior did not add more to C. P. than Conſtantine did to Byzantium.
Many of the Jews and almoſt all the Heathen were converted and became Chriſtians.
The expreſſion of Sozomen does not hinder but as the main body of the Jews remained, ſo the numbers of the Heathen might be conſiderable. Tertullian ſpeaks of Citizens in his time as if they were almoſt all Christians, penè omnes cives chriſtiani uApol. c. 37.; yet no inſtance can be given of any one City where the Chriſtians were the major part of the Inhabitants: thoſe that take his words in a ſtrict ſenſe are very injurious to him, and make him ſpeak that which no antient Records will warrant. Sozomen alſo may ſuffer by ſtraining his expreſſion; but I will not digreſs to take further notice of what is not material; for I deſign not, nor have any need, to make any advantage of the numbers of the Heathens in this City.
He tells us of 950 Work-houſes whoſe rents were allowed to defray the Funeral expences of all that died in the City (for ſo it is expreſſed in the Conſtitution, foreign wNovel. 43.) theſe being performed with great ſolemnity, and multitudes of Attendants maintained by thoſe rents for that purpoſe xNov. 59. c. 2.. How this here makes the Chriſtians in C. P. to be ſo very numerous as he would have them, he ſhould have ſhewed us; I am not yet ſo ſagacious, as to diſcover it. The number of the Decani was determined by Honorius to 950 yCod. de Eccl. Lex. 4:. Our Author thinks it probable they were ſo many at the firſt eſtabliſhment, but there's more ground to believe, they were much fewer in Conſtantine's time; for about 800 were counted ſufficient in Juſtinian's Reign, 200 years after, when the City was both larger, and much more populous and in its greateſt flouriſh zNovel. 59. c. 2.. Thoſe that conſider the premiſſes, may well think, he might have form'd his concluſion in terms leſs confident, to ſay no worſe of it.
Next he forms an Objection againſt himſelf: notwithſtanding the number of Chriſtians in C. P. might be much too great for one Congregation, yet the major part might be Hereticks or Schiſmaticks, ſuch as came not to the Biſhop's Church, and therefore all that adhered to him might be no more than could meet in one Aſſembly.
To which he anſwers, that the number of Hereticks and Schiſmaticks was inconſiderable, and will not except the Arians or Novatians. For the Arians, he ſaies, they had not yet made a formal Separation.
But if they did not ſeparate themſelves, the Church would have them ſeparated, and did exclude them from communion, and withſtood Conſtantine's importunity for their admiſſion, both here and in other places: Athanaſius was threatned by Euſebius of Nicomedia aSoc. lib. 2. c. 1;, and baniſhed by the Emperour for this cauſe among others. And Alexander being ſecured by Arius his death from admitting him to Communion, was the occaſion of this paſſage in Theodoret which gives our Author ſo much trouble. Now the Arians being debarred from communion, leſſened the Biſhop's Church, both here and elſewhere, as much as if they had ſeparated themſelves. And they were numerous here, this being the place where they had greateſt favour; in Conſtantine's Edict againſt the Hereticks whoſe meetings he would have ſuppreſſed, the Arians were not mentioned when the other are named bEuſeb. de vita Conſtant. lib. 3. cap. 62. 63.. Socrates writes that the People in this City was divided into two Parties the Arians and the Orthodox, they had continually ſharp bickerings, but while Alexander lived the Orthodox had the better; as ſoon as he was dead (which was *Vales obſerv. in Soc. & Soz. l. 2. c Soc. lib. 2. c. 6.while Conſtantine lived) it ſeems they appeared equal, for the conteſt, ſaies he, was dubious, foreign c. In Nazianzen's time ſo far they overtopt the Orthodox, that this great Dioceſan Church appear'd but in the form of a private meeting, held in a very little houſe, where he kept a Conventicle with them, foreign, ſo Sozomen dLib. 7. cap. 5., and Socrates agrees with him in the expreſſion, foreign, ſuch a diminutive place ſeems as unproportionable for ſuch a Dioceſan Church as a Nutſhell for Homer's Iliads, or a Key-hole for a Witch, to uſe our Author's Elegancies.
As for the Novatians to which he will have no more allowed than a Conventicle, they were numerous in other places, they had once diverſe Churches in Alexandria, many Churches in Rome and in other places. It is like they were numerous here, for here they had as much favour or more, and longer too, than in the Cities forementioned, here Socrates ſayes they had three Churches eLib. 2. cap. 30., and if three Churches would but make one inconſiderable Conventicle; it is poſſible the other Orthodox Churches (though he will have them to be many) might be comprized in one vaſt Congregation.
I might obſerve how much Sozomen is miſ-repreſented in what he ſayes next of thoſe concerned in the Edict, the Novatians eſpecially. He ſpeaks not mincingly as our Author would have him, but fully that the Novatians did not ſuffer much by the Edict; he does not ſay only that it was probable they ſuffered little, but ſayes this only of a reaſon himſelf gives, why they ſuffered not much. He gives other reaſons for it than the opinion, the Novatians had of that Biſhop. He does not ſay the other Hereticks were altogether extirpated. He does not confeſs that the Novatians ſuffered the ſame meaſure with others every where, no, nor any where elſe, it is the Montaniſts that he ſayes this of. He dares to affirm they had a Conventicle or more, for he affirms they had an eminent Biſhop in C. P. and were not only numerous there before the Edict, but continued ſo after. The Gentleman was in too much haſte here, as himſelf will perceive, by obſerving how much his account differs from the Hiſtorians.
At laſt he comes to that paſſage of Theodoret which occaſioned all theſe lines, but Theodoret affirms they were no more than could meet in one Church, and that they did actually do ſo, I anſwer, ſayes he, that Theodoret does not ſay ſo, and the paſſage cited does not conclude it.
I did not ſay Theodoret affirms they were no more, than could meet in one Church, but he ſayes the ſame in effect, viz. that all the Brethren aſſembled with Alexander. His words are, Alexander, the Church rejoycing, hcld an Aſſembly with all the Brethren, praying and greatly glorifying God. The words are plain, and the ſenſe, I take them in, is open in the face of them. Nor do I believe that any diſintereſted perſon would put any other ſenſe upon them than this, that the generality of Chriſtians of which the Church at Conſtantinople conſiſted, aſſembled together with their Biſhop Alexander, to praiſe God joyfully for their deliverance by the death of Arius. But he will not have the words taken in a general ſenſe, but will ſuppoſe them taken with reſpect to that particular Congregation, in which Arius was to be reconciled. Yet this ſuppoſition hath no ground either in the words, or in the contexture of the Diſcourſe, or any where elſe that I know of, or our Author either; for if he had, we ſhould have heard it with both ears, as he ſpeaks elſewhere. He will not have all the Brethren, to be all the Believers at C. P. yet he knows that Brethren and Believers are Synonymous terms both in Scripture and ancient Authors. And thoſe were the Believers or Brethren of the Church of C. P. which had occaſion to rejoyce, and that was the whole Church there: as for foreign, render'd Ʋniverſi, I do not take it for all and every one of the Chriſtians there; for in all Aſſemblies, of great Churches eſpecially, many are alwayes abſent. He had dealt more fairly with Theodoret, if by all he would have underſtood the generality of Chriſtians adhereing to Alexander at C. P. or the greateſt part of them, and about ſuch an abatement of the full import of the word, there had been no need to contend; but his reſtraint of it to a particular Congregation agrees not with the words, nor the occaſion of them, nor hath any ſupport elſewhere.
Nor is that better which follows, unleſs you will ſay that with all the Brethren, does not ſignifie their perſonal preſence, but only their unanimity.
This looks more like a ſhift than a plain anſwer, and therefore he was well adviſed in not venturing to own it.
Theodoret could not think that all the Beleivers of C. P. could come together to the Biſhop's Church, for he cites a Letter of Conſtantine's a little after, where he gives an account of the great increaſe of that Church. In the City that is call'd by my name by the Providence of God, an infinite multitude of People have joined themſelves to the Church, and all things there wonderfully increaſing, it ſeems very requiſite that more Churches ſhould be built; underſtanding therefore hereby what I have reſolved to do, I though fit to order you to provide 50 Bibles fairly and legibly written.
He does not ſay an infinite multitude, the words of the Letter are foreign, that there was a very great multitude of Chriſtians is not denied, nor that he intended to build more Churches; but this confirms what is ſignified before, that theſe very many Churches were not yet built, but only in deſign, and that with a proſpect of Chriſtians there ſtill increaſing. And the Bibles, if they were intended only for C. P. might be for the future Churches, not the preſent only.
His Concluſion is, where Chriſtians were ſo multiplied that it was neceſſary to build more Churches, and to make ſuch proviſions for the multitude of their Aſſemblies, it could not be that they ſhould all make but one Congregation.
He ſhould have concluded that which is denied, otherwiſe all he hath premiſed will be inſignificant, and to no purpoſe: it is granted that all the Chriſtians at C. P. did make more than one Congregation, and for their conveniency met at other times in ſeveral Churches. That which is denied is, that the main Body or generality of Chriſtians there could not meet in one Aſſembly, or did not ſo meet at this time with their Biſhop Alexander, as to this he hath proved nothing, and therefore did well to conclude nothing againſt that which is affirmed to be the plain import of Theodoret's expreſſion.
And it may be ſuppoſed that Theodoret, if he had not expreſſed it, might well think (though the contrary be ſuggeſted) that as great multitudes, as Constantine's Letters ſignified, might meet together at the Biſhop's Church; for himſelf declares what a vaſt Congregation he preached to at Antioch, having an Auditory of many Myriads fEp. 83.. I will not ask him what Euſebius could think, when he tells us the Chriſtians had foreign, Aſſemblies conſisting of Myriads gLib. 8. Cap. 1.. Nor what Socrates thought, when he tells us long after, of C. P. that the whole City became one Aſſembly, and meeting in an Oratory, continued there all day hLib. 7. cap. 23., foreign, &c. But I would have him tell me how he underſtands that paſſage of Chryſoſtome, foreign i. What is the import of theſe words? Do they ſignify that ten Myriads were aſſembled in one place to hear Chryſoſtome? If ſo, there will be no queſtion but that the generality of Chriſtians might meet in one Church with Alexander in Conſtantine's Reign; for that then, (about 70 years before) there was any thing ne… ſo many Chriſtians as an 100000; adhereing to one Biſhop in this City, cannot with any reaſon be imagined. Or does he mean only, that there were ſo many Myriads of Chriſtians contained in that City? If ſo, then he ſaies here no more than in another Homily forecited, where the number of Chriſtians in C. P. is computed to be an 100000, reckoning all beſides Jews and Heathens. Now if they were no more in his time, they cannot with reaſon be ſuppoſed to have been above half ſo many in Conſtantine's (unleſs any can imagine, that their numbers advanced more in 6 years than in 70, when the ſucceeding Emperours multiplyed the Inhabitants exceſſively, foreign, as Zoſimus tells us kLib. 2., crouding the City ſo full as that they could ſcarce ſtir without danger:) and a great part of theſe were fallen off to Arius while Alexander was Biſhop: the Novatians alſo, were numerous, having ſeveral Churches; and theſe with other Sects being deducted, the Chriſtians there that communicated with Alexander will be no more (if ſo many) than belong to ſome one of our Pariſhes.
It would ſwell this Preface to too great a Bulk▪ if I ſhould anſwer the reſt ſo particularly.
Since he deſigned to be ſo breif, and to have ſo ſhort a Preface, I wiſh he had employed more of it againſt that which is the ſtrength of the Diſcourſe he oppoſes, and of more conſequence to the main Cauſe; and not have ſpent ſo many leaves upon a by-paſſage, for which we have little reaſon to be concerned: for if he could make it appear, that the Chriſtians at C. P. in Conſtantine's time were more than could meet in one Congregation, yea, or in two either; that would be far from proving it a Dioceſan Church, unleſs ſome one or two of our Pariſhes can be counted ſo.
Let me add in fine, that our Author has done juſt nothing towards the diſproving of what Theodoret was alledged for; unleſs he ſhew, that C. P. exceeded old Rome, was furniſhed with ſuch an infinite number of Chriſtians, ſo many (more than two) magnificent Churches there erected, the 50 Bibles thought needful to be provided, and almoſt all the Heathen beſides many Jews converted; before Alexander (who is ſaid to hold this Aſſembly with all the brethren) deceaſed; and ſo unleſs he prove that all this was done (which himſelf I think can ſcarce believe) in leſs than a year. For Valeſius (upon whoſe authority this Gentleman takes much) proves at large (making it the buſineſs of one of his Books) that Alexander died (and yet muſt live ſome while after this panegyrical Aſſembly) in the year 331. L. 2. obſerv. i… Soc. & Soz.And its manifeſt, that C. P, was not built, nor had that name till 331. For tho' it was building the year before, yet it was not finiſhed till 25 of Conſtantine's Reign (as Jerome and others:) and the beginning of his Reign is Chronic.reckoned from the death of Conſtantius his Father, who was Conſul with Maximiunus in the year 306, and Faſt Conſul.died in the middle of it. There needs not a word more to ſhew that all his diſcourſe on this ſubject is wholly inſignificant, and not at all for his purpoſe, tho' this be the moſt conſiderable part of his Preface.
This Author gives ſeveral inſtances of ſeveral Biſhops being in one City at the ſame time, in anſwer to the Dean of Paul's, who affirmed that it was an inviolable rule of the Church to have but one, &c. Jeruſalem is the firſt inſtance, &c. I wonder to find a man of Learning cite this paſſage, than which nothing can be more diſadvantageous to his Cauſe.
There is one who I ſuppoſe paſſes for a man of learning who for the ſame purpoſe makes uſe of this inſtance, ſince mine was publiſhed; We have, ſaith he, Examples in Eccleſiaſtical ſtory of of two Biſhop's at the ſame time in the ſame See, and yet this was never thought Schiſmatical, when the ſecond was advanced by the conſent of the firſt. Thus Alexander a Biſhop in Cappadocia was made Biſhop of Jeruſalem while Narciſſus was living, but very old: and Anatolius at the ſame time, ſate in the Church of Caeſarea with Theotecnus, and this was St. Auſtin's own caſe, who was made Biſhop of Hippo while there was another Biſhop living lDefence of Dr. St. p. 178.. He ſayes alſo, Nothing can be more diſadvantageous to my cauſe than this paſſage. If it had been no advantage to my cauſe, I ſhould have thought it bad enough; but if nothing could be more diſadvantageous, I am very unhappy: let us ſee how it is made good.
Narciſſus having retired, and the people not knowing what had become of him, the neighbouring Biſhops ordained Dius in his place, who was ſucceeded by Gordius and after by Germanico, (it ſhould be by Germanico, and after by Gordius) in whoſe time Narciſſus returned, and was deſired to reſume his Office, and did ſo. What became of Germanico (he means Gordius,) is not ſaid but probably he reſigned or died preſently.
There is nothing to make either of theſe probable, it is altogether as likely, if not more, that he continued Biſhop there with Narciſſus for ſome time; but becauſe Euſebius ſayes nothing of it, I inſiſt not on it. But beſides he tells us, Narciſſus took Alexander, into the participation of the charge. That ſignifies Narciſſus was not excluded from the Epiſcopal charge, both had their parts therein. No, but ſayes he, Alexander was the Biſhop, Narciſſus retained but the name and title only, that is, he was but a Titular, not really a Biſhop, and why ſo? becauſe Alexander, ſayes he, joined with him in prayers, and the Hiſtorian ſayes he was not able to officiate by reaſon of his great age. He was not able it may be to perform all the Offices of a Biſhop, but what he was able to do no doubt he performed. Now if they muſt be but titular Biſhops, who perform not perſonally all the Offices of a Paſtoral charge (when they cannot pretend foreign) how many real Biſhops ſhall we find in the World? But beſides the Name and Title, did he not retain the Power and Authority of a Biſhop? If not, how came he to looſe it? Did he reſign, or was he depoſed? That he reſigned there is not the leaſt intimation in this Hiſtorian or any other; nor any inſtance in the antient Church, that ever any Biſhop diveſted himſelf of all paſtoral Power upon this account. To have depoſed him for his great age had been a barbarous Act, and ſuch as the Church in thoſe times cannot be charged with. No doubt but he retained the Epiſcopal power, though through Age he could not exerciſe it in all inſtances; and if he had not only the Title but the Power, he was really a Biſhop, and there were two Biſhops at once in one Church, and then this inſtance is ſo far from being moſt diſadvantageous, that it ſerves me with all the advantage I deſigned in alledging it.
As for the words of Valeſius cited by him, if they be taken in the ſenſe which our Author would have them, that learned man will not agree with himſelf. For but a very few lines before, he ſays, theſe two were Co-Epiſcopi, Biſhops together in that City, ſuperſtite epiſcopo, adjutor & coepiſcopus est adjunctus, And tho' he ſays (but ſays it doubtfully with a ni fallor) this was forbidden at Sardica (above 100 years after); yet he adds that, notwithſtanding it was ſtill uſual in the Church, nihil ominus identidem in eccleſia uſurpatum eſt, which is all, that I need deſire. And afterwards, where Euſebius in l. 7. c. 32.again mentions two Biſhops in one City, he obſerves, that in one of his Copies, the Scholiaſt h…s this note upon it in the Margin, foreign, here alſo there were two Biſhops of one Church. Valeſius adds, the Scholiaſt underſtands Alexander, who was Biſhop of Jeruſalem together with Narciſſus.
The next inſtance is of Theotecnus and Anatolius who were Biſhops of Caeſarea together. Againſt this he hath little to ſay, I ſuppoſe becauſe nothing can be ſaid againſt it in reaſon. Only he ſeems willing that Anatolius ſhould paſs but as Epiſcopus deſignatus, whereby if he mean one, who is not yet actually a Biſhop, but deſigned to be one hereafter, as Eradius was by Auguſtine, it is inconſiſtent with what Euſebius ſayes and himſelf quotes, but one line before, viz. that Theotecnus ordained him Biſhop in his life-time; for if he was not actually Biſhop after he was thus ordained, he was never Biſhop at all mEuſeb. l. 7. c. 32..
Another inſtance was of Macarius and Maximus both Biſhops at once of Jeruſalem.
He would not have Maximus to be Biſhop while Macarius lived, becauſe it is ſaid he was to rule the Church after his Death.
But Maximus was to govern the Church not only after his death, if he ſurvived him (as he was like to do being much younger) but while he lived; and ſo did actually together with him, foreign, which denotes the exerciſe of the ſame Function together nSez. l. 2. c. 19.: beſides the Hiſtorian ſayes, Maximus was before this ordained Biſhop of Dioſpolis, and if he had officiated at Jeruſalem, where they were ſo deſirous of him, in a lower Capacity; their kindneſs to him had been a degrading him; which it cannot be ſuppoſed they would either offer, or he yeild to.
I alledged Epiphanius, who ſignifies that other Cities had two Biſhops together, and excepts only Alexandria. To which he anſwers, that Epiphanius cannot mean that all other Cities had two Biſhops at a time, nor did I ſay that he meant this, but his expreſſion imports no leſs than that it was uſual for other Cities to have two Biſhops. Nor is there any reaſon to think that Epiphanius reſpects only the caſes alledged; it was quite another caſe that was the occaſion of his words; and diverſe other inſtances might be brought of a different nature and occaſion, though this be ſufficient to ſhew, that the rule againſt two Biſhops in one City was not inviolable: He adds, I do not ſee what advantage can be made of this paſſage.
This paſſage ſhews that there was commonly two Biſhops in a City at once, Alexandria is only excepted as varying herein from other Cities. And this is advantage enough for me, and it is enough againſt him too; and leaves no reaſon for his pretence that it was only in extraordinary caſes. I affirmed it could not be Epiphanius his meaning (as a great Antiquary would have it) that Alexandria was never ſo divided, as that ſeveral parties in it ſhould have their reſpective Biſhops there, and brought ſeveral Inſtances to evince it: for ſo it was divided in the time of Epiphanius, when the Catholicks had Athanaſius, the Arians had Gregorius, and then Georgius; and afterwards the one had Peter the other Lucius, and the Novatians had their Biſhops ſucceſſively in that City till Cyril's time.
He anſwers however I do not ſee why that learned Antiquarie's opinion may not be maintained againſt this Gentleman's objections, he ſayes that Alexandria was divided before Epiphanius his time between ſeveral Biſhops (I ſaid in Epiphanius's time) it cannot be denied. But that is not the thing Epiphanius ſpeaks of, but that before the Election of Theonas againſt Athanaſius, there were never two oppoſite Biſhops as in other Churches.
But this doth neither agree with the one nor defend the other; it agrees not with Epiphanius, but makes him contradict himſelf, for he tells us there were two oppoſite Biſhops at Alexandria before Theonas was choſen. For this was not till Alexander's death, but he ſayes Piſtus was made Biſhop there by the Arians while Alexander was living oHer. 69. Num. 8. p. 733.. And he could not be ignorant of what Euſebius declares pVita Const. l. 3. cap. 4., that upon the diviſion in Egypt occaſioned by Arius, in every City, foreign, there was Biſhop againſt Biſhop, and People againſt People. Nor doth it defend the Antiquary, for he ſpeaks univerſally without limiting himſelf to the Election of Theonas, Eccleſiam Alexandrinam nunquam in partes ſciſſam quarum ſingulae Epiſcopum ſuum habebant, that Church was never divided ſo as to have oppoſite Biſhops.
The inſtances are all later than this Fact, and therefore are inſignificant, ſayes he.
They are fully ſignificant, both in reference to the Antiquary againſt whom they are brought to prove that he miſtook Epiphanius, when he would have it to be his meaning, that Alexandria was never ſo divided as to have two oppoſite Biſhops; for they ſhew it was often ſo divided: and alſo in reference to Epiphanius, they were ſo late as his time on purpoſe, to ſhew more unqueſtionably, that could not be his meaning, which was againſt his knowledge, and notorious inſtances in his own time.
But he will not deny the inſtance of the Novatians to be ſignificant, only Socrates does not ſay that they had their Biſhops ſucceſſively to Cyril's time.
Nor do I ſay he does; but he ſayes Cyrill ſhut up the Novatian Churches there, and took away all the ſacred treaſure in them, and deprived their Biſhop Theopompus of all he had. Now when our Author meets with Churches, and a Biſhop over them; he is not wont to queſtion a Succeſſion, unleſs it appears he was the firſt.
It may be they began there after this time, for there is little Account in Church-Hiſtory, that I know, of any Novatians in Alexandria before Athanaſius,
We are little concerned about this, yet it may be they began before this time, for there is no account at all in Church Hiſtory, that the Novatians began there in, or after Athanaſius his time.
I had produced evidence that many African Biſhops declared, in the caſe of Valerius and Auſtin, that it was uſual in all parts, to have two Biſhops in a City at once; to this he anſwers, but ſuppoſe all this true, that this might be maintained by the Examples of ſeveral Churches, what is it that two Biſhops may be in one Church? no, that is not the matter, but that a Biſhop when he growes old, may appoint or ordain his Succeſſour, to prevent the mischiefs, that are uſually produced by popular Elections.
If what the African Biſhops did alledge, were reſtrained to that particular caſe he contends for; yet this is enough to make good all I intend, viz. that uſually in the antient Church, there were two Biſhops together in one place. For when one is ordained Biſhop in the ſame place, when another is ſtill living; with whatever deſign, upon what occaſion ſoever this is done, yet there are two Biſhops at once in the ſame place.
I ſee no reaſon why this ſhould be reſtrained to that particular caſe, the occaſion of what the Biſhops affirm may clear it, and that was Auſtin's ſcruple, not to ſucceed Valerius, but to be made Biſhop of Hippo, while his Biſhop there was living, Epiſcopatum ſuſcipere, ſuo vivente Epiſcopo, recuſabat, for ſo there would be two together, which he took to be againſt the Cuſtom of the Church, contra morem Eccleſiae; but they all perſwade him that this was uſually done, id fieri ſolere, and prove it by examples in all parts qPoſſidon. vita Auguſt. cap. 8.. And Valerius his deſire and propoſal was, that Auſtin might be ordained Biſhop of Hippo, Qui ſuae Cathedrae non tam ſuccederet ſed Conſacerdos accederet, not as one that was to ſucceed him only, but to be Biſhop together with him.
When he aſſigns this as the reaſon of appointing a Succeſſour, to prevent the miſchiefs that are uſually produced by popular elections, he ſpeaks his own ſence, not theirs; for they were better adviſed than to brand the general practice of the ancient Church as miſchievous, and how this ſuggeſtion becomes one, who undertakes to write a vindication of the Primitive Church, let himſelf conſider. Others may judge it, a more intollerable reflection upon the univerſal Church in the beſt and after times, than any M. B. can be juſtly charged with. However the reaſon aſſigned for it by Poſſidonius is another thing than appears in this Authors whole account, it was becauſe Valerius feared left ſome other Ibid.Church, ſhould ſeek him for their Biſhop, and get a perſon ſo approved, from him.
Whereas in fine he ſayes, Theſe Caſes ſpecified were not thought to violate the Rule that allowed but one Biſhop to a City. Yet it was thought ſo by St. Auſtin, when he excuſes his ſuffering himſelf to be made Biſhop with Valerius, by this, that he knew no… it was forbidden by a rule of the Nicene Council, Quod Concilio Niceno prohibitum fuiſſe neſciebam, and gives this as the reaſon why he would not ſo ordain Eradius.
Next he would prove, that this proviſion for a Succeſſour does not deſtroy that Rule, by an inſtance, I need not tranſcribe it at large, the ſum of it is this, when the Government is Monarchical, if it fall out once (in many Ages, as it did in England once in above 500 years) that another King be crowned, beſides him who hath the Throne; yet it will be true enough, that it is the rule of thoſe Kingdoms to have but one King. To which I ſay briefly, if it be uſual to have two Kings in ſuch a Government, it will ſcarce be thought true, that it is the inviolable Rule of thoſe Kingdoms, to have but one King. And then how this inſtance will ſute his purpoſe let thoſe judge who take notice, that, I have already proved it uſual in the antient Church for Cities in all parts to have two Biſhops at once.
From pag. 12. he paſſes to pag. 23. To ſhew there were more Biſhopricks than one in the Region or Dioceſs of Hippo I brought ſeveral inſtances; and might have produced more, but that I confined my ſelf to thoſe which the learned Dean alledged to the contrary. Fuſſala is one of them, and tha alone this Gentleman takes notice of. St. Auſtin calls it Caſtellum diverſe times in one Epiſtle. He finds fault that I tranſlate Caſtellum a Caſtle. I did no more expect to be blamed for this, than if I had render'd Oppidum a Town. But I ſuppoſe he counts it no great crime, ſince he runs into it himſelf and in a few lines after calls it a Caſtle.
But theſe Caſtles, ſayes he, were Garriſon Towns, with a good dependance of Villages belonging to them.
They were Fortreſſes, and ſometimes had Villages depending on them, and might contain ſo many buildings as there are in ſome Village or little Town; however he calls them Caſtles, and may give me leave to do ſo too.
He adds, It was 40 miles diſtant from Hippo, and was in St. Auſtine's Dioceſs, and never had a Biſhop of its own.
It is ſaid indeed to belong to the Dioceſs of Hippo, but I do not find it ſaid to be in St. Auſtine's Dioceſs or Biſhoprick; theſe are two things and ſhould not be confounded. When it is ſaid to belong to the Dioceſs of Hippo, ſo farr diſtant, Dioceſs is not taken as an Eccleſiaſtical ſenſe as it is with us, for part of a Countrey under the Government of one Biſhop; but as it was uſed in Africa in a civil ſenſe, for part of a Province, without reſpect to one Biſhop, or to any one Biſhop at all. Some parts there call'd Dioceſſes had no Biſhops, nor were to have any by Decrees of the African Councils rCon. Carth. 2. Can. 5. Code Affric. 53.. Other places called a Dioceſs had more Biſhops than one. Petilian ſayes, that in the place where his Collegue Januarius was Biſhop there were 4 Biſhops beſides, all five in unâ Dioeceſi sColl. Carth. D. 1 Num. 117.. And thus it was in many other places, particularly in that called the Dioceſs of Hippo, as I ſhew'd by diverſe inſtances, and St. Auſtin's own Teſtimony.
Hereby it appears that in Africa, a Dioceſs and a Biſhoprick were not the ſame thing, though they be with us. There were diverſe Dioceſſes and no Biſhopricks and many Biſhopricks where but one Dioceſs; ſo that Fuſſala and 20 other Caſtles and Towns might be in the Dioceſs of Hippo, at 40 miles diſtance or more; and yet St. Auſtin's Biſhoprick, not one jot the larger for it, nor he more a Dioceſan.
Whereas he adds, that it never had a Biſhop of its own. It is unqueſtionable that Fuſſala had a Biſhop of its own in Auſtin's time; and this renders it wholly unſerviceable to their purpoſe; for the Biſhoprick of Hippo, ſaid to be of 40 miles extent, will not upon the count of Fuſſala be 40 yards larger. Nor will either of theſe Biſhops, nor any other in that Region be Dioceſans; unleſs there can be two Dioceſans, and I know not how many more, in one Dioceſs.
I aſſigned this reaſon, why Fuſſala had not a Biſhop ſooner, becauſe Auſtin declares, there was not one Catholick in it, and ſuppoſed this might ſerve the turn, not dreaming that thoſe who count all the people in a very large Pariſh, or in an 100 Pariſhes little enough for a Dioceſan; could think his Dioceſs competently furniſhed when he had not one Soul (or but ſome few) in communion with him.
He ſayes, the Town or Caſtle indeed had none, but the County belonging to it had ſome; he will have the Territory or Pariſh depending on this Caſtle to be a County. I cannot but obſerve the admirable power of a fancy tinctured and prepoſſeſſed. It will turn a Pariſh into a County, and a Caſtle into a County Town; and ſince a County with us, was a Province with them, one Province muſt be as much as all Africa; and a very ſmall part of Numidia, muſt be far greater than the whole. But there are ſome Hypotheſes, which may ſtand in need of ſuch imaginations.
However he likes not my reaſon, and why? becauſe, though it had no Catholicks in it then, it might have ſome before and concludes it had, becauſe it belonged heretofore to the Dioceſs of Hippo.
But that it formerly had Catholicks, (ſaies he) we may conclude by Mr. Baxter's reaſoning, becauſe it belonged heretofore to the Dioceſs of Hippo.
If Dioceſs be taken in a civil ſenſe (as it is frequently in African Authors) this will be no proof, that there had been any Catholicks in it, becauſe in this ſenſe Fuſſala might belong to that Dioceſs, though there had not been either Chriſtian or Biſhop in the whole Region: Nor will it be hereby proved, taking it in the Eccleſiaſtical ſenſe; for that part of Hippo, which was under the Donatiſt Biſhop, had no Catholick; and yet de jure, as he tells us, belonged to the Dioceſs, (as he calls it,) or charge of St. Auſtin. Yet ſince he allows Mr. Baxter's Argument, he muſt admit what it concludes, viz. that a place that hath no Chriſtians or Catholicks in it, belongs to no Biſhop; and then Fuſſala never belonged to St. Auſtin as its Biſhop; either before it had Catholicks, for againſt this the Argument is admitted to be concluſive: not after, for then it had a Biſhop of its own. And ſo all they have to alledge for the largeneſs of St. Auſtin's Biſhoprick comes to nothing.
So that I conceive the reaſon will not hold, for its having no Biſhop of its own, ſince the ſame reaſon deſtroys its dependence upon the the Dioceſs of Hippo, which is expreſly affirmed.
The reaſon I gave for its having no Biſhop, was, becauſe St. Auſtin declares there was no Catholick in it. This reaſon will hold, unleſs they think a place may have a Biſhop where there are no Chriſtians at all; when as yet they judge, that a place which hath Chriſtians enough to make a good Congregation, or many, ought not to have a Biſhop. Whereas he ſayes this reaſon deſtroys its dependance upon the Dioceſs, I wonder what dependance he imagines, ſince it is ſuch, as both the not having of Chriſtians, and alſo the having of them, deſtroys it. The former he here affirms, the ſame reaſon (which is its not having of Catholicks) deſtroys it; the latter is undeniable, for when Fuſſala had a competent number of Catholicks, a Biſhop was there conſtituted; and then it depended no more on the Dioceſs of Hippo, than one Biſhop's Church depends on another, when both are independent.
The dependance of Fuſſala upon Hippo was ſuch, as that of a Countrey place upon a greater Town well furniſhed with Officers for their help, to convert and reduce the Inhabitants, and when enough are converted to help them to a Biſhop or Paſtor. This St. Auſtin did for Fuſſala, he imployed Presbyters to reduce the Donatiſts there, and when they were reduced, he adds them not to his own charge, would not have them Epiſcopo cedere; but adviſes them to have a Biſhop of their own, and procures one for them. This was the practice of the primitive times, in theſe methods were Churches and Biſhops multiplyed; it was not out of uſe in the fifth Age, this of Fuſſala as managed by St. Auſtin is a remarkable inſtance thereof; and if other Biſhops had imitated him, as he did the Apoſtles, and beſt Ages, the Church would not have been troubled with debates about Dioceſans.
That Auſtin would not take the Charge of a Place ſo far off as Fuſſala, he will have it aſcribed to his Modesty. But it was ſuch Modesty as this excellent Perſon made Conſcience of, being convinced certiſſimâ ratione, by moſt certain reaſon, that he was not ſufficient for it. If all other Biſhops had been ſo modeſt, ſo conſcientious, there might have been, as Nazianzen ſpeaks, when Biſhops were multiplyed in Cappadocia, foreign, a much more deſirable thing, to thoſe that love Souls, than a great Dioceſs.
He gives a reaſon why this muſt be aſcribed to St. Auſtin's modeſty, becauſe he diſcharged the Office of a Biſhop there, in more difficult times, while the Presbyt…r… he imployed there, were barbarouſly uſed.
I need not deny that he performed the Office of … Biſhop there; for it is the office of a Biſhop to endeavour by himſelf or others, the converting or reducing of all that he can. Only this will not prove Fuſſala to be then a part of his Biſhoprick, no more than it will prove Athanaſius to have been Biſhop of India; becauſe he encouraged, and ſent Frumentius with others thither, to convert the Indians tSoc. l. 1. c. 15. Soz. l. 2. c. 23..
The learned Dean had cited Auſtin as calling himſelf the Biſhop of that Dioceſs (underſtanding by it a Region of vaſt extent) I obſerved that in the Epiſtle quoted he onelyonly ſaith he had the Epiſcopal charge of Hippo. By this the Gentleman changing my words, will have me to ſignifie, that he was the Biſhop of the Town only. This I did not intend, but that, he was not the only Biſhop of that whole Region. But whether he was Biſhop of part of the Town only, or of that and ſome part of the Region alſo, I am not much concerned. His words are as if he had been Biſhop of the Town only, nay, but of part of that neither, for the Donatists had their Biſhop there: ſo this will ſtrangely diminiſh the Biſhoprick of St. Auſtin which at firſt appeared ſo large. Then he anſwers, for the Donatiſts having a Biſhop there, it ſignifies little to our preſent purpoſe, ſince he was but an Ʋſurper.
But this ſignifies as much to my purpoſe as I need; for the Donatiſts having a Biſhoprick in Hippo, St. Auſtin's muſt needs be diminiſhed thereby, and altogether as much leſſened, as if they had not been Ʋſurpers. And they were counted no otherwiſe Ʋſurpers, but ſo that if the Donatist Biſhop had been reconciled; by a Decree of the African Church he was to continue in his Biſhop-there, as a rightful Poſſeſſour, and there would have been ſtill two Dioceſſes (ſuch as they were) in one Town.
He would have us believe Auſtin as if he declared, that he was not the Biſhop of the Town only; but his words are, Ʋt modum diſpenſationis meae non ſupergrediar hoc Eccleſiae ad Hipponenſem Regionem pertinenti prodeſſe conteſtor, which, ſayes our Author, plainly ſignifies, that all the Church belonging, not only to the Town, but but alſo to the Region of Hippo, belonged to him.
But if he pleaſe to view the words again which himſelf hath quoted, he will find it plainly ſignifyed, that Auſtin's Church belonged to the Region of Hippo, but not that all the Church both in Town and Region, belonged to him. Antonius Biſhop of Fuſſala might have ſaid this as truly of his Church there, as Auſtin did it of his Church at Hippo; it did ad Hipponenſem Regionem pertinere, belong to the Region of Hippo. And it may be as juſtly inferred from hence, that all the Church both in the Town and Region of Hippo belonged to the Biſhop of Fuſſala. If our Author will allow of this (as he muſt if he will ſtand to his own account of this paſſage) Auſtin's Biſhoprick will be ſtrangely diminiſhed indeed, it muſt be confined to a part of Hippo and made leſs than I repreſent it. For I did not ſay, nor had I any need to aſſert, that he was Biſhop of the Town only. We may allow him beſides his part of the Town, diverſe Villages in the Countrey (though I have not ſeen it proved) without any danger of aſſigning him a Dioceſan Church. For Kidderminſter (as one tells us, who very well knows it) hath 20 Villages belonging to it, and ſome thouſands of Souls therein, yet according to our modern meaſures will ſcarce make a Dioceſan Church uM. B. of Epiſcopacy, Part 2. p. 9..
To ſhew that there were more Biſhops in the Region of Hippo, than St. Auſtin, beſides particular inſtances (which he paſſes by) I alledged a paſſage of his where the Donatists were deſired to meet together with the Catholick Biſhops, that were in that Region, and who there ſuffered ſo much by the Donatists: to this he anſwers, That theſe Biſhops who are ſaid to be in Regione Hipponenſi, were not the Biſhops of that Region, but ſome Biſhops of the Province met together there.
But that theſe were Biſhops of the Province met together there, is a meer conjecture of his own, without the leaſt ground either in this paſſage or any other in that Epiſtle. It will not be hard to anſwer any thing at this rate. If there had been a Provincial Council then held in that Region, there might have been ſome pretence for what he ſayes; but there is not any hint of this in the whole Epiſtle. That which is deſired is a Meeting for conference, Hoc eſt ergo deſiderium noſtrum, &c. Primum ſi fieri poteſt ut cum Epiſcopis noſtris pacificè conferatis—, ideo nos conferre volumus—, and the prime occaſion of it was the outrages committed in that Region by the Donatiſts, wherein the Biſhops of that place were particularly concerned. This is ſignifyed, as in other parts of the Epiſtle, ſo particularly in the paſſage cited, Epiſcopos noſtros qui ſunt in Regione Hipponenſi, ubi tanta mala patimur. This Meeting was to be with the Catholick Biſhops upon the place, in Regione Hipponenſi, not any to be call'd from other parts. And theſe words ſeem brought in to prevent an objection which the Donatiſts might make againſt a more general, or more publick meeting, as that which might bring them in danger of the Laws in force againſt them; An fortè iſtae leges Imperatoris vos non permittunt noſtros Epiſcopos convenire, and then immediately follows theſe words in anſwer to it, Ecce interim Epiſcopos noſtros qui ſunt in Regione Hipponenſi, &c. ſo that this to me ſeems the plain ſence of both Objection and anſwer; If becauſe of the Laws you dare not meet us in a more General or Provincial Council, yet give a Meeting to the Biſhops of this particular Region, where there can be no apprehenſion of danger. All which makes me judge, what he ſayes concerning the Biſhops of the Province as here intended, to be no better than an Evaſion.
To prove that there was but one Biſhop in the Region of Hippo, he tells us, That the Clergy there called in the Inſcription of an Epiſtle, Clerici Regionis Hipponenſium, ſpeaking of the Biſhop of Hippo, do call him their Biſhop, and not one of their Biſhops, &c.
But the Clergy ſo called, may be only the Clergy of Hippo, and ſo they are in the Title of the Epiſtle Clerici Hippone Catholici: and well may they of Hippo be called the Clergy of the Region, both becauſe they were in that Region, and were the Clergy of it foreign. But if the expreſſion ſhould be extended to more or to all in the Region, their calling him Epiſcopus noſter, will be no proof that they had no other Biſhop, but him at Hippo. For that phraſe Epiſcopus noster or Epiſcopi noſtri, all along in this Epiſtle, doth not denote the Biſhop of that particular Church to which they belonged (as he would have it) but a Biſhop of their party or perſwaſion. So they call Valentinus noſtrum Catholicum Epiſcopum, who yet was not Biſhop of Hippo. So they call them Epiſcopos noſtros, whom they deſired the Donatiſts to meet once and again wpag. 373:, and thrice in another page, where our Author finds Epiſcopos nostros xpag. 371.. He may have many more inſtances hereof in that Epiſtle. If there was ſo many Biſhops in Hippo or in that Region, as the Clergy call Epiſcopos noſtros, he muſt grant many more Biſhops in that Region than I need deſire. So that this Phraſe however it be underſtood, is a medium unhappily choſen: if it be taken in my ſenſe it is impertinent and can conclude nothing for him; if it be taken in his own ſenſe, it will conclude directly againſt him.
He paſſes to Alexandria, and to pag. 32. The inſtance of Mareotis he ſayes little to, ſo our Author, I might think it enough, where there was ſo little occaſion.
He inſinuates as if Mareotis might not have number enough of Chriſtians to have a Biſhop, but this Athanaſius does ſufficiently ſhew to be a groundleſs conjecture.
I had no intention or occaſion to ſignifie that Mareotis had not Chriſtians enough to have a Biſhop, I knew that it both had many Chriſtians, and a Biſhop alſo, and named him too; and therefore the groundleſs conjecture may be fixed ſomewhere elſe.
And even before Athanaſius, the generality of the People there were Chriſtians.
How long before? Dionyſius in the latter part of the third Age declares it foreign, quite destitute of Christians yEuſeb. l. 7. c. 11., and the gaining the generality there, to the Faith, required ſome conſiderable time, and it is like proceeded not far, till Chriſtianity generally prevailed.
Beſides Iſchyras, I had mentioned Dracontius, both Biſhops in the Territory of Alexandria (as Agathammon alſo was zApol. 2. p. 612.) of Dracontius he takes notice, and ſayes, poſſibly he was a Chorepiſcopus.
But a Chorepiſcopus is elſewhere with him a Dioceſan a, and here he ſayes that he did accept apag. 590.Biſhoprick. Now theſe put together will go near to make a Dioceſan Biſhop. But then if there were two or three Biſhops in the Dioceſs of Alexandria, beſides Athanaſius; they will ſcarce be ſo much as half Dioceſans.
He ſayes Athanaſius preſſ'd him to accept it. If ſo this great Perſon was no more unwilling to have another Biſhop in his Dioceſs, and in a Countrey place too, than Austin was to have one at Fuſſala, He ſayes further this was an extraordinary caſe, though what was extraordinary in it I cannot imagine; to prove any thing there mentioned to be ſo, will be an hard task.
And allowing this man a Countrey Biſhoprick, that of Alexandria would be a great deal too bigg for the Congregational meaſure.
And ſo it might be, and yet be no Dioceſan Church; if that will ſatisfie him which is too big for thoſe meaſures, he ſeems content to drop his cauſe, and may leave it in the hands of Presbyterians. And he is in the more danger, becauſe he ſeems not apprehenſive of it, but counts it enough if he thinks a Church is any where found larger than one Congregation.
I had given inſtances of ſeveral Towns that had Biſhops, and were but two or three or four &c. miles diſtant one from another this he denies not: but asks what does this conclude? might not thoſe Dioceſſes be yet much larger than one Congregation?
I might conclude that theſe were juſt ſuch Dioceſſes as our Countrey Pariſhes are; and had ſuch Congregations as thoſe Pariſh Churches have. And ſome of them in time might have proviſion (as ſome of ours have) for more Congregations than one. And if our modern Dioceſſes were of this proportion, they would be much more conformable to the antient Modells.
Suppoſe the chief Congregations of Holland had each a Biſhop, yet I conceive they would be Dioceſans, though thoſe Cities lie very cloſe together.
He might have laid the ſcene at home, where we are better acquainted, and ſuppoſed this of our Countrey Towns; or of both the chief, and leſſer Towns in Holland; if he had deſigned what would be moſt parallel. But to take it as it is formed, though thoſe Cities lay not further diſtant, and had each of them a Biſhop, yet if their Churches were governed in common by Biſhop and Presbyters, as the antient Churches were; they would not be Dioceſan, but more like the Model of the Churches and Government which Holland hath at preſent.
And now after all this, though we have ſeveral inſtances out of Egypt, how near Cities were together in ſome parts; yet upon the whole account the Dioceſſes do appear to be large enough, from the number of them.
He would have us think where Cities are ſo near together (as I had ſhewed) yet becauſe of their number the Dioceſſes might be large enough. But where they were ſo near together, they could not be large enough to make any thing like the modern Dioceſſes, no, nor larger than our Countrey Pariſhes if they had Biſhops in them. And the Ancients thought themſelves obliged by the Apoſtle's rule to have a Biſhop, not only in ſome but in every City, foreign, ſayes Chryſostome, foreign bIn 1 Tim. Hom. 11., and Theophilact expreſſes foreign by foreign, without exception of the ſmallneſs of the place or its nearneſs to others. The reaſon diverſe Cities had none, was the want, or the inconſiderable number of Chriſtians in them. Nothing but this hindered any City from having a Biſhop in the four firſt Ages; though the greateſt part of their Cities (as may be made manifeſt) were no greater than our Market-Towns or fairer Villages. And upon this account many Cities might want Biſhops, and it may be did ſo, in Egypt particularly; Heatheniſme prevailing in many places there, even in Athanaſius his time; for which I could produce ſufficient evidence; but will not now digreſs ſo far. Afterwards the affectation of greatneſs in ſome, was the occaſion of new meaſures; and orders were made that Towns which had no Biſhops before ſhould have none after: though the reaſon why they had none before was gone; and thoſe places had as many or more Chriſtians in them, than moſt Epiſcopal Cities had of old.
For in Athanaſius his time there were not an hundred Biſhops in all Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis cAthan. Apol. 2..
I was a little ſurprized to read this, and ſee Athanaſius cited for it. For I knew that Athanaſius reckons 95 Biſhops from Egypt beſides himſelf, at the Council of Sardica; and others from Africa, wherein Lybia and Pentapolis are uſually included; and it was never known that a major part or a third of the Biſhops in a Countrey, did come to a Council at ſuch a diſtance as Egypt was from Sardica. It is ſcarce credible that Athanaſius would ſo far contradict himſelf, as to ſay there were not ſo many Biſhops in all thoſe three Countreys, when he had ſignifyed there were many more in one of them. Some miſtake I thought there muſt be, and conſulting the place I found it not intirely repreſented. There is this Clauſe (immediately following the words he cites) left out, foreign, none of theſe accuſed me, whereby it appears that the meaning of the whole paſſage is this, there was an hundred Biſhops in the Dioceſs of Egypt who appeared not againſt him, or that favoured him. But thoſe who favoured Arius (whom he calls Euſebians) and Meletius, to ſay nothing of Coluthus (for into ſo many parties was that Countrey then divided) are not taken into the reckoning; otherwiſe it would have amounted to many more than an hundred. Sozomen ſayes the Biſhops there, who took Arius his part were many, foreign dLib. 1. c. 14., and in Athanaſius there is an account of many Meletian Biſhops by name eApol. 2. p. 614.; and in Epiphanius it is ſaid, that in every Region through which Meletius paſſed, and in every place where he came he made Biſhops fEp. Haer. 68..