A DEFENCE OF Diocesan Episcopacy, IN ANSWER to a BOOK OF Mr. DAVID CLARKSON, Lately Published, ENTITLED, Primitive Episcopacy.  
By HENRY MAURICE, D. D.  
LONDON: Printed by Hannah Clark, for james Adamson, at the Angel and Crown in St. Paul's Church Yard, 1691.   

Imprimatur.  
Carolus Alston, R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. à Sacris. Nou. 4. 1690.   

 bookplate   

THE PREFACE.  
AS in many of his Actions the Devil expresses an Emulation of the divine power and greatness, and affects to resemble the most high: In the production of Schism, he tries to counterfeit the Creation. For as God produced this world out of nothing, his power operating without any matter: So the Devil too creates a Schism from colour, or the shadow of a pretence, or whatever else may be thought to stand in a nearer degree to nothing.  
Now it is the common way to judge of the nature of Schism, by the quality of the pretence; if this be slight and frivolous, they conceive the other cannot be dangerous, and must be in a near disposition to admit a Cure. But common experience proves this to be a mistake: For on the contrary, where the occasion of difference seems to be most trifling, there we may observe the animosities to be highest. And the reason is plain enough; for he who is resolved to force a quarrel, will lay hold on any pretence; and the more frivolous it is, the more bitterness and rancour it discovers in that Spirit that lusteth to envy. And at the same time, it is a good testimony of the integrity and exactness of the party against which the quarrel is affected, that those who were resolved to break, are forced to take up with so mean Cavils.  
When you have done all you can to remove occasion from those who seek offence, the Prediction of our Lord and his Apostles will continue to be accomplished. Offences will come, and Heresies and Schisms must be; and those who are sincere will be made manifest, and those who are otherwise will not be hid. The Enemy of Christian peace does confirm the Gospel, while he endeavours to destroy it by divisions; as the Jews fulfilled the Prophets by condemning the Messiah. While the Church remained under the conduct of the Apostles, in the simplicity of the Christian Faith, and exactness of Discipline, it might be expected there should be no Dissenters. But those golden times, for our comfort, have left us their complaints, that then, there were rail, evil surmises, and perverse dispute of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth; even then there were false Apostles, deceitful Workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. Then as well as now, there were some who separated themselves, and forsook the Assemblies of the faithful.  
S. Paul the popular and complying Apostle, who became all things to all men, had no small struggle with this spirit of Separation. Some were such proficients in a free censoriousness, as to think of him as though he walked according to the flesh; some disparaged his Gifts, and despised his bodily presence as weak, and his speech contemptible; detracting from him doubtless, to add to themselves the character of more acceptable, and more edifying Teachers. Some were puffed up, despised his authority, and made divisions in the Churches under his care. He who healed all manner of diseases, who raised the dead, and could cast out a Heathen spirit of Divination, found it a harder matter to deal with the spirit of separation, that operated in the such false Prophets as boar the forms and titles of Christianity.  
The Divine providence permitted many Demoniacs in our Saviour's and the Apostles time, when God conferred miraculous abilities to dispossess them; but seems to have shortened the chain of evil Spirits in succeeding ages, in the same proportion that he lessened the gifts by which they were mastered. But the Spirit of separation was still suffered to practise his Arts of deluding, and to break the peace of the Church, by infinite variety of pretences. Sometimes it was too pure for the mixed society of the Church; sometimes it was exalted with new Revelations, and those who would not receive them were carnal; and in short, was so diligent in inventing reasons, and in snatching occasions of dividing Communion, that all the Topics of Schism seemed to be exhausted.  
But this Spirit it seems will not be stinted, nor confine its self within its own ancient Precedents. For in these last times it is become nice, in taking offence beyond former examples, and beyond all measure acute in assigning causes of dissatisfaction. The old Church-dividers swallowed many things, that our Dissenters strain at as fundamental corruptions; and most of the things, which they object as the causes of their departure from us, were never known before to have made any difference between Christians. For who, I pray, before our Dissenters, separated from a Church, for having a set Form, and Order of Divine Service? Who before our times ever took offence at the use of the Prayer that Christ taught his Disciples? What sect from the beginning, forsook the Assemblies of the faithful, for using the sign of the Cross, as the common Ensign of the faith of Christ crucified, upon the solemn admission of Church-members? Who ever divided the Communion of any Church, because it had a Bishop? Aerius indeed pretended to see no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter; but this was not the reason, but only the effect of his separation: for having no Bishop of his Communion, he was forced to represent them as unnecessary, though he durst not condemn their Institution. It is strange, that these blemishes should so long deform the Church, and no Greek or Latin Sectary have the sagacity to discern them; that so palpable motives of separation should escape the spirit of Maximilla, and the acuteness of Tertullian; that the Novatians reputed skilful men in observing faults, should be so little perspicacious, as not to discover such gross abominations: Or that the Donatists should puzzle themselves so long, with a story of Cecilian, that they could never make out, and leave such Topics as these untouched. I cannot think the people of former ages so gross, as some of our Virtuosos may represent them. From the principles they chose, they reasoned as well as we, and their Sectaries wanted no wit to find out such objections of Nonconformity, as our Dissenters have advanced. But as I am apt in some things to be favourable to Antiquity; so in this case, I cannot but commend the judgement of ancient Schismatics, for not using such frivolous pretences, as must unavoidably expose them to the scorn of all discerning men, who seeing through such miserable shifts, must conclude, that no ingenuous mind could use them, and nothing but consummate and hardened Hypocrisy persist in them.  
But of all the Pleas preferred by Dissenters against the Church of England, none looks more new, or more affected, than that which concerns Diocesan Episcopacy. The old quarrel about the pre-eminence of Bishops above Presbyters, seems in a manner to be dropped, and all the difficulty now to remain, concerning the bounds of the Bishop's Territory, and the numbers belonging to his Inspection; yet in ancient times this made no difference.  
For Sozomen 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Soz. l. 7. c. 19  observing the great inequality of ancient Dioceses, and some other little usages, in which the Churches of one Country differed from those of another, commends the wisdom of ancient Bishops, who looked upon it as a great piece of folly, to divide communion about these matters: The greatness or smallness of a Diocese making in their opinion, no difference in the office. The Synod assembled at Antioch, in their Letter 
(b) Soz l. 3. c. 8.  to Julius' Bishop of Rome, let him understand, that they do not account themselves inferior to him in authority, though their Churches were not so great or populous as his; but are far from disowning him to be of their Order, because his Diocese did exceed theirs. And Jerom 
(c) Hieron. Ep. ad Evagr.  declares himself freely upon this point, that the greater or lesser compass of a Diocese, made no alteration in the Episcopacy; but the poor Bishop of Eugubium had the same authority and order with that of Rome. Yet now it seems this difference is become fundamental: And Mr. Clarkson contends, that there is but one sort of Bishops to be endured, such only, who have the charge of no more than a single Congregation. This we are told by him, the Apostles intended; this the first three or four Ages practised; and within that space of time there was no other Episcopacy. How well he hath performed this undertaking will appear from this Book, in which I have been so far from dissembling, or passing by any Testimony that might seem material, that I am afraid to have incurred very just censure, for being too minute and punctual in my answers, beyond the merit of the Objections. Yet for this I may be allowed to use the plea of Apuleius 
(d) Ne videar cuipiam si quid ex frivolis praeteriero, id agnovisse potius quam contempsisse,— quod si forte inepta videbor, & oppido frivola velle defendere, illis debet ea res vitio verti quibus turpe est etiam haec objectasse, non mihi culpae dari, cui honestum erit, etiam haec diluisse. Apul. Apol.  on the like occasion, that I have taken notice of many frivolous things, lest to some I might seem to decline them as unanswerable, and not to omit them out of just contempt. And if my answers to some mean and captious remarks, may seem sometimes to taste of the futility of the Objections; yet I hope this will be imputed to him, who was not ashamed to offer such things in evidence, and not to me who was concerned to disprove them.  
Some may perhaps expect an Apology for delay, that the Book came not out sooner. But for this, I am not solicitous for an excuse, apprehending rather the contrary fault, that it is come out too soon. For I found in the Book I answer, so many marks of haste and precipitation, that I thought myself obliged to take warning; though the design of that work seems to have taken up a great part of the Author's life. In such variety of facts, so remote, and many of them so obscure, there are too many things to be considered to admit of haste: And after all the care, and the leisure one can take, it is neither easy nor usual, in this kind of work, to avoid oversights, and omissions of some things very material.  
The Author of the Preface may perhaps think himself neglected, that he is not thought considerable enough to deserve an answer. He promised himself, it seems, that the Epistle Recommendatory should find the same entertainment with the worthy Treatise of Mr. Clarkson. But Diviners are sometimes disappointed. For my part I am resolved to make a difference between the Book and the Recommendation. And I hope Mr. Chauncey will see some reason why he should not take it ill. I wish he had been able to have represented the references right: But we must forgive where it is not to be had, and I dare say the good man did his best.  
But why should he be angry with Dr. Sherlock, for defending Protestant Principles, against the Papists, upon the grounds of the Church of England? Why did not he or some of his Brethren step out to vindicate Congregational Episcopacy, against Father Ellis and his three Colleagues, who made but four Dioceses of this whole Kingdom? For God's sake tell me, who maintained Protestant Principles then upon the foundation of the Dissenters? But the Serpent and the venomous Vermin are subtler than the other Beasts of the field; for in hard weather they are not to be found on the face of the Earth, but are crept into their holes; but when a warmer season comes, they crawl out, to snap at the heels of those who had endured the severities of the winter.  
If he expected the same Treatment with Mr. Clarkson, he should have written intelligibly, and writ sense. But when he runs the Changes upon Jus Divinum, Humanum, and Apostolicum; when he talks of Hermaphroditick Divinity, of Office-Charge, of Office Discrimination, of Appendix-Courts and Vestments, and Canons among the Heteroclites of his Divinity, what can a man do but wonder and keep silence? Believe me, I would as soon dispute with a Paper-mill, as undertake to answer a man of such amazing language. But for the Heteroclites, I may perhaps know what they may import; it is when a thing changes its kind: As for Example, when a man leaves his shop and the business of his Calling, to write Letters Recommendatory of what he does not understand.   

Erratas which disturb the Sense.  
PAge 18. Line 14. for Passover, read Pentecost. p. 31. l. 6. for disprove, r. prove. p. 37. l. 18. for future, r. further. p. 69. l. 6. for useful, r. unfit. p. 78. l. 20. for first, r. fifth. p. 98. l. 9 after Bishop of, add, the City. p. 358. l. 27. for populously, r. pompously. p. 361. l. 16. after he does, add, not. p. 406. l. 8. for Fermissus, r. Telmissus.   

A DEFENCE OF Diocesan Episcopacy, etc.  
IT is an easy matter for those who confine their Charity, as they do their Primitive Episcopacy, to a single Congregation, to charge all who differ from them, as Men wholly governed by Prejudice and Interest. The fondness they have for their own Conceits, renders them incapable of any Jealousy of their Truth or Evidence; and if these Notions do not receive such Entertainment, as the Indulgent Author is persuaded they deserve, and Success do not answer 
(a) Mr. Clarkson's Primitive Episcopacy, pag. 1.  Opinion, it must be ascribed to the unequal Encounter they had with Prejudice and Interest, Things that do frequently baffle the best Evidence in Persons otherwise very discerning and judicious.  
It is just indeed, that they should bear the reproach of Insincerity, who refuse full or competent Evidence, when the Proofs rise up to a Demonstration, or are direct and suitable to the nature of the Matter. But for Men to advance new Notions and Paradoxes, concerning things at very great Distance, of which, the Proofs are obscure, and the Evidence only conjectural; and then to cry out upon those who are not convinced, as Persons of no Faith or Equity, argues a Confidence very unusual, and rarely to be seen either in understanding or good Men.  
That for the space of the first three Centuries, a Bishop was no more than a Pastor to a single Congregation; is in the first place, a Conclusion very new, and never heard, that I can learn, before the last Age. The space of time intervening between the nearest point of the three Centuries assigned, and the Birth of this Notion wants little of Thirteen complete Centuries; and therefore the Evidence of a matter so remote, aught to be positive and direct; and it must be expected, that some Ancient Witnesses who lived within the compass of that Term, or in the next Age at least, should be produced and have declared expressly, that no Bishop had more than one single Congregation, or that it was the Opinion of those Times, that a Bishop ought to have no more: If but one Author of Credit had left this Testimony, the circumstantial Evidence might reasonably be admitted for Confirmation; but when all the Proof of a Fact so distant, consists only of Conjectures and Suspicions, and unconcluding Circumstances; I hope that in this time of Liberty, an honest Man may refuse to believe so obscure and unnecessary Inferences, without any Diminution of his Reputation. It may be very true, that some Villages had Bishops; that several Cities were not greater than some of our Market-Towns; that all the People may be said in an usual sense to be present at Church in the greatest Cities; all this may be true, and yet very far from proving the Point in Question.  
The Conclusion, Congregational Episcopacy, may remain still at as great a distance from these Premises, as the Primitive Times we speak of are from the present Age, or as some gifted men's Discourses are from the Text.  
When this fancy of Primitive Congregational Episcopacy came first into men's heads, the Diocesan way had been every where Established; and that we may not take this for a piece of Popery, no Churches came nearer to the Congregational Standard, than those that were under the immediate Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome; nor was it pretended, that Diocesan Bishops were new; they had an acknowledged Prescription of above twelve hundred years; but the time of its rise was not so positively assigned. Cartwright pretended to trace some footsteps of the Congregational way in the two first Centuries; but I do not find that he, or the Dissenters of his Time, had made the Conclusion so universal, that no Bishop within that compass of Time, had more than one Congregation. Rome and Alexandria, and the greatest Cities seemed to stand out, and remained Exceptions; but now they too are taken in, and reduced to the Congregational Model. It is something hard to conceive, how the Species of Church-Government should come to be changed, and no Account of so important a Change be transmitted to Posterity: Those who fancy Presbytery turned into Episcopacy in the former part of the second Century, make some show of Reply, when they say, that it is a very obscure Age, and hath left little or nothing of its Story behind it. But the Ages in which Primitive Episcopacy is pretended to have been transformed into Diocesan, were of another Character; they abounded with Learning and Writers, and a great many of their Books have been preserved, but not the least hint of this Fundamental Alteration of Church-Government. What! so just an Offence given by the Church, and no Sectary, no Schismatic to reproach her? Those who were so minute and trifling in their Cavils, could they overlook so obvious a Topick as this of Diocesan Innovation? Nay, these very Sects, where their Numbers made them capable, lived themselves under the Diocesan Way: If then in times of so much Division, Contention and Dispute, such a change as this could be introduced without any Opposition, and all Parties of different Opinions and Interest conformed to it; for my part, I cannot see how it can be denied, that it was done by Miracle: For what greater Miracle can we well imagine, than that so many sorts of Christians divided by Principles and mutual Aversions, should conspire to receive this pretended alteration of Episcopacy? So that those who deny it to be Primitive, must allow it a higher Title, since Miracle carries with it much greater Authority than Prescription.  
Mr. Clerkson therefore had great reason to apprehend, that it would appear a great Paradox, to hear that a Bishop of Old was but the Pastor of a single Church, or that his Diocese was no larger than one Communion Table might serve. It does indeed seem very strange; not only to those who take the Measures of Ancient times and things by their own, or are much concerned they should not be otherwise than they are now; but most of all to those who have competent knowledge of those Times, and who are qualified to make some Judgement of the State of the Primitive Church, from the Testimonies of Ecclesiastical Writers. It is a great weakness to take the measures of Ancient times, by our own; 
(a) P. 116.  but I know none more unfortunate in this way of reckoning than the Author himself, who measures the Ancient Territories of Greek and Roman Cities by Liberties that belong to Ours; and demands with more Zeal than Knowledge, How many Cities in the Roman Empire can be sh●wn us, where this Jurisdiction of the City Magistrates reached farther than it doth in our English Cities?  
Vrbem quam dicunt Romam, Melibaee, pu●avi  
Stultus Ego huic nostrae similem.  
But of this in its proper place  
How great Advantages may be expected from a clear discovery of, what the Author thinks to be, true in this particular, I cannot readily discern, having not the assistance of his Prospective to discover things at so vast a distance; much less can I see that it may contribute much to the deciding of the Controversies among us about Church-Government, and bringing them to a happy Composure. Now to deal liberally with this Notion of Primitive Episcopacy, let us yield up the point at once, and grant, that no Bishop for the three first Centuries had more than one Congregation: But at the same time, let us take the Reason along with us, that for so long time, no City had more Christians than might meet in one Church; no Bishop then could have more Congregations than all the Christians of his City and Territory did compose. But the Controversies about Church-Government are still undecided, for this does not preclude the Bishops from a right of having many Congregations under their inspections, if more had been. The Controversies about Church-Government turn upon questions of Right, and not of Fact. But matters of Fact are pertinently alleged to prove a Right, where the Fact does involve a Judgement of Right; but where it is purely accidental, it has no consequence on either side. Two great Casuists upon a certain time fell into Dispute about the Lawfulness of taking Tobacco, the Dispute was carried on with great Learning and Niceness, one made it out clearly, that none of the Primitive Christians ever used it, and that for many Centuries there was not one Christian Smoker in the World. The other desired to know the Principle upon which they condemned it, and was told very seriously, that there were no Church censures against it, nor could there well be any, for the Plant had not yet been brought to these Parts of the World. So the Controversy remained undecided by this negative instance of the Primitive Church, because their forbearance was not the effect of Judgement or Choice, but from an absolute ignorance of the matter.  
Now for deciding of Controversies, and bringing things to a happy composure, I was resolved to signalise my Compliance, and submit to a Paradox, not for the sake of any Testimony brought by the Author, but to avoid Importunity, and upon the account of Peace. But seeing all our Controversies about Church-Government remain in the same state after all my yielding, I conceive that I am at liberty to revoke my Concession, and to Contest the matter of Fact, and to show that the Testimonies alleged by Mr. Clerkson, do not make sufficient proof of the point under debate, that a Bishop in the three first Centuries was no more than Pastor to a single Congregation.  
For the Scripture-times there will be little difficulty, since as much is acknowledged by the most Learned and Judicious Assertors of Prelacy, as need be desired. 
(a) Prim. Ep. p. 2.  Archbishop Whitgift is brought in to witness, that the Gospel was not generally received any where when it was first Preached. That when Mathias was chosen, the whole Church was gathered in one place, and so it was when the Deacons were chosen; this may be true, and yet not reach to the whole extent of Scripture-times, but only to those instances of Popular Election, which were alleged by Cartwright, the latest of which seems to be within a Year of our Saviour's Ascension: and if for the first Year of the Apostles Preaching, the Church might not Increase beyond a single Congregation, it will be of no great consequence either for or against Diocesan Episcopacy: yet it is plain from Scripture that the matter of Fact was otherwise. For in the Election of Mathias, the Assembly consisted of about a hundred and twenty; 
(b) Acts 1.  whereas our Saviour before his Ascension appeared in an Assembly of five hundred Brethren; 
(c) 1 Cor. 15.  so that not a fourth part of the Church was present at that Election. When the Deacons were elected, the whole Church of Jerusalem could not be present in that Assembly, for the number of the Converts was then too great, especially considering the Christians had not the convenience of very capacious places to meet in. A great part of the Church was not concerned to be present on that occasion, for the Women had no part in Election, nor perhaps Servants, nor Children tho' of Age, while they lived in their Father's House. But that the whole Church could not be present, I shall then show more fully, when I consider the ways by which our Author endeavours to diminish the first-Fruits of the Gospel, and to lessen the Church of Jerusalem.  
Bishop Downham is alleged to as little purpose: For all he affirms, is, that at the very first Conversion of Cities, the whole number of People converted was able to make but a small Congregation. For who can tell how far he intended the very first Conversions should extend? The closing of the Scriptures of the New Testament was above sixty Years after the first Conversions of many great Cities; and therefore, tho' at the first Conversions the number of Christians might be but small, yet a Church may improve something in threescore Years, and grow up from one small, to many great Congregations. No instance, says our Author, can be brought against this, but the three thousand Converted at Jerusalem, 
(a) Acts 2.41.  to which some would add five thousand more. Some would add! Let it not displease any zealous Brother of the Congregational way, that St. Luke has recorded the number of those Converts; his words are so plain, and his sense so necessary that they cannot be avoided by any shift: 
(b) Acts 4.4.  many of those who heard the word, (i. e. then Preached, not in a set Assembly, but occasionally in the Temple) believed, and the number of the men was about five thousand. But can there no instance be brought against the Independent fancy, besides these two? Our Author, it seems, was willing to overlook such passages, as testify the great Increase of Christians in Jerusalem after this happy beginning. 
(c) Acts 5.13, 14, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  St. Luke relates, that after the fearful end of Ananias and his Wife, Believers were the more added to the Church, multitudes both of Men and Women. The  Version deserves to be considered in this place, for instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Author of that Version seems to have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if the Jewish Magistrates durst not then restrain the Preaching the Apostles, because the People magnified them for their Miracles, and then great additions were made to the Church. But St. Luke proceeds to give yet greater Instances of the Increase of the Church of Jerusalem; 
(a) Acts 6.1, 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Before the choice of the Deacons, the number of the Disciples was multiplied; and immediately after the Institution of these Officers, the word of God increased, and the number of the Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly, and a great company of the Priests, or as the Syriack reads, of the Jews, were obedient, or submitted to the Faith. It may be said that no certain Number is expressed in these places, and therefore they conclude nothing. It is true, the Numbers of these later Converts are not set down; but must they therefore be lost to the Church and Bishop of Jerusalem? These Expressions of multitudes of Men and Women, of Increasing greatly, or mightily, of great Company, or Crowd, are of very great content, and capable of receiving many Myriads; and if we compare them with these general terms, of which we know the definite sum, it must be allowed by all rules of speaking, that those indefinite expressions must exceed the other. For instance, when an accession of five thousand was made to the Church, it is said, that many of those who heard the word, believed. If the Relator had not expressed the Number, but left it to the discretion of independent Calculators, I am afraid this Indefinite word, Many, would never have yielded us an hundred Converts; and yet it seems it comprehended no less than five thousand. Wherefore we may reasonably conclude, that those general words that denote exaggeration of multitude, and a sum unusual and wonderful, cannot but comprehend more than those thousands of the first Conversions. This would be sufficient, tho' there should be no farther Evidence, to persuade any equal Reader, that the Church of Jerusalem was now grown too numerous to meet all in one place, especially considering the Christian Assemblies in those times were held, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from house to house. But there remains yet another instance, that seems more definite and decisive. For James and the Elders of Jerusalem observe to St. Paul, that there were many Myriads of the Circumcision which believed. 
(a) Acts 21.20.  Thou seest Brother how many Thousands [Myriads] of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law. The multitude must come together, etc. If these Myriads were present at Jerusalem, when St. Paul was there; there will be little reason to deduct nineteen parts out of twenty, 
(b) Prim. Ep. p. 6.  upon the account of Strangers, as our Author undertakes to do. For I hope to make it appear, that the Pentecost was over, before the Apostle arrived at Jerusalem.  
Now lest these great numbers of Converts should grow into a Diocese consisting of several Congregations, Mr. Clerkson interposes a timely Caveat in these words; 
(c) Prim. Ep. p. 4.  What may be argued from hence for great numbers of Christians in Cities, proceeds upon a mere mistake, which I shall clearly remove. For it is but a small proportion of those Thousands, that can in reason be accounted to the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, and so fixed Members of that Church, for they were Converted at one of the great Feasts; at which time the Inhabitants were not by far a twentieth part of those that were assembled in the City.  
This Exception concerns only the three thousand who were converted on the Feast of Pentecost; but the five Thousand that followed, and the Multitudes of Men and Women, and the Multiplying greatly, and the great Company, will remain to the Church of Jerusalem, notwithstanding this exception. For our Author does not so much as suggest, that these Accessions were made upon any of the three Feasts, and therefore without these three Thousand, there will be sufficient number for several Congregations.  
That it may appear, what small proportion the Inhabitants of Jerusalem 
(a) Prim. Ep. p 4.  held to the Multitude that resorted thither on the solemn Feasts, our Author enters into an enquiry, both after the number of the Inhabitants of that City, and of those that resorted from other places to those Solemnities. To begin with the latter of these, 
(b) Jos. de bell. Jud. l. 7. c. 1. p. 969.  Josephus tells us, and out of him 
(c) H. E. l. 3. c. 5.  Eusebius, that Cestius Gallus willing to represent to Nero, who contemned the Jews, the strength of that People, desired the Priests to take an account of the number, and to make the Story short, from the number of the Pascal-Sacrifices, they computed all the Jews present at that Passover to be about three Millions: 
(d) Pr. Ep. p. 5.  But then they were all in a manner Foreigners, 
(e) Jos. B. J. l. 7. c. 17.  for a great part of that multitude came from abroad; whereas the Inhabitans of Jerusalem 
(a) Jos. count. App. l. 1.  were but sixscore Thousand, as we learn by Hecataeus: And that we may not fancy Hecataeus to have under-reckoned the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, our Author intimates a quite contrary suspicion. It may be Hecataeus or his Informer, overreached as well in the Number of the Citizens, as in the Measure of the City. He makes the Circuit of it fifty Furlongs, whereas 
(b) Jos. B. J. l. 6. c. 17.  Josephus says, it was but thirty-three, and the Circumvallation of Titus but thirty-nine. From all this therefore he concludes, that the Inhabitants of Jerusalem upon the most favourable Computation, will scarce make the twentieth part of the Multitude which usually attended those Feasts, and consequently not a twentieth part of the Converts mentioned in the Acts can be supposed to belong to the Church of Jerusalem.  
Although I have already showed, that this concerns only the three Thousand converted on the day of Pentecost; yet because it is new, and carries with it the air of Demonstration, I will beg the Readers patience, while I let him see, with how great Pains and Learning some Authors can trifle. For to find out the proportion between the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the Pascal Assemblies, it is necessary to know the number of each at the same time, or at leastwise in the same Age. Now Hecataeus, from whom he learns the number of the Citizens, lived under Alexander the Great and Ptolemy the Son of Lagus; but the numbers of those who resorted to the Passover, was taken by the order of Cestius Gallus under Nero, i. e. above three hundred and fifty years after. The Inhabitants of Jerusalem might be much more numerous in the Apostles time, than in the Age of Hecataeus, and therefore this Calculation cannot be certain, and this Spectre of Demonstration vanishes.  
That I may not seem to want a due regard for Mr. Clerkson's diligence upon this Point, I will not dismiss his Calculation with so short a Reply, but examine every point of it apart, and show of what consequence it may be to the present Question, concerning Congregational Episcopacy. 1. The three Millions returned to Nero came from no authentic Census, or any certain account, but only from conjecture; and one may reasonably suspect, that the Priests, to set out the greatness of the Nation to a Prince who had them in contempt, would be apt to over-reckon. 2. Jerusalem could not receive so many Millions, if the circuit of it were but thirty-three furlongs, as we read in Josephus, and our Author does contend it was no more. 3. If this Account of the Priests should be admitted, yet that Passover might be extraordinary, and like that of Josiah, of which it is said, 
(a) 2 Kings 23.22.  that surely there was not holden such a Passover, from the days of the Judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the Kings of Israel, nor of the Kings of Judah. And that this Number was extraordinary, appears from Josephus, who accounting for the incredible Number said to be slain and taken in Jerusalem, informs us, that the Jews resorted thither out of all the Country, and were unawares shut up in that fatal Siege; and yet the Sum was about twelve hundred thousand persons, not half of that number upon which our Author calculates: Yet this seemed so extraordinary, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Jos. B. J. l. 6. c. 45. Ed. Frob.  that Josephus to make it pass, observes, that the greatest part indeed were Jews, but not Inhabitants of Jerusalem or Judea. 4. Though a middle number might be agreed on for calculating the Pascal Assemblies, yet would it be of no use in the present Question; for we do not read in Scripture of any Converts made on the Passover; but the three Thousand which are now under debate, were converted on the Feast of Pentecost, and from the resort of the one, no guess can be made of the Numbers that repaired to the other; for the Passover was much more frequented than the Pentecost. It is true, that the Law seems to make no difference between the three Festivals, but obligeth all the Males to repair to the place which God should choose upon each of those Feasts. But the Practice of the Jews seems to have been otherwise, long before our Saviour's Time. 
(b) Lyra in Exod. 23.17. Deut. 16.16. Tamen cum illis qui erant remoti a Jerusalem aliquando dispensabatur, de duabus vicibus sc. Pentecoste, & Festo Tabernaculorum: Veruntamen illis qui erant long a Jerusalem parcebatur de duobus Festis.  Lyra observes, That those who were far from Jerusalem were excused from attending on the two Feasts of Weeks and Tabernacles. And 
(a) Is't. in Deut. 16. Vid. Lorin. in Deut. 16. & Abulens.  Ystella citys some Jewish Authors to this purpose, That the Law obliged those only who lived near the Sanctuary; the rest were dispensed with, so they appeared once a year, i. e. at the Passover. He mentions others that were of opinion, that the Law was satisfied, if every third year all the Males came up to the three Feasts; but he himself thought, that either they were obliged yearly to come twice, i. e. on the Passover and Feast of Tabernacles, for the Pentecost being so near to the Passover, they must be excused for that, or else some years they were to come up only once, i. e. at Easter; on others twice, i. e. at Easter and the Feast of Tabernacles; for every seventh year the Law was to be read on that Feast; so that those who were any thing remote, were never bound to go up at Pentecost. But besides the Males obliged to attend on the three Festivals, the devout Women and Children, not yet under the Obligation, went up to the Passover out of voluntary Devotion: 
(b) 1 Sam. 1.3.  So Elkanah's Wives went to the yearly Sacrifice at Shilo. So the Parents of our Saviour 
(c) Luke 2.41  went up to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. Now those Interpreters, who are concerned to make Joseph, as touching the Law blameless, send him up three times a year according to the Law, and are content to have these words understood of the Blessed Virgin, that she went up but once a year, and that at the Passover. Though others understand them of both our Saviour's Parents, as if they had gone up but once; and Lyra according to his Notion mentioned above, observes that Galilee was remote, and therefore within the Dispensation for two of the three Feasts; and indeed the Expression of St. Luke does not easily admit of any other construction. And the words of the Book of Samuel do as plainly intimate, that Elkanah himself, though a Levite, went up to Shilo but once a year: 
(a) 1 Sam. 1.3, 20, 21.  This man, says the Text, went up out of his City yearly to worship in Shilo. And after his Wife had vowed, and he and his Family had returned home, it follows; wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about, after Hannah had conceived, that she bore a Son, and called his Name Samuel; and the Man Elkanah and all his House went up to offer unto the Lord the yearly Sacrifice and his Vow. So that by this relation, Elkanah seems not to have gone up to Shilo, from the time Hannah vowed in the Temple, until after the birth of Samuel, i. e. the space of a whole year. But however these places may be understood, it is allowed by all, that the Passeover was the chiefest for Solemnity and resort of Worshippers, of all the Feasts of the Jews, and therefore a computation of the Strangers at Jerusalem on a Pentecost, from the extraordinary Numbers said once to have been at a Passeover, must be very fallacious; for the same Calculation cannot serve both.  
Now lest this Argument should lose any thing of Advantage by being too diffuse, the force of it shall be contracted into less compass, that it may be the easier observed. 1. Because three Millions are reported to have been at one Passeover, therefore every Passeover had as many. Many will be apt here to deny the Consequence: But let it pass. And then the Argument proceeds farther. If so many resorted to the Passeover, than the same Number came up at Pentecost; this is hard to grant: But who can deny any thing to such a Disputant? To go on therefore, If three Millions were present at the Passeover, on which three Thousand Souls were Converted, therefore not above a hundred and fifty could belong to Jerusalem; because in Hecataeus his time, that City had but a hundred and fifty thousand Inhabitants. Wonderful! Who can find in his heart to deny any thing so Consequential? But had that City received no increase from the time of Hecataeus to that of Nero? 
(a) B. J. l. 5. c. 13.  Josephus mentions several Improvements it had under the Asmonean Kings, whose Family united the Priesthood and the Crown, and under whom this Sacred Metropolis could not but receive great Advantage. Afterwards we have an account, that the old Walls could not hold it, and that the Inhabitants multiplied so much, that they were forced to build without the Gates; and these new-buildings in the Time of Claudius, were so considerable, as to make as it were another City. Yet our Author keeps to his old Computation, which is just as if the Inhabitants of London were to be computed by what they were about three hundred years ago. It may seem perhaps no less ridiculous to refute such an Argument; than it was to make it. Yet because our Author suspects even this Number in Hecataeus as too great, I must take the Liberty at leastwise to explain this matter a little more.  
Mr. Clerkson suspects his Author to have overreached in his Number of the Citizens at Jerusalem, 
(a) Prim. Ep. p. 9  because he had done so in the measure of the City, of which he makes the Circuit to be fifty Furlongs; whereas 
(b) Jos. B. J. l. 6. c. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Josephus says, it was but Thirty-three, and the Circumvallation of Titus to be Thirty-nine. And to show the Number of Inhabitants in Jerusalem could not be great even in the beginning of the last War, he observes, that when Twelve Thousand were slain in Jerusalem in one Night, the loss is represented, 
(c) Jos. de bell. Jud. l. 4. c. 20.  as though the greatest part of the Citizens had been destroyed.  
As to the Circuit of Jerusalem, I cannot conclude Hecataeus to have overreached, till I can be sure there is no fault in the Copies of Josephus, or that our Author did rightly understand him. For first, 
(d) Jos. B. J. l. 5. c. 13.  Josephus does not seem to agree with himself in this matter, when in the same Chapter, giving an account of the three Walls that encompassed the City, he makes the third to have ninety Towers, 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  each of twenty cubit's Diameter, and between every one these Towers, a curtain of two hundred cubits, which being summed up, make near fifty furlongs in compass. Or if we take 
(a) Appar. urb. Templi. p. 1. l. 2. c. 21.  Villalpandus his reckoning, who allows but four hundred Cubits to a Furlong, we shall have fifty Furlongs complete. Nor was this the whole compass of the City, for this Wall was not drawn round the other two on every part, but where the City ended in inaccessible precipices 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jos. ub. sup.  there was but one Wall, and then it must be by so much more than fifty Furlongs. So the particulars and the sum total of this Author not agreeing, there must be some mistake in the Calculation.  
But several Learned Men have endeavoured to reconcile these passages, among whom, Villalpandus 
(c) Appar. l. 2. c. 4.  seems to have succeeded best; who having showed the right order and situation of the three Walls out of Josephus, against the mistakes of Adricomius and others, concludes with great probability, that the City which is said to have been thirty three Furlongs about, was the old City contained within the first Wall of sixty Towers; and if the distance between these was equal to that of the third Wall, the sum will be exactly according to Josephus his measure. Now to confirm this conjecture, it must be observed that the Town about which Titus drew his Vallum, was only the Old; for the lower Town, and two of the three Walls were taken by the Romans, and ruined before that Circumvallation was begun, which was according to Josephus thirty nine Furlongs; and it was this which was properly called the 
(a) Villalp. App. l. 2. c. 10. Ant. Jud. l. 15. c. ult.  City, the other accessions being accounted for Suburbs, and so called by Josephus. Nor can we imagine, either that the Romans would leave so great a part of the City as that which was destroyed in the possession of the Jews, or contrive their Vallum, which was to keep them in, at so great a distance from the remaining Wall or place of Attack, as it must needs be, if the Circumvallation encompassed that part which was before ruined by the Romans, and quitted by the Jews. Now if Josephus be thus understood, he is not only reconciled to himself, but to that character of Greatness which Pliny 
(b) Hierosolyma long clarissima Vrbium Orientis non Judeae modo. Plin. l. 5. c. 4.  gives Jerusalem, of being far the most famous City, not only of Judea, but of all the East. 
(c) Arist. de 70 Inter.  Aristeas, if he deserve any credit, makes it Forty Furlongs about, and there are 
(d) Miambourg Croissa. l. 3.  who represent it as quadrangular three Miles in length, and something less in breadth, which is indeed the most liberal of all Calculations, but has no great authority to vouch it. However by the reckoning of Josephus, Jerusalem was more than fifty Furlongs in Compass, and the Precipices being reckoned where there was but one Wall, many Furlongs more may remain to be added even to that sum. What is suggested to lessen the number of the People of Jerusalem, 
(e) Jos. B. J. l. 4. c. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  from the complaint made to the Idumaeans, that they had destroyed in one night almost all the People, when there was but twelve Thousand slain, is not exact enough to ground any Calculation. For the Idumaeans slew above twenty, perhaps above forty Thousand while they were in Jerusalem, as 
(a) Jos. l. 4. c. 17. c. 18. c. 19  Josephus reckons. For the first night the Idumaeans were let in, they slew eight thousand five hundred Persons; not in the City, but about the Temple. And not content with this Slaughter, they turned upon the City and killed every one they met. Nor did it end thus, but they still went on and butchered the People like a herd of unclean Beasts; these without number: But afterwards taking many persons of Condition, and young Men, they bond and put them into 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  custody, hoping to gain them to their side, but they all chose rather to die than join with their Enemies, whereupon they were tortured and killed. Those who were taken in Custody in the day, were slain and cast out in the night to make room for others the day following, who were also destroyed in the same manner, and the number of those young People of quality destroyed in that manner is said 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to be twelve thousand. Such was the slaughter made by the Idumaeans in Jerusalem, that it is no wonder if those who had a mind to be rid of their company, should represent the whole People as destroyed; and considering the prodigious numbers slain by the Factions in that City, it is a wonder there should be any more remaining for new calamities; and yet after this loss, the People of Jerusalem were so formidable, that Josephus commends the conduct of 
(a) l. 4. c. 21.  Vespasian for not adventuring to attack it at that time, when his Officers urged him to march his Army thither, that so the Factions might have yet more leisure to weaken one another; whereas if the people were in a manner all killed, he had no reason to apprehend any opposition.  
Now should all this Calculation be allowed, and Jerusalem reduced to the narrowest Circuit, and the lowest Reckoning; yet I cannot see what benefit can redound to the Notion of Congregational Episcopacy. For we do not read of any great accession of Proselytes to the Christian Faith on any of the three Feasts, except one, on that of Pentecost, when three thousand Souls were gained; but since that, there were many added daily to the Church: There were five Thousand converted at a time; and after this, 
(b) Acts 5.14.  Believers were the more added to the Church, multitudes both of Men and Women. And after this, 
(c) Acts 6.7.  The Word of God increased, and the number of the Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly, and a great company of the Priests were obedient to the Faith. These Accessions are not where said to consist of out-lying Jews, nor to come in upon solemn times, but daily; and all this to fall out within the compass of a year. And if there be any truth in the Tradition which 
(d) Eus. H. E. l. 5. c. 18.  Apollonius an ancient Writer citys from Thraseas, who suffered Martyrdom in his time, that the Apostles were commanded by our Saviour not to departed from Jerusalem in twelve years, we must conclude the numbers of Proselytes must needs surpass the measure of a Congregation, if the success of following years did in any proportion answer this beginning.  
All the endeavours therefore of deduction from the numbers of Converts expressed by St. Luke, can have no place in the Church of Jerusalem: For, 1. All that were converted on Pentecost, are said to continue in the Apostles 
(a) Acts 2.  Fellowship, and breaking of Bread and in Prayer; i. e. to stay with them in Jerusalem. So that though they were not dwellers before, upon this occasion they became such. 2. The five thousand added to these, according to the circumstances of the Story, and the exposition of all the ancient Writers, will afford no occasion for any deduction. 3. The increase, of which the numbers are not expressed, may reasonably be presumed no way inferior to the other, where the number is set down; but if we observe the Expressions, seem to surpass them. For when five thousand were converted, it is said, that many of those who heard the Word, believed. If the number had not followed, this would have passed for a little matter with our Author; but in other places it is said, that great multitudes both of Men and Women, a great number of Priests, etc. 4. While the Apostles continued in Jerusalem, we have reason to believe the Church was still increasing, and the People being generally of their side upon the account of the Miracles they wrought, so as to give a check to the Rulers, and to restrain them from persecuting the Apostles, it cannot be well doubted, but the Apostles improved this good disposition to a perfect conversion. 5. Besides the preaching of the Apostles, the influence of the Converts, who were generally men, upon their Families, could not fail of having great effect, and of making no small addition to the sum of Believers. The Authority the Masters of families had over them among the Jews, being very great, and the submission of Wives and Children to them being in that Nation very implicit; 
(a) Letter 17. from Baghdad.  It being the received custom of the East, as De la Valle observed, that the Women and Children should accommodate themselves to the Father of the family in matters of Religion, though the Women had before they married, been bred up in other Rules. 6. That the Multitude converted could have no convenience in Jerusalem of meeting in one Assembly. The Apostles went from House to House, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. in several Houses there were several religious Assemblies, and so consequently several Congregations; so that the Multitude, though it might in a very great Theatre or Temple have come together; yet for want of such accommodation began in the Diocesan way, and dispersed into several Assemblies, which still made up but one Church.  

(b) Prim. Ep. p. 6.  It is confessed, says Mr. Clerkson, that in those times, and after, there was more than one Bishop in a City; and if the Christians in any City were but few, and those divided betwixt several Bishops, how small a Diocese would the share of each make up? For this he citys Dr. Hammond on the Rev. c. 11. p. 662. It is true indeed, D. H. was of opinion, that the Believers of the Circumcision did for some time keep at some distance from the Gentile Converts, and had their Assemblies and Officers apart; and that the Apostles having no other remedy, were obliged to manage the matter so tenderly as to connive for some time at this separation. But this can by no means concern the case of the Church of Jerusalem within the time of her increase, before the death of St. Stephen and the conversion of St. Paul; for as yet no Gentile had been baptised, Cornelius being the first, and that some time after these many thousands had been converted in Jerusalem. Besides, were this allowed, that the Jews and Gentiles in each City had a distinct Bishop, yet that makes nothing for the Congregational way, for this happened upon another Account. And after the ruin of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the Jewish Commonwealth, the Jews came to an accommodation, and joined with the Gentiles under the same Officers, before the second Century; and therefore can be of no consequence to the point in hand. And if those Dioceses were small, it was in order to greater increase, that the Jews might be for a little while indulged, and then united with the Gentiles in one Church. But after all, this matter of separate Churches is no more than the conjecture of some learned men; and our Author himself is willing to dismiss it, by saying, 
(a) P. 7.  That there is no need of this acknowledgement, nor will he insist on the grounds on which he proceeds. Nor is there any reason he should, if he can make out what he affirms in the same place, that there is evidence enough in Scripture for a plurality of Bishops in several Cities, which may be easily vindicated from the attempts of some that would deface it.  
His first instance is Phil. 1.1. To all the Saints that are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons. That these were Bishops of the Province, as Dr. Hammond contends, and not of the City of Philippi, our Author will by no means allow, nor will I be very importunate with him that he should. But one thing I would learn of him, what sort of Bishops he takes these to be? For if in his opinion they are no other than Presbyters, than this place is impertinently alleged, since many Presbyters are by all sides acknowledged to have belonged to one Church. But if he speak of Bishops in the common Ecclesiastical sense, and then concludes from this passage, that there were many in the Church of Philippi; his opinion is as singular, as that of the Doctor he endeavours to refute. For my part, I must profess that I am not much concerned in this Dispute between our Author and Dr. Hammond about these Bishops. I could never find sufficient reason to believe them any other than Presbyters, as the generality of Fathers and of the Writers of our own Church have done. And tho' I have great reverence for the name and memory of Dr. Hammond; yet where he is alone, I may without any imputation of disrespect, take the common liberty of leaving his opinion to stand or fall according to the strength of the Arguments upon which it is founded. Yet there are some things in our Author's reply, which may be taken notice of.  
Dr. Hammond 
(a) 16, 12.  from a passage in the Acts, where Philippi is said to be the first City of Macedonia and a Colony, infers that it was a Metropolis. To which our Author answers, that it is first in Situation, 
(b) P. 8.  and not in dignity and pre-eminence. This conjecture of Camerarius and Zanchius may after all be more ingenious than solid. For Bezas' M S. has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. the head or chief, not the first in Situation; and the Syriack and Arabic Versions follow wit. Now the most ancient Copy, as it is supposed, of the New Testament now extant, confirmed by two old Versions, may weigh as much as a late conjecture. Besides Philippi was not the first in Situation, as is pretended, but Neapolis. And it would be something strange, if Dover be indeed the first Town of England; that he who passed that way, should call Canterbury the first. It might not be very considerable, when Macedon was reduced by Paulus Aemilius, but it might be the chief Town of that part of the Country when St. Luke wrote. 
(c) Brev. c. 5,  Liberatus mentions the Archbishop of Philippi, and in the Council of Ephesus the Bishop subscribes among the Metropolitans, tho' it be expressed that he had the Proxy of the Bishop of Thessalonica. In an old Notitia he is Metropolitan of the Province of Macedon. And so Sedulius styles him; and Tertullian 
(a) de Praescrip.  names it before Thessalonica.  
Nor will I contend with our Author about the other Argument of Dr. Hammond, which he rejects; that Philippi was a Metropolis, because it was a Colony. It does not indeed necessarily follow; but yet Roman Colonies were generally placed in the principal Cities of Provinces, and endowed with the chief Dignities and Jurisdictions in the Countries where they were. So Carthage, Corinth, Caesarea, and many others might be named. But if it was the Head of that part of the Country and a Colony, as Beza's old Copy has it, this Dispute is over; and nothing I am sure Mr. Clerkson has produced, does make out that it was not a Metropolis when St. Paul was there.  
Now this Debate concerning the Bishops of Philippi had soon been at an end; if our Author had thought fit to explain himself, and told us what he meant by Bishops. For were they Pastors of single elect Congregations respectively in covenant? Then there must have been several Churches or Congregations in that one City. But on other occasions he will not allow more than one Congregation for three hundred years after Christ, even in Rome itself. But if we allow such an obscure place as Philippi to have many Churches so early; we cannot avoid yielding to Alexandria and Antioch and other great Cities many more; and what will prove worse than all, those Churches must be acknowledged to be all under one Bishop. Or were these Bishop's only Presbyters ruling the Church of Philippi with common and equal Authority? Then our Author must give up the Question, and instead of making many Bishops must own that there was none at all there but only Presbyters. Will he contend that there were no other Bishops than Presbyters? This will be to abuse his Reader with the ambiguity of a word, which he takes in one sense and the Church in another. That many Presbyters might belong to one Congregation, none ever denied; that many Bishops in the allowed and ecclesiastical sense of the word had the oversight of one City, sounds strange and incredible to the ancient Christians. Chrysostom observing this expression of the Bishops of Philippi, seems to be startled with it. What, many Bishops in one City? By no means, it cannot be. What then? They were not Bishops properly so called, but Presbyters.  
The same poor Sophistry is carried on 
(a) Prim. Ep. p. 10.  under the colour of another Text. 
(b) Acts 20.17.  St. Paul from Miletus sent to Ephesus, and called the Elders of the Church, who are said, v. 28. to be made Bishops by the Holy Ghost. Now these Elders or Bishops belonged to the City-Church of Ephesus, as our Author contends, and not to the Province, and therefore there were several Bishops in the same City. But if we demand here again, what Bishops are here meant, whether these were Bishops in the sense of the present question, or Presbyters only? The objection vanishes, and leaves the Reader to wonder, that any man should so solemnly undertake to prove what no man ever doubted, that in Scripture-times there were many Presbyters over one Church. But Dr. Hammond will have these Bishops to be Suffragans of Ephesus: And Mr. Clerkson with all his force does endeavour to disprove them to have been City Bishops. Now in the midst of this contention, we may be very safe from the danger of Congregational Episcopacy. For if Dr. Hammond's way prevail, these Bishops must have each a City and Territory, and be Diocesans either actually, or in right. If Mr. Clerkson carries it, then properly speaking there might not be a Bishop among them all; for they are but Presbyters belonging, not to several Independent Congregations, but to one Church, and might have a Bishop to whom they were subject, as the Ancients believed they had, and thought Timothy to be the Person. And here he musters up great forces against Dr. Hammond's opinion, and affirms, 
(a) Pr. Ep. p. 10, 11.  that the Text itself, the Syriack Version, Chrysostom, Theophilact, Oecumenius and Theodoret, and the whole stream of Ancients are against this new sense, not any favouring it but one among them all. But what sense are these Ancients for? that there were many Bishops of one City-Church? Nothing less, for they all declare the contrary, and that these were no other than Presbyters. But there happened to be one for the Doctor's new sense; our Author does not name him, it was Irenaeus; and it seems something incongruous to call that sense new which is vouched by so ancient Authority. For this Father is judged by 
(a) Diss. 3. in Iraen.  Mr. Dodwel to be born in the later end of the first Century, or the very beginning of the second. He conversed with Polycarp, as himself declares, whose Martyrdom according to the computation of Bishop 
(b) Diss. Post. 2. c. 14. et seq.  Pearson could not be later than the year 147. And therefore must have lived forty years of the first Century. He was Bishop of Smyrna, which was under the Jurisdiction of Ephesus, and might understand from the Tradition of the place more of St. Paul's visitation than is recorded by St. Luke, and so be more particular in noting the quality of the Persons that the Apostle called to him to Miletus; and expressed himself therefore in that manner, (c) having called together the Bishops and Presbyters of Ephesus, and the other Neighbouring Cities. Now if Authority go by weight, and not by number; Dr. Hammond's case will not appear so desperate; for though many names are produced against him, yet several of them are very light. For Oecumenius and Theophilact may be discounted as Transcribers of Chrysostom, who with Theodoret will scarce weigh down the credit of Irenaeus in a case of this nature; for they speak only by conjecture, whereas he might have nearer notices from Tradition. However it were, yet our Author should have called this sense any thing rather than new, since it is ancienter than any thing he can produce to the contrary. As to the 
(e) Iren. l. 3. c. 14.  Text itself, it determines positively on neither side; and for the Syriack version, if it be against the Dr. in Ephesus, it must be remembered that it was for him at Philippi. But after all, the present question is not concerned in this Dispute; for tho' these Elders who are called Bishops, were not of the Province, but of the City of Ephesus; yet it does not follow, that there were several Bishops properly so called and distinguished from Presbyters at the same time in one Church. And our Author's stream of Ancients are against him, who understand these not to be proper Bishops, but Presbyters.  
I should dismiss this point about the Ephesine Bishops; if our Author did not say he did insist upon another Argument, as new and altogether his own. The sum of it is this. The Apostle Paul resolved to be at Jerusalem 
(a) Acts 20.16.  at the day of Pentecost.— But he could not be there at the day, if he stayed long at Miletus. And he could not Assemble the Bishops of Asia there, if he stayed not long there. Ephesus was fifty miles from Miletus, and so four days journey going and coming. And if Paul stayed longer than three or four days at the most at Miletus, he could not be at Jerusalem at Pentecost. Now the chief Cities of Asia he shows were at a great distance from Ephesus, and at a greater from Miletus: and therefore the Elders sent for, could not be those of the several Cities of Asia, but of Ephesus; and than it cannot be denied, but in that Church there was a plurality of Elders or Bishops. That there was there a plurality of Elders or Presbyters, has been often granted. That these were Bishops in the Ecclesiastical use of the word, is still denied. Upon that the Question turns, and our Author says not a word to it. But this ruins Dr. Hammond's notion. For the account given by St. Luke of the Apostle's Journey, will not permit the Bishops of Asia to assemble at Miletus. Should it be granted that this notion is not tenable, Diocesan Episcopacy will not be much concerned. For it has been always maintained, and may be so still without this support. But yet after all this pains, the Argument on which Mr. Clerkson does so much insist, does it no hurt at all. For what if the Apostle did not reach Jerusalem by Pentecost? St. Luke does no where affirm it, and no circumstance of his Journey or Arrival does evince it: Nay the very account of his Voyage makes it incredible. Chrysostom reckons forty-two days from the days of Unleavened Bread when he was at Philippi, to his arrival 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. Acts 21. Ser. 45.  at Caesarea, where he stayed many days, i. e. more than he tarried any where else, which at lowest reckoning must be eight. And so the Pentecost must find him at Caesarea as that Father affirms, though 
(b) Annal. 58. S. 117.  Baronius mistaketh his words, and would understand them of Jerusalem. And Chrysostom upon those words, intending, if it were possible, to be at Jerusalem, observes, how the Apostle is moved after the manner of men. 
(c) Chrys. in Act. 21. Ser. 43.  How he designs, hom he hastens, and yet often times misses of his end. Which implies, that in his opinion that he had not attained what he intended so earnestly, i. e. to be at Jerusalem by Pentecost. Nay, so uncertain is this whole matter, that to some Writers 
(a) Theophil. in Acts 21.  Paul seemed to pass the Pentecost at Troas twelve days after he had set out. By our Author's computation he has scarce two days left for seventy five miles, which were between Caesarea and Jerusalem. But our Author's reckoning has omissions. For he makes no allowance between Tyre and Ptolemais, which is thirty two miles. The time in which Paul's company went before by Sea from Troas to Assos', and Paul went by Land, is not reckoned: For St. Luke speaks of the whole company. 
(b) Acts 20.6, 13, 14.  We abode there seven days: And then we went before the ship, and sailed to Assos'.— And when he met with us at Assos'. What time this took up is uncertain, as well as the distance between Troas and Assos. Besides, three or four days is something of the shortest allowance for his stay at Miletus, that the Elders of Ephesus might be sent for, and come to him. The Journey took up four days: and less than one day cannot be well allowed them to confer. The Voyage from Miletus to Tyre is of an uncertain time; and five days seems something of the least. What is to be allowed for the many days stay at Caesarea, is still uncertain. And in common understanding of the phrase, it cannot signify so few as would permit the Apostle to be at Jerusalem at Pentecost. Bishop Pearson 
(a) Annal. Paulini. A. 59 p. 16.  therefore, a person of great Exactness, having considered this matter, concluded that Paul could not be at Jerusalem till after Pentecost. These are his words, Venit Hierosolyma cum collectis post Pentecosten mense Junio, ubi tumultu concitato, etc. If therefore this be all Mr. Clerkson has to insist on, that St. Paul could not stay above four days at Miletus, because he could not otherwise arrive at Jerusalem before Pentecost; his proof amounts to little. For it appears much more probable, that the Apostle arrived not thither till after that Feast, and therefore might have stayed at Miletus as long as he had pleased. But since Dr. Hammond allowed St. Paul to reach Jerusalem within the time designed; I must confess that the Argument is good against him, but not against his notion of the Bishops of Asia, or the passage of Irenaeus; unless we may suppose those Bishops assembled at Ephesus in expectation of St. Paul's coming thither, and by that means in a readiness to meet him at Miletus. This is all the account our Author thought fit to give out of Scripture concerning the plurality of Bishops in one City. How well he has made good his Paradox, let the Reader judge.  
It is Acknowledged, says he, 
(b) Prim. Ep. p. 14.  that both in Scripture-times and long after, the Bishop's Diocese was so small, that one Altar was sufficient for it. See Mr. Mede 's Proof of Churches in the Second Century, p. 29. Nay more than this, it should seem that in those first times before Dioceses were divided into the lesser and subordinate Churches, we now call Parishes, and Presbyters assigned to them, they had not only one Altar in one Church or Dominicum, but one Altar to a Church, taking Church for the Company or Corporation of the Faithful united under one Bishop; and that was in the City and place where the Bishop had his residence. It should seem, says Mr. Mede,— and again thus perhaps, is Ignatius to be understood, and then, however I here determine nothing. With this diffidence and caution does that Learned Man propose his Opinion; which, together with the testimonies upon which it is grounded, 
(a) Vindic. of the Prim. Ch. p. 34. and Seq.  has been considered at large in another place, and I am not willing here to transcribe. Yet that I may not seem to decline an Answer in this place; I will give the sum of what is there answered, and add something for future explication. First then, Altar in the primitive sense, signified not only the Communion Table, but the whole place where the Chair of the Bishop and the Seats of the Presbyters were placed; and in this sense there was but one Altar in one Diocese, as there is now but one Consistory. This is explained by passages out of Ignatius, Cyprian, and Archbishop Usher; and to be within the Altar, which is Ignatius his phrase, is no other than to be in Communion with the Bishop and his Clergy. And the one Altar is no more than one Communion, which may be held in different places, and at several Tables. Besides some passages cited out of Ignatius about one Altar, are only allusive to the Jewish Temple and Altar, and therefore are not to be urged too strictly. Lastly, the name of Altar might be appropriated to that of the Bishop's Church upon another account, and that is in respect of the oblations of the Faithful, which were presented there only, and from thence distribution was made according to the occasions of the Church. Among other oblations, was the Bread and the Wine which were to serve for the Sacrament; these were always blessed at the Bishop's Altar, though not always consecrated there. Concerning these oblations preparatory to the Sacrament Mr. Mede has given a judicious account in his Treatise of the Sacrifice, where he shows these Offerings were in the nature of a Sacrifice; and upon the account of these gifts, the Table might receive its name of Altar. For as the Jews had but one Altar, on which their Sacrifices were offered and sanctify'd, yet were they eaten at several Tables; so the Bishop's Altar might serve to the same purpose, at least within the same City, to receive those Oblations which were to be communicated in different places. This was the practice of Rome in Pope Innocent 
(a) Innoc. Ep. ad Decent.  the first his time, who sent the Bread already consecrated to all the Churches of the City; but did not send any to such Presbyters as were placed in remote Cemiteries, since they might consecrate themselves; and as for Country Parishes he did not think it convenient the Holy Consecrated Bread should be sent to them, for it was not fit it should be carried to places remote. So all, though not present in the same place, did yet partake of one Altar, and eat of the same Spiritual Bread. And to this purpose perhaps, may most commodiously be understood that noted passage of Justin Martyr concerning the administration of the Eucharist in Christian Assemblies, where he says, that the Deacons distribute it to all that are present, and carry it to those who are not present. For to all who were not present, as they were dispersed in their several dwellings, it could not conveniently be carried by the Deacons; besides that in numerous Congregations it was not easy to know who was not present. Nor is Valesius 
(a) Annot. in Euseb. l. 5. c. 24.  his conjecture very probable, who would send it to persons of other Dioceses: So that it seems most probable, that it was carried from the Bishop's Church to other Assemblies in the same City. Nor will this look strange for those times, that the Holy Bread should be sent from the Bishop's Altar to other Churches of the same City, when it was usual to send it into remote Countries and Dioceses as a symbol of Communion. The old Bishops of Rome, before 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. H. E. l. 5. c 24.  Victor's time, used to send such presents: and 
(c) Act. Lucian. ap. Metaph. 7. Jan.  Lucian the Martyr sent them from his Prison. So Paulinus 
(d) Paul. Ep. 1.  did to Severus. This practice was forbid by the Synod 
(e) Can. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of Ladicea, that the holy Mysteries should not be sent abroad into other Dioceses, which Zonaras observes to have been a very ancient custom. And this forbidding it to be carried into other Dioceses, seems to allow its being carried from the Bishop's Church to other places of the same Diocese.  
After Mr. Mede, 
(a) Prim. Ep. p. 16.  Dr. Hammond is brought in a witness of this notion of one Altar. 
(b) In re incomperta non est audacter nimis pronunciandum. Ham. Diss. 3. c. 8. s. 15.  He mentions it indeed as the opinion of some learned Men, but he himself makes no judgement concerning it, leaving the matter as uncertain, and declining to pronounce any thing in a point so obscure.  
Bishop Taylor 
(c) Episc. Assert.  is likewise forced to appear in this cause, merely because he cited Damasus in the life of Pope Marcellus, who is said to have made twenty five Titles as so many Dioceses for Baptism and Penance. From whence the Bishop is said 
(d) Prim. ep. p. 16.  to infer, that there was yet no preaching in Parishes, and but one pulpit in a Diocese. And further, Damasus, and the Doctor out of him leaves us evidently to conclude, that there was no Communion Table but in the mother Church. And this three hundred and five years after Christ, and at Rome too. It is not very advisable to conclude any thing too hastily upon the authority of this pretended Damasus; it costs such counterfeits nothing to build twenty Churches in a day, and to consign them to what use they please. But this Impostor, as he had little wit, so in this instance his luck was very bad, to make so many Converts, and to erect so many Titles in the year three hundred and five, when the Roman Emperors were persecuting the Christians to utter extirpation, and when there was not a Church or Title standing in Rome. This was the third year of the Persecution, according to 
(a) Baluz. Chron. Mart. ex Lact. Dodw. Di. 8. Cypr. XI.  Lactantius; or the second, according to Eusebius, and therefore a sorry time for Converts, and making of Titles and Baptistries. So that the relation being fabulous, and forged by one who had no knowledge of those times, the inferences made from it must drop.  
It was surely, not very well contrived to multiply Churches for Baptism, and to leave but one Communion Table for all the Christians of Rome. For one Baptistry may serve the greatest City, because men are baptised but once, and that not all together, but at several times; and in ancient times no City had more, unless where the magnificence of Emperors or Bishops made, as it were, many Cathedrals. And at this time in the City of Florence, 
(b) Pflaumern. Merc. Ital. Lasselina.  reckoned among the chief of Italy, all the children are christened in one Font, in the old Church of St. John. Which Leandro Alberti 
(c) Gloss. v. Baptisterium.  says was a Temple of Mars; which Dufresne observes, Tanquam veteris moris Institutum. It being the old way for all, who lived in or near the same City, to be baptised in one Church, i. e. the Cathedral. But the use of the Altar was more general and more constant; for every Lord's day, in the primitive times, all the Faithful received the Sacrament. And the administration of it does require more time and more room than any other office of Christian Religion. For more may pray together, or hear the Scriptures or a Sermon with convenience, than can receive the Sacrament, which was delivered 
(a) Eus. H. E. l. 6. c. 43.  with a form of words to every person that received it, to which the receiver answered, Amen. So that in a numerous Congregation it must grow inconvenient, and soon stand in need of several other Churches. Wherefore it seems most probable that the Christian Assemblies were first parted on this account, and Titles or parish-Churches erected as supplements of the chief Altar. Let a man but consider the state of the Church of Rome under 
(b) Eus. H. E. l. 6. c. 43.  Cornelius, when above fifteen hundred persons were maintained from the public stock of the Church, what numbers of believers there must be in that City; and then let him conceive if he can, how so many thousands could meet every Lord's day in one Church, and receive the Communion at one Altar. And in Lions, (c) where in Severus his time there are said to have been eighteen thousand Christians, it is not easy to conceive how one Altar could be sufficient. We are told indeed, that we have many thousands in a Parish that hath but one Altar; but if our Communions 
(d) Irenaeus martyrizatus est cum omni populo Christianorum, XVIII. M. Throne. S. Benig. ap. Dacher. T. 1.  were as frequent and as numerous as those of the Primitive Church, many Altars I am sure would be necessary to such Parishes.  
To conclude, the words of the counterfeit Damasus now under debate, do not deny to those Parish-Churches the administration of the Eucharist; for when he appoints them for Baptism and Penance; he doth not exclude all other Christian Offices, such as Prayer, reading of the Scripture, or the Communion; but names those of Baptism and Penance, because even in his time they were not allowed to every Parish-Church. But this Damasus lived later than to think of a Church without Mass, or without an Altar; and he had taken care not only for such Churches, but for the Sepulchers of Martyrs, that they should have Altars raised over them, and Masses celebrated, long before the time of Marcellus, and ascribes the ordering of that matter to 
(a) Pseud. Damas' in Felix, 1.  Felix 1. And 
(b) Baron. An. 275.  Baronius seems to be troubled that this Author had not done it sooner, and therefore thinks fit to let the Reader know, that all this had been provided before. And lastly, the expression, quasi Dioceses, referring to Baptism and Penance, import, that those services indeed belonged only to a Cathedral; and therefore the granting of those privileges to Parishes made them seem like Dioceses, whereas 
* Innoc. Ep. ad Dacen. Aug. Conf. c. 2. vid. Euseb. H. E. l. 7. c. 11. l. 9 c. 2.  every Martyrium, every Cemitery, and common Title had the privilege of the Communion.  
That there was no preaching in the Parishes of Rome, may very well be granted, without reducing the Christians to a single Congregation. For if 
(a) Soz. l. 7. c. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Sozomen was not misinformed, there was no preaching in any Church in Rome, not in the Bishops; for in Rome, neither the Bishop, nor any other taught in the Church. And Valesius takes notice, that we have no Homilies of any Roman Bishop before Leo 1. and to confirm this of the Historian, he observes, that Cassiodore, who was well acquainted with the customs of the City, had translated this passage; which he would scarce have done and published it in Rome itself, if he had not known it to be true.  

(b) Prim. Ep: p. 16, 17.  To carry on this notion of but one assembly of Christians in the greatest Cities, 
(c) Petau. Animad. in Epiph. p. 276.  Petavius is cited with an ample character, that he had no superior for learning among the Jesuits, nor any to whom Prelacy is more obliged. But our Author is as much obliged to him as the Prelates; if while other Witnesses speak doubtfully and with reserve, He is positive, that in the fourth Age there was but one Church or Title ordinarily in a City, and proves it by Epiphanius, who speaks of more Titles in Alexandria, as a thing singular and peculiar to that City, there being no instance thereof but in Rome. I am willing to believe our Author did not read that place himself, but took it upon trust. For Petavius affirms there, the direct contrary to that for which our Author makes him so positive. For these are his Words; You may guests (says he) that this was a singular manner of Alexandria, or at leastwise in use in very few Churches; that Epiphanius makes so particular mention of this way of Alexandria, as if it had been peculiar to that Church,— but the same thing had been long before ordered elsewhere, particularly in Rome. I do not doubt but there were many Titles or Churches within the pomaeria of the greater Cities, since the people could not all meet within the Walls of one Church, and therefore had Presbyters appointed for those Churches into which the Christians were distributed. In smaller and less populous Towns there was but one Church, in which all were assembled together, such as the Cities of Cyprus were, upon which account Epiphanius observes the manner of Alexandria as an unusual thing, and strange to his People. This is what Petavius delivers there. You may guests, says he, as our Author fancies, that this was peculiar to Alexandria,— but the same thing was ordered elsewhere, and he did not doubt but it was so in all the greater Cities. But that Petavius should prove this also by the Council of Neocaesarea, can. 13. is an oversight yet stranger. For though Petavius citys that Canon, yet it is not to prove this or any thing like it; but having entered into a discourse about Chorepiscopi, he shows from that Canon, that they were Bishops and not Presbyters; because they had the privilege of officiating in the City-Church, in the presence of the Bishop or his Presbyters, whereas that privilege is expressly denied the Country-Presbyters. But how our Author came to fancy this passage to be for his purpose, I will not undertake to divine.  
I have hitherto only showed what Petavius had observed concerning the Alexandrian Parishes; but whether his Observation be just, is another question. For my part I cannot find any reason to believe, that all the Cyprian Cities were so small; or if they were, that Epiphanius would upon that account have made such a frigid Observation, as to take notice of that as a singularity in Alexandria, which was common to every great City. That which was peculiar to Alexandria was this, that the Parishes were assigned to fixed Presbyters, which has been elsewhere observed. 
(a) Vind. of Prim. ch. p. 65, 66.  The Titles of Rome were served by the Presbyters in common; as 
(b) Val. Annot. in Sozom. l. 1. c. 15.  Valesius observes out of Innocent 1. Epistle to Decentius. And what he adds of his own as more proper to show, that in 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan. Ap. 2. T. 1. p. 739.  Julius 1. his time, there were Parishes appropriated to certain Presbyters, has but a slight foundation. For the expression of Athanasius, though it may bear the sense of Valesius, seems to be more naturally and simply rendered by Nannius, that Vito the Roman Presbyter assembled fifty Bishops, and not that fifty Bishops assembled in Vito 's Church, or the place where he assembled the people. This Periphrasis seems too frigid and affected, when every Church had its proper name by which it was called. It may perhaps seem strange, that a Presbyter should assemble and preside over Bishops. It were strange indeed, if he should do it in his own right; but when he acts as the Deputy of the Bishop of Rome, this will be no wonder; for the Legates of Bishops always sat in the place that belonged to those they represented, tho' themselves were but Presbyters, or sometimes Deacons. And that Vito should be appointed to preside in this Synod, is answerable to the character and employments he had born before. For he seems to be the person 
(a) Sozom. l. 1. c. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Ep. 1. de 7. Syn. Niceph. Cal. l. 8. c. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  sent by Sylvester to the council of Nice with Vincentius; for though the Latin writers often call him Victor, yet the Greeks constantly writ Vito, and the Latins sometimes Vitus; the fittest person surely to moderate in a Synod where the Council of Nice was concerned, in which he had so eminent a part.  
There is one thing more observable in the distribution of Parishes and Presbyters in Rome, which I cannot omit, because I do not know that hath been taken notice of by any. It is that every Church in Rome had two Presbyters to attend it; and not one only as the Churches of Alexandria. This information we have from Hilary the Roman Deacon in his Comment on 
(b) Ambr. in 1 Tim. c. 3. Nunc autem septem Diaconos esse oportet & aliquantos Presbyteros, ut bini per Ecclesias, & unus in Civitate Episcopus.— Omni enim Hebdomada offerendum est, etsi non quotidie peregrinis incolis, tamen vel bis in Heb. domada, etsi non desint qui prope quotidie baptizentur aegri.  1 Tim. c. 3. which is published among the works of St. Ambrose, but observed long since by learned men to be the work of this Luciferian Deacon. This Author speaking of the order of the Roman Church, and comparing it with part of the Jewish Temple, notes, that they had twenty four courses of Priests, but now we must have but seven Deacons; and Rome had no more, as Sozomen 
(a) Sozom. l. 7. c. 19  observes; whereas other Churches confined themselves to no definite number. And besides these Deacons, there must be such a number of Presbyters, that there may be two for every Church. For the inhabitants Communicate twice a week, 
(b) Vid. Hieron. Apol. adv. Jovin. et August. Ep. 118. ad Januar.  and their Sick are to be Baptised almost every day, who according to the practice of those times were to receive the Communion, upon which account they are mentioned in this place.  
But to put this matter beyond all doubt, it is evident from several Writers, cotemporary with Epiphanius, that it could not be noted as a singularity in Alexandria to have many Parish Churches in it; since the same thing is occasionally reported of most great Cities in that time in Rome. 
(c) Opt. Milev. l. 2. con. Parnen.  Optatus informs us that there were above forty Churches when Victor Garbiensis came thither, which was long before his time. And it will be as much to our purpose, if Optatus be understood of the state of Rome in his own time: since he wrote under Valens, 
(d) Hieron. in Catal. in Opt.  as St. Jerom informs us, who died in the year three hundred seventy eight. But Optatus wrote about the year three hundred seventy, as may be gathered from his own words, 
(a) Opt. l. 1. v. 3  where he reckons but sixty and odd years from the beginning of Dioclesian's Persecution, to the time of his Writing. But Epiphanius 
(b) Epiph. in prolog. Panor.  began his work against Heresies in the year three hundred seventy four. When he wrote of the Manichees, 
(c) Epiph Haer. 66. n. 20. Anim. Petau. 1.  it was the year seventy six. The Arian Heresy comes afterwards at some distance, where he speaks of this custom of Alexandria. So that making the largest allowance that can be required for Optatus his words, he must be granted to have wrote before Epiphanius.  
In Milan there were many Churches at the same time; for St. Ambrose 
(d) Ambr. Ep. 33. id. Ep. 85.  names several; for example, Portiana, Nova, Vetus, Ambratiana, Romana, Faustae.  
In Constantinople we have an account of many Churches before Epiphanius his time; 
(e) Euseb. l. 3. de vit. Const. c. 48.  for Constantine built there many Oratories and vast Churches, as well within the City as the Suburbs. 
(f) Socr. l. 1. c. 16.  Socrates' names two, that of Irene, and the Apostles; the former was afterwards joined to Sophia 
(g) Id. l. 2. c. 16.  by Constantius, tho' it was from a small Church raised by Constantine to be very magnificent and large; yet his Son building a great Church hard by it, concluded both in one enclosure, and under one name. 
(a) Theoph. in Chron. Niceph. Hist. l. 7. c. 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theophanes, and Nicephorus Calistus reckon others, as three to the Honour of Christ under several denominations of Wisdom, Peace, and Power. One bore the name of the Apostles. And besides these, he built Martyria for Mocius, Acacius, Agathonicus and Menas. In 
(b) An. 342.  Constantius his time there is mention of the Church of St. Paul in Constantinople. 
(c) Socr. l. 2. c. 12.  In short, the Historians who speak of that City from Constantin the Great downward, speak of the Churches of the City, as familiarly as we should of those of London, without taking any notice of it as an unusual thing. So the Bishop of C. P. is sometimes styled from the Church, sometimes from the Churches of that 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 2. c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 2. c. 27. Socr. l. 4. 1.  City. So Socrates speaks of Alexander who was Bishop there in Constantin's time; so Macedonius is said to possess himself of the Churches of that City. Instances of this kind there are without number; but I will conclude with 
(e) Greg. Naz. orat. coram 150. Ep. in fine.  Gregory Nazianzen's Apostrophe to the Churches of Constantinople when he took his leave of them; Farewell Resurrection, thou auspicious name, for thou hast raised up my speech when it was yet contemned; thou happy field of common victory, in which I first pitched my Tent.— And thou, that great and celebrated Temple, now become a new accession to the faith, and made greater by the doctrine preached in thee, than by the vastness of thy pile; which from a profane Jebus I have consecrated into a Jerusalem. And all ye other Churches, which after this adorn every part of this City by your several beauties, and tie them together, like so many bands, each taking to its own proper resort that which is next to it. You, whom not I, but the grace of God working by my weakness has filled beyond what could be hoped. Farewell you Apostles fair habitation, masters of my labours, although I have not often preached within your Walls. This passage is too bright to need a comment; and those who cannot discern the Parish-Churches of C. P. by these Expressions, will scarce know a Church when they see it.  
Carthage is known to have had a great number of Churches about the time of 
(a) Unreason. of Separ. p. 249.  Epiphanius; for we have several of their names in the titles of 
(b) Aug. Serm. 359. Ed. Ben. Praef. ad Hilar. fragm. p. 49. Aug. Serm. 156. Serm. 26. vid. not. Bened. in Ser. 156. Serm. 53.  St. Augustin's Sermons. And to those observed already by a learned hand, we may add the Church called Florentia, which Nicolaus Faber places in Carthage, though the Benedictins seem to make some doubt of it. There was Basilica Gratiani, and Theodosiana, and Honoriana, and Tricillarum, and many more doubtless of which there is no mention.  
The Christians of Antioch were much to blame, if they had not many Parish-Churches before Epiphanius his time; for surely their numbers did require them. For Julian the Apostate, who was not forward to magnify the strength of the Christians, reproaches them for being in a manner all of them so. 
(a) Julian in Misapogon.  Many of you, I had almost said all, the Senate, the rich, the people for the greater part, or rather all together, have chosen Atheism, that is, Christianity. And that they had many Churches in Constantius his time, appears by the discourse that happened between that Emperor and Athanasius in Antioch. The Emperor desired of that Bishop, that now upon his restauration he would allow one of those many Churches he had in Alexandria, to such as were of the Arian persuasion: 
(b) Soz. l. 3. c. 20.  The Bishop replied, That he was very ready to comply with his request, provided the Orthodox might have the same favour in Antioch, to have one Church of the many which are said to be there in the same place. And 
(c) Socr. l. 3. c. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Euzoius the Arian is said to be master of the Churches of Antioch, while Paulinus had but one of the least within the Town. And at the same time when 
(d) Theodor. Hist. Relig. in Aphrate.  Meletius was driven out, it is said that all the Clergy were likewise turned out of the sacred Temples, and out of every Church. And to come to Cities of a lower rank; 
(e) Soz. l. 6. c. 8.  Cyzicus had many Churches in Epiphanius' days, and so had 
(f) Soz. l. 6. c. 18.  Edessa, so had 
(g) Soz. l. 5. c. 4.  Caesarea in Cappadocia, and many more, especially such great Cities as are taken notice of for being altogether Christians, of which I shall have occasion to speak in another place, when I come to consider the evidence of our Author for the paucity of Believers, even in the greatest Cities of the Empire. In the mean while, I hope I have sufficiently cleared this point, that it could be no singularity in Alexandria, in the time of Epiphanius to have many Parish-Churches.  

(a) Prim. Ep. p. 17.  The last Testimony our Author produces on this head, is from 
(b) p. 27.  Dr. Stillingfleet, now Bishop of Worcester's Sermon against Separation. Although when the Churches increased, occasional meetings were frequent in several places; yet still there was but one Church, and one Altar, and one Baptistry, and one Bishop with many Presbyters assisting him. All this may very well be, and Diocesan Episcopacy remain primitive; for one Bishop's Church may have several dependent Congregations; one Altar may consist with many subordinate Communion Tables; one Baptistry may serve the greatest City, and one Bishop may supervise several Parishes; and the occasional meetings spoken of, might not be destitute of the privilege of the Sacrament. But I must remember my measure, and not take upon me to explain the notion of so learned a person, who might have many things in his view which I may not have observed. Yet I cannot but take notice, that the Champions of the Congregational way must needs be distressed, when they betake themselves to that Sermon, to make out the antiquity of their notion, where it is exploded 
(a) p. 28.  as a novel and late fancy, that hath not age enough to plead prescription. And the same learned 
(b) Unreas. of Separ. from p. 228, to p. 262.  Prelate has made it sufficiently appear, that even in afric, which was fancied to come nearest to the Congregational standard, several Bishops had in ancient times, and immemorially, very large Dioceses.  
In conclusion, our Author comes to sum up his evidence, and to assure his performance, 
(c) Prim. Ep. p. 17.  That this is not barely delivered by persons of excellent learning and intimate acquaintance with antiquity, but proved by those records which are most venerable in their account; and the evidence reaches not only the Apostles times, but divers ages after. What has been delivered or proved by the witnesses produced by him in this Chapter, has been fairly laid down and considered; and I desire that all may be judged by the merit and pertinence of the evidence, and not by the confidence of the Advocate.  

CHAP. II.  
SECT. II.  
IT has pleased Mr. Clerkson to fancy, that those who maintain Diocesan Episcopacy would be very much distressed, if he could prove that of old several Bishops had their seats in Villages, and therefore observes, 
(a) Prim. Ep. p. 19  That those who are concerned to extend the ancient Bishops to the modern pitch, will not endure to hear, nor would they have any believe that it was usual of old to have Bishops in Villages. And that these therefore 
(b) D. D. l. 2. c. 7. Tayl. op. Assert. p. 304.  tell their opponents, That the most learned of them have not been able, with great labour and hard study, to produce above five instances thereof.— And yet more have been, and may be produced for Bishops in Villages, than some are willing to take notice of. Although I profess myself concerned for Diocesan Episcopacy, because I believe it to be Apostolical and Primitive; yet I do not find in myself any aversion to these instances of Village-Bishops; nor can I find that they ever had any quarrel with, or were irreconcilable to Diocesans. Before the Conquest this Country 
(c) Malms. l. 3. vil. 1.  had several Bishops seated in Villages, who were afterwards translated to Cities, but they were no less Diocesans before, than after their translations. And at this time in Wales there are four Bishops who are content with Villages for their Sees, and yet have large Dioceses to govern. Of old the Chorepiscopi, who seem to have been rather Presbyters than Bishops, had their residence in Villages; but each of them had many Villages under his visitation. What hurt then can these instances of Bishops in Villages do to the Diocesan way? Or why are they represented so formidable to Episcopal Writers, that they will not endure to hear of them? Had every Village that might furnish a Congregation, a Bishop residing it it? Or those Bishops who were Seated in Villages, were they only Parish-Pastors, and confined within the bounds of their respective Villages? If our Author had proved this, there had been some ground to set Village-Bishops against Diocesan; but since he has not thought fit to do this, I may take leave to say that he has left his Argument imperfect, and far short of the purpose for which it is produced.  
To make this general Answer yet more plain, let us suppose the bounds of our English Dioceses to become as much unknown to after-ages, as those of the old Egyptian or Syrian Dioceses are now to us; and that the Books of Mr. Baxter, Mr. Clerkson, and others, against Diocesan Bishops in this Country should be lost, for the Genius does not promise immortality. Under this supposed ignorance of the present distribution of our Bishoprics, if a dabbler in antiquity finding that St. David's, Landaf, and St. Asaph had been Bishops seats some ages before; and that in elder times, Dorchester, and Selsea, and Kirton, and Elmham, and Hexham, and some other Villages in England had been honoured with Episcopal Chairs, should upon this discovery entertain a conceit, that our Episcopacy was parochial, and that a Bishop in our time and many ages before us was no more than a Parish-Minister, and write a Book to maintain this vainfancy: Such an undertaking, and such a work would be the exact copy of this Chapter of Village-Bishops.  
It may perhaps seem a needless labour to examine the instances he has collected of Villages that were Episcopal seats, since they reach not the point in question, nor make the least colour of proof that the Bishops residing in Villages were but Pastors of a single Congregation. But since he pleased himself so much with this performance, that he seems to triumph, and say, That the instances of Bishops in Villages were more than some are willing to take notice of, he has laid a sort of a necessity upon his Answerer not to pass them by, lest his Disciples might mistake a just neglect of impertinence, for a despair or diffidence of being able to reply. I will therefore take notice of every instance he has produced upon this head, tho' I may have just reason to apprehend the censure or contempt of my Readers for insisting so minutely upon the examination of things, which to the first view sufficiently appear to be beside the purpose. But I hope the defiance and importunity of my Adversary may excuse this digression tho' a matter of curiosity rather than of argument or of weight.  
To begin then, In the Diocese of Egypt, we are told, 
(d) Prim. Ep. p. 19  Hydrax and Palaebisca two Villages had their Bishops. He should have said Bishop, for they had but one, as appears from the Epistle of Synesius, 
(e) Synes. Ep. 67.  who had orders from the Bishop of Alexandria to ordain a Pastor for those Villages. But from the account which was put into his hands by the people of that place, we find that these 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Synes. ep. 67.  Villages were far from being Primitive Bishoprics; for at the time of which we are speaking, which was about the year of Christ, 400, thy had but one Bishop; For by Apostolic authority, as well as by the Law of the Country, those Churches had ever belonged to Erythros, and were Parishes of that Diocese. The people further declare, That they were not divided from the Diocese of Erythros until the time of Valens the Emperor, when all things were in confusion, and that then one Syderius who came from Valens his Army, was made Bishop there in a very unusual manner, without the knowledge or approbation of the Bishop of Alexandria, by the hands of one Bishop only, i e. Philo of Cyrene; and all this done to engage the protection of Syderius, who by the Commission he had from Court had it in his power to do much good or hurt to that Country. 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Synes. Ep. 67.  Before this they had no Bishop, nor did any succeed him. Wherefore they beseech Synesius in the most earnest and importunate manner in the world that he would not force them to choose another, but that they might be allowed to continue in their former condition, as Parishes and dependences 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Synes. ibid.  of Erythros, for they had put themselves already under Paul the Bishop of that City, and prayed they might not be made Orphans in their Father's life time, nor be violently torn from their mother-Church. Especially since they had returned to their first estate by the approbation of Theophilus of Alexandria. Judge then by this instance, which was the Primitive Episcopacy of this place. By Apostolic Authority and Prescription they were members of a Diocese, and depended on a City; but to have a Bishop of their own, did in their opinion, agree neither with the Apostles rule, nor the usage of their Country. It is pity some Independent had not lived in those days, to have informed this people better concerning their Christian Privileges, and to let them know that every Parish, not only might, but aught to have a Bishop of their own.  
Olbium 
(h) Prim. Ep. p. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Synes. Ep. 76.  a Village in the same region had a Bishop. After the death of Athamas Bishop there, the election of a Bishop was needful, and Antonius was chosen. There is no mention either of this place or people any where else that I can find; and from this 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  expression of Synesius, it does not appear, whether they were the People of one Village, or rather a people dwelling in Villages, such as in the old Testament are called Perizites. Of this sort 
(l) Proximis nullae quidem urbes stant, tamen domicilia sunt, quae Mapalia apellantur. Mela. l. 1. in Cyren.— Nusquam pauci degunt. ibid.  there were several in the region of Pentapolis, and all over afric, where there were but few Cities, as Pomponius Mela observes; but where the country People inhabited, they were generally in great numbers. And 
(m) Plin. l. 5. c. 5.  Pliny names several little Nations of this Country from the titles of Cornelius Balbus his triumph. Besides Synesius his 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hesych. Jul. Pollux. Suid.  phrase may signify not a Village-people, but a Neighbouring-people. Such a people as I mentioned before, rendered in the 
(o) Tabidium Oppidum. Nitenii Natio. Nigligimela Oppid. Bubeium Natio. etc.  triumphal titles of Balbus by Nation. And it is not unlikely that Synesius, who affects antique phrase, might mean no more than a neighbouring People, without regarding whether they were Villages or Cities. However it was, I shall not forget to allow for this as a Village-Bishop, together with some others, when I come to take my leave of Egypt.  

(p) Prim ep. p. 20.  Zygus is an Egyptian Village in Ptolemy. And Athanasius 
(q) Athan. ep. ad Antioch.  gives us the name of the place and of the person that was Bishop there. But this Village, as it had a Bishop, so it 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Ptol. l. 4.  had a territory along the Sea side; and the whole Sea-coast of Lybia was divided between that and two other Villages.  

(s) Prim. ep. p. 20.  We meet with Antia, a Village in Diodorus Siculus, and in the Council of Ephesus with Episcopus Anteensis; I cannot find any other place that will suit him. It is well enough guessed, for it is in the same place, something 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Subser. Ephes.  differently writ in the subscriptions of the Council of Ephesus, from what it is in Diodorus; it is the Town of Antaeus, or Antaeopolis, accounted for a City by 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Steph. ib.  Stephanus, and by 
(x) Plut. de Solert. Animal.  Plutarch. Nor was this all, but this City was likewise the Metropolis of that Nomus or Praefecture of Egypt, which bears its name 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pol. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 784. l. 1.  when Ptolemy wrote his Geography. So this Village in the account of our Author, was a City and a Metropolis of a Country, long before the Council of Ephesus, and before it had a Bishop.  

(z) Prim. ep. p. 20.  Schaedia in 
(a) Strab. l. 17.  
(a) Athan. ep. ad Antioch.  Strabo is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendered pagus urbi similis, (b) Athanasius tells us who was Bishop of it. It is some comfort, that in Strabo's time this Village was not inferior to a City; and before Athanasius his time, or any mention of a Bishop in this place, it might be a City for aught our Author knew. However, the walls, or the charter, or title of a City signify little to the present question. If a Town be populous and have a Territory sufficient to make a competent Diocese, the Bishop of the place will be a Diocesan, and such was the Bishop of Schaedia. For besides that Town, he had a 
(c) Agathodaemon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Athan. Ep. ad Antioch, p. 580.  Region belonging to his Diocese called 
(d) Menelaites, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steph.  Menelaites, and he is styled by both Titles. Now Menelaites was a Nomus, or as we should say, a County of Egypt, of which Canopus 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ptol. l. 4. Plin. l. 5. c. 9  was the Metropolis, part of which it seems belonged to the Bishop of Schaedia, and this Region had a City of the same name in the time of 
(f) Menelaitem Vrbem Lybiae adjecimus. Justin. Ed. 13. c. 18, 19  Justinian, and possibly it might be a City at this time when Agathodaemon was Bishop. So that instead of a Bishop of a Village, our Author seems to have stumbled upon one who had two Cities. And among the subscriptions in Athanasius 
(g) Athan. Ep. ad Antioch.  there are other Bishops who bear double titles, as Agathus Bishop of Phragonis, and part of Elearchia; and Ammonius Bishop of Pachnemomi, and the remaining part of Elearchia.  

(h) Prim. Ep. p. 20.  In the Breviary of Meletius, wherein he gives Alexander an account what Bishops he had made, among the rest, 
(i) Athan. Ap. 2. p. 189. T. 1. id Ep. ad Antioch.  there is Cronius in Metole, and a place called Andromene was the Episcopal seat of Zoilus, as Athanasius informsus, which two last are in all probability Villages, since there are no such Cities discovered in Egypt. What this Metole should be where Meletius set up a schismatic Bishop, is not very material to our question, since the practice of Meletius can be of little authority in a dispute concerning Primitive Episcopacy. Schismatics are too apt to innovate, to be cited for examples of primitive practice. Yet considering the rest of the places furnished by Meletius with Bishops, were the chief of Egyyt, and that this Metole is placed in his Catalogue 
(l) Metelis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Steph. Ptol. l. 4.  next the Region of Alexandria; I am apt to suspect this reading, and think this Metole is no other than Metilis 
(m) Metilis Mela. l. 1. c. 9  which gave name to a Prefecture, and was the Metropolis of it. But for this Andromene, it is a monster composed of a City and a man, and in pity they ought to be parted. For so they are in the Paris Edition, 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Zoilus was Bishop of Andron, and Menas was Bishop of Antiphrae; now Andron, or Andropolis 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ptol. l. 4. Strab. l. 17. & Steph. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is the chief City of a Nomus of that name, and Antiphrae was a small City in Strabo's time, not far from Alexandria.  
Our Author 
(p) Prim. Ep. p. 20.  goes on still in quest of Episcopal villages in Egypt, and not finding any more for his turn, he takes upon him to reduce Cities into Villages. Hypselis says he, is a Village in Stephanus, and had two Bishops at once; Ausonius, he would say Arsenius of the Meletian faction, and Paul for the Orthodox. 
(q) Athan. Apol. 2.  That Hypselis had an Orthodox Bishop at that time, I do not question; but that his name was Paul I cannot find in Athanasius; there was indeed a Person of that name who lived there, and is mentioned by Athanasius, 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pens Ep. ad Joh. apud Athan. Ap. 2.  but he was only a Monk; but our Author in his haste, was pleased to create him a Bishop. But if he does too much honour to his person by one mistake, he does as much disgrace his seat by another. For though Stephanus make Hypselis a Village, yet was it not so when Arsenius was Bishop there; for this Arsenius the Meletian Bishop, so famous in the story of Athanasius, 
(s) Athan. Ap. 2. p. 786. T. 1.  styles himself Bishop of the City of Hypselis. Socrates speaking of the same person, says 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Socr. l. 1. c. 32.  that he subscribed the condemnation of Athanasius, as Bishop of the City of Hypselis, with the same right hand which was pretended to have been cut off by Athanasius; and Epiphanius 
(u) Epiph. Haer. 66. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  speaking of this place, gives it the same title. For giving an account of Scythianus the Father of the Manichean doctrine, he says, that he came to Thebais to a City called Hypselis: And to conclude, Ptolemy 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  makes it the Metropolis of the Country, called from it Hypseliotes.  

(y) Prim. Ep. p. 21.  Dracontius being made a Bishop in the territory of Alexandria, could have no City for his seat. 
(z) Athan. Ep. ad Drac.  Our Author pronounces too rashly from this passage; for the Territory of Alexandria is the same with its Nomus or Prefecture, and in the same Nomus there may be more Cities than one, otherwise all Egypt must have but six and thirty Cities, for into so many▪ Nomi it was divided. But that this Dracontius had a City for his seat, our Author might have learned from Athanasius, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Athan. Ep. ad Antioch.  in a place which is often cited in this chapter. It was Hermopolis the lesser, which Ptolemy 
(b) Ptol. l 4. Steph.  places in the Alexandrian Region, and the only place he mentions there besides Alexandria.  

(c) Prim. Ep. p. 21.  Secontaurus was a very small and contemptible Village that Ischyras was made Bishop of, containing so few Inhabitants, that there was never Church there before. And is this then to be a model of Primitive Episcopacy? But this place deserves a more particular consideration: This Ischyras who pretended to be a Presbyter of Meletius or Colluthus his Ordination, accused Athanasius of forcing his Church, overthrowing his Communion-Table, and breaking the Chalice; although it was proved he never was a Presbyter, nor had any Church; for there never had been any in his Village. For a reward of calumny, this Hamlet was erected into a Bishop's seat by Constantius, in opposition to the Catholic faith, to the rules of the Church, and to 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Athan. Ap. p. 802. & p. 793.  ancient tradition and usage of that Country. Athanasius 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan. Ap. 2. p. 802. Socr. l. 1. c. 27.  is very particular in his Description of this place, which was made the scene of his Accusation; and tells us that Mareotis the Region in which this Village was, had always belonged to the Bishop of Alexandria as part of his Diocese; that here never had been a Bishop, nor so much as a Chorepiscopus before Ischyras; but the Villages were distributed to Presbyters, some having ten, some more of them to make up one Parish. In this Region there were fourteen Parish Presbyters and thirteen Deacons, as appears by their subscriptions to the Letter they sent to the Synod of Tyre on the behalf of their Bishop. This was the state of that place; and since our Author was not ashamed of urging this instance to countenance his notion, I am content the whole cause should be tried upon this issue, and that it may be judged by this instance, which Episcopacy was the primitive, Diocesan or Congregational. Here was a large Region, that had many Churches, and many more Villages so near Alexandria, that they could not want Christians in the earliest times; yet we are assured by a 
(f) Athan. Ap. 2. p. 792.  competent Judge of this matter, that this Region never had a Bishop of its own, but was always under the Bishop of Alexandria, who at certain times visited it in person. But about three hundred years after St. Mark had planted the Church of Alexandria, Constantius upon the Instigation of the Arians, made one of the least of these Villages a Bishop's seat, against all Rule and Prescription, as Athanasius contends. Judge then which is most ancient or most primitive in this place, the Diocesan or the Parish Bishop. And since the council of Sardica is obliquely taxed by Mr. Clerkson, as guilty of Innovation upon the account of forbidding Bishops to be made in Villages, excepting such where Bishops had been formerly made: This passage is sufficient to clear and justify that Canon against frivolous reflections, since it appears from hence, that there was too much reason to put a check to the innovations of the Arians, who for the encouragement and strengthening of the party, took upon them to multiply Bishoprics contrary to the ancient tradition and practice of the Church.  

(g) Prim. Ep. p. 21.  That was little better, where the 
(h) Gro. Alex. p. 110. Anon. 345. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  writers of the life of Chrysostom tell us, Theophilus of Alexandria settled a Bishop. How long shall we have Innovations urged upon us for proof of Primitive Episcopacy? Theophilus is justly blamed by all the writers of Chrysostom's life, for erecting new Bishoprics against the Canons of the Church, in places unseemly, and where there had been no Bishop before. And such w●● this place, which our Author has produced for an Episcopal seat; it never had any Bishop before Theophilus ordained one there. A happy place, where primitive Episcopacy began about four hundred years after Christ, when from the days of St. Mark to that time, it had lain under the yoke of Diocesan Usurpation.  
Having travelled through Egypt, not with the usual curiosity to see great Cities and Pyramids, but with an humble inquisitiveness to look for Villages, and the obscurest places that had been the seats of Bishops; let us now sit down and recollect what we have observed. We have found after great search, that two Villages in Lybia, where Cities are not very frequent, once in distracted times had a Bishop, though they had been Parishes belonging to Erythros for near four hundred years after Christ. One Village we find had a succession of two Bishops, but the circumstances of the place or people are altogether unknown. Another Village we observed in Lybia, that gave name to a people, and had a considerable territory. Four Cities we mistook for Villages, not because they were small, but for want of skill. One Village wanted nothing of a City but the name, and to make amends for this defect, a large Country was joined to it. One was made a Bishop's seat for private ends, about the beginning of the fifth Century, having never been so before, and being then very useful for it. And in the last place there was Ischyras his Village, raised to a Bishop's seat by the Arians, the least of all indeed, and yet much greater than the merit of the Bishop.  
I may be thought perhaps to deal too rigorously with my Adversary; if I should not allow more Episcopal Villages to have been in Egypt in old time, than he is able to find at this distance; therefore I am content to grant where he cannot prove, and to take his general observation to supply the defect of particular Evidence; that 
(i) Prim. Ep. p. 19  there are several things counted usual in the ancient Church, of which no more instances can be given, nor so many. Be this Village-Episcopacy then one of those usual things in the ancient Church, and in Egypt let him reckon twenty if he think fit, or if this be not sufficient, let him take his bill and write forty. Yet when all is done, it will do no service to the Congregational way. For in all Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, there were but an hundred Bishops in the fourth Century, within the compass of which are all the instances of Village Bishops in Egypt. Alexander 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Alex. Ep. Socr. l. 1. c. 6.  reckons near that number; and Athanasius 
(m) Athan. Ap. 2. p. 788. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  pleads, that in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis there are near an hundred Bishops, and of those not one hath accused me. And long after this time, 
(n) Geogr. Sacra. Not. Ant. p. 55.  the old Notitia published by Carolus a Sancto Paulo has but an hundred and one, and of these several are styled from Villages. Now the extent of Egypt is variously represented. Herodotus 
(o) Herod. l. 2. c. 9  makes the line of Egypt properly so called, along the Seashore, to be four hundred and fifty miles, and above eight hundred up the River. 
(p) Plin. l. 5. c. 9  Aristocreon does not come much short of this account: But Vossius 
(q) Voss. Obs. in Mel. l. 1. c. 9  hath reason to reject this computation as extravagant, and exceeding the truth by one half. For Pliny 
(r) Finis navigationis Egyptiae, Plin. l. 5. c. 9  corrects the Geographers that wrote before him, as to the extent of this Country, from more exact Surveys made in his time; and from these, he shows that the length of Egypt up the River, as far as it was navigable, was five hundred and eighty-six miles: But from Pelusium to Canopus was but an hundred and seventy miles, which was all the Country between the branches of the Nile; but from Pelusium Eastward Egypt 
(s) Diodor. Sic. l. 1.  reached near two hundred miles. If we add on the West Libya and Pentapolis, we have a line of five hundred and fifty miles according to the Nubian Geographer 
(t) Greogr. Nub. p. 91. Ed. Par.  from Alexandria to Barca. And 
(u) Plin. l. 5. c. 6.  Eratosthenes reckons from Cyrene to Alexandria five and twenty miles less. Now this great Country had but an hundred Episcopal seats; and though half of them had fallen out to be in Villages, yet I will leave to any one capable of making any judgement to decide the question, whether they were Diocesan or Parish Bishops. For as in England there are Bishops in Villages, and Towns not much superior to Villages, and yet the Dioceses are very large, because the whole Country is divided between six and twenty: So in Egypt the Dioceses must have been very large, when so great a Country for extent and people, had no more than an hundred Bishops. For upon a modest Computation, that which our Author calls the Diocese of Egypt, was three times as great as England; if we consider the number of the Towns it had in Ptolomaeus Philadelphus his time, more Towns than any one Country in the world; for Theocritus 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theocr. Idill. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Theocr. Idill. 17.  who lived then, reckons them above three and thirty thousand, and styles them Cities; nor have we any reason to believe, that their number was diminished under the Roman Government. So that supposing the Country generally Christian in the fourth Century, every Bishop, one with another, will have above three hundred Towns within his Diocese; so large were the Bishoprics of old in that Country, and so little is it to the purpose of our Author, to seek for Bishop's seats in the Villages of Egypt.  
From Egypt, we are to travel like the Children of Israel into the Deserts of Arabia, but not with so good a guide. Those who travel in this Country must not expect to meet Cities very frequent, and aught to be thankful, if now and then they happen upon a good Village. Our Author has found some here that were Bishop's seats. For 
(y) Prim. Ep. p, 21.  in the Council of Ephesus there was Episcopus Bacathensis, and Epiphanius 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epiph. Anaceph. p. 141.  calls Bacathum a chief Village in Arabia. In that part of Arabia which was annexed to Palestine, there was good store of Bishops in Villages, as appears by the ancient Catalogue in Gulielmus Tyrius. There is no need to mention particulars, since Sozomen 
(a) Soz. Hist. l. 7. c. 19  assures us that there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
It is no wonder if in Arabia, where Cities are very rare, that Bishops should be ordained in Villages; for 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dio. Chrys. Or. 47.  all barbarous People chose rather to live at large, scattered in Villages, than thronged in Cities: And Aristotle reproaches his Stagyrites for refusing the privilege of a City, when Olynthus to which they belonged, was destroyed by Philip, and that they were better satisfied to live in Villages, after the manner of Barbarians rather than Greeks. But in these Countries where some Villages had Bishops, the Dioceses were no less, nay generally greater than where Cities were numerous. So in the Northern Countries of Europe the Bishoprics are much larger than in Italy or Greece. So the Bishoprics of Cappadocia, of Armenia and Arabia, were greater than those of Syria or the lesser Asia, as may easily appear by comparing their numbers in the ancientest Catalogues we have extant, or in the subscriptions of provincial Councils. 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 58. 1.  Bacathon was a Mother Village in the Philadelphia Arabia; and that title sufficiently denotes, that it had other Villages and Parishes of its resort. For 
(d) Metrocomia id inter vicos est, quod Metropolis inter Urbes. Gotofr. Ann. C. Th. l. 11. Tit. ●5. ss. 1.  a Mother Village in respect of Villages, is what a Metropolis is to the Cities of its dependence. The Catalogue of Bishoprics in Guilelmus Tyrius is no older than the twelfth Century, and is no other than a piece of that Notitia which goes under the title of Ordo Provincialis, of which I must give a more particular account hereafter. And for the Testimony of Sozomen, it is to be observed, that he mentions the ordaining of Bishops in Arabia, and in Cyprus, as a thing unusual and of rare example, because he compares it with the practice of the Scythians, who had but one Bishop for a Nation, though they had many Cities. But let us leave this wild Country, and follow our Author whither he is pleased to lead.  

(e) Prim. Ep. p. 21, 22.  In Syria, Theodoret tells us of Paul a Confessor, in the Persecution by Licinius, one of the Fathers of the first Council of Nice, and Bishop of Neocaesarea, which he says, is a Castle or a Fort near Euphrates. Why this place should be reckoned among Villages, I can see no reason, since the word 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 7.  which he renders Castle or Fort, signifies any fortified place; for even Cities pass under this name, as Gotofred 
(g) Etsi non sim nescius de omnibus munitis locis, in quibus & civitates, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quoque dici, Gotofr. in l. 15. the Erog. Mil. Anon.  has observed; and those places which Eunapius 
(h) Eunap. excerp. leg.  calls Fortresses, Ammianus Marcellinus 
(i) Ammian. Marc. l. 18. p. 187.  styles Cities; and Pinaca a City of the Parthians upon the Tigris, is styled by Strabo 
(l) Strab. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  a Fortress, consisting of three Castles, which made it in a manner a Tripoli, i. e. three Cities. It is not therefore fair to reduce this Town into the condition of a Village, because it was a Garrison, and a fortified place; whereas notwithstanding this, it might have been a City; but I will not contend about words. For though this place should have been no better than a Village, yet are we never the nearer to know the extent of this Confessor's Bishopric, unless our Author would think fit to confine him within the walls; for perhaps the bounds of this Diocese were laid out when the Castle was besieged.  

(m) P. 22.  Maronia is described by Jerom to be a Village 30 miles from Antioch; and we meet 
(n) Georg. Alex. vit. Chrys. p. 236.  with a Bishop there, and the name of him Timothy. That there was such a Village Jerom 
(o) Hieron. in vit. Malchi. Mon.  tells us; but that it had a Bishop, neither he nor any body else ever said before our Author. This little place indeed had a Church, and was the possession of Evagrius, a Kinsman of St. Jerom, who was sometime Bishop of Antioch; and probably this Village, though distant 30 miles, did belong to that City. But George in the life of Chrysostom saith, it had a Bishop named Timothy. He says indeed, that there was a Bishop of Maronia; but that this was the place, neither he nor any body else affirmed before. There were two Cities of this name, one in the Syrian Chalcis, and the other in Thrace, both which Ptolemy 
(p) Goe Ptol. l. 5. & l. 3.  mentions. The Bishop of the latter in all probability, was the person who suffered in the cause of Chrysostom, for he was of his Province, Thrace having long before been subject to Constantinople; and in less than 30 years after, we find one 
(q) Docimasius Diaecesis Thraciae, Provinciae Rhodopes, Civitatis Maroniae. Conc. Eph. p. 535. Ed. Labb.  Docimasius Bishop of that City among the subscribers of the first Council of Ephesus, and many ages before this, Polybius 
(r) Polyb. Hist. l. 5.  makes mention of this City.  
To proceed, Athanasius 
(s) Athan. Ep. ad Solitar. vit. deg. p. 812. T. 1.  gives us the name of a Bishop in Calanae, and of another in Siemium, which were Villages, or such obscure inconsiderable places, as no Geographer takes notice of. King James his Regulators were not more dangerous men to the Franchises of our Corporations, than this Author is to ancient Cities; for if there be but a letter amiss, the Charter is forfeited, and it sinks into an obscure Village. This is the case of Calanae, because there is a C. where there should be a B. our Author has disfranchised it. The place where Euphration was Bishop, was Balanea; so it is writ in Antonin's Itinerary; 27 miles from Gabala, and 24 from Antaradus. Stephanus 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Steph.  styles it a City of Phoenicia, in his time called Leveas; and adds, that Epicrates had writ an Encomium upon it. Ptolemy 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ptol. l. 5.  names it next to Paltis, and so does 
(x) Plin. l. 5.  Pliny; in the same order it lies in Athanasius. But why must this be Euphration's Town? Because the same Euphration among the subscribers of the first council of Nice, writes himself Bishop of Balaneae; but I have better proof than this, it is because Athanasius himself makes him Bishop of that City. For speaking of the Bishops who were deprived for adhering to him, he says 
(y) Athan. Ap. 1. Initio.  that Balaneae mourns for Euphration. For Siemium, whether it be a Village or a City, or any thing, I cannot tell; 'tis possibly a mistake of the Copist for the name of some City. For it is not likely that Athanasius who had Bishops of the principal Cities of all parts sufferers for his sake, would think fit to omit so many of considerable and known titles, and to name the Bishop of a place unknown to all Geographers. Here may be room for conjecture, but I dare not venture, knowing the temper of my Adversaries to be too captious to make necessary allowance for critical divination.  
But it is in vain it seems to contend; 
(z) Prim. Ep. p. 22.  for the Council of Antioch in their Synodal Epistle 
(a) Euseb. H. E. l. 7.  concerning Paulus Samosatenus mention 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Bishops both in Country and Cities: These Country Bishops, who were the flatterers of Paulus Samosatenus, Valesius 
(c) Chorepiscopos intelligere videtur; eos enim distinguit Epistola ab Episcopis Urbium. Vale.  takes to be Chorepiscopi, and the meaness of their behaviour makes it probable that they were of his own Diocese, and had dependence upon him. But whatever they were, it does not appear from this, or any thing else, that they were Parish Bishops; for even the Chorepiscopi had many Villages and Congregations under their superintendence.  
Let it not seem tedious to the Reader, that he is led on through Villages only, and obscure places, for it is in his way to the holy Land; yet to mortify his curiosity, he must not see either Jerusalem or Caesarea, or any other City; only he may if he please take notice, that in Palestine, Jamnia 
(d) Prim. ep. p. 22.  was a Village in Strabo's account; so is Lydda in Josephus, yet both Bishop's seats in Tyrius his Catalogue; so is Nais there and Zoaron. This Catalogue of William Archbishop of Tyre is nothing else but a piece of the Ordo Provincialis, written since the 12th Century, and published long ago. It hath several Bishops sees erected in that Century. And tho' some Copies of it that I have seen, are later than this time, yet I could not find any more ancient. So it is an extraordinary way of proving Primitive Episcopacy. Jamnia and Lydda were Villages in Strabo and Josephus; and about eleven and twelve hundred years after are Bishops seats. But I will not insist upon this, because I know those places had Bishops in the first Century, or sooner, and long before that time were accounted Cities. Pliny 
(e) Jamnes duae, altera vicus. Plin. ep. 5. c. 13.  mentions two Jamnias, whereof one was a City, the other a Village. Ptolemy 
(f) Ptol. l. 5.  places Jamnia-among the Cities of Judea, and Stephanus 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  calls it a small City, and in the time of the Macchabees 
(h) 1 Mach. 5.59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  it had the title of a City; and even Strabo, who calls it a Village, makes it so populous, that from that and some neighbouring places 40000 men took arms upon the sudden; and this place had dependences, for it is joined with Joppe, and with it is said 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Joseph.  to preside over the neighbouring Region. For Lidda, tho' Josephus calls it a Village, yet he adds 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that it was not inferior to a City: But this is not all, for this great Village was made a City and called Diospolis; it is mentioned by Pliny, Stephanus, St. Jerom and Theodoret, 
(m) Theod. H. E. l. 1. c. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lyddam versam in Dospolin. Hieron. Epit. Paulae.  with an account of the change of the name. Nais is not to be found in any ancient Notitiae or Subscriptions, and therefore in probability may be of late erection. But Zoara is the Zoar in Genesis; and in Josephus 
(n) Joseph. B. I. l. 4. c. 27.  his time belonged not to Palestine, but to Arabia; tho' in Leo the wise his Notitia, it is placed in the third Palestine; but that it may not be thought too meanly of, it is by Stephanus 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Steph.  said to be a great Village, and a Garrison, and Ptolemy mentions it. So that in all Palestine, properly so called, our Author has found no Village. Lydda and Jamnia were Cities, and Zoar, and Nais, belong to Arabia. But 
(p) Prim. ep. p. 22.  in one of the three Palestines there's an account of fourteen Villages which were Bishops sees. Those Villages did not belong to Palestine, but to Arabia, according to the Notitia of Leo; and it is no wonder if in that Country where there were scarce any Cities, we should find Bishops seated in Villages. And that we may not think all those places that pass for Villages in that Country as inconsiderable as those with us, Josephus 
(q) B. jud. l. 4. c. 26.  tells us that Vespasian took two Villages in the middle of Idumea, a Country which generally goes in later writers for part of Arabia: Their names were Betarni, and Caphar-Toba; he killed in them above 10000, takes 1000 Captives, and drives the rest away. The Remark of Miraeus, 
(r) p. 22, 23.  which our Author quotes, is too considerable to be omitted; for upon occasion of these Episcopal Villages, he observes, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Village, and there were several such under the Patriarch of Jerusalem. But it had been more to the purpose of our Author to have produced some proof, that these Bishoprics had been of ancient Erection. For if they should be new, they would give but sorry evidence for primitive Episcopacy; and that many of them were of a late date, the Catalogue of the Archbishop of Tyre, or the Ordo Provincialis informs us, that upon the Erection of Jerusalem into a Patriarchal seat, some Bishoprics were taken from the Patriarch of Antioch, and others from him of Alexandria, and some new erected; and because the new Patriarch besides those Metropoles, aught to have Suffragans, they withdrew some from those Metropolitans, and annexed them to Jerusalem, and some they erected new, to the number of 25. Jerusalem was made Patriarchal in the sixth Century, and then it seems those Bishoprics had their Original; nor were they yet so many in the beginning of that Age, as appears by the subscriptions of a full 
(s) Conc. Hieros. A. 518. apud Conc. gen. 5.  Synod of the three Palestines, which in all are but 35; whereas the Arabian Bishops which our Author accounts to Palestine, were as many. To these belonged 
(t) Prim. Ep p. 23.  Tricomia, Pentacomia, Hexacomia, and Eneacomia, of which there is no account before the ninth Century; and what they were, is not easy to guests at this distance; whether they were so many Villages as the names denote, reduced to one, as Athens was composed of several Villages of Attica; or whether they were still distinct; or whether they were only the chief and Mother Villages; what distance, what numbers, what convenience for personal Communion, are things now as hard to know, as it is to find the place where they once stood. So that this can give no evidence for primitive Episcopacy, since they were erected later, and it is impossible to know their bounds. Our Author's 
(u) Prim. Ep. p. 23.  guess from the names of Pentacomia, Hexacomia, etc. that each of them was a Precinct consisting of so many Villages as the names import, may be a mistake. For among the Cities of the greater Phrygia, Ptolemy 
(x) Ptol. l. 5.  mentions one called Tricomia; and Strabo 
(y) Strab. l. 12.  has an account of a People called Heptacometae, living in the mountains near Colchis, so considerable that they destroyed three Cohorts of Pompey, and must be more than seven Villages or Hamlets could furnish. Much less can we judge of Prapedius his Diocese, who is said 
(z) Soz. l. 6. c. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to have the Inspection of many Villages, or so much as determine whether he ever were a Bishop, but only a Chorepiscopus or Deputy of the City-Bishop for some part of his Territory. And such a one it seems Valesius judged him to be.  
What is alleged out of Mr. Fuller, is produced I suppose, more for the jest than for argument. Lydda, Jamnia and Joppa, were neither such inconsiderable places, nor so near one another as he pretends. Joppa is a City in Josephus, and so are the other two in other Authors, as I have showed already, and had a a considerable Region under them. And for their distance Antonine's Itinerary makes Diospolis or Lydda, twelve miles from Jamnia; and their distance from Joppa is not certain from any ancient Author; what Travellers report from the tradition of the Country, deserves little credit. For the site of many of those places is at this time as uncertain, as where Simon the Tanner's house stood in Joppa, or Pilat's in Jerusalem; and yet such things, and many more as minute, are shown to Travellers, who have more civility than to gainsay the Tradition of the Country, of which the Inhabitants make no small gain. And the reason why Geographers have not mentioned these places in Tyrius his late Catalogue, was not for shame, for they have many places as inconsiderable; but because they were found only in a Catalogue, and mentioned in no History.  
From 
(a) Prim. Ep. p. 24.  Palestine and the Patriarchat of Jerusalem, we come to Cyprus, where Sozomen 
(b) l. 7. c. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  tells us, it was usual to have Bishops in Villages, as also in other Countries, without regard it seems to any restraint, which some Bishops endeavoured to put upon that practice; and thus it continues with the Cypriots to this age. The first thing I shall take notice of, is a little disingenuous Artifice of our Author, in transposing these words in other Countries, as if Sozomen when he had named Cyprus, had added other Countries indefinitely, and spoken of a thing usual in many Countries. But that Historian showing the different traditions and practice of several Nations, observes, that the Scythians, though they had many Cities, yet had but one Bishop. In other Nations, as in Cyprus and Arabia, there were Bishops in Villages, setting one unusual practice against another, and intimating, that he knew of no other Countries where they had Village-Bishops; and therefore having no other Instances in the Catholic Church, he takes notice of the Montanists and Novatians, who in Phrygia had Bishops in Villages. So that from this passage we ought rather to conclude, that it was not usual in other Countries, besides those specified in this passage, to have Village-Bishops; at leastwise, that Sozomen knew no other, or did not remember any when he wrote that passage. Now, though in Cyprus some Villages were Bishops seats, yet may we not conclude, that either all, or the greatest part were such; nor can we make any guess how many Villages went to make up a Diocese in Cyprus. Gratian 
(c) De Bell. Cypr. p. 1.  Bishop of Ameria tells us, that in the Island there are 840 Villages, and about two hundred thousand Souls. The ancient state of this Island is not to be taken from the present calamitous condition under which it groans; for in Trajan's time 
(d) Dio. Cass. in Trajano.  there were more men destroyed here by the Jews in one day, than are now in all the Country. Mr. Clerkson tells us without any Author, that whereas there are betwixt twenty and thirty Bishops in that Island, (and it is likely the number has decreased there, as in many other places) there are but four of their seats which have the face of a City. As to the present state of Cyprus 
(e) In Cypriana Provincia quatuor tantum Episcopi suffraganei numerantur. Dr. Smith Graec. stat. Hod. p. 71.  there are but four suffragan Bishops in the whole Island; and if Mr. Clerkson had consulted his Miraeus upon this occasion, he had found there but four Greek Bishops, and five Latins, before it was taken by the Turks. In Hierocles his Notitia it had fifteen Cities, and yet in that of Leo the wise, we find but thirteen Bishops; nor can we find, that ever it had more in elder times; for Carolus a S. Paulo 
(f) Geogr. Sacr. p. ●06.  could not find above twelve Bishop's seats from the subscriptions of Councils and other ancient writings. The Synodical letter 
(g) Baron. Anal. A. 643.  of the Cyprian Bishops to Pope Theodorus against the Monothelites has no subscriptions, and so the number of them is unknown; and what number the Synod 
(h) Socr. l. 6. c. 10.  under Epiphanius, that condemned the writings of Origen, did consist of, is as much in the dark. But that Epiphanius 
(i) Vindic. of Prim. Ch. p. 554, 555.  had himself a large Diocese in Cyprus, hath been already showed in another place.  
In pursuit of Primitive Episcopacy, we are carried from Cyprus to Armenia, where the Catholic had above 1000 Bishops under his obedience, as 
(a) l. 7. c. 32.  Otto Frisingenses writes from the report of the Armenian Legates; and after him 
(b) Ann. 1145.  Baronius and our Brierwood. 
(c) Prim. Ep. p. 24, 25.  Yet both the Armenia's in Justinian 's time, who made the most of them, made but four Provinces, which had in all but twenty Cities.— If the Armenian Bishops had not amounted to above the twentieth part of the number, yet more than one half of them must be Village-Bishops. Since Brierwood is cited for voucher of these 1000 Bishops, I am content to submit the whole matter to his Arbitration. He 
(d) Brier. Enq. p. 127.  thought, that Otho mistook perhaps Obedience for Communion, as he verily believed he did; for the Communion which the Armenians maintained with other Jacobites, extended indeed very far; but the jurisdiction of Armenia contained only four Provinces, in which small Circuit, that such a multitude of Bishops should be found, is utterly incredible; for all the Bishops of Armenia in Leo 's Novel, and those of Cilicia in Guilelmus Tyrius, put together, exceed not the number of thirty. And although I find that Justinian divided the two Armenia 's into four Provinces, yet were not for that cause the number of Bishops increased any whit the more.  

(e) Nou. 31. c. 2.  Justinian when he made a new distribution of Armenia into four Provinces, made an express provision, 
(f) Quae vero ad Sacerdotia spectant, volumus in eadem manere forma,— quantum ad ipsa nil penitus innovetur  that the Ecclesiastical state of the Country should not be affected with this alteration of the civil forms; and therefore we find in all Armenia, that belonged to the Roman Empire, but two Ecclesiastical Provinces in Leo's Diatyposis, which was the ancient distribution of that Country. Of these two Justinian made three, and annexed to them some Cities from other Provinces, which notwithstanding remained in their former dependence as to Ecclesiastical matters. To these Provinces he added a fourth, which was never before reduced into the form of a Province, which was before divided into several Satrapies of barbarous names. This is represented in Leo's Notitia, 
(g) Nou. 31. c. 2.  under the title of the higher Mesopotamia, or fourth Armenia, and divided into two parts. In the first we have Martyropolis mentioned by Justinian, and 33 Bishops seats more under the Metropolis of Amida. And in the second part, there are most of those barbarous names mentioned by Justinian, Sophene, Bilabitene, Astianica, Anzitene, together with Cetharizan, called by Justinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the Notitia, if I mistake not, styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though that passed with the Transcriber for the name of a Town. In this division there are 17 Bishops; in all 52. At the bottom of this last division we have this Remark, that this Armenia is Independent, and belongs to no Patriarch, upon the account of St. Gregory of Armenia, and it has 200 Cities and fortified Towns. So far were all the Armenia's from having 1000 Bishops in the ninth Century. And before this, about the middle of the fifth Century, we find in the first Armenia but six Bishops subscribing to the Synodical Epistle 
(h) Conc. Chalced. Pars. 3.  of that Province, in confirmation of the Council of Chalcedon; and in the second Armenia, but three; And yet the Metropolitans of each speak 
(i) Cum Sancto Concilio quod mecum est. Ep. Arm. 1. Una cum Episcopis nostrae Provinciae. Ep. Episc. Arm. 2.  of their Synod as entire. So far is the most ancient state of Armenia from the fabulous pretences of those Legates.  
Nor do the Armenian Legates say, there were 1000 Bishops in Armenia, but under the Armenian Catholic, whose Jurisdiction might reach much farther than Armenia. Some affirm, that all the Christians in Cathaia and India were under this Armenian Patriarch. So Josephus Indus; 
(l) Jos. Indi. Nau. c. 133. p. 204. Muller. Disque de Cathaia p. 89.  and how many Bishops might be in those Countries in the twelfth Century, will be something hard to be informed. And even now that Catholic is not confined to Armenia, though the condition of his Churches be very low. For in a Catalogue 
(m) Hist. Critic de la creance de rel. du Levant, p. 217.  of the present Bishoprics under the Armenian Patriarch, we find several in Persia, and others in Cappadocia, and others belonging to other Provinces; and all together scarce make up an hundred Arch-Bishops and Bishops.  
But to speak freely, and to conclude this point, the relation of the Armenian Legates seems to need confirmation. For besides, that there is no account of the tenth part of this number of Bishops belonging to the Catholic, either before or since; There is otherwise very little credit to be given to the report of these Legates. For one of them, 
(n) Baron. A. 1145. 523.  when the Pope said Mass, affirmed he saw a Sun beam of unusual brightness rest upon the Pope's head, and two Doves ascending and descending in it. How easy was it for these to make 1000 Bishops in a remote Country, when they had the confidence to put such gross fictions upon the Court of Rome? But both had one end, to flatter the Pope, who was now in some distress driven out of Rome, and residing at Viterbo. And therefore 
(o) Deficientibus Romanis Arnaldistis universus terrarum Orbis confluit. Baron.  the new accession of so ample Communion as that of a 1000 remote Bishops, was to comfort him for the undutifulness of those nearer home; and it is the usual artifice of that See, when its authority declines at home, to dress up some Impostor, who shall come from the ends of the earth to worship the Pope in the name of some great Patriarch, or some numerous Eastern Sect.  
In Lazica, Justinian 
(p) Nou. 28.  finds seven Castles and but one City, and that made so by himself, 
(q) Prim. ep. p. 25.  Petravon. Yet in the Diatyposis of Leo, in Lazica there are fifteen Bishops belonging to one Metropolis. It is a miserable thing to travel so far for an Argument, and to bring back such a trifle. Lazica in Justinian's time had but one City, And in Leo the Wise his Reign, i. e. 350 years after had 15 Bishops. So long tract of time may have made great alteration in that Country, and produce as many Cities as there were Bishops; and therefore this Argument for so many Village-Bishops in that Country is but an humble begging of the Question, and depends entirely upon the good nature of the Reader. But the fact itself is as uncertain as the conclusion drawn from it. For it does not appear that in Leo the Wise his time, Lazica had so many Bishops. For in the 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Notitia Printed by Car a S. Paulo, and after him by Gore, and last of all by Dr. Beveridge, said to be made in that Emperor's reign, A. D. 890. Lazica had but 4 Bishops under the Metropolis of Phasis; and in an old Notitia of the Patriarchat of C. P. we find the same number. But that which our Author citys and commonly passes under the name of Leo's Diatyposis, is of the later date; as appears by several names of places later than Leo's time. And even in that, Lazica had not the same bounds as it had in Justinian's time, partly mentioned in his Novel, but more exactly by Procopius. 
(s) Procop. B. Pers. l. 2.  For when Lazica had 15 Bishops, they were under the Metropolis of Trapezus, which belonged to Pontus Polemoniacus, and in the Ancient Notitiae placed under Neocaesarea; but at a great distance from Justinian's Lazica, and that exhibited in the old Notitiae. For from Trapezus to Phasis, Strabo 
(t) Str. l. 12.  reckons 300 miles, and we are told by Procopius 
(u) Probel. Pers. l. 2.  that all that lies off Lazica on the West of the River Phasis, is but a days journey for a Footman. These 15 Bishops therefore will do no service to the Congregational design; since it is uncertain what sort of places they had for their Seats, or what extent of Diocese each may have. Only this will appear, that supposing Trapezus the Metropolis in Leo's Diatyposis to be the remotest place of the Province Westward, the length will be near 400 miles, to be distributed between 15 Bishops. I ought not to dismiss this instance without taking notice of the condescension of our Author in following the blundering Translator of the Novels, and putting Petravon or Petraeon, 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for Petra, by the same Grammar as one might take the Nominative of London, to be Londinensium.  
In Lycaonia, and the parts adjacent, we have more instances hereof. Here 
(z) Act. 14.2, 3.  the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church. Those Elders were Bishops, as they assure us, who have modelled the Principles by which Prelacy may be maintained with most advantage, and without which (whatever their Predecessors thought) they judged it not defensible. If one should be so peevish, as to deny that these Presbyters were Bishops, and oppose to the opinion of Dr. Hammond the stream of ancient and modern Interpreters; an elaborate and hopeful argument would come to nothing. But because it is so meek and harmless a thing, let these Presbyters be Bishops by courtesy, and let us abide the consequence. 
(a) Prim. Ep. p. 26.  The places where these Bishops were constituted, are mentioned, v. 20, 21. Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, Lystra;— dat Towns, or Country Granges and Villages. Be it so. But did the Apostles confine the care and authority of these Bishops wholly to these Villages, in which they were ordained? Without this concession, the argument will have no force; and before we grant, let us consider what our Author offers concerning these places. Antioch was the Metropolis of Pisidia, and a great City, yet not so great, but all the Inhabitants 
(y) Prim. Episc. p. 25, 26.  in a manner could meet together to hear the word. St. Luke 
(b) Acts 13.44.  indeed says, that the whole City almost came together to hear the word; but that the Jews Synagogue would contain all the City, he neither says, nor can we reasonably believe. For expressions of this nature have an allowed favour of construction among all men; and when a whole City is said to come together, men understand only a great multitude, without any rigorous computation, what proportion such an assembly may bear to the whole City. Moses is said 
(c) Deut. 31.30.  to speak in the Ears of all the Congregation of Israel the words of his song; 
(d) Deut. 32.45.  and he made an end of speaking all these words to all Israel. When Moses numbered the people, they were above six hundred thousand men fit for service, besides women and children, which could not be less than three times as many. And to speak in the ears of all these together, had been one of the greatest miracles that ever Moses had done, and such as the holy Ghost would not have passed unobserved. 
(e) Theodoret. Hist. Relig. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  All the people of the great Antioch are said to come together to see Julian the Monk. All the People of C. P. come daily to us, say 
(f) Apud Conc. Ephes.  the Oriental Bishops who were stopped at Chalcedon by the Emperor's order. And the Author of the life of Paul Bishop of C. P. says, that the whole City of C. P. came to the Church called by the name of the Apostles. And Cyrill 
(g) Phot. cod. 257.  says that all the people of the City of Ephesus attended him to the Council. St. Jerom speaking of the Penance Fabiola did on Easter Eve, for marrying while her first Husband, whom she had divorced, was alive, 
(h) Tota spectante Urbe Romana. Hier. Epit. Fabiolae.  saith, that it was in the sight of the whole City of Rome; and in the same Treatise says, that all the people of Rome came to the funeral of that Lady. And if the greatest Cities of the world may be thought so thin of people, as to be able to furnish but one Assembly; what shall we say to that expression 
(l) Tota ad funus ejus Palestinarum Urbium turba convenit. Hieron. Epit. Paula.  of Jerom, that all the people of the Cities of Palestine came to the funeral of Paula? Wherefore, if our Author's remark may diminish Antioch in Pisidia to the Congregational measure, because the whole City almost came together to hear the Apostles; the greatest Cities in the world must shrink into a single Congregation, because the same expression is used of them too; and without any such guard or correction, as almost, or in a manner, 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Acts 13.  which St. Luke thought fit to interpose. It may seem very unnecessary to insist so much upon the proof of a matter so obvious to every Reader. But the importunity and cavils of my Adversary, who snatches at such expressions as these, the whole Town, all the People, as arguments for his Congregational Episcopacy, have obliged me to it. And whoever 
(i) Totius Urbis populum ad exequias Congregabat. Ibid.  is once engaged with a Caviller, cannot well avoid the mean drudgery of descending to very jejune explanations.  

(n) Prim. Ep. p. 26.  Iconium in Strabo 
(o) Str. l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is but a small Town, but well built; by which we may judge of those places which were Bishops seats under it. There are fifteen of them in Leo's Diatyposis. There is but little reason to fancy any of these Bishop's seats to be Villages; since in the civil Notitia of the Eastern Empire, ascribed to Hierocles, there are seventeen Cities under the Metropolis of Iconium. And tho' it might not be a very great City in Strabo's time; yet being made the Residence of the chief Roman Magistrate in that Country, it may reasonably be thought to have received considerable increase, and so it seems to have done. For Pliny 
(p) Datur & Tetrarchia Lycaonia civitatum 14. urbe celeberrima Iconio. Plin. l. 5. c. 27.  takes notice of a Tetrarchy of Lycaonia on that side where it joins to Galatia, in which there were fourteen Cities, of which Iconium was the most renowned. Among other Cities belonging to the Metropolis of Iconium, we find Homona or Homonada● in the whole Territory there were no less than 44. fortified places, in the time of Pliny. 
(q) Ibid.  It was not long when Strabo wrote, since those Countries had been recovered from the Tyrants and Pirates who oppressed them; and Strabo 
(r) Pr. l. 12.  tells us, that he had seen Servilius Isauricus. In Constantius his time Iconium belonged 
(s) Ammian. Marc. l. 14. Oppidum Pisidiae.  to Pisidia; but was then so considerable, that it had an Amphitheatre and public shows, which were not ordinarily exhibited but in the place where the chief Governor of the Province resided: And Basil 
(t) Bas. ep. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  accounts it to Pisidia, and gives 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  some intimation of the rise of it into a Metropolis, that anciently it was the second City, i. e. after Antioch. But now it is become a Metropolis and presides over a part, which being made up of several pieces, makes up one Province. And that Lycaonia was then under it, the same 
(x) Bas. Ep. 397.  Basil intimates, and what else at this distance we cannot tell, since the Province belonging to it is said to be made up of several parcels. So that Strabo's calling it a little Town, does not conclude it to be so in aftertimes when it was made a Metropolis, nor lessen the Towns depending upon it. And this way of reasoning is as if one should observe, that in Julian the Apostate's time Paris is 
(y) Julian in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  called a little Town; therefore by this we may judge what pitiful Towns those of France are now, which are and have for a long time been subject to that royal City. Nor does it always happen, that the Metropolis is greater than all the Cities under her jurisdiction.  

(z) Prim. Ep. p. 26.  Derbe in Stephanus 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 12.  is a Fort or Castle of Isauria, the seat of the Tyrant Antipater. This Fort being the fittest receptacle for such a person, this could not be populous because of no large compass. This Derbe called a Fort by Stephanus out of some Ancient Author, is by St. Luke 
(b) Acts 14.6.  called a City of Lycaonia. Nor does it diminish the place to be called a Fort, or Tyrant's Seat. For I have before observed, that the 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  word which our Author commonly translates by Castle, Fort, and sometimes childishly by Country-Grange, signifies any Fortified place, whether great or small, whether it be a City or a lesser Town. For in Countries exposed to War, such places are for common refuge; and most of our old Cities bear still the names of Castles, to which they owed their rise and preservation; and for its being a Tyrant's Seat, that does by no means imply it to be a narrow place; for Syracuse, Agrigentum, and several Cities of the largest size, might very properly pass under the very same title. Hierocles his Notitia 
(d) Ap. Car. a S. Paulo. Georg. Sac.  placeth it among the Cities of Lycaonia; and it is very probable, that it was one of the fourteen Cities of that Tetrarchy of which Iconium was the principal, mentioned by Pliny in the gross; but not named. That this place could not be populous because of no compass, our Author takes an extraordinary way of proving. Polybius talks of Teichos such a Fort, which was but a furlong and an half in compass. But how does our Author find it was such a Fort? did he survey or compare them, or doth any ancient Author mention the compass of Derbe? No: But both have one common Appellation. This way of reasoning is very dangerous, and will dis-people great Cities worse than the plague. London must not be populous, because Ely or Rochester, which are Cities too, have no great compass, and but few Inhabitants. Nor does our Author's Criticism, about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do him any great service for the diminishing of any Town called by that general name. For tho' it be sometimes distinguished from a City, yet are there instances of some of the greatest Cities that are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For Aquileia was a City of the largest size; and yet Procopius 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Procop. Bell. Vandal. l. 1. p. 97. Ed. Hoeschel.  who was a master of propriety of speech, does not stick to call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For having represented it as a great and exceeding populous City, he adds, that Attilas was not able to take the place.  

(f) Prim. Ep. p. 27.  Lystra seems a place no more considerable; it was a small place, called by Ptolemy Ausira, by Strabo Isaura; yet St. Luke calls it a City more than once. Nay, Ptolemy 
(g) Ptol. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  places it among the Cities of Isauria, and distinguishes it from Isaura. Florus 
(h) Validissimas Urbes eorum, Phaselin, Olympon evertit. Isaurumque ipsam arcem Ciliciae, unde conscius sibi magni laboris Isaurici cognomen adamavit. Flor. l. 3. c. 6.  names Isaura among the Cities of Cilicia, and makes it the most considerable place of all those the Pirates held in those parts; and therefore Servilius who reduced those Robbers, took the name of Isauricas from it. Pliny 
(i) Oppida ejus intus Isaura, Olibanus, etc. Plin. l. 5. c. 27.  names Isaura among the Cities of Cilicia; and Stephanus 
(l) Steph. in Isaura, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and Diodorus Siculus 
(m) Diod. Sic. l. 18.  style it a City of Isauria; and Gregory 
(n) Greg. Regist. l. 12. Ep. 2, 3.  the Great mentions the Bishop of Isaura. But Strabo 
(o) Strab. l. 12.  mentions two places of this name, and calls them both Villages. I will only add a few words that follow in that Author; and then let the Brethren of the Congregational way make what use they please of this instance. Isauria, saith Strabo, 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  has two Villages of its name, but a great many other Villages were subject to these. And if the civil subjection of so many Villages should draw after it an Ecclesiastical and Religious dependence, the Diocese of Lystra might be large enough. So that after all our Author's diligence to find or to make Villages for St. Paul's Bishops, he does not appear to have ordained any in such inconsiderable places, nor 
(q) Prim. Ep. p. 28.  left the practice warranted by Apostolical example and authority.  
To proceed, 
(r) Prim. Ep. p. 28.  Artemidorus, says our Author giving an account of the Cities of Pisidia, reckons but eleven, whereas there are twenty two Bishoprics in the Catalogue of Leo. It is pity so great diligence should have so little good fortune. In summing up those Cities, he has lost two, for Artemidorus 
(s) Strab. l. 12.  reckons thirteen. But to pass by small mistakes, let us consider the main consequence. In Artemidorus his time, 
(t) Marcian. Heracl. Peripl.  who lived in the 169th Olympiad, i. e. about a hundred years before the Birth of our Lord, the Pisidians had but thirteen Cities. In Leo the Wise his time, who began 
(u) Baron. An. 886.  to reign in the year of our Lord 886, Pisidia had 22 Bishops; therefore half of them could not have Cities, but Villages for their seats. This way of reasoning must be of that sort which we call eternal, for it has no regard at all to time; and a thousand years with such Reasoners go for nothing. Antioch it seems, the Metropolis of the Country, was not built when Artemidorus described it; much less could Adrianople, and several others of later names, mentioned in the Civil and Ecclesiastical Notitiae. But that it may appear, how much the number of Cities was increased in this Country before Leo the Wise; let us appeal to the civil Notitia, 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. apud Car. a S. Paulo.  that goes under the name of Hierocles, where we have 26 Cities under a Consular Governor. And if all of them remained to Leo's time; some Bishops of that Province must have two Cities under his care. So far is Pisidia from affording Village-Bishops.  
After this, Cappadocia comes 
(y) Prim. Ep. p. 28.  under search for primitive Village-Bishops. Strabo divides Cappadocia Taurica into five Praefectures, three of which had no Cities, and yet there were many Bishoprics in them. It must be confessed, that in Strabo's time, the Praefectures of Melitene, Cataonia, and Isauritis, had no City; but it is as certain, that then they had no Bishops. That Writer published 
(z) Vass. de Hist. Graec.  his Geography in the fourth year of Tiberius, eleven years before our Saviour's Baptism, and was then a very old man, as Vossius computes by his being acquainted with Aelius Gallus, and seems to be farther confirmed from what he relates 
(a) Strab. l. 12.  of having seen Servilius Isauricus. But these Countries (saith our Author) had many Bishops afterwards, tho' they had no Cities. That they had Bishops cannot be denied; that they had no Cities then, our Author does not so much as pretend to prove, unless we admit his usual way of reasonirg; that because these Praefectures had no Cities before the preaching of Christ, therefore they had none ever since. But there is sufficient evidence, that these Regions, Melitene, Cataonia, and Isauritis had Cities not long after Strabo's time. Stephanus 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Steph.  says, that Melitene was a City of Cappadocia: Ptolemy 
(c) Ptol. l. 5.  places it among the Cities of the lesser Armenia, to which in the later distribution of the Empire it did belong; and two other are named as Cities belonging to that Praefecture. Lucas Holstenius 
(d) Postea tamen Melitene extitit, urbs satis nobilis. H. Vales. in Euseb: l. 5. c. 5. Holsten. in Steph.  says, that the Romans built this City, and confirms it by Salmasius, 
(e) Salm. in Jul. Capitol. in vit. Marci, & Plin. exercit. p. 630.  who calls it a City of Cappadocia: And Ammianus Marcellinus 
(f) Ammian. Marc. l. 19, & 20.  calls it a Town of the lesser Armenia, in more than one place; and the Bishop of this place is made one of the Standards of Catholic Communion by the edict of Theodosius 
(g) Cod. Theod. l. 3. de fide Cath. & Soz. l. 7. c. 9  the great. And to conclude, the Notitia of Hierocles names it as the first City of Armenia the lesser. When Justinian 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Novel. 31. c. 1.  made a new distribution of Armenia, in that which he called the third, but he saith was before the second, i e. the lesser Armenia, This City is made the Metropolis, and commended by the titles of ancient and renowned; and he placeth 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  six Cities under it, which he there names, and adds, that there is no alteration as to this Province; but before his time it consisted of six Cities. All that is new in this Order, is the raising the dignity of its Title, and making it Spectabilis, and styling the Governor Comes Justinianeus. Eustathius 
(l) Eustath. in Dion. v. 694.  gives the sum of this Edict; but the Copist has writ Justin for Justinian, in this and several other places. As for the Praefecture of Cataonia, it had several known Cities in Ptolemy 
(m) Ptol. l. 5.  the Geographer's time. Cabassus, Cybistra, Claudiopolis, and several others less known, are placed in that Region, which we find in later Notitiae, some belonging to Cappadocia, some to Isauria. And as for that part which was called Isauritis or Isauria, Ptolemy mentions three Cities there. Ammianus Marcellinus 
(n) L. 14. c. 8.  names two as principal Cities, Seleucia and Claudiopolis. But in Hierocles his Notitia there are no less than 23. These bounds of Countries were frequently altered; and therefore we find Cities sometimes ascribed to one, sometimes to another Province. Therefore these three Prefectures may be fairly dismissed, having nothing to say for Village-Episcopacy; and though there had been Bishops there without Cities, their Dioceses might have been of no less extent than those where the Bishops had Cities for their seats. And 'tis hard to think, that three Provinces having no City, could not be capable of Diocesan Bishops.  

(o) Prim. Ep. p. 28, & 29.  In the other two Praefectures, there was Doara, which is a Village in Basil. That this place had an Arian Bishop in Basil's time, cannot be denied; and as may be conjectured, by comparing some passages 
(p) Bas. 10. & 39, 5. Greg. Naz. Ep. 28, ad Simplic.  in Basil and Gregory's Epistles, seemed to have been erected by that faction in opposition to the Bishop of Nyssa, to whom it seems to have been subject. And if in a matter so obscure it may be allowed to guests, this is the place of Simplicia, to whom Gregory Nazianzen writes, (for a woman and she an Arian commanded in Doara, and such was Simplicia) that when the Arian Bishops died, Basil might ordain an Orthodox person to succeed there.  
Now, for the first and second Cappadocia, we have a certain account of the number of their Bishops in the middle of the fifth Century. For in the Synodical Epistle 
(q) Ep. Synod. Cappad. 1. ad Leon. in calce Conc. Chalced.  of the first, to Leo the Emperor, Alypius Bishop of Caesarea says, that he had two Bishops in his Province; one he sent to the Emperor according to his Order, the other was sick. In the second Cappadocia, the Bishop of Tyanae subscribes 
(r) Convocatis in unum Episcopis secundae Cappadociae, etc. Ep. Episc. 2dae Capp. ad Leon. Imp.  with seven Suffragans, and speaks in the name of all the Bishops of that Province, which he says he called together upon that occasion; among these the Bishop of Doara subscribes. And though this place was but a Village, as there were some more in the same Province; yet I hope the Bishops had Dioceses large enough; since so great a Province was divided between so few; and of these scarce one half were primitive, but known to be erected in the fourth Century.  

(s) Ep. 406. Primit. Ep. p. 29.  Basil advises Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium to constitute Bishops for that Province in little Towns and Villages. The Province there recommended, is Isauria, which Basil more than once challengeth as belonging to him. By some accident not known, this Country became destitute of Bishops; it may be upon the recovery of those Churches from the Arians, for it was once overspread with that Heresy; and the Council of Seleucia might contribute not a little towards it. This Province then being destitute of Bishops, Basil confers with Amphilochius about the best means of filling up the vacancies; and deliberates, whether it were more adviseable to ordain a Metropolitan only, and refer the rest to him; or else to ordain Bishops 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bas. Ep. 400.  in lesser Cities or Villages where there had been any before, That is, in such Cities as were less than the Metropolis, or in such as were rather to be styled Villages, yet might have large dependences. And the words in the Original (tho' otherwise rendered by the Latin Translator) seem to imply not little Cities or Villages, but districts of little Cities or Villages. The Bishops of these places were the Suffragans of Seleucia, which is called the City by way of eminence, being the Metropolis, and the rest called little Cities in comparison of this. So Nazianzen 
(u) Greg. Naz. Carm. de vita sua, p. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  calls the suffragan Cities of Cappadocia, little Cities, where they are mentioned with relation to their Metropolis. Nor were all these to have Bishops, but such as were Episcopal seats before. These are sometines styled Cities, as it were of courtesy. Under that Title they pass in Hierocles his Notitia, and some of them in Ptolemy. Sometimes they are called Oppida, as in Ammian. Marcell. and here expressed by Villages, yet the chiefest places in those parts of the Country. In the old Notitia so often cited, this Country has 29 Bishops; but of those Sees, several belonged anciently to other Provinces. In the Synodical 
(x) Omnes pariter congregati. Ep. Episc. Isaur. ad Leon.  Epistle of Isauria to Leo the Emperor, tho' by the names of the Cities it appears that this Province was enlarged, yet we find but seventeen Bishops.  

(y) Prim. Ep. p. 29.  Sasima is Angusta Villula in Nazianzen, who was ordained Bishop there. It is true, that this was a Village, and made 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Naz. Carm. de vita sua.  an Episcopal See, upon the quarrel 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  between Basil and Anthimus. But it was not so from the beginning; for before Gregory it never had a Bishop, but belonged to Tyana, from whence it was distant 
(b) From Sasima to Andabalis 16. m. from Andabalis to Tyana, 16 m. Anton. lilner.  about two and thirty miles. It was situate on the confines of both Dioceses; and being erected late, and upon a competition of Jurisdiction, makes but a sorry instance of primitive Congregational Episcopacy. For this Bishopric is wholly owing to the contention of two Metropolitans; and Gregory 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  complains that Basil had done it without necessity, having no less than fifty Chorepiscopi 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  belonging to his great Diocese. The Country place of Simplicia seems to be no other than Doara, of which we have spoken before. And for the other places which Basil made Bishops seats, and those Bishoprics were not a few; no body could ever find them out. And notwithstanding the expression of Nazianzen, of the Country having more Bishops by this contention, they could not be many, and perhaps no more than one. For in the subscriptions to the Synodical Epistles 
(e) Ep. Synod. etc.  of the two Cappadocia's to Leo, the first in which Caesarea was Metropolis, there were but two Suffragans; and the second under Tyana has but seven; and the Bishops of Sasima and Doara are among the subscribers. So two large Provinces had not after all these new erections, above eleven Bishops. But Gregory 
(f) Prim. Ep. p. 30.  applauds this multiplying of Bishoprics as an excellent art, souls being hereby better looked after. He does indeed in the funeral oration of Basil, set this in the best light, as becomes a Panegyric. But in his verses he is more blunt, and makes it unnecessary for one who had fifty Chorepiscopi, to make a Bishop of so poor a place as Sasima. And though 
(g) Naz. Carm. de vita sua, vide supra.  care of souls was the pretence, the true reason was love of pre-eminence. The charitable reflection with which our Author concludes his range of Cappadocia, that others would have souls less regarded, and the Bishop's honour more, becomes the temper of a Fanatic. A venomous beast may be in danger from his own poison; if he have no vent, rather than burst, let him discharge. For my part, I believe a Dissenter may be of kin to the Cappadocian in the Greek Epigram, whose blood poisoned a viper that happened to by't him.  

(h) Prim. Ep. p. 30.  In Pontus Polemoniacus, Pityus and Sebastopolis, were Bishops seats, and yet they were not Cities in Justinian's 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nou. 28.  account. That they were Bishops seats in Justinian's time, or some time after, does no where appear that I know. In the old Notitia 
(l) Car. a S. Paulo.  of the Patriarchat of C. P. it neither was a Bishop's See; nor yet in the Notitia, said to be compiled under Leo the wise. For in both these there are but five Bishop's seats in that Province, according to the number of Cities mentioned in that Novel of Justinian. And before that, in the time of Leo the first; there were but four Bishoprics, as appears from the subscriptions to the Synodical letter to that Pope. Indeed there is a Bishop of Pityusa among the subscriptions of the first Nicene Council; but those subscriptions have little credit, being judged by learned men to belong to the second, and not the first Council of Nice.  

(m) Prim. Ep. p. 30.  Coracesium is but a Castle in Strabo; yet it had a Bishop in Leo Sophus his catalogue: And Thymbria is a Village in Strabo, and had a Bishop in the Council of Chalcedon. Amyzon, and Heraclea in Caria were no more than Castles in Strabo, and yet are Bishops seats in Miraeus. Heraclea ad Lathmum, Ceramus and Bargesa, are called little Cities by Strabo 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and were Bishops seats. I have already showed the weakness of such Allegations, from the great distance of time between Strabo and Leo Sophus, which was near 900 years, which may very fairly be allowed to make great changes in the circumstances of these places. How many Villages are become Cities? How many Cities are sunk into Villages, or into places utterly desolate? Yet our Author will make no allowances, but all things must be taken in aftertimes, as they were in Strabo; and the being recorded in that Book, leaves an indelible character of a City or a Village. Some considerable Cities are said to be owing to the dreams of great men; but our humble Author can dream of nothing but Villages; and those which he finds to have been such before the beginning of Christianity, he is resolved, as far as the power of dreams will go, to keep under in the same low condition, lest they should become the possession of Diocesan Bishops. Yet after all, several of these places, as Amyzon and Heraclea, are said to be Cities by Strabo, 
(o) L. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (scil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  though not equal to the three which he calls the considerable; and Ptolemy names them both among the Cities of Asia; and both the Heraclea's mentioned by our Author were in Caria, the one ad Lathmum, and the other in Hierocles his Notitia and the subscription of the Council of Chalcedon, writ with the addition of Salbacis, by Ptolemy Albanum, but restored by Holstenius 
(p) Holsten. in Steph. de Vrb. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Salmacis. And there is indeed Thymbria a Village of Caria, mentioned by Strabo; 
(q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 14.  but whether this had a Bishop, or was under Ephesus, is a great question; it was four Stadia's from Myus, which in Strabo's time was dispeopled, and added to Miletus, in whose room this may possibly arise. And Coracesium is named by Ptolemy, l. 5. among the Maritime Cities of Cilicia.  

(a) Prim. Ep. p. 30.  Docimia is a Village in Strabo, and a Bishop's seat, often mentioned in subscriptions of Councils. Our Author proceeds upon his own principle, not yet received in the world, that what was once a Village, must always remain so: And therefore makes no difficulty to argue from Strabo to the subscriptions of Councils in the fourth and fifth Century. Now, unknown to our Author, this Village of Strabo was grown into a City long before those subscriptions he speaks of. For Stephanus 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Steph.  calls it a City of Phrygia, and citys Eudaemon, the same I guess, that is mentioned by Suidas, and is contemporary with Julian and Libanius. But before this time it was a City; for Ptolemy 
(c) Ptol. l. 5.  who lived under Marcus Aurelius, placeth it among the Cities of the greater Phrygia; and there are Medails 
(d) Holsten. in Steph. de urb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of Marcus Aurelius and Trajan and of Nero, with the name of this City upon the reverse; which show it to have out grown the condition of a Village soon after Strabo's time. And if our Author had taken notice of the subscriptions of the Council of Chalcedon, 
(e) Conc. Chalc. Act. 3.  he had found it there a City; and one Eustochius styling himself Bishop of that City; and the same thing may be found in the Council of Ephesus. 
(f) Eustasius Ep. Civitatis Docimi. Conc. Ephes.   

(g) Prim. Ep. p. 31.  There is Nea a Castle in Suidas and Stephanus, and another in Pliny and Strabo, which is a Village. In the Council of Chalcedon there was a Bishop of Nea under Laodicea, and another under Ephesus. The Nea in Suidas and Stephanus, is no other than that mentioned by Strabo and Pliny; for these place it in Troas, the other in Mysia. Now this part of Troas was called anciently the lesser Mysia; and that Nation, as Pliny observes, was so considerable in the ancient times, that all the Country was called by their name Mysia; and Strabo makes it difficult to find the borders of the Mysians. Now, whether it were one or different Villages, it doth not appear that they had any Bishops from those subscriptions of the Council of Chalcedon. For the Nea of Strabo, 
(h) Strab. l. 12.  which was in Troas, between Polychna and old Scepsis, could not be under either Laodicea or Ephesus, but must belong to the Bishop of Cyzicus; and the Bishop of Scepsis subscribes the first Ephesine Council as Suffragan of Cyzicus. Pliny is misreported in this place by Mr. Clerkson; for he not where says that Nea is a Village; but Oppidum 
(i) In Nea oppido Troadis, l. 2. c. 96. Neae oppidum l. 5 c. 30.  which is a word which he very frequently useth for Cities, and rarely for any other than considerable Towns. But to clear this matter beyond cavil, the Nea under Laodicea was not a Village but a City; which our Author might have seen in the subscriptions of Chalcedon. 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Conc. Chalc. Act. 6.  Here Nunnechius subscribes for Antiochus' Bishop of the City of Nea, and for the other under Ephesus, without the first letter. And though it be Nea in Crabbe, and some old Latin subscriptions, yet in the Greek 
(m) Conc. Chalc. Act. 6.  it is called Anaea; and Zoticus in that place subscribes as Bishop of the City of Anaea, called so from an Amazon of that name. It is mentioned by Stephanus and Suidas; 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Suid.  the later calls it a City, the other gives it no Title, but gives the situation of it, that it belonged to Caria, and was over-against Samos. So unfortunate is our Author in comparing Villages in Strabo with the subscriptions of Councils.  

(o) Prim. Ep. p. 31.  Pannonion, he would have said Paemanium or Pamaninum, is a Castle in the Territory of Cyzicus, says Stephanus; and there is a Bishop of that title under the Metropolitan of Cyzicus in Leo's Diatyposis. Stephanus 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Steph.  says, it is a City or a Fortress, and it is also a place belonging to Cyzicus. If it be the same place which our Author expresseth by so many names; the last must signify the Region belonging to that Town or Castie. Pliny tells us, that the Pemanetij were a colony of Macedonians, and reckons them among the most considerable Towns of Hellespont; and for any thing that appears, it might be a City when it had a Bishop.  

(q) Prim. Ep. p. 31.  There is a Bishop of Gordi under Sardis, and of Midei under Synnada in Phrygia, which are in Strabo, 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 12.  the dwellings of Gordus and Midas, which in Strabo 's time had, no footsteps of Cities remaining, but were Villages a little greater than ordinary. Bishop of Gordi and Midei is such a form of Speech, as Bishop of Londini and St. Davidis. But to pass by small faults, I cannot but take notice, that Our Author read with the wrong end of the Perspective, when he observeth it, for the diminution of these places, that they had been the dwellings of Midus and Gordus, that is, that they were royal Cities. But in Strabo's time they were little better than Villages. It may be so, and yet those Bishops might have good Cities for their seats, and large Dioceses to govern. But the truth is, that Gordus which had a Bishop, and Gordium which was the seat of Gordius, and father of Midas, and was reduced to a Village in Strabo's time, are not the same place; though our Author according to his ordinary misfortune, has mistaken the one for the other. One was in Phrygia near the borders of Cappadocia; the other was in Lydia, and under the Metropolis of Sardis. This indeed had a Bishop, but was a City long before. For Strabo tells us, it was the place where Cleo the famous Robber was born, who of a Village made it a City, and called it Juliopolis, and is generally known by the name of Julia Gordi, or Julia Gordus; so it is in Ptolemy: 
(s) Ptolom. l. 5.  And Pliny 
(t) Nunc sunt xv. Civitates, inter quas Gordia-come, quae Juliopolis. Plin. l. 5. c. 32.  calls it Gordia-Come, and Juliopolis, i. e. by the old and new name. Socrates' 
(u) Socr. l. 7. c. 36.  mentions a Bishop of this place translated to Praeconesius: And Valesius in his version calls him: the Bishop of the City of Gordus. As for Midaeum, though it was low in Strabo's time, yet afterwards it has the title of a City; for so it is in Stephanus and Ptolemy: And Pliny 
(x) conveniunt Midaei, Julienses, etc. Plin. l. 5. c. 29. & l. 5. c. 32.  places it among the most famous Cities of that Country, which were under the resort of Synnada. And Holstenius takes notice of a Medal of Caracalla with the name of this people on the reverse.  
After having mistaken so many Cities for Villages, our Author is pleased most acutely to remark, that there were Villages of several sizes then, as there are now. Tom Coryat in all his Travels never could make such an observation, for want of learning it may be and study, as if reading were necessary to perfect impertinence. And Mr. Sorbiere tho' a Virtuoso, and descending to take notice of things very mean, has no reflection, that I can remember, so humble as this. But Critics are not to be neglected, when they trifle; and therefore let us attend.  

(y) Prim. Ep. p. 31.  Some Villages were very little; such as Zonaras calls 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Monaecia, scattered or alone houses, or such as those mentioned in the Constitutions of Izaac Commenus, which had but twenty or ten Chimneys. The Council of Chalcedon, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. 17.  to end some disputes that happened between Bishops about the bounds of their Dioceses, orders that such Country Parishes shall remain to him, in whose possession they had been for thirty years. Now because the Canon hath two words to express Country Parishes, Zonaras had a fancy, that they must be different in sense; and therefore takes one to signify such small places 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as he calls Monaecia, places remote from the Bishop's seat, and placed in the outmost skirts of his Diocese, and having few Inhabitants: The other such 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zon.  as are nearer Villages, and have more Inhabitants. How much this may be to the point of Village Episcopacy, let the Reader judge. That it describes a large Diocese that has Country parishes remote, and of uncertain resort, is I think so clear, that it would be unreasonable to require a clearer instance. However these places are so small, that our Author himself does not think it fit they should have Bishops.  
Concerning the dimension of Villages, our Author proceeds, and observes, 
(d) Prim. Ep. p. 31.  that there were some pretty big, as those of the Phocenses in Pausanias, which consisted of fifty houses. This Country might have been the Holy Land of the Independents, if their better fortune had not restored them to their Cities again, before the rising of our Christian light. There might have been as much resort to Phocis upon the account of Village Episcopacy, as was heretofore to Delphis for Oracles. But as the case stands, it serves only as an occasion for our Author to show his learning, and to make this great remark, that Villages consisting of fifty houses, are pretty big, though he is not pleased to resolve, whether they are yet big enough for a Bishop of his own way.  
It is marvellous, that there should be 
(e) Prim. Ep. p. 32.  some greater yet, such as Justinian 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nou. 24.  calls the greatest Villages. Who could have imagined that there had been in old times Villages so great as to exceed fifty houses, if the authority of Justinian had not been produced? Poor Justinian! After having built so many Cities, art thou to be alleged a poor witness for larger Villages than those of Phocis? No Italian Professor ever cited upon meaner occasions.  

(f) Prim. Ep. p. 33.  The Synod of Laodicea, which forbade the making of Bishops in some Villages, gives evidence, that in such places there were Bishops. This was the only Synod in the East, that prohibited Bishops to be made in Villages;— and indeed the prohibition was understood of lesser Villages. 
(g) In villulis.  That there were Bishops in some Villages, no body I think ever denied: That every Village should have a Bishop, I think our Author does not desire. Those of twenty or fifty houses may be excused. What then is it he contends for? Is it that every Village of more than fifty houses may have a Bishop of its own? Let him have his fancy, I will not oppose. But than it is to be remembered, that the question is not, whether this may be done, or whether the Synod of Laodicea had forbid it; but whether it ought to be so of right, or was the practice of the primitive Church? Were there in Egypt but a hundred Cities and Villages that could furnish a decent Congregation, when their Bishops were no more? Or in other Provinces where the number of the Bishoprics are known, were there so few Villages of such a size? Or were they all reduced to the standard of Phocis, or Zonaras his Monoecia? It is a very poor, and begging way of reasoning, to urge, that primitive Bishops ought to have but one Congregation, because some Villages are not under the prohibition of the Canon of Laodicea. And in truth it had been very hard to deny all Villages the privilege of Bishops, since some Countries had no Cities; and therefore, if those Countries had any, they must be in Villages; but they were nevertheless Diocesan. In those Countries where there were Cities, Village-Bishops are very rare and unusual, especially in the first Centuries. But after the Arians had divided Egppt, Mareotes became an Episcopal seat; and when Donatus had distracted afric, one old Bishopric is torn into three or four: Not in compliance with ancient rule or practice; for it was not so much as pretended; but to serve the ends of parties. And therefore it was time for Synods to put a check to these Innovations and Irregularities, and to secure the peace of the Church by forbidding new erections, and by confining turbulent and enterprizing men within the bounds of ancient use.  
Our Author does 
(h) Prim. Ep. p. 32.  wrong to Zonaras, when he quotes him for this observation, that it was not needful there should be great multitudes; but 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  small Parishes, and not very populous, might have Bishops. Whereas this Author useth those expressions of small, and not populous Parishes, where he speaks not of such as might have Bishops, but of those that were remote from the Bishop's seat, and contested by two Bishops. However our Author observes, 
(l) Prim. Ep. p. 32.  that such little places were allowed Bishops, with the consent of him who had the chief seat; so he, i. e. Zonaras 
(m) Zonar. in Can. 17. Chalced.  on the 61. Canon of the Council of Carthage. It is true, that in that Canon two African Bishops say, they had heard of a decree, forbidding any Bishops to be made in Parishes, 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  without the consent of the Bishop to whom they belonged; and that some in their Dioceses having been made Bishops by the consent of their Predecessors, were not content with the Parishes in which they were ordained, but invaded other parts of the Dioceses out of which their Bishoprics were taken. Whereupon it was ordained, that such new erected Bishops should be confined to that people for which they were ordained. Now these Parishes Zonaras calls 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Territoriam. Cyr. Philox. Gloss.  small Territories, or districts, which may consist not of one small Village, but of several; for both the word of the Canon, and that of the Commentator, may bear that sense. But after all, it is not to be doubted, that in afric there were Bishops of small Territories, and seated in Villages; yet the same evidence that we have for these small Bishoprics, discover them to be new, and taken out of larger Dioceses; so that in older times even the Dioceses of that Country were large. Besides, the allowance of these erections was not from the fitness of the thing itself, much less from any Apostolic rule; but for reasons peculiar to that Country and those times. For the Donatists had so distracted the Church of that Country, that the Catholics found themselves under a necessity of suffering many things, though contrary to the old practice of that Church, by way of temporary Oeconomy and Dispensation. And the same Canon makes farther proof, that even after these new Bishoprics permitted in Villages, the old ones from which they were taken, remained still Diocesan; and therefore takes care, that all the remaining Parishes or Dioceses, for both words are used, should belong to the first Bishop; and that only 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that one district or Parish taken one of many, should belong to the new Bishop.  

(q) Prim. Ep. p. 33.  For Europe and the more Eastern parts of it, he gives some instances jumbled together as it were in haste, and without marking the places where they are to be found. But these are like the rest, and if it were possible, less to the purpose. Melanicus is a Castle in Cedrenus, but was no Bishopric either in primitive or ancient times. Tzulurum is a Castle in Zonaras; but is not found to have had any Bishop before the seventh general Council, or the second Nicene, near eight hundred years after Christ. Byzia and Macrontichos are likewise Castles in Aemylius Probus. These instances are too early, as the other are too late. Alcibiades indeed is said by that Author in his Life, to have built Castles in those places; but that they ever after remained Castles or Villages, no body has hitherto said. But these places happened to become Cities, without any notice given to our Author, though he might have found it, if he had consulted the book he sometimes quotes. Biza is called a City of Thrace by Ptolemy, 
(r) Ptol. l. 3.  Stephanus 
(s) Steph. in Beza.  and Suidas, and is joined with Arcadiopolis in the subscriptions of the Council of Chalcedon; those two Cities having immemorially belonged to one Bishop, according to the Testimony given by the Bishops of that Country in the first Ephesine Council: And in the fifth general Council, this place was a Metropolis. So accurate is our Author in his account of his Episcopal Villages and Castles. The other was a City before it could well have a Bishop. For in Pliny's 
(t) Plin. l. 4. ●. 11.  time it was so accounted, and called Bizantha. Diabolis, another of our Author's Castles in Nicephorus he says, but tells us not which, nor where; for there are more writers than one of that name, is to be found in no ancient Author, and it therefore signifies little to the present purpose. And if there were a hundred more Bishops in Castles in Europe, there would be no danger to Diocesan Episcopacy; nor can I think, that any one of those Episcopal Forts could be brought to declare for the Congregational way. It was well for the Bishops of some Countries, that they had Castles in their Dioceses to retire to in the time of need. And Gregory 
(u) Greg. Reg. l. 2. c. 12.  the Great directs his Bishops to remove from their Cities, into such places within their Dioceses as were fortified. If they had been Bishops of single Parishes in Italy at that time; this direction had not been very proper. Alalcomenae, no great Village of Boeotia in Pausanias, is added to the Episcopal Villages; yet I do not find any Bishop of it in ancient times, although it be a City in Stephanus; who follows perhaps some ancienter Author, who speaks of it in its first and more flourishing estate. And to conclude, we have Cenchrea put upon us for a Bishop's seat out of Clemens 
(x) Clem. Const. l. 7. c. 48.  his Constitutions, who speaking in the person of St. Paul, pretends to have made Lucius Bishop of that place. Such counterfeits as this when they once presume to personate the Apostles, care not where, nor whom they make Bishops. But the world is now grown too wise, to take Fable for History, and Forgery for ancient Records.  
Our Author (y) seems to be displeased with the Council of Sardica, because it was the only Synod in Europe for 600 years after Christ, that forbade the making of Bishops in small Towns and Villages. Indeed there appears little reason from those parts in which the Synod was held, given for such a prohibition. For our Author could not find one Village-Bishop in those parts, within the six hundred years he speaks of; for his instances, and his Authors are but late, and improper vouchers of Antiquity. Learned men are of opinion, that the occasion of this Canon against making Bishops in Villages, proceeded not from Europe, but from Egyyt, and that the Bishops had the case of Ischyras in their view, when they made this order. The Arians had begun a foul practice in Athanasius his Diocese, taking away a part from it, and erecting it into a new Bishopric; and perhaps this was not the only instance. Wherefore the good Bishops in Sardica thought they had reason and authority sufficient to oppose such ill-intended Innovations, that tended to overthrow all that had been settled of old time, and to introduce endless confusion and dispute. If our Author has a dislike to all things that tend to secure old Establishment; he was in the true spirit of his party, which is too active to endure any settled and perpetual order. But our Author is half reconciled to this Synod, and doubts whether this can be counted a Prohibition; because in the 
(u) Prim. Ep. p. 34.  Latin, which is the Original, the restraint is laid upon foreign Bishops, that they shall not erect such Bishoprics in another Province. Because our Author endeavours to raise a mist here about a very plain matter; it may not be amiss to lay down the sum of that Canon, 
(z) Can. Sard. 6. Gr. 5, & 6. Lat.  and to rescue it from cavil. The Bishops assembled at Sardica thought fit to order, that if in a Province which had several Bishops, there should happen to be left but one, (which cannot be supposed, if such Bishops were but as Rectors of our Parishes) and that sole remaining Bishop should refuse to ordain others, such as the people should desire; that then the people might apply themselves to the Bishops of the next Province. And then it follows, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Licentia non est danda. Verse. Vet.  that it shall be by no means lawful to ordain any Bishops in Villages or small Cities, that the dignity of a Bishop may not grow contemptible from the meaness of the place. Our Author then would have it, that only Extra-provincial Bishops are concerned in this prohibition. But why, is it because the dignity of a Bishop is less contemptible from a Village when strangers place him there, then when those of his Province do it? The reason then of this prohibition is from the place and not the Ordainers; altho' it might be more necessary to apply it to Foreigners than Provincials, who would take greater care to preserve ancient bounds. So that if this be not an absolute Prohibition, it will be hard to know what is. The reason is general, and holds alike, whoever may be the Ordainers. But 
(b) Prim. Ep. p. 34, 35.  they except such places where there had been Bishops already, and forbidden it to none for the future, but such for which one Presbyter is sufficient; and so there is room enough for Bishops in large and populous Villages. What our Author mincingly calls places where there had been Bishops already, the Canon both in the Greek and Latin Edition, calls Cities; and when he says there is room left by this Canon for Bishops in populous Villages, he knew the contrary to be true. For the Canon 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Si qua talis aut tam populosa civitas.  mentions only the case of a City; if a City shall be found very populous and worthy of a Bishop, let it have one. So that this Synod neither leaves room for Bishops in any Villages, nor signifies that it was usual before this to have Bishops in small places, unless such places were Cities. What our Author has in his margin, that this Synod decreed, that where there were twelve families, there was to be a Rector, is a mistake; 
(d) Vid. Crab. T. 1. p. 331.  for in this Synod there was no such Decree.  

(e) Prim. Ep. p. 35.  In Crect they tell us more than once, that there were a hundred Bishops; yet Pliny and Ptolemy found but forty Cities there. So that the far greatest part of Titus 's Suffragans must have their Thrones in Country-Villages. He seemeth to take it for granted on all hands, that Crete had indeed an hundred Bishops in Titus' time. On the contrary I know some 
(f) Thorndike Prim. Goverm. c. 4.  who make Titus the sole Bishop of the Island, and conceive the Churches of that place governed by Presbyters under that one Bishop. This is indeed contradicted by several ancient Writers. And some 
(g) Chrysost. Oecum. Theophil. Theodoret.  say expressly, that the Apostle would not commit so great an Island to one man. Eusebius 
(h) H. E. l. 3. c. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  seems to favour Mr. Thorndike's opinion, and makes Titus' Bishop of the Churches of Crete. In the third Century we find two Bishops of this Island mentioned, and each said 
(i) Ego & consacerdotes mei.  to be a Bishop of Churches. There might be many more, though they are not where mentioned. But in Leo the first's Reign, there seem to have been no more than eight; for so many subscribe the Synodical Epistle 
(l) Epistola. Synod. ad Leon. Imp. apud Car. a S. Paulo. Not. Ant.  of that Island. In an old Notitia of the Patriarchat of C. P. Crete has one and twenty Bishops; and in Hierocles his civil Notitia, this Island has twenty three. In the Notitia of Nilus Doxopatrius, 
(m) Leo Allat. de consens. Ecc. Orient. etc. l. 1. c. 24. Simon Hist. Crit. de Levant. & Moine Adu. Sacra.  Crete has ten Bishops. This Island according to Pliny l. 4. c. 12. was 270 miles in length, and fifty in breadth; and therefore the Dioceses one with another must be competent, when the Bishops were most numerous; and very large in old time, when they were but few.  
We are at last come to Italy; and one would scarce imagine, that any thing very Primitive should be found there, and especially in the Pope's own Province. Here our Author observes, 
(n) Prim. ep. p. 36.  that every petit Town has a Bishop; and he cannot discover, that there are more Bishops now than of old; nay in that, called in special the Roman Province, there are now fewer by many than anciently, as Miraeus tells us is evident, by comparing the old Provincial Code with the new, l. 4. p. 160. This Roman Province, of which our Author has taken upon him to speak, without understanding the matter, consists now of such Churches as were under the Bishop of Rome's immediate Jurisdiction, a great part of which were in the Country that lay next to Rome; but many are remote, and situated in other Provinces. Now these Churches our Author observes are now fewer than anciently. If he speaks of all those under the peculiar Jurisdiction of the Pope, it is a mistake; for they are now more numerous than heretofore. But if he mean only those Bishoprics that lie near Rome, in the next adjoining Provinces, of those there are fewer indeed belonging to the Pope, than did formerly; not because the Bishoprics were sunk, but many of them were made Archbishoprics, and others thrown under another Jurisdiction.  
Florence, which was in the old Roman Province, was made 
(o) Anno. 1421.  an Archepiscopal See, by Martin the fifth, and had four suburbicary Bishoprics given to it for Suffragans; besides as many more of newer erection. Sienna, belonging to Rome anciently, was made 
(p) Anno 1459.  an Archbishopric by Pius II. and had Grosseto and Soano for two of its Suffragans, which also belonged to the Roman Province. Urbin was made 
(p) Anno 1459.  an Archbishopric but in the last Century by Paul the third, and had six Bishoprics out of the Roman Province annexed to it. Fermo was made an Archbishopric by Sixtus the fifth, and had five Suffragans given it, all of new Erection. So that in the two ages next preceding this, within the Roman Province there were ten new Bishoprics made, and fifteen taken from the immediate Jurisdiction of the Pope, and subjected to new Archbishoprics. So that the Bishoprics remain, tho' they are not in the same Province. There were indeed about five old Bishoprics united to others in the Roman Province since the writing of the old Provincial; but we have seen ten new raised to make amends; and there are more yet unaccounted for, if there were occasion.  
But after all it signifies little to the present question, whether the Roman Province at this time have fewer Bishops, than it had when that old Provincial was made. For that which our Author calls old, is indeed but new in respect of Ecclesiastical Antiquity. Baronius places it in the eleventh Century, and that is 
(q) Ughell. Ital. Sacr. & Miraei. Not. l 4.  at least an age too high; for there are several Bishoprics even in the oldest Copies of it, that were not raised till the twelfth Century. Viterbo was not made an Episcopal seat till the latter end 
(r) Anno 1189, or 1191.  of that age; and yet it is in all the Copies of that Provincial; and Italy affords many instances of Bishoprics raised in that age, which are all to be found there. In England it has Ely and Carlisle, both made 
(s) Anno 1109, & 1133.  Episcopal seats in that Century; and in Ireland it has the four Archbishoprics, which were not erected till the middle 
(t) An. 1151. Matth. Par. in Steph. Rege, & Chron. Norman. p. 986.  of that Century. In this all the printed Copies, and six Manuscripts of the Lambeth and Cotton Library do agree. But for later Bishoprics there is a difference between the Copies, the later receiving these into the list, which in the other are not to be found. The first printed Copy came 
(u) Labbe Geogr. eccls. in fine Concil.  out in 1503. and that had a mixture of new and old Bishoprics. Miraeus pretended to publish the old Provincial more exactly; but either his Copy was not very old, or he did not publish it as he found it; for his Edition has many Bishoprics of the thirteenth and fourteenth Centuries. For in that, among the Bishoprics of the Roman Province Aquila is represented as united to Furconium; whereas Aquila was 
(x) Ughell. Ital. Sac. T. 1.  not made a Bishop's seat till the year 1257. Nor can it properly be said to be united, since it was before in the Diocese of Furconium. Montefiascone is named there; but was not made a Bishopric till the year 1376. Cortona is there, which was not erected till the year 1322. And Mons Cassini erected in the year 1322, is exhibited in the same Edition. Now Miraeus 
(y) Mir. Praef. ante Cod. Prov. p. 64.  because he did not find the Archbishopric of Florence and other erections of the fifteenth Century, took his Copy to be ancient, when it had so many instances of the Bishoprics of the age preceding. Nor did he print any one Copy, but jumble several of different ages together. So that in the Catalogue which he calls old, you have several Bishoprics that never subsisted together; for he has Auxima in the Roman Province; and at some distance after there is Recana. Whereas 
(z) Ughell. Ital. Sacr. T. 1.  the one was raised upon the suppression of the other, in the year 1240. Since Miraeus, Carolus a S. Paulo published 
(a) Geogr. Sacr. inter Notit.  two Copies of this Provincial, one from the French King's, and the other from Thuanus his Library; but both younger than the eleventh Century.  
Now to return to our Author's observation, that there are more Bishoprics in the Roman Province, in the old Provincial, than in the new; we have shown the contrary, if we take that Province for the extent of a Country represented in the old Provincial. For there are above twenty more in the new; but many of them have left their old relation, and are now under other Metropolitans; and many more have been new erected, than have been sunk. But since the oldest of these Provincials is no older than the twelfth Century; it will signify little to the point our Author had undertaken to prove, if it should be granted that the Bishoprics of the Roman Province were once more numerous than they are now. For the state of the Italian Dioceses about the year 1200. will afford but a poor argument for the extent of the primitive Bishoprics of that Country. The face of Ecclesiastical affairs here in the first three or six hundred years after Christ, might be very different from what it was at the end of the succeeding Centuries; and in particular, the Roman Province could not but receive a great change from the civil Revolutions of that Country. Now he who from the state of the Italian Churches five hundred years ago, will presume to represent Primitive Order and Apostolical Institutions, will quickly fall into mistakes, not only very absurd, but dangerous to the Reformation. The Papists would gladly venture all their Controversies upon this issue; and there would remain but little of Popery that, would not be found primitive, if the eleventh and twelfth Centuries might prescribe, and the practice of those ages be received as evidence of immemorial Custom.  
Our Author 
(b) Prim. Ep. p 96.  is pleased to tell us in general for Italy, I cannot discover that there are more Bishops from there than of old.— And in all the new Erections that I can find, discounting those which are upon old foundations, amount not to the number of those which are either dissolved or united. It is not easy to discover such matters as these without search, which he did not think fit to make; for if he had pleased to examine, he could not but have found, that the Bishoprics of Italy are much more numerous now, than they were four or five ages ago. In the Kingdom of Naples, where the Dioceses are many and little, we may find this by comparing their present number with what they had in foregoing ages. There are now 
(c) Pierre d' Avity. Royaume de Naples. Luc. de Londa, p. 542. Annot. all. Istor. de Napole.  in that Kingdom 20 Archbishoprics and 127 Bishops, though within half an age before they had not so many; as may appear from the account of Thomaso Costo, and Miraeus out of Marinus Freccia; and Prosper Augustinus reckons of Archbishops and Bishops but 134. But if we compare the present number with what the old Copies of the Provincial represent, we shall find yet greater difference; of these the later have the greatest number, and the older they are, the fewer Dioceses they have. The latest I have seen, which was writ in Clemens the sixth" s time, who was made Pope Anno 1342. has no more Neapolitan Bishoprics and Archbishoprics, than 132. In an old Manuscript of the Lambeth Library, there are in that Kingdom but 123 Arch-Bishops and Bishops. In another, which is the oldest I have seen, there are but 116. So that within the compass of four or five hundred years, above thirty new Sees have been raised in that Kingdom. The Dissolutions, or Unions of which our Author speaks, can be no exception to this account, in which the total Sums are compared.  
As to the small Dioceses of the Kingdom of Naples, they are so far from being Primitive, that most of them were erected since the tenth Century. Campana a small Town, has no Diocese beyond the walls; yet was it not made a Bishopric till 
(d) ughell. Ital. Sacr. T. 7.  the year 1525. Vesta has no Diocese belonging to it, but is no older than Pascal 2d. and was raised 
(e) Id. T. 8, & 9  in the year 1110. Cava had not five hundred Communicants belonging to it; but was no Bishopric till the year 1394. And the small Bishoprics that belong to Beneventum, were not made till that was raised to an Archbishopric, which was in the tenth Century. And the same is observed by Vghellus 
(e) Id. T. 8, & 9  of many Bishoprics under Brundisium, Amalphi, and several other new Metropolitans in the South of Italy.  
Another cause of multiplying Bishops in that part of Italy, might proceed from the difference between the Greeks and Latins in the ninth and tenth Centuries, and the competition of Jurisdiction between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. Luitprandus 
(f) Luitpr. Leg. ad Niceph. Phoc. in Acerentilas, Acherunte, Turrico, Gravina, Maceria, & Tricarico.  relates, that Nicephorus Phocas ordered Polyectius Patriarch of Constantinople to raise Otranto to the dignity of an Archbishopric, and that he would not permit the Latin service to be any longer used in Appulia and Calabria. Whereupon the Patriarch sent the Bishop of Otranto a privilege to consecrate Bishops in six Towns of that Country, which are there named, and are said to belong to the Bishop of Rome. When the Western Emperors, and at last the Normans, got footing in the Greek Territories; the Greeks were soon shut up in their Towns. And thence it seems to come to pass, that several Episcopal Towns there have no Diocese or Territory at all. Not that it was always so while the Country was in the hands of the Greek Emperors; but because this was the expiring condition of the Greek Churches in those parts, the open Country being in possession of their Enemies, and thrown into the neighbouring Latin Dioceses. But Bishoprics were much thinner in Calabria an age or two before. For in the Notitia published by Gore, 
(g) Hist. Byz. ad calc. Codini.  and afterwards by Dr. Beveridge, 
(h) Synodic. T. 2.  Calabria has but eight Bishops.  
In the North of Italy the Dioceses are still large, but have been much greater in ancient times. For the Province of Milan, though it was much larger than it is now, in the middle 
(i) Anno 452.  of the fifth Century had but nineteen Suffragans; as appears from the subscriptions 
(l) Inter opera Leonis Pap. Ep. 52.  of the Synod of that Province under Eusebius Bishop of Milan. Among these is the Bishop of Regium and Brixellum, and Placentia, which belonged afterwards to Ravenna, and are now under the new 
(m) Bologna Erected. 1583.  Metropolis of Bologna. The Bishop of Turin was then a Suffragan, but is since made a Metropolitan by Sixtus IU. and borrowed some Suffragans from the old Province. Augusta, now Aosta, was then a Suffragan of Milan, but now belongs to Tarantaise. Genua was then a Suffragan, but is since 
(n) Anno 1132.  a Metropolis, and took away Albingaunum along with it; and Como that then belonged to the Synod of Milan, is now under Aquileia; besides many new Bishoprics raised within this Province, and taken out of the old Dioceses: As Alexandria de Capaglia raised 
(o) Anno 1175.  by Alexander the III. And Cazale raised 
(p) Anno 1474.  by Sixtus the fourth, who gave it sixty Castles or Burgs taken from the Jurisdiction of Aste and Vercelli; yet Vercelli after this diminution has 
(q) Ughel. Ital. Sac. T. 4.  a very large Diocese remaining; for it is forty miles in length, and thirtyfive in breadth.  
In the Province of Aquileia there were but fifteen Bishoprics in the time of Gregory the Great, when the controversy of the three points was so hot in Istria; and they are all named by Paulus Diaconus. 
(r) Paul. Diac. de Gest. Long. l. 3. c. 12. l. 18. Cont. Eutrop. in't. Rom. Script.  Many of the old Sees are still remaining, several are changed; but the number is still the same, and the Dioceses are large.  
To conclude, the ancient Dioceses of Italy were large, and not half so numerous as they are now. For they have been increasing every age since the writing of the Provincial; and even then they were exceedingly multiplied beyond what they had been in the first six or seven Centuries. There are now in Italy 31 Arch-Bishops, and 281 Bishops, which makes up 312. Now if we look back but two ages, we shall find the number much less; for in Biondi's time who died in the year 1463, there were but 264 Cities or Episcopal seats in all Italy. And Leandro Alberti 
(s) Leand. Alberti Descritt. d' Ital. Praefat.  who lived in the beginning of the fifteenth Century, could not make out above 300. And since that time it seems there were twelve added. The more ancient Copies of the Provincial fall short of Biondi's reckoning, some having but 250, and the oldest of all not above 200. So much is the number of the Italian Bishoprics increased within five hundred years.  
But if we go a little back, we shall find yet fewer Bishoprics in Italy. For in the Notitia published by Dr. Beveridge 
(t) Notae in Synodic.  out of the Oxford Copy, there are in all but fourscore Episcopal Sees. Carolus a S. Paulo Bishop of Aurenches (u) had suppressed this part in his edition, giving notice that every thing was so corrupt and confused, that he could make nothing of it. He is taxed by Dr. Beveridge, as if this omission had proceeded from want of sincerity. But whatever cause that French Bishop had to leave out this part, yet the Notitia had been published 
(x) Goar. ad Codin. Int. Hist. Byz. Anno 1644.  entire twenty years before the Dr's Edition, and much more correctly; for the Oxford Copy, having fallen into the hands of a raw Transcriber, came out with many more faults than its own. In this Notitia the Suburbicary Province has but two and twenty Bishops; Campania just so many; Annonaria under Ravenna has one more than those; and Aemylia has only three. The Provinces of Milan and Aquileia are wholly left out. It cannot be denied, that this Notitia is imperfect and very confused; and Salmasius 
(y) Salm. Prim. Pap.  who had seen it before Goar's Edition, gives that account of it. And therefore let us examine yet ancienter Records, to come to a more certain computation of the old Italian Bishoprics.  
In a Roman Council 
(z) Conc. Rom. sub. Agath. Anno 689. apud Conc. Gen. 6. Act. 4.  under Pope Agatho we have the subscriptions of the Italian Bishops by their Provinces; and we may judge by the subscriptions of such Provinces as are best known, as to the number of their old Dioceses, such as Milan and Aquileia, that this was a plenary Synod, and all the Bishops of Italy present in it, but such as age or necessity did excuse: And the Pope calls 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  it the Generality of the Synod; yet all the Italian Bishops here were but about an hundred and twelve.  
The first Roman Synod 
(a) Conc. Rom. 1. sub. Sym. Anno 499.  under Symmachus was of the Roman Province properly so called. For no Metropolitan subscribed besides Symmachus, nor any Bishop of any known Italic Province; no Suffragan of Milan, Aquileia or Ravenna. In this there were 72 Bishops, whose names and titles remain. These subscriptions do sufficiently show, that the Roman Province at that time was much wider than the Jurisdiction of the City Perfect, and reached a great way farther than a hundred miles from Rome. For there were most of the Bishops of Campania Felix, which was all of it beyond the Lapis Centesimus, as Salmasius 
(b) Salm. Ep. de Reg. Suburb.  does allow. Beyond this yet there was the Bishop of Acheruntia in Calabria, of Vibon in Brutia, of Canusium in Apulia; and on the other side of Rome there was the Bishop of Ariminum, and several others, whose seats were far beyond the Provinces assigned by Salmasius to the Roman Diocese. A general Synod 
(c) Anastas. in Symmach.  of Italy under the same Pope had 115 Bishops, which is the only Synod besides that mentioned above, that the Writer of his life takes notice of under that Pope; 
(d) Syn. Rom. 4. sub. Sym.  but certainly the most remarkable for number of any then held. It was this confirmed Symmachus his Election, and condemned his Competitor and his Guardians; and the occasion being extraordinary, it cannot be doubted, but the greatest part 
(e) Totius fere Italiae Episcopi, Ennod. Ticin. 2. Synod. Defensor.  of the Bishops of Italy were there. And though the subscriptions be imperfect; yet from those that are left, we may find that there were some from every Province. The greatest objection it seems, which the Enemies of this Synod could make against it, was 
(f) Testis est Roma, si omnes Episcopi senes & debiles convenerunt. Ennod.  that all the old and infirm Bishops were not there; and than that all were not called by the King's Writ, attending to two or three only who were too far engaged in the cause to become Judges of it; which Ennodius exposes rather as Cavils than Arguments: Which he could not have done with any sincerity or modesty, if much the greater part had not been assembled upon that occasion. There is indeed a Synod 
(g) Synod. 5. sub Symmacho.  under this Pope, whose Title bespeaks 218 Bishops; but there might have been as many more, if borrowed subscriptions might pass muster; this is the case. For more than half the subscriptions of this Council are taken from that of Chalcedon, and there are not a hundred of Italy; the rest were discharged from the Synodical attendance, and now no longer able to answer to their Names.  
Under Damasus we have another general Council 
(h) Conc. Rom. sub Dam. Anno 369. Theod. H. E. l. 2. c. 22. Collect. Rom. Holsten. p. 163. Vales. Annot. in Soz. l. 6. c. 23.  of Italy, consisting of 93 Bishops, in which Auxentius was deposed. But besides Italians, there were some  Bishops in this Council; and it cannot be doubted, but Damasus assembled all he could, in a cause that required the authority of the greatest number he could make, since the Arians had for some time began to plead a majority. And it is certain some came from far; for the Bishop of Aquileia was there.  
Under Julius the first, we have a Roman Synod, 
(i) Julii Epistola apud Athan. Ap. 2.  that seems to be general; in which above fifty Bishops were assembled, where Vito presided as the Bishop of Rome's Deputy. This seems to be the same Vito, who was sent Legate to the Council of Nice. Here Athanasius was received into Communion. And Julius 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in his Letter to the Bishops of the East, alluding to this Synod, tells them, that what he writ as in his own name, was the judgement of all Italy. Valesius would not have Vito preside in this Council; but would render the words so, that those Bishops assembled in Vito's Parish-Church. But I do not see any reason to departed from Nannius his Translation of this passage. The Copy that he translated is very different from the Greek that is printed, and may possibly have a relative which may take away the ambiguity of that Expression. I have seen some Greek pieces of Athanasius in Manuscript, varying often from the printed Copy, but exactly answering Nannius his version in all those variations; which I have mentioned here upon this occasion, that the frequent variations of that Version from the Original may not be thought to proceed from affectation of liberty or mistake. To return then to the purpose for which this passage was produced, if the judgement of between fifty and sixty Bishops be represented as the sentence of all the Bishops of Italy; surely in those days their number must be very much short of what they are at present.  
I will conclude this Disquisition concerning the Bishoprics of Italy with the Roman Synod 
(m) Anno 251.  under Cornelius; which by Eusebius 
(n) Euseb. l. 6. c. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is called a very great Synod; and by Cyprian 
(o) Cornelius cum plurimis Episc. Cypr. Ep. 55. Ed. Ox.  said to consist of very many Bishops. They were in all sixty; which could never have been observed as a very great Synod, if every good Village or Town in Italy, where there were some thousands of such, had been provided of a Bishop. But whether this were a Synod of the Province of Rome only, or of all Italy, is a question about which learned men are divided. The words of Eusebius are ambiguous and not easy to be determined. For he says, that Cornelius sent Letters to Fabian Bishop of Antioch, giving 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  an account of the Synod at Rome, and the judgement of all in Italy and afric. St. Jerom speaking of these Letters of Cornelius says, 
(q) De Synodo Romana-Italica & Hieron. de Script. Eccles. in Cornel.  that he wrote about the Roman, the Italic, and African Synods; as if besides that of Rome, there had been another at the same time in some other place of Italy. Now if Jerom had seen no more of Cornelius his Epistles than what Eusebius has excerpted, this of the Italic Synod may be a mistake. Bishop Pearson 
(r) Jo. Cestrens. Annal. Cppr. p. 31.  has demurred upon this matter, and the Conclusion of that Chapter in Eusebius seems to make all clear. At the end of his Letter he sets down the names of those who were present in the Roman Synod, and their Dioceses; and he sent likewise the names of the persons 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  and of their places, who came not to this Synod, but signified their consent by Letters, to what was there determined. Here is no place left then to an Italic Synod; for by this account all who were not at Rome, consented by their Letters. And that much the greater part of the Bishops of Italy appeared in this Synod, cannot well be doubted, considering this assembly was for common direction in a case very difficult and nice; and so nearly concerning the peace of the Church. And he who observes it as an extraordinary thing, that out of all Italy sixty Bishops should be assembled in one Synod, could not but have taken notice of the number of the rest, who approved the acts of this Council by their Letters, if it had been any thing proportionable to this. Therefore we have reason to conclude, that at that time there were not very many more Bishops in all Italy. I know it is suggested by some, that there were then but few Bishops because Christianity was not much advanced, and their Churches were but few; but the contrary is affirmed of this very time by Writers who lived then. And Cyprian does expressly say, 
(t) Jampridem per omnes Provincias & per Urbes singulas ordinati sunt Episcopi. Cypr. Ep. 55.  that Bishops had long before this been settled in all the Provinces and in every City. And how extraordinary this Synod must be esteemed at that time, may be observed from another passage of the same Epistle; where it is remarked as no inconsiderable thing, that sixteen or seventeen Bishops were present at the Consecration of Cornelius. A poor business to be taken notice of, if the Roman Province had then been so well stocked with Bishops as it is now.  
And now we are taking our leave of Italy, let us look back, and from what has been observed, make this General Conclusion, that the number of Bishops has been increasing there in every age ever since the Primitive times; excepting times of extraordinary desolation. And what Vghellus observes of Clusium and some other Bishoprics, is true of most of them, that from one large Diocese it was crumbled into many small ones. This City, says he, 
(u) Vghel. Ital. Sal. T. 3.  in old time was possessed of a very large Diocese, which the Popes by degrees have dissipated, and conveyed to other Cathedrals which they erected. Nay some after the lopping off of several Branches still remain considerable, as the same Author observes 
(x) Vghel. Ital. 5. T. 1.  of Asculum. The Diocese that now remains, though much diminished by the Erections of new Cathedrals, is not very small; for after all this it has retained 156 Parish Churches.  
From Italy we are returning home by the way of Spain; where, notwithstanding the Inquisition, and great Bishops who have very large Dioceses, and take themselves under those Circumstances to be jure Divino, as their Predecessors did at Trent, our Author ventures to prosecute his design, and makes enquiry after Village-Bishops.  

(y) Prim. Ep. p. 37.  In Spain the twelfth Council of Toledo 
(z) Anno 681.  takes notice of one made a Bishop in Monasterio Villulae, and another in Suburbio Toletano, etc. and of others in aliis vicis & villulis. It is true, he adds, that the Bishops there allow it not, but order it otherwise for the future. But for the satisfaction of the Reader, it may not be amiss to add the Reasons of that Synod against this matter. 1. 
(a) Res nobis novellae praesumptionis Usurpatione sese intulit pertractanda.  That it was an Innovation or a Novel Presumption. 2. It was against the received Laws of the Church, and Canonical Constitutions, Canonica Constitutio id fieri omnimoda ratione refellit. 3. That it was against Scripture, and the order of St. Paul to Titus to make Bishops in Cities; and then citys several Canons 
(b) Oportet in nullo Monasterio quemlibet Episcopum Cathedram collocare. Conc. Carth. Frag. apd. Mabillon. Anal. p. 1.  of Councils against it, as that of Sardica, and two African Canons, and Concilium Tauritanum Title the second. And in conclusion they null such Ordinations. But what sort of Bishoprics they had anciently in Spain, shall appear in due place.  
To bring Episcopacy yet one step lower, our Author 
(c) Prim. Ep. p. 38.  finds Bishops not only in Villages but in Monasteries, generally less than Villages: and this he thinks will be a proof of the Question in hand. What will these Bishops of Monasteries be proof of the Primitive way? And are Monasteries of such Primitive foundation? There could be surely no Bishop in the Monasteries, before there were such places. And we read not of any such till the fourth Century, and of no Bishops in them till afterwards, and those too as rare and extraordinary in ancient times, as simplicity in Courts, or sincerity and candour among Dissenters. But let us consider what he brings.  

(d) Prim. Ep. p. 38.  Barses and Eulogius had 
(e) Soz. l. 6. c. 34, 32. Ed. Val.  a Monastery for their Diocese, no City nor Territory, and one Lazarus also. If our Author had transcribed but two words more out of Sozomen; he had spoiled all his his Argument. But because nothing goes more against the Conscience of a Dissenter than Ingenuity; out of tenderness to that Infirmity I will supply the omission. Sozomen does indeed say, 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that these were not made Bishops of any City, but only for honour's sake, and as it were by way of recompense for what they had done. These than were Titular or Honorary Bishops, according to this Historian, and therefore of little use to prove what was the measure of Primitive Dioceses.  
To these (our Author says) we may add those monastics which Epiphanius 
(g) Epiph. Expos. Fid. p. 1095.  speaks of, one of them a Bishop in the Desert of Egypt, the other in mount Sinai, who having received Episcopal Consecration, took upon them to do Episcopal Acts, and to sit as Bishops. He might, if he had pleased, have taken some notice, that this reading is not only suspected, but plainly faulty. And Petavius has noted in the Margin, that it should be read with a negative; that these Monks having not received Ordination as Bishops, did yet presume to act as such. This is plain from what goes before; for Epiphanius showing the Extravagance of some Monks and men of severe lives, says, 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that one Zacchaeus being a Layman presumed to administer the Sacrament; and then follow the two , who took upon them the office of Bishops without being ordained. For what extravagance or fault could it appear, for persons who had been consecrated Bishops to administer the office committed to them? But they are here censured, 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as men who presumed rashly and insolently to act as Bishops from I know not what dreams, and as the sense must be, without ordination. I wonder our Author should think fit to dissemble this; since it is more for the service of his party, than any thing he has produced, to have some ancient instance to countenance the practice of assuming the Pastoral office without Ordination.  
The next instance 
(l) P. 38.  of a Bishop of a Monastery is from the subscriptions of the Council of Chalcedon, where we have Helpidius Bishop Thermensis Monasterij. We own this Monastery to be a mistake, not of our Author indeed, but of the old Translator of those subscriptions, who finding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek subscriptions, rendered it Monastery; whereas it signifies a Mansion or a Stage-Town in the public Course, or Post-road as we now speak. In some Manuscripts we have both words, Mansio and Monasterium; some have Mansio only, as that of Paris and Dijon, which Baluzius 
(m) Baluz. Nou. Coll. Conc. p. 1031.  mentions; and Berterius 
(n) Mansio Thermensis, Berter. Pithan.  had met the like. And the Theodosian Code makes frequent mention of these Mansions, l. 21. de Decur. Magistrates are appointed for those places out of the Cities in whose Territories they are. Claudiopolis, Tottas and Vordis, are said to be Towns or Mansions in Bythinia, l. 119. de Decur. Cod. Theod. And this Thermae is mentioned in Antonin's Itinerary in the way from Tavia to Caesarea, the first stage: And one Elpidius a Bishop of this place subscribes the sixth General Council, and calls it St. Agapius his Thermae in the second Galatia.  
Of the same Creation is the Bishop of the Monastery of Studius, which our Author 
(o) Prim. Ep. p. 39  produces out of Theodorus Lector, after the decease of another who presided there. For learned men have observed long ago, that the word Bishop should be corrected, and the word Precedent put in its place. And Valesius in his note upon that passage, does agree to the amendment. And that this may not seem to be done only from conjecture, and the seeming necessity of sense; Theophanes 
(p) Theoph. in Chron. p. 135.  and Nicephorus 
(q) Niceph. H. E. l. 16. c. 25.  do vouch it.  
The same misfortune of faulty reading has made us Bishops of Monasteries here in England; and it is upon no other ground that our Author 
(r) Prim. Ep. p. 39  is so positive, that in Britain there were commonly Bishops in Monasteries, and such too as were in subjection to the Abbot of the Convent though a Presbyter, as appears by the Synod of Hereford.  Episcopi monachi non migrent, etc. Spelm. p. 153. Beda l. 4. c. 5.  
The word Episcopi in Mr. Wheelock's Edition of Bede is distinguished from the Text, and the Saxon Version disowns it; and Mr. Wheelock 
(s) Deal obsecro (Episcopi) & pro Mss. i●i lege ipsi.  in his Erratas takes care to advertise the Reader, that this word must be corrected, and ipsi put in its place. For so he found it in all his Manuscripts, that is ipsi. This might be no news to our Author, for my Lord Bishop of St. Asaph 
(t) Hist. Account, p. 68  had taken notice of it in his Historical account of the Church Government of Great Britain. But Chifllet in his late 
(u) Anno 1681.  Edition of Bede, printed from an old Copy 
(x) Adorandum Antiquitatis optimaeque notae Codicem. Chifl. Praef.  of S. Maximin's in Treves, of reverend Antiquity, has restored ipsi, though he takes no notice of the Emendation. It is possible that in this Book, the word ipsi might be writ at length. I have seen some Manuscript Copies that vouch this Emendation, though the word be not written at length, but with contraction. Yet there is one very old Copy of the Cotton Library which has the word at length, and without any abbreviation, that puts an end to all further criticising upon this passage. Although I cannot but observe, how unhappy our Author is in this particular; who in confirmation of that multiplicity of Bishops, which he vainly imagines was once in the Church of England, hath chosen to instance in a time, when there were indeed no more than seven Bishops in all the Saxon part of Britain.  
In Spain itself, says our Author, 
(y) Prim. Ep. p. 39  Damium is an Episcopal seat, Says Ortelius, and it is a Monastery in Isidorus and Honorius. Vnde Martinus Episcopus qui scripsit de quatuor Virtutibus cardinalibus, oriundus.  
It is true that St. Martin, called the Apostle of Gallicia, having converted Theodomir King of the Suevi, or as others name him Chararacus, from the Arian Heresy, was made Bishop in that Monastery which he had built. But that he had no other Diocese than his Monastery, we have no reason to believe. For in the Council, 
(z) Aerae. 607. A. Christi 569. Vid. Not. Gars. Loyasae. in Conc. Luc.  apud Lucum, Dumium is said to have Familia Regia belonging to it; and in the distribution of Dioceses made by King Wamba, the bounds of this Diocese are marked, from Duma to Albia, and from Rianteca to Adasa. When this St. Martin was made Archbishop of Braga, he ordained no other in Dumium; but when he was dead, to do honour to the Seat of so great a Man, they might perhaps think for some time to appoint him a successor in Dumium, as we find by the subscriptions of several Spanish, Councils. Yet even in the Gothick times this place was restored to Braga. For in the 16th Council of Toledo, Felix writes himself of Braccara and Dumium, as Vasaeus 
(a) Vasaei. Chron. c. 20.  informs us from a M. S. copy of Canons in Rodericus Archbishop of Toledo. Nay, it may be questioned, whether there ever was another Bishop of this Dumium after Martin. For Luitprandus 
(b) Luitpr. Advers.  informs us, that there were two places of this name Episcopal Seats, one in Asturia, and the other in Gallicia, which is the place of which we are speaking. But to give this Instance a positive Answer: A Monastery in the Suburbs of Braga made a Bishop's seat about the middle of the sixth Century, is no argument of Primitive Episcopacy; but on the contrary, this place had always till this time belonged to the Bishop of a City. 2. All this matter is extraordinary, to do honour to a person who had so highly deserved of the Kingdom of Spain, and therefore ought not to be drawn into a Precedent; much less to prescribe what sort of places are to be made Bishops seats. And after all, it does not appear that there was not a Diocese of several Congregations belonging to it.  
Those who are not acquainted with the state of the Ancient Church, when they find instances of Bishops in Villages, or in a Monastery, may be apt to fancy, That these might be the Remains of another sort of Episcopacy. Therefore to prevent such mistakes, I will briefly lay down the state of the Churches of Spain, from which our Author has produced some instances, from the oldest Records that remain of them. In the Year 569. King Theadomir complains 
(c) Conc. Luc. Not. Garc. Loyasae.  that in the Province of Gallicia the Dioceses were so large that their Bishops were not able to visit them in a Year, and therefore desires that they would take some order to remedy it. Whereupon they erected several new Bishoprics, and one new Metropolis; yet all the Bishoprics of that great Province after this accession, were but thirteen. When the Bishops of all Spain met in the Synod of Valentia 
(d) Anno. 541. Luitpr. Advers. cum Episcopi totius Hispaniae convenissent.  they were in all but sixty four. In the old Book of Sevil there are but 6 Archbishops, and 67 Bishops in all the Kingdom of Spain. In the old Book of Oviedo there are but 76 Bishops. Under King Wamba, 
(e) Anno. 666.  according to the old Bood called Itacius, of which Luitprandus makes frequent mention, there were in Spain 71 Bishops, and 7 Metropolitans. In a Controversy between the Archbishops of Toledo and Valentia, it is said that Constantine had divided the Country into Provinces and Dioceses, much to the same effect with what has been already produced; with this agrees the observations of Luitprandus, which are taken from the same Books: For speaking of the 13th Council of Toledo, he saith the number of the Bishops there were 76, of whom 27 subscribed by Proxies. And in his Chronicon he gives notice of several new Bishoprics erected in Spain, in the later end of the seventh Century. The Dioceses of Spain must be very large then, when so great a Country was divided between 70 or 80 Bishops, and especially considering the Province of Narbon was then reckoned to Spain. At the time of the Council of Illiberis, Spain seems to have but few Bishops. For tho' we find by the Subscriptions that the Bishops had met there from all the Provinces of Spain; yet were there in all but 19 And long before this 
(g) Anno. 254.  in St. Cyprians time, two Cities in Spain seemed to belong to one Bishop, as may be gathered from the Inscription of St. Cyprians 
(h) Ep. 67.  Epistle, Foelici Presbytero & plebibus consistentibus ad Legionem, & Asturicae. Upon which Vasaeus 
(i) Vasaeus in Chron. Hisp. Anno. 256.  has this Remark, Colligi videtur Legionenses atque Asturicenses eo tempore eidem Episcopo fuisse subjectos, licet postea divisi Episcopatus fuerint.  
Our Author 
(l) Prim. ep. p. 40.  citys Rabanus Maurus to very little purpose, when he makes him to say, that there were fewer Bishops at first, but in process of time they were Ordained not only in Cities but in places where there was no need. Which then is the most Primitive way, the first, or that which comes after?  
After a tedious peregrination, our Author 
(f) Anno. 305. Conc. Illib.  
(m) Prim. ep. p. 40.  is very kind to let us come nearer home. I need not tell you how few Cities there are in Ireland; yet Primate Usher tells us out of Nennius, that St. Patrick founded there 365 Churches and as many Bishops. I hope no reasonable man will blame me as too difficult of belief, if I refuse this fable for evidence. The authority of Nennius may be questioned without imputation of scepticism, and can never pass as long as men have judgement enough to distinguish between History and Legend. But I take Nennius his way of writing to be a degree even below Legend. But since this fabulous Calendar of Irish Bishops has passed without contradiction, not that any body ever believed it, but because it is too gross to be refuted; and since it has been, and is still urged for History in the behalf of Primitive Episcopacy, I will endeavour to trace it to its Original; and when the ground of the Story is understood, it will do the Congregational way but very slender service.  
Archbishop Usher 
(n) Antiquit. Eccl. Brit. p. 473. ult. Ed.  published a Catalogue of old Irish Saints, which is divided into three ranks, which are distinguished one from another as well by time as by merit. The first is the best, they consisted all of Bishops, and their number was 350, they were founders of Churches, etc. This Order of Saints lasted for four Reigns, the last of which was Tuathail; but they were not all Irish, but Romans and Franks, and Britan's. Now according to Arch bishop Ushers 
(o) Antiquit. p. 490. Ed. ult.  Chronology of those Reigns, there is above a hundred years from the beginning of St. Patrick's Apostleship to the end of Tuathail; only there is one King before him in that Chronological Table which the old Catalogue does not mention. That these were the Bishops of St. Patrick's ordination, we may find in Jocelin, 
(p) Usher. Antiq. p. 492.  who says that St. Patrick ordained just so many with his own hand, and founded 700 Churches. To complete the Irish Calendar, Nennius increased their number to 365; a singular compliment to a lazy Nation, to make it holiday for them all the year round. Now whether all these lived in Ireland, or were all ordained by Patrick, the Catalogue does not say: But it says expressly, That they were of several other Nations besides Irish. So that this may rather represent the Communion of Patrick, and the number of Bishops in Britain and France that kept Easter on the fourteenth of the Moon, than his Suffragans of Ireland. And the fewness of Bishops in succeeding times, and under the second order, seems to represent a great change, not in the lives of the Bishops, for if I mistake not, it is the cause that is in the bottom of that Catalogue; but in the observances which are there mentioned. For whether the Franks by this time had taken another way, and the British Churches were under great calamities, or Augustin the Monk had introduced the Roman customs, there are but few Bishops in the second order. But supposing these holy Bishops had been all of Ireland; yet there is no need of so many Cathedrals for them; for they lasted four Reigns, which makes up a hundred years. And though all the Bishop's seats in Ireland had not been above fifty, they might easily have afforded 350 Saints in the compass of a hundred years. But because there are but sixty years allowed for St. Patrick's Government in Ireland, even in that and the surviving generation; this number of Bishops might easily rise from fifty. I mention this number, because sometimes Ireland has had so many Dioceses or more, as we may see in a copy of the Provincial published by 
(q) Geogr. Sacr.  S. Paulo, which hath more Seats in it than that of which Cambden speaks. After all, I am not well satisfied but all St. Patrick's Bishops may be a fable, and he himself only a Saint of imagination. For who can tell but Patricius Arvernensis may have sunk a day lower in the Calendar, and made the Irish a Patricius Hibernensis: Or the Spanish Patrick 
(r) Luitpr. Advers.  of Malaga, who according to Luitprandus lays claim to that day, might appear to the Irish in a Dream, as St. George did to our Countrymen, and become their Protector, and at last their Apostle? For the Calendar is the ground upon which the Legendaries run divisions, and as barren as it seems to be, it has produced a world of devout Fables. For in old time, give a Monk but a name, and he would quickly write a life.  
Our Author taking S. Patrick's 
(s) Prim. Ep. p. 40.  365 fabulous Bishoprics for effective, is not content, but would increase their number about the twelfth Century. Afterwards, says he, the number of Bishops increased in Ireland; so that when Malachias went into Ireland, near 600 years after S. Patrick, Anno 1150. 
(t) Bern. vit. Malach.  Vnus Episcopatus non esset contentus uno Episcopo, sed singulae paene Ecclesiae singulos haberent Episcopos. That Bishoprics were multiplied in Ireland in Malachy's time, Bernard does indeed complain of; but that before this increase, they were 365, neither he nor any body else of that time does affirm: Nor is it likely; for a man less eloquent than S. Bernard could not have omitted it. For what could have exposed this humour of multiplying Bishops more effectually, than to have shown, that there were already in that Kingdom so many more Dioceses in proportion to the extent of it, than in any Christian Country in the World? Bernard 
(u) Bernard. vit. Malach.  makes heavy complaint, that it was a thing unheard of from the beginning of Christianity; Bishops were changed and multiplied without order and without reason. Yet for all this storming, his friend Malachy had a large Diocese to look after; for he was not content, says Bernard, to go about his Episcopal City of Conneth, but he went out into the Country, and visited the Towns of his Diocese, and all this on foot. But within twenty years of the time we are speaking of, we have a certain account of the Irish Dioceses. For when Henry the second went 
(x) Anno 1171.  over to Ireland, there were 
(y) Joh. Brompton. X. Script. Col. 1070.  but twenty-nine Bishops in all that Kingdom, and four Arch-Bishops, or thirty according to the reckoning of Gervasius. 
(z) Cron. Gervasij. X. Scr. Col. 1420.  The former number is confirmed by Benedictus Abbas in the Life of King Henry II. And even of this number some were but lately erected. For 
(a) Eadmer. Hist. Nou. l. 2. p. 36.  in the year 1095. Murchertagh King of that part of Ireland, with his Clergy and People, desired leave of Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury (who was then Primate of all Ireland as well as England) to found a new Bishopric at Waterford, complaining that in those parts they had hitherto wanted the presence of a Bishop; requesting him to ordain Malchus for their Bishop, whom they had sent over for that purpose, which he did accordingly. So far was Ireland from being overstocked with Bishops at that time. The Copies of the Provincial are of little use to show any thing of the ancient state of this Country; for all of them are later than the year 1150, because they all have the four Arch-Bishops; the Irish Church having never had 
(ae) Matth. Par. in Steph. Anno 1151. Sim. Duwelm. Anno 1152. Gervasi. Chron. Anno 1171.  any before that year; though Archbishop Usher would have Armagh excepted.  
When we had come so near home as Ireland, I was in hopes our wand'ring after Village-Bishops had been at an end; especially when he had come to the dregs of his evidence, Nennius and the Irish Legends. But I know not how, a sudden fancy transports our Author to Afric, and thither I must follow, a proper place to look rarities and unusual sights. It cannot indeed be denied, that in this Country there were Bishops, if not in Villages, yet in Municipia or Burrough-Towns; but that this was the primitive state of that Church, we cannot allow. And the multiplying of Bishops being occasioned there by the Schism of the Donatists, cannot be alleged for a precedent; since the Bishops of that time complained of it in the Conference of Carthage, as a wrong and an innovation. But of this there is a more particular account in another Book, 
(c) Vind. of Prim. ch. p. 516.  which I am not willing to transcribe. But yet what our Author would put upon us, ought not to pass without Examination.  

(d) Prim. Ep. p. 41.  In five of the Provinces of the African Diocese (he might have said six, for so they are reckoned in the Conference of Carthage, Tripoli being added to the other five) there were in St. Austin 's time near 900 Bishops. And this he proves by adding the Donatist Bishops to the Catholic, there being 500 of the one and 400 of the other. 
(b) Prim. Ep. p. 41.   
As for the Catholics, the utmost of St. Austin's account in the abstract of the Conference is but 465. And yet in another Book he reckons 
(e) Centum ferme Episcopi contr. Don. post Coll. c. 24.  not the Absents full a hundred, which in his Abstract he sets at 120. And for the Donatists who are reckoned 400, we are not so easily to admit their account. S. Augustin never admitted it, though our Author says he did not deny they were 400. It is true, he does not positively deny it, because he could not be certain of their number; but he does every where suggest that they boasted without reason, and made themselves more numerous than they were. For when they pretended to have many absent, and more than the Catholics, he turns the pretence into a jest. What, says he, 
(f) Aug. post Coll. c. 24.  had some Pestilence invaded them, that a third part of their number should be sick together? For they had acknowledged, that they were all present, excepting such whom age or sickness had detained. And in all his accounts of the Conference he detects their frauds in subscribing for the absents, as if they had made their appearance. And among the subscriptions there was one found who had been some time dead; and they could not deny it. But be the number of those Schismatics what they will, it is not reasonable to admit them into the list of the Bishops of that Country, since they set up Altar against Altar oftentimes in the same City, and generally in the same Diocese, where a Catholic Bishop was placed, and sometimes set up three or four against one. So there is no reason that these should swell the account of African Bishops. We reckon a Parish with us to have but one Rector, though an Independent or Anabaptist Teacher may set up in it a separate Assembly; or though a speaking Presbyterian Elder, the most forward and fiercest of all our Church-dividers, should hold a Conventicle there for a Nursery to other Sects.  
But we have reason (our Author thinks) to take the Donatists into the account; since the Catholics decreed, that when the Donatists were reduced, those places among them which had Bishops should continue to be Episcopal seats. If he had thought fit to consider the order of time, and how different the state of the African Church before the Conference at Carthage was, from that which followed it; this apparition of an Argument had vanished. Before Marcellinus his Decree, the Catholics of afric made several temporary Provisions for the reclaiming of the Donatists. And that no encouragements might be wanting to invite either the People or their Bishops to be reconciled to the Church; sometimes they order, that if a Donatist Bishop should prevail with his people to leave their schism, he should remain still their Bishop: Sometime, that the People who had a Bishop heretofore, and were converted from the Donatists, might without a new order from a Synod, choose a Bishop of their own; or if they would choose rather to be annexed to some other Diocese, it was not to be denied them. Another time it is ordered, that where a Diocese was divided between a Catholic Bishop and a Donatist, and the later with his people returned to Catholic Communion, 
(g) Aug. Gest. cum Emer. Cod. Afr. c 112.  they might both be Bishops of that Diocese; and upon the death of one, the other was to succeed to the whole; or if the people should be offended with this unusual sight of two Bishops in one Diocese, than both should resign, and the Diocese left to a new choice. But after the Decree of Marcellinus, and the confirmation of it by the Imperial Rescript, the case was altered. For then 
(h) Col. Carth. in fin. Cod. Theod. l. 55. de Haeret. Anno 414. Cod. Afr. c. 12. Ed. Zon. 99 ap. Bin. 102. Ed. Til.  every Innovation of the Donatists was declared void, and those Dioceses of theirs, which had been branches of others, and torn from them in the schism, were now to revert to the first dependence. The Donatists therefore are not to come into the number of the African Bishops by virtue of that Canon; for at the end of the Canon itself the Imperial Law was afterwards added, as an advertisement of its being repealed. The Canon then was made before the Conference, and consequently before the computation of S. Augustin. But after the Conference and the Law, the door was shut; and the Donatist Bishoprics if they had been parts of others were restored to them, and no provision made for the Bishops though they should happen to be converted. After the time of S. Augustin, we do not find the African Bishoprics much increased. For within fifty years of the death of that Bishop, we have an account 
(i) Not. Afr. apd. Sirm. Miscel.  of all the Dioceses in that Country, which amounted to 466. out of which must be deducted eight for Sardinia which did not belong to the Roman afric. But I am afraid the Proconsular afric is imperfect in the Notitia, if Victor Vitensis 
(l) Vict. Persec. Vand. l. 1.  his account may be taken; or there be not some Error in the Copy. But not to insist much upon small matters and uncertain, let us calculate the Bishoprics of such Provinces of afric of which we have a more distinct account. In the two Mauritanias in the African Notitia, we have 173 Bishoprics, of which six were then void. Now both these Provinces, according to Pliny, are 839 miles long, and 480 broad. The Country must surely be very ill peopled; if every sorry Village had a Bishop, nay if every Bishop had not 60, or 70 Villages in his Diocese. Nay, if we consider the extent of the whole Roman afric, we shall have little reason to conclude, that Congregational Episcopacy should follow from the great number of Bishops in that Country. Procopius 
(m) Proc. p. Vand. l. 1.  who was acquainted with the Country, having attended Bellisarius in his African Expedition, tells us, that the Roman afric was ninety days Journey in length; and that we might better understand his reckoning, he tells us that a days Journey was 210 Stadia, or 26 miles and a quarter; which amounts to above 2360 miles. The breadth was unequal, in both the Mauritanias near five hundred miles; in the Proconsular afric two hundred. This Province was so populous 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Herodian. l. 7. ss. 9  and so fertile, that Egypt cannot be thought to surpass it. And for Bizacena, the account Pliny 
(o) I●in. l. 5. c. 4.  gives of its fertility is prodigious; for the Husbandman there received a hundred-fold. Now in this Country so vast and so populous, let us take a low estimate of the number of Villages that might be there, and reckon them at forty thousand; and these divided into 500 Dioceses, every Diocese will have fourscore Towns That this may not seem an extravagant Calculation, let us compare it with other Countries. France is not half so big as the Roman afric; and yet in Lewis 13 his time it had above two and thirty thousand Parishes, as Bertius reckons: And in Henry the third's time, by a Tax laid on every Parish, they were found 
(p) Bodin. de Rep.  to be near five and twenty thousand; the Provinces of Burgundy and Poictou not reckoned, which may make up the remainder. Now it is well known, that there, as well as here, there are many more Villages than Parishes; and therefore I conceive I cannot over-reckon them, when I set a Country for extent double to France; and of which a great part was more populous, at almost an equal number for Villages: But suppose the number yet less by one half, every Bishopric will have forty Villages, which is too much yet for the Congregational way; especially since upon this reckoning, Towns must be thin and at greater distance, and so less fitted for personal Communion with their Bishop. Nay, though they had at last been reduced by the Iniquity of times and the Opposition of parties to the measure of our Parishes; yet the condition of those Churches would move our pity, rather than our desire of imitation and condition so different from all other Countries, and so unlike that of afric itself, when Cyprian lived. For all the African Bishops of his time could not have supplied the Dioceses of one Province, at the time of which we are speaking. But for all this, when Mr. Baxter or Mr. Clerkson will have it so, what is last must be primitive; what sprung from the unfortunate divisions of one Country must be a Precedent to all. And that must be received as Apostolic practice, which was introduced by one of the most heady and desperate and Hypocritical Sects that ever divided the Church of Christ. But I am afraid we may say with too much truth, that our Country has outdone afric in Monsters of this nature. Yet after all this distraction, there remained in afric several large Dioceses; which has been fully proved in other Books, 
(q) Unreasonabl of Separ. 249, 250. and Sequ. Vindic. of Prim. Ch. p. 524, 525. etc.  and needs not be repeated in this place; though I shall not omit to take notice before I have done, of those exceptions which Mr. Clerkson has made in another Book against the Evidence for Diocesan Episcopacy in afric.  
In the end of this Chapter our Author thinks fit to engage Bishop Taylor, who answering an Objection concerning Asclepius, 
(r) Gennad. Catal. Script.  Bishop of a small Village in the Territory of Vaga or Baga, shows that he was a Bishop of a Territory as well as of a Village; and for this citys Trithemius. 
(s) Trithem. de Script. Eccles.  I confess that the expression of Trithemius does not conclude either for the largeness or straitness of that Bishopric, which may be very large though the Episcopal seat be a Village, or narrow though it have a City to give it denomination; unless our Author thinks, that because there were but 500, or as he reckons 900 Dioceses in afric, there were no more Towns or Villages in the whole Country.  
He is pleased to add, that he never yet could see any proof, any instance of a small Village, that had so extended a Territory under one Bishop. But did he ever see an instance of a Bishop who had no Diocese but the single Village in which he resided? Or has he ever seen the limits of such a Bishopric described? If he have, why does he not produce it? For one such instance had been worth his whole Chapter about Village Bishops. If he have not, why does he use so much confidence when he is wholly in the dark? There are but very few ancient Dioceses, that are delivered down to us with an account of their Circuit. But we happen to know the number that was of old in several Countries; and from thence can infer in general of the greatness and smallness of the Bishoprics. And to give our Author one instance more in a Country he quotes for Village-Bishops. In Cyprus, in Sozomen's time it was usual to have Bishops in Villages; and yet in all that Island at that very time there were but nine Bishops under one Metropolitan, as appears from the subscriptions of the Council of Chalcedon. 
(t) Conc. Chalc. Act. 6, & 15.  For in the Copy of subscriptions published by Labbe from the Papers of Sirmond, there are six Subscribers from that Island. And again the Metropolitan subscribing with several others, for his Suffragans that were absent, had but three remaining to subscribe for. And therefore we must conclude, that either the Village-Bishops had a considerable Territory, or the City Bishoprics were enormously great.  
At last this Chapter concerning Village-Bishops is brought to a Conclusion, and upon the whole matter I conceive two points to be very clear: 1. That although there were some Bishops seated in Villages, yet it does by no means follow, that they were but Pastors to a single Congregation. 2. That a great number of places, which our Author took to be Villages, are proved to be Cities before he can find any Bishops to be seated there. So that either the skill and the diligence of Mr. Clerkson were not so great, as his friends give out, who in these matters are very implicit believers; or else we must complain of want of ingenuity and fair dealing, a fault which the Saints are very easy to forgive, when it is committed in pure zeal to their Cause; but we Church of England men take for one of the blackest sins.   

CHAP. III.  
AFter a tedious Journey through Villages and obscure places, we are at last come to Cities, and may hope now for a nobler Subjuct of our enquiry and observation. But to our great disappointment and mortification, we are informed by our Author, 
(a) Prim. ep. p. 45.  That far the most part of them, (viz. those that were very little, and those that were not great) were for their largeness but like our Villages or market Towns. They are much to blame, who have hitherto admired the magnificence of Greek and Roman Cities; and pretend to judge of their former greatness by the ruins that remain; as we discover the stature of Giants by some of their Bones. Whereas these celebrated Cities, were, far the most of them, as we are now told, not superior to Putney or Batersey, or to say the utmost, to Kingston or Colebrook.  
But to make out this Paradox, our Author 
(b) Prim. ep. p. 46.  enters into a critical dispute concerning the Greek and Hebrew word for City, and shows that some have bestowed the title of City upon those places that others call Villages. City, says he, is not only City, but Town; because, according to one Evangelist 
(c) Luk. 10.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  our Saviour saith, whatsoever City ye enter: According to another, 
(cc) Math. 10.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  whatsoever City or Village. And again in one place, 
(d) Luk. 4.43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Math. 9.35.  he tells the Capernaites, he must preach in other Cities. In another place, 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and upon another occasion, our Saviour is said to go about all Cities and Villages preaching. And in another place 
(f) Mark 1.38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  joins both the words in one, let us go into the chief Villages. But these instances are so far from proving, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Village; that some of them do plainly show the quite contrary; for they distinguish between Cities and Villages. And the other where Cities are only mentioned and Villages employed, they are there to be understood not from the notion of the word, but from the nature of the thing. For instance, suppose one were ordered to preach to all the Citizens of Rome, and by virtue of this order should preach to the Strangers and Servants there, shall therefore a Citizen signify a stranger or a slave? yet from the nature of the thing these might be understood to be included, tho' not from the signification of the word; and tho' another relation of this order should add the particulars omitted, yet the former word Citizens would not have a double sense. If one should say he had viewed a certain house, and at another time speaking of the same thing, should say he had viewed the house and gardens, does therefore a house signify a garden? The less principal parts are often omitted in ordinary discourse, tho' when men speak with more exactness, they are enumerated. Our Saviour and his Disciples may have entered some times into solitary and alone Houses, as well as into Villages; and if one of the Evangelists had happened to have added this, must therefore a Village or a City signify a simple house? 
(g) Prim. ep. p. 46.  Bethlem is, Luke 2.38. the City of David; but no other than a Village, John 7.24. Which Epiphanius 
(h) Epiph. Haer. 51.  takes notice of, and gives this reason for it, That it was reduced to small compass, and had very few inhabitants. And what can be more directly against our Author's purpose than this reason? For it is called a City with respect to its ancient greatness, and a Village in respect of its present mean condition; as the same man by an usual civility is styled by an office he once bore, tho' he be reduced to a meaner place; yet the one title does by no means signify or imply the other.  
But this instance of Bethlem will prove yet more prejudicial to the cause of Congregational Episcopacy upon another account. For the design of our Author in disparaging Cities, by making the title common to Villages, is to show what mean places those were that made up the Dioceses of ancient Bishops; whereas this instance overthrows that vain imagination, and proves the quite contrary. For this place which is called City, had never any Bishop of its own for above a thousand years after Christ, but was part of the Diocese of Jerusalem, 
(i) Parochia est Episcopi, qui Herosolyman tenet. Sulp. Seu. Dial. 1.  from which it was six miles distant. In St. Jerom's 
(l) Presbyteris tuis obtulimus. Praecepisti Bethlem Presbyteris tuis. Hieron. adv. Err. Joh. Hieros.  time it was taken to have been immemorially a Parish belonging to that Bishop, and was served by Presbyters as our country Parishes are. And Jerom 
(m) Qui long in minoribus urbibus per Presbyteros & Diaconos baptizati sunt. Hieron. Lucif.  in another place shows in general, that in lesser Cities there were no Bishops, but Presbyters and Deacons, and these too at a great distance from the Bishop's seats; and cannot deny but that this is the Custom of the Churches, that the Bishops go to confirm such as have been Baptised in dat Cities at a distance. And speaking of the same places, he 
(n) In Viculls, aut Castellis aut locis remotioribus. Ibid.  calls them Villages or Castles, and remote places, which were visited by the Bishop, and this by ancient and immemorial custom. So that all our Author's diligence to confound Cities with Villages, and to represent Cities as very small, does at last no service to his Hypothesis; since we find that long before St. Jerom's time many of these went to make up one Diocese, and were under the visitation of one Bishop. The instances alleged out of Josuah do little concern the present question; yet that nothing may pass without reply, they should be considered. 
(o) Prim. ep. p. 46.  There are thirty eight Towns enumerated and called Cities, Jos. 15.21. Yet all the Cities are said to be but twenty nine, v. 32. Masius and other Expositors remove the difficulty thus, that the rest of the Towns, though called Cities, were but Villages. Yet there may be another way of removing this difficulty, and Grotius 
(p) In loc.  proposes one that seems more probable, that the nine Cities which remained over and above the twenty nine, did not belong to the Tribe of Judah, but of Simeon; for 
(q) Jos. 19.9.  out of the portion of the Children of Judah, was the inheritance of the Children of Simeon— and they had their inheritance within the inheritance of them. And many of the same places, and at least the same names are recorded as belonging to both, and sometimes in the same order. But this is cleared beyond all cavil, 1 Chron. 4.28. and confirmed by the observation of Jerom 
(r) Hieron. Trad. Hebr. in Paralip.  in his Hebrew Traditions on the Chronicles.  
To the same effect he observes, 
(s) Prim. ep. p. 46.  that there are twenty three places reckoned by name and called Cities, Josh. 19 Yet, v. 28. there are said to be but nineteen Cities. They resolve it as the former. This is a plain mistake of our Authors; for there are but sixteen Cities named to the Tribe of Naphthali, tho' the sum is made nineteen. But that which gave occasion to this mistake, is the mentioning of the borders of this Tribe; 
(t) Vid. Bonfrer.  but the places are not called Cities, and perhaps did not belong to that Tribe, but to some other that bounded it; and of these sixteen we must deduct some, if we follow the Septuagint. It is an usual thing in the book of Josuah to have the sum to differ from the particulars, sometimes it is less, and sometimes it exceeds, and this is not a place to attempt to reconcile them. 
(u) Prim. ep. p, 46.47.  There are four called Cities, Jos. 19.6. yet those in 1 Chron. 4.32. are Villages. This too is a plain mistake, occasioned by the ill pointing of that passage of the Chronicles. For the beginning of the 32 verse belongs to the verse going before, and should be read thus, 
(x) 1 Chron. 4, 31.32.33.  These were their Cities unto the reign of David, and their Villages. Then follows five names; and in the end of that verse it is added, that they were Cities; and the verse following, and all their Villages that were about the same Cities.  
Thus the Syriack and Arabic Versions read, and use a Preposition with their Villages; and thus the sense requires, that both the Hebrew and Septuagint should be read. And the occasion of this difficulty proceeds from St. Jerom's 
(y) Trad. Hebr. in Paralip.  mistake, which appears in his observation upon this place; and the mistake was propagated by dividing the Hebrew Text and the version of 70 into verses according to the vulgar Latin. Our Translatours were too bold in adding a verb in this place, which is neither in the Original nor in any ancient Translation, tho' they distinguished it from the Text by another Character.  
From Scripture Mr. Clerkson 
(z) Prim. ep. p. 47.  appeals to other Authors for the proof of his observation, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Village. When Polybius writes, that Tiberius Gracchus ruin'd three hundred Cities in a part of Spain: Possidonius says that Cities were alled Castles by him. But Possidonius is so far from allowing the expression, that he exposes the Author for it, and shows it was to flatter Gracchus, and that this way of speaking suited better with the pomps of a Triumph, than the exactness of an Historian; nay he sticks not to call this a Lie. For, For, says he, 
(a) Strabo l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Generals and Writers are easily carried to this Lie, magnifying their actions beyond truth and reality.  

(b) Prim. ep. p. 47.  Those who say that Spain hath more than a thousand Cities, speak after the same figure, giving great Villages the titles of Cities. If vain men will call their geese swans, it does not alter the species, nor change the common language of the world. Yet after all, this lose way of speaking does by no means hurt the cause of Diocesan Episcopacy. For every place which in compliment might be called a City, did not become a Bishop's seat; for in this very Country, where more than a thousand Cities are said to have been after this favourable way of reckoning, there does not appear to have been a hundred Bishoprics in any age since the Apostles. Aelian 
(c) Aelian. var. Hist.  reckoned in Italy eleven hundred and sixty six Cities. Guido of Ravenna 
(d) Leandro Alberti Descritt. d' Ital. Praefat. fol. 6.  writes from Higinus, who had made a Book of the Cities of Italy, that in his time there were seven hundred. Yet we cannot find that for 600 years after Christ, there were so many as 150 Dioceses in all that Country. But of this we have given some account already.  

(e) Prim. Ep. p. 47.  Ptolemy 
(f) Ptol. l. 5. c. 17.  calls Avarum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Josephus, 
(g) Jos. Ant. l. 12. c. 13.  Bethsura is called a City; but in the page before it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Village: And Justinian says of Petyus and Sebastopolis, reckoned among the Cities of Pontus Polemoniacus, that they were to be reckoned rather for Castles than Cities. It happens to Cities, as it does to men; some are born noble, others rise up to it by gradual increase. Some have been Cities and great from their first foundation, as Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, and many more; others by industry and good fortune have grown up by slow degrees from Villages to be Cities; and in their Progression, when they are become equal to the generality of Cities in every thing but Title and Privilege, they are called Cities or Villages according to the pleasure of those who speak of them. In the confines of child and man, we are doubtful what name to use. Tra giovane e fanciullo l'eta confine, as Tasso expresses it. Yet if a man should undertake upon this account to show, that man and child are words used promiscuously; and that therefore whatever right or privilege a man may have by Law or Custom, belongs also to a child; such a person would be thought not yet arrived to the judgement of a man, and to stand in need of a Schoolmaster to teach him propriety of language. But besides the childishness of the notion, our Author hath been unfortunate in his instances; for it is possible, that the City and the Village, which are called by the same name in Josephus, may not be the same place. For Jerom 
(h) Hieron. de loc. Hebr.  takes notice of two Bethsura's in Judaea, one in the way from Jerusalem to Hebron, another within a mile of Eleutheropolis. And Josephus when he speaks of these places, does not use the same name; for one 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is a neuter and plural, the other 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jos. Ant. l. 12. c. 11.  is a feminine. I know the Books of Macchabees vary the name for the same place; but Josephus when he speaks of the City Bethsura, constantly useth the singular and the feminine. Nor is it necessary to insist upon this; for Josephus may speak properly, though it should be granted, that he spoke of the same place. For before it was fortified by Judas Macchabaeus, it might be but a Village; but afterwards it is called a City, and the strong and impregnable City. And being the only safe retreat of the Jews of that part of the Country, it must quickly grow populous enough to deserve the Title, and to enjoy the privileges of a City. And now we are speaking of this place, so renowned in the History of the Macchabees, it may not be amiss to have it restored to its true Situation. A faulty reading in the second Book of Macchabees 
(m) 2 Macch. 11.5.  had brought this Fortress within less than a mile of Jerusalem; and accordingly Adricomius placeth it in his Maps. But this can by no means be reconciled with the relation which Josephus gives of several Actions in the Maccabean Wars. When this City was besieged by Antiochus Eupator, Judas left the Siege of the Citadel of Jerusalem, and advanced towards the Enemy who lay before Bethsura; and having marched a considerable way, and posted his men in a straight place called Bethzacharia, he was then seventy furlongs from the Enemy, and from Bethsura. Besides, in the Book of Macchabees it is said to be built against the Incursions of the Idumaeans; which supposes it near their Borders, as indeed it was; for the Alexandrian Copy has cleared this point. For instead of five furlongs, we read there that it was five Schaeni from Jerusalem. Now a Schaenus according to Herodotus, 
(n) Herodot. l. 2.  is sixty furlongs in Egypt. Pliny reckons it but thirty. And according to this reckoning, the distance between Jerusalem and Bethsura will be near twenty miles, as Jerom has placed it. As for Pityus, it was an ancient City, and had been in reputation both for greatness and wealth. Strabo 
(o) Strab. l. 11. in fin.  calls it the great Pityus; and Pliny 
(p) Plin. l. 6. c. 5.  gives it the character of a most wealthy Town; but it was sacked by the Heniochi. What if before Justinian's time the fortune of this place happened to run so low, that it became little superior to an ordinary Garrison Town; yet surely it might retain its former Title of City, without rendering it common to every Garrison or Castle in the Country. Sebaste too was an old City, and mentioned by Pliny among the chief of the Country; and let me entreat our new Critics, that it may retain its old Title, though fallen a little into decay, without making way for every upstart Village to come in and claim the dignity of a City. These instances I was willing to account to his misfortune; but that of Avarum I must own as an act of dexterity. This is represented as an ambiguous thing, between a City and a Village. And Ptolemy the great Surveyor of the world is made to speak doubtfully, as if he were not able to distinguish the kind. Ptolemy is of no kin to me; but for Truth and Justice sake I am willing to do him right. For to declare the truth, that Author did never say that which Mr. Clerkson puts upon him. When men are positive, and quote Greek, especially fanatics; one may be apt to think they found it somewhere, and never made the quotation. But here I must confess it happens to be otherwise; for poor Ptolemy is put upon. For he does not say that Avara is a City or a Village, but he places it in a part of Arabia, among many other Towns; and it is unaccountable how our Author should single it from all the rest. At the head of the Chapter there is a general Title: The Midland Cities and Villages of Arabia; and at some distance this place is set down. If the Title make it of an ambiguous kind, all the rest that are named with it must be so too. Nay most of the Towns in Ptolemy must be of the same nature because the Title is very frequent in him. I was willing to suspect my Edition, rather than the conscience of my Author, who differed from the Church of England out of pure tenderness of mind. But having examined other Editions, I found the old Heathen Geographer was put upon by an Independent Saint. Some blunt men may in their plain way call this manner of dealing, forgery and falsifying; but towards godly men we must avoid rudeness, and let such tricks as these pass for Oeconomy, and dextrous management of a cause.  

(q) Prim. Ep. p. 49.  Bishop Bilson 
(r) Bills. Perp. Gou. c. 14.  tells us, as also Dr. Field, 
(s) Field of the Ch. l. 5. c. 27.  that the Apostles would have the City and places adjoining to make but one Church; and that herein they proposed the Jews as their exemplar, who had their Synagogues in Cities. How much Bishop Bilson or Dr. Field make for our Author's purpose, let the Reader judge when I have laid the words before him. They (the Apostles) says Dr. Field, so sorted and divided out particular Churches, that a City, and the places near adjoining made but one Church.— Now because Churches of so large extent required many Ministers of the word and sacraments, and yet of one Church there must be but one Pastor; the Apostles in settling the state of these Churches did so constitute in them many Presbyters. Now according to Dr. Field, every Episcopal Church, as laid out by the Apostles, having so large extent as to require many Ministers, and yet but one Pastor or Bishop, was plainly not a Congregational Church, but Diocesan. Bishop Bilson 
(t) Bills. Perpet. Gou. c. 14. p. 295, 298, 306, 321.  is yet plainer against the purpose for which he is alleged. We have, says that learned Prelate, one Bishop in a Church, tied to the Laws of God, the Church and the Prince; you would have 300 in a Diocese and some more, all of equal power, and set at liberty to consult and determine at their pleasure.— Neither had the Jews that kind of Government which you would establish in the Church; neither did our Lord and Master ever prescribe to the Gentiles the judicial part of Moses Law. And again, As the people did increase, so did the pains in each place, and consequently the number of Presbyters; one man being no more able to serve the necessities of a great City, than to bear the burden of the Earth upon his back; and yet in each Church and City, one chief among them, that as principal Pastor of the place, etc. And to conclude, you dislike a Bishop should have any Diocese or Church, besides that one wherein he teacheth;— which nice conceit of yours not only condemneth the Primitive Church of Christ, that assigned Dioceses to Bishops, but contradicteth the very ground of Government which the Apostles left behind them.  

(u) Prim. Ep. p. 48.  Now in what places the Jews had their Synagogues, if it were not plain, Matth. 9.35. that they were far from being always great Cities, will appear from the seats of their Consistories. I never yet heard of any, who denied that the Jews had Synagogues in Villages, as well as Cities. But that the Village-Synagogues were independent, and free from any subjection to the Cities in Ecclesiastical causes, is now the question; and our Author is wise in saying nothing of it. For those who have taken his side of the question, though men of good reading, have not been able to produce any thing about it, but their own affirmations. It is not to be doubted, but every good Village of the Jews had a Synagogue, as every Parish with us hath a Church; and great Cities had many Synagogues, as our great Towns have many Parishes; and Jerusalem particularly is said to have had 480. But that every Village-Synagogue had supreme authority in matters Ecclesiastical, and no dependence upon any other Court, or the chief officers of the City Synagogues, is very unlikely. For so many Independent and Co ordinate Officers could never without a miracle have preserved themselves one year under one National communion: And in those great Cities where the Jews had many Congregations, it cannot well be conceived that every one had supreme authority, but that there must be some Chief or Council, to which all those Synagogues were subject. This is most likely, because common order and National agreement cannot well subsist without it. I know there are some great men 
(x) Grot. de jure sum. pot. c. 11. Gotof. in l. 2. de Cod. Theod.  have been very positive on the other side, and have asserted the Independence of every Synagogue, that every such Assembly had a chief Officer answering to our Bishops, and all  and of equal authority. But for all this no evidence is produced; and when learned men speak without book about distant matter of fact, their authority is but small; for than they do not speak from their knowledge and learning but their affection. The Scriptures of the old Testament give no directions concerning Synagogues, and do not so much as mention those Assemblies. From whence some have concluded, that in those times there were no such religious Assemblies among the Jews. In the new Testament we have frequent mention of them, and sometimes their Officers are named; but how they were ordered in respect of one another, and of general Communion, the new Testament does not give the least hint. Nay, as to this matter the writings of the Jews are not plain; and though they were, yet they taste too much of the fable, to be depended upon. Great men may guests and affirm according as they stand affected; but when all is done, this matter is still in the same obscurity for want of sufficient evidence. After the establishment of Christian Religion, we find general Officers of the Jews endued with the power of Excommunication and Absolution; but that every Village or City-consistory had that power then, we do not find; and for aught appears, they might have no more power than our Churchwardens and Vestries. Nay, in the complaint the Jews make to Arcadius and Honorius, 
(y) L. 8. de Jud. Coeli & Sam. l. 15. de Jud. l. 29. Codesh.  that the civil Officers had restored to Communion several, whom the Primates of their Law had cast out without the consent of those Primates; the power seems to belong chief to these, and they too derived their Jurisdiction, not from the Synagogues, but from the Patriarches, by whom they were appointed. And this Invasion of the Imperial Officers is represented not as an injury to the Vestries of Village or City Synagogues, but only to these Primates, whose office was of greater compass than the inspection of a single Synagogue, as appears from the last of those Laws cited in the margin; where we are informed, that upon extinction of the Patriarches these Primates succeeded to all their power  
But while I was thinking of the learned men who treat of this matter, I had almost forgot our Author, who tells 
(z) Prim. ep. p. 48.  us, That something will appear from the seats of their Consistories. Let us therefore attend: In Cities of less than sixscore Families, they placed their Consistories of three. In Cities of more than a hundred and twenty Families, the Courts of twenty three. Maimon. in Sanedr. c. 1. Sect. 5. Seld. de Synedr. l. 2. c. 5. And it is well known that many of our Country Towns with their Precincts have more than 120 Families; and our lesser Villages are as great as the Cities in the lower account. They must be very sore distressed, who repair to Rabbins for propriety of expression, or evidence of Antiquity. In Maimonides his language it seems, a place that had not 120 Families, was a City. And what if it had but three? It was sufficient to furnish a Triumviral Consistory, and therefore may pass for a Rabbinical City. But Cunaeus 
(a) Cun. de R. P. Hebr. l. 1. c. 13. Ego vero Aristoteli assentior, ne quidem eam esse civitatem.— Civitas nomen amittit, modus si defit.  who loved to speak properly, taketh offence at this expression, and opposes the authority of Aristotle to that of Maimonides, that such a place neither is, nor ought it to bear the name of a City. But Maimonides may be excused, because he followed his Fathers of the Talmud, from whence all the fabulous accounts of the ancient Jewish Polity have been derived. Our Legends and forged Decretals do as much represent the state of the Primitive Church, as that Jewish Rhapsody does the state of the Jewish Synagogue or Temple. But the Authors of these Forgeries being profoundly ignorant of what was Ancient and Primitive, drew the face of antiquity with some features of their own times. Hence it is, that the Jewish writers speaking of those times when their Nation and their Temple stood, drop unawares several passages that agree better with the state of their dispersion than establishment; and of this, the place alleged by our Author about Consistories and Cities, gives a plain instance. For if we consult Josephus, we shall find that Judaea before the last war that ruin'd it, was inferior to no Country in the World for number of People; their Cities swarmed with men, and there was scarce a Village that had not many thousands. Compare therefore this rule that appoints Consistories in Cities of sixscore houses, and a triumvirate in Cities that have yet fewer Families, with the true state of that Nation; and you cannot but loathe so gross and ill contrived a fiction. But if you consider the Jews in their dispersion; even Maimonides his way of speaking will be proper; for there might be very great Cities, where the Jews had not a hundred Families; and they might retain so much of their old discipline, as to order some sort of Consistory in every City: and yet the estimate of their own Cities ought not to be taken from a miserable Synagogue they might make when they were sojourners in a strange Country  

(b) Prim. ep. p. 48.  Egyptian Cities come next after the Rabbinical; and our Author would have us take notice, that Diodorus Siculus speaks of three thousand Cities in Egypt, not to take notice of more than six times as many, which Pliny says were sometimes in the Delta. The Egyptian Priests spared no figures to set out either the antiquity or the greatness of their Country; and may be suspected to exceed as much in the number of their Cities, as they did in that of their years. I will not now insist upon the disabling of his evidence, but proceed to consider the passage of Diodorus. And here, if at any time I have diminished the number of Cities produced by our Author, I am content to make him ample amends, and to admit the emendation of Sir Jo. Marsham, 
(c) Chron. can. p. 397. Scribe. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  who instead of three, will read thirty thousand Cities. But than it must be observed, that all the Villages of the Country came into the reckoning. It was not because this Author could not distinguish between a City and a Village, that he thus speaks; but only to follow his Author, who being a Poet, 
(d) Theocr. dit. 17.  and setting out the greatness of Ptolomy's kingdom, had more regard to the magnificence than the propriety of his Expression; and by a licence which Poets take, made all the Towns in Egypt Cities. The same Historian in that place shows he could speak properly about this matter, when he tells us that he had found in the sacred Record, that Egypt in ancient times, when it was more populous than under Ptolemy Philadelphus, had 18000 Cities and considerable Villages. Now to apply this to our Author's design, which I ought ever to have in view, though he himself seems often to forget it; there were according to old accounts, so many thousand Cities in Egypt, and consequently there ought to have been as many Bishops; but it seems the Apostle did not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in every City, according to the way of the Egyptian Priests, or a flattering Poet, but according to the proper and received signification of the word. And therefore in Egypt, instead of many thousands of Bishops, we never find above a hundred when the Country was generally converted, and before the alteration of the pretended Primitive Episcopacy can be pretended. But to proceed.  

(e) Prim. ep. p. 48.  In the tribe of Juda were a hundred and fourteen Cities; in half the tribe of Manasseh 60, and in other tribes proportionably. It must be confessed, that in the time of Josuah small places were called Cities; but in our Saviour's time it was otherwise, for the Evangelists distinguish not only between Cities and Villages, but 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  between Cities and large Towns: And Josephus mentions Villages so great, as to have some 7000, some above 10000 inhabitants, and yet for all this styled Villages. Now when Bishops were settled in that Country, it was not according to the number of Josuah's Cities, but of those properly so. For generally speaking, the Bishops were ordained in Cities, and therefore their number as proportionable to these. For about the middle of the sixth Century all the Bishops of the three Palestines were but five and forty, as appears from their Subscriptions 
(g) Anno. 536.  in the Council of Jerusalem, those who were absent subscribing by their proxies, and yet among these some seem to be without the Palestines; for the Bishop of Aradus subscribes there, and he of Petra, and some others. Now it does not appear that ever there were more Bishoprics in this Country from the beginning of Christianity, and perhaps not so many; for Parembolae had a Bishop in that Synod, which was erected 
(h) Euthym. vita. ap. Coteler. Mon. p. 238.  to an Episcopal seat not long before.  

(i) Prim. ep. p. 49.  In Crete there were 100 Cities, and therefore called Hecatonpolis. Homer 
(l) Hom. Iliad. B. Odyss. T.  who is the only witness for these 100 Cities, happens to differ from this reckoning in another place, and makes them but 90. Strabo 
(m) Strab. l. x.  and Eustathius 
(n) Eustath. in Iliad B.  take great pains to reconcile this difference; but for my part I am satisfied with what Didymus 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Did. in Odies. T.  has observed, that the Poet is not to be understood of any definite number, but intends only to say that there were many. And if twenty had been as necessary for a verse as the other numbers, the rest of those Cities had been in danger of being demolished; for Poets can raise or destroy Cities with more ease than the greatest Princes in the world. But Titus, who was directed by St. Paul to appoint Bishops in the Cities of Crete, could not without revelation find out half this Century of Homer's Cities; for they had been lost long before; nay some of hose mentioned by the Poet, as the chiefest of the Island, were not to be found in Strabo's 
(p) Strabo l. 10.  time. Miletus and Lycastus were destroyed and their Territories seized by Lyctus and Cnossus. And whatever Cities there had been there of old; yet in the middle of the fifth Century the whole Island had but eight Bishops, as appears by the subscriptions of their Synodical Epistle 
(q) Ep. Episc. Cretae. ad Leon. ad Calum. Conc. Chalced,  to Leo. As for the other instances of this paragraph, from Laconia, Epyrus, Palus Pomptina, and the 1200 Cities of Gaul; they are discharged with their company, and must take the same common answer.  
But our Author not content to bring down the pride of Cities so low, as to make our market-Towns and Villages equal to them, is resolved at last to reduce them to their first elements, and to make them inferior to some single houses. 
(r) Prim. ep. p. 49.  Cities they had of old little bigger than some houses, as that of Nero in Suetonius, The building about his Fishponds were like Cities. Circumseptum aedificijs ad urbium speciem. If our Author intended to be witty, it is but a poor jest; but if he be serious in this way of proof, it makes a Comedy. For what he citys, does not disparage Cities, but represent that house as monstrously vast, and beyond all measure extravagant. How can Cities be diminished by this comparison, when this house 
(s) Suet. Nero. c. 81.  reached from the Palatium to Esquiliae, and had a Portico three miles long. It was a building that threatened to swallow all the City of Rome and the neighbouring Country.  
Roma domus fiet: Vejos migrate Quirites.  
Si non & Vejos occupat ista domus.  
To the same effect Sallust and Seneca are brought in by our Author, 
(t) Prim. ep. p. 50.  complaining of the luxury of their age in building: That they had divers Houses comparable to Cities, and some private Houses exceeded the dimensions of Cities. But still this is not to lessen Cities, but to expose the prodigious greatness of those Houses. Besides this way of speaking is seldom without Hyperbole, and not to be examined by rule and compass; for in such exaggerations many things may be compared that are far from being equal. But to make all sure, he tells 
(u) Prim. ep. p. 50.  us, They accounted it an excessive great House which took up four Acres; as would seem by that of Valerius Maximus, Anguste se habitare putat cujus domus tantum patet quantum Cincinnati rura patuerunt; when three of his seven Acres were gone. It is doubtless a very great House that takes up four Acres; but that it should seem so from this passage, is very hard to conceive, unless Anguste habitare should signify in English to have an excessive great House. It seems therefore to those who understand a little Latin, that Valerius Maximus took such Houses as took up but four Acres, as an inferior and moderate extravagance, in comparison of the immensity of other buildings.  
At last we are come to particulars. 
(x) Prim. ep. p. 50.  Emporia a City of the Greeks in Spain was less than half a mile in compass, by Livy's account. This Emporia, 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. c. 3.  which belonged to the Greeks, was but a small part of a great City that had 
(z) Hispanis retractior a mari trium P. P. in circuitu murus erat. l. v. Dec. 4. l. 4.  three miles in compass, only the Greeks dwelled in this quarter, and the Spaniards in the rest; they were encompassed by one common wall without, but they were separated by another within; and after sometime the partition was taken away, and they lived promiscuously. There was 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 16.  a City of the Parthians upon the Tigris, made up of three Citadels exceeding strong, each having a wall of its own; if our Author had found but the name of one of these, we should in all likelihood have found it among his diminutive Cities. At this rate we may have a City of Jews in Rome, because they have a quarter there, and at some times are shut up and separated from the Romans.  

(b) Prim. ep. p. 50.  Phaselis is the next, the character of which we are to take from Lucan, who speaking of it when Pompey fled thither, says it contained not so many souls as Pompey 's ship, and yet it was an Episcopal City. It is well, our Author does not insist to have it an Episcopal City in Pompey's time; for soon after it seemed considerable enough to deserve that dignity. It had suffered much in the Isaurian wars, and had been taken by Servilius; and from hence it was, that the City was so weak at that time. But as it was one of the chiefest places of that Country before those wars, as Florus 
(c) Validissimas urbes eorum Phaselin, etc. Flor. l. 3. c. 6.  and Eutropius 
(d) Lyciae urbes clarissimas, in his Phaselidem. Eutrop. l. 6.  represent it; so soon after the time of which Lucan speaks, it recovered itself so well as to be accounted a very considerable City. Strabo 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 14.  observes of it, that in his time it had three Ports or Havens, and was a considerable City. And lest it may be thought, that the word which Strabo uses, and I render considerable, signifies but an ordinary common place, let him explain himself. When he speaks 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 10.  of Gortyna in Crete, he takes notice that it had a considerable Circuit; and then explains himself, that it was fifty furlongs, i. e. above six miles round. And that it was not a mean Town, when it became a Bishop's seat, we may learn from the old Geographer 
(g) Vet. orbis Descrip. ed. Jac. Gotofr. Anno 1628.  published by Gotofred, who reckons it among the chief Cities of that Country in his time, which the Editor conceives to have been in the reign of Constantius.  

(h) Prim. ep. p. 51.  Cucusus a City (the civility of whose Bishop, Chrysostom, when he was there banished, commends) was 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. ep. 13.  not so good as a Market-Town. That it had no Market while Chrysostom was there, proceeded not from the meaness of the City, but from its being besieged by the Isaurians, and the famine that happened there at that time, as Palladius 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pallad. vit. Chrys. p. 94, 96. Ed. Bigot.  relates. Sasima, says our Author, was no better, though it pass for a City. He has mustered this already among his Villages. It never had a Bishop before Gregory, but belonged to Tyana from which it was distant 32 miles, as we are informed by Antonine's Itinerary. 
(m) Prim. ep. p. 51.  Aradus in Strabo, and Antaradus in Pliny, were Cities of seven furlongs. Pliny confounds Antaradus with Aradus, as Vossius 
(n) Voss. observ. in Pomp. Mel. p. 202.  has observed; so it is but one City, to which that narrow Circuit belongs. But notwithstanding this small compass, I am afraid there is no Market-Town in the three Kingdoms can equal it for force and number of Inhabitants. What they wanted in compass they made up in height, and built 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 16. Etiam supra aliena tecta sedem ponere licet. Pomp. Mel. l. 2. c. 7.  one House over another, and in the language of the Scripture were raised up to Heaven. In the time of the Greek-Syrian Kings they were so powerful, that they had what terms they pleased from those Monarches; and among others, gained this point so seldom granted even to the greatest Ally, that they might receive all the fugitives of Syria. And in Marc. Antony's time, this little nest was so strong in People, that they had resisted the force he had sent thither to gather Contributions, and in that quarrel destroyed 
(p) Euseb. Chron. Olym. 184. Dion. Cass. l. 48.  four Cohorts of Romans; and Curtius Salassus who commanded them, they burned alive. At the lowest reckoning four Cohorts must have considerably above two thousand Soldiers: For if the first was there, which was called the Milliaria, that alone had above eleven hundred foot and 132 horse; 
(q) Veget. de Re Milit. l. 2. c. 6.  each of the other had above six hundred horse and foot. Now four of such Cohorts is such a force, that I believe a Market-Town or Village of ours would not think advisable to attempt. Besides, this little place in old times had a King after the manner of the Phoenician Cities. 
(r) Strab. l. 16.  But I will not depend upon this, because I am not sure; but according to our Author's notion and that of his party, a King may be under the same limitation for Territory as a Bishop. For in the Infancy of civil Government Kings had but small Dominions, when Abraham and his three hundred Shepherds could defeat five together. Nazianzum is the last instance of a small City; but how small, or what proportion it held to our Villages or Market-Towns, we do not learn from our Author; and therefore having no Evidence to give in to our Author's purpose, it is dismissed for the sake of Gregory, whose name and merit has preserved the memory of his City.  
Now to prevent great and common mistakes about ancient Bishoprics, our Author 
(s) Prim. ep. p. 51, 52.  is pleased to make this acute observation, that there were Cities of several sorts and dimensions. It is strange no Critic could observe so much before to prevent those great mistakes. Those Cities that were six furlongs in compass or under, are called 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  little, such was Paeanium in Aetolia. This is little indeed, as dwarves among men, very rare, and of no great use, but to admire for rarity of example; and therefore what is so much below the common size, is not likely to be of any great use to show the compass of ancient Bishoprics. But to proceed.  

(a) Prim. ep. p. 52.  Those that had above six furlongs in Circuit to twelve or thereabouts, pass for 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  middlesized Cities. So Antioch upon Maeander is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 13. So was Jessus in Polybius, which was but ten furlongs. This Remark stands in need of farther confirmation. For of that Antioch which is said to be an ordinary City, no Author gives the Circuit. So that whether it were ten or fifteen or twenty furlongs, is unknown. Jassus was indeed but ten furlongs; but whether to be reduced to the little or the middle sort, no ancient Author has directed. But this is to be made out by what follows. Those which had sixteen furlongs in circumference or near it, and so upwards, were accounted great Cities: For some of their prime Cities and Metropoles of Countries were no bigger. Nice the Metropolis of Bythinia being 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 12.  but sixteen furlongs in compass. No larger was 
(d) Sands. Trau. p. 219.  Famagusta the chief City in Cyprus, built in the place of Constantia, the ancient Metropolis of that Island. About that bigness was the great and famous Tire of old, before it was taken by Alexander; for he having joined it to the continent, and upon its recovery not content with its ancient bounds, had much enlarged it, 
(e) Plin. l. 5. c. 19  yet it was but 22 furlongs in compass. Sidon was 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 16.  of the like size with Tyre. New Carthage, 
(g) Polyb. l. 3.  the principal City in Spain, while the Carthaginians bore sway there, was but twenty furlongs when largest; it might be less than sixteen when contracted. It signifies little to the main question, what sort of Towns might be accounted great in the East before Alexander, or in Spain in the days of Hannibal; because it was long before the Institution of Bishops, and it was before the great improvement of the World as to Cities, by the Macedonian and Roman Conquests. Thucydides 
(h) Thucid. l. 1.  comparing the state of old Greece with that of his time, observed a very great improvement since the famous expedition to Troy; and thought that Micaenae, which was the chief City in Homer's Catalogue, would be but a small Town compared with the Cities of Greece in his time. The improvement of Cities in other Countries happened to be later; for most of the great Cities of the East were raised by the successors of Alexander, and bear the names of them or some of their families. Hence we have so many Antioches, Selencias, Apameas, Laodiceas, Ptolemais, Demetrias and Alexandrias, in all parts of the East, from their gratitude to their common master; and all these, Cities of the first magnitude, and much surpassing the old ones of those parts. After these the Roman Conquerors came, and by the greatness and number of their Colonies, and the magnificence of their Cities, made ample amends for the desolations of their Armies. And when that vast Empire had settled, and the Emperors betook themselves to build and people Cities instead of destroying them; then were Cities at the height for magnificence and greatness, and number of Inhabitants. And to compare our Villages or Market-Towns, or indeed our Cities, with those of the Empire, argues a strange ignorance of those times, or a great presumption that all other people are ignorant enough to be so grossly imposed upon. For it is as absurd to compare our Burroughs, or the generality of our Cities, to the Cities of the Roman Empire, as it would be to compare London with old Rome, or England with the Roman Empire, or the reading of Mr. Clerkson with that of Plutarch or Pliny.  
After the Roman Empire had been torn in pieces, and divided between barbarous Nations, there was a new face and order of things. The Barbarian humour had something wild and fierce in it, that would not agree with the way of living in Cities, and therefore the old Cities soon became desolate. The Roman Provinces, which were nothing else, but so many combinations of Cities, all the Country being divided between them for Territory, were divided into Counties instead of Cities. The people were forced to resort to the Castle of the Count for Justice; and the wild way of life in scattered habitations returned again. And although in this part of the World we are much recovered from that barbarity, and may have some Cities not inferior to the Roman greatness; yet in general our Towns and Cities are much below those of old times. Nor can they well be otherwise, since they stand upon much narrower foundations as to their Constitution, than the Greek or Roman Cities. For our Cities are but so many exempts from the jurisdiction of the County, and have seldom any Jurisdiction half a mile beyond the walls, and besides are generally but an Assembly of Tradesmen. Whereas the Roman Cities were upon another bottom, every one having a Territory, as it were a County belonging to it, not only under the Jurisdiction of the City Magistrate, but divided between the City Inhabitants, who were the Lords of the adjoining Country. And therefore it is reasonable to judge, that Cities of this kind would naturally become greater than ours, having so much greater encouragement and means of increase. What is here only said, and in short, shall be proved at large in another Chapter; where I shall consider what is alleged by our Author concerning the Territories of ancient Cities. In the mean time I will reply to the Instances of great Cities with small circumference; although what is already said may be sufficient to excuse me from any farther labour about this matter, having shown already, how little pertinent it is to the present question.  
The way which our Author takes of measuring Cities by their Circumference is very gross and uncertain, and has been exposed long ago by Polybius, as a vulgar conceit, proceeding from the ignorance of the first principles of Geometry. Most people, says he, 
(i) Polyb. l. 9 p. 777.  judge of Cities by their Circuit; and if one should say that Megalopolis which is fifty furlongs in compass, is not half so great as Lacedaemon that is but forty eight, his discourse will seem extravagant and incredible. Lacedaemon 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polyb. l. 5. p. 504.  was of a round figure, and so more comprehensive. Megalopolis was irregular and skirting. So when our Author fancies he has found a Village of equal Circumference to an old City, he may be much mistaken, if upon this score he thinks he can demonstrate, that the Towns are of equal bigness.  
Now the best way 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thucid. l. 1. p. 4.  of judging of the greatness of a City is not from the Circuit of the walls, but from its force and multitude of Inhabitants. For it is not the space of ground on which it stands, but the people that render it great. For many Towns of a small compass have so swarmed with people, that they have surpassed Cities above three times their measure, in real greatness. Such was Aradus, of which we have given an account already; such was Tyre of old, if we should admit our Authors survey of it; for it filled the World with its Colonies. Carthage, and Septis, and Utica, and 300 Towns more in afric, were Colonies sent from this little Hive, with which our Author thinks fit to compare our Market-Towns. And that we may not suspect these ancient accounts of the greatness of so small a place, as incredible; Algiers is sufficient to convince us of the possibility of the thing. For 
(n) Recueil Histor. p. 1.  this little Nest of Pirates, scarce a league in compass, is inferior to few Cities in Europe, that are double to it in circuit; and though it have not 8000 houses in all, yet are the Inhabitants innumerable. Ilium, built by Lysimachus, was 
(o) Strab. l. 13.  forty furlongs, or five miles in compass. Gortyna in Crete, which was but the second of the Island, was fifty furlongs about; and if we may trust the reading of that place in Strabo, 
(p) Strab. l. 10.  it had once above fourscore furlongs of wall, and that not enough. Causabon suspects a fault in the Copy, but if it be, it is an old one; for Eustathius 
(q) Eustath. in Iliad. B.  citys this place without the least variation. I might add several more of great Circuit, which were much inferior to Tyre in force and reputation; so that upon this account it is no very sure way of judging of Cities by their Circumference.  
There is yet another reason, why we cannot depend upon our Author's way of measuring Cities; because the Circumference generally mentioned by ancient Authors is only that of the wall, and then the Suburbs is omitted, which is sometimes little less than the City itself; 
(r) Dion. Halicar. l. 4. p. 219.  and in times of peace most thriving Cities grow out of shape, and run into Suburbs. The walls of Rome under the Vespasians were 
(s) Plin. l. 3. c. 5: Expatiantia tecta multas urbes addiderunt.  but thirteen miles about, yet at the same time without the walls there were such great buildings as might make many Cities. And when all the Suburbs had been walled by Aurelian, 
(t) Vopisc. in Aurelian. ut 50 propo milia murorum ejus ambitus teneat.  the compass of the wall was fifty miles. The circuit of the wall of Alexandria was reckoned 
(u) XV. M. pass. laxitate inserta.— Orbe gyrato laciniosam. Plin. l. 5. c. 10.  about fifteen miles, but the figure was irregular and full of wind; so that the Area of the City might be less than that of Rome within the walls. But if we may depend upon Vossius 
(x) Is. Voss. var. obser.  his Calculation, this City with its Suburbs was fifty miles in compass. In Turkey the Suburbs 
(y) Ipsis oppidis majora Suburbia. Busbeq. Ep. 1.  are generally bigger than the Cities, and altogether look like great Towns, which is the case of all thriving Countries secure from war, as the Roman Empire when it flourished was, excepting only the frontier Provinces. If we should take the measure of London from its walls, it might seem to those who judge of Cities after our Author's way, to be but an ordinary Town; especially if to lessen its compass, it should be thrown into a round figure. Colen might perhaps seem to such Judges the greater place of the two, because it has 
(z) Bert. de Urb. Germ. p. 90.  near five miles in compass, which London would scarce reach in the same figure, which is a semicircle. So uncertain is this way of judging of the greatness of Cities, and making comparisons between them, from their Circumference. I may now very reasonably think myself discharged from any obligation to make particular answers to the instances alleged. Yet because I know those of our Author's mind not very easy to receive satisfaction, I will take notice of every particular; and if I have not the good fortune to satisfy, I may perhaps leave them less room for cavil.  
As to Nice, though it were the Metropolis of Bythinia, it was not the greatest City there; for Nicomedia was 
(a) Nicomedia Bythiniae Praeclara. Plin. l. 6. c. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pausan. l. 5.  much greater, and was after Strabo's time made a Metropolis of the greatest part of Bythinia, though Nice still maintained a right of primacy or precedence; which gave offence to the greater City, and occasioned some tumults; for the composing of which Dio Chrysostomus employed his eloquence and authority. And if Dio's compliment to Nice was not beyond all measure extravagant, this City must have great Suburbs, or be much enlarged; for he tells 
(b) Dion. Chrys. Or. 39 & 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dio. Or. 39  those Citizens, that their City was not inferior either for strength or greatness, to any of the renowned Cities. For if it were but two miles in compass, there were some above ten times as great, and the generality of Cities accounted great about twice as big, unless we may suspect the reading of Strabo as to the sixteen furlongs; for immediately after it is plain there is something amiss.  
Famagusta is too young to be brought in Evidence for the measure of ancient Cities; for I do not know that it is mentioned any where before the Holy War, 
(c) Radulph de Dicet. inter X Script. p. 660.  and could not be very long before, because Constantia in whose place this is supposed to rise, is to be found in the Greek Notitia so often mentioned, which cannot be older than the ninth Century. And we may presume it to be exact in Cyprus, since it was written by one George a Cypriot, out of another Book indeed; but he would in probability have corrected any thing that had been amiss in his own Country. Nor was Famagusta the chief City in Cyprus when it was taken 
(d) Anno 1570.  by the Turks. For Nicosia was 
(e) Gratian de Bello Cypr. l. 1.  then the Capital City of the Island, and its Circuit double to that of Famagusta, for it was then four miles about.  
That the famous Tire before it was taken by Alexander, was about that bigness, i. e. of sixteen furlongs, we have not from our Authors reading, but his invention; and it is from the same authority that we have another piece of new History, that Alexander had much enlarged it. He joined it indeed to the continent by filling up that arm of Sea that divided it, and made a causeway of a hundred paces broad to approach it; but that it was enlarged by this, is only a vision of our Author's head. Pomponius Mela, who is of better credit in this matter, tells us a quite contrary story, that 
(f) Tyros aliquando Insula, nunc annexa terris deficit. Mel. l. 1. c. 12. Voss. Observe. in Mel. & in Append.  Tyre was once an Island, but now it is joined to the Continent, it decays. Strabo 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strab. l. 16.  says it recovered itself from that calamity into which it fell; but that it was improved, he does not give the least intimation: And Pliny 
(h) Nunc omnis ejus nobilitas conchylio & purpura constat. Plin. l 5. c. 19  comparing its ancient Greatness and its Colonies with the condition of it in his time, intimates it to have fallen much from its ancient splendour; for now, says he, the place is famous only for its Purple. The greatness of it when it was taken by Alexander, may be best judged from the descriptions of the siege of Diodorus Siculus, 
(i) Diodor. Sic. l. 16.  Arrian, 
(l) Arian. Exped. Alex. l. 3.  and Quintus Curtius. 
(m) Q. Curt. l. 4.  It had eighty Ships of war, and Inhabitants innumerable. For when the Town was taken, there were 8000 killed, 30000 Captives, 15000 were saved by the Sydonians, a great number of women and children were sent to Carthage in the beginning of the siege. And now let any man judge whether this would not be accounted a great City in our days, and whether any of our Market-Towns or Cities besides London, can enter into comparison with old Tyre. As to the Circuit of this famous City, I must confess I am not well satisfied, because I cannot reconcile the descriptions of Strabo 
(n) Strab. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and Pliny. 
(o) Circuitus nineteen. M. P. est intra Palaetyro inclusa. Oppidum ipsum xxii. Stadia obtinet.  The first says the City is all an Island like Aradus, and the buildings of many stories, and higher than those of Rome; so that according to this Author, the whole Island was taken up by the City: The relations of the siege seem to to agree with this, that the walls of the Town reached to the Sea on all sides of the Island; for all the attacks were made out of the ships, and there seems to be no ground without the walls for the besiegers to lodge themselves on. Yet Pliny tells us that this Island, taking in old Tyre, was nineteen miles in compass, and yet the City but two and twenty furlongs. I cannot dissemble my suspicion of this place, though the Critics think fit to pass it over. Some mistake there is in the numbers, and the sense is not very perfect. But I know no remedy, since all Copies agree, and that ancient one, so much magnified by the Paris Editors, does not vary here from the rest. It might be but 22 furlongs, as our Author tells us it was, when enlarged. The Enlargement is a dream; the compass of the Island and of the City was the same both before and since the taking of it by Alexander; and though it might be but narrow in respect of Cities accounted great, yet the height of the houses made amends for the smallness of the Area, and made it equal to the chiefest Cities. And if we may compute this, as Aristides in his panegyrics does Rome, and measure it upward, we may say that here were many Cities laid one on the top of another.  
If Sidon were as great as Tyre, it might be called a great City without a compliment, and be much beyond the comparison of our Market-Towns and Cities; yet this in the Roman times was fallen something from its ancient greatness. For before it had been taken by the Persians, it was the greatest of all the Maritime Towns of that Country, and was still wealthy when Mela 
(p) Adhuc opulenta Sidon, antequam caperetur ●a Persis, Maritimarum Urbium maxima. P. Mel. l. 1. c. 12.  wrote his Geography, and at the same time equal to Tyre, as Strabo 
(q) Strab. l. 16.  observes.  
New Carthage 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polyb. l. 3. p. 236. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polyb. l. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  was indeed the principal City in that part of Spain that belonged to the Carthaginians; but the greatness of the place is not to be estimated from the compass of it, but from its strength and commodiousness of situation, and number of Inhabitants. The Circuit was at first but 20 furlongs, which may contain space enough for a great City, and within this compass, it may be more considerable than many Cities of greater circumference. Emporium was a City of Spain, and larger than Carthage, for it was three miles about; but there was no comparison to be made between them as to their force and reputation. The greatness of this place may be best computed from the spoil of it when it was taken by Scipio. The particulars are to be found in Polybius 
(s) Polyb. l. 2.  and Livy; so that the Town itself, to use Livy's 
(u) Ut minimum omnium Carthago ipsa fuerit. Liv. l. 36.  expression, was the least part of the spoil. 
(t) Liv. l. 34. c. 9   
Our Author makes after his manner a notable remark concerning this Town, that when it was contracted it might be less than sixteen furlongs. After it was taken and pillaged, it might have been reduced into a Village; but then surely it ceases to be an instance of a great City. Laodicea was once a greater City than New Carthage; but it is now reduced to a solitary Mill, as Monsieur Spon 
(x) Voyage de Spon. T. 1. p. 262.  informs us; yet I hope we are not to take the measure of great Cities, from such poor and despicable remains.  
Our Author having observed, that there were several sizes of ancient Cities, and the greatest he thought fit to mention being not three miles in compass, he comes to draw his conclusion, 
(y) Prim. ep. p. 53.  that their lesser Cities were but like our ordinary Villages; their middle sort of Cities were like our Market-Towns or Burroughs, (we have some that may compare with their great Cities) or like their larger Villages, such as Justinian noted in Pisidia, etc. I was afraid when our Author began his observations concerning Cities, that the Ancients had no Villages at all, but that all places with them had been Cities. Now I am much better satisfied, when I find that they had great Villages as well as small, and some equal to our Market-Towns; so that in those days when the Cities were small the Villages were great, and many not inferior to Towns of worshipful Title. Our Author did not consider well the consequence of this great secret, which he is pleased to reveal. For of those great and populous Villages there was not one in a hundred that had a Bishop, but were Parishes to the City Bishop, though his City might be as small as any of those dwarf Towns which our Author has produced. So that all his pains are come to nothing, that he had taken in diminishing the seats of the ancient Bishops; since there were great and small Villages then, as well as now, to make up their Dioceses. But let us see how the case of our Bishops differs from that of their Primitive Predecessors. According to the Inquisition made by Mr. Clerkson concerning ancient Episcopal seats, several of our Bishops are seated in Villages, others have Cities for their seats which are not much superior to Villages; and the most of their Episcopal Cities are not greater than the chief of our Market-Towns. Nay Canterbury itself, the Metropolis of England, is not so great as the Burrow of Southwark. What consequence this may have in the reasoning and disputes of after-ages, I dare not divine. He that shall be so industrious as to pick this out of some scattered papers which time may render venerable, may like Mr. Clerkson acquire the reputation of a learned man and a very harmless Adversary.  
It ill becomes us of this Nation to vie Cities with the Roman Empire, and much more absurd is it to set up our Villages and Market-Towns in competition with those Greek and Roman Cities that were distinguished by their greatness. For few that read can be ignorant that our Cities, generally speaking, are much inferior to those of our Neighbours. Those of France and Italy and Spain and the Low Countries do much excel ours; and yet there are none of, these that will undergo the envy of such a competition. Italy has as many great Towns in proportion as any part of Europe, except the Low Countries; and yet how much is it fallen from its ancient greatness? About 1500 years ago it was all covered with Cities, and many of them great and populous; and to speak modestly of its decay, it seems not to have a tenth part of the people which it had then; and its Cities fallen at present as much short of those ancient ones, few only excepted, as the present Rome is from that which was mistress of the world. France may be now more populous and flourishing than when it was a Roman Province; yet the Cities are generally 
(z) Recherches de Pasq. l. 2. c. 16.  inferior to the old Roman Colonies. For while they are left to trades like the other Towns of Europe, and the Nobility live in their Castles in the Country, or in the Court, and the Country is separated by jurisdiction and interest from the Cities, it is scarce possible that they should equal the greatness of ancient times, when there was no Nobility but in Cities, no quality higher than a Citizen.  
By these instances of Cities accounted great and yet of narrow compass, our Author would insinuate, that any thing beyond this measure of twenty furlongs was extraordinary; whereas Cities double in circuit to these were scarce accounted great. What proportion the old Cities of any reputation in story might bear to ours, will appear from the Examples I am going to produce, and a more just calculation of ancient greatness. I do not intent to follow the extravagance of some late Writers, who can speak nothing of ancient or remote people but miracles, and make more Inhabitants in one City, than half Europe can reckon. It is really a wrong both to men and to Cities, to give them a character that is incredible. Their real merit, which might be very great, and beyond competition, is lost, when dressed up in Romantic fashion, and raised beyond all belief and possibility. Wherefore in the account which I shall give of ancient Cities which became Bishops seats, I shall confine myself to the express testimonies of ancient Writers; and when any computation is to be made by guess, I will take care rather to err by an under-reckoning, than stretching too far.  
Within the compass of the Roman Empire there were many Cities accounted vast, and these I think are not to be equalled by any which later ages have produced. These were the wonders of old time, and still remain so to us in the descriptions and ruins that remain of them. Rome was a prodigy of a City, and Servius 
(a) Seru. in Virg. Eclog. 1.  doubts whether it had not out-grown the appellation, and become of another species; so that it should be called a World rather than a City. The French vanity has transferred 
(b) Andr. du Chesne. Antiq. de Vill.  the compliment to Paris; and some of their Writers have been so wise, as to refine seriously upon the expression. The Hyperbole of Lucan, that if all the world would agree to assemble in one place, Rome was big enough to receive them, is not to be endured even in a Poet, and exceeds all bounds. But that which is certain of the greatness of this place, is that 
(c) Vopisc. in Aurelian.  it was fifty miles in circuit in Aurelian's time; that 
(d) Strab. l. 5. Voss. var. obser. Euseb. Chron. Olymp. 173. Lapis Ancyr. Euseb. Chron. Olymp. 188. Id. Olym 206.  it was thronged with people; that their buildings were very lofty, and that in several stories they had often several families; that their Census before the Civil Wars between Caesar and Pompey exceeded the numbers of any City that was then. And when the strangers and sojourners and servants are added, the sum will be excessive. After the Government had been settled under Emperors, the City still increased, though the number of the Inhabitants is not certain. For the three Census under Augustus, which reckoned above four millions of Citizens, and that under Claudius, that reckons near seven Millions, are not confined to the Inhabitants of the place, but take in all that had received the freedom of the City. In Vespasian's time there 
(e) Euseb. Chron. Olymp. 214.  happened a great mortality there, when for many days together there died ten thousand a day, as appeared by the Ephemeris.  
There was a dispute between several Cities for the next place after Rome; I will name Carthage first, because it was the eldest. The circuit of it is not certainly delivered; but a little before it was taken and razed by the younger Scipio, it had 
(f) Strab. l. 17.  seven hundred thousand Souls, which is almost double to what Mr. Grant 
(g) Grant's obs. on the Bills of Mort.  computeth the people of London to be, though he take in all within the bills of Mortality, and perhaps exceeds in his calculation. This place after having laid long desolate, received new life, and a Roman Colony under Julius Caesar. And in Strabo's time who lived under Tiberius, it was equal to the best Cities in afric: And in Alexander Severus 
(i) Herodian. l. 7. 13.  his time it contended with Alexandria for the second place after Rome, to which alone it yielded; but vied with the other for largeness and multitude of Inhabitants.  
Alexandria has been mentioned already upon another occasion. It is described by Strabo, 
(l) Strab. l. 17.  who gives only the greatest length of it, and mentions 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 2.  the breadth where it was narrowest, to make out his figure of a Macedonian Chlamys; which Mr. Clerkson putting together, makes a circuit less than ten miles; whereas Pliny 
(o) Plin. l. 5. 9  who went upon better ground, makes 
(h) Strab. l. 17.  
(n) Clerks, in Baxt. Ch. Hist. p. 10.  the compass to be fifteen miles; a greater circuit of wall than any City in Europe can show. It was admired for the number of Inhabitants, and for a long time reckoned the second City of the World.  
In the next place, Seleucia upon Euphrates deserves to be taken notice of; for it has been from the beginning a City of the first rank. Strabo 
(p) Strab. l. 16.  joins it with Alexandria, and makes it superior to Antioch. And though we have no account of the largeness of it, yet we find 
(q) Eutrop. l. 8.  that when it was taken by Lucius Verus, it had five hundred thousand Inhabitants, which exceeds the sum of London according to Mr. Grant's computation, by above a fifth part: But Sextus Rufus 
(r) Sext. Ruf. Brev.  wants a hundred thousand of Eutropius his reckoning. But be it as it will, 'tis enough to equal that City to any we have in Europe, if not to surpass them. Yet this City and Ctesiphon which was little less, had 
(s) Sozom. l. 2. c. 9  but one Bishop in Constantin the Great's time.  
Antioch has been ever in reputation for greatness and magnificence, but it seems to have been much increased since the rise of Christianity. Strabo 
(t) Strab. l. 16.  makes it inferior to Alexandria; but Dio 
(u) Dio Chrys. Or. 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Orator, who flourished under Trajan, tells us it was four miles and a half in length, which is more than Alexandria had. It received many additions after that from the Christian Emperors, of whom several had their residence there; and particularly that City is said to have been enlarged, and the walls of it carried on as far as the gate that looked towards Daphne. Without the gates it had great Suburbs; and when in Justin the elders time it was destroyed by an Earthquake, three hundred thousand men are said 
(x) Procop. Pers. l. 2. Evagr. l. 2. c. 12. Niceph. Call. l. 17. c. 3.  to perish in that calamity, and yet a great number preserved. But whoever would know the character of this City, need only look into Libanius his Panegyric, and then let him match it if he can with any new City he has met either in his Travels or his Reading.  
Constantinople in the first design was equal to the greatest Cities after Rome, and in a short time was adjudged to have the second place, not only for dignity but greatness. Ausonius' 
(y) Auson. Clar. Urb.  pairs it with Carthage, as being the greatest next to Rome, and gives it the preference to Carthage.  
Constantinopoli assurgit Carthago priori,  
Non toto cessura gradu, quia tertia dici  
Fastidit, non ausa locum sperare secundum,  
Et Constantino concedere cogit Elisam.  
I perceive Mr. Clerkson, 
(z) Prim. ep. p 66.  either out of mistake, or to try a small trick, has drawn in this great City to favour his paradox, that Cities accounted great at this time, were but ordinary Towns. For Byzantium, says he, was made by Constantine to be as large as two Cities at least.— And whereas it had been reduced to a Village by Severus, the Enlargement he gave it, was no more than the addition of fifteen furlongs to its former compass, as the said Zosimus 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zosim. l. 2. c. 30.  shows. That Author does indeed say, that Constantine did add fifteen furlongs; but it was not to the former compass of the old City, but to be measured directly beyond the old wall; that is, Constantine built his wall fifteen furlongs beyond the old one. Now if Mr. Clerkson could not discern the difference between adding fifteen furlongs to the compass, and building a wall so many furlongs beyond the old one, it is great pity he should ever undertake to measure Cities, or talk of the proportion they bear to our Villages and Market-Towns. The walls of old Byzantium, before they were pulled down by Severus, were 
(b) Dionys. Byz.  forty furlongs in circuit; but when the walls are removed fifteen furlongs further, the space may yield us a City much more than double to the old one; and this new one was effectually so. For its circuit is something short of thirteen miles, according to Gellius; (c) and they want but one furlong of fourteen miles according to the measure of Laonicus Chalcocondulas; though in the common 
(d) P. Gell. C. P. p. 15. De la Vall. Lett. de C. P. p. 30. Spon. Voyage. T. 1. p. ●01. 15. M.  discourse of the people, it pass for near twenty. The present City has the same bounds with that of Constantine; for when it was first built it filled that Isthmus 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as it does now. Themistius 
(e) Zosim. l. 2. c. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Themist. Or. 6. p. 162. Ed. Pet.  speaking of the improvement of Byzantium by Constantine, What was once, says he, the hem of the City, is now the centre and heart of it. But Constantinople would not be confined within those walls, as wide as they were, but soon run out into Suburbs. Syca, which is now Pera, was but a Suburbs to that City; yet it was 
(f) Steph. de urb. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zosim. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Topogr. C. P.  accounted itself a City in Justinian's time, and called by his name. Hebdomum was reckoned in the Suburbs, though seven miles from the City. P. Gellius does unfortunately make this a region of the City; and Du Fresne has followed him in the mistake; but they are refuted by the very Authors and instances they produce for their opinion. Sozomen 
(g) Sozom. l. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  says expressly it was seven miles from the City, that Theodosius had built a Church there, which bore the name of John the Baptist. And Socrates 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 6. c. 12.  speaking of that Church, says it is seven miles from C. P. and not far from the Sea; for Epiphanius as soon as he landed, is said to have gone to St. John's Church. In that place there was 
(i) Ammian. Marc. l. 26. Idatij Chron.  a Palace called Secundianae, and a famous Tribunal, where the Emperors or Caesars used to be declared. Valesius 
(l) Vales. in Addend. Not. ad Ammian. Marcell. p. 672.  has taken great pains to assert the situation of this place, and has done it so effectually as to leave no farther place for doubt. There were several other places that were out-parishes of Constantinople, 
(m) Soz. l. 2. c. 3. Theodor. l. 5. c. 3.  such as Marianae, Pharmaceus, or Therapea, the port called Hieron. Hestiae, afterwards Michaelium, which was about four miles from the City by water, but twelve by land; and Elaea where Sisinnius the Bishop of C. P. had been Parish-Priest; for he was not Minister, says Socrates, 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 7. c. 26.  of any Church within the City, but in the Suburbs of C. P. which is called Elaea. To conclude, such was the increase of this great City, that Sozomen 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Soz. l. 2. c. 3.  does not stick to prefer it even to old Rome; and says, that by general consent it was concluded to exceed Rome in wealth and multitude of Inhabitants.  
These may seem perhaps prodigious, and of no use in the present debate that takes in the generality of Cities; yet these had respectively but one Bishop at a time, except in time of schism, and then both parties agreed in this, that there aught of right to be but one.  
Below these therefore we have another size of great Cities, which may be reasonably thought equal to the greatest now in Europe. Athens 
(p) Dion. Halic. l. 4. p. 219. l. 9 p. 624.  was almost equal to Rome within the walls; and if we put the long walls that joined the City to Piraeus into the reckoning, 
(q) Strab. l. 6.  it will swell up the sum to above twenty miles. Syracuse 
(r) Plut. in Nic.  was 20 miles in circuit and equal to Athens, accounted 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diod. Sic. l. 16.  once the greatest of all the Greek Cities: And though it had variety of fortune, yet it continued for many ages the chiefest of Sicily. Old Corinth, before it was razed by Mummius, was a great and wealthy City; it was 
(t) Strab. l. 8.  eighty five furlongs, that is near eleven miles, in circuit, as Strabo reports not from vulgar estimate, but from his own survey, for he had traced and measured the old walls. In Italy there were Cities that seem to surpass these. Milan the next after Rome, and therefore sometimes called the second Rome of Italy, was not far inferior to that imperial City in the judgement of Procopius, 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Proc. Gotth. l. 2.  and Ausonius; 
(x) Nec juncta premit vicinia Romae. Auson.  it still retains the Title of Great, and is now ten miles in compass, but much below its ancient greatness, as the ruins of the old buildings without the walls do still witness; but especially inferior to the old for number of people. For when it was taken by the Goths in Justinian's time, 
(y) Procop. Gotth. l. 2. p. 143. Ed. Haesch.  there were three hundred thousand men put to the sword, the women not reckoned, who were preserved and made a Present to the Burgundians for their service in that siege. Next to this was Aquileia, a City of superlative greatness, 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Herod. l. 8. c. 4.  renowned for being fatal to Tyrants. The compass of the walls was twelve, some say eighteen miles, besides great Suburbs mentioned by Herodian. Ravenna 
(a) Claver. Ital. Ant. l. 1. c. 28. Leand. Alb. Descr. d'Ital.  was about this size, for it was made up of three Towns, and therefore called Trigemina by Sidonius Apollinaris. The Classis, which was the port; and Via Caesaris, which was all built, and three miles in length; and Ravenna properly so called. In Gaul there was Treves, which Ausonius 
(b) Dudum celebrari Gallia gestet. Treviricaeque Urbis solium. Auson.  sets before Milan, and yet intimates that it was rather postponed than put too forward. Arles and Tholouze come into this number, the later of which is commended 
(c) 
Coctilibus muris quam circuit ambitus ingens.  
Quae modo quadruplices ex se cum effunderet urbes;  
Non ulla exhaustae sensit dispendia plebis.  
Muris, Civibus, ambitu tabernis. Et Sidoni,  
Te maris Eoi merces, & Iberica ditant. Aus.   for the great circuit of its wall and number of Inhabitants, so populous, that when it had lately peopled four Cities, it was not sensible of any loss of men. In the same Country Narbo was famous for the great compass of its wall, and for people and magnificence, and the trade of the World. To this Class we might reckon Nicomedia, Ephesus, the Cappadocian Caesarea, Cyzicus, 
(d) Strab. l. 12.  which with its own strength defended itself against Mithridates with an Army of an hundred and fifty-thousand men and a fleet of four hundred Ships. I might reckon many more of this sort; but having not the skill of Homer to set off a Catalogue of Cities with variety of expression, I will not presume farther upon the patience of the Reader.  
These instances may seem to be liable to the same exceptions with the former; for it may be said that these were rare in respect of the number of lesser Cities, and that not one in fifty was so great. It is confessed, nor are they alleged with a design of persuading that the greater part were of this size; but since these were frequent, and most Countries had some, it is reasonable to conceive, that when ancient Writers speak of great Cities, they may have some regard to these, and not be thought to magnify such mean places as our market-Towns, when they had so many Cities like London or Paris in their view. Wherefore to come yet lower, there were Cities accounted great, that wanted half of the circuit of one of these. Lacedaemon 
(e) Polib. l. 9  was a great City, tho' but six miles in compass; yet this was not the old Lacedaemon that contended with Athens for the Principality of Greece, for that had neither walls nor contiguity, but was built scatterdly after the manner of Villages, as Thucydides 
(f) Thucid. l. 1. Liv. dec. 4. l. 4. Pausan. lac. l. 3. ib. l. 8.  describes it; but the City that Polybius represents was such as Tyrants had reduced it to. Gortyna was a great Town, tho' but fifty furlongs about. Byzantium 
(g) Zosim. l. 2.  was but forty; new Corinth no more in Strabo's 
(h) Stra. l. 13.  time; Ilium was of that size. It would be endless to reckon Cities of this degree, since so many happened to have this measure, which were neither Metropoles of Provinces, nor any other way remarkable, as some of these Cities mentioned were not. Now, even these are accounted in our time great Cities. This is the compass of Antwerp, if Pontanus 
(i) Pontan. Hist. Amstelod.  was well informed; and Colen reckoned a very great City wants of it; and I do not know whether any City of ours, besides London, will fill this girdle. About this pitch we may six the point of greatness, so that what is below it, is not to be accounted great in respect of circuit; tho' it may happen, that in half this compass a great force of people may be contained. Vienna is accounted 
(l) Dr. Brown's Descript. of Vienna. p. 133.  among the chief Cities of the Empire, and yet it is scarce three miles in compass; yet for number of people is inferior or to very few. And after this manner Mr. Clerkson's riddle of little-great Cities is to be resolved. The size is but mean, and belongs to little Towns, but something accidental and extraordinary in such a bigness may happen to raise some few to a higher quality, than their outward prospect might challenge. The circuit of Emporium was three miles, and yet it is never reckoned among the great Cities of Spain. Phocaea, one of the twelve Cities of jonia, and the meanest of them, was little less. Mr. Clerkson calls this one of the greatest Cities of Aeolis, but without any authority; for Livy 
(n) Liv. Dec. 4. l. 7.  who mentions the measure of it, observes no such thing. The meanness of this Town does sufficiently appear from the small assistance it could afford to Miletus 
(o) Herod. l. 6.  when Besieged by the Persians, which was but three Ships; nor is there any account of its growing more considerable in aftertimes. Nor could it be reckoned among the great Towns when it was Besieged by Harpagus, 
(p) Herod. l. 1.  since the Ships that were in Harbour were sufficient on the sudden to convey away all the goods and persons that belonged to it. As for such small places, that sometime had borne the title of Cities, tho' they had but a mile or thereabout in circuit; they are mentioned by ancient Authors with an exception to their title. So Pausanias 
(q) Pausan. l. 10. p. 614.  speaking of Panopaeum an old City of Phocis, corrects himself in this manner, If such a place may be called a City that has neither the ornaments nor the size of a City, for the walls were but seven furlongs in compass.  
When Mr. Clerkson had endeavoured to show, that the greatest part of ancient Cities was not to be distinguished from Villages by their measure, he enters 
(r) Prim. ep. p. 53.  into an enquiry concerning the nature and constitution of a City, and what it is that makes it to differ from a Village; and he can find nothing but a wall, or some privileges, that can make a difference. For those Villages being walled, or having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, privileges of Cities granted them, became Cities without farther enlargement; so this sort of Cities far the most numerous, were but walled or privileged Villages. Although most ancient Cities were walled, yet did they not derive their title from their walls; for many places had walls that were never called Cities, and many great Cities were without walls. Lacedaemon 
(s) Pausan. Lacon. Liv. l. 38.  was unwalled for many ages by the direction of Lycurgus, and the famous Numantia 
(t) Numantia sine muro sine turribus. Luc. Flor. l. 2. c. 18.  that defeated so many Roman Armies, had no walls. All the Cities of Peloponnesus 
(u) Zosim. l. 5.  in Arcadius his time were unwalled, accounting themselves sufficiently fortified by the Hexamilium, or six-mile-wall drawn cross the Isthmus; and all the Cities of afric dismantled 
(x) Procop. Vandal. l. 1.  by the Vandals, did not presently lose their old denomination, or change their nature. It is then to the privileges or rights, our Author speaks of, that Cities own their dignity, whether they have enjoyed them from their first foundation, or have been improved from Villages; but then there must be a competent greatness, such as may decently bear the title, otherwise it will look as absurd and ridiculous, as it was for Caracalla 
(y) Herodian. l. 4. § 16.  who was of very low stature, to affect to personate Achilles or Alexander the Great. Aristotle 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  requires in every place that bears the name of City, a sufficient number of People, for an absolute and perfect communion of civil Life; for 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Arist. Pol. l. 7.  as that is not to be called a Ship that is but a span long, so neither is that place to be accounted a City that has but few Inhabitants. He mentions some, who thought a great House and little City differed only in name; but he is too exact in his distribution of things into their proper kinds, to bear this lose way of speaking; for says he, a House or Family is the first sort, and as it were the foundation of civil society; a Village is but the increase, and as it were, the colony of the first house; and then 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Arist. Pol. l. 1.  many Villages united by a full and perfect communion make a City. And in all his definitions of a City, he makes 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist. Pol. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Id. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Arist. Oecon. l. 1.  a multitude of Villages essential, and this multitude determined by such a sufficiency of strength, as may serve for the defence and security of that City, and the assistance of their neighbours in case they are invaded. So then his City requires a complete strength for War, which no single Village can well pretend to; it requires a Country sufficient to maintain this society, and a strength to defend not only the Town, but the Territory. Now it would seem very strange, that Aristotle should be so little acquainted with the condition of Cities in his time, that when he defined the notion, he should shut out the greater number out of his definition; as he must do if they were no other than privileged Villages, or such as our Market-Towns with a magnificent Charter; for none of these in the state they now are, without any dependence, can answer the sufficiency that he makes indispensable, and the principal part of his definition.  
Hippodamus the Milesian 
(d) Arist. Pol. l. 2.  requires for his City ten thousand men; whom he distributes into three equal parts, the first to consist of Soldiers, the second of Husbandmen, and the third of Tradesmen. Aristotle finds fault with the distribution, but not with the number; nor can it be judged extraordinary. For when Timoleon proclaimed the freedom of Syracuse over all Greece to any that would remove thither, and fifty thousand men had come upon this invitation, he placed ten thousand of them in Argyrinea, reckoned as Diodorus Siculus 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diodor. Sic. l. 16.  says, among the little Cities of Sicily. And Myriandrus a City that had its name from the number of those first settled there, is never mentioned among the greater Cities. And Aegesta accounted 
(f) Diod. Sic. l. 20.  among the smaller Cities of Sicily had 10000 in it when it was taken by Agathocles. Plato 
(g) Plat. de Leg. l. 5.  would have five thousand and forty houses in his City, because that number is commodious for subdivisions; not because he would have his Commonwealth confined to that measure, for sometimes he would have as many Husbandmen; and other times he is so extravagant in multiplying his Citizens, that Aristotle thought no place on earth able to maintain them but the Province of Babylon, or if there be any other Country of so prodigious fruitfulness. Yet in the general, he 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plat. de R. P. l. 4.  is neither for a great nor a little City, but one that is sufficient, and would have it grow no farther then, that it still may remain one. And when it has territories enough for its Subsistence, to part with the rest, in case it had more, and not to retain a superfluous possession. Yet even of this moderate size, he expects 
(i) Plat. de Leg. l. 5.  a sufficience to defend themselves against the insults of their neighbours, and to assist those who are wrongfully assaulted. But to leave these Cities in the air, and to come to something more real.  
The first 
(k) Arist. Pol. l. 5.  Cities of the Greeks were very small and numerous; but finding the inconveniency of having their strength thus dispersed, and being unable to make any considerable defence apart, they thought it more advisable to make a few great Cities of these many little ones, and to make their strength more useful by bringing it closer together. So Theseus 
(l) Plut. in Thes.  persuaded the people of the little towns of Attica to remove to Athens. So Argos 
(m) Pausan. l. 8. p. 498.  grew by demolishing Mycena and Tyrinthus, and other neighbouring Cities. So Epaminondas persuaded the Arcadians to leave their small Cities, and to go to Megalopolis, which was made up of above thirty Cities. Thebes owed 
(o) Dio. Chrys. Or. 46.  its greatness to the same great person, who brought all Boeotia in a manner into that City. And Miletus increased by the occasion of little Towns in Troas and Aeolis. Halicarnassus 
(p) Strabo.  was raised by the accession of six small Cities of Caria. And Alexandria 
(q) Strab. l. 13.  in Troas drew in the same Cities and Castles that were about it. And to conclude, Cassander 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diod. Sic. l. 19  prevailed with the people of Acarnania to leave their little strong places that were numerous, and to betake themselves to a few large Cities for their more easy defence against their Enemies; and accordingly that Nation resolved itself into three great Cities, Stratopolis, Sauria and Agrinium. I might multiply instances of this sort without end; but these are enough to explain that sufficiency of measure that Aristotle requires as essential to a City, and to show the vanity of those who pretend to demonstrate the measure and number of Primitive Bishoprics, from the multitude and smallness of Cities dissolved long before our Saviour's time, and reduced into a small number of more considerable Towns, as being better fitted for common safety and the ends of civil community.  
As to the rights and privileges by which Cities were distinguished from Villages, they were of two sorts, either such as concerned Religion, or those that belonged to civil Government. The feasts and games and sacrifices were under the direction of the City Magistrate, and celebrated in Cities, whether all the Villages that were within the territory of those Cities did resort on such occasions; and therefore Dio Chrysostomus 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  makes Festivals one of the characteristics of a City. And then as to their civil Government, they had administration of Justice within themselves, and were subject to no other jurisdiction, as Villages were; for such as were of the resort of any City, were obliged to go thither for Justice, and were in all things subject to the City Magistrate; and if the Territory were very large, than some subordinate Magistrates were appointed in the Villages for keeping of the peace, and deciding of lesser actions. And it is observed 
(t) Dio. Chr. Or. 39 Polyb. l. 4. p. 468. l. 113 & Decur. Cod. Theod.  as a peculiarity in the Territory of Elis, that the country people had Justice administered at home, without the trouble of repairing to the City Courts, so that many of them did not so much as see their City in all their lives. Now the privileges of our Cities, tho' they bear some resemblance to those of which I have been speaking, yet are they much short of them in respect both of fullness and extent of jurisdiction, which with us seldom reaches beyond the walls of the City; whereas in the Greek and Roman way of Government, a City had as it were a County belonging to it; so that our Cities are but exempts from the County, whereas those of ancient times were the Lords and the Judges of the Counties in which they were seated. Such were the Cities of the Roman Empire when Christian Religion was first preached in them; and the Apostles or their successors who planted Churches, and appointed Bishops in the Cities where they preached, did not think fit to prescribe any new bounds, but accommodated themselves to the limits of the several Cities, which as they were very unequal, occasioned the Christian Dioceses to become so too. But this made no quarrel in ancient times; for there were then neither Presbyterians nor Independents to call for new Agrarian Divisions in the Church of God. That therefore which our Author 
(u) Prim. ep. p. 54.  affirms of ancient Cities, that they were but privileged Villages, and that a wall or something as inconsiderable made the only difference, must proceed either from ignorance of the state of ancient Cities, or what is worse, from an intention to deceive. Nor yet do those who grant Bishops to lesser Cities, leave themselves therefore without reason to deny them to Villages; for the difference was more than a wall or a formality.  
Our Author 
(x) Prim. ep. p 54.  goes on to confound Villages and Cities, and observes that Bethlega is a Village in Josephus. But Jonathan having walled it, immediately after he calls it a City. There were many Villages in the South of Judea and Arabia, that were not only as populous as ordinary Cities, but great Communities, having a great number of Villages in their dependences, as I have observed already. Armena was an unwalled place, till the inhabitants in their wisdom encompassed it with a wall to keep them warmer, which may be the reason why to some it is a City, to others a Village. Solinus whom our Author citys for calling it a City, does not so much as mention it. Pomponius Mela and Pliny name it among the Cities and Towns of the Country; but those who call it a Village, speak more exactly, notwithstanding it had a wall. So Menippus in his Periplus or Voyage calls it, and from him Strabo and the rest. 
(z) Steph. in Armene. Xenoph. Exp. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  What our Author means by mentioning the wisdom of the people of this Village for building a wall about the Town, I cannot easily imagine, since of old it was proverbial for folly, 
(a) Strab. l. 12.  that those who built the walls of Armena had little to do. After this he mentions Majuma the Port of Gura, honoured with the privilege of a City for its forwardness in the Christian Religion. Yet 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sozom. l. 5. c. 3.  even this very place had several country Parishes and Churches belonging to it; and besides being an extraordinary case, and late, cannot be drawn into any consequence in the present question about the seats of the Primitive Bishops. Cenchrea by mistake is called a City by Stephanus, and our Author does worse than mistake, when he citys 
(c) Prim. ep. p. 55.  Strabo calling Nelias and many other Towns, both Cities and Villages in the space of three or four lines, and uses this as an argument to show what little difference there is between a City and a Village; for these places had been Cities, but Demetrius 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 9  when he built a City, which he called after his own name Demetrias, he drew out the Inhabitants of Nelias and several other small Cities, to people his new Town, and so those places which were before Cities, became Villages to Demetrias, and when they changed their nature, they might well change their names. Our Author could not but see this; yet alas, it is given but to few Dissenters to be ingenuous and fair dealers.  
That there were Bishops in small Cities is so well known, that Mr. Clerkson might have saved himself the trouble of proving it, and have presumed so far upon the knowledge of his Reader; but since by taking upon him to make unnecessary proof of so plain a fact, he commits some gross mistakes, I do not think myself obliged to conceal them Abydus says he, 
(e) Prim. ep. p. 55.  is parva habitatio; and for this citys Strabo 
(f) Strab. l. 17.  but he had not the fortune to know that this Abydus in Egypt, of which Strabo speaks, was never a Bishop's seat, at leastwise that it does not appear to have been; though a City of that name on the Hellespont had a Bishop, which I suppose was the occasion of our Author's mistake. For he who confounds Cities and Villages together, may well be allowed to confound two Towns of the same name. Ascalon because it was in Strabo's time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and afterwards had a Bishop, is brought among the mean Episcopal seats; whereas this place had the fortune to improve so far, that in Constantius his time 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Geogr. Anon. Gotofr.  it was one of the chiefest Cities of Phoenicia, according to Gotofred's old Geographer. He might have spared likewise those Cities that were raised from Villages; since he has not the least intimation from ancient Writers, whether they were great or small. It is not likely that Constantine should 
(h) Socr. l. 1. c. 18.  adorn a mean Town with his Mother's name, and that Helenopolis 
(i) Conc. Chalced. Act. 13.  the City should be no better than Drepana the Village; or that Julian 
(l) Ammian. Marcell. l. 25.  the Apostate should bestow his mother's name Basilima, to dignify a Village belonging to Nice, and improve it not otherwise than by the Title of a City. And if to be raised from a Village to a City imply, that the place must be small, than Constantinople must pass for a mean place, because it was but a Village before Constantine raised it. Now though these Cities had been all as small as our Author would suggest, yet will they do him little service in promoting of Congregational Episcopacy; because there were several Bishops of small Towns who had large Dioceses, and particularly Theodoret, 
(m) Theod. Ep. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. Ep. 42.  who confesses the meaness of his City, that it was almost desolate, and had but few Inhabitants; yet had a Diocese forty miles square, and 800 Churches under his care. But of this I shall be more particular in a more proper place,  

(a) Prim. Ep. p. 56.  It is taken for a Rule, says our Author, that where there is a Defensor Civitatis, there was a Bishop; and Justinian appoints such a Defensor,— not only of the great Cities, but of the less.— And there is a Law in the Code, that every City should have a Bishop,— without exception of little or great, but only two, Tomis and Leontopolis, which afterwards had its Bishop, and Tomis before. He must be very unreasonable, who finds fault with this Rule. And now that our Author speaks reason, and plain things, God forbidden he should be contradicted. When men who delight in paradoxes and singular fancies, happen to be in the right, it is a great sin to oppose them. Let every City have its Bishop, and such exceptions as custom hath prescribed, be allowed, till there be reason for a change. There is surely from this no hurt to the Diocesan way, nor any service done to Independent Congregations. Yet I cannot but take notice, that our Author, after his usual manner, stumbles here too upon plain ground; and the remark he thinks fit to make upon the exceptions in this Law, shows he did not understand it. Tomis he observes had a Bishop before this exception was made; as if the Law had suggested that that City had been without a Bishop, or annexed to another. Whereas on the contrary it says, 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. c. 3. Tit. 3.  that Tomis had the care of other Cities of Scythia; for indeed all that Province of Scythia, though it had many Cities, had 
(c) Sozom. l. 7. c. 18.  but one Bishop, of whom Tomis was the place of Residence and the Title. What our Author adds to the same effect for Bishops in every City, from the ancient Comments on Titus 1. and from S. Cyprian and Origen, is readily allowed without farther debate. But when he comes to his application, and says over the same things we have had so often before, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the best Authors sacred and profane to denote both a City and a Village, and that the Apostle would have such Bishops as were then instituted not only in Cities but in Villages;— and that it cannot with reason be questioned, that the Apostolical intention was for places no larger than our Burroughs or Market-Towns, yea in places no greater than our ordinary Villages, and that they designed a Bishop to be no more than the Rector of a Country Parish: He seems to me to affect to say these strange things over to himself, that they might become familiar by repetition, and the Importunity of affirming supply the defect of proof, of which nothing has been past by or dissembled, that has been hitherto produced. But he seems to suspect the sufficience of what he had hitherto alleged, and therefore opens a new Evidence, which we are now to consider.  

(d) Prim. Ep. p. 58, 59  Campania in Italy was a Region ennobled with Cities, being so thick set, 
(e) Strab. l. 5.  as they seemed to be one continued Town; and yet all were but little Towns, besides Capua and Theanum. This instance had not been worth producing, if our Author had been so fair as to add one word more out of Strabo, who does not say the Cities of Campania were small Towns absolutely, but 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that they were such in comparison of Capua. For Capua, says he, was indeed what the name imports, the head and the chief of the Country; for compared to this the other were but little Towns, except Theanum; for that it seems was not only considerable, but great enough to bear the comparison. As if one intending to set out the excessive greatness of London, should say that the other Cities of England were but Villages compared to it: Our Cities are not made Villages or little Towns by the expression; but London is to be conceived excessive great. The Spies of Israel who gave an account of the Giants of Canaan saying 
(g) Numb. 13.33.  we were in our own sight but Grasshoppers, did not intent to disparage their own stature, but to represent the prodigious height of the sons of Anak. So in Laconia, where were anciently a hundred Cities, in Strabo 's time there were but thirty, and those small Towns. That Country was very low in Strabo's time; and these Cities which are here reckoned, were but Villages to Sparta, excepting those of Laconia who were called free. Ptolemy 
(h) Ptol. l. 3.  reckons in this Region fewer Cities by much; and when Bishops were settled in that Country, it does not appear that these small Towns ever had any, but only the great Cities, upon which these depended: As appears from the subscriptions of the Greek Bishops to their Synodical Letter 
(i) Ep. Synod. Episc. Metr. Corinth. Conc. Chalc. p. 3.  to Leo the Emperor.  

(l) Prim. Ep. p. 59  The Kingdom of Eumenes is the next instance, and this left him by his father in a part of Asia, (as well stored with Cities as any in the world) besides Pergamus the Metropolis, consisted of such places as Polybius in Suidas calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now if Mr. Clerkson's observation be true, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never signifies a City but a Village, this poor King had no Cities either small or great to begin the World with; for by that name Strabo 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 13.  calls the places about Pergamus that this King received from his Father; and he adds, that Pergamus itself was hardly a City before this Eumenes had made it so, for all its greatness was owing to him. How little these were is not very material, since Polybius 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polyb. Excerp. de virt. & vit. p. 1467.  tells us they were but few. And however Asia might be furnished with Cities, the paternal Kingdom of Eumenes was but very poorly provided. And now comes in Crete once more, and I think the third time, with its hundred Homerical Cities, and as many imaginary Bishops. Yet since our Author insists 
(o) Prim. Ep. p. 59  upon it as the most pertinent Instance, let it be mustered as often as he pleases. We are often told that when Titus was there, it had a hundred Cities, and that by the Apostles appointment he was to ordain as many Bishops. If our Author was often told this Tale, he is even with his Authors, for he tells it as oft; and I am afraid if it had been true, he had not taken so great delight in repeating it. Dr. Hammond indeed spoke unwarily of an hundred Cities in that Island, and consequently of as many Bishops to be ordained by Titus, it not concerning the question he was treating of, whether they were many or few; but he did not consider, how different the state of that Island in Titus his time was, from that which is represented by Homer. For in Strabo's time there was scarce a tenth part of this number; nor do I know of any since Homer's time who could find those hundred Cities, but Simeon Metaphrastes, who speaks of an Earthquake that destroyed this whole Century of Cities at once; but he provided by this destruction, that no body else should ever find them. But Scaliger 
(p) Scal. Not. in Euseb. Chron. p. 258.  rebukes this extravagant destroyer, and corrects the figures, instead of a hundred directing us to read ten. I shall add no more here; since I have given an account already of the number of the Cretian Bishops and Cities.  

(q) Prim. Ep. p. 60.  For one Bishop in a great City, there was ten, sometimes twenty, sometimes more in the lesser Towns; and more there had been, had not the ambition of following Ages, with a non obstante to the Apostles rule, judged a small place unbeseeming the honour and greatness of a Bishop. That the lesser Cities were much more numerous than the great, is readily granted; that these lesser Cities were no bigger than the generality of our Market-Towns, after all our Author has done, requires farther proof. We have indeed some Market-Towns that are not inferior to Cities, but then they are not for our Author's purpose; for they have many Parishes and Churches, and cannot be crowded into one Congregation. City's very small were likewise very rare, and the generality were too great for a Congregational Bishop. It was not the ambition of after-ages, that forbade the making of Bishops in mean places; but when a Bishop was a name of great honour, and had many civil privileges annexed to it, it was the ambition of vain men that instigated them to endeavour to be Bishops though in a Village, and places where there never had been any before; and it was the wisdom of the Church to put a stop to that ambition, and by that means to secure the unity of the Church and the possibility of a general Communion. But our Author complains, that in some such places where they had been settled, they were extinguished, and in other places they were united. So Phulla was united to Sugdaea, and so Tyropolis to Alania. These Instances might have been spared, for they are too new for our present purpose, being of the twelfth or thirteenth Century. And these were not joined because the Dioceses were small: For those of Bulgary, to which the first instance appertain, were very large without those Unions; and in the other, Alania is not the name of a Town, but of a Nation. But the question being about Primitive Dioceses, it had been more to the purpose to have shown of what extent they were for the first three hundred years, and then to have informed us what alterations succeeding ages had made as to the bounds of ancient Bishoprics; how some came to be extinguished, and others to be united. But the ages that next followed the time, to which our Author confines his Primitive Episcopacy, were so far from sinking or uniting Bishoprics, that they divided those old ones, and made many of one; and yet after all, they were still of the Diocesan way, as will appear hereafter. The reducing of the Bishoprics of Sardinia to seven, is likewise late; and when they were most, they were Diocesan and not Congregational: And in the fifth Century 
(r) Not. Africa. Ed. Sirmond.  they were not so many as they are now, for they were but five. As for the Bishoprics of Ireland and of Italy, they have been already considered at large, and may be dismissed without farther reply.  
The Council of Sardica is once more arraigned 
(s) Prim. ep. p. 61.  for forbidding Bishops in the least Cities; but the equity of that Canon, as well as of several others to the same effect, has been already defended from the cavils of Mr. Clerkson, and therefore ought in reason to be discharged from farther vexation. Yet since these exceptions are made, not only against this Canon, but the Authority of that Synod; for curiosities sake they may be examined. 
(t) Prim. ep. p. 61.  I will not say that many of the Bishops there were Arrians, tho' the Oriental Prelates present there showed themselves immediately after at Philippopolis; and the Arrians were branded for not being contented with small Bishoprics. Some men can use very crafty figures of speech, when they have nothing to the purpose. I will not say: But why I pray? There lies no Action of Scandalum Magnatum from those Bishops; he might safely venture to say any thing of them that he knew to be true. Yet the modest diffident man will not say they were Arrians? No, he will not say it forsooth. But is there any ground for such a suspicion? The good man will not say it. Why then does he say, that he will not say it? Tho' the Oriental Prelates present there, showed themselves presently after at Philippolis: Yet for all this, he will not say that many of them were Arrians. A captious man may take this to be nonsense, but I will not say it. When a Dissenter mumbles after this manner; it is not altogether for the elegance of the figure, but when he knows that what he offers for an argument is either a lie, or not to the purpose, than such reserves as this serve to bring him off in case of detection, for he would not say it then for all the World: and this is the present case. Our Author had a mind to disparage the Council of Sardica for this Canon, that forbids the making of Bishops in Villages and such small Cities where there had been none before; to take away their credit he intimates that many of the Bishops were Arrians. Some Arrian Bishops came 
(u) Ep. Synod. Sardic. ap. Theodor. l. 2. c. 8.  indeed to Sardica, but they had no more to do in making that Canon, than Mr. Clerkson. For they never joined with the Western Bishops so far as to be present with them, and 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 2. c. 20.  they refused so much as to confer or to speak with them, unless they would first put Athanasius and Paul Bishop of C. P. out of their Communion; and when they could not obtain that, they left Sardica and went to Philippopolis. And tho' our Author was not ignorant of this, yet he could not forbear excepting against that Synod, upon the account of those Arrians, who, he knew had not the least hand in any of the Canons made at Sardica. Yet the close of this exception surpasses all the rest. The Arrians were branded for not being contented with small Bishoprics. By which observation our Author would suggest, if the Reader will take it, that these Arrians made that Canon, which forbids Bishops to be ordained in small Cities, because they were not content with small Bishoprics; whereas this Canon was made against the Innovations of the Arrians, who made Bishops in such small places where there never had been any before. And Ischyras 
(y) Socrat. l. 2. c. 20,  ordained in a small Village in Egypt, was among the Eastern Bishops at Sardica, and it may be imagined, would not very readily subscribe to that Canon which condemned his Ordination.  
The next exception against this Synod is, 
(z) Prim. ep. p. 62.  that it was of little authority, not admitted by the Greeks into their Code till the Trullan Council.— Nor by the Latins some ages after it was held, etc.— Nor by the African Churches, who rejected, and would not be obliged by its Canons for Appeals to Rome. How soon or late this Synod was generally received, does little concern the Canon in dispute, which does not establish any thing new, but only affirms ancient Practice. And if the matter of this Canon was generally observed, where the Synod of Sardica was not yet owned, it is plain, that this matter depends upon better authority than the sanction of a Council; immemorial Custom, and the general agreement of Churches. Without regard to this Canon, the bounds of ancient. Bishoprics were accounted sacred, and not lightly to be changed. Some Villages in Pentapolis, accounted considerable enough to make a Diocese in troublesome times, because they had immemorially been annexed to the Episcopal City, were judged by their people to have been settled in that condition by Apostolical Order, and therefore the people of those places were earnest they should return again to their first dependence. The Region Mareotes was large enough to make a good Diocese of itself; yet when a Bishop was set up in one part of it, Athanasius complains that it was done against ancient Tradition, which in such cases as these, was to take place. Theophilus' Bishop of Alexandria having made a Bishop in a mean place, where there had been none before, is blamed, as a violator of the established Order of the Church. So that if the Synod of Sardica was not received any where, for many ages after it was held; yet this Canon against making Bishops in small places where there had been none before, was it seems generally approved, at leastwise the matter of it was accounted equal and fit. There are Orders of other Synods in the same age, to the same effect; and I do not know of any ancient Assembly, or so much as a single Writer, that ever made any exception against this Rule. But on the contrary, when Bishops were ordained in small places, where there had been none before, we find complaints against it, as a violation of old establishment; and even in Afric, where such innovations grew frequent, the complaints were loud on both sides. In the Conference at Carthage the Donatists as well as Catholics complaining of these violations of ancient limits.  

(a) Prim. ep. p. 62.  Nor need I say that this Synod is misunderstood, and that this restraint is laid on Bishops of another Province. Our Author speaks reason; for surely he needs not say what he had said already, and to so little purpose; nor need I repeat here what I have replied before. But what he adds, deserves consideration for the newness and singularity of the Argument. It would be much, says our Author, for our satisfaction, if we could understand punctually what numbers they thought sufficient for one Presbyter; and we may have the best direction that can be expected in such a case from Chrysostom, 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. Or. in. Ignat.  who affirms, that one hundred and fifty Souls was thought as much as one Pastor could well, and more than he could without great labour discharge. His words are, It is a very laborious thing for one man to have the charge of a hundred and fifty. How much this was to the satisfaction of Mr. Clerkson, I will not inquire; how little it is to the purpose, will I hope, sufficiently appear from what I am going to reply. First then, Chrysostom makes not the least mention of a Presbyter, nor of the number sufficient for his cure; but in general says, It is a difficult thing for one man to take the care of a hundred and fifty only. Whether one Presbyter or one Bishop, or one Captain, he does not say. And this is clear, that at the same time he makes such a little flock so formidable a charge, he makes 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. in Ign. T. 5. P. 501.  the Apostles to commit a City of twenty myriads, or two hundred thousand, to the cure of Ignatius; and therefore from thence gives an estimate of the person, and of what talents he must be possessed, to whom the Apostles would deliver so great a charge. The design therefore of Chrysostom in that passage is to set out the character of Ignatius to advantage, from the greatness of the City, of which he was Bishop; and to set off the City, he compares it with the lowest or meanest Congregations; but does not give the least intimation that no one Presbyter had greater, or that a place of more inhabitants than a hundred and fifty required the care of a Bishop. If to commend the chief Magistrate of some very great City, one should borrow this of Chrysostom, and say, that it is a difficult thing to govern a Family of twenty people, or to keep good order in a Town of but two hundred inhabitants; and therefore his endowments must be extraordinary, into whose hands the government of so great a City is committed; he would be thought a very strange Critic, who from such a compliment should remark, that a Family ought to consist of no more than twenty; or that a Constable ought not to undertake the keeping of the peace in a Village that has more than two hundred inhabitants; and therefore where there is a greater number, it requires a Mayor and Aldermen to undertake the charge. Or if upon a Commemoration of some Bishop of London, the Preacher should think fit to turn the greatness of the City into a Topic of that Bishop's commendation, and say, that a cure of a hundred and fifty Souls is a great and difficult charge, and great care to be used in providing even for such a place an able Pastor; and therefore what wonderful abilities must he be thought master of, who was judged capable of being the Pastor of so vast a City. Would any man that is awake conclude from hence, that there is never a Parish-Presbyter in England, that had a greater cure? So pertinent is that direction which our Author fancied to have found in Chrysostom for understanding punctually what numbers they anciently thought sufficient for one Presbyter. To the same effect he proceeds to tell us, 
(d) Prim. ep. p. 63.  that upon this account one Presbyter was not thought sufficient for a place that contained three or four hundred inhabitants. For this we desire some proof, but I am afraid we must expect long. There is one thing more in our Author's remarks upon the Canon of Sardica, that deserves to be taken notice of; and that is, that where one Presbyter is not sufficient, there a Bishop ought to be ordained. It is a rule he has made to himself, by inverting the Canon of Sardica, that forbids the making of a Bishop in a very little City, where even one Presbyter may suffice. Now the practice of antiquity was very different in this case from what our Author fancies; for there were several Towns that had no Bishops, which had not only many Presbyters, but many Congregations. Bethleem was but a Village belonging to Jerusalem, 
(e) Hieron. ep. ad. Joh. Hieros.  and yet it had many Presbyters belonging to it; the great resort of Christians thither from all parts making it too populous for one Presbyter to supply it. Nicopolis near Alexandria 
(f) Strab. l. 17. Voss. Var. Obser.  was not inferior to a City, but never had a Bishop of its own; and therefore must have many Presbyters and Congregations without a Bishop. There were many Villages in the Territory of Antioch 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Liban. Antioch.  superior to many Cities, and these had no Bishops but Presbyters; and the greatness attributed to them, makes it necessary they should have several Ministers and Congregations. Fussala 
(h) Aug. ep. 209.  which before S. Augustins' time had always belonged to the Diocese of Hippo, had several Congregations or Parishes in it. And as for single Presbyters, they had of old Country Parishes large enough; for those of Mareotes 
(i) Athanas. Ap. 2.  had some ten, some more Villages to make up their several Parishes. And these Congregations must far exceed the stint of Mr. Clerkson, or those Villages must be very mean; and yet one of the meanest of them was thought capable of a Bishop by the Arrian party. Libanus 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodor. Hist. Rel. in Abr.  a very great Village, had but one Presbyter, one Abram who Converted it; and in the Territory of Antioch 
(m) Id. in vit. Policron.  there were many Villages under one Presbyter. In conclusion, when he had qualified the Canon so often mentioned to his own mind, and made it allow Latitude enough for Congregational Episcopacy; he finds 
(n) Prim. ep. p. 65.  fault with both Greeks and Latins, that they did not think themselves concerned to observe it. Sometimes he thinks fit to lessen that Synod, because neither the Eastern or Western Churches had received it; and now he is discontented that all had not observed it. When some have puzzled long upon a matter that does not easily comply with their Hypothesis, they are apt to lose their first design, and to forget what it was they would have: But our Author, tho' in some things he seem to forget himself, is sure to keep to the conclusion, that those Cities lesser or greater, the greatest being no bigger than Villages with them, and Market-Towns with us.— They contained no more than might meet together for Christian Communion.— What we assert concerning the smallness of ancient Bishoprics, is clear for incomparably the greatest number of them. How effectually he has performed this, let the Learned Reader be judge, when he has compared the Allegations on both sides. And after all, tho' what he contends for in this Chapter should be admitted, the smallness of ancient Bishoprics is not clear, unless it be first proved that the City where the Bishop resided made up his whole Bishopric; and how far this is from being true, will appear in more proper place.   

CHAP. IU.  
THE great Cities come now under consideration; 
(o) Prim. ep. p. 66.  and about these, our Author allows, there may be more question. Concerning these, he insists earnestly upon two points. The first, That even those great Cities were not very large nor populous. The second, That for many ages after Christ, there were but few Christians in them; at lest no more than might meet in one Assembly, and comply with the measure of Congregational Episcopacy. Those were counted great Cities which had sixteen or twenty furlongs in circumference. And even such Cities might be so well inhabited, that they could not all meet in one Congregation for Christian Communion. But this compass was never accounted great, tho' some other circumstances might render such City's considerable; but hereof, he says, he has given instances before, and those instances have been examined. Yet here he adds four instances more. Pelusium a Metropolis of a great part of Egypt, 
(p) Strab. l. 17.  was but twenty furlongs in circumference. That Pelusium was accounted a great City in Strabo's time, or was Metropolis of any part of Egypt, is only an imagination of our Author, which is always very favourable and subservient to his notion. This place had indeed in very old times been very great: And Manetho 
(q) Ap. Joseph. count. Appion. p. 921. Ed. Frob. Marsh. Can. Chron. p. 107.  reports, that it had a Garrison of two hundred and forty thousand men; and than it must have a wider circumference than Strabo speaks of. 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diod. Sic. l. 16.  Diodorus Siculus therefore calls it an ordinary Town with respect to that condition of which our Author speaks, and uses a diminutive name of City to express it. Tanis was once a great place, and Metropolis of a Nomus, and is styled a great City by Strabo; 
(s) Strab. l. 17.  yet Jerom 
(t) Hieron. Ep. ad Evag.  makes it an instance of one of the meanest Cities of Egypt. Phocaea 
(u) Prim. ep. p. 66.  one of the greatest Cities in Aeolis had no more, as Livy 
(x) Duum millium & quingentorum passuum spacium murus amplectitur. Liv. D. 4. l. 7.  describes it. This instance has been examined already, and our Author is destitute of any authority for making this a great City. I am sure Eusebius 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Praepar. l. 4. p. 157.  mentions the place with some slight, as if it had been some condescension to take notice of them. Sebaste built by Herod, designing to make it comparable to the most eminent Cities, was no longer than twenty furlongs. Yet it was not the compass, but the magnificence of this City that made it equal to the most eminent. For in Stephanus 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Steph.  it is mentioned with some diminution, and called a small City; and it is familiar with Josephus to magnify the works of Herod something beyond the justness of History. Byzantium is the last instance of a great Town of little circuit; but how unfortunate our Author was in this allegation, I have showed already, and take no delight to expose mistakes, which his too great addictedness to his notion so often betrays him to. I have in the preceding Chapter given instances of several sizes of Cities accounted great, and the lowest of them double to what our Author would make a general standard for the measure of great Cities. I will add a few here to compare with the additional instances he thought fit to produce by way of Reserve. Xenophon 
(a) Xenoph. Exp. Cyri. l. 3. Larissa on the Tigris. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in his expedition of Cyrus, mentions some Cities, with the character of Great. He gives the circuit but of two, of which the least was two parasangs, the other four. Now a parasang 
(b) Herodot. l. 5.  containing thirty furlongs, the least of these was seven miles and an half in compass, the other double. Dicaearchus 
(c) Dicaearch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex. Haeschel. p. 172.  gives the measure of Thebes in Boeotia, and makes it seventy furlongs, i. e. near nine miles in compass; and is so particular in giving the figure of the City, and the nature of the soil about it; that there is no doubt, but he was an eye witness of what he relates. Yet there is another fragment, that goes under the name of the same Author, and is written in verse, that makes 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 166.  it but forty three furlongs about; which better suits with its condition in latter times, which was far below its ancient greatness, and what it was in the age of Dicaearchus who was Aristotle's Scholar. Chalcis in Eubaea was likewise seventy furlongs in circumference, as the same Author 
(e) Dicaearch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 176.  reports; which agrees well with what Strabo 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 10.  relates of this place, at the time of which Dicaearchus speaks. For about the time of Alexander's expedition into Asia, the Citizens of Chalcis enlarged their walls, and took in Canethus and Eurypus. But to return to our Author.  

(g) Prim. ep. p. 66. 67.  Such great Cities (seeing the largeness assigned them was thought sufficient to make one Metropolis) they were very few. What he takes for an extraordinary measure, was so far from being accounted so, that it is to be rather accounted little than great; and what he fancies to be rare, was but the size of ordinary Towns. Those which were any thing remarkable for greatness, having above double the compass; and many reckoned no prodigies, having four times as much. But the remark that follows, deserves pity rather than discussion. That whereas there was but one Metropolis in a Province, there were twenty, sometimes forty more inferior Cities under it. And the Council of Chalcedon 
(h) Conc. Chalc. Act. 12.  declares it to be against the Ecclesiastical Rules to have two Metropoles in one Province. But what Council was ever so vain as to Order that there should be but one great City in a Province; or if a Metropolis should happen not to be very large, that no City within its resort should presume to be greater than the mother Town? Nice was 
(i) Strab. l. 12.  the old Metropolis of Bythinia, yet Nicomedia was 
(l) Dio. Or. ad Nicom.  much the greater City, and in time carried away the Metropolitical pre-eminence. Caesarea 
(m) Conc. Chalc. Act. 13.  was the Metropolis of Palestine, and yet Aelia or the Gentile Jerusalem was not inferior to it. Nor did 
(n) Arrian: Exp. Alex. l. 2. p. 159.  Gaza and Azotus, and in Constantius his reign 
(o) Geogr. vet. Gotofr.  Lydda and Ascalon cease to be great Cities, because they were not Metropoles. Old Byzantium 
(p) Herodian. l. 3. Codin. l. 1. c. 20. Parochia Heracliensis Ecclesiae. Gelas. Epist. 13. ad Ep. Dardan.  was under Heraclea, at least wise in Ecclesiastical affairs; and yet it was accounted then the greatest City of Thrace. Antioch was the Metropolis of Syria, 
(q) Strab. l. 16.  and yet the Cities of that Province were generally very great and populous, tho' not equal to their Mother City. There were but very few Metropoles so small as those Mr. Clerkson has picked out; but he is willing the Reader should imagine that this is the greatest size of Cities. To very little purpose he observes, that Lesbus was Metropolis of thirty Cities, and is forced to strain the words of Strabo, 
(r) Strab. l. 13.  without any occasion, or doing any service to his cause. For that Author says, that Lesbus and Cuma were as it were the Mothers of thirty Cities, i. e. all the Cities of Eolis, which had been about thirty; but before Strabo's time many of them were lost. And to what end is all this? Were they then all inferior to Lesbus, because it was their Mother? What did not Syracuse outgrow Corinth? and Carthage surpass Tyre? and Marseilles exceed Phocaea? Was it not usual for Colonies to excel their mother Cities? And even of these thirty Cities, who can tell how few remained to be Bishops Seats, or how large they were? Nor does this notion of a Metropolis concern the present point, which is only about the chief Cities of Provinces. But the greediness of snatching any thing that to a hasty view may have some resemblance of an argument, is apt to carry Learned Men sometimes very far from their purpose. To as much purpose he takes notice, 
(s) Prim. ep. p. 67.  that in Phrygia there were above sixty Cities; yet the same Author mentions but two that were great. Strabo does indeed mention two, as the greatest Cities of the greater Phrygia; but this does no more imply that the rest were little, than he who should say that Amsterdam and Leyden were the greatest Cities in Holland, would imply, that the rest of the Cities of that Province were but small, and like our Burroughs or Market-Towns. In Laconica he notes, that there were thirty Cities in Strabo's time,— all little Towns, save Sparta. He had noted this before, and I have showed that these were in effect but Villages belonging to Sparta; and of all these thirty, there were scarce three of them Bishops Seats in the middle of the fifth Century; nor does it appear there ever had been any more.  

(t) Prim. ep. p. 67.  Some of those great Cities had but few Inhabitants: And he instances in Laodicea, which had but few Inhabitants in Strabo's time, because it was subject to Earthquakes; and then reckons up several Cities of the East subject to the same calamity, and twelve famous Cities that in Tiberius his Reign were in one night destroyed by Earthquake in those parts. I am very sorry to find a man, who pretends to be serious, trifling with the most dreadful of God's Judgements. He might with as much reason have brought in as many more that had been dispeopled by the Plague, and then urge that some great Cities were not populous. It is not long since Naples shook; yet he would be thought a strange kind of reasoner, that should thence infer, that it is not a populous City. Antioch hath been several times in a manner totally overthrown with Earthquakes, yet still was soon after filled with Inhabitants; and these Countries which our Author chooseth for his instances, were famous for their fecundity and their people, and were not forsaken, tho' it pleased God sometimes to chastise them with Earthquakes. And what part of the World is there, where men can be safe from that danger? nay, the most populous and fruitful parts of the World have been most afflicted with this evil: Whether we must look for the reason in the nature of the Soil, or in the Justice of God. For wickedness increasing in proportion to men, and places as they grow more populous, becoming more wicked, may be therefore more exposed to such strokes of vengeance. It is probable, says Mr. Clerkson, 
(u) Prim. ep. p. 68  Neocaesarea was not very populous, considering what Theodoret 
(x) Theod. l. 4. c. 22. Ed. Vales.  reports of those banished thither by Valens (who was not wont to choose desirable places for the punishment of such) they all died there in a short time through the hardships of the place. They were not always mean and ill inhabited places, that were chose for the confinement of banished persons. Paul Bishop of Constantinople 
(y) Vit. Paul. apud. Phot. Cod. 257.  was banished to Thessalonica, 
(z) Thessalonica. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 7. Zosim. l. 1. c. 29. 43. l. 2. c. 21.  a City very large and populous; and the hardships of the place, which our Author mentions out of Theodoret, was no other than the coldness of the Country, that did not agree with the Clergy of Antioch, which Valens sent thither from a warmer Climate. It is strange, our Author thinks, 
(a) Prim. ep. p 68  if Caesarea in Cappadocia were very populous, since the Situation of it, as described by Strabo, was neither safe, nor healthful, etc. It is a vain thing to oppose remote conjectures against known fact; 
(b) Caesarea. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Soz. l. 5. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Justin. Nou. 30.  for how incommodious soever our Author may fancy the Situation of that City, which for so many ages hath been the Capital 
(c) Geogr. vet. Gotofred.  of Cappadocia; yet it has ever maintained an eminent character of a very great and populous City. The inundation of the neighbouring River did sometimes straighten them. But this was rare; 
(d) Basil. ep. ad. Theodos. Coteller. Mon. T. 2. p. 98.  and what was wanting in their next neighbourhood, was abundantly supplied by Galatia and other Countries. If one should suppose a City to be placed in a Province, where nature has furnished neither stones nor timber, and the soil scarce capable of corn; a City that has no fresh water within a good distance, nor ground under it firm enough to bear any great building, and scarce more stable than a morasse; Our Author would think it strange there should ever be people enough in such a place, to make up one competent Congregation; and yet these are the circumstances of one of the most populous Cities now in Europe. 
(e) Prim. ep. p. 68  Of Heraclea one of the most considerable Cities of Aetolia, Livy tells us, That there was a Castle by it as well inhabited. But whether that Castle which joined to the City were very great and populous, or the City small and of few inhabitants, is uncertain; but the circumstances of the Siege, and the defence that was made, while the Romans attacked the place incessantly day and night for four and twenty days, make it more probable, that this was a populous Town. And when it was taken by surprise, and the people fled to the Castle, the place, says Livy, 
(f) Liv. l. 36. c. 22. Polyb. Excerpt. leg. c. 13.  could scarce hold, much less maintain them. And surely if there were so many people in the Town, that a great Castle could scarce hold them, it would be very difficult to find one Church that could hold them all. So that this place will do little service to our Author's design. But to proceed.  

(g) Prim. ep. p. 68  A City was counted sufficiently populous if it had six thousand inhabitants. So 
(h) Joseph. B. Jud. l. 1. c. 16.  Herod ambitious to have Sebaste not inferior to the most renowned Cities, took care it should have six thousand inhabitants. Six thousand men with their servants and families is a pretty competent beginning for a great City; and the sum that so many families would make, upon the lowest computation, would make ten very great Congregations. But that this number made a City esteemed populous, is not according to the opinion of ancient time, but of our Author. What numbers of people the Cities of Palestine had in Josephus his days, we may best understand from the Historian himself. Galilee, says Josephus, 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jos. B. J. l. 3. c. 4.  was so well inhabited, that Cities were very frequent and thick, and a great multitude of Villages so populous, that the least of them had more than fifteen thousand inhabitants. And the same Author 
(l) Id. l. 2. c. 42. 43.  affirms, that within Galilee alone he armed in the beginning of the War a hundred thousand men: And that in a certain Sedition in that Country, as many came together in four and twenty hours' time: That in that tumult there came no less than forty thousand from Tarichea 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which was not the greatest City of Galilee. In Japha 
(n) Jos. l. 3. c. 35.  a City of the same Region, there were about thirty thousand killed and taken. But this was but a small place in comparison of others; of Tiberias, the which was the chief, and Sepphoris, which is sometimes called by Josephus 
(o) Jos. B. J. l. 3. c. 3.  the chiefest of Galilee. Josapat, the Town which Josephus defended against the Romans, had a prodigious number of People; 
(p) Jos. B. J. l. 3. c. 23.  for there were forty thousand killed, twelve hundred only made captives, and the Women and Children saved. The great Cities of Phaenicea inhabited by the Syrians, were very populous; as appears by the number of the Jews that were destroyed there in the beginning of their revolt. The people of Caesarea 
(q) Jos. B. J. l. 2. c. 33.  destroyed twenty thousand Jews who lived in that City. The people of Scythopolis 
(r) Id. l. 2. c. 34.  massacred thirteen thousand. Those of Damascus 
(s) Et c. 41.  ten thousand. So populous were those Cities where the Gospel was first preached, and the first Christian Congregations established. In Syria the Cities were no less populous; and in most parts of the World, unless when wars or other calamities happened to dispeople. The places accounted Cities were much more populous than our Market-Towns, or what our Author represents. Selge, a small City in Pisidia is said, 
(t) Strab. l. 12.  with good Government to have increased to twenty thousand Men: And accordingly we find 
(u) Polyb. l. 5. p. 579.  that it was able to send out a considerable Army. Then it might well bear the title of a great City, which Arrian 
(x) Arrian. Exp. Alex. l. 1.  gives it. How much aftertimes abated of these matters, I do not know. But Zosimus 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zosim. l. 5. p. 539. Ed. Cellar.  mentions it in terms of diminution. Aspendus, reckoned but a mean City of Pamphylia, was yet able 
(z) Polyb. l. 5. p 580.  to send four thousand Men to the relief of Pednelissus when it was Besieged by an Army from Selge. Fregellae, a City in Italy, not very memorable for greatness; yet how populous it was at one time, appears sufficiently from the complaints 
(a) Fregallas quoque millia iv. familiarum transijsse a se Samnites & Peligni querebantur. Liv. l. 41. c. 8.  made by the Samnites and Peligni, to the Roman Senate, that within a short time four thousand Families had removed from them to Fregellae. Heraclea in Doris was never named among great Cities; tho' the Colony sent 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Marcian. Her. p. 25.  thither from Laconia consisted of ten thousand Men. Xenophon 
(c) Xenoph. Exp. l. 5.  while he had the greatest part of his ten thousand together, thought of building a City, and settling somewhere near the Euxin Sea; but when they divided, than he left off those thoughts; the number not being competent for such a purpose.  
And to conclude, Memnon, in his History 
(d) Memnon apud. Phot. cod. 220.  of Heraclea Pontica, speaks of that company that Thrasymedes had got together to repeople that City, after it had been destroyed by the Romans, as a poor and miserable remain, and so disproportioned to their former numbers, although these glean made up about eight thousand Men. Placentia and Cremona, most eminent Cities, says our Author, had each of them six thousand persons decreed by the Romans to be their Inhabitants. Symps. Chr. pt. 5. p. 112. I do not scruple taking any Authors, when I know the matter to be true; tho' for facts so remote, it would be more decent, as well as more satisfying, to direct us to Writers something older than Simpson. These Colonies then which were drawn 
(e) Liv. l. 21.  in the first year of the second Punic War, were indeed considerable beginnings for those Cities; but they had scarce deserved the title of most Eminent, 
(f) Ascon. Pedian. in Orat. Cic. in L. Pis. Vel. Paterc. l. 1.  if they had not increased much beyond this number. Now the improvement of these Cities was so great, that they might justly be called Eminent. For Cremona 
(g) Dio. Cass. l. p. 740. Tacit. H l. 3.  when it was Sacked by the Army of Antonius, Vespasian's General, had fifty thousand Citizens slain, and a great many more that escaped. Such was the difference between the circumstances of it when it was so eminent, and those of its first Plantation. Besides a Colony of six thousand Men is not so mean a thing, as I have already showed, since Women and Children, and Servants are to be added to this number, which in ordinary places may be four or five times as many, in very rich Cities may be double or triple this proportion. Nor are we to imagine that the places, into which Colonies were sent, were altogether empty, and had no inhabitants; for this was very rare, although the Colonies had all the power, as well as the propriety of the place and Country adjoining. And if in our Cities only Freemen were to be reckoned; those which we might expect to find exceeding populous, would afford but very few thousands. Or if we should judge of a County by the Freeholders-Book, we must fall very short of the true number of the people; and yet this way which our Author takes, is not very unlike these. But of the Roman and Greek Colonies and Cities, I shall have occasion to speak more particularly, when I come to consider the Territories of ancient Cities. 
(h) Prim, ep. p. 69.  Thirty seven Cities yielded to Alexander near Porus' s Country, some of which had five thousand, some ten thousand inhabitants, Justin. l. 12. c. 7. Curtius' l. 8. c. 20. Mr. Clerkson's references are not very exact here; nor do his Authors say that for which they are quoted, tho' some others do. Nor does it much concern the present question, how populous the Indian Cities might happen to be; tho' the writers 
(i) Arrian. Exp. Alex. l. 5. p. 351. Ed. Blancardi.  of Alexander's Expedition do commonly represent them as extraordinary, when they give a particular account of those places. Only in one Province they happened not to be very great, and much short of the common measure of that Country. And therefore Q. Curtius 
(l) Ad magnam deinde (ut in ea regione) urbem pervenit. Q. Curt. l. 9 c. 1.  speaking of a great City in those parts, adds this qualification, great for that Country; or if we understand this in respect of the Roman World, this instance of Indian Cities will still be more frivolous. That which follows is more to the purpose, if it were but true, 
(m) Prim. ep. p. 69.  That Conqueror (says our Author) Building a City near the River Indus, which he called after his own name Alexandria, though it sufficiently peopled with a thousand persons, Strab. l. 15. I must complain here again for want of exactness: For Strabo, in the Book cited, has no such thing. But Diodorus Siculus 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diod. Sic. l. 17.  speaking of that Alexandria, tells us, that the Founder furnished it with ten thousand inhabitants; which agrees much better with the genius of that great Prince, and the character of the other Cities built by him and called by his name. For to pass by that of Egypt, as more generally known; The Alexandria on the Tanais was 
(o) Q. Curt. l. 7. c. 6.  sixty furlongs, or seven miles and an half in circuit: And that at the foot of Mount Caucasus, 
(p) Id. l. 7. c. 3.  had seven thousand old Macedonian Soldiers assigned to it; and the other Soldiers then discharged had the liberty to settle there. And now from these instances he has produced, let the Reader, judge, whether many of their great Cities contained no more than might come together in one Assembly.  
After all the pains our Author has taken to reduce the greater part of ancient Cities to the lowest measure and number possible, some it seems, will still remain obstinate, and refuse to comply with the Congregational Model. I was afraid he had prepared Earthquakes for such places as these, since he could not bring them to his Rule. But since he has thought fit to save the Cities and the Men, and to take a gentler method of dealing with them, let us give attention.  

(q) Prim. ep. p. 69.  As for Cities that were greater and more populous.— In them the Christians for some ages were no more than could assemble in one place, the inhabitants consisting most of Heathens with Jews, and those of the Christian profession that were not of the Communion, nor would assemble with the Bishop. I will not deny, that for some ages the number of Christians were inferior to that of the Heathen. But then this being allowed, it will not follow that all the Christians in the greatest Cities might assemble in one place of worship; for some Cities were so great, that a hundred Churches could not receive all the people. Suppose therefore in Rome for instance, a million of Souls, which I think is the lowest estimate that was ever made of that People. If for the three first ages but a tenth part was Christian, not twenty Churches, such as the Christians were provided of at that time, could suffice. In London, tho' those of the Communion of the Church of England be much the greatest number, and make up the gross of the People; yet the Dissenters, were they willing to join in one Congregation, would not be able to meet in one place. And their way of service makes them more capable of great Congregations than the Primitive Christians; since generally speaking, they seem to have no other public act of Religious Worship, but to hear. Nay, there is scarce any one Sect of them so mean, but would think themselves Persecuted, should all of that Sect within the compass of London be stinted to one place of meeting. Amsterdam may exceed London in number of Sects, tho' it be inferior to it in number of people; the Jews there inhabit one good quarter, the Papists are so numerous, that I have been informed, they have near thirty Chapels within that City; the Lutherans there have several Churches; to say nothing of other Sects that are very numerous. Yet those of the established Religion are reckoned the greater part, and require many Churches for their Worship. But to return to the Primitive Christians.  
That we may better conceive the state of the Christians in the first three ages, let us consider how it was possible for them to thrive, and at last to become Masters of the Roman Empire under all those great discouragements to which they were all the while subject. They had seldom any friends in Court; and there are but two Reigns in all that time, in which they had any countenance; but were frequently set upon by the Emperors, and persecuted with full intent of utter extirpation. They could make no Faction in the State, for the roots of popular government had been plucked up, and the government of the Empire was too absolute to bear any thing of that nature. They had no power in the Army, for there were but few of them employed that way, and generally speaking, they did not like the service. Yet for all this, in less than three ages they possessed themselves of the Empire, and gave laws to the Heathen. Now if we speak humanly of this matter, we can resolve it into no other cause than the great number of the Christians. It must be confessed, that the providence of God was wonderful in preserving and raising this meek and simple people; but the means he chose were the same he had taken before in Egypt for the deliverance of Israel: he increased them exceedingly, and so made them stronger than their enemies.  
The numbers of the Christians were great from the beginning: And what was said of our Saviour in Judaea, became true in a great part of the World, that all the World did run after him. This Tacitus and Pliny do affirm early. This Tertullian sets out with great ostentation towards the beginning of the third Century. But these Testimonies, with several others, have been urged already, 
(r) Vindicat. Prim. ch. p. 54. 55, 458, 499, 500 etc.  and need not to be insisted on in this place. I will add only one passage more to the same purpose out of Maximin's 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. H. E. l. 9 c. 9  Letter to Sabinus, where he sets out the occasion of that great Persecution under Dioclesian. Dioclesian, says he, and Maximian, my Fathers and my Lords, seeing all people almost to have forsaken the worship of the Gods, and to have joined themselves to the Christians, had rightly ordered, that those who had forsaken the Religion of their Gods, should undergo exemplary punishment. Now this being the confession of an Enemy, aught to have the greater weight; and we cannot doubt, but in the beginning of that Persecution the Christians were become the greater part of the Roman Empire. And therefore in the great Cities they could not meet in one Assembly; and in the chief Cities they could not have so few as twenty Congregations. But you know the Fable, the Toad could not conceive an Elephant any bigger than the stretch of his own skin.  
Mr. Clerkson 
(t) Prim. ep. p. 69.  could meet with but one City small or great, for three hundred years after Christ, whose inhabitants were generally Christians; and that was Neocaesarea, of whose Conversion Gregory Thaumatargus was the instrument. 
(u) P. 70.  But for all this, it does not appear that the Christians in that City were more than could meet together in one place. And to make it probable, that all the City made but one Congregation, he offers two things. First, That we saw before that this place was not very populous: And then, that Gregory built but one Church there; he would doubtless have erected more, if more had been needful. The first reason has been rejected already, and they must be very easy that admit it; because eleven Egyptian Bishops were banished to this place, therefore it had no more people than could meet in one Church. Yet as weak as this is, the other is no wiser; because Gregory built but one Church, therefore there were no more. Nay, tho' he might have built several Parish-Churches, yet the Cathedral, which by the ancients is called the Church by way of Eminence, might be only mentioned; and in the great Cities, where we are sure there were many Churches, they speak of the Church, that is, the Bishops; as if there were no other in the place, and there was but one Church in any City for some uses of Religion, that is, for Baptism and Penance. So that to speak properly, and after the manner of ancient times, there was in a City but one Church, the other being but Parish-Chappels and Oratories. Gregory therefore might build but one Church, and yet his City might have many Parish-Congregations. But for Neocaesarea, we have greater probabilities that it was too populous for one Religious Assembly. For first, it was the Metropolis of Pontus, and that long before it was converted by Gregory; as Holstenius 
(x) Luc. Holsten. in Steph. v. Neocaes.  proves by a Medal of Severus, which had upon the reverse the age of this City. In the next place, it was eminent for liberal Studies, which little Towns never were. And Basil 
(y) Bas. ep. 64.  relates with what earnestness the Magistrates prayed him to take upon him the instruction of their Youth. And lastly, the character which the same Father gives 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. ep. 75.  it, of being the most Illustrious of Cities, cannot agree with that meaness under which Mr. Clerkson does represent it.  
There is another City in Phrygia, whose inhabitants are said to have been all Christians. Euseb. H. l. 8. c. 25. 
(a) C. 11. Ed. Vales.  and all with the City burned together; but this was in the fourth Century, in the Persecution raised by Maximian, Anno. 312. That this was a small Town, we have from Eusebius: 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And he notes farther, that they had Magistrates; but that it had a Bishop, neither Eusebius nor Lactantius mention; and for aught that appears, it might belong to the Bishop of some other place. However let the City be as little as it will, the Bishop might be Diocesan, though all his Town made but one Congregation.  
(c) How predominant Heathenism was in the Cities of the Roman Empire before Constantine, may be collected, says our Author, in and after his Reign. If it was spreading and prevalent when the power of it was so much broken, it will be easy to infer what it was before. It cannot be denied, that Christianity received very great increase by the favour and the zeal of Constantine; yet it must be remembered, that the desolations under Dioclesian and his Colleagues were so great, and the numbers of Christians destroyed, and frighted out of their Profession, so excessive, that it must be a great while before the Christians could recover themselves to that condition in which the Persecution found them. And though under Constantine and his Sons, the Church had a great seeming increase; yet many of the new Converts being induced by human considerations and arguments, extrinsic to Religion, made greater show than strength; and in Julian's reign, when worldly advantages were on the Heathen side, many of these turned again to their old superstitions; and most of the instances, which are brought by our Author, to show the number of Heathen after 
(d) Prim. ep. p. 71.  Constantine, are in that reign: Yet let us hear the particulars.  

(d) Prim. ep. p. 71.  That we may afford the greatest advantage to Christianity, let us instance principally in Palestine, where the Gospel first moving, may in reason be thought to have made the greatest progress. Some are never to be more narrowly observed, than when they pretend to offer favour and advantage. I am apt to believe, that if our Author had found any instances more to the advantage of his cause, he might have waved this compliment to Christianity. Here, he says, the Gospel first moved, and therefore should have made the greatest Progress. But the great Revolutions that happened in that Country soon after the planting of the Gospel, may possibly have rendered the condition of Christianity there much worse than it was some time after in other Countries; nay worse than it was in some of the Cities of Palestine in the Apostles time. For instance, Sebaste, which is Samaria, is brought as an Example of a City much addicted to Heathenism after Constantine's time; and yet at the preaching of Philip the Deacon, all the City is said 
(e) Act. 8.6, 8, 10, 12, 14.  to be converted. Lydda was a City of Judaea, called also Diospolis; and St. Luke 
(f) Act. 9.32, 33.  affirms, that it was all converted by S. Peter; All that dwelled at Lydda turned unto the Lord. Yet about three hundred years after, Christianity had made so little progress, that both Villages and Cities there, were exceeding Heathenish. But we must find no fault, because he pretends to afford Christianity greater advantage by these Examples.  
Gaza, above all the rest, is stigmatised by all as most Heathenish; yet as Heathenish as it was after Constantine's time, the Bishops of it had many Congregations before; for Silvanus who suffered Martyrdom in the last Persecution, is styled by Eusebius, 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. H. E. l. 8. c. 13.  Bishop of the Churches of Gaza. Caesarea too, in our Author's judgement, seems not much better; and yet there the Bishop had many Churches too in the former part of Constantine's reign, as his letter to Eusebius 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ep. Const. ad Euseb. Theod. l. 1. c. 15.  mentions.  
In Palestine therefore our Author mentions many Cities, where there were Heathens after Constantine's reign; and instances chief in those where in Julian's time the Heathen Party raised tumults, and committed many murders and barbarities; but this does not prove them to be the major part. For a small number under the countenance and instigation of the Emperor, may do a great deal of mischief without opposition. We have a fresh instance, how insolent a small party may grow, under the countenance of Authority, not quite so absolute, nor so implicitly obeyed, as that of the Roman Emperors was. And that the Christians were then, when they endured these indignities, much the greater number, Sozomen who relates most of those tumults, does plainly show, and that upon this very account Julian found himself obliged to use artifice rather than force, in the restoring of his superstition. Julian, says that Historian, 
(i) Soz. l. 5. c. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  zealous to make Heathenism prevail, was much grieved to see it overcome by the Christian Religion, which was in the general esteem preferred to it; and it troubled him to think, that his Religion must sink as soon as he is dead. For though the Temples were opened again, and the old Rites restored; yet he observed that the wives and children and servants, even of the Heathen Priests, were generally Christian. From hence it is clear, how the greater part and body of the People stood affected to Christianity. And though here and there a City might abound with Heathen, it is no wonder; for where there is a mixture of Religions, a party which to the whole does not bear the proportion of one to ten, may in some few places happen to be predominant.  
Phoenicia follows Palestine, and these our Author 
(l) Prim. ep. p. 72.  observes from Theodoret, were mad upon their Idols and idolatrous Rites, and this observed by Chrysostom in Arcadius his reign. That there were superstitious people in Phoenicia at that time, I do not deny, and perhaps more than in most places; but that they were the greater part, or near equal to the Christians there, does not appear from any thing produced by our Author. Nay, the contrary appears from that relation of Theodoret, how Chrysostom with the assistance of a few Monks, pulled down the Heathen Temples of the Country.  
In Syria, our Author 
(m) Prim. ep. p. 73.  meets with Heliopolis, a place singular for superstition and beastliness, where not one would endure to hear the name of Christ; and Arethusa, he thinks, was not much better furnished with Christians, because they all joined in the murdering of their Bishop. Yet in the same Chapter Sozomen assigns the reason of the Bishops return when he had once fled, because 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Soz. l. 5. c. 10.  there were many like to be brought in danger upon his account. Apamea is mentioned to the same purpose, (and this was a Metropolis) says our Author; here the multitude was only restrained through fear, from hindering the demolishing of Jupiter 's Temple, Theodor. l. 5. c. 21. But this multitude might not be Heathen; for the Christians might not be very willing to have the Temple demolished, which, after the idolatrous service of it had been long disused, they might be desirous to preserve as an ornament of their City; upon which account many Temples were spared. Constantine had shut them up, and forbidden sacrifices to be offered in them; and the zeal of the Christians abating against them, after the idolatrous service had been taken away, and the party of the Heathen being grown contemptible, it seemed no prejudice to Christianity to suffer them to stand; and it was only the Monks and the more zealous sort of Christians, who procured and executed their demolition. To the same purpose our Author brings in the Inhabitants of Emesa, (another Metropolitical City) 
(o) Theod. H. E. l. 3. c. 6.  who turned the Christian Church, newly built, into a Temple for Bacchus. This too was in Julian's time, and therefore does not prove the Heathen party to be most numerous in every City where they committed Insolences. He is likewise mistaken, when he makes Emesa a Metropolitical City, in those times of which he is speaking. For it was not 
(p) Car. a S. Paulo Geog. Sacr. p. 304. Not it. Gr. ap. Car. a S. P. p. 4.  a Metropolis then nor long after, but was under Damascus. Nor was it in Syria, but in Phoenicia, where Stephanus, 
(q) Steph. de urb.  and Ammianus Marcellinus 
(r) Ammian. Marc. l. 24. c. 26.  place it. The latter reckoning it among the great and fair Cities of that Country, and equal to Tyre and Sydon and Berytus. But many Authors confound the bounds of Syria, and some times 
(s) Seld. de Dijs Syr. c. 1.  account Phoenicia as part of it. Nor was this the unhappy temper of some particular places only, says our Author, 
(t) Prim. ep. p. 74.  as appears by that of Sozomen; 
(u) Sozom. l. 6. c. 34.  both that which is called Coelosyria, and the upper Syria, except the City of Antioch, was long before it came over to Christianity. If it was late before these Countries received Christianity, they are but sorry instances in the present question concerning primitive Bishops. For where there were no Christians at all, it is in vain to inquire for the bounds of Episcopacy. But this observation turns against our Authors own notion. For if there were some entire Provinces that had not yet received the Christian Religion in the middle of the fourth Century; those which had received the Gospel, must consequently be more generally Christian: Since in the gross, the Christians at that time are allowed to have been the greater part of the Empire. But that passage of Sozomen must not be taken too strictly; for than it will not be true. For it is not true, that all Syria, excepting Antioch, did not receive Christianity till late. For St. Paul had planted several Churches there; and the Apostolical Council of Jerusalem 
(x) Act. 15.23.— 41.  addressed their Synodical Epistle, not only to Antioch, but to the Brethren in Syria and Cilicia; and St. Paul in one of his visitations, is said to go confirming the Churches of Syria. In the second Century there were many Christians in that Country, for whose sake Bardesanes wrote his books in the Syrian language; and in particular he is said by Eusebius 
(y) Euseb. H. E. l. 4. c. 30.  to have had many followers. In the Persecution under Dioclesian, 
(z) Euseb. l. de Mart. Palest. c. 13.  Syria is reckoned among other Provinces that had suffered for Religion; and some time after Athanasius 
(a) Athan. ep. ad Antioch. T. 1. p. 580. Id. Apol. 2.  reckons several Bishops of Syria who suffered upon his account. So that Sozomen must be understood of the remoter parts of the Country, bordering upon Persia and Arabia, where these Monks, of whom he speaks as the Converters of that Country, lived. For these he says 
(b) Sozom. l. 6. c. 34.  converted all the Syrians, and many Persians and Saracens. Now to deliver up this Country entirely as it were, to the Heathen, our Author adds, that, in Antioch itself the Heathen in Valens his time publicly celebrated Idolatrous Rites, etc. This was by the permission of that Emperor; who that he might more safely persecute the Orthodox Christians, gave liberty to all other Religions. And if in the greatest City of this Kingdom the Papists should by public permission celebrate the Mass; it would be but a poor argument, that they make the greater part of the people. But of Antioch there will be occasion to say more hereafter. In Arabia, Moses being sent Bishop there, found but few Christians; that is, the Saracens under Queen Mavia had but few Christians, when that Bishop was sent to them. And to as much purpose he might have added, that the Inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope were not then converted. And to the same purpose is the instance of Milles in Persia, who could not persuade one in the City, for which he was ordained, to become Christian. Yet both in Arabia and Persia there were great numbers of Christians. For in Persia in Constantine's time, the Persecution of Sapores found and destroyed an infinite multitude; there were sixteen thousand Persian Martyrs, whose names were recorded by their own Countrymen and their neighbours of Syria. But besides these, there were others innumerable, whose names were lost. In some parts of Arabia 
(c) Euseb. H. E. l. 6. c. 33. Id. l. 8. c. 12.  Christianity was received betimes, and furnished Martyrs for the last Persecution.  

(d) Prim. ep. p. 74.  And now having viewed all the next neighbours of Palestine, but Egypt, let us touch there also. So speaks our Author, who walks about like a Persecution, diminishing the number of Christians wherever he comes. Here Memphis, a Metropolitical City in Jerom 's time, was Metropolis of the Egyptian superstition; on Ezek. 9 While there remained any Egyptian superstition, it is no wonder that Memphis should be the Metropolis of it; for there of old was the residence of Apis, and this was their holy City; though it follows not from this expression, that the greater part of the Inhabitants were of that superstition. 
(e) Hieron. in Ezek. l. 9 c. 30.  Our Author mistook the reference of the Centuriators, from whom he transcribes this as well as several other instances; and refers to the ninth Chapter of the Prophet, whereas it is the ninth book of the Commentary. In Antinoe, he observes, 
(f) Prim. ep. p. 75.  there was a Bishop; but very few assembled with him, the Inhabitants of the City were Gentiles,— and the Island, into which the two Macarij were banished, had not one Christian. To these instances of Egypt, our Author is pleased to be so kind as to give the answer himself, that they were remoter parts, and far from the place where Christianity was first embraced.  
But there is one thing more may be observed upon this occasion. The account of many of the places, in which our Author finds few or no Christians, comes from the Monks, who are said to convert them; and for my part I am much inclined to suspect, that they were apt to represent places as Heathenish, to give themselves the reputation of converting them by their miracles. And though we are told, they found all things wild; yet in a little while they made it like Eden, and converted 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 4. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Soz. l. 6. c. 34.  all to a man; so that Island was reduced: So the Syrians. But of Bucolia, a Region near Alexandria, in Ortelius, this is Jerom 's character, in Bucolia nullus est Christianorum, Vit. Hilar. Notwithstanding the authority of Ortelius, our Author might have let this place too pass among the remoter parts of Egypt; for Scaliger 
(h) Scalig. Animad. in Euseb. Chron. p. 18, 19  places it beyond, and distinguishes it from the Country of the Egyptians, and withal sets it beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire. For 
(i) Heliod. Aethiop. l. 1. c. 2.  these barbarous people gave great trouble to the Roman Perfect, who guarded that part with a strong Garrison, which was named from this wild people against whom they were placed. This agrees with their character in Jerom, 
(l) Barbara & ferox natio Bubulcorum sedes erat. Vit. Hilarion.  that they were a fierce and a barbarous nation. 
(m) Prim. ep. p. 75.  But that which Hilary fixes on the whole Country, is not much more favourable; Egypt is full of Idols, and worships all kind of monsters for Deities, Com. in Matth. 1. But this character was given with respect to what it was when our Saviour fled thither, not to what it was when Hilary wrote: As appears plainly from the words of Hilary, which are these: Herod seeking the death of the child, Joseph is by an Angel admonished to carry him into Egypt, (in Egyptum idolis plenam, etc.) into Egypt full of Idols, and worshipping for Deities all kind of monsters. Where Mr. Clerkson by no very commendable artifice hath changed the words of Hilary, so as they may seem to speak of the present time. Our Author bids us look a little further into Africa, and there Firmicus, he says, in Constantine 's time affirms, that a great part of the Africans did worship Juno and Venus. If our Author had looked but into the Title page of Fermicus; he would scarce have told us of this Writers affirming this matter in Constantine's time, when the Book is dedicated to Constantius and Constans, after they had been Emperors a considerable time. And if he had looked into the book, we had in all probability escaped this instance. The truth is, the Centuriators deceived him; and he seldom looked farther upon this head of the remains of Heathenism. Firmicus 
(n) Assyrij & pars Afrorum Aerem, ducatum habere elementorum volunt— nomine Junonis & Veneris consecrarunt. Jul. Firmic. de err. prof. Rel.  then affirms, that a part, not a great part, of afric worshipped the Air under the names of Juno and Venus, without any reflection upon the time in which he wrote, but only giving an account of the variety of Gentile superstition. But Mr. Clerkson is vain enough to be pitied, when he comes to refine upon this mistake, and to comment upon an Author he had not seen. We are told then, that he, i. e. Firmicus, means that part of Africa then known, and that was it in which the Gospel had found some entertainment. It were very strange if he should mean an unknown part, or that any place than not known should come into his mind. But that Writer gives not the least intimation what part that was; only by the wariness of the word we may conceive, that this was not the general opinion of the Heathen of Africa. However he finds long after this, 
(o) Cod. Afric. can. 58. ed. Zon. 64.  that in most maritime places of Africa, and other parts thereof, Idolatry was in use; and he adds this remark, that most of their Cities were maritime, and those usually most populous. In the first place, that Canon does not speak as he makes it; for it is not most, but many maritime places. Then for Cities there is not a word, but of Country farms and Villages there is; as if the poor remains of Heathenism had been now driven out of the Cities and most eminent Towns, and retired to the obscurest places of the Country. And that Heathenism was now in a very low and expiring condition in that Country, appears from the expression of that Canon, 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in which the African Bishops desire the Emperors that the Relics of Idols might be destroyed. Whereupon Zonara's 
(q) Zonar. in Can. 64.  notes, that the Gospel having enlarged its self, the tail of the Dragon could only move, for the head of it had been bruised before. To conclude then with Africa, This may be the reason, our Author 
(r) Prim. ep. p. 76.  thinks, why there were but five Bishoprics in the Province of Tripoli, when they were so numerous in other Provinces; and it is suggested by one of their Councils, 
(s) Interjacere videntur Barbarae Gentes.  those parts of the Country were taken up with Heathens. He guesses in the dark, and like a Man who had never seen those Canons he speaks of. Tripoli was the remotest of the African Provinces Eastward, and was bounded by Ara Philenorum, where the Egyptian Diocese began. It had but five Bishops, and no African Canon gives any reason for it. The likeliest is, that the Donatist Faction had no great party there, and so it remained content with that number of Bishoprics, which had been anciently established there. But in some African Councils 
(t) Can. Carth. 14.  that require many Bishops to be present at Ordinations, and that all attend Synods, they make some abatement in respect of this Province, that but one should be required to attend Synods from that Province. And when some required that no Bishop should be ordained without ten or twelve Bishops to assist; Aurelius 
(u) Can. Carth. 54. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  observes, that in Tripoli and Arzua it would be impossible, because there were but five, and they were encompassed with barbarous Nations, so that they could not be assisted easily from other Provinces; and those barbarous Nations, said to lie between them and the other Bishops, is made a reason why the ancient form should continue, and three Bishops be sufficient for Episcopal Consecration. Now when our Author says those parts of the Country were taken up by Heathen; it is said of the Country about Tripoli, and not of the Province itself; and therefore it can be no reason of its having few Bishops; since those neighbouring Pagans did not hinder their multiplying of Bishops, but only intercept the communication between them and the other Provinces.  

(x) Prim. ep. p. 76.  In the West, he offers but one instance or two. In Turin the Heathen were so prevalent, that the Christians were not suffered to choose a Bishop after Gratian's decease, Greg. Turin, l. 10. c. 43. This Turin is, I suppose, Tours in France. And Gregory, Bishop of that place, does indeed in the last Chapter of the tenth Book of his History, make a recapitulation of the Bishops of that City, of whom Gratian was the first, who according to that Author, 
(y) Greg. Turon.  was sent thither from Rome in the first year of Decius, which answers the year of Christ 253. according to Baronius; 
(z) H. l. 10. c. 31.  but 249, according to Bishop Pearson. 
(a) Ann. Cypr. Anno. 249.  When this Gratian died, the See is said to have been void seven and thirty years; but no reason is there assigned for so long a vacancy. But Gregory seems to be afraid, there should be many Christians in that part of Gaul before Martin came to convert the Country. Yet in Gaul they could not but be exceeding numerous; since they suffered 
(b) Lactant. de Mort. Persec. ss. 16.  so little in Dioclesian's Persecution, and must consequently become the common refuge of the Christians that fled from other places. But to make short work, and so offer all the rest in one. In Rome itself in the fourth Century, the Senate, the Nobles, and the greatest part of the people were given up to Heathenish Superstitions. And for this, he refers his Reader to the Centuriators. They have indeed several instances to prove that there was a great party of Heathen in that City in the fourth Century. But none of these make it evident, that the greatest part of the Romans were then Heathen, unless it be a passage of St. Jerom, 
(c) Hoc errore, & pessima consuetudine vetustatis multarum provinciarum urbes laborant. Ipsaque Roma orbis domina.— Ut tam intrantes quam exeuntes domos suas inoliti semper commoneantur erroris. Hieron. In Esa. c. 57  which as it is produced by those Collectors, would make them all Heathen. For they make him say, that the Image of the tutelar Deity is worshipped in every house in Rome. But he seems to represent this as a relic of Heathen superstition, that stuck in many places, and was retained even among Christians; and therefore brings it as a parallel instance to match the superstition of the Jews, which they learned from their neighbours. But that the greater part of the people of Rome were Christians towards the end of the third Century and the beginning of the fourth, we have a plain testimony from Eusebius, 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. H. E. l. 8. c. 14.  who speaking of Maxentius, says, that at first he counterfeited himself a Christian to please and flatter the people of Rome. Yet Mr. Clerkson is of another opinion, and tells 
(e) Prim. ep. p. 76.  us, that a little before, the Christians were but a small part of Rome; when with general acclamations the people cried out, Christiani tollantur duodecies, etc. Baron. Anno. 301. ss. 3. But this evidence falls short upon several accounts. First, the authority of it is not very good; it is taken from the acts of Savinus, of which Baronius published some part: But they are entire in Baluzius 
(f) Baluz. Miscel. l. 2. p. 47.  his Miscellanies. Baronius 
(g) Anno. 301. 18.  vouches them for sincere and good: and Baluzius 
(h) Baluz. Not. in Pass. S. Savini. p. 463.  gives them the same character. But there are some marvellous passages which may make one, who is not very credulous, to doubt; such 
(i) Pass. S. Savini. ss. 5. 9, 10, 11.  as the breaking of the Idol of Jupiter, made of Coral, by this Martyr, while he was under examination; his restoring sight to the Nephew of Serena; his healing and converting of Venustianus precedent of Tuscia, and some other things that taste of Fable. But to let these Acts pass for authentic, it does not follow from the clamour of the people at the Circensian games against the Christians, that the greatest part of Rome was Heathen. For those who were present at those sports, were generally Heathen. The Christians thinking themselves forbid by their Religion, to go to such shows. So this allegation yields but a poor argument against the number of the Christians; since the fact is not very certain, and the consequence far from being good. However, our Author 
(l) Prim. ep. p. 77.  finds that long after this, the Romans were generally Heathen. For Constantine, after he had been Emperor twenty years, expressing his detestation of the Heathenish Rites,— Incurred the hatred of the Senate and People of Rome, and was reproached in a manner by all the People, Zosim. l. 2. And this is assigned as the cause, why he thought of transferring the Imperial Seat. This indeed is said by Zosimus, a zealous advocate for Gentile Superstition, and the only design of whose History is to set up the Apostate Julian for a Hero, and to disparage all the actions of Constantine and the Christian Emperors; and to this purpose he has made a History as fabulous as his Religion, especially where that is concerned. And therefore it is no wonder, if such a one stretch beyond truth in the magnifying his party, and make all the Roman people of his side. That he translated his Imperial Seat, might not be occasioned by the prevalence of Heathenism in Rome; for Dioclesian had done 
(m) Nicomediam studens urbi Romae coaequare. Lact. de Mort. Pers. ss. 7. cum libertatem populi ferre non poterat, prorupit ex urbe. Id. ss. 17.  the same thing not long before, and made a prodigious expense upon Nicomedia, with a design to render it equal to Rome, that had indeed disobliged him, but it could not be by being too Heathenish, but by that Liberty, or rather Insolence, which the People used towards their Emperors. Now in Constantine, whether it was pique, or desire of glory, to be the founder of a new Rome; or a nobler design for the safety of the Empire, to remove the Imperial Seat, and consequently the best and quickest strength of it, nearer to the Barbarous Nations that were then most powerful, is not easy to say at this distance; but for Christianity's sake we ought not to take the reason of an enemy, and especially one of so profligate credit as Zosimus was. But within less than twenty years of Constantine's reign, the Christians of Rome had forty Churches, as we are informed by Optatus 
(n) Optat. Milev. l. 2.  Bishop of Milevis, a writer of that age. And in the later end of that Century S. Augustin excuses the practice of St. Peter's Church in Rome, which was objected against his Reformation in Hippo, upon this account, that it was remote from the Bishop. For when St. Augustin 
(o) Quod remotus sit locus a conversatione Episcopi & in tanta civitate sit magna Carnalium multitudo. August. ep. 29. Ed. Bened.  had resolved to break that custom of Feasting in the Church on Ascension-day, against the general inclination of his people; it was objected, that it was the practice of St. Peter's Church in Rome, which he excuses from its distance from the Bishop: As appears from one of his Epistles, lately published by the French Benedictins.  
To make proof of Diocesan Episcopacy in the first ages, it is not requisite that all the World should be Christian, nor that the greater part of every City, where a Bishop was placed, should consist of believers. There were some Cities so populous, that if but the twentieth part were Christians, they must have divided into several Congregations; and there were several others so great, that a tenth part of them would have exceeded the measure of a Congregation. And therefore where the proportion comes to rise nearer to an equality, or to exceed it; most Cities must have more than one assembly, tho' they were confined to one Bishop. Nor was the City all that appertained to the Bishop's care; but all the Christians of the territory were of his flock, who were too numerous, and too remote to come to the Bishop's Church upon all occasions of Religion. Yet some Cities from the beginning, others in the third, and several in the middle of the fourth Century are known to have been entirely Christian. Edessa 
(p) Holsten. in Steph.  was the metropolis of Osroena, and the Seat of the Kings of that Country; but is more renowned for being wholly Christian, even from the beginning of Christianity: and for this reason was avoided by Julian in his Persian expedition. Eusebius 
(q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Soz. l. 6. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. H. E. l. 2. c. 1.  bears testimony of this place, that from our Saviour's time it had been altogether Christian, and so continued to the age he wrote in. And whether the story of Abgarus, and the pretended Letter of our Saviour to him, be true or false; yet this is certain, that this whole City was Christian very early, and consequently had several Congregations and Churches under one Bishop; as Sozomen 
(r) Soz. l. 6. c. 18.  mentions it to have had. Neocaesarea in Pontus was all Christian in the third Century. And a little Town in Phrygia was destroyed upon that account in the beginning of the next. In the reign of Julian, Caesarea the greatest City in Cappadocia was entirely Christian, and for that reason suffered not a little vexation from that Apostate, who disfranchised it, and confiscated all the goods belonging to the Churches of the City or Territory appertaining to it. And this was an old grudge; for he hated 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sozom. l. 6. c. 4.  this place mortally from the beginning, as having long before destroyed the Heathen Temples. Nisibis the noble bulwark of the Roman Empire, a City so great and populous, 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zoz. l. 3. c. 33.  that when Jovian had by a dishonourable Treaty with the Persians given it away; the Citizens beseech him, that they might defend themselves against all the power of Persia; and they did not doubt, but with their own force, and at their own expense, they might be able to preserve the the place, 
(u) Ad defendendos penates se solos sufficere sine alimentis publicis & milite— ut experti sunt saepe. Ammian. Marc. l. 25. c. 9  as they had often done. This City was altogether Christian; and therefore, Julian 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Soz. l. 5. c. 3.  upon an irruption of the Persians, threatened to leave them out of his law and protection, and that he would never set his foot in such a profane place where his Gods were not worshipped. And all other Cities, that were generally Christian, are said to have the same reception, when they had any occasion to sue for favour. Samosata 
(y) Samosata Civitas ampla & illustris. Ammian. Marc. l. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Joseph. B. J. l. 7. c. 28.  the greatest City, and the Royal seat at Commagena, was not only altogether Christian, but all Orthodox and Catholic in Valens his time. For 
(z) Theod. H. E. l. 4. c. 15.  when Eusebius their Bishop was banished, and one Eunomius an Arrian put in his place, neither rich nor poor, nor young nor old would go into his Church, or have any communication with him. Majuma the Port of Gaza, was made a City by Constantine the Great, and called Constantia, because all 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Soz. l. 2. c. 5.  the people turned Christians, though before they were extremely addicted to Idols. And that we may not think this a mean place, because it had always been dependant on a City; the Church of that place is represented 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Soz. l. 5. c. 28.  as very great from the multitude of people and wealth. And that this place had several Churches and Altars belonging to it, we are informed by one who was well acquainted with the place, who tells 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Soz. l. 5. c. 3.  us, that when this Diocese was taken out of that of Gaza, the bounds of their respective Territories were laid out, and what Altars or Churches should belong to each. Upon the same account of total conversion to Christianity, in Constantine's time, Constantina 
(d) Soz. l. 2. c. 5.  in the same Country had its name; and very many 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Cities in the same manner, of their own accord, and without any compulsion from the Emperor, left their Idols and became Christian; pulled down their Temples, and built Churches. In Antioch, one of the greatest Cities of the world, the generality of the people were Christians; and for this we have a witness, who cannot be suspected to magnify their number; it is Julian the Apostate, 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Julian. Misopog.  he had offended so many of that City, he had almost said all; the Senate, the rich, the common people; and these were angry with him, for the greatest part, or rather all, since they had chosen Atheism; so the Apostate called the Christian Religion; and all this because he adhered to the the Gentile superstition. And how universal the neglect of the Heathen rites was then in Antioch, the same Author makes a sad complaint. For when he had come upon the feast of Apollo, to do sacrifice in Daphne, the people of Antioch had provided no sacrifice for that occasion, nor taken the least notice of the feasts; and therefore chides 
(g) Id. Misopog.  with the Senate for putting such an affront upon their peculiar God. And then bestows his raillery upon them, as if they were grown so poor, that they were not able to buy a sacrifice, their wives having bestowed all upon the Galileans. In short, so small was the devotion of that great City towards their Patron Apollo; that the poor Heathen Priest was forced to bring his goose himself, and to provide his own sacrifice. Constantinople was a Christian City from its first foundation, 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So●. l. 2. c. 3.  having never been polluted with Idols; and the generality of the Citizens being Christians, required many Churches to assemble in. Constantine built several, and of the rest some were built by the Bishops, others by the people of the place; and the goodness and charity of the Christian inhabitants there were so great, that they gained many of the Jews, and almost all the Heathen to become Christians. And even in Arabia, where Mr. Clerkson could find few or no Christians in Valens his time, the great and vast City Bostra, for so Ammianus Marcellinus 
(i) Civitates ingentes Bostra, etc. Ammian. Marc. l. 14. c. 2.  calls it, was at least half Christian; as Titus the Bishop of the place gave out, who is quoted for it by Julian 
(l) Julian. Ep. add Bostrens.  the Apostate. Nay, some Countries are said to be generally Christian, before the end of the third Century. So Eusebius 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. H. E. l. 9 c. 8.  represents the Armenians, against whom Maximin declared War upon that account; and while he endeavoured to force them to Idolatry, instead of friends and confederates, he made them enemies. So wonderfully did the word of God prevail; that to use the words of Eusebius, 
(n) Euseb. Praepar. Eu. l. 1. p. 12, 13.  whole myriads of men and women and children, of bond and free, of Barbarians and Greeks, in every place and City and Country, in every Nation under Heaven, learn the precepts of our holy doctrine, and become the Disciples of Christ.  

(o) Prim. ep. p. 78.  Nor is our Author contented to reduce the Primitive Christians to a small number, and to render them a mean party in respect of the multitude of the Heathen, even after they were become their masters; but he brings in yet further abatements at the foot of his account, for Jews and Heretics. The Jews, says he, were numerous in these Cities, and there was no part of the Roman Empire without multitudes of them. This he proves chief out of Josephus. But all those Testimonies are too early for the present purpose; and the Synagogues of Jews, that S. Paul met with in almost every City where he came, were so far from diminishing the numbers of Christians, that their increase was generally from hence. Here the Apostles usually preached the Gospel, till they had changed the Synagogues into Churches. Under Trajan and Adrian the Jews were very numerous, and their numbers might then tempt them to revolt; but the destruction which they brought upon themselves, was so great, such numbers slain, that they seemed to be near extirpation. After this they were so low, that for some ages they are not mentioned for any enterprise. In the mean time the Christians increased daily, till they prevailed over both Jews and Heathen. And St. Austin 
(p) Plures enim jam Christiani sunt, quam si Judaei simulacrorum cultoribus adjungantur. Aug. de Util. Cred.  makes the Christians in his time, to be more numerous than Jews and Idolaters put together; not confining his comparison within the Empire, but making it general; and consequently taking in all the barbarous Nations within his knowledge.  
Yet in the fourth Century Mr. Clerkson brings an instance or two, to show that in some places the Jews were numerous. In Constantine 's time, says he, 
(q) Prim. ep. p. 80.  they possessed Diocaesarea and Tiberias; Diospolis also, and many other Towns; and were so numerous as to raise a war against the Emperor, Soz. l. 4. c. 6. That the Jews were numerous in that age, especially about Palestine, cannot be denied; and that they had several Towns entirely to themselves, Socrates, 
(r) Socr. l. 2. c. 3.  and Epiphanius 
(s) Epiph. Haer. 30. ss. 11.  and other Writers affirm. But then these Towns wholly inhabited by Jews, are without this question; for these make no abatement of the number of Christians in Cities, where they had Bishops and Churches. It will be of some use, upon this occasion, to clear a passage of Epiphanius, which Petavius had mistaken. In the relation which Epiphanius gives of Count Joseph the Jew, among other things he makes him say, that Ellal the Jewish Patriarch at the point of death sent for the Bishop of Tiberias, and was baptised of him. Whereas then there was neither Bishop nor Church nor Christian in Tiberias; and therefore instead of Bishop of that place, he should have rendered 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 4.  a Bishop in the neighbourhood of Tiberias. For it was there that the Patriarch resided, and sent for some Bishop of a neighbouring Town. And that the words are thus to be rendered, will be clear from what the same Joseph says a little after. When Constantine had conferred upon him the honour of a Count, he bid him beg what favour he pleased; but asked only this, that he might have the Emperor's commission 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. n. 11.  to build Churches in the Cities and Villages of the Jews, where there were none; because there was neither Heathen, nor Samaritan, nor Christian among them; and especially in Tiberias, and Diocaesarea, and Nazareth, and Capernaum. For in these places they would not suffer any of another Nation to live among them. Now as these places are not for Mr. Clerkson's purpose, while they were wholly possessed of Jews; so neither will the objection last long, after Churches were built in them. For 
(x) Aur. Vict. in Constantio: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cedrens. ad an. 15. Const.  these Jews revolting against Constantius, and setting up a Tyrant of their own, one Patricius, were totally destroyed by Gallus, and Diocaesarea razed to the ground.  
But the Jews also were numerous in these Cities, i.e. where the Heathen are supposed by him to be the major part; and there was no part of the Roman Empire without multitudes of them. The ancient instances out of Josephus I pass by, as too early, and not to the present purpose. But one thing he offers, that ought not to be omitted, that, 
(y) Prim. ep. p. 81.  Chrysostom seems to signify, that in his time, they were as many as the Christians in that City, i. e. in Antioch; for he exhorts each of the Christians to reduce one Jew to the Christian profession. To say the truth, this inference does not so much as seem to be reasonable. For first Chrysostom could not speak to all the Christians of Antioch together, though his voice had been as great as his eloquence; and to strain this expression to the utmost, if it should suppose the Jews as many as those he addressed his discourse to, yet would they be no more than one Christian Congregation, which might possibly be two or three thousand when Chrysostom preached; though that great man sometimes in his Sermons complains of the smallness of his auditory. But this is not necessary. For the language of a Preacher is not to be examined by the rules of an accountant; nor when he exhorts every one to convert his man, is he supposed to be telling of heads, and comparing of parties. But since the Jews would admit no public exhortation then, as they do endure in some places since for forms sake; this zealour Preacher for the advancement of Christianity, and the saving of Souls, might direct his people, as they have occasion, to deal privately and apart with the Jews, and to endeavour every one to gain his convert.  
And this I have said to show the inconclusiveness of Mr. Clerkson's arguments. But in truth the whole is a downright fraud. For St. Chrysostom in the place cited, directs not every Christian to convert his Jew; but every zealous and faithful Christian to endeavour to reclaim or convert his brother, and that whether Heathen, or Jew, or (which he there chief intends) negligent Christian. A little before he had lamented the carelessness of Christian masters, who permitted their wives or servants to frequent the theatres, or the Synagogues of the Jews; when it was in their power to restrain them, and by that influence which they had over them, dispose them either to embrace the Christian Religion, or more strictly live up to the rules of it, if already embraced. For this frequenting of the Jewish Synagogues in these persons, arose not from the belief of the Jewish Religion, but from the same vanity which induced them to frequent the theatres, that is, the pleasure of seeing pompous and even theatrical ceremonies practised in them. For so Chrysostom argueth with them. Tell me, what is it that you run to see in the Synagogue of the Jews? To hear men sound with trumpets? For it appears, that the Jews retained that custom, and strove to perform it with great art, in their religious service; which might draw great numbers of idle persons, whether Christians or Heathens, to hear them. Such persons ought no more be supposed to have been Jews, than all those to have been Papists, whose vain curiosity tempted them to enter the Popish Chapels in the last reign.  
As for the Jews dispersed over the Empire, it does not appear they were in any City so numerous as to bear any near proportion to the inhabitants of the place. Of old indeed in Alexandria, and some Cities of Syria, they were exceeding numerous: But then they were original inhabitants of those places, and not strangers. But in the fourth Century, of which we are now speaking, tho' every where almost there were some, yet were there not very many in any one place, excepting their own Country. We may judge by what we see now; there is scarce any great Town of trade in Europe, where there are not some Jews. And in many Countries they may be said to be numerous; but still they bear no proportion to the Natives. And I do not know, whether there be any City in Europe where they are so many in proportion to the other people, as one to an hundred. And this is so small a matter, that it does not deserve any consideration. It is as if in the computation of what water a river may discharge in a day, a man should be scrupulous to make allowance for the drinking of a few Horses.  
When he had brought Christians very low, by great favour and partiality towards Heathens and Jews; he thinks fit at last to divide this small party, and with a true spirit of a Dissenter, to draw away as many as he could from the Communion of the Bishop. To this purpose therefore he tells 
(z) Prim. ep. p. 81.  us, There remains another sort of people, inhabitants of these Cities, to be taken notice of, whose numbers made the Christian assemblies thinner, and the Bishop's flocks less numerous.— Such as were called Heretics or Sectaries; these were many, and had Bishops of their own. So that there were several Bishoprics in one City. There is scarce an age since the Apostles, in which the Predictions of St. Peter and St. Paul, that there would be Heresies, were not sadly accomplished. Yet it pleased the same providence, that checks the increase of noxious and venomous Creatures, to put likewise some stint to the growth and spreading of this evil, and to lessen the mischief of these Wolves in sheep's clothing, by not permitting them to multiply into too great numbers. So that St. Austin 
(a) Aug. de Util. Cred.  even in the midst of Afric, the most divided with Sects of any Christian Country in that age, does not stick to affirm, that the Catholic Christians, were more than all the Sectaries put together. And Sozomen 
(b) Sozom. l. 2. c. 32.  observes, that all other Heretics, but the Novatians, from the very beginning were but few. The Novatians therefore Mr. Clerkson chooses to insist on, and from their number to let the Reader judge of the rest. 
(c) Prim. ep. p. 82.  For by the multitude of them we may conjecture what all the rest, put together, would amount to. Let us therefore try, what deductions these may make from the Diocese of the Orthodox Bishop. He tells us then, that they were many from first to last: And that they had a Diocese in Rome, and Alexandria, and Constantinople, where it continued with public liberty longer. And to make short, they had Bishops and Churches in many other places. But to come near, and to make some guess of their number, he tells us, at Constantinople, their Churches were more confirmed and enlarged under one Chrysanthus their Bishop. And in Rome, Innocent took many Churches from them: And Celestine deprived them of more. And to conclude, till that time they had mightily flourished at Rome, having many Churches and great multitudes of People. What, had these Novatians then many Churches in one City? I had almost been tempted to think by Mr. Clerkson's former discourse, that one Church had been sufficient for all the Christians of the greatest City in the Empire; and yet it seems one single Sect could not be content with one Church, but they must have many under one Bishop. Well then, these were Dissenters, and they may have what they please; and yet we shall see in the next Chapter, how hard he is towards Catholic Christians, for these must be no more than may meet in one place, even in Rome and Constantinople. We expect no favour then; but let us not be pressed to death, while we are willing to plead. There were, he says, in the fourth Century several Sects: Of these the Novatians the most numerous: These in Constantius his time had 
(d) Socr. l. 2. c. 38.  three Churches in Constantinople, under one Bishop. The Catholic, or established Christians before this time upon a very low computation, were twenty times as many; and these with all the Country Parishes of that Diocese, had but one Bishop: yet they are to have but one Church, if our Author may have his way. Rome and Constantinople are a great way off; and the times of which our Author speaks, were very remote from ours. But let us try whether we may not comprehend this matter without travel or much reading, and make London the Scene of our Discourse; for as great and populous as it is, it may receive no disparagement by the comparison with old or new Rome. Now in London there is a Sect or two ambitious of being thought to have some resemblance to the Novatians; and that they may not be displeased, let them be more numerous; instead of three Churches, let them have ten Meetings. The other Sects who can speak of numbers too, may have their assemblies as convenient as they please, and not crush or hurt one another for want of room; yet the Bishop of the place will scarce be able to assemble his flock, even of the City, in any one Church, tho' Paul's were finished: For if you should happen to be late on Sunday morning; go to St. Clement's, and there's no room; go to St. Martin's, and its all full; go to the Abbey, and you can scarce come within hearing; and at St. Gile's, you will be thronged; and if you walk to St. Andrews, you may have no seat. I might add near a hundred Congregations more within the lines, of which many are as considerable as these I mentioned, and all this in a City which is much inferior for number of people to those old ones of which our Author speaks. You may see therefore by this, how much thinner a multitude of Sects, and some of them numerous, will render the Bishop's flock, in such great Cities as we have been speaking of; and what mighty abatements are to be made in the number of the Church Christians, upon the account of three Conventicles of the Novatians, in a City that wanted not much of a million of Souls. But we have made no allowance for Heathen, which in the fourth Century were numerous, and now are grown rare. But the sluggish and irreligious brutes in our greatest Cities may be reckoned against them, and our account remain as it was; and I am afraid that about London there may be more of these, than there were Heathens in Constantinople.  
I need not show, says our Author, 
(e) Prim. ep. p. 83.  how predominant Arrianism was in the greatest part of the Christian World. Ingemuit totus orbis, & Arrianum se esse miratus est. When it possessed the whole Orient, having none to oppose it but Athanasius and Paulinus. Adu. Joh. Hierosol. That the Arrian party or faction was very great under Constantius and Valens, is certain; but that the Sect was very numerous, I find no reason to believe. I am sure the passage of St. Jerom, which is much oftener cited than understood, intends no such thing; but the quite contrary. For Jerom (l) speaking of the Council of Rimini, endeavours to show that the Bishops there were Orthodox: that they confirmed the Nicene Faith; that they condemned Arrianism; that they left out the word Consubstantial, not because they condemned the sense of it, but for accommodation, and because it seemed to give offence; that they pronounced anathema on all those who denied Christ to be eternal God, or affirmed him to be made of nothing. Wherefore thinking they had done well and wisely, they return home in great hopes that the East and West were now reconciled, and that this small alteration had begot an eternal Peace. But when the Arrians had obtained their point, and had excluded the word Substance out of the Creed, they began to proclaim 
(g) Sine conscientia Haeretici ferebantur.  their Conquest, and to triumph as if the Nicene Faith had been abolished. Then the Bishops began to perceive the trick. So that the whole World wondered to see itself become Arrian; not that they were really so; but only that they had been imposed upon by fair pretences, to give the Arrians some advantage, for which they were sensibly grieved; and therefore as soon as they 
(f) Usiae nomen.— quia in Scriptures, aiebant, non invenitur, & multos simpliciores novitate sua scandalizat, placuit auferri. Non erat curae Episcopis de vocabulo, cum sensus esset in tuto. Hieron. adv. Lucif.  found their mistake, some immediately joined Communion with the Confessors in Banishment; the rest as soon as they had opportunity, renounced all Communion with the Arrians, and were received into the Church; not as Heretics returned, for they never had been Heretics, but as persons deceived by fair words to join with those who were indeed secretly Heretics: But their expressions 
(h) Sonabant verba pletatem, nemo venenum insertum putabat. Hieron. adv. Lucif.  bore a fair construction, and their words were Catholic; and it seemed 
(i) Cur damnassent eos qui Arriani non erant? Id.  unreasonable they should be condemned for Arrians, who had never been so. This passage then of Jerom is brought in by Mr. Clerkson, directly against the intention of the Author.  
Nor is it any more to the intent of the present question, or any way serviceable to our Author's purpose, which is to render the flocks of the Bishops of those times thinner. for the flocks of these Bishops did all adhere to them: and when 
(l) Cum omnes populi Sarcedotes suos diligentes, paene ad lapides, & interemptionem deponentium eos convaluerint. Hieron. adv. Lucif.  some persons, of more zeal than discretion, attempted to depose some of them, and ordain others in their place; their people were so concerned, that they were ready to stone those obtruders.  
The same answer is to be made to the other passage of St. Jerom, that in the East there were but Athanasius and Paulinus to oppose the Arrians: Not that all the rest, or the greater number were Heretics, or would not oppose the Doctrine of Arrius; but those two only did in an eminent manner oppose the designs of these Heretics, which were covered over with specious pretences of peace and sincerity of belief, so as to impose in a manner upon the whole Church. But the number of that Sect is no more to be taken from the party they once prevailed upon to join with them, against a few Bishops, whom they traduced as Authors of all those public distractions, which they themselves had caused, and pretended that the Faith was not concerned; than the numbers of our Sects are to be estimated from the interest which upon some occasions they can make against some great men, who seem to stand most in their way, and to give the greatest obstruction to their designs.  
In all Constantine's time the Arrians had not separate Congregations, excepting what the Author of the Sect made for a little while in Alexandria. And when Bishops and whole Provinces took parties in this quarrel; the separation was of one City or Province from another, and not of the people from their respective Bishops; and in a little time, all acquiesced in the Decree of Nice, 
(m) Socr. l. 1. c. 26.  which received no open contradiction during the reign of Constantine; 
(n) Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 57  and prodigious accessions being made to the Church under that reign, the Cities must be thronged with Christians, and the generality of Bishops, even in respect of the Towns where they resided, must be Diocesan. All Sects were very inconsiderable in his time, being suppressed by public authority, and all their Meetings forbidden by the Emperor's Edicts; 
(o) Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 63, 64, 65, 66.  which had that effect, that the greatest part joined themselves sincerely to the Church, and all the rest in appearance, so that there remained no meeting of Dissenting Christians in all the Empire; and even the Novatians were comprehended in the same Law.  
Under the next reign the Arrians covered themselves with a pretence of owning no other Doctrine but that already established in the Church, and laid all the blame upon Athanasius, as a man of a restless and turbulent spirit, that would not suffer the Church to be in peace. Nor were there many separate Congregations upon this account, the people generally following the Bishops set over them, under a persuasion that they were sound as to the Faith; and for those Bishops who were displaced, care was taken, that they should be thought to suffer not upon the account of their Faith, but of some other high misdemeanours. In some few of the greatest Cities there were tumults on this occasion; but in general there was a submission to public order; and a great part of the World was carried away, not by the doctrine, but the dissimulation of the Arrians. Yet still the Episcopal Dioceses remained as they were, without any considerable separations. When Athanasius died, it's said, there were but few Arrians in 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 4. c. 22.  Alexandria. In 
(q) Basil ep. 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Basil's time, there were but very few in comparison of the whole infected with that disease. At Rome there were scarce any. And 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 2. c. 2.  in the West they were hardly known otherwise than by report, till the Goths had planted themselves in that part of the Empire. So that the Orthodox Bishops were not reduced to a single Congregation by the separation of the Arrians; their Cities only being supposed to make up their whole Dioceses. Our Author is liberal, and will not insist upon the prevailing of the Donatists; and therefore I need not say that the case of Afric was singular, being torn into very small Dioceses: and yet even in that, there were some large, some free from the Donatists, and had no other Bishop but that of the established Church; as appears by several answers of the Bishops in the Conference at Carthage. Nor will he tell us, how the Macedonians did abound, in many places. Nor will he so much as name the other numerous Sects, which had their distinct Churches and Bishops; so that there were sometimes four or five of several persuasions seated in that City. I have, I think, made allowance enough for them all; and yet in great Cities left more Churches for the Bishops, than all the Conventicles of Sectaries thrice told would amount to.  
Now to sum up this evidence, and 
(s) Prim. ep. p. 84.  to draw this Discourse into an issue: Suppose we a City forty furlongs in compass, (than which there were few bigger) let us allow half to Heathens, and a third or fourth to Jews and Novatians; and the proportion left Christians will not exceed the dimensions of a small Town, etc. But we have taken notice of some Cities of more than forty furlongs, that were wholly Christian. I have mentioned others exceeding great, in which there were but very few Heathen. I have instanced in some that had no Dissenters or Sectaries; and showed in general, that all the World over, those who were without the pale of the Church of all Sects, were nothing so considerable as our Author would represent them. And here we might conclude this Chapter, but for the particulars which follow, and require further examination.  
When our Author had made the largest allowances, for Heathens, and Jews and Sectaries, as if they had been all to poll for the Dissenters, and left the Catholic Christians so destitute, that there seemed to be no place left them in the greatest Cities; he thought 
(a) Prim. ep. p. 84.  it might be more satisfactory yet, to make this evident in some particular Cities; and those of the greater, nay, some, of the greatest. Berytus, he says, was an eminent City,— and yet it had but one Church in Julian 's time, which was then burnt by Magnus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is not one of the Churches, but the Church of Berytus, Theod. l. 4. c. 20. If our Author had been a little better versed in the language of the ancient Church; he could not have thought this instance, or his deduction from it, very satisfactory. For the Church in Ecclesiastical Writers does not denote the only Church, or signify to the exclusion of any other; but expresses only the Cathedral or Bishop's Church. And that this may be clear beyond all cavil, I will offer some passages, where the same expression is used, in Cities known to have a great number of Churches. Alexandria is allowed by all to have had many Churches in the beginning of the fourth Century; and the testimony of Athanasius, 
(b) Athan. Apol. 2.  and Epiphanius, 
(c) Epiph. Haer. 69.  sets it beyond contradiction: yet Gregory the Arrian Bishop is said 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 2. c. 14.  to be removed, because he had become odious to the people, for the burning of the Church. He says not one of the Churches, would our Author reason, but the Church; yet for all this there were many other Churches in that City. To the same purpose, when Athanasius was forced to fly from Alexandria, the Soldiers are said 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan. Apol 2. p. 717. Socr. l. 2. c. 11.  to encompass the Church, without any distinction which it was; and the Bishop said to be driven out of the Church, intending only the principal Church, and that which was called so by way of eminence; which is sometimes styled the great Church. So Theodorus Lector 
(f) Theod. Lect. l. 1. p. 553. Ed. Val.  speaking of Gennadius Bishop of Constantinople, takes notice, that he was the first that appropriated to the City Parishes all the oblations that should be made in them; whereas before the great Church carried away all. And Nicephorus 
(g) Niceph. H E. l. 15. c. 22.  speaking of the same thing, calls it the Catholic Church. In the same manner likewise, is Epiphanius 
(h) Epiph. Haer. 69.  understood by Valesius, 
(i) H. Vales. in Theodor. Lect. p. 162.  when he speaks of the Catholic Church of Alexandria. And thus perhaps may Cornelius his expression in Eusebius be best understood, that in the Catholic Church there ought to be but one Bishop. For although in one City there may be many Parish-Churches, appointed for the use of the several quarters where they are placed; yet is there but one common, or general or Catholic Church in one City.  
Rome had many Churches, when the schism of Vrsicinus happened to divide it; and long before that time there were no less than forty. Yet Socrates 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 4. c. 29.  speaking of the ordination of Vrsicinus, observes that it was not done in the Church, but in a private place of the Church, called Sicine, or Sicininus; 
(m) Ammian. Marcell. l. 27. c. 3.  that is, in the Church of Sicininus, which was but an obscure place, in comparison of the great Church.  
In Constantinople there were many Churches from the beginning. Yet in Constantius his time, Socrates 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 2. 16.  speaks of the Emperor's order to drive Paul out of the Church of that place, and to put Macedonius into possession of it. Wherefore 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. ibid.  after Paul was sent to banishment, the Perfect took Macedonius, and brought him toward the Church; and when they came near to the Church, and the people strove to get into the Church. Though all the while it is notorious, 
(p) Socr. l. 2. c. 12.  there were many Churches in the place, though this was then the Cathedral. Or if our Author may fancy this City still to have but one Church; yet we have the same language long after, even in Chrysostom's time, who upon his return is said 
(q) Socr. l. 6. c. 16. Pallad. Vit. Chrys. p. 15, 16, 24, 25. Chrys. Ep. ad Innocent.  to be brought by the people to the Church. And by this time sure there must be many Churches in that City; or some unkown destruction must have befallen those magnificent houses of God in that place, so much celebrated by some of the Writers of that age. So the inference our Author draws from this expression, the Church of Berytus, to the exclusion of all other Churches, proves a mistake. But he proceeds to observe farther, 
(r) Prim. Ep. p. 85.  that Tyre was one of the most illustrious Cities of the East;— yet Paulinus Bishop there in Constantine's time, had but so many under his Episcopal charge, 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 276. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 285.  as he could take a personal notice of their souls, and accurately examine the inward state of every one,— acquainting himself thoroughly with the condition of all those souls that were committed to him. And that you may be sure that all this is just and exact, without Hyperbole, he quotes his Author, as the Panegyrist in Eusebius informs us, l. 10. c. 4. It is usual in Panegyrics to raise things beyond nature, and the strictness of truth; and it is allowed, as long as the proportions and resemblance of the things so represented are preserved. What therefore if Eusebius by all this citation should intent only to commend the diligence and the penetration of that Bishop of Tyre, that he had the gift of discerning spirits, and of judging aright, whose repentance was sincere, and therefore to be received into communion; whose conversion was unfeigned, and therefore to be admitted to baptism; who was best qualified for the respective offices of the Church? If he should mean no more by these high expressions, he would not exceed much the allowances given to such kinds of discourse; and I think they are more to blame, that would force a compliment into a Syllogism. It is scarce worth the while to say so much as is necessary for the illustration of this passage, only to show at last, to how little purpose it was alleged. Yet since this instance of Tyre comes in among the rest, because he esteemed it more satisfactory than ordinary, I must beg the Reader's patience to explain the matter. Eusebius 
(t) Euseb. E. H. l. 10. c. 4. p. 376.  in his Panegyric, delivered at the Dedication of the Church of Tyre, commends not only the fabric, but the spiritual Church, or the Christians of that City. And this Temple, says the Panegyrist, is very great indeed, and worthy of God. The inside of this Temple, who can describe? who can look into it but the great high Priest, who alone has authority to enter into this Holy of holies, and to search the secrets of the heart? And happily it may be given to one more in the second place, and by way of substitute, that is, to him who sits there, the leader of this noble Army. To him therefore, as a high Priest after Christ, it may be lawful, to look into the most secret parts of your souls; or as Mr. Clerkson translates, to take a personal notice of your souls, and to examine the inward state of every one. Now Eusebius says not the least word that Paulinus had but so many under his charge, that he could look into all their souls; but 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Euseb. l. 10. c. 4. p. 385.  that it was lawful for him to do so, to be an inspector or Bishop of their souls. And this to be understood with respect to the Bishop's office, who received the public confessions in the Church, and was the Judge of the sincerity of the profession, as far as Ecclesiastical Discipline was concerned. And all this might be said, although he had had forty Parish-Churches within his City. Valesius mentions a marginal note of some Greek set against this place, in a Manuscript that he had seen, detesting it as a wicked and blasphemous passage. He thought Eusebius had spoken those things of Christ which he directed to the Bishop. But though there are some expressions below the majesty of Christ; yet are there others, that are something too high to be offered to man. The other passage out of the same Oration, that speaks of Paulinus, as, thoroughly acquainting himself with all those souls committed to him, will appear as little to our Author's purpose; if we do but observe what goes before it. For Eusebius speaking to those who had defiled their consciences in the Persecution, by complying with the wicked decrees of the Persecutors: And you, says he, whose consciences a little while ago were polluted, and overwhelmed by profane commands, have your minds now cleansed by the terrors of God's law, and are by him committed to the Bishop; who as he is otherwise of excellent judgement, so hath he a singular sagacity in judging of the thoughts of souls. These words than are directed to such as had fallen in the late Persecution, and were now in the state of Penitents, or had lately been so. And it is with respect to them, that the discretion of the Bishops is commended, that he can see into the very secret of their hearts, and distinguish between the hypocrite and the sincere. And Paulinus his case is very singular, if his whole Church consisted of none but Penitents; it must be thin indeed, for these were scarce reckoned within the Church. So little to the purpose is this satisfactory instance; and so far it is from proving that for which it was produced, that the Bishop of Tyre had but so many under his charge, as he could take personal notice of their souls.  

(x) Prim. ep. p. 85, 16.  Synnada is the next instance; where our Author fancies, that all the people were no more than one Church would contain; which he thus endeavours to prove. Agapitus the Macedonian Bishop on a sudden turns Orthodox, and calling together the people under him, persuades them to it. This done with a great multitude, 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 7. c. 3.  yea with all the people, he hastens into the Church. But with what people? of the City? Socrates says no such thing, nor could they be ware of what was doing in the Macedonian meeting. The people then that went with him, were no other than those who were with him, whom he persuaded to receive the true faith. For as soon as he had done persuading them, immediately he went out; and it seems his persuasion was so effectual, that a great multitude, or rather the whole people, went with him towards the Church. This is what Socrates says, and this is the most rational way of understanding him. But tho' he should mean all the people of the Town, or all the Christians; yet he does not say that one Church could contain them, but that this Bishop went with them towards the Church. Whether they could all get in, or join with him, is still uncertain, for any thing that Author says. But the truth is, though it should have been affirmed expressly of all the people of the City, yet can it be understood no otherwise than such expressions generally are, only for a great and unusual concourse. And after all, this Bishop was a Diocesan, for he had many Churches belonging to him, as is noted by Socrates 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 7. c. 3.  in the same place.  
(x) Cyzicus follows, as great a City, says our Author, as any in Asia, for which he quotes Strabo and Florus; to which I will add, that it was no less considerable under Constantius. For Gotofred's old Geographer 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Geogr. Vet. Gotofr.  says, that for its greatness and situation it surpasses all praise. Now it cannot but grieve one to think, that such a noble City should be so disaffected to the Christian Religion, that after the middle of the fourth Century it should seem to our Author, 
(c) Prim. ep. p. 87.  that all the Christians in this City were no more than could meet together in one place, to hear the recantation of Eleusius. This is sad indeed; but since our Author is apt to diminish Christians sometimes without reason, let us examine this matter a little farther; for possibly this may be no truer than the rest. This Eleusius, he says, being frighted into a subscription to Arrianism, declared before them all, the force that was put upon him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, coram universo populo, in the hearing of all the people, Socr. l. 4. c. 16. But this expression, though translated into seventy languages, will never prove that all the Christians in Cyzicus were present at this Recantation, or that they could all meet in one Church. Such phrases as these, all the people, all the multitude, are to be always limited by the place and other circumstances, expressed or supposed in the discourse. When our Saviour spoke in the Temple, 
(d) Luke 19.48,  all the people are said to be 
(a) Prim. ep. p. 86.  very attentive, and to hang upon him; not all the people of Jerusalem surely, but only the people there present. So the woman, who with a religious confidence touched the hem of our Saviour's garment, is said to declare to him before 
(e) Luke 8.47.  all the people, how she was healed. When Boniface was chosen Bishop of Rome, it is said 
(f) Acclamatione totius populi asseruimus. Baron. An. 419. n. 13.  to be confirmed by the acclamation of the whole people. It was now in the fifth Century, and the Roman Christians too many to be any longer suspected for a Congregational Diocese. When the people cried Anathema upon Nestorius in the Church of Mocius in Constantinople, it is said to be done 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ep. ad Orthod. ap. Conc. Ephes.  by the united voice of all the people of the City. And when 
(h) Ep. Syn. C. P. ad occid. apud Theod. l. 5. c. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Nectarius was chosen Bishop of Constantinople, it is said to be done in the presence of the Emperor, and by the suffrage of the whole City. And now surely one Church could not hold all the Orthodox Christians of that City; for at this time Gregory Nazianzen lets the Synod know, that he had filled all the Churches of that City, though now another reaped the crop for which he had laboured. There may be instances of this kind produced without end; for it is the common language of all the world, to say a thing was done in the presence of all the people, when only the people who are present are intended, and not all the people of a City or of a Country, or all the Christians of a place. And it is seldom that any Writer uses any word of limitation upon these occasions, as Cyprian 
(i) De plebis, quae tunc adfuit, suffragio. Cypr. Ep.  in one place doth, speaking of the election of Cornelius, that it was by the suffrage of the people that were then present; when this is understood of course, and needs no word of caution to suggest it.  
So that all the people, which our Author fancied to comprehend all the Christians of Cyzicus, did signify but those who were present, without any regard to the number of Christians in that place. And that they had more than could meet in one Church, we may reasonably infer from the multitude of Churches said to be in that City at the same time. For when Eleusius was put out, and Eunomius thrust into his place, he is said 
(l) Sozom. l. 6. c. 8.  to possess himself not of one Church, but of the Churches of Cyzicus. Now to make it more likely, that there were but few Christians in this great City, he takes notice, 
(m) Prim. ep. p. 86.  that in Julian 's time the greatest part of the Citizens were Heathen, the City sending their Deputies to him, (as about other affairs) so for the re-edifying of their Idol Temples. This Act does not necessarily conclude the Heathen to be the major part. Few men in place, and countenanced by an Emperor, may procure such a Petition as this in the name of a City, when much the greater part might be far from liking it. We have instances of this nature fresh in our remembrance, and perhaps too odious to be mentioned. Besides there were Jews and Novatians, and Arrians here; and so there might be very great numbers, and yet twenty Churches not be sufficient to receive the Christians of the established Religion.  
It must be confessed, that all other Cities must be delivered up to the Congregational pretensions, if Constantinople may be reduced to a single Church. And Mr. Clerkson fancied he had discovered the weakness of the Christians of this place, by a passage in Theodoret. 
(n) Prim. ep. p. 87, 88  In Alexander 's time,— the Christians were no more than could all meet together; so Theodoret informs us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 1. c. 14. i. e. the Bishop of the place performed divine service with all the Brethren: what! with all the brethren of Constantinople? No; but with all the brethren there assembled. The import of this expression has been considered already, and this very passage has received 
(o) Vindicat. Prim. Ch. pref.  an answer long since. But afterwards, he observes, many falling off to Arrianism, the remainder made but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a little flock. This does not prove but before this defection the Bishop of Constantinople's flock was very great, and required many Churches to assemble in. And after this defection, the Arrian Bishop, whom most of the Christians followed, had many Churches and Congregations under him. For the people in many places not understanding the danger of the Arrian Communion, did not think it necessary to separate, and therefore continued to repair to those Churches whither they used to resort before. So that the Episcopacy of the place remained Diocesan, though it happened to be placed in wrong hands. And soon after the people were recovered from these wolves, and delivered to faithful shepherds. Yet even then Mr. Clerkson can find but one Congregation there; for in the time of Theodosius Junior, it seems all amounted to no more than one Church could contain, if Socrates deceive us not, l. 4. (it should be the 7th) c. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. all the City became but one Church. It is a dangerous thing I see, to venture upon a figure, if men will be such rigid exactors of literal sense. The Historian might fancy he had spoken eloquently, when instead of saying, that there was a great confluence of people to the Church, he chose to express himself thus, that the whole City became one Church. But the poor man is taken up short, at his word; and if he do not make it out, that the greatest City then in the world, was not literally one Congregation, he must pass for an extravagant Writer, and one that deceiveth us. Yet though it should happen that all the City, or all the Christians, had not been there to a man; it is not Socrates that deceives us, while he uses a form of speech generally 
(p) Prim. ep. p. 88  allowed and understood; but it is Mr. Clerkson deceives himself, when he snatcheth such expressions as this against all fair ways of understanding, to give evidence to his notion. Those who give themselves up to serve an opinion, are apt to catch at any thing they meet for a weapon to defend it; and this Tyrant is so absolute, and the Slave so fond, that there is no place left for examination or doubt; nor can that pertinent question of the Prophet 
(q) Is. 44.20.  is there not a lie in my right hand, obtain any hearing.  
I have already shown the greatness of this City, which our Author would reduce to a single Congregation, that even in Constantine's time it was equal to the greatest of the Empire. I have showed, that this was a Christian City from the foundation, and the people generally devoted to the Religion of their Founder. That in Constantine's time Sectaries could not lessen the Church of the Bishop in that place, since they were not only discountenanced in that reign, but by the Edicts of the Emperor obliged to go to Church, which they generally did observe; some sincerely, and the rest by outward compliance. The Arrians, or Eusebians had then no separate Congregations; they made then indeed a faction, but not a schism in the Church; and laboured with all their interest to restore those to Communion, who had been cast out by the censures of the Church, upon the account of those opinions. I have showed, how that Emperor built 
(r) Theod. H. C. l. 1. c. 6.  very great and many Churches there, because few were not sufficient to receive the multitude. And now if so great a City, so affected to Christianity, can make but one Church after all; what Preacher 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Arist. Polit. l. 2.  can there be found, what voice sufficient for such an assembly, what Temple capacious enough to receive it? S. Sophia is accounted the greatest of Christian Churches, that the Sun ever shined on. And I remember to have 
(t) Sub Bajazethe triginta sex millia, qui illud religionis ergo adirent numerata fuisse Ant. Maevanius author est. Geo. Dousa. de Itin. C. P. no. p. 37.  read that in Bajazet's reign, six and thirty thousand Turks visited that Church in one day; though I can scarce believe, as vast as that Church was, that it could hold so many together. Yet even this number comes far short of the Christians in Constantine's time, and much shorter yet of the Christians of Constantinople under the younger Theodosius, when Paganism was every where expiring, if not quite extinguished, and the Arrians and other sects reduced to the Church, and that City arrived to its highest point of greatness; yet even then our Author can afford the Bishop but one Congregation.  

(u) Prim. ep. p. 88  At Ancyra the chief City of Gallatia, our Author takes notice that there were many sects, by which that Church was torn in pieces. All this may very well be, and yet more than one Congregation remain to the Bishop. The same thing may be said of several of our Cities, inferior perhaps to Ancyra; and yet those of the established Religion, notwithstanding the variety of the Sects, require many Churches to assemble in. 
(x) Prim. ep. p. 89.  The like may be said of Caesarea, the chief City in Mauritania (the reason here is like the rest) because St. Augustin desired a public Conference with the Donatist Bishop of that place, 
(y) Suis omnibus civibus praesentibus. Possid. vit. Aug. c. 14. i. e. frequentissima plebe praesente. Aug. gest. cum Emer. init.  all the Citizens being present. I wonder our Author has not reduced all the World to a Congregation, since it is usual to say, that a thing is done before all the World, in the face of the World, and the like: and therefore, what need all our Independent Congregations, since these expressions may reduce the whole World to a single Conventicle? When our Author observes, that this was the chief City in Mauritania, and might have taken notice that it was 
(z) Oppidumque ibi celeberrimum Caesarea. Plin. l. 5. c. 2.  a renowned place from its first foundation by Claudius, and grew up to be one of the chiefest Cities in Afric, and had 
(a) In Ecclesia majori congregat. Aug. Gest. cum Emer. init.  at this time many Churches of the Catholic Communion: he should have a little mistrusted such a phrase as this, that implies no more, than that the Conference should be public, and that all, who would, might be present at it.  
Tiberias, and Diocaesarea, and Sepphoris, which our Author mentions, because they had each but one Church, have been already considered. They consisted only of Jews, who would suffer no other Nation or Religion to mix with them.  

(b) Prim. ep. p. 86.  At Diocaesarea in Cappadocia, which in Nazianzen is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there was but one Church. Ep. 49. But Nazianzen 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Ep. 49.  says no such thing. He uses all the credit he had with Olympius, the Governor of that Province, to spare this City, which had extremely offended him, and to that degree, that he was resolved to disfranchise and destroy it. And among other arguments, he makes use of his own liberality towards that City, having lately built a Church there; and therefore prayed that the Temple he had so lately erected there, might not become a receptacle of wild Beasts. But gives not the least intimation, that this was the only Church in that great City.  

(c) Prim. ep. p. 90.  At Constantia, the Metropolis of Cyprus, and other Cities of that Island, there was no plurality of Churches. For this he citys Petavius, whose inference has been already examined; and there is nothing new added here to require further reply.  
At Neocaesaria, and other Cities in those parts, but one Church. This he proves from the thirteenth Canon of Neocaesarea, that forbids a Chorepiscopus to officiate in a City Church; from which Petavius would infer the Cities had but one Church. But there might be a hundred Churches there, for aught that expression may imply.  
We are at last come to the end of this Chapter; in which our Author has taken all ways to diminish the Christians. He has been very bountiful to Schismatics and Heretics, that the Bishop's Flock might not increase beyond his new model. But we must not wonder at his liberality towards these to the detriment of the Bishop. But rather than any City should have more Congregations than one of the same Communion, he gives the rest to the Devil. And to that purpose he is beyond measure bountiful towards Heathen and Jews; Heightens their number, as if he were of the faction; especially in Julian's time, having perhaps some secret respect for them, because they generally took the part of Schismatics and Heretics, against the Catholic established Church.   

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 expense of his Lord; and cutting off considerably from the sum owing to his Master, procured himself a retreat among the debtors. Yet in this unrighteous contrivance he observed some measure, and reduced a hundred 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 debtors; and in some places, of a hundred does not leave ten. But in this he has chosen to follow the injustice rather than the wisdom of the Steward: 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 Assembly, 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 Congregation 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 succeeding, as wonderful and unexampled; and considering the supernatural abilities it pleased God to confer upon the first Preachers, it might be expected that their Doctrine should make a greater progress, than those that come recommended only by ordinary and human means of persuasion. Yet if we take Mr. Clerkson's reckoning of Christians for the three first ages, and compare it with the growth of Sects among ourselves within this last age; we must conclude, that there is scarce a Sect within our remembrance, which has not proportionably 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 considerable time, and there was a flourishing Church before he was brought thither. However our Author, to leave no exception against the Congregational Rule, 
(a) Prim. ep. p. 91. 92.  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) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  all the faithful in Rome did meet together in one place, to choose a Bishop in the place of Anterus. Euseb. l. 6. c. 29.  
I have already upon other occasions shown the import of these expressions: all the people, all the brethren, all the City, etc. and how unreasonable it is to require exactness of testimony 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 choose 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) Praesente populo Romano. Marcel. & Faustin. L. 16. Prec.  in the presence of the people of Rome, swore they would not choose any other Bishop, while Liberius lived. In the next, 
(d) Dataque oratione respondit omnis populus Amen. Lib. Pont. in Vigil.  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 satisfied 
(e) Satisfecit cuncto populo & plebi, quia nullum malum fecisset contra Vigilium. Lib. Pont. in Pelag.  all the people, that he had done Vigilius his predecessor no harm. Gregory the Great is said to be chosen by 
(f) Gregonium Diaconum plebs omnis elegit. Greg. Turon. l. x. c. 1. Joh. Diacon. l. 1. c. 39 40.  all the people; tho' at that time in Rome there were neither Heathen nor Sectaries to make any abatements in the Bishop's 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 Sam. 12.1.4.  to speak to all Israel; and they answer him, that he had neither oppressed nor defrauded them. But our Author proceeds.  

(h) Prim. ep. p. 92.  They were no more after Anno. 250, than could all together, in the Church, importune Cornelius for the readmission of the Ordeiners of Novatian: The whole people interceding for him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 6. c. 43. Our Author, according to his usual ingenuity, has left out a word, that spoilt his argument, and limited this expression. For Cornelius does not say, that all the Christian people of Rome importuned him; 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but that all the people, that was present with him, did interceded. 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 public 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 Populusque Romanus? 
(l) Prim. ep. p. 93.  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, etc. Consultis omnibus & ipsis stantibus laicis. Cypr. ep. 26. A Bishop may communicate Letters and Propoposals 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 Congregation in that City. Whatsoever is done in public, and before a Congregation that is unlimited, is in the common way of speaking, said to be done before all the Community.  
I meet with nothing, says our Author, 
(m) Prim. ep. p. 93.  that makes any show of a probability, that their numbers were more at that time, but Cornelius his Catalogue of Officers,— and the number of the poor, which were fifteen hundred. Euseb. l. 6. c. 37. This passage has not hitherto received any answer, that made so much as a show of probability: And that which our Author replieth to the number of Officers, hath been long since 
(n) Vindic. prim. ch. p. 51.  shown to be frivolous. As to the number of Officers, the show will vanish, Mr. Clerkson fancies, if it be considered, that it was the custom of those ancient times to multiply Officers beyond what was necessary; yea, so much, that, as Nazianzen 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz Or. 1.  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 contented. But from Mr. Clerkson something might be expected more exact: what! will this show of probability vanish; and no likelihood that there were more Congregations in Rome than one, remain from six and forty Presbyters in Cornelius his time, because it was the custom of Nazianzen'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 relating 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) Euseb. H.E. l. 6. c. 43.  assures us, that this number was not for state, nor for form, without use and necessity; but exceeding necessary, and that upon the account of an infinite and numberless people. And if the multitude 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 Centuries; for in those times the Presbyters of Rome were scarce a third part more than those in the Catalogue of Cornelius, as we may gather from the subscriptions of the Presbyters in the Roman 
(q) Synod. Rom. 1. sub. Symmach. Subs. Pres. 67.  Council. Nay, in one Synod, 
(r) Cum Episc. omnibus & Rom. Eccl. Presbyteris. Greg. Reg. l. 4. ep. 44.  under Gregory the Great, there are but thirty four Presbyters that subscribe. I do not intent 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 Presbyters. 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 frivolous exception of our Author, that the believers of that City could not all assemble together upon any religious occasion, and that the Church there must consequently be distributed to several Parishes and Congregations.  

(s) Prim. ep. p. 94.  As to the other, how to compute the numbers of the Roman Church by the number of the poor, I know no better way than to observe what proportion 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 public stock of the Church, besides the necessary Officers. Now there might be many more poor maintained, some by Relations, 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 comparison 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) Chrys Hom. 66. in Matth. p. 421. 422.  maintains many Widows, and Virgins, and Prisoners, and Sick, and Clergy: the number of those upon the role maintained by the public 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 proportion than the Roman Church can be supposed able to do in Cornelius his time, when it had no other revenue than the oblations of the Faithful; whereas in Chrysostom's time, besides these, it was endowed with great possessions, 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 foundation, 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 supposes the poor a tenth part. The first is unreasonable, 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 hundred Roman poor we will suppose, according to Chrysostom, to be the tenth part of the poor Christians of the place. The sum will be fifteen 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 conditions. 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 Homily 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 between nine. I cannot think Chrysostom so little skilled in Arithmetic, as to commit a mistake in so obvious a reckoning. I had rather 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 Critic, 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 magnificent character, 
(u) Prim. ep. p. 96.  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 inconsiderable in so great a place, this very instance will preclude all your pretensions to number and greatness in all other Cities. Here our Author undertakes to show, that the Christians were not more than could meet in one place, and thinks fit to skirmish at first with arguments 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and a scrupulous member of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I cannot but commend his discretion, for not insisting upon such things as these; tho', I think, the alleging of them argues more of diligence than judgement. For tho' this critical 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 Assembly 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 conscience concerning his Baptism, says, 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 7. c. 9  he did partake of the Communion of the Faithful, and assembled with them. But whether there was then but one Church or Congregation in Alexandria, or several, cannot be deduced 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) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 7. c. 7.  to Philemon a Roman Presbyter, when he speaks of Heretics, 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 panegyrical 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 assembly, where not only the Church of one City might assemble, but Nations might inhabit. But to let this pass, and to consider the pertinence 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) Euseb. H. E. l. 7. c. 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 persecuted, and put to death, even than kept the Feast, For the place of every one's affliction, was to him a place of solemn assembly; the open field, the wilderness, the ship, the inn, the prison, where each happened 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 Dionysius. But I have neither inclination nor forehead to follow our Author in this way of discourse; nor is it in every one's power to recommend for fair probabilities, what he cannot but know to be nothing to the purpose.  

(a) Prim. ep. p. 97.  But Athanasius in his Apology to Constantius about Anno. 355, makes it evident, beyond all contradiction, he being accused for assembling the people in the great Church before it was dedicated, makes this part of his defence, That the confluence of the Pascal Solemnity was so great, that if they had met in several assemblies, the other Churches were so little and straight, 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 myself the labour of any farther 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 notice of nothing that hath been offered to impeach this irrefragable evidence. However, to avoid cavil, I am content here again to take it into examination. And first, tho' it should be yielded to our Author, that it is certain from this passage, that all the Christians in Alexandria were present in this assembly; yet will it not be of that service to his notion, as he might imagine. 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 owing 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 Congregational Episcopacy in elder times, or for the discovering of the proportion of Christians 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) No Evidence for Diocese. Episc. p. 47.  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 encouragements, that their numbers were not like to be impaired. And as for the Arrians, if we may take the measure of the people by their Officers, they were more numerous than the Catholics in this City; for 
(c) Theod. H. E. l. 4. c. 22. Soz. l. 1. c. 15.  of nine, (it should be nineteen) Presbyters and Deacons which the Church of Alexandria had, eleven embraced Arrianism. There are many mistakes in what is here advanced concerning the Meletians and the party of Arrius; but the course of the argument must not be interrupted. In these circumstances the Arrians might well outvie the followers of Athanasius in numbers, and these declined as the others increased. Now if the party of Athanasius, which in Mr. Clerkson's judgement was inferior in number to the Arrians, was yet so great, as to fill all the Churches in Alexandria, and could not have met in any one Church before that vast fabric was erected by Constantius; the Arrians, surely, who are supposed to be the greater party, must divide into many Congregations, and live in the Diocesan way, especially in the time of Gregory, who seems to have joined the Arrian and Meletian party; for by Epiphanius 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 69. n. 2.  he is styled both Arrian and Meletian. For tho' that Sect divided from the Church upon a point of Doctrine, yet did they not pretend to make any alteration in Discipline, and had but one Bishop in a City, how great soever it might be. So that our Author, while he lessens the Catholics of Alexandria, does unawares make the Arrians not a Congregation, but a Diocese. Nor is it any advantage to the Congregational fancy, to straighten the Catholic 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 Diocesan stature.  
Having considered the consequence of this passage of Athanasius upon a kind supposition, that it proved the thing for which it was produced; I proceed to show, 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) Ch. Hist. p. 10.  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) Epiph. Haer. 69. n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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) Optat. l. 2.  there were above forty in the beginning of Constantine's reign. Suppose then a Congregation, that twelve Churches could not contain, which though much inferior to this new Cathedral, yet had some of them served the Bishop of the greatest City in the world after Rome and his Congregation: It will be scarce possible, to conceive how all that multitude 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 Bishop 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 cannot attain that purpose which brings them together. And therefore is a Congregation for show 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 distant 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 join 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 public devotions of the day? Athanasius 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 visible, if 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  they had met in parcels; and therefore there were no such meetings. Still the question recurs, what people? all the Alexandrians of his Communion? Nothing he says can be extended so far, or made to comprehend 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 Congregation assembled from all parts, though all individuals, nor perhaps half of them do not appear. For Leo the Great about the middle of the fifth Century, speaks to his Congregation in the same manner, though in all probability not the twentieth part of the Christians of Rome were present. In you, says he, 
(i) In vobis pietatem Christianae unitatis agnosco, sicut enim ipsa frequentia testatur. Intelligitis enim honorem totius gregis celebrari per annua festa Pastoris. Leo. Serm. Anniv. 3.  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 Anniverssaries 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 Bishop's 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 Bishop's Defence. He was accused for having dedicated a Church, which the Emperor had built, without his order; because the holding of the Pascal Assemby there was a sort of Dedication. But the Bishop protests 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apol. ad Const. p. 682.  to the Emperor, 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 summons to meet there. Now the Parish Presbyters of Alexandria cannot well be supposed to leave their Churches unsupplied, upon a presumption 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 probability 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 service on that solemn time. For but few of them could crowd into the Bishop's Church, before that great one was built; and the number of the Catholic Christians had been greater, than were at this time of which we are speaking. To conclude, all the Alexandrians of the Catholic 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, considering they had each a Congregation already. These could not be dispersed in the other Churches without danger. These were proper to represent Catholic 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) Prim. ep. p. 98.  Alexander, the Predecessor of Athanasius, assembled the whole multitude in the Church called Theonas, the other Churches being all straight and little. But still this multitude is not said to be the whole of the Alexandrine Church, but only of the Bishop's Congregation.  
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 myself of his opinion, for both are equally satisfactory; and this to which he refers has been 
(n) Vindic. Prim. Ch. p. 58.  sufficiently answered.  
He thinks the Premises so evident, that there is no need of Dionysius 's observation; that Alexandria in his time was not by much so populous as of old, the old men being more in number formerly, than both old and young in his days. If there was no need of this observation, he is the more inexcusable, for attempting to put upon his Reader 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 upon 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 carcases of these corrupted the air and the water, and begot a Pestilence mortal beyond all example; and this reduced the City so low, as that Bishop than 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 Empire.  
In Antioch, he observes, 
(o) Prim. ep. p. 99  the Christians in the first age were no more than could all meet together in the House of Theophilus, as appears by the Author of the Recognitions, which though falsely ascribed to Clemens, is ancient; nor will it be easy to find a reason why the following passage should be forged. Theophilus— domus suae ingentem Basilicam Ecclesiae nomine consecravit, in qua omnis multitudo ad audiendum verbum conveniens, etc. l. 10. To some sort of people no evidence comes amiss; Fable and Forgery grow Authentic, 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 Apostolic times. I have some reasons to suspect, that this Book is not so old as it is generally imagined; and it carries several marks of the fourth Century, of which it is not necessary to take notice in this place. But it is not easy 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, without 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) Prim. ep. p. 100  When Paulus Samosatenus was Bishop of this City, our Author observes, there was but one house, 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  where the Church did meet, of which he would not give up the possession. And this he contends was not the Bishop's house, but the house where the Church did meet, and is presently after called 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 7. c. 30.  the Church. The Translator that he blames for calling it the Bishop's house, must be Christophorson, or Musculus; for Ruffinus 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 aught 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 Bishop's Assembly, to which they all belonged; but they might have many Houses appropriated 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) Prim. ep. p. 100  In the fourth Age all the Christians there could meet together for the choice of Eustathius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Theodoret, l. 1. c. 7. This has been answered so often already, that I am ashamed to repeat so obvious and plain an answer 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. Clerkson, was but four years after his being Bishop of that place. The sedition, says Sozomen, 
(x) Soz. l. 2. c. 19  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 Pastor; 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) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 3. c. 9  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 Catholic Christians, 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 Possessors.  

(z) Prim. ep. p. 103.  Carthage next to the Cities forementioned, 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 observation 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 Carthage in that place, on which Albaspineus makes his observation, and what is worse, that Bishop 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) Tertul. ad Uxor. l. 2. c. 4.  disputing warmly against Christian Women marrying of Heathen Men, proposes many great difficulties, to which such Women will be exposed, and what hindrance such a Marriage must needs be to all Christian Offices. If the Wife purpose to perform the Station, the Husband appoints a Bath: If she ought to observe a Fast, her Husband appoints an entertainment: 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, showing that in those days there was but one Church in a place, and that generally a small one, and without 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 Tertullia's time, we need no other proof than the account he gives Scapula of the number of Christians in that City. 
(b) Tertull. ad Scapulam.  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 Carthage 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 thyself; if thou wilt not spare thyself, 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 assembly, and that no great one: Since the Christians had not the convenience of great and capacious Churches at that time, and might not be very willing to raise extraordinary Fabrics, lest they should expose themselves too much to the observation and envy of their enemies. He who is not yet persuaded 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 Century, that it is incredible they could meet in one Church, and such a Church as the condition 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. Dodwell 
(c) Dissert. Cypr. xi. ss. 48. 52.  finds no Persecution from the tenth year of Severus, Anno 202, to the first of Decius, Anno 250. And in general, Origen observes the increase of Christians within this time to be extraordinary, and much greater than it had been in former times; 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. Cont. Cells. p. l. 3. p. 120.  because they were not then oppressed by the Emperors, as they had been formerly; 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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) Disciplinam longa pax corruperat.— populi aliquando numerosi lamentanda jactura. Cypr. de laps. p. 123.  observes, who speaking of the Christians of Carthage before Decius his Persecution, extols their numbers, while he bewails the ruin of those who yielded to the enemy. Yet 
(f) Prim. ep. p. 104.  In Cyprians time, in all Church administrations and transactions of moment in the Church and Bishopric of Carthage, all the people were to be present: 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 figure 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 Catholic Christians but one Congregation, are by much too liberal to the Schismatics. For it is known to every body that has but looked into St. Austin, that those of the Catholic Communion 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) Prim. ep. p. 106.  thinks fit to add Jerusalem, altho' far inferior in greatness,— because of the many thousands converted there by the Apostles.— But I have showed, that of those five thousand Converted, the twentieth part cannot in reason be accounted 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 Conversions: but before the destruction of that City and the Jewish Nation, we are told by Hegesippus, 
(h) Apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 23.  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, together with its own inhabitants. What might happen to this Church a few years before the destruction of Jerusalem, is altogether unknown: But that not long before it was very flourishing, we learn from the Acts and Hegesippus. If Persecutions or Apostasies had diminished it a little before that fatal Revolution, we are not to take the measures of it from such a calamitous state. Nay, this story of the transmigration to Pella comes from no certain Authority. And Valesius 
(i) Annot. in Euseb. l. 3. c. 5.  hints his mistrust of it, when he observes that Eusebius quotes no Author, and probably took all this matter from Tradition, which is no very certain way of conveying any thing to posterity. Nor is it unlikely 
(l) Epiph. Haer. Nazar. n. 7. Id. de Pond. & Mens. n. 15. Joseph. Scalig. Anim. in Euseb. p. 212.  that this story should come from the Nazarens, who dwelled about Pella and in the Region of Decapolis; who to give themselves greater credit, might pretend to be the remainder of the Apostolic Church of Jerusalem. 
(m) Prim. ep. p. 107.  Not long after, they settled 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 judge they could not be very many. The story of these houses and Church, and several Synagogues in Mount-Sion, that escaped in the first desolation, are all Jewish Fables, and inconsistent with our Saviour's Prophecy of that City, that one stone should not be left upon another, as Scaliger 
(n) Animadv. in Euseb. Chron.  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 beginning, and giving trouble to his Brethren of the Congregational way by those many thousand Converts which they could not conveniently 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) Prim. ep. p. 108.  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 diminished. And be it which he pleases, so it be not taken for a judgement upon it for transgressing 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 become Unprimitive.  
To show compassion, he is willing 
(p) Prim. ep. p. 109.  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 purpose is all this learned Discourse? The Church of Jerusalem was either quite dissolved, or much diminished by that Edict that forbidden the Jews to come into that City. What then? Is this then an instance to judge other Churches by, when the case is singular, 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 Christian Congregation in the World? Yet in conclusion, there is nothing produced to show, 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 City's 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 Caecilian. It is not surely because the Christians there were so few, as not to be thought fit to be brought into account.  

(q) Prim. ep. p. 109. 110. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 6. c. 9  It is like their numbers increased before Narcissus was Bishop there in the third age: Yet than they were not so many, but that the whole multitude could meet with their Bishop at the Pascal Vigil. Although 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 traditional story went, the Oil 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) Prim. ep. p. 110.  Nay, in cyril'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 Aparition 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. Sozomen speaks there, not of the Christians only, but of all the people of the City; for astonishment and fear seized upon all. And if our Author would deal rigidly with him, he must find a Church that may hold all the Inhabitants of a great and a populous City; for such was it now grown, by the kindness and devotion of the Christian Emperors, and by the multitude of Christians who resorted thither from all parts to visit the Sepulchre, and other places rendered venerable for having been the scene of some of the most important actions of our Saviour. But I think it is easier to make some allowance to such general expressions, than to find a Church in Jerusalem at that time, capacious enough to receive all the men women and children of that City.   

CHAP. VI  
I Have followed the tract of Mr. Clerkson's discourse through Villages and Cities, from the smallest to the greatest, in search of Primitive Episcopacy; and must confess, that he has laboured hard, partly by diminishing of ancient Cities, and especially by lessening the Christians, to prove that no Bishop had in his City a greater flock for three or almost four Ages, than could assemble in one Church. How well he hath performed this undertaking, I dare not take upon me to say, being too far engaged in the dispute to be a Judge of his performance. Yet should all his Testimonies amount to a full evidence of the fact, that the greatest Cities for so many Ages, had no more Christians than might join with the Bishop in one Assembly, he falls short of the main point, which is not, whether the Bishop had more Congregations than one in the place of his Residence, but whether in his whole Diocese he had no more. I know some Bishops who reside in places, that can scarce furnish a decent Congregation, and yet have more than a hundred within their Diocese. And in some of our Cities I make no doubt, but the whole people, making common allowance for necessary Absents, might be contained within the walls of the Cathedral; yet this is but a small part of the Bishop's flock. If therefore in ancient times, when Mr. Clerkson fancied there was another species of Episcopacy, the case was the same, or not very different; all the pains he has bestowed in the reduction of Cities into a single Congregation, and all the Earthquakes and Pestilences which he called to his assistance to lessen the number of the people, might have been spared. What Country or Territory the ancient Bishops had besides the City where they lived, comes now under examination. And if it shall appear by testimonies unexceptionable, that the ancient Cities had large Territories; and that these Territories were under the Bishop of the City; and that the people there were too numerous, and too far distant to be able to come to the Bishop's Church; then I hope, we shall be no more troubled with this new way of measuring ancient Bishoprics by the compass of the City wall. Here then lies the stress of the Question concerning Primitive Episcopacy. And I cannot but observe, that Mr. Clerkson's diligence was not either so great in this part, or nothing could be found to give so much as a pretence to straighten the bounds of those Territories which were under the Bishop's Jurisdiction, no less than the City where he lived. Yet something he thinks fit to say to this point, which I am now to consider.  

(a) Prim. ep. p. 110, 111.  It may be alleged, that not only the City and (but) a large Territory belonging to it, and the Villages therein made up the Bishop's Diocese. Answ. If the Christians in the Villages— increased them— beyond the capacity of personal Communion, it must be in the greatest Cities, or else no where. The consequence is not very evident; for some very little Cities had great Territories, as Cyrus where Theodoret was Bishop; of which more anon. And Capua, that was a very great City, had 
(b) Cic. Or. contr. Rull.  once no Territory at all, as it happened to some other Cities in Italy, whose Territories the Romans took away. However let us hear how it was. It was not so at Carthage, where all the People belonging to Cyprian, met frequently; which is plain by a hundred passages in his Epistles. What, all the people from the Country Parishes? The Reader may depend upon it, that there is not the least title either in the Epistles, or any Tract of Cyprian to that purpose: And those passages that he refers to, are only general expressions, all the people, all the Brotherhood, etc. which have been already considered. Nor can it be conceived possible; for though we have not the measure of all the region belonging to Carthage, yet are there some hints that are sufficient to disprove this. A place ten miles distant from that City, was reckoned 
(c) Procop. Vand. l. 2.  not only in the Territory, but in the Suburbs of it; and from the distance was called Decimum. And it is not very likely, if there were any Christians there, that they were obliged to go to Carthage upon all Religious occasions. And that at this time, the places that went under the name of Suburbs, and were at some distance from the City, had their Assemblies apart from the City Bishop to whom they belonged, we may learn from the Testimony of Dionysius 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. H. l. 7. c. 11.  Bishop of Alexandria, and the note of Valesius, 
(e) Ji qui in Suburbijs illis manebant, non cogebantur ad majoris Ecclesiae conventus accedere. Vales. Anot.  that the people who dwelled in remoter Suburbs, were not obliged to go to the great Church, i. e. of the City. And Bethlehem, which was but six miles from Jerusalem, and belonged to the Bishop of that City, did not go up to the Bishop's Church so much as at Easter; as we are informed by Jerom, 
(f) Hieron. adv. Joh. Hierosol.  who on that feast did once present some Candidates for Baptism to the Presbyters of that place. Yea in the fourth Age it was not so in Alexandria, as our Author 
(g) Prim. ep. p. 111.  fancies; and refers us to that panegyrical Assembly, which Athanasius excuses to Constantius. What, all the Christians of the Diocese of Alexandria in that Church? Those of 
(h) Strab. l. 17.  Nicopolis equal to a City? Those of 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan. Presb. Libel. apud Conc. Chalc. Act. 3. Strab. l. 17.  Canopus reckoned itself a City, and twelve miles from Alexandria, and within that Diocese? What all the people of Mareotes? 
(l) Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 793.  where there were fourteen Parish-Presbyters and thirteen Deacons. These had some ten Villages, some more within their respective Parishes; so that we may reckon upon near a hundred Villages at least in this place. It is very strange, that all these places added as an Appendix to the Christians of Alexandria, should not make more than one Congregation; or that those people should travel so far to assemble with their Bishop, when they could not promise themselves any room, the City Churches being small, and the great one not yet dedicated; especially since we have showed before, that they were not obliged to it. I am afraid, if the notion which our Author served, had required that all the Christians in Egypt should have been no more than could have met in one Assembly, that he would have found some Panegyrical Assembly should have comprehended them all.  
He tells us how he had showed before, that the Christians in such Cities were no more in the first Ages than the Inhabitants of an ordinary Town, such as some of our Market-Towns; when we know, that not only those of the Town, but many Villages (sometimes near twenty) belonging to it, can and do meet together. All he has showed hath been examined: And this which he adds of his own knowledge, concerning Market-Towns with twenty Villages belonging to them, I will take upon his credit, though I think such instances very rare. Yet after all, this will not reach the point in question, nor answer the Territories of ancient Cities, which were much larger than Mr. Clerkson would have us believe they were. Not content with this, he thinks it advisable to add something for more satisfaction.  

(m) Prim. ep. p. 112.  For first, either the Territory was little, and so it was indeed for the most part. There are some will have it taken for granted, that the Territories of Cities were very large,— and they had need presume it to be exceeding large, so as it may bear some proportion to a Northern Diocese. I do not desire to have a thing taken for granted which I can so easily prove, and hope to do so effectually in this matter, that there will be no place left for exception or cavil; and I do not doubt, but some Territories of ancient Cities will appear not inferior to some of the Northern Dioceses, and to the generality of the Bishoprics of this kingdom, which are not the least in this part of the world. 
(n) Prim. ep. p. 113.  The Circuit of one of our Country Parishes (yea of two together) they will scorn as unworthy the repute or name of a Bishop's Diocese; yet the Territories of the Cities where the Apostles planted Churches— amounted not to more, if so much. God forbidden any should scorn those bounds, which were set by the Apostles and first planters of Christianity. Yet those, upon whom Mr. Clerkson reflects, have reason to scorn so undeserved an Imputation. Some men are not well, unless they can reproach their betters; their choler works upward and must be vented at their mouth, or else they cannot live. But the present Question is, how far those bounds extended, that were set by the Apostles and their Successors.  

(o) Prim. ep. p. 113.  Shall we take an estimate of the Territory of other Cities, by that of the Levites Cities? Why not? since many of them were Royal Cities, and may be supposed to have the largest allowance. There are many reasons, why this estimate ought not to be taken, of which I cannot think our Author ignorant. First, the Levites had another sort of Inheritance among their Brethren, that is, the Tithes; and for that reason they may be reasonably supposed to have a shorter Territory. And the use, for which those Suburbs were given the Levites, show that it needed not to be as large as those of the Cities of other Tribes; for they were given them only 
(p) Jos. 21.2.  for their Cattle, this Tribe having no Tillage, because it received the Tithes of the rest of Israel. Besides, not only the Cities of the Levites, but those of the other Tribes, are very improper instances in this question. For the Age of Moses is so distant from that of Christ, and the circumstances of the world so different; that no estimate can be taken of one by the other. The Cities, which the children of Israel divided between the Tribes, when they possessed themselves of Canaan, were above twenty times as many as they had under that title in our Saviour's time. For in Moses his time it seems every small Town passed for a City; but in that of our Saviour it was otherwise. And as the Cities were then greater, and less numerous, so was their Territory proportionably more large; at leastwise in the sense of the present Question. That some Cities of the Levites were Royal, is not to the purpose; for if they were all to have the same measure of Suburbs, according to that Agrarian Law of Moses, 
(q) Jos. 21.  of two thousand Cubits on each side, it can signify nothing that once they had been Royal Cities; for than their Suburbs might not have the same bounds, as they had afterward when they became the possession of the Levites. How small a Territory the City Tyre might have when Mr. Sands was there, belongs not at all to our Question, which is put much higher, concerning the general use of ancient times. But in truth, Mr Sands says not that the Territories of Tyre extended no farther than six miles in length and two in breadth; but only that when he was in those parts, the Emir of Sidon had given it with so much of the adjacent Country to his Brother.  

(r) Prim. ep. p. 114.  Or shall we be determined by Crete, the place whether the Text insisted on for this purpose leads us? I am content; so our Author do not confound the Fables of Homer with the History of St. Paul. But here again he talks of his hundred Cities; and then certainly the Territory of each must be very small. But this hath been so often answered, that I am afraid to venture upon another repetition. This Island is computed by some old Authors in Strabo, 
(s) Strab. l. 10.  who are commended for exactness, to be three hundred miles long, and about fifty broad; and those 
(t) Plin. l. 4. c. 12.  who say the least, want but thirty miles of this reckoning: And about the time of the Council of Chalcedon, all the Island had but eight Bishops. In latter times Volateran reckons ten, and Cluverius but nine. For the hundred Cities, I can only say with Solinus, 
(u) Centum urbibus, sicut perhibent, qui prodigi lingua largiti sunt. Solin. Polyb. c. 17.  that they were prodigal of their language, who speak of so many in Crete.  

(x) Prim. ep. p. 114.  If we go farther, where Cities were not great, the Territory was not large, these being— commonly proportionable. This was no rule, as we shall show by several instances; and our Author could not but know of one. For Antioch upon Maeander, which he brings as an instance of a mean City, is in that very place which he citys, said 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 13.  to have a great Territory on both sides of the River. 
(z) Prim. ep. p. 114.  Nor could it be large, where Cities were numerous, and stood near together;— no room there for a Territory. It was seldom that Cities stood so close, but there was room for such a Territory, that the people required distinct Congregations, and could not with any convenience repair to the City Church. And it will appear even from those Countries, where Cities stood thickest, that the Bishops were Diocesan. Laodicea, he observes, 
(a) Prim. ep. p. 115.  and Hierapolis, both Metropoles, are but six miles distant; nor can it be thought their Territory was large other ways: for there were other Cities, which must have their Territories too, nearer them any way than they were to one another. Our Author is here more liberal of his assertion than proof; and about matters at so great a distance one cannot be blamed as too scrupulous, if he require some competent Testimony.  

(b) Prim. ep. p. 115.  But we need go no farther for satisfaction than the notion of a Territory, as it is universally agreed on. With all my heart: For if the notation of the word, or the definition of the thing, be sufficient to give satisfaction; I shall be very willing to wave the trouble of surveying the Country, or turning over the Terriers of every particular City. Pomponius so defines it; Territorium est Vniversitas agrorum intra fines cujusque Civitatis, intra quos, prout ait Siculus Flaccus, jurisdicendi jus erat. And it was called a Territory, because the Magistrate within those bounds had a jus terrendi, i. e. summovendi. And those Magistrates were punishable, who exercised any Jurisdiction, or used the ensigns of their authority beyond the limits of the Territory of their Cities. So far it is very well. But it does not yet satisfy us about the main Question, how large these Territories usually were. Now therefore our Author gins to infer: by which it appears, the Territory reached no farther than the Jurisdiction of the City Magistrates. This is allowed; but how far that was, is still the Question.  
At last he draws to the point. How many Cities can be showed us in the Roman Empire, where the Jurisdiction reached further than it doth in our Cities? When shall we see any proof, that ordinarily it was of more extent? With us it is known to be commonly of no more extent, than the circuit of one of our Country Parishes. How much farther does the authority of the Mayor of Lincoln or Winchester or Canterbury reach? No more is their Territory. Alas, after all our reading and quoting of Greek and Latin Authors, are we come to demand a proof, that the Territories of Greek and Roman Cities were larger than those of ours? I cannot believe Mr. Clerkson so ignorant of a matter so obvious in almost all the Authors he quotes. But perhaps he might be willing, that others should fancy of this matter, not as it really was, but so as might be most advantageous to the Congregational notion. Now since he requires proof of a thing so plain; I will comply with the importunity, though to the learned Reader it may not seem so necessary. I will begin with Amasea, the City of Strabo, 
Amasea. Ponti.  who may be allowed as a competent witness for the measure of the Territory of his own Town. Then follows my Country, says the Geographer, 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 12.  the Territory of Amasia, the best and the greatest of all Territories. And we cannot wonder at such expressions, when we hear the particulars. From the River, says he, gins a Valley something narrow at first, and then opens and grows wider, 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. ibid.  which makes up that field, that has its name from a thousand Villages. And this is not all; but he names other Regions beyond this, belonging to the same City, as far as the River Halys: all this on the North side; and the length of the Territory that way, was five hundred furlongs, which makes above sixty miles. Another way it is 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id.  longer, and reaches to Babanomus and Ximene, which likewise reaches to Halys. This, says he, is the length of it, the breadth is from North to South; but he does not express the measure any otherwise than from the City Northward; which he reckons 500 Stadia. I hope this Territory is of greater extent, than my Lord Mayor's Liberties, and goes something farther than from Newgate to Holborn Bars. Nor do I believe the Mayor of Lincoln or Canterbury will vie with this City for extent of Jurisdiction.  

Cyzicus.  Cyzicus, though a greater City than Amasea, had a less Territory: yet such it was, that it does not seem inferior for extent, to many of our Bishoprics. It was seated in an Island of the same name, which belonged to it, which was five hundred furlongs in compass. Yet besides this 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  it had a great Territory, partly ancient, and part acquired by their service in the Roman wars: that part of Troas that was beyond the river Asopus, and the Country about Zeleia, and the Plain of Adrasteia, and part of the Country about the lake of Dascelis.  
Antioch had 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. de vit. sua. p. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Liban. Antioch.  a great Country belonging to it, 
Antioch  and many Villages that were equal to Cities. How great a Country does it possess, says Libanius, when several Villages belonging to it, are greater and more populous than many Cities? Daphne remains in the condition of a Suburb; yet if it vie with Cities, it would surpass them upon many accounts. Nor is it without reason, that Libanius magnifies the Territory of Antioch; for it 
(d) Strab. l. 16. Theod. ep. 42.  reached on one side to the Region of Cyrrus, which was two days journey, or fifty miles distant; and perhaps it might reach as far on other sides, excepting that towards the Sea, which according to Libanius 
(e) Liban. Antioch. p. 339.  was but fifteen miles from the City. Theodoret mentions many Monks, who lived in several parts of the Region of Antioch. Asterius, who lived in the Country about Gindarus, which was 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. Rel. Hist. in Julian.  a very great Village, and belonged to Antioch, though in older times it had belonged to the region of Cyrrus, and is called a City by Strabo. 
(g) Str. l. 16.  The same Author 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodor. vit. Sim. Prisci.  mentions one Simeon, who is said to have wrought a miracle in some Village near the Mountain Amanus, which did not only fill all the neighbourhood of that place with fear and astonishment, but the whole City likewise; I mean, says he, Antioch, for that place belonged to it: so that by this Expression we cannot judge it to be very near.  

Thebes.  Beotia was five hundred furlongs or sixty two miles in length, and about four and thirty miles in breadth, according to Dicaearchus; 
(i) Dicaearch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 167.  yet since Epaminondas his time, it was all but the territory of Thebes. Attica was a great Country, and 
(l) Dio. Chrys. Orat. 46.  all of it the territory of Athens ever since Theseus his time. 
Athens. Lacedaemon.  Lacedaemon 
(m) Arist. Polit. l. 2.  had a territory sufficient to maintain thirty thousand foot, and fifteen hundred horse. All Arcadia was but the territory of Megalopolis. And Elis, tho' no great City, had so large a Country belonging to it, that many Country Families for several generations did never see the City to which they belonged; which Polybius ascribes partly 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polyb. Hist. l. 4. p. 468.  to the largeness of the region, partly to the simplicity of their manners. Miletus, when it was taken by the Persians, had a large Country belonging to it, 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Herodot. l. 6.  which the Conquerors divided; that part that was near the City, the Persians took to themselves; that which was remote, they gave the people of Pedasa. And after this, the Region belonging to that City received great accession of territory, when 
(p) Dio. Chrys. Or. 46.  all the small neighbouring Colonies of the Milesians in Aeolis and Troas and about the Hellespont, leaving their own small Cities, went and settled at Miletus, and increased the dependencies of that City by the addition of their several regions. The territory of Byzantium joined to that of Perinthus, and was therefore added to that City by Severus; 
(q) Herodian. l. 3. ss. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Xiphil. in Severo.  yet these two Cities are above threescore miles distant one from the other, as we find in Antonius' Itinerary: which as to this distance agrees exactly with the Itinerary of Jerusalem. Caelenae, or Apamea in Phrygia, is commended by Dio 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dio. Chris. Or. 35.  for the many Towns that belonged to it, which wanted nothing of Cities but the Title: and Apamia in Syria appears yet more considerable for its territory, as it is described by Strabo. 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 16.  It has a very great and fertile Region belonging to it, and pastures for cattle of prodigious extent. Many Towns, that had been accounted Cities, were but in the nature of Villages to this City. Secoana 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  was a fortress in this territory, where Tryphon the Tyrant was born. Larissa, 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 16.  and several other great places, that Strabo names, were but the dependencies of Apamea. In this Country Seleucus Nicator kept five hundred Elephants and a great part of his Army. Here the succeeding Kings kept their Studds, and had thirty thousand Mares in this region for Breed. These were Greek Cities and Colonies. We will in the next place give some instances of the Roman, and compare their territories with the Liberties of our English Cities.  

Mantua and Cremona.  The territory of Cremona was divided between the Veterans, sent thither by Augustus; and not being sufficient for the number, 
(x) Usque ad eum locum Octavianus Musca perticam militarem porrexerat. Limitator ab Augusto datus, i. e. per quindecim millia passuum agri Mantuani, cum Cremonensis non sufficeret. Seru. in Virg. Eclog. 9  Octavianus Musca, who had the ordering of that Colony, took fifteen miles from the territory of Mantua, which suffered not for any offence of its own, but only by an unfortunate neighbourhood, Mantua vae miserae nimium vicina Cremonae. Nor was this all that belonged to it; for Alphenus Varus the Surveyour had order to leave the City three miles on every side, to be measured from the wall; which he is said 
(y) Cum jussus tria milla passus a muro in diversa relinquere ut octingentos passus aquae qua circumdata est, admetireris. Or. Corn. in Alphen. apud Seru. in Eclog. 9  to observe with such a malicious exactness, that he took near a mile of water with which the City was encompassed into the reckoning, as he is reproached by one Cornelius. So we have a territory of above twenty miles belonging to an ordinary Town. And even that small part that remained, is much more than what belongs to our Cities; and less than this, they did not usually leave, 
(z) Termini nunquam ambiguum receperant circa ipsum oppidum, sed extra tertium milliarium Lex Caesariana operata est. Comment. Claud. Caes. de Colonijs. Ed. Rigalt.  when they thought fit to punish any Town by depriving it of its Region. Such a poor remnant was left to Ameria upon the like occasion; for Caesar's law operated not within three miles of the City, as we learn from Claudius his Commentaries. Mantua was but a small place, and much inferior to Cremona, which was a great Colony long before this calamity, and in all likelihood had a much longer territory than Mantua. We have had occasion to speak of that place before, about the number of Roman Colonies sent thither, which Mr. Clerkson disparages because it was no more than six thousand: Whereas it must be no ordinary territory, that will serve such a number, according to the usual proportion of distributing the territory of a Colony. For every one of those Planters had a portion of Land allotted them, and were as so many freeholders' among us; and we may take a certain estimate of the Regions belonging to such Roman Plantations from such instances of Agrarian distribution, which happen to be preserved.  

Bononia  Bononia was a Roman Colony, and those who were first sent thither 
(a) Tria millia hominum sunt deducta, Equit. 70 jugera, caeteris 50. Liv. l. 37.  were but three thousand: yet the territory divided between them was very great, as will appear from the lots of each Soldier. Every Footman had fifty Acres, every Horseman seventy: but reckonning all as Foot, there will arise a sum of a hundred and fifty thousand Acres, which alone would be a Country equal to many of our Counties. And when you have added the public estate, which always had a considerable portion on these occasions, the Officers, who had always double to the common Soldiers, besides the wastes and unprofitable Land which must be supposed within such a compass; such a territory will vie with our greater Counties. Thureum had 
(b) Sigon. de Antiq. Jure. Ital. l. 1. Onuphr. Descript. Imp. Rom. l. 3. Liv. l. 34. Strab. l. 6. Apustio autore, tertia pars agri adempta.  three thousand Foot and three hundred Horse sent to it as a Colony; the Footmen had forty Acres a piece, the Horsemen double; which comes little short of the reckoning of Bononia. This indeed was thought too much for the number of people, and therefore a third part was taken off; yet still the territory was very large. The Veterans, who had served Scipio Africanus, were drawn 
(c) Liv. l. 31.  to Venusia, which had a great Territory, but had been dispeopled in the Wars of Hannibal; the Soldiers had each two Acres for every year they had served in those Wars. But the greatest yet is that of Aquileia, 
(d) Sigon. de Antiq. Jur. Ital. l. 1. Liv. l. 39 & 40.  whither three thousand Foot and three hundred Horsemen were sent for a Colony. The Foot had fifty Acres each, the Centurions double, the Horsemen seven-score. In more remote Provinces the Territories of their Colonies seem to be yet larger, there was more Land to spare: and 
(e) Nec tantum terrae occupaverunt quod colere potuissent, sed quantum in spe colendi reservavere. Sicul. Flau. de Conduit. Agr. p. 3. Ed. Rigalt.  when they first planted in a Conquered Country, they did not only take in so much of the Country, as that new Colony could use, but according to their hopes of future increase. The Colonies of Julius and Augustus, who had a great number of Legions to provide for after the Civil Wars were ended, seemed to surpass the rest. The one peopled Carthage and Corinth, and several other places of principal reputation abroad, besides the Cities of Italy; the other threw in all Achaia in a manner, for a territory of Patrae, and many places that were Cities, and were memorable in story for considerable actions, he drew into his new City. The Territory of it was above forty miles long, as we may gather from the description of 
(f) Pausan. Achaic. p. 429. 431. 440. 441.  Pausanias. Nicopolis 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 10.  had the same fortune, and a great number of the neighbouring Cities, and all that belonged to them made up but the Territory of that City. In Gaul, Nismes was remarkable for Territory and the extent of her jurisdiction, and upon that account is 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sct. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 4.  preferred to Narbo. It had, as Strabo takes notice, four and twenty Villages: which sounds something oddly, as if the Territory of Narbo, the chief of that Country, had not so many Villages under it, or as if it were an extraordinary thing. But the word, which is translated Village, had a peculiar signification in that Country, as Caesar 
(i) Nam omnis Civitas Helvetia in quatuor Pagos divisa est— hic Pagus unus, etc. Caes. de Bell. Gall. l. 1.  informs us. The whole Community or Country of the Helvetians, says he, was divided in quatuor Pagos, and one such division as this within the memory of our Fathers, killed L. Cassius the Roman Consul, and put his Army under the yoke. And the same Pagus, which was the people of Zurich, Caesar had the fortune to defeat the first of all the Helvetians; so that four and twenty of these divisions must be accounted very extraordinary, since so great a Country as Helvetia had but four. Du Chesne therefore renders the word, not Villages, but Communities. The Hundreds, into which our Counties are divided, may in some measure express it; which are usually named from some Village that might be the chief of the division, when it was first made. To conclude, Zela in Pontus was enlarged 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Strab. l. 14.  by Pompey, by the accession of several Towns which he drew into it, and to make this City complete, he added many Prefectures to its Territory.  
I know it is a thing of ill same to put questions to the Dead; and therefore I will not so much as return those demands of Mr. Clerkson, that call for proof of one of the plainest things in the World: That 
(m) Tria erant urbium spacia, maenia, pomaeria, Territoria, 1. Muris. 2. Vicinia Murorum, ultima jurisdictione civitatum fimebantur. Gotofred. in l. 5. de legate. fund. Cod. Th.  the Jurisdiction of the Roman and Greek Cities reached farther than that of ours, unless there may be a new scruple about the City Officers having authority over the Territory; which I think can scarce happen to a Man that has read a Latin Author.  
Nor is it evident only from a few Instances, that some ancient Cities had large Territories; but the largeness of it is employed in the word itself: For as Aristotle observes of a City, that the very name signifies a competence of measure; so is it in respect of the Territory that appertains to it. By Ager, which is the usual word for Territory, We understand, says St. Augustin, 
(n) Agri autem nomine non Castella tantum, verum etiam Municipia, & Coloniae solent vocari extra Civitatem, quae caput & quasi mater caeterarum. Aug. de Consens. Evang. l. 3. c. 24.  not only Castles, or Burgs, but Municipia, or Corporation Towns, and Colonies without the City, which is the head and as it were the Mother of the rest. And the old Gloss 
(o) Territorium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gloss. vet.  renders it by the Land of a Colony. And whoever reads the 
(p) Author. de Re Agr. Ed. Rigalt.  Agrarian Writers, will soon perceive, though they speak only in the general, that it is not a Parish or a few Villages they are dividing. When Justinian divided Aquae in Dacia Ripensi, from Meridianum, he allows 
(q) Aquensis autem Episcopus habeat praesatam Civitatem & omnia ejus Castilia & Territoria & Ecclesias. Nou. 11.  the Bishop of Aquae not only his City, but all the Castles or Burgs and Territories and Churches, that belonged to it. One would not easily imagine, this to be the description of one of our Country Parishes. And Plato and Aristotle 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist. Pol. l. 7. c. ●.  as oft as they mention what Territory is to be allowed, require it should be not only sufficient for all the Inhabitants, but that it should answer all public occasions of peace and war, and yield the Citizens such a competence, that they might live at their ease. For he forbids his Citizens to meddle with the plough; but to leave 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that to be done by servants or Country people. Nor were the proper parts of his City of Artisans neither; but of Soldiers and Magistrates, and such as were proper for Council. And these being in his supposition to be numerous, were to be supported from their estates in the Territory of the place, which therefore must be supposed of great extent. In short, the general notion of the thing does not admit the narrowness of Mr. Clerkson's conceit; and the word itself speaks something that is proportionable to the greatness and distinction of a City.  
The difference between the constitution of ancient Cities, and those of later ages in this part of the world will appear; if we consider first, that they were greater communities, not confined within the walls of one Town, but stretched over all the adjacent Country. For the Jurisdiction of the City Magistrate reached as far as the community; for the City was the head and supreme part of it, all the Magistrates within the Territory being subordinate. Nor was this all, but 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dio. Chrys. Or. 30.  the Citizens were proprietors of that Territory, who commonly lived in the City, and left the Villages to their Slaves, or to such Country people that were in the nature of Tenants under a servile Tenure. The title was in the City, though particular Citizens had the possession; nor could any, as I think, have a right to possess any estate in that Territory, who was not first free of the City. The greater Villages, which answer our Burroughs, had Magistrates of their own, but subordinate to those of the City, and generally chose by the City; as Frontinus 
(t) Frontin. de limit. Agr. p. 57  informs us; and I think I have observed already upon another occasion. And lastly the ancient Cities were greater in their design, which was generally military; and there was scarce any so mean, that had not some provision for war. The Greek Colonies in the midst of barbarous Nations, were like so many Camps; and the Romans filled all their conquests with Cities of their own people, with a design of securing the Countries they had subdued. Now as it is natural to all things to beget after their own likeness; so the Greeks and Romans did in this respect. For Greece consisting of many Cities independent, propagated their kind, as far as their Arms or their Ships carried them. And Rome from a small City, becoming mistress of a great part of the world, planted every where little models of itself; and shared the world between its Colonies, as so many children. And where they could not fill all the Country, they preserved such Cities as they found, and every where encouraged the people by their example, to form themselves into such communities. So that generally speaking, all the Roman dominion was parceled out into Cities and Territories that belonged to them; whole Provinces were effectually represented by the Deputies of the Cities of it. And though in some places there might be exempts, yet in general thus the Roman Dominion was digested.  
Upon this constitution Christianity was superinduced, and the Churches of Christ being so many communities, and having some resemblance to Cities, so far as to take their name from the civil assemblies, grew up according to the shape of those civil communities in which they were planted, and had the same common bounds and measure with them. So that when the whole lump was leavened, and all the people were reduced to the obedience of faith; the Church and the City in respect of their matter were the same. The rules indeed and the ends of the City of man and the City of God, were very different, and stood as wide asunder, as Heaven is from the Earth; but the same people were both the Citizens and the Christians. The Church and the City had one and the same Territory; and as far as the Jurisdiction of the civil Magistrate reached, so far was the Diocese of the Bishop extended. Our Saviour having left no rule about limits, the Apostles made no new distributions, but followed the form of the Empire, planting in every City a complete and entire Church, that consisted not only of the Inhabitants of the City, but of the Region belonging to it. If any were converted, and if their distance or number made them incapable of repairing to the City-Church upon all their Religious occasions, they had Congregations apart, and subordinate Officers to attend them, as it was in the civil disposition; our Saviour having appointed several Orders in his Church, and the Apostles propagating those, and appointing some new, as occasion required. Only, as in greater causes, the Country people sued in the City Courts; so likewise in such causes of Religion, that concerned the whole community, such as that of receiving in, and turning out of the communion, the Christians of the Territory were under the authority of the City-Church. Hence it is, that the Canons of ancient Councils mention a Territory belonging to every City Bishop. The thirty fourth Canon 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. Ap. 34.  of those called Apostolic, forbids a Bishop to do any thing without the concurrence of his Metropolitan, but what related to his own Diocese, and the Territories under it. And the ninth of Nice, that provides so favourably for the Puritans when they should return to the communion of the Church, supposeth Bishops to have a considerable Diocese besides their City. For by this it is ordered, that if a Bishop of the Puritans should embrace Catholic Communion, and there were another Bishop of the Catholic Church in the same City, that then 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. Nicen. 8.  the Puritan should either retain the title of a Bishop in the same City, if the other did think fit, or else be received as a Presbyter. But least this may have the appearance of two Bishops in the same Town; some place is to be provided for him, that he may be either a Chorepiscopus, or a Presbyter in the Country. The Synod of Antioch forbids the Presbyters of the Territories to send Canonical letters; and in another, giveth the Bishop of the City full authority 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. Antioch. 9  to order Ecclesiastical affairs, not only in his City, but in the whole Territory that belongs to it, to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, to exercise Jurisdiction, within the extent of his Diocese. And in the next Canon forbids, 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. Antioch. 10.  the Chorepiscopi to ordain Presbyters or Deacons in the Country, without the consent of the Bishop of the City, to which they and the Territory did belong. The Council of Elvira speaks of Deacons 
(a) Diaconus regens plebem. Can. Eliber. 77.  that had Country cures, and that the Bishop, to whom they belonged, was to perfect those who were baptised by these Curees, by confirmation.  
Basil 
(b) Basil. ep. 192.  salutes the Country Clergy of the Diocese of Nicopolis distinct from those of the City; and Theodoret who had a Diocese forty miles square, reckoned 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. ep. 42.  his Episcopacy of divine institution, and that his large Territory as well as his City, was committed into his hands by God. Theodosius Bishop of Synnada is said to drive the Macedonian Heretics not only out of his City, but 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. l. 7. c. 3.  out of all his Territories. And Eustathius 
(e) Basil. ep. 73.  overthrew all the Altars of Basilides in all the Territory of Gangrae. And Synesius writing to the whole Church of Ptolemais, addresseth to the people of the City, and to those of the Country Parishes that belonged to it. It would be an endless labour to allege all the instances of this nature; since nothing is more obvious and occurs more frequently in Ecclesiastical Writers.  
I have showed how great Territories belonged anciently to the Greek and Roman Cities; how unlike their constitution was to ours, and especially in this respect: I have also showed, that the civil and Ecclesiastical Territories were the same; and Mr. Clerkson confesses it. His demands therefore concerning this matter receive a full answer; and the proof which he 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Synes. ep. 11.  required not without intimation of despair, made good, and beyond all reasonable exception.  
To make this matter yet more clear, I will instance in some Bishoprics whose extent are known, or so much at leastwise, as discovers them to be Dioceses consisting of many Country Parishes, besides the City Churches. I will begin with the Bishopric of Theodoret, because the limits of it have been described with greatest exactness and particularity. The Diocese of Cyrus was forty miles in length, and as much in breadth: And Theodoret 
(h) Theod. ep. 42.  proceeds to describe it so minutely, that he sets down the number of acres, together with the condition and tenure of the land. There were fifty thousand free from any service, ten thousand belonging to the Fisc, about fifteen thousand more subject to taxes, but unable to pay according to the proportion then set. So that this instance seems clear beyond all exception. And as to the Ecclesiastical state of this Territory, in his Epistle to Leo he says, 
(i) Theod. ep. 113.  there were eight hundred Churches in it, all belonging to his care. Yet some have endeavoured to take off the evidence of this Epistle to Leo, when it was urged by the learned Bishop of Worcester. Mr. Baxter suspects it, because it came from the Vatican Library; and Mr. Clerkson 
(l) No evid. of Dioc. Ep. p. 39  suggests the same suspicion. But this frivolous cavil hath been answered by the same hand that alleged the instance.  
I will take the liberty to add only this, that it happens fortunately to this Epistle, that it hath an ancient voucher, and a clear testimony in the next age after it was written. For Liberatus 
(m) Quos secutus Theodoretus Papae suggessit, quanta mala pertulerit,— rogans ut tali causae subveniretur. Liber. Brev. c. 12.  makes mention of it, and informs us, that Theodoret wrote to Leo, suggesting how much he had suffered of Dioscorus, and desiring, that for the remedy of these evils another Council might be called. And 
(n) Constat. ex ep. p. 113, 116. Garner. in Liber. p. 83.  Garnerius in his observation upon this place, directs us to this Epistle to Leo. Mr. Clerkson instead of eight hundred Churches, constantly reads eighty, without so much as giving notice, that it is only his conjecture. But be the number how it will, we must lay aside all thoughts of Congregational Episcopacy in this Region.  
Another exception against this instance is offered by Mr. Clerkson, 
(o) No evid. of Dioc. p. 39  that this was not a Diocese, but a Province; and that Theodoret was a Metropolitan. And for this he quotes the learned Author, whose testimonies he pretended to answer; although he expressly says, that this is not to be understood of the Province but of the Diocese of Theodoret. The truth is, Cyrus was no Metropolis, nor was Theodoret Primate of the Province, but under a Metropolitan, as he affirms in one of his Epistles: They sent, says he, 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. ep. 16.  letters of summons, as to other Metropolitans, so likewise to ours. And this was Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, the Metropolis of Euphratesia, who subscribes among the Metropolitans in the Oriental Synod 
(q) Act. Conciliab. Ephes.  in Ephesus. In those subscriptions all the Metropolitans have their quality marked, and Theodoret subscribes as a simple Bishop. Stephen the successor of Alexander, subscribes in the Synod of Constantinople under Gennadius, as Metropolitan of the Province of Euphratesia: as I find in a Manuscript of the Bodley Library. For the subscriptions of that Council are wanting in all editions: and in that Manuscript there are but thirty four names, whereas seventy three Bishops are said to be present; and the same person is a subscriber to the Council of Chalcedon. Theodoret 
(r) Hypomnest. Theodoreti ad. Alexand. Metrop. ep. 34. Ed. Garnerij. ad Alexand. Prov. Euphr. Metrop. ep. 68 ut ubicunque jubeas conveniamus. Theod. ep. 81. ep. 82. Omnes enim & ut Patrem & Dominum reveremur. ep. 89  does acknowledge Alexander for his Metropolitan, in several of the Epistles published by Lupus and Garnerius; and sends to him to appoint where the Bishops of his Province shall meet; and an assembly of the Bishops of that Province make a profession of acquiescing in what he should propound; and that they would observe him as their common Father and their Lord. And Andrea's Bishop of Samosata, speaking in the name of his Brethren of the Province, owns 
(s) Licet enim instar capitis in omnibus nos praecellas. Ep. 84.  him as their head, and that he had in all things a pre-eminence. Long before this, Hierapolis is named as the head of Commagena or Euphratesia; for it is the same Province, as Ammianus Marcellinus 
(t) Commagena nunc Euphratensis clementer adsurgit; Hierapoli vetere Nino, & Samosata, civitatibus amplis illustris. l. 14. c. 8.  observes. In the Council of Chalcedon, Theodoret was no Metropolitan; as appears by his subscription 
(u) Theod. ep. 94. 161. Ed. Lupi.  in the middle of the Bishops of the Province, of whom the greater part were present. So that this fancy of Mr. Clerkson, that the passage of Theodoret in his Epistle to Leo, is to be understood of his Province and not of his Diocese, appears evidently to be destitute of all foundation. Cyrus was indeed called Hagiopolis in later times; but the Province never bore that name, as it seems to do in the Greek Notitia of Car. a S. Paulo: but the word was removed by the negligence of Copyists from the City to the Province, the City being in the Manuscript Copy, as well as Print, placed at the top of a column, and having two names, one of them was set higher than the line of the column, and so joined to the title of the Province. But in that Notitia, as well as in the description 
(x) Miraeus. Not. Episc. l. 3. p. 142.  of the Empire by Hierocles, Cyrrus is placed under Hierapolis. In succeeding times indeed it came to be an Archbishopric; but Honorary only and without any Suffragans, as several other Cities of the same Province did.  
The next instance shall be the Diocese of St. Augustin; who mentions a Castle called Fussala, with a Territory belonging to it, forty miles from Hippo Regius; which never had a Bishop of its own, but belonged to the Diocese of Hippo. Against this clear testimony, Mr. Clerkson 
(y) No evid. of Dioc. p. 27.  hath offered some exceptions, which I shall examine. St. Austin, says he, signifies plainly, that there were more Bishops in the Territory of Hippo, when 
(z) Ecce interim Episcopos nostros qui sunt in Regione Hipponensi convenite. Aug. ep. 68 Ed. Frob.  he moved Januarius the Primate of the Donatists, that they would meet together with the Catholic Bishops that were in the Territory. Although it should be granted, that there were several Bishops in that Region; yet does not this make St. Austin's Diocese less than forty miles in length; since he affirms 
(a) Ad Paraeciam Hipponensis Ecclesiae pertinebat.  expressly, that this Fussala belonged to the Diocese of the Church of Hippo; and it is very unlikely that there were other Dioceses between: so that the Territory of Hippo on that side, must belong to the Bishop of the City. This exception than cannot impeach that testimony of St. Austin concerning the extent of his Bishopric; for it might be so long one way, allowing more Bishops to be in the Region. But after all, this passage alleged by Mr. Clerkson does not prove, that the Region of Hippo had any more Bishops than St. Augustin; for the Bishops mentioned to be in that Territory, were the Bishops of the Province, who were at that time met there, as they had done before. 
(b) Vos modo conveniatis qui eorum Conventionem ante. Ep. 68  A Council being assembled, it was ordered you should be summoned to appear: and again from the Council our Bishops sent to the Emperor. The Donatists are entreated to meet the Catholic Bishops, which before they neglected to do; who being now assembled there again, the Schismatics are urged to come to a conference with them. So that these Bishops were not in the Region of Hippo, as in the place of their Residence, but as in a place of Synodical meeting.  
He excepts 
(c) No evid. of Dioc. p. 29.  likewise against Mutugenna, which was produced as an instance of a Country Parish in the Diocese of Hippo; because he finds a place of the same name to have two Bishops at the Conference of Carthage; as though there might not be two places in afric of a name; whereas that Village, of which St. Austin speaks, is expressly challenged by him as belonging to his care, and so had no other Bishop.  
Another suggestion he offers against St. Augustin's being Bishop of the Region of Hippo, because he does not say to Caecilian the Precedent, that he was Bishop of that Diocese (which the Dr. represents as a Region of large extent) but only that he had the Episcopal charge of Hippo. And was that Father obliged to reckon up all his Parishes to that Precedent? Or did not his being Bishop of Hippo, suppose him likewise Bishop of all the Diocese belonging to it? Or because he does not mention his Territory to this Person, therefore he does not say upon any occasion, that he was Bishop of the Diocese? If he was Bishop of the Church of Hippo, he was so consequently of all the Region appertaining to that Church. And that there were Regions belonging to it, he says plain enough, though not to Caecilian, yet to another Magistrate. This will be most advantageous to the Catholic Church, says that holy Bishop; 
(d) Aug. ep. ad Marcellin. 159.  
(d) Germanicenses ad curam humilitatis nostrae pertinent. Aug. ep. 251. Ed. Bened.  or that I may not seem to pass the bounds of my own dispensation, this will be most advantageous to the Church of the Diocese of Hippo. And speaking of a place called Germanicia in that Diocese, affirms, (e) that it belongs to his care; and in another place, that 
(f) Visitandarum Ecclesiarum ad meam curam pertinentium necessitate profectus sum. Vide ep. 74, 212, 236.  he had Churches under his care which he was obliged to visit.  
To diminish this Bishopric of Hippo yet farther, Mr. Clerkson shows, that St. Austin was so far from having all the Region under his Jurisdiction, that he had not the whole Town; the Donatists had a Bishop there. This indeed is true of the former part of St. Augustin's Episcopal administration: but after the Imperial Rescript, which followed the Conference at Carthage, Hippo had no Donatists; for all returned to the communion of the Church. For so I think, St. Austin in his Epistle to Vincentius may most commodiously be understood; where speaking of his former opinion, which was against using any compulsion for reducing men to the communion of the Church, he confesseth, that experience hath altered his judgement in that point. 
(g) Aug. ep. 48.  The instance of my own City was urged against me, which was once wholly Donatist, but now converted to Catholic unity by the fear of the Imperial Laws, which now so utterly detests your pernicious animosity, that she might seem never to have been infected with it. So that after all these exceptions, St. Austin's Diocese remains undiminished.  
Caesarea in Cappadocia had a Diocese of so vast extent, that few of our Northern Bishoprics can equal it. For Basil the Bishop of that City, had 
(h) Greg. Naz. Carm. de viti sua.  fifty Chorepiscopi in his Diocese, who were his deputies for the administration of discipline in lesser causes in the remoter part of his Diocese. Cappadocia was 
(i) Strab. l. 12.  about four hundred miles in length according to Strabo, and above two hundred in breadth. Caesarea was placed in the middle of this great Country, and was at first the Metropolis of the whole; and when the Country was divided into two Provinces, the greatest share remained under the ancient and greatest Metropolis. Yet in this tract, which cannot be conceived less than two hundred and fifty miles, there were but 
(l) Colligere feci Episcopos sub me constitutos, sunt enim duo. Ep. Capp. pr. ad Leon.  two Bishoprics, besides that of Caesarea, i. e. Thermae and Nyssa. Basil 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bas. ep. 264.  excuses himself to Eusebius Bishop of Samosata, for not writing to him, by some great Persons, who had been in Caesarea; because he was then upon his visitation. And in another place speaks of a Country Parish of his Diocese, called Venesa, where he ordained one Glycerius a Deacon, to assist 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ep. 412.  the Presbyter of that Parish. And he reproves the Chorepiscopi of his Diocese, for suffering the Presbyters of Country Parishes to make what inferior Church-officers they pleased; and therefore order 
(o) Ep. 181.  a list of all the inferior Officers of Country Churches to be brought to him, and that none be made thereafter without his consent. There is likewise another Village called Dacora, mentioned by Sozomen 
(p) Soz. l. 7. c. 27.  in the Territory of Caesarea, where Eunomius 
(q) Philostorg. l. 10.  was born and buried; and Julian ordered 
(r) Soz. l. 5. c. 4.  a search to be made for all the goods, not only of the Churches in Caesarea, but of all the Churches of the Diocese.  
Tyana, the Metropolis of the second Cappadocia, had a considerable Diocese belonging to it. Euphrantas' Bishop of that City mentions 
(s) Praedium autem quod dicitur Pasa,— duodecim milliarijs distat Tyanensis Metropoleos, & sub eadem Civitate est usque hodie. Ap. Conc. C. P. 2. Coll. 5.  one George of Pasa, who lived in Gregory Nazianzen's time; and notes, that Pasa was a Country place twelve miles from Tyana, and belongs to that City, says he, to this very day. But this Diocese must be much more considerable than this passage speaks, as well as the rest of Cappadocia. The whole Country, as I noted before, was about four hundred miles in length, and two in breadth, which makes a sum of eight hundred square miles. Now in all the Country, there were in the middle of the fifth age, but eleven Bishoprics, and then it was all Christian. So that every Bishop, one with another, may have a Diocese that wants not much of a hundred miles square; which can be matched by but few in our Country, besides Lincoln. But because the division of Dioceses is generally unequal, as the Territories of Cities were, some of these will fall out to be vastly great, and others but of moderate extent. Nor is there any place for suspicion, that Bishoprics were sunk or united in this Country; for it was so far from that, that several of these few were erected in the fourth Century. Sasima was made a Bishopric by Basil, which before belonged to Caesarea or Tyana: for Gregory's expression is ambiguous. From Tyana it was two and thirty miles distant; from Caesarea above a hundred. And upon second thoughts, it seems to me, rather to belong to the first; for it was nearer to it, and within its Province, and given up by Basil, who desires 
(t) Bas. ep. 88  Anthimus the new Metropolitan to take care of it. Nazianzus too was a Bishopric raised in the fourth Century, as we may learn from Nazianzen, 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Naz. Or. 19 in Patr.  who says, that the place had but one Bishop before his Father.  
In the Council of Ephesus, one John subscribes 
(x) Johannes Episc. totius Lesbi. Iren. Traged. Contest. quorund. Ep. sub 28.  himself Bishop of all Lesbus. The Island according to Strabo 
(y) Strab. l. 13.  was eleven hundred furlongs, which wants not much of seven score miles in compass. Nor had this Bishop summed up all his titles; for his Successor Florentius, in the Council of Chalcedon, writes 
(z) Florentius Episcopus Lesbi, Tenedi, Prosilenes, Aegialorum, per Euelpistum Chorepiscopum subscripsi. Conc. Chalc. Act. 1●.  himself Bishop of several other Islands. Now if one City cannot have Territory enough in the judgement of the Congregational Antiquaries, to make a large Diocese; two ancient Cities with their Territories, may surely yield a Diocese of many Congregations. And in the Council of Ephesus 
(a) Conc. Eph. par. 2. Act. 1.  there were several Bishops, who had two Cities within their Diocese. Timothy was Bishop of Fermissus and Eudocias'. Athanasius was Bishop of Diveltus and Sozopolis. And in Europa there are many instances of this nature; and the Bishops of that Province affirm, that it had been so immemorially. There is an old custom, say they, 
(b) Vetus mos viget in Provincijs Europae.— Olympia & ab initio Ecclesias illas nunquam praedictae Civitates proprios Episcopos acceperunt. Conc. Ephes. par. 2. Act. 7.  in the Provinces of Europa, that every Bishop should have as it were two Bishoprics under him, i. e. two Cities. So one had Heraclea and Panium; another Bizya and Arcadiopolis; a third had Caele and Callipolis; another had Subsadia and Aphrodisias. They add, that it had been so of old, and from the beginning; and desire the Council to prevent any Innovation, which the Metropolitan might attempt, out of displeasure against his Provincials, who in that Synod happened to go against him. Nice in Bythinia had several Regions belonging to it. 
(c) Conc. Chalc. Act. 13.  Tattaeus and Doris, and that which was afterward called Basinopolis by Julian, was till then accounted a part of the Diocese of Nice. In Egypt, the Territory of Alexandria hath been already mentioned; and in Pentapolis, Ptolemais had many Country Churches, as I have already observed out of Synesius: 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Synes. Catast. p. 301.  and he complains, that all the Churches in Ampelitis, that was under him, were burned down; distinguishing, as I conceive, the Ampelitis which was under him, from that which belonged to Cyrene. For there were two Regions in Pentapolis of that name, as we are informed by Agrotas in Stephanus. And Eutychius, who is an Author in favour with those that reject Bishops, says, that Theophilus made one of the three Brothers, who afterwards gave him so great trouble, a Bishop 
(e) Episcopum in aliquot Egypti urbes constituit. Eustych. Annat. p. 540.  of several Cities in Egypt. But the Bishop of Tomi surpasses all the rest for extent of Diocese; his Bishopric was made up of the whole Province of Scythia, which had many Cities in it, as we are told by Sozomen. 
(f) Sozom. l. 6. c. 21. L. 9 c. 17.   
The Territories of many other Cities are mentioned by Christian Writers, with respect to their Ecclesiastical as well as Civil dependence. Bethelia was a Village in the Territory of Gaza, very great and populous; and by the account Sozomen 
(g) Sozom. l. 5. c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Soz. l. 6. c. 32.  gives of it, might become a City. It had many Churches and Monasteries in it, built by the Ancestors of that Historian.  
Another Village, called Capharcobra, is mentioned by the same Author belonging to this City. And if the Bishop of Gaza had but one Church in his City, he must have many in the Territory belonging to it: for before Constantine's time, Silvanus is styled Bishop of the Churches of or about Gaza. In the same Country Eleutheropolis 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Soz. l. 9 c. 17. l. 6. c. 32. 7. 29.  had a Territory, and several Villages of it are mentioned; Caphar, and Besanduca where Epiphanius was born: Cela once a City, and Berath Satia, where the bones of the Prophets Habakkuk and Micah are said to be found.  
In the middle of the fifth Century, Bishops were grown much more numerous than in the foregoing Ages; and therefore their Bishoprics were of less extent. Yet then in many Provinces of the Empire the Dioceses were very large, which we may learn, by comparing the number of the Bishops in several Provinces, with the measure of the Country. Labbe the Jesuit has published an ancient Copy of the subscriptions of the Council of Chalcecedon, which he found among the Papers of Simond. In that Copy, the subscribing Bishops are digested according to their Provinces, and the Metropolitans set down the names of all that were absent. So that in several Provinces we have the whole number of Bishops. And within a few years after this Council, we have the Synodical Epistles of many plenary Provincial Councils. If therefore we can have any certainty concerning the limits of those Countries, we may easily find out a common measure for the Dioceses. I have already shown how large the Dioceses of Cappadocia were upon this foot; and I have occasionally mentioned Crete, the Circuit of the Island being known and the number of their Bishops. Cyprus too hath been computed, but it was by the Notitia of Leo, which hath three Bishoprics more than were in the time of the Council of Chalcedon; for then all the Bishops of that Island were but ten, of whom six were present at the Council, and three absent. Yet about this time did Sozomen live, who observed, that in Cyprus there were Bishops in Villages.  
Where nature hath made the bounds of Countries, they remain always the same; and a computation of the largeness of Dioceses in such places from the number of them will be certain. But where limits are arbitrary, and depend only upon the agreement of men, they are frequently changed: and a Country may still retain the same name, though the limits have been often altered. However in the present question, which does not require exactness, we have such notices of the distance of places left in ancient descriptions, as give sufficient evidence of the greatness of ancient Dioceses in many Countries. In the Province of Helenopontus there were but five Bishops, as appears 
(i) Sancti itaque Provinciae nostrae Episcopi, convenientes in unum. Conc. Chalc. P. 3.  by their Synodical Epistle to Leo: yet was this Country of very great extent, as we may judge by the distance of those Episcopal Cities. For Sinope was 
(l) Strab. l. 12.  a hundred and twelve miles from Amisus, or a hundred and thirty according to Pliny; 
(m) Plin. l. 6. c. 2.  and that little less from Zela; and that place as far from Amasea. The Territory of this last City joined to that of Zela, and was above sixty miles in length that way, as we have noted already. Iborea seems to be on the borders of Cappadocia, and to be the same with that mentioned by Gregory Nyssen. 
(n) Greg. Nyss. Or. in 40. Mart.  So that the Bishoprics of this Province cannot come short of the Northern, which Mr. Clerkson fancies to have no equals in ancient times.  
In Pontus Polemoniacus, there are but four Bishop's subscribers 
(o) Ep. Synod. Pont. Polem. Conc. Chalc. P. 3.  to the Synodical Epistle of that Province. The Bishop of Trapezus, who belonged to that Province, was not there. Now if we consider the distance between these Episcopal Cities, the Dioceses must be judged unmeasurably great. For from Polemonium to Trapezus there are 
(p) Plin. l. 6. c. 3. Ptolom. l. 5.  about two hundred miles. Cerasus is in the middle, between those two Cities. Neocaesarea is above a hundred miles within the Land; from which Comana is about sixty miles. The Province of Europa 
(q) Conc. Ephes. Act. 7. ep. Synod.  took up the greatest part of Thrace; yet the Bishops here were but few, the Dioceses being very large, as we have observed before. Old Epirus was eightscore miles in length; and by the Episcopal Towns there in the fifth Century, we may find the bounds of the Province were not much altered. Yet in this long Tract, there were 
(r) Nostrum omnium Sacerdotum etc. Ep. Synod. Epir. vet.  but eight Bishops under the Metropolitan of Nicopolis. Anchiasmus, or Onchesmus, is about a hundred miles from Nicopolis; Hadriana was further: Buthotum was twenty miles short of those, and Dodona about fifty from the Metropolis. Corcyra was one of the Bishoprics, an Island forty five miles in length. New Epirus which took up a good part of Illyricum, 
(s) Tractatum habentes omnes Episcopi in vestra Epiro constituti. Ep. Synod. ep. Nor.  had but six Bishops under the Metropolitan of Dyrrachium. Some doubt has been made, 
(t) Ubb. Emmius descript. Graec.  which was the old Epirus, and which the new; but the Titles of these Synodical Epistles, as well as the ancient Notitiae, set that point out of all controversy. In Greece itself, where Mr. Clerkson thought Bishoprics had been like our Parishes, they are found to be of great extent, the face of that Country having been much altered from what it had been in ancienter times. It would be endless to pursue such instances as these over the Roman Empire, nor is it at all necessary; for these are sufficient to show the measure of ancient Dioceses, when their number was at the greatest.  
It must be confessed, that in some Countries, where Cities stood thick, there were more Dioceses in proportion, than in the Provinces already mentioned. But then such Countries were generally very populous, and what they wanted in measure, they made up in number; and even there the Dioceses did consist of a great number of such Parishes as ours generally are. The Hellespont was well furnished with Cities, and not a little Province. Yet were there in all 
(u) Conc. Chalced. Act. 6. Ed. Labb. ep. Synod. ad Leon.  but sixteen Bishops under the Metropolis of Cyzicus, of whom ten were present at the Council of Chalcedon, and six absent, for whom the Metropolitan subscribed. Asia, properly so called, and that which was immediately under Ephesus, had as many Bishops in proportion to the measure of the Country, as any Province in the Empire; yet here if we proceed upon a common measure, the Dioceses will not be so contemptibly small. I know that Asia signifies very ambiguously, and takes in sometimes more and sometimes fewer Countries; but that does not concern the present question; for the subscriptions of the Council of Chalcedon do sufficiently discover the extent of this Province. It reached from Ephesus to Assus, and to Ilium, if we may depend upon that reading; but Arch Bishop Usher 
(x) Geogr. Disquis. touching Asia l. 4. p. 23.  hath excepted against it, and not without reason. However it reached to Troas, and the line wants not much of two hundred Miles, comprehending all Jonia and Aeolis, and all North to Troas. But than it must be considered, that this Country consists of a multitude of large Peninsulae, which adds much to the content. For instance, from Ephesus to Smyrna in a direct line is but forty Miles; but by Sea round the Peninsula, and coasting from Town to Town, it is two hundred and seventy five. In all this Province there were forty Bishops in the fifth Century, of whom there were eighteen present at the Council of Chalcedon, 
(y) Conc. Chalced. Act. 6.  and the two and twenty who were absent, subscribed by their Metropolitan. In so large a Country, and so full of Cities and People, it would be something difficult to dispose of them all in forty Congregations.  
But the extent of ancient Dioceses remains still visible in France. Scaliger, who was not apt to take the measures of ancient times and things by his own, was of opinion, 
(z) Regnorum vices multa in hac Divisione immutarunt. Sed Status Ecclesiasticus, tam in oriente quam in occidente ejus, integra vestigia hactenus retinuit. Not. Gal. ap. Duchesne. p. 28. T. 1.  that although that Country had undergon many Revolutions as to civil Government, yet the Ecclesiastical State still retained some entire footsteps of the ancient division of the Empire; therefore he chooses to proceed according to the Ecclesiastical Dioceses or Bishoprics of that Country; for in so doing, he judged, he should keep to the ancient Notitia of the Roman Empire. All that he observed 
(a) Id. p. 29.  of alteration, was only the new Bishoprics. But these cannot be any hindrance, as long as it is known from what Dioceses those new Bishoprics were taken; for the old Dioceses were so much the less. It is well known the Dioceses of France are not like our Parishes; and yet the greatest part of them remain as they were thirteen hundred years ago. And here Learned Men think 
(b) Si uspiam alibi in Gallia certe videre licet, Provincias & Diaeceses Episcopales— per Christianos primum institut. Marg. Not. ep. p. 10.  the Dioceses have the same bounds they had when they were first set by the Christians, according to the Disposition of the Empire. Those that are the smallest, in that Kingdom, are likewise the latest. For in the first Aquitain 
(c) Pap. Masson. Not. ep. Franc. ap. Duchesn. T. 1. p. 57  there were four new Bishoprics erected by Pope John XXII. taken from the neighbouring Cities. In the second Aquitain, the same Pope made 
(d) Id. p. 61.  the same number. In the Diocese of Tholouse he erected six. So that contrary to Mr. Clerkson's notion, the old Dioceses are still the largest, and the new Papal erections draw nearest to his Congregational way; as is evident in this Country of which I am speaking, as well as in Italy. The East and West of France, as Scaliger notes, have retained their Bishoprics in their ancient form, and there they are the most unlike our Parishes and the imagination of Mr. Clerkson. So it is needless to go to Asia, and Syria, and Arabia, to look for the bounds of ancient Dioceses which have been lost so long ago; when we have so clear and full evidence nearer home. Yet these Bishoprics of France, as large as they seem to be, are much less than they were in the Primitive ages before Constantine; if we may depend upon the opinion of a very Learned Man, 
(e) Potuerunt ab initio binae civitates, ab uno regi Pontifice, etc. Bucher. Belg. Rom. l. 8. c. 15.  and a good Judge of such matters. For before Contantin's time, says Bucherius, although there were many Christians in Gaul, there were but few Bishops; for it is possible that two Cities might be under one Bishop, as afterwards Bologne and Teroanne, Cambray and Arras, Tournay and Noyon, had but one Bishop for two Cities. For as it is certain, that some Cities in that Country had Bishops before Constantin's times; so it is as certain, that several had none till the time of his Sons. This was the case of Angier, and some other places mentioned in the same Author, which he proves by the number of Successions. For instance, Defensor, who was one of the Ordainers of St. Martin, was the first Bishop of Angier. There were but ten Bishops of Vermand before Sophronius, who subscribed in the Synod of Orleans Anno 511. And Silvanus was but the ninth Bishop of Senlis, who was also present at the same Synod. And the same Author proves 
(f) Buch. Belg. Rom. l. 8. c. 10.  that in the two Belgic Provinces the Bishoprics preserved the same bounds from Constantin's time to the last age, when Pius the Fourth erected new Seas; and certainly there are few places in the World, where there were longer Bishoprics.  
It is evident beyond all reasonable doubt, that the number of Bishops in the three first ages was far less than in those that followed. Nor have I met with any who called this in question, but Mr. Seldon. He indeed being in great distress for his Arabian Fabler, who brings above two thousand Bishops to the Council of Nice, to save the credit of his Author, suggests, 
(g) Selden in Eutych Orig. p. 83. 84. 85.  that in Constantin's time; and before, Dioceses had other bounds, and Bishoprics were more numerous and of less extent, than in the succeeding ages, when Christianity was established by Law. That the bounds of ancient Bishoprics are altogether unknown, and those which follow the civil distribution of the Provinces of the Empire, are new. He mentions and recommends Berterius and Salmasius concerning the Suburbicary Regions upon this occasion; but I do not find they have any thing to his purpose, or that they were of his opinion. It is strange a person of so great reading should advance a notion concerning ancient times, against the general opinion of Learned Men, without any testimony from Antiquity to give it countenance; especially when there are so many things in the Writers of the third and fourth Centuries, that seem to overthrow it. What! did not the Church before Constantine follow the civil disposition? How then came the Bishop of Alexandria to have jurisdiction over Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, so long before the Council of Nice; for there it was confirmed as an ancient and immemorial Custom? How came the Bishop of Rome to challenge the Suburbicary Regions by the same prescription? And before this, How came Cyprian to preside in the general or provincial Synods of afric, but in the right of his City? He was not long a Bishop, and could not preside by his Seniority, which in the other Provinces of afric took place after the rights of Metropolitans had been settled in all the other parts of the Empire. How came Cornelius to assemble the Bishops of Italy, and to preside when he was so young a Bishop, but by the pre-eminence of his City? These things are so obvious, that they cannot be avoided. As to the number of Bishoprics, what can be more plain, than that they were generally according to the number of Cities? Those Provinces which had most Cities, had most Bishops. But in the general, it is evident that the number of Bishoprics was much less before Constantine, than since. Africa makes this clear beyond contradiction; and whoever compares either the Provincial or general Synods of that Country in Cyprian's time, with those that followed in the next age, will quickly be convinced. The general Synod under Cyprian, concerning the Rebaptising of Heretics, had but eighty seven Bishops, of whom there were four subscribed from the Province of Tripoli, two present, and two by proxy, who in all probability were all of the Province; which in the next age, when Bishops were multiplied every where else in afric beyond all example, had but one more; and it cannot be well doubted, but other Provinces sent in the same proportion. For this was one of the most remote; and is spared by following Synods upon that account, as to the number it is to send to Synods. Athanasius, in the middle of the fourth Century, affirms, that Mareotes, a large Region belonging to Alexandria, never had a Bishop, but always belonged to the Bishop of the City. Why? but because it was part of its Territory? So this fancy of Mr. Selden is disproved by undoubted Evidence; and the contrary is too plain to be disputed.  
The Christians in the first three ages were dispersed over the Empire, so that there was hardly a Town where there were not some; and those, if they had no Bishop, had a Presbyter or a Deacon for Divine Service. Now the fewer Bishops are found in those times, the more of these Subordinate Officers must be acknowledged. Of these there was not one independent from some Bishop; and therefore the fewer Bishops, the more Congregations they must have under their inspection. And therefore if we compare the account Tertullian gives of the number of the Christians, and their dispersion in all manner of places; we must conclude the Dioceses of the first ages to be larger than of those that succeeded, if not for multitude, at leastwise for extent and number of smaller Congregations. In the fourth and fifth Centuries we read of many new Bishoprics erected; but of no old ones united or sunk: And those Canons, which forbidden the making of Bishops in Villages, do expressly except those where there had been any before. So that by the rules of these ages in which Mr. Selden supposes an alteration, the number of the old Bishoprics could not be diminished; and it is plain by many instances, that they were increased.  
Nor could this pretended change of the bounds of Dioceses in the fourth Century be made without great clamour and disturbance: for there never was an age of greater animosity among Christians; the parties were very watchful, and cried out upon every the least Innovation. What complaints must we have heard, if all the Dioceses in the Empire must have been cast, as it were, in a new mould; and so many by this reduction must have lost either the whole, or part of their Bishoprics? If any thing of this nature had been so much as attempted; it is impossible but some account must have been left of it, by an age so much abounding in Writers.  
However it is sufficient for our present purpose, that the Bishops of the first ages were Diocesans, and had many of them more Congregations than one within their Dioceses. Before the end of the third Century, Manes is said 
(h) Epiph. Haeres. 66. n. 13.  to have disputed with Archelaus Bishop of Caschara in Mesopatamia, where it seems the people were generally Christians; for they were so provoked by the Blasphemies of that Heretic, that they were ready to stone him. Wherefore Manes forced out of that City, went into 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  a Village that belonged to it, at a considerable distance, as the circumstances of the story suggest, where there was a Parish-Presbyter named Tryphon, who had the care of that Parish. So that the Parishes of the Territory had no Bishops, but Presbyters under the Bishop of the City. In the Prefecture of Arsinoe, where Nepos had been Bishop, there were many Country Parishes under Presbyters, who belong to that Bishop, as 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eus. H. l 7. c. 24.  Dionysius of Alexandria relates. And it is usual within the three first Centuries, to mention many Churches belonging to one Bishop. Mark is said 
(m) Euseb. H. l. 2. c. 16.  to have gathered several Churches in Alexandria; and Julian, one of the Bishops of that City, is said 
(n) Id. l. 5. c. 9  to have had the oversight of the Churches of Alexandria; the same thing is said 
(o) Id. l. 6. c. 2.  of Demetrius, and Dionysius, 
(p) Id. l. 6. c. 35.  and Peter, Bishops of that place. So Basilides is styled by Dionysius, 
(q) Eus. H. l. 7. c. 26.  Bishop of the Churches of Pentapolis; Silvanus Bishop 
(r) Id. l. 8. c. 13.  of the Churches of Gaza, and another of the same name of the Churches of Emesa, and Meletius Bishop 
(s) Id. l. 7. c. 32.  of the Churches of Pontus; which stile cannot in any constructon suit a Bishop of a single Congregation.  
After having cleared the main point in question, it may seem needless to take any farther notice of Mr. Clerkson's Discourse. For having little or nothing of fact to allege farther, he proceeds to draw Corollaries only from what he had said before, and walks forward in great security and confidence that he had proved his point. How different his fancy of antiquity is from the truth and reality of the matter, does by this time, I hope, sufficiently appear. However I will follow him still; and when he offers any thing that has the countenance of an Argument, it shall not pass without some notice taken of it.  

(t) Prim. ep. 116.  If the Territory were large, he fancies the Christians were but few in Villages, because those were last of all converted: Hence Heathen Idolaters were called Pagani. But the Apostles preached and made Converts in the Country as well as the City, according to Clemens. And Tertullian boasting of the numbers of Christians, affirms, there was no Village nor place without them in his time. But when the Cities became entirely converted, the Heathen retired into the Country; and tho' they were but few in comparison of the Christians, yet there they were most numerous. He tells us 
(u) Prim. ep. p. 117.  there were many Villages in the fourth age, in which there were no Christians, very many in which there were but few, and but few in comparison, in which all were Christians. The affirmation of a man who is an humble servant to a new notion, concerning distant matters of fact, makes but bad payment. Thus therefore he proves it. If a Village wholly Christian had not been a rarity, even in Jerom's time, why does he make it a singular observation of Jethura? 
(x) Hieron. de Loc. Hebr.  Villa praegrandis Jethura, habitatoresque ejus omnes Christiani sunt. Surely a reason may be assigned without making this matter such a rarity. And St. Jerom in the same place does suggest it, when he observes that it is situate in Daroma, near Malatha. For in that part it seems there were not many Pagans, but Jews. For in Daroma there was 
(y) Hieron. de Loc. Hebr. in Eschemo.  a great Village of the Jews called Eschemo; this being some remote part where it seems they retired, and for that reason it might be observed of Jethura, that it was all Christian.  

(z) Prim. ep. p. 117.  When Christians in the territory were many, yet being disposed, as generally they were, under other Bishops than him in the City, his Diocese had no enlargement thereby. How far this is from being true, is sufficiently evident from the instances given of the Dioceses of City Bishops; and Mr. Clerkson alleges nothing for proof, but the Bishops of Hippo, who only met there in a Synod, as we have showed before. 
(a) Prim. ep. p. 119.  He mentions 
(b) Aug. Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 8.  a Bishop in the Castle Sy●ica near to Hippo, but not in the Region▪ for he expressly distinguishes, and says it was near the Colony of Hippo. He mentions a few African Bishops in the Territories of Cities; but we have already showed, that it was Schism erected those Bishops in Villages, and that from the beginning it was not so. Basinopolis, whi●● was once a Village and made a City, was taken out of the Diocese of Nice, and was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Nicene Bishop. And so was Ely, and Peterborough, and Oxford, taken from the Diocese of Lincoln; and yet the remainder is still enormously great. He tells us too, of a Bishopric raised in the Precinct of Caesarea in Cappadocia, but at a great distance from it; and half a dozen more Dioceses might have been well spared out of Caesarea. At last he comes to 
(c) Prim. ep. p. 121.  the territory of Rome, if that be it, which was under the Provost of the City. It was well he demurred upon this point, for that indeed was not the Territory, but the Province of the City, and consisted of several Provinces. And the Bishops there, tho' they were many, were not of the Congregational way. Nor are all the Bishops he finds in the Roman Provincial, in the Province of Rome, within the distance of an hundred miles: but of this a large account hath been given. He notes farther, That there was not one Parish or Church in the Territory of Rome, that belonged to the City Bishop. And for this he citys Innocent's Epistle to Decentius, cum omnes Ecclesiae nostrae intra civitatem constitutae sunt. If the Bishop of Rome had no Country Parish, than the neighbouring Bishops had the more. But we are not to conclude this too hastily; for it is not very certain, where that which he called the City ended, nor yet what sort of Churches he speaks of; for he had Presbyters in other places besides those in the Churches of Rome, and such as consecrated the Sacrament themselves, and consequently had Congregations; for then there were no private Masses. and to these he did 
(d) Nec nos per caemiteria diversa constitutis Presbyteris destinamus. Et Presbyteri eorum Consecrandorum jus habeant. Innoc. add Decent. Prim. ep. p. 122.  not send the Sacrament consecrated, because they had authority to do it themselves; and these as well as the other were in his Diocese. To this he adds some instances of Bishops, whose jurisdiction was confined within their Walls, Some in Italy, And that of Dublin, when John Papyron the Pope's Legate came over. But all these are new, and that of Dublin is so too; 
(e) Usher's Relig. of the Irish. p. 83.  for that being a Norman Colony, and the Irish possessing all without the walls of the City, the Norman Bishops Jurisdiction could extend no farther than the possession of his own people.  
To this he adds a marvellous remark, that the word 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  by which some will have him to understand a Diocese, is frequently said to be in the City. And of this expression he citys many examples; as if this implied, that out of the City there was no Diocese. But let that instance of Alexandria answer for all the rest, since it is produced to this purpose. For besides the City, Athanasius affirms, the Bishop had Mareotes a Region containing many Country Parishes, and that there never had been so much as a Chorepiscopus to govern those Churches; but that they were under the immediate Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria. We are farther told, 
(g) Prim. ep. p. 123.  that the Apostles designed there should be such Bishops, as they instituted, in Country Towns, and not in Cities only. If he means by such Bishops, Presbyters only; then indeed not only every Church, but every Congregation required such; but the Bishops of the Apostles Ordination had the care of many Congregations. And it is plain in Scripture, that such general Officers they did appoint, and they themselves were of that kind. Some Prelatists, he observes, will have Bishop and City to be adequate; but he will have it, that Church and Bishop should be so; for it is not the City, as such, requires a Bishop, but because it had a Church in it. It is true; but the narrowness of the Independent spirit confounds a Church with a Congregation. For as in the civil community of a City, there were several subordinate Assemblies, yet but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly so called, which was endued with the authority of the whole Body: So it might be in the Churches planted by the Apostles. Where therefore there was one competent Church, there was a Bishop; but this might consist of several Congregations. The Church of Jerusalem may be still mentioned to this purpose, after all Mr. Clerkson's attempts to diminish it. The number of Converts there was too great for one Congregation, 
(h) Acts 11.22.  yet they all made but one Church; and so it was where ever Christians increased in the same proportion. And therefore I hope to be excused, if in this case I take the practice of the Apostles and of the Church in succeeding ages, to be safer Interpreters of their design, than the novel conjectures of men addicted to singularity. The instance of Majuma the Port of Gaza, is directly against the purpose for which it is brought; for it had no Bishop till it was a City. And one thing in this citation of Mr. Clerkson concerning it, deserves to be noted. For where Sozomen says, that the bounds of each Diocese were appointed, and what Altars should belong to each; our Author thought fit to change the number, and to write distinct Altar, as agreeing better with his notion; though this way does not agree well with common honesty and good faith. The weak objection which he makes for Episcopal men, and the suitable answer he returns to it, are not worth notice. For here he speaks only to himself; and I do not wonder he should argue so weakly for us, when his arguments against us are so harmless. So the Mother of Sisera and her wise Ladies, did doubt and reply, and fancy Triumphs, when the day was lost.  
The difference between the modern and ancient models is apparent, as Mr. Clerkson thinks, in England and Ireland. The ancient model of Episcopacy in England is something hard to find. For the Saxons being Pagans, when they subdued this Country, and driving the old Inhabitants into the remote corners of it; all the bounds of civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within this Kingdom were lost. But the model he speaks of, is that of Gregory the Great, who had no more design to plant Congregational Episcopacy in England, than he had to make it Independent. He intended twelve Bishops for the Province of York, as Mr. Clerkson observes; but that might have been done, and the Dioceses be large enough. For that Province then reached from Humbre to the Frith of Edinburgh; and about the year 681. had five Bishops (however Mr. Clerkson affirms, that for many ages it had no more than three) and every one of them had Dioceses of very great extent. Those in the South were not all so great, but yet comprehended many Congregations; and some of them [as Canterbury, London and Rochester] do remain still under the same limits that were at first appointed them by Augustin the Archbishop. How they stood before the coming of the Saxons, is now beyond all memory; and there is little hope left of making any new discovery in this matter, which hath been treated by so many great men, and diligent inquirers into the Antiquities of their Country. Marcianus Heracleota 
(i) Peripl. p. 92.  reckons fifty nine Cities in Britain, which I suppose he took out of Ptolemy. 
(l) Ptol. l. 2.  Many of these are placed in Scotland, and about forty remain for England and Wales. If they observed the general rule of the Church, the number of their Bishops might be equal to that of their Cities; and so their Dioceses would be much too wide for Mr. Clerkson's purpose. But it seems this number was reduced afterwards. For Bede 
(m) Bed. H. E. l. 1. c. 1.  mentions but twenty eight, when he would set out the most flourishing condition of this Country in the Roman times. As for the Canon of the Synod of Herudford for augmenting the number of Bishops, which Mr. Clerkson insists on, there was good reason for it. For at that time there were no more than seven Bishops in all the Saxon part of Britain, which then reaching to the Frith of Edinburg, was as large as all England and Wales joined together are now.  
The ancient model in Ireland is as little known: for the Legends of St. Patrick are but sorry evidence of the ancient state of the Irish Church, and that Fable has been already examined. In Phoenicia indeed the Latins did reduce the Bishoprics to a lesser number in the twelfth Century; because the condition of that Country was much altered, and most of the ancient Episcopal Cities destroyed, or the people Mahometans. But that it was the humour of that age, instead of multiplying to reduce Bishoprics, is only a fancy of Mr. Clerkson. For I have showed the practice of Italy at that time to be quite contrary; where instead of reducing, they raised a great number of new Bishoprics, and have been increasing of them ever since. Nor does it serve to any purpose to produce the Patriarchat of Antioch, so different in the time of the Latins, from what it had been anciently; since the condition of those Countries had been much altered, and the Christians were reduced to a very small number under the long and heavy Tyranny of the Mahometans.  
Mr. Clerkson bestows a whole Chapter to confirm his notion of the smallness of ancient Bishoprics, by repeating those observations he had already made: That all the people should be present at the election of Bishops; that the Bishop was to examine the state of the Penitents; that he was to preach to all the Brethren; that there was but one Communion table in a Diocese. All these have been answered already; and it is evident by many instances, as well as the necessity of the thing itself, that the Christians of the Country had distinct Congregations, and settled Presbyters to attend them, all in subordination to the City Bishop; that their Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper were administered there by those Presbyters; that, as for Discipline and Confirmation, the Bishop visited those places in person; that those Congregations were not obliged to repair to the City-Church, so much as on Easter or the most solemn Festivals. These things are as plain as words can express. Athanasius, Basil, Augustin, and several others give an account of their visitations. And Jerom 
(n) Hieron. Cont. Lucif.  cannot deny it to be an ancient custom, that the Bishop of the City should visit the Villages and Burroughs and remote places of his Diocese, to confirm those who had been baptised there by Presbyters or Deacons.  
There is nothing more precarious, and more destitute of the appearance of truth, than the deduction our Author makes of the progress of Diocesan Episcopacy, and the rise of it, from the destruction of the Congregational model. 
(o) Prim. ep. p. 191.  A Bishop of a Country Parish would be striving to get another Parish under him. The third Council of Carthage, Can. 46. takes notice of such Bishops. Nothing can be more directly against his purpose than that Canon; by which it appears, that such Country places as had Bishops, were of new erection; that they had been ever before parts of a greater Diocese, 
(p) Quae exempta de fasce multarum, sola meruit honorem Episcopatus suscipere. Can. 46.  and taken out of a multitude which belonged all to one Bishop; that some of these new Bishops challenged other parts of the Diocese out of which their Bishopric was taken, besides that which was appointed them. So that the design of Mr. Clerkson is defeated by his own evidence. For whereas he would suggest, that Dioceses did rise by the encroachment of the Bishop of one Parish upon another, and by joining Parish to Parish: The quite contrary appears from the place alleged; that the Bishop of one Parish, as he calls him, was raised by crumbling of ancient Dioceses; and that the other Parish, which he is said to challenge, was not such a one as had a Parish Bishop to itself, but was part of a Diocese consisting of many such; and that this large Bishopric was the ancient, the small an innovation. I perceive that conscience does not always operate alike in those who pretend so great niceness. For while they take offence and start at a trifle, they make no scruple of sins of unfaithfulness; and represent that as truth and reality, which in their own conscience they know to be otherwise.  

(q) Prim. ep. p. 191.  When a Bishop had part of a City, he was unsatisfied till he had got the whole. Thus Flavianus at Antioch would not suffer a Bishop to be made to succeed Evagrius, that he might have the City entire to himself. One may be apt to imagine, that in ancient time Antioch was divided between many Bishops, and that this Flavianus was the first ambitious man, who would have the City entire to himself. Whereas before the Schisms that distracted the Church of that place, the City had ever had but one Bishop. But the Arrians having the possession of the public Churches, and being established there by authority, the Catholic Party which was very low there at that time, happened 
(r) Socr. l. 3. c. 6. 9 Soz. l. 7. c. 15.  to be divided; Meletius being Bishop of one part, and Paulinus of the other. This being against the rule and constant practice of the Church, it was agreed to put an end to this irregularity, by uniting all, when one should die, under the Survivor. Flavianus broke this agreement; for when Meletius died, he procured himself to be made Bishop in his stead, against Paulinus who was the Survivor. And he likewise dying, his party chose Evagrius in opposition to Flavianus; who when that Competitor was dead, endeavoured to hinder the ordination of a successor. And this is the story, which Mr. Clerkson thinks fit to bring as a proof, how a Bishop of a part of a City was unsatisfied till he had the whole; as if it were the rule or allowed practice of the ancient Church, to divide a City between many Bishops.  

(s) Prim. ep. p. 192.  When a Bishop had a great City, yet some Village in the vicinity he could not endure should be exempt from his Jurisdiction. Majuma found this to its trouble. This had always been under Gaza, until it was made a City by Constantine. So that its separation from the Diocese of Gaza was the Innovation. It's dependence upon that Bishop, was its ancient and primitive state; and the Bishop of the City did not desire to make a new accession to his Bishopric, but to recover what had been taken from it.  

(t) Prim. ep. p. 192.  Not satisfied with one City, some would have two. So four Bishops in Europa, a Province of Thrace, got each of them two Cities under him. Yet is it positively affirmed of those Cities, that they had always belonged to one Bishop; this was their primitive constitution. It is possible some of them were but lately made Cities; and having been Villages before in the Territory of another City, they continued in their Ecclesiastical subjection, after they were made Cities. Yet these were afterwards parted; so far were succeeding Ages from reducing the number of Bishoprics. For Arcadiopolis, which was joined to Byzia in the Council of Ephesus, and there affirmed to have been so immemorially, under Justinian had a Bishop of its own; as we find by the subscriptions 
(u) Not. Graec. Leon. in Append. Geogr. Sacr.  of the fifth Synod. Panium, joined to Heraclea, was afterwards divided from it, and made a distinct Bishopric; had a Bishop of its own in the Council under Menna. 
(x) Conc. C. P. sub Menna. Act. 2.  So that this instance, as well as the rest, proves directly contrary to the purpose for which it is produced. That which follows, concerning the encroachment of one Metropolitan upon the Province of another, I am not concerned to take notice of; since it does not belong to the present question.  
Having abused so many Testimonies of ancient Writers, directly against the intention of the Authors, to countenance his dream of Congregational Episcopacy, he does not think fit to conclude without 
(y) Prim. ep. p. 197.  taking notice, what thoughts some of the best and most eminent Bishops of the fourth and fifth Ages, had of a very large Bishopric. And thereby, he thinks, he shall perceive, that if the Church could have been ordered according to the principles, desires and endeavours of the most pious and conscientious; their Dioceses would not have been so execessively numerous in the fourth or fifth Ages, above what they were in the third. By Dioceses' being numerous, I suppose he means the number of people belonging to each Diocese; for otherwise it will destroy what he contends for, Dioceses being by so much more large as they are less numerous. Chrysostom, he says, may satisfy us here. What? In his judgement and conscience was he against a large bishopric? bred in the Diocese of Antioch, than which there were few greater in the world, and receiving the orders of Deacon and Presbyter in that Church. Afterwards removed from thence to be Bishop of the Imperial City; having so many Congregations in the City, so many Parishes in the Country, such a number of Provinces under his Jurisdiction, as made the better part of the Eastern Empire: Does he express his conscience against a very large Bishopric? Surely a person of so exalted eloquence could not be guilty of such a solecism; his Chair would have born testimony against him, and refuted all his Sermon. If this was his conscience, why did he not divide? Why did he not appoint one Bishop in Sycae, another in Hestiae, where Constantine had built a Church that might have become a Bishop? Or if these places were too near, why did he not erect new Bishoprics in the remoter part of his Territory, or in his Provinces; since as Patriarch, he had sufficient authority to make what number of Bishops he pleased? He deposed indeed a great number of unworthy Bishops, and ordained others in their places; but there is no account of any new erections of his in Market Towns and Villages. And his friends make bold to censure Theophilus, for making Bishops in small places, where there had been none before. It is therefore very marvellous, that the conscience of so great and holy a person should declare against his own practice, and condemn a large Bishopric, while himself was possessed of one of the largest in world, without discovering the least desire or endeavour to part it between several Congregational Pastors. As for his Principles, he had no other in this matter than the rule and practice of the Church. One City, according to his principles, could have but one Bishop; and therefore he seems to be startled at St. Paul's direction, to the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi. What, more Bishops than one, says he, in one City? No, by no means: therefore he concludes they were received not Bishops in the sense of the word in his times, but Presbyters only. And therefore according to his principles, if a City were never so great, it ought to have but one Bishop. However let us hear what Chrysostom says in the places cited by Mr. Clerkson.  
Tell me, says that excellent Bishop, 
(z) Chrys. in Act. 3. p. 655. Ed. Savil.  what can a multitude avail us? Wilt thou understand, that the desirable multitude are the Holy, not the many?— What care I for the multitude? What advantage is in them? But here is no comparison between a great Bishopric and a small, as such; but between many bad and few good. And in this case Chrysostom's judgement cannot be contested; it is clear, that we are to go by weight, not by number. The people of Constantinople, as they were exceeding numerous, so they were very dissolute; and this holy Bishop flamed against the vices of the place, with a zeal becoming his character. He is not content only to reprove and to rebuke with authority; but threatens to use the utmost of his spiritual censures, against those that disgraced Christianity by their wicked lives. In this Resolution of reforming his people, he bids defiance to all discouragements and opposition. Some urged the multitude of offenders against him, that too rough dealing might drive them to join with Sectaries. But this did not at all abate the resolution of the Bishop: He scorns the multitude upon this account, and cries, what care I for a multitude? It was far from his intention to cast off this multitude, or to divide them into several distinct Congregations under other Bishops; but his design was to reform their lives, and to build up and adorn the Church committed to him with many that were good, with a multitude not only numerous, but approved. And for this purpose he offers himself a sacrifice, and is content to be cut off, so that he might gain many to Christ. If Chrysostom had proceeded upon the principles of Mr. Clerkson; he must have given his discourse another turn, and said, that since one Bishop is not sufficient for so great a people, and a hundred and fifty Persons are a charge more than one can well discharge; it is fit that you choose yourselves Pastors after your own hearts, and enter into Covenant with them. For this great dissoluteness proceeds from the excessive greatness of the flock, and the disproportion that is between it and the ability of a single Shepherd. For this Diocesan way is an innovation, and raised upon the ruin of ancient discipline. Wherefore separate yourselves, for I will not undertake the charge of above a hundred and fifty souls. To this effect he must have expressed his conscience, if his principles had been the same with Mr. Clerkson's. But he on the contrary lays claim to the whole flock, numerous and disordered as it was; he thought himself bound in conscience to endeavour the reformation of it, and to use fullness of Episcopal authority to reduce them. He does not complain that they are many, but that they are unprofitable; would they but reform their lives, let them be as numerous as they please; for the greater their number, the greater would be his joy. So far is Chrysostom from expressing his conscience against large Bishoprics in the places cited by Mr. Clerkson.  
Nor do his other Arguments drawn out of the Sermons of Chrysostom, come any thing nearer to the point. The Episcopate, says he, 
(a) Prim. ep. p. 203, 204.  is so called from the inspecting all. He ought to be an Overseer of all, bearing the burdens of all; he had need of many thousand Eyes.— He ought to go the rounds night and day, more than any Commander in an Army. We must give account of all their souls, when we have been defective in any thing. I wonder if any Bishops can ever be saved, considering the greatness of the threatening, and their negligence. All this is very true, but not to our Author's purpose. Bishops are certainly accountable for those who perish by their neglect of their proper Office. But then the duty of a general overseer is not the same with that of a subordinate Office. A Parish Presbyter will not be condemned for not performing the duty of a Master of a Family, nor a Bishop for not doing the office of a Presbyter to all the particulars of his Diocese. But these words are to be understood with analogy to the nature of the Office of which they are spoken; but the measure of the Office cannot be taken from those expressions. A General must go the Rounds, and so must a Bishop too: But it follows not therefore, that a General ought not to command more Men than a private Captain, or that a Bishop ought to have no more Parishes than a Presbyter may supply.  
What inferences are to be drawn out of this topic concerning the greatness of the Episcopal charge, and the dreadful condition of those who do not faithfully discharge it, may better be learned from Chrysostom 
(b) Chrys. in Heb. Hom. 34.  than Mr. Clerkson. Now since the account to be given of that Administration is so dreadful: He wonders that any should be so forward to desire it. It is strange, that Men should be so ambitious of a high station indeed, but withal so hazardous; that they should solicit, nay, intrude upon such a charge, and reckon it a desirable promotion to be raised to a Precipice, where without the greatest care and circumspection in the World they must fall headlong. And certainly what he says to that effect, with a heat and eloquence inimitable, is sufficient, one would think, to mortify the most impotent Ambition in the World.  
Another inference, which Chrysostom draws from the consideration of the danger to which the Bishop's Office does expose him, is, that therefore the People under his charge ought to respect and to love him: Knowing then, says he, 
(c) Chrys. in Joh. Hom. 86.  the greatness of his danger upon your account; You on your part ought proportionably to love and to observe him. While the Pilot is encouraged, all is safe; but if he be reproached, and hated, and hindered, all is in danger to be lost. So a Bishop, if respected, can go on in the business of his high and necessary Office, with cheerfulness and comfort: But when he is discouraged with the frowardness and evil disposition of those under his Direction, his hands are weakened, the People are exposed to the mercy of the waves. He proceeds farther to show the respect due to that Office, even under the supposition of Maladministration. For our Saviour advised the Jews to observe the Scribes, because they sat in Moses his Chair, though their actions were not suitable to the dignity of their Station: But the Bishops have a more honourable Chair, for they sit in the Chair of Christ.  
Had the notion of Congregational Episcopacy ever come into the thoughts of Chrysostom, these inferences had been very unsuitable. For then instead of advising the People to reverence and obey their Bishop, who exposed his Soul to so much danger by taking upon himself the care of them all, he must have advised, as Mr. Clerkson and his Brethren would have done, that they would separate from him, for they were too many for the oversight of one Bishop: He could not Preach to them all: He could not Visit nor Comfort them all: There were Men of as great gifts willing to receive them in elect Congregations; these should look into the inward state of the Soul, and the secrets of their Families: As for the Bishop he had more than he could look well after, and it was not fit that they should swell his accounts too high by adding to his charge. If Chrysostom had the same thoughts of a large Bishopric with Mr. Clerkson, such must have been his Discourse. But he was far from changing the ancient bounds, or desiring Bishops in consideration of the danger of so great a charge, to divide their Dioceses till they should be reduced to the Congregational Model; much less did he suggest to the People, that they should subdivide, since their Bishops would not restore the pretended Primitive Episcopacy.  
I cannot omit one passage out of Chrysostom, which Mr. Clerkson either mistake, or was willing to pervert to his purpose. But as it is cited, it is directly contrary to the sense and words of the Author; 
(d) Chrys. in Tit. Or. 1. p. 384.  He that hath the charge of a great City, see how great a flame he exposes himself too.— For all the things that are not acted by him he shall be responsible. Now Chrysostom among other dangers, to which the Episcopal Function is exposed, reckons it none of the least, that he is to Ordain other Bishops. And therefore if for friendship or other reasons he shall promote an unworthy person, and commit to him the care of a great City, how great a flame does he expose himself to? He is guilty of all the Souls the other shall destroy, and shall be responsible for all the things that are acted by him. Mr. Clerkson has added here a small word that makes great alteration of the sense, it is [not] and hath perverted the whole passage from the Ordeiners to the persons Ordained; and to make all fit, he is forced to change the words. Had he been to represent the danger of those Ordeiners, he would not only have made them responsible for the miscarriages of unworthy Bishops, but charged upon them as an unpardonable neglect, that they did not Ordain many Bishops for every great City, since one, though never so diligent, must be insufficient for the charge. But this Chrysostom could not think of. For though he is said to have foretold some things, yet the notions of the Independents, as well as the Sect, were at too great a distance from him to be foreseen.  
It seems to me matter of great astonishment, to see Men pretending to a Conscience so nice and scrupulous in Religion, to deal with so little Faith, and to abuse the most moving and lively eloquence of ancient Preachers, and words as it were of fire, only to make a little false light, to abuse the ignorant and simple into a belief, that Novelty is ancient, that Schism is Catholic Unity, and that Chrysostom, the great Patriarch of the Imperial City, was in his Principles and desires an Independent. Lord! How long shall mean delusions be permitted to have so powerful and prevailing influence? How long shall the Wolf possess the Sheep against their Shepherds, and break into the Folds under the disguise of Sheeps-clothing? How long shall the deluded People have eyes and not see; and the Souls, for which Christ died, be under the power of Deceivers? How long will it be, ere the Hypocrite be disrobed; and the People see through the disguise of those who abuse them? Surely there will come a time, when God will hear the Prayers and Expostulations of his Servants: When the faithful Shepherd shall gather together those that are scattered, and bring back those that are gone astray: When he shall carry them on his shoulders rejoicing and triumphing in the disappointment of the beasts of prey. But who shall live, when this comes to pass? Blessed surely shall their Eyes be, who enjoy the sight; a joyful and pleasant thing beyond expression it will be, to see brethren dwell together in Unity.  
I should have concluded here, but that my Author continues to abuse his Reader after the same manner in another Chapter, which contains, for the most part, such allegations as he had produced before; but something more being added, it seemed necessary to add some brief reflections.  

(e) Prim. ep. p. 217.  When the Bishop could not be content with a moderate charge, but extended it to such a largeness, that it became ungovernable by him; This pretended ruling was no longer government but anarchy: as Isidore speaks of a Bishop of his time. l. 3. cap. 319. That this is said of a Bishop, does by no means appear from that Epistle: but the circumstances direct us to understand it rather of a Civil Judge than of a Bishop. Under such a ones government, says Isidore, which was anarchy rather than government, punishment went before accusation: for being an unreasonable man, it is no wonder he should act so preposterously, and pervert all methods of Justice. But that this was a Bishop, or had a large Bishopric, and would not be content with a moderate charge, but extended it to such a largeness to be ungovernable, Mr. Clerkson did not find in Isidore, but in his sleep: for surely his Conscience must be a-sleep, when he knowingly perverts the words of ancient Authors, to impose upon the World. With the same integrity he useth Basil 's words: Through this ambition of governing all, all Church government came to nothing. de Sp. S. c. ult. This governing all, which makes the passage look as if it were directed against large Bishoprics, is not in Basil; but without this addition Mr. Clerkson might think the citation would not be to his purpose. The place deserves to be taken notice of: and when I have represented it as it is in the Author, let the World judge who is most concerned in that reproach. Every one, says that Father, 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.—  will be a Divine, though his Soul be blemished with ten thousand spots. Hence it is, that those who are given to change, strengthen their Faction. Impatient ambition invades the high places of the Church without call or ordination; despising the Oeconomy of the Holy Ghost, and all the precepts of the Gospel. 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Hence it is, that there is so much rushing upon the Offices of the Church, every one intruding into those sacred places; and through that ambition Anarchy hath seized the Church, and the people are left without government. Hence it is, that the exhortations of the Bishops are vain and ineffectual, because every one is more forward to rule others than to obey; his ignorance and his pride possessing him with a vain opinion of his own abilities. 
(h) Bas. l. de Sp. S. c. 30. p. 225.  Here is not the least notice taken, whether the Bishoprics were little or great; much less is this confusion charged upon their too great extent. It is ambition only that is here reproved, and the impatience of those, who when they could not in a regular way advance themselves to the government of the Church, became Bishops of their own making.  
Upon a supposition that a Primitive Bishop had but one Congregation, Mr. Clerkson proceeds to show, that every Congregation, which is always adequate to a Church in his notion, had a right of ordering itself, and appointing what rites it thought fit. And to that purpose he observes out of Socrates and Sozomen, that in several parts of the World there were different usages and customs. But is there any instance in antiquity of people that separated from their Bishop and their own Church, because they would not comply with the customs and rites received there? For instance, in Rome it was customary to fast on Saturday; In other Countries they fasted the day before. Now did any Roman Christian forsake his Church, because they did not fast on Friday? Or did any African part Communion, because the Saturday was not observed there as it was in Rome? S. Augustin's judgement in this point is well known, and universally approved. He directs every Christian to comply with the rites and customs of the Church where he happens to be, though he find some things different from the usage of his own Church. The reverence, which the Primitive Christians had for the Forms in which they were brought up, raised in them some scruple, when they came to observe those of other Churches to be different. But as to their own particular rites and usages proper to each respective Country, they were so peaceably and religiously observed, that they were never made a pretence of Separation, or so much as the occasion of a Controversy. Some differences indeed did arise very early between Churches of different Countries, about the time of Easter, and rebaptising of Heretics; but in the conclusion, every one adhered to his own way, which he thought the best; and he was generally blamed, who took upon him to prescribe to the rest. Let us suppose therefore in this case an African Christian, who had lived some time in Rome, and taken a liking to the peculiar usages of that Church, should after his return home disparage the received order of his own Church; and to show how much he had improved by Travel, endeavour to introduce foreign Customs: What treatment think you would such a one have received from S. Augustin, or S. Cyprian? Such a troubler of the peace and order of the Church would soon find himself cast out by the severest censures, unless they might think it more advisable to send him to the Exorcist. This was plainly the case between the Church of England and the first Dissenters. Some of the English Exiles took I know not what fondness to the usages of some Protestant Churches abroad, and a strange dislike to their own way: They returned home with foreign manners, and set them up in opposition to the order of their own Church, and at last parted Communion upon this pretence. It is not here a place to inquire into their reasons, or to make a comparison between what they chose and what they rejected. This only I may be bold to say, that their Schism is without example, either in ancient or later ages. For who ever separated from the Church of Geneva, in favour of some peculiarities he might have seen in Zurich? Or what Frenchman forsook the Communion of the French Churches, because they had some Ceremonies different from those of Holland? Or did a Hollander ever run out of the Church, because the Preacher was uncovered, out of pure zeal to the custom of France, where the Preacher took the same liberty with the Congregation, of being covered too? Our Church does not pretend to prescribe to any other; nor does she think it reasonable any other should prescribe to her: but as all other Churches use their discretion in appointing what rites they think most meet, so does she; and is the only Church in the World, that I know, forsaken upon that account. Yet Mr. Clerkson 
(i) Prim. ep. p. 223.  tells us, that we ought to be cautious of charging one another with Schism for such things wherein the ancient Churches are like to be involved in the same Condemnation. As though ancient Churches had any thing parallel to the case of our Dissenters, or indeed any other Church. Sure I am, that the instances alleged by Mr. Clerkson, are very wide of it; as I have showed already. For we charge no other Churches with Schism, because they have not the same rites that we use; nor do we so much as condemn the Dissenters upon that account. But in this we charge them with Schism, that they have departed from the Communion of our Church upon the account of rites; and they indeed condemning us by their Separation upon that reason, do truly involve the ancient Churches in the same condition.  
To make the end answer the beginning, Mr. Clerkson concludes with a manifest calumny. Hereby, says he, 
(l) Prim. ep. p. 226.  it appears, with what judgement and charity some among us will have none to be true Churches, that want Diocesan Bishops;— they hereby blast all the Churches in the Apostles times and the best Ages after, as no Churches.— Herein they are as wise and friendly, as if one to secure the height of his own Turret, should attempt to blow up all the Houses in the best part of the world; nay they blow up their own too. It is neither wise nor friendly to charge men with absurd opinions, of which neither they, nor perhaps any other were ever guilty. What witness, what evidence of this matter? What Books or conversation ever betrayed so great a weakness? I never yet heard of any man, who made it essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations under them. The Papists have several Bishops with a very small flock, and such as one Parish-Church may contain. They have others who have not so much as one Congregation, nor perhaps one Christian within their Diocese. But we may guests at the men our Author intends; they indeed distinguish, with all the ancient Churches, between a Bishop and a Presbyter: But for the measure of Episcopal Churches, They willingly subscribe to S. Jerom's 
(m) Ep. ad Evagr.  judgement, that the Bishop of Eugubium is no less a Bishop than he of Rome; and the Bishop of Tanis is as much a Bishop as he of Alexandria; since it is not the greatness of the City, but the Ordination, that makes a Bishop. In the Primitive times and those next succeeding, the extent of Dioceses were very different. In Scythia 
(n) Soz. l. 7. c. 19  there was but one, though many Cities; and in some places there were Bishops in Villages. Some Cities had very large Territories belonging to their Bishops, others but small; yet all this while, these Bishops accounted themselves all of equal authority, though their Dioceses might be very unequal; and never broke Communion upon that account. But if some Presbyters should attempt then to separate from their Bishops, and to set up Altar against Altar; they incurred the censure 
(o) Can. Ant. 5.  of all Christian Churches, and were shut out of Catholic Communion by universal consent. As to matter of fact, it is plain, that in the Primitive times there were no Churches without Bishops, such as were acknowledged different from Presbyters. And Ignatius 
(p) Ign. Ep. ad Tra●.  is bold to say, that without a Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons, it cannot be called a Church. But as for those who separate from their Bishops, whose doctrine they acknowledge to be sound, and set up Churches, and make Ordinations in opposition to them, and the whole establishment of a National or Provincial Church, These I shall not scruple to Unchurch; since in this I have not only the suffrage of antiquity, but the consent of all Protestant Churches on my side.  
In France, while the Reformed Religion stood there, if any departed from the established order of those Churches, they were excommunicated; and if they should attempt to set up separate Congregations, they would have been accounted no Churches. 
(q) Hist: Eccles. de Bez. T. 2. l. 6.  How zealous they were of the Orders appointed in their Synods, will sufficiently appear from the case of Morelli, and the proceed against him. Nor is it otherwise in Holland or Germany, or wherever the Reformed Religion is received; they unchurch all, who upon such frivolous pretences, as our Dissenters use against us, would leave their Communion.  
By this notion of Primitive Episcopacy, Mr. Clerkson 
(r) Prim. Ep. p. 23●.  thinks, that some mistakes concerning Episcopal Ordinations, of ill consequence, may be rectified. A Bishop in the best ages was no other than the Pastor of a single Church; a Pastor of a single Congregation now, is as truly a Bishop.— Why they should not be esteemed to be duly ordained, who are set apart by a Pastor of a single Church now, I can discern no reason, after I have looked every way for it. It is the hardest thing in the world for some men to see a reason that makes against them; and the fear of finding it, makes them commonly look where they are not likely to meet it. However it does not seem to be so difficult a matter to assign a reason in the case proposed. It is not the being Pastor of one or many Congregations, that makes a Bishop, but the Order. For a Presbyter may be the Pastor of a Congregation, and in the Primitive times there were many such; but this does not make him a Bishop. Nay, the Chorepiscopi were Pastors of many Congregations, and yet these were not Bishops. If these in ancient times should have proceeded upon Mr. Clerkson's grounds, and presumed to ordain Presbyters or Deacons or Bishops; the Church of those times would have made no difficulty to pronounce the Ordinations null. Ischyras pretended to be a Presbyter, because Colluthus had ordained him; but Athanasius represents it as monstrous, that one should esteem himself a Presbyter, who was ordained by one who died himself a Presbyter of the Church of Alexandria. Nor was Ischyras so absurd as to think, that the Ordination received from a simple Presbyter would be valid. For in Truth, that Colluthus was made a Bishop by Meletius, and his name is still in the Catalogue of his Ordinations; but renouncing his Schism, and those Orders, he was received into communion as Presbyter; for so he was before he joined with Meletius, and in that degree he died. Nor can I find in all Antiquity, any one instance of Presbyters making Ordinations without a Bishop: nay, the Heretics and Schismatics of old, among all their irregularities, are not charged by any of this presumption. In the Diocese of Alexandria there were many Presbyters, who were the Pastors of single Congregations; and so it was in most of the ancient Dioceses, as we have showed before. In the Province of Scythia, there must be yet a greater number of such Parish Pastors. Yet none of these are found to have claimed any right to ordain: and if any of them should have presumed against the rule of the Church in that particular, the Church of those times would not only have declared the Ordination null, but a prodigy, and think that Antichrist was at hand, and the world drawing towards an end, when such new and unexampled confusions were permitted to arise. What sentence shall we think, would they have pronounced upon Presbyterian Ordinations, when they did not stick 
(s) Can. Nic. 9, 10, 16. Can. Ant. 73.  to rescind Orders conferred by Bishops against the Canons and established discipline of the Church; and in some cases to 
(t) Nic. Can. 19  re-ordain? Aerius, who declared there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, is represented by Epiphanius 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 74. n. 1. 3.  as a prodigy, and his opinion madness, though there is no mention at all of his Ordinations.  
But the case of the Ordinations of our Dissenters is peculiar; and they do foreign Churches great wrong, when they concern them in their quarrel. For first, the Independents have no root of Orders, but their Pastors are of Lay Original extraction. The Presbyterians have Ordination from Presbyters, not only without, but in opposition to Bishops, against all the established rules of this Church, against the Laws of the Country, as well as practise of ancient Churches. And if upon this account we pronounce them void, we do no more than what all the Protestant Churches abroad would do in the like case. If some Deacons or Laymen would take upon them to ordain Pastors in the French Churches, for separate Congregations, in opposition to the received discipline, settled in their general Synods; I would appeal to any Minister of those Churches, whether he held such an Ordination valid. And yet by the principles of those Churches, Laymen may confer orders in some cases, as appears 
(x) Hist. Eccles. T. 1. l. 2.  by the first Ordination in Paris, where there was no Presbyter present; and by the confession of Beza 
(y) Hist. Eccles. T. 1. l. 4.  in the Conference of Poissy. Nay though a Presbyter deposed by their Synod, should take upon him to ordain; I still appeal to the Ministers of those Churches, whether they would account the Orders valid. If we therefore do judge such Ordinations here, to be nullities, because administered by subordinate Officers, against the Laws of the Church, in opposition to their superiors, and against the practice and discipline of the Primitive Christians; we cannot be thought singular in this judgement: since all ancient Churches would have done the same thing, and all the Protestant Churches in Europe, in the like case, would follow our example. It is in vain to cite Jerom and Chrysostom, to lessen the difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, because both may do almost all the same things. Yet is Ordination still excepted, and accounted the peculiar prerogative of the Bishop. And though in some Churches, Presbyters did assist the Bishop in ordaining Presbyters, which is likewise the practice of our Church; yet is there no instance of their ordaining without a Bishop.   
FINIS.   

Books Printed for James Adamson.  
I. VIta Reginaldi Poli, Cardinalis ac Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi; & Acta Disceptationis inter Legatos Angliae & Galliae in Concilio Constantiensi, de utriusque Gentis Dignitate & Praerogativa; in Conciliorum Tomis desiderata. Libri Rarissimi, olim quidem Editi, sed paucis noti, ac nullis facile obvii. Octavo.  
II. Pauli Colomesii Observationes sacrae, Editio secunda, auctior & emendatior; accedunt ejusdem Paralipomena, de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, & Passio sancti Victoris Massiliensis, ab eodem emendata: Editio quarta & ultima longe auctior & emendatior. Octavo.  
III. The Travels of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant. In three parts, viz. 1. Into Turkey, 2. Persia, 3. The East-Indies. In Folio.  
IV. Mr. Chillingworth's Book, called [The Religion of Protestants, a safe way to Salvation] made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contests, but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants, or defends the Church of England, with an exact Table of Contents; and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's never before printed, viz. against the Infallibility of the Roman Church, Transubstantiation, Tradition, etc. And an Account of what moved the Author to turn Papist, with his Confutation of the said Motives. In Quarto.  
V A Treatise of the Celibacy of the Clergy, wherein its Rise and Progress are Historically considered. Quarto.  
VI A Treatise proving Scripture to be the Rule of Faith; writ by Reginald Peacock, Bishop of Chichester, before the Reformation, about the Year 1450.  
VII. Doubts concerning the Roman Infallibility. 1. Whether the Church of Rome believe it. 2. Whether Jesus Christ or his Apostles ever Recommended it. 3. Whether the Primitive Church knew, or used that way of deciding Controversies.  
VIII. A brief Historical Account of the Behaviour of the Jesuits and their Faction, for the first twenty five Years of Queen Elizabeth's Reign; with an Epistle of W. Watson a Secular Priest; showing how they were thought of by other Romanists of that time. Quarto.  
IX. A brief Examination of the present Roman Catholic Faith, contained in Pope Pius his new Creed, by the Scriptures, Ancient Fathers, and their own Modern Writers. In Quarto.