A defence of diocesan episcopacy in answer to a book of Mr. David Clarkson, lately published, entituled, Primitive episcopacy / by Henry Maurice ...

CHAP. V.

THe unjust Steward in the Gospel, being called to give up his accounts, and then to be discharged, provided for himself at the expence of his Lord; and cutting off considerably from the summ owing to his Ma∣ster, procured himself a retreat among the debtors. Yet in this unrighteous contrivance he observed some measure, and reduced a hun∣dred but to fourscore, and fourscore to fifty. But Mr. Clerkson in the account he makes of his Master's substance in ancient Cities, is much more profuse towards the debters; and in some places, of a hundred does not leave ten. But in this he has chosen to follow the in∣justice rather than the wisdom of the Stew∣ard: for when his defalcations come to be so unlikely and extravagant, it is impossible the reckoning should pass. Had he insisted only on lesser Cities, that for three or four ages the Christians in them might not exceed one Assem∣bly, the account might have passed without any suspicion, tho' the evidence even for this be defective. But when in the greatest Cities of the World he sets down but one Congre∣gation to the account of Christ, and will not allow scarce five of a hundred to belong to our Lord, the misreckoning is too manifest, and does not carry so much as the appearance of truth.

The increase of Christianity is represented by the Scripture of the New Testament, and by the Writers of the ages immediately suc∣ceeding, as wonderful and unexampled; and considering the supernatural abilities it pleased God to confer upon the first Preachers, it might be expected that their Doctrin should make a greater progress, than those that come recommended only by ordinary and human means of perswasion. Yet if we take Mr. Clerkson's reckoning of Christians for the three first ages, and compare it with the growth of Sects among our selves within this last age; we must conclude, that there is scarce a Sect within our remembrance, which has not pro∣portionably to time and place, made much better progress than the Christian Religion ever did. Since in the greatest Cities there are few Sects but make several Assemblies for Worship; tho' the greatest Cities with us, are much inferior to the greatest in ancient times. And if the Quakers, a Sect scarce forty years standing in the World, are yet grown so numerous, that in London they have several places for meeting; it would seem to be a strange and incredible disparagement to the Christian Religion, not to have prevailed so much in Rome for the space of three hundred years, tho' St. Paul preached there for a con∣siderable time, and there was a flourishing Church before he was brought thither. How∣ever our Author, to leave no exception a∣gainst the Congregational Rule,(a) 1.1 finds

enough to make it seem probable, that the greatest of those Cities had no more Christians under one Bishop, than are in some one of our Parishes. And to begin with Rome, about the year 236,(b) 1.2 all the faithful in Rome did meet together in one place, to chuse a Bishop in the place of Anterus. Euseb. l. 6. c. 29.

I have already upon other occasions shewed the import of these expressions: all the people, all the brethren, all the City, &c. and how un∣reasonable it is to require exactness of testi∣mony from phrases of amplification. If we must conclude, that all the faithful in Rome, without any allowance or exception, did meet in one place in the third Century to chuse a Bishop, and therefore there were no more than could Assemble in one place; It will follow from the very same phrase, that in the fourth, fifth, and sixth Centuries, and so forward, there was but one Congregation in Rome, after it was become Christian. For in the fourth age, Felix and all the Roman Clergy,(c) 1.3 in the presence of the people of Rome, swore they would not chuse any other Bishop, while Li∣berius lived. In the next,(d) 1.4 all the people are said to answer Amen to the Prayer which Vigilius their Bishop made. Pelagius is said, in St. Peter's Church in Rome, to have gone

up into the Pulpit, and satisfy'd(e) 1.5 all the people, that he had done Vigilius his predecessor no harm. Gregory the Great is said to be chosen by(f) 1.6 all the people; tho' at that time in Rome there were neither Heathen nor Sectaries to make any abatements in the Bishops flock. Nay, if our Author will insist rigidly upon this phrase, all Israel in the time of Samuel was no more than could meet in one place to hear Samuel, who is said(g) 1.7 to speak to all Israel; and they answer him, that he had nei∣ther oppressed nor defrauded them. But our Author proceeds.

(h) 1.8 They were no more after Anno. 250, than could all together, in the Church, importune Cor∣nelius for the readmission of the Ordeiners of No∣vatian: The whole people interceeding for him. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. l. 6. c. 43. Our Author, according to his usual ingenuity, has left out a word, that spoiled his argument, and limited this expression. For Cornelius does not say, that all the Christian people of Rome importuned him;(i) 1.9 but that all the people, that was present with him, did interceed. They were no more than could concur in an Epistle to salute their Brethren at Carthage, Salutant vos fratres, & tota Ecclesia, Cypr. ep. 3. As tho' the general salutation of a Church could not be sent, without the actual

concurrence of every member. How many publick acts bear the name of the people, tho' the twentieth part was not present when they were made? Or shall we fancy that all the Citizens of Rome met in one Assembly, to pass every order that bears the title of Senatus Popu∣lusque Romanus?(l) 1.10 They were no more than Cornelius could read Cyprians Letters to, in their numerous Assembly, amplissimae plebi. They were no more than could all be present about consultations about matters of concernment, &c. Consultis om∣nibus & ipsis stantibus laicis. Cypr. ep. 26. A Bishop may communicate Letters and Propo∣posals concerning Ecclesiastical Discipline in a full Congregation, and to all the people then present; and yet this cannot imply that there are no more Christians, or no other Congre∣gation in that City. Whatsoever is done in publick, and before a Congregation that is un∣limited, is in the common way of speaking, said to be done before all the Community.

I meet with nothing, says our Author,(m) 1.11 that makes any shew of a probability, that their numbers were more at that time, but Cornelius his Cata∣logue of Officers,—and the number of the poor, which were fifteen hundred. Euseb. l. 6. c. 37. This passage has not hitherto received any an∣swer, that made so much as a shew of probability: And that which our Author replieth to the num∣ber of Officers, hath been long since(n) 1.12 shewed

to be frivolous. As to the number of Officers, the shew will vanish, Mr. Clerkson fancies, if it be considered, that it was the custom of those ancient times to multiply Officers beyond what was neces∣sary; yea, so much, that, as Nazianzen(o) 1.13 tells us, the Officers were sometimes as many as they had the charge of. It might be excusable in Mr. Baxter to confound times of persecution with times of settlement, and the middle of the third Century with the latter end of the fourth, for he was too hasty to be curious, and looked not the date of the Fable; so it happened upon a time, or shortly after, he was con∣tented. But from Mr. Clerkson something might be expected more exact: what! will this shew of probability vanish; and no likelyhood that there were more Congregations in Rome than one, remain from six and forty Presbyters in Cor∣nelius his time, because it was the custom of Na∣zianzen's times to multiply Officers beyond what was necessary? Forty six Presbyters were never accounted necessary to one Congregation, even in the most prosperous times of the Church; nor can any instance be given of so many re∣lating to one Assembly in any age accounted ancient, tho' it might be fashionable then to multiply Church Officers. But for this we are at a greater certainty, for Cornelius(p) 1.14 assures us, that this number was not for state, nor

for form, without use and necessity; but ex∣ceeding necessary, and that upon the account of an infinite and numberless people. And if the mul∣titude of Christians in Rome was then so great as to require forty six Presbyters; we may make some guess at the proportion they might have to the people of Rome, after it had been entirely converted, in the fifth and sixth Cen∣turies; for in those times the Presbyters of Rome were scarce a third part more than those in the Catalogue of Cornelius, as we may ga∣ther from the subscriptions of the Presbyters in the Roman(q) 1.15 Council. Nay, in one Sy∣nod,(r) 1.16 under Gregory the Great, there are but thirty four Presbyters that subscribe. I do not intend to say, that two thirds of that City was then Christian; but the Christians of that place under Cornelius seem to be at least two thirds, in respect of all Rome in after ages, when it was much diminished from its ancient greatness, and when it seems to have no more than seventy Parish Pres∣byters. This number therefore of forty six Presbyters, all necessary for so great a people as the Christians of Rome then were, makes it evident, notwithstanding the frivo∣lous exception of our Author, that the be∣lievers of that City could not all assemble to∣gether upon any religious occasion, and that

the Church there must consequently be distri∣buted to several Parishes and Congregati∣ons.

(s) 1.17 As to the other, how to compute the num∣bers of the Roman Church by the number of the poor, I know no better way than to observe what pro∣portion there was betwixt these in other places. But the ground of this exception is a mistake: For Cornelius does not say, that the number of all the poor Christians in Rome was but fifteen hundred; but that so many were maintained by the publick stock of the Church, besides the necessary Officers. Now there might be many more poor maintained, some by Rela∣tions, others by private Charities; and it is plain from the account that Chrysostom gives of the poor of Antioch, and the number in the Church-Book, that those that were maintained by the Church, were but a small part in com∣parison of the whole number of the poor. For exhorting the rich men to contribute towards the maintenance of the poor, he observes how easy it would be to provide for them. For the Church, says he(t) 1.18 maintains many Widows, and Virgins, and Prisoners, and Sick, and Cler∣gy: the number of those upon the role main∣tained by the publick stock of the Church, is about three thousand. Now the income of the Church is scarce equal to one of the lowest of those accounted rich. If therefore but ten

such rich men would dispose of their Estates, as the Church does, there would not be a poor man in all Antioch unprovided: Nay, if all the rich men would but give a tenth part to Charity, it would answer all occasions. So that upon the computation of Chrysostom, the Church did not relieve above a tenth part of the poor. And yet this must be more in pro∣portion than the Roman Church can be sup∣posed able to do in Cornelius his time, when it had no other revenue than the oblations of the Faithful; whereas in Chrysostom's time, be∣sides these, it was endowed with great posses∣sions, and was maintained from the rents or product of her Estate; the Capital remaining undiminished, as he observes in the same place.

Our Author having laid this false foundati∣on, proceeds to build upon it in this manner, That at Constantinople, Chrysostom computes the poor to have been half as many as all the other Christians there. At Antioch the same Father sup∣poses the poor a tenth part. The first is unreason∣able, and without example in any City: the latter multiplies the poor that stand in need of relief, I think, beyond what we can find in any rich City, such as Antioch was; yet upon this foot let us reckon. The fifteen hun∣dred Roman poor we will suppose, according to Chrysostom, to be the tenth part of the poor Christians of the place. The sum will be fif∣teen thousand. These multiplied by ten, will make an hundred and fifty thousand. And this may be supposed about a seventh part of the inhabitants in Rome of all ages and condi∣tions.

And considering the great ostentation, which Tertullian makes of the numbers of the Christians in the beginning of this age, and the great increase they received in the time intervening between Tertullian and Cornelius, under Alexander Severus, and Philip; I cannot but think I set their proportion too low, when I reckon them but a seventh part. I cannot pass by one passage in the same Ho∣mily of Chrysostom, that I cannot reconcile with his supposition, that makes the poor of Antioch the tenth part of the City. When he had divided the people into ten parts, he makes one to consist of rich Men, another of very poor Men, the other eight to consist of such as had competence of estate, and were neither very rich nor very poor. Yet having made this distribution, he says, that if the poor were divided between those who were rich, and those who were not poor, there would not one poor Man fall to the share of fifty or a hundred: whereas according to his distribution, there will be a poor Man left be∣tween nine. I cannot think Chrysostom so lit∣tle skilled in Arithmetick, as to commit a mistake in so obvious a reckoning. I had ra∣ther suspect the reading in this place of the tenth part, which with small variation, may be reconciled with the following computations. But having not the countenance of any Cri∣tick, nor the authority of any Copy, I am content to leave it as I find it. However as it stands, it does but small service for the diminishing of Christians in ancient times.

Alexandria follows, dressed up in a magnifi∣cent character,(u) 1.19 the greatest after Rome, the Mart of the World, and the top of Cities. But presume not ye Christians to take too much upon you; for these glorious things belong to Jews and Heathens, and it is but a small skirt of this Macedonian cloak that comes to your share. Nay, since you are found so in∣considerable in so great a place, this very in∣stance will preclude all your pretensions to number and greatness in all other Cities. Here our Author undertakes to shew, that the Chri∣stians were not more than could meet in one place, and thinks fit to skirmish at first with argu∣ments so slight, that he himself does not think fit to insist on them. In the latter end of the third age, Dionysius calls the Church 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and a scrupulous member of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I cannot but commend his discretion, for not insisting upon such things as these; tho', I think, the alledging of them argues more of diligence than judgment. For tho' this criti∣cal observation should be allowed, that the Church of Alexandria is sometimes called a Synagogue; the consequence that our Author makes, that therefore there was but one As∣sembly of Christians in that City, is invisible. But the misfortune is, that Dionysius says no such thing. For he calls not the whole Church of Alexandria by that name: But relating the case of a person who was troubled in con∣science

concerning his Baptism, says,(x) 1.20 he did partake of the Communion of the Faith∣ful, and assembled with them. But whether there was then but one Church or Congrega∣tion in Alexandria, or several, cannot be de∣duced from that expression; and all it imports in that place, is only that the person was in full and entire Communion: and so the same Author uses the word in his Epistle(y) 1.21 to Philemon a Roman Presbyter, when he speaks of Hereticks, who did outwardly communicate with the Church. The other passage, which our Author will not insist upon, seems to surpass the former in impertinence. The place of their pa∣negyrical assembly (which was their greatest of all) was in his time a place of no great reception, not only a field and a desert, but a ship, an inn, or a prison. Wonderful! that a field and a desert should not be places of great reception; and that the Christians must be accounted few, because they chose such places for their assem∣bly, where not only the Church of one City might assemble, but Nations might inhabit. But to let this pass, and to consider the perti∣nence of this allegation. Dionysius speaking of the calamitous estate of the Christians of Alexandria, scattered by persecution from the Heathen, and at the same time visited with a

pestilence, and comforting his brethren from the consideration of the approaching festival of Easter; To others, says he,(z) 1.22 this may scarce seem a Festival; and to the Heathen, neither this nor any other can be accounted such, tho' it might have a greater appearance of happiness. For now grief and lamentation fill every place, and there is not a house, in which there is not one dead; and I would to God there were but one dead in a house. However, we Christians cast out and perse∣cuted, and put to death, even then kept the Feast, For the place of every ones affliction, was to him a place of solemn assembly; the open field, the wilder∣ness, the ship, the inn, the prison, where each hap∣pened then to be in this time of dispersion, was to him a Church.

If I had a mind to trifle, I might urge this for proof, that the Christians of Alexandria had several panegyrical assemblies, if it may be said without solecism, at the same time, and in the several places mentioned by Diony∣sius. But I have neither inclination nor fore∣head to follow our Author in this way of discourse; nor is it in every ones power to recommend for fair probabilities, what he cannot but know to be nothing to the pur∣pose.

(a) 1.23 But Athanasius in his Apology to Constan∣tius about Anno. 355, makes it evident, beyond all contradiction, he being accused for assembling

the people in the great Church before it was dedi∣cated, makes this part of his defence, That the con∣fluence of the Pascal Solemnity was so great, that if they had met in several assemblies, the other Church∣es were so little and streight, that they would have been in danger of suffering by the crowd.—And it was better for the whole multitude to meet in that great Church, being a place large enough to receive them all together. This passage hath been often urged and answered by several hands; so that I might spare my self the labour of any far∣ther reply, than referring to those books in which it has been examined; especially since our Author has thought fit to add nothing new, but words of assurance and ostentation, that it is evident beyond contradiction, and to take no∣tice of nothing that hath been offered to im∣peach this irrefragable evidence. However, to avoid cavil, I am content here again to take it into examination. And first, tho' it should be yeilded to our Author, that it is certain from this passage, that all the Christians in Alex∣andria were present in this assembly; yet will it not be of that service to his notion, as he might imagin. Suppose then the flock of Athanasius reduced so low, that one great Church might receive it all. If this should proceed from some late accident, and be ow∣ing to such separations as had been lately made from the Communion of the Church; it can be of no use, either for the proving of Con∣gregational Episcopacy in elder times, or for the discovering of the proportion of Christi∣ans in other Cities. Suppose the Dissenters should prevail so far in some one Diocese with

us, as to leave the Bishop no more people than might be crowded into one of the greatest Cathedrals of the Kingdom; it would surely be but a sorry argument, that the constitution of our Episcopacy is Congregational, or that we have no Diocese greater than may assemble in one Church. This, according to Mr. Clerkson,(b) 1.24 was the case of Alexandria in Athanasius his time. At the first breach Meletius had many more adherents than Peter; and from that time to Athanasius, the Meletians had such encourage∣ments, that their numbers were not like to be impaired. And as for the Arrians, if we may take the mea∣sure of the people by their Officers, they were more numerous than the Catholicks in this City; for(c) 1.25 of nine, (it should be nineteen) Presbyters and Dea∣cons which the Church of Alexandria had, eleven embraced Arrianism. There are many mistakes in what is here advanced concerning the Mele∣tians and the party of Arrius; but the course of the argument must not be interrupted. In these circumstances the Arrians might well out-vie the followers of Athanasius in numbers, and these declined as the others increased. Now if the party of Athanasius, which in Mr. Clerkson's judgment was inferior in number to the Ar∣rians, was yet so great, as to fill all the Church∣es in Alexandria, and could not have met in any one Church before that vast fabrick was erected by Constantius; the Arrians, surely, who

are supposed to be the greater party, must di∣vide into many Congregations, and live in the Diocesan way, especially in the time of Gregory, who seems to have joyned the Arrian and Me∣letian party; for by Epiphanius(d) 1.26 he is stiled both Arrian and Meletian. For tho' that Sect divided from the Church upon a point of Doct∣rin, yet did they not pretend to make any al∣teration in Discipline, and had but one Bishop in a City, how great soever it might be. So that our Author, while he lessens the Catholicks of Alexandria, does unawares make the Arrians not a Congregation, but a Diocese. Nor is it any advantage to the Congregational fancy, to streighten the Catholick Christians within the walls of one Church, while his indulgence to other Christian Sects permits them to increase beyond his Rule, and to grow up into a Dio∣cesan stature.

Having considered the consequence of this passage of Athanasius upon a kind supposition, that it proved the thing for which it was pro∣duced; I proceed to shew, that this Testimony does not certainly evince, that the Christians of Athanasius his Communion were no more than could meet, or actually assembled in that great Church. Mr. Baxter(e) 1.27 is not so rigid in his inference from this Testimony, as to contend, that every Christian of Alexandria was present in that assembly. I do not hence

gather, says he, that every man woman and child was present. And to him this only seemeth hence plain—that the main body of them could meet and hear in one assembly. But all things are not equally plain to all people. For if all the other Churches in Alexandria could not receive this Congregation, I am afraid they could not all hear, unless it were the Amen, which they all pronounced aloud; and that indeed might be heard from far. For in Alexandria, besides this great Church, Epiphanius(f) 1.28 names nine more; and adds, that there are other Churches besides, which he had probably named with the rest, if they had been but few. Nor can they well be conceived much fewer than twenty; for in Rome(g) 1.29 there were above forty in the be∣ginning of Constantine's reign. Suppose then a Congregation, that twelve Churches could not contain, which though much inferiour to this new Cathedral, yet had some of them serv∣ed the Bishop of the greatest City in the world after Rome and his Congregation: It will be scarce possible, to conceive how all that multi∣tude should hear; especially since I do not find, that in those days any Church had scaffolds, or galleries; but all the people stood in the Area, and nothing raised above the floor, but the Bi∣shop and Presbyters seats, and such places from whence any of the Church Officers spoke or read to the people. It is not therefore so plain

as it seemed to Mr. Baxter, that all could hear in such an assembly as this.

Now where a multitude is so numerous, that the greater part cannot be partakers of the service for which they are assembled, it seems to be no longer one Congregation, since it can∣not attain that purpose which brings them to∣gether. And therefore is a Congregation for shew and solemnity, and not for edification and religious service. Nor can any bounds be assigned to such an Assembly; for a Nation may be brought together in that manner. And therefore when a multitude, though crowded together in one place, becomes uncapable of attaining the end of Religious Assemblies, it has out-grown the Congregational standard, as much as if it were dispersed in forty di∣stant places. At a Coronation, all the people in Westminster Abby may be thought but one Congregation; yet the greatest part hear no more of what is said, than those who are ten miles off. They may joyn in one common acclamation, as that Alexandrian Assembly did in an Amen; so they might though they were twenty times as many. So that such a notion of a Congregation runs on to infinite. And that of which we are speaking, being in all probability of this sort, it exceeded the bounds of the pretended Primitive Episcopacy, and is of no use in the present question.

However the whole multitude met in the great Church, which was large enough to receive them all. But what multitude? all the Christians of the City? No, Mr. Baxter will not say that. Or all that were willing, or had opportunity to

attend the publick devotions of the day? Atha∣nasius says not that neither; but that there was so great confluence, that the Parish-Churches could not hold them. But there was no other Congregation of Athanasius his Communion in Alexandria on that Easter-day, beside this great one; for the universal Harmony and Concurrence of the people had not been so vi∣sible, if(h) 1.30 they had met in parcels; and there∣fore there were no such meetings. Still the question recurs, what people? all the Alexan∣drians of his Communion? Nothing he says can be extended so far, or made to compre∣hend any more than the multitude assembled at that time, with intention to be present with the Bishop. This is all the people, and all the multitude, that he mentions in this part of his defence. But these were all his flock; for universal Harmony of all the people was visible. This may be said of any general Congrega∣tion assembled from all parts, though all in∣dividuals, nor perhaps half of them do not appear. For Leo the Great about the middle of the fifth Century, speaks to his Congrega∣tion in the same manner, though in all proba∣bility not the twentieth part of the Chri∣stians of Rome were present. In you, says he,(i) 1.31 I can plainly see the piety of Christian unity,

as your confluence does declare; and you understand that the honour of the whole flock is celebrated in the Anniversaries of the Pastor.

Now to make up this image of Christian unity, it was not necessary all the people of the City should flow to the Bishops Church; but only that the Congregation should be very great, though not so as to exclude all others. Notwithstanding this expression, there might be several other Assemblies in that City at the same time. Nor was it otherwise at Alexandria, as we may judge by a passage in the Bishops Defence. He was accused for having dedicated a Church, which the Emperour had built, with∣out his order; because the holding of the Pascal Assemby there was a sort of Dedication. But the Bishop protests(l) 1.32 to the Emperour, that he was so far from any such design, that this very Assembly was altogether accidental; for he had given the people no notice nor sum∣mons to meet there. Now the Parish Presby∣ters of Alexandria cannot well be supposed to leave their Churches unsupplied, upon a pre∣sumption that all the people would assemble with the Bishop; and they could not but know, that his Church could not hold a tenth part of them; for all the Churches in the City could not receive them all, and this new Church, not yet finished or dedicated, they could not think of. Therefore in all probabi∣lity

they assembled their Parishes then, as they did on other times; unless we may fancy, that on Easter they always attended the Bishop; and so for all the Easters before this, left much the greatest part of the people without any ser∣vice on that solemn time. For but few of them could crowd into the Bishops Church, before that great one was built; and the number of the Catholick Christians had been greater, than were at this time of which we are speaking. To conclude, all the Alexandrians of the Ca∣tholick Communion were not present with their Bishop in the new Church. Those that came, made a very great multitude, and such as the other Churches could not hold, consider∣ing they had each a Congregation already. These could not be dispersed in the other Churches without danger. These were pro∣per to represent Catholick unity; and in short, were a Congregation suitable to the time, though it might not comprehend all the Christians of that great City.

Our Author goes on to prove the Church of Alexandria no more than could meet in one Congregation.(m) 1.33 Alexander, the Predeces∣sour of Athanasius, assembled the whole multitude in the Church called Theonas, the other Churches being all strait and little. But still this multitude is not said to be the whole of the Alexandrine Church, but only of the Bishops Congrega∣tion.

There is yet another kind of proof, which he thinks, might be as satisfactory to some; and refers to Mr. Baxter's Ch. History, p. 9, 10. Here I must own my self of his opinion, for both are equally satisfactory; and this to which he refers has been(n) 1.34 sufficiently an∣swered.

He thinks the Premises so evident, that there is no need of Dionysius's observation; that Alex∣andria in his time was not by much so populous as of old, the old men being more in number former∣ly, than both old and young in his days. If there was no need of this observation, he is the more in∣excusable, for attempting to put upon his Rea∣der without any necessity. If any one should undertake to prove, that London is not so populous now as it was a hundred years ago, because a great Mortality happened there about five and twenty years since, and at the end of that pestilence all sorts of Inhabitants might not then equal even the old men a few years before; such a poor juggle would not pass up∣on Children. But in facts more remote, there is a sort of men that take liberty, and depend upon the ignorance of their Readers; And this observation is an instance of that practice. For in Dionysius the Bishop of Alexandria's time, there happened first a fatal sedition in that City, and an infinite number of people was slain; the carcasses of these corrupted the air and the water, and begot a Pestilence mortal beyond all example; and this reduced the City

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

so low, as that Bishop then represents it. But it soon recovered from that calamity, as great Cities commonly do, and maintained its rank for some time, as the second City of the Em∣pire.

In Antioch, he observes,(o) 1.35 the Christians in the first age were no more than could all meet toge∣ther in the House of Theophilus, as appears by the Author of the Recognitions, which though falsly ascribed to Clemens, is ancient; nor will it be easie to find a reason why the following passage should be forged. Theophilus—domus suae in∣gentem Basilicam Ecclesiae nomine consecravit, in qua omnis multitudo ad audiendum verbum conveniens, &c. l. 10. To some sort of peo∣ple no evidence comes amiss; Fable and For∣gery grow Authentick, if they seem favourable to their cause. The Recognitions are on all hands given up for an idle forgery, feigned without any aim or tolerable guess of the condition of the Apostolick times. I have some reasons to suspect, that this Book is not so old as it is generally imagined; and it car∣ries several marks of the fourth Century, of which it is not necessary to take notice in this place. But it is not easie to find a reason, why this passage should be forged; nor indeed why he has forged all the rest of his Book; nor is it necessary. For many will lie out of gaiety of humour and to please their fancy, with∣out any other reason to move them. But he that has not reason enough to discern this

to be a Fable, has certainly very little to spare.

(r) 1.36When Paulus Samosatenus was Bishop of this City, our Author observes, there was but one house,(s) 1.37 where the Church did meet, of which he would not give up the possession. And this he contends was not the Bishops house, but the house where the Church did meet, and is presently after called(t) 1.38 the Church. The Translator that he blames for calling it the Bishops house, must be Christophorson, or Musculus; for Ruffi∣nus and Valesius render it the House of the Church. Now whether it were the Church, or the House of the Bishop, is not very clear, nor very material. For to be sure the Church had a House where the Bishop assembled; and they might have twenty Parish-Churches more, for ought appears from this place. But that which our Author infers, that one House was then sufficient, otherwise they might have had more, proceeds from his usual acuteness. The Church needed but one common House for the Bishops Assembly, to which they all be∣longed; but they might have many Houses ap∣propriated to Parishes, and certain regions of the Town; which could not be called the Houses of the Church in general, but only of such a part.

(u) 1.39 In the fourth Age all the Christians there could meet together for the choice of Eustathius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, says Theodoret, l. 1. c. 7. This has been answered so often already, that I am ashamed to repeat so obvious and plain an an∣swer any more. What proportion of Antioch was Christian in Eustathius his time, may be guessed from the influence his deposition had upon that City, which according to Mr. Clerk∣son, was but four years after his being Bishop of that place. The sedition, says Sozomen,(x) 1.40 was so great, that the whole City was in danger of being destroyed, the Christians upon this occasion being divided into two parts. If an Independent Congregation in London should happen to have such a difference about their Pastour; it would scarce move a sedition in the City, or endanger the safety of it in so high a manner. After this our Author represents the low condition of the Orthodox Christians in Antioch, while the Arrians were masters(y) 1.41 of the Churches, that they made but a mean Congregation. Yet all the while the Arrian Bishops there were Diocesan, and had many Churches in that City, which had belonged once to the Catholick Chri∣stians, and did still of right appertain to them, and before the end of that Century were actually recovered to the true faith and their old rightful Possessours.

(z) 1.42 Carthage next to the Cities foremention∣ed, was one of the greatest of the Empire.—Yet there were no more Christians in that Church about Anno. 220, than could meet together in one place for Church-administration. For this he tells us there is evidence enough in Tertullian; which at present I will not further take notice of, than in the obser∣vation of a great Antiquary, the Bishop of Orleans. Our Author speaks of Tertullian in this place, like one who had not looked in him; for he has not one word of the Church of Car∣thage in that place, on which Albaspineus makes his observation, and what is worse, that Bi∣shop has not a word about Carthage. All this is nothing but a vision that happened to our Author in the dark, when he talked of Books without consulting them. Tertullian(a) 1.43 dis∣puting warmly against Christian Women mar∣rying of Heathen Men, proposes many great difficulties, to which such Women will be ex∣posed, and what hindrance such a Marriage must needs be to all Christian Offices. If the Wife purpose to perform the Station, the Hus∣band appoints a Bath: If she ought to observe a Fast, her Husband appoints an entertain∣ment: si procedendum est; if she be to go abroad upon charitable and Christian visits to the poor and sick, the business of her family is then extraordinary urgent. It happened that some Papists laid hold on that word, and fancied

they had found their Procession in Tertullian; which Albaspinaeus makes bold to expose, shew∣ing that in those days there was but one Church in a place, and that generally a small one, and with∣out ornament. Which I am very willing to grant, for generally speaking so it was, and most Towns had but one Church. But for Carthage, and Cities of that magnitude, they might differ from the generality in this, as they did in dimension and multitude of people. That Carthage had many Christian assemblies in Tertullians time, we need no other proof than the account he gives Scapula of the number of Christians in that City.(b) 1.44 If they should offer themselves to Martyrdom, what couldst thou do with so many thousands of people, when Men and Women, every sex, every age and condition should offer themselves? What fires, what swords would be sufficient to destroy them? How much must Car∣thage suffer, which then would be decimated by thee? Every one would suffer in his Relation or his Friend; and there might appear among the sufferers persons of thy own rank, and of the highest quality. If thou wilt not spare us, spare thy self; if thou wilt not spare thy self, spare Carthage. All this must appear very absurd, and provoke the derision of the Heathen; if this multitude so populously set out, might be summed up in one assem∣bly, and that no great one: Since the Chri∣stians had not the convenience of great and capacious Churches at that time, and might not

be very willing to raise extraordinary Fa∣bricks, lest they should expose themselves too much to the observation and envy of their enemies. He who is not yet perswaded that there was no more than one Congregation of Christians in Carthage, when Tertullian wrote this, let him, if he thinks fit, make himself the Advocate of some Sect in London that makes but one Congregation, and plead their cause in this Harangue, and then see how well it will fit them.

Now if the Christians in Carthage were so numerous in the beginning of the third Cen∣tury, that it is incredible they could meet in one Church, and such a Church as the condi∣tion of those times could bear; the forty years that follow must exceedingly increase their numbers, since they were the most favourable that the Church met with in the three first ages. And in Afric especially, where Mr. Dod∣well(c) 1.45 finds no Persecution from the tenth year of Severus, Anno 202, to the first of De∣cius, Anno 250. And in general, Origen ob∣serves the increase of Christians within this time to be extraordinary, and much greater than it had been in former times;(c) 1.46 because they were not then oppressed by the Emper∣ours, as they had been formerly;(d) 1.47 and the rigours of the Heathen against them had for

a long time ceased. This long peace, tho' it corrupted the manners of the Christians, yet it added much to their numbers; as Cyprian(e) 1.48 observes, who speaking of the Christians of Carthage before Decius his Persecution, ex∣tols their numbers, while he bewails the ruin of those who yielded to the enemy. Yet(f) 1.49 In Cyprians time, in all Church administrations and transactions of moment in the Church and Bi∣shoprick of Carthage, all the people were to be pre∣sent: Tota fraternitas, plebs Universa, stantes Laici; as he declares every where in his Epistles: And how all could be present, if they were more than could meet together, is not intelligible. Alas! how difficult is it for some men to understand the plainest things in the World, when they have no mind to it. It is an incomprehensible fi∣gure of speech it seems, to say, that what is transacted in an Assize, is done before the whole County: and yet there is scarce any Hall so large as to hold the people of one Hundred, much less a whole County; and still people will talk after this unintelligible rate. But of this Topick we have said more than enough. To the same effect is that of Optatus, concerning the Election of Caecilian, suffragio totius populi. And the deductions he makes upon the account of the Donatists in Carthage, so as to leave the Catholick Christians but one Congregation, are by much too liberal to the Schismaticks. For it

is known to every body that has but looked in∣to St. Austin, that those of the Catholick Com∣munion in that City had many and great Churches for their assemblies in the fourth Century.

To the four greatest Cities of the Empire, our Author(g) 1.50 thinks fit to add Jerusalem, al∣tho' far inferiour in greatness, —because of the many thousands converted there by the Apostles.— But I have shewed, that of those five thousand Converted, the twentieth part cannot in reason be ac∣counted inhabitants of the City. What he has said of this matter, hath been examined at large. In Jerusalem many accessions of Converts are mentioned in the beginning of the Acts, which he does account for; and all this in a few years, before the calling of the Gentiles, and the Conversion of St. Paul. Nor did the progress of Christianity in Jerusalem stop where St. Luke breaks off his relation of the numerous Con∣versions: but before the destruction of that City and the Jewish Nation, we are told by Hegesippus,(h) 1.51 that the Scribes made an uproar, and cried, that the whole City was in danger of becoming Christian. Their apprehensions had been very childish, if the Christians had not yet increased beyond one Congregation, when the Rabbins will have near five hundred Synagogues to have been in Jerusalem at that time. About forty years after, this Church consisted of no

more than Pella, a small City, could entertain, to∣gether with its own inhabitants. What might hap∣pen to this Church a few years before the de∣struction of Jerusalem, is altogether unknown: But that not long before it was very flourish∣ing, we learn from the Acts and Hegesippus. If Persecutions or Apostacies had diminished it a little before that fatal Revolution, we are not to take the measures of it from such a ca∣lamitous state. Nay, this story of the trans∣migration to Pella comes from no certain Authority. And Valesius(i) 1.52 hints his mistrust of it, when he observes that Eusebius quotes no Author, and probably took all this mat∣ter from Tradition, which is no very certain way of conveying any thing to posterity. Nor is it unlikely(l) 1.53 that this story should come from the Nazarens, who dwelt about Pella and in the Region of Decapolis; who to give themselves greater credit, might pretend to be the remainder of the Apostolick Church of Jerusalem.(m) 1.54 Not long after, they setled in the ruins of a part of that desolate City; no fit place to entertain multitudes, where they had a few houses and a little Church; and therefore one would judg they could not be very many. The story of these houses and Church, and several Sy∣nagogues in Mount-Sion, that escaped in the first desolation, are all Jewish Fables, and in∣consistent

with our Saviours Prophesie of that City, that one stone should not be left upon another, as Scaliger(n) 1.55 has observed: and any one may see it, who will but read the story in Epiphanius, who to make this little Church yet more venerable, places it in that spot of ground where the house stood, in which the Apostles were assembled after the Ascension of our Lord.

Our Author, to be revenged of this Church of Jerusalem for growing so fast at the begin∣ning, and giving trouble to his Brethren of the Congregational way by those many thou∣sand Converts which they could not conveni∣ently bestow in one assembly, resolves at last, if not to extinguish it, yet to reduce it to the next degree to utter dissolution, by the Edict of Adrian,(o) 1.56 which excluded all Jews, not only from Jerusalem, but all the territory round about it. So that if the Church then at Jerusalem were either wholly, or for the greatest part constituted of Jews, it was either quite dissipated or greatly dimi∣nished. And be it which he pleases, so it be not taken for a judgment upon it for trans∣gressing the bounds of the Congregational way, and updoing a notion of Primitive Episcopacy: It was certainly a great fault in the first Church in the World, and at the very beginning to be∣come Unprimitive.

To shew compassion, he is willing(p) 1.57 to take the more favourable sense, by which it is not quite dissolved, but reduced to a very small compass, and very few members, those only of the believing Gentiles,—which were so few, that they are not thought fit to be brought to account, by him who gives the best account of the state of the Church in those days. Now, to what pur∣pose is all this learned Discourse? The Church of Jerusalem was either quite dissolv∣ed, or much diminished by that Edict that forbid the Jews to come into that City. What then? Is this then an instance to judg other Churches by, when the case is singu∣lar, and common to it with no other Church? What if he had thought fit to take the other opinion, that it was quite dissipated, must we have concluded that there had been no Chri∣stian Congregation in the World? Yet in conclusion, there is nothing produced to shew, whether it had many, or but one Assembly. And in truth, there is no mention made of it for some time: which might not happen from the small number of Christians, but the loss of Records. For many Cities greater than Jerusalem, of which there is little doubt to be made, that they had Churches very early, are in the same Case. How many Bishops of Carthage do we know before Cyprian? Nor is there any account given of that Church after his death, until the Ordination of Cae∣cilian.

It is not surely because the Christians there were so few, as not to be thought fit to be brought into account.

(q) 1.58It is like their numbers increased before Narcissus was Bishop there in the third age: Yet then they were not so many, but that the whole multitude could meet with their Bishop at the Pascal Vigil. Altho' this expression, the whole multitude, do not import so universally as our Author would have it: Yet here it is not used by Eusebius with any respect to the City, but to the Congregation assembled with Narcissus. For in a Pascal Vigil, as the traditi∣onal story went, the Oyl happened to fail; whereupon the whole multitude was troubled, i. e. the multitude present. Whether it was great or little, whether it consisted of all, or not a fortieth part of the Christians of that City, cannot be guessed from this passage.

(r) 1.59Nay, in Cyrill's time, which was in the fourth age, Anno 353, it seems they were no more than could assemble in one place. For the people, as Sozomen relates it, astonished at an A∣parition in the air, all leave their houses,—and Men Women and Children meet in the Church. Hist. l. 3. c. 4. It should be l. 4. c. 5. Sozo∣men speaks there, not of the Christians only, but of all the people of the City; for asto∣nishment and fear seized upon all. And if our Author would deal rigidly with him, he must

find a Church that may hold all the Inhabi∣tants of a great and a populous City; for such was it now grown, by the kindness and devotion of the Christian Emperours, and by the multitude of Christians who resorted thi∣ther from all parts to visit the Sepulcher, and other places rendered venerable for having been the scene of some of the most impor∣tant actions of our Saviour. But I think it is easier to make some allowance to such ge∣neral expressions, than to find a Church in Jerusalem at that time, capacious enough to re∣ceive all the men women and children of that City.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Prim. ep. p. 91. 92.
• (b) 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (c) 1.3

  Praesente populo Romano. Marcel. & Faustin. L. 16. Prec.
• (d) 1.4

  Dataque oratione respondit omnis populus Amen. Lib. Pont. in Vigil.
• (e) 1.5

  Satisfecit cuncto populo & plebi, quia nullum ma∣lum fecisset contra Vigilium. Lib. Pont. in Pelag.
• (f) 1.6

  Gregonium Diaconum plebs omnis elegit. Greg. Turon. l. x. c. 1. Joh. Diacon. l. 1. c. 39. 40.
• (g) 1.7

  1 Sam. 12.1.4.
• (h) 1.8

  Prim. ep. p. 92.
• (i) 1.9

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (l) 1.10

  Prim. ep. p. 93.
• (m) 1.11

  Prim. ep. p. 93.
• (n) 1.12

  Vindic. prim. ch. p. 51.
• (o) 1.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Greg. Naz Or. 1.
• (p) 1.14

  Euseb. H.E. l. 6. c. 43.
• (q) 1.15

  Synod. Rom. 1. sub. Symmach. Subs. Pres. 67.
• (r) 1.16

  Cum Episc. omnibus & Rom. Eccl. Presbyteris. Greg. Reg. l. 4. ep. 44.
• (s) 1.17

  Prim. ep. p. 94.
• (t) 1.18

  Chrys Hom. 66. in Matth. p. 421. 422.
• (u) 1.19

  Prim. ep. p. 96.
• (x) 1.20

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. l. 7. c. 9.
• (y) 1.21

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. l. 7. c. 7.
• (z) 1.22

  Euseb. H. E. l. 7. c. 22.
• (a) 1.23

  Prim. ep. p. 97.
• (b) 1.24

  No Evidence for Dioces. Episc. p. 47.
• (c) 1.25

  Theod. H. E. l. 4. c. 22. Soz. l. 1. c. 15.
• (d) 1.26

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiph. Haer. 69. n. 2.
• (e) 1.27

  Ch. Hist. p. 10.
• (f) 1.28

  Epiph. Haer. 69. n. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (g) 1.29

  Optat. l. 2.
• (h) 1.30

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (i) 1.31

  In vobis pietatem Christianae unitatis agnosco, sicut enim ipsa frequentia testatur. Intelligitis enim hono∣rem totius gregis celebrari per annua festa Pastoris. Leo. Serm. Anniv. 3.
• (l) 1.32

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Apol. ad Const. p. 682.
• (m) 1.33

  Prim. ep. p. 98.
• (n) 1.34

  Vindic. Prim. Ch. p. 58.
• (o) 1.35

  Prim. ep. p. 99.
• (r) 1.36

  Prim. ep. p. 100.
• (s) 1.37

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (t) 1.38

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. l. 7. c. 30.
• (u) 1.39

  Prim. ep. p. 100.
• (x) 1.40

  Soz. l. 2. c. 19.
• (y) 1.41

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socr. l. 3. c. 9.
• (z) 1.42

  Prim. ep. p. 103.
• (a) 1.43

  Tertul. ad Uxor. l. 2. c. 4.
• (b) 1.44

  Tertull. ad Scapulam.
• (c) 1.45

  Dissert. Cypr. xi. ss. 48. 52.
• (c) 1.46

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Orig. Cont. Cels. p. l. 3. p. 120.
• (d) 1.47

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (e) 1.48

  Disciplinam longa pax corruperat.—populi aliquan∣do numerosi lamentanda jactura. Cypr. de laps. p. 123.
• (f) 1.49

  Prim. ep. p. 104.
• (g) 1.50

  Prim. ep. p. 106.
• (h) 1.51

  Apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 23.
• (i) 1.52

  Annot. in Euseb. l. 3. c. 5.
• (l) 1.53

  Epiph. Haer. Nazar. n. 7. Id. de Pond. & Mens. n. 15. Joseph. Scalig. Anim. in Euseb. p. 212.
• (m) 1.54

  Prim. ep. p. 107.
• (n) 1.55

  Animadv. in Euseb. Chron.
• (o) 1.56

  Prim. ep. p. 108.
• (p) 1.57

  Prim. ep. p. 109.
• (q) 1.58

  Prim. ep. p. 109. 110. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. l. 6. c. 9.
• (r) 1.59

  Prim. ep. p. 110.