concerning the Reasons of Nonconformity mentioned in Mr. Baxter's Letter § 5. Contents of Letter II. Introduction § 1. Quest 1. Whether the Bishop be bound to discharge his whole duty in his own person Or Whether he may not take in the assistances of others That he may granted by Mr. Baxter Quest 2. waved by me § 2. Mr. Baxter's reasons do as solidly disprove a possibility of Secular Discipline under a Secular Monarch of a Precinct as large as a Diocese as of Diocesan Discipline § 3. Secular Monarchs as well responsible for the miscarriage of particular Subjects as Bishops and their charge is as great The Persons Crimes and Laws belonging to the care of the Secular Governour more numerous than they which belong to the Ecclesiastical § 4 5. So are the necessities to be provided for by the Secular Governour § 6 7 8. An Objection prevented § 9. Mr. Baxter's first answer refuted The Government of a Diocese may be administred without any more than three Orders § 10. The Church may for prudential reasons constitute new Officers though not Orders § 11. Mr. Baxter's second answer refuted Personal Capacity as requisite in a Prince as in a Bishop § 12. An Objection prevented § 13. Mr. Baxter's third fourth and fifth answers refuted § 14 15. His sixth answer rejected § 16. What I mean when I make the decretory power of Government proper to the Supreme and the Executive onely to be communicated to inferiour Governours § 17. The decretory power of Government does not necessarily include personal or particular Exploration § 18 19. His seventh answer considered Good men need Government as well as others Their mistakes more dangerous to Government than the mistakes of others § 20. Mr. Baxter's Objection in favour of me His first answer refuted § 21. His second answer refuted Declaration is no act of power § 22. The unbecomingness of Doctrines so disparaging to Ecclesiastical Authority to Mr. Baxter as a Curer of Church-divisions § 23. The first Reformers at length sensible of the necessity of Church Authority to Peace and Discipline § 24. Mr. Baxter's uncandid character of a Prelatick Christian § 25. The use of external coercion in Religion is not to make men onely dissemblers § 26 27 28. No Discipline to be expected without a coercive power somewhere § 29. The liberty desired by Mr. Baxter inconsistent with the Principles of the Ignatian Episcopacy so much recommended by himself on other occasions § 30. Inconsistent with the discipline of the Church described by Tertullian and Firmilian § 31. Inconsistent with that of S. Cyprian No reason why Mr. Baxter should desire to disown them from being parts of his Cure who do not observe Rules of Discipline § 32. My second Argument for the Possibility of Diocesan Discipline from the actual experience of former times § 33. The notion of a Church for no more than are capable of personal inspection of a single Presbyter not proved to be of Divine Institution from Acts 14. 23. § 34 35. His second and third answer refuted The distribution of particular Cures to particular Presbyters from whence it comes to pass that one Diocese includes many such Societies as are fitted for personal Communion is more convenient than their governing the same multitudes in common Very probably as ancient as they had settled places of Meeting How ancient in the Churches of Rome and Alexandria § 36. How vigorous notwithstanding discipline was at that very time at Alexandria § 37. His fourth answer refuted § 38. His fifth answer refuted § 39. His sixth answer refuted § 40. His seventh answer refuted The ancient Cities of the Roman Empire that had single Bishops more generally as great and populous as now § 41 42. The Ecclesiastical Government of those Cities proportioned to the Civil § 43. Whether our Diocesan Office be a driving men to sin § 44 45 46. His eighth answer refuted Great Cities then had great numbers of Christians Instanced in the Churches of Hierusalem Samaria Antioch Antiochia Pisidiae Thessalonica Beroea Ephesus § 47. These were Churches in all likelyhood designed by the Apostles themselves as precedents for others The multitudes of Christians every where in the Roman Empire in the time of Tertullian § 48. Instances of other Churches very numerous besides Rome and Alexandria Neocaesarea Carthage The passage of S. Cyprian concerning his Contribution explained § 49 50. The ancient numerousness of Christians proved from Pliny § 51. The possibility of their meeting in the same Assemblies § 52. Several ways how greater numbers might communicate from the same Altar than could ordinarily meet in the same Assemblies § 53. S. Patrick's Dioceses not equivalent to our modern Parishes § 54. My Argument from the numerousness of the Church of Rome in the time of Cornelius His answers refuted § 55. His endeavours to give an account how the Clergie then might have been numerous though their People had been few § 56. His first five answered § 57. His sixth § 58. His seventh § 59. His eighth § 60. His ninth § 61. His tenth § 62. No Instance of Mr. Baxter's notion of a Church of a Society under the Cure of one single Priest but onely in those two Churches of Rome and Alexandria so much disowned in this very matter by himself § 63. Ulphilas Bishop of the whole Nation of the Goths Whether an Arrian § 64. Frumentius Bishop of the Indians and Moses of the Arabians The Christians of both more numerous than our single Parishes § 65. His first answer refuted § 66. His second answer refuted § 67. A Conclusory Exhortation § 68. Contents of Letter III. Reasons of delaying this Answer § 1. Endeavours to prevent his displeasure § 2. Advices then against some Intimations of his of publishing our Letters § 3. My unwillingness to differ from him in any thing tolerable § 4. The Charge of SCHISM briefly stated against them § 5. A pathetical Application of all that had been said to Mr. Baxter § 6. ERRATA PAge 4. Line 9. after Baxter read has p. 12. l. ult dele Parenthesin p. 14. l. 27. tell p. 16. l 9. dele rather p. 17. l. 7. actual p. 42. marg Separat proved Schismat p. 59. l. 28. dele the note of Interrogation p. 60. l. 24. whither r. why then l. 26. officers marg Proleg p. 67. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 76. l. 4. were p. 86. at the last Break I onely note Sect. XXXII p. 100. l. 27. difformity p. 102. l. 9. dele are touched p. 103. l. 11. prophaneness l. 18. l. 23. after Presbyters a Colon. p. 108. l. 6. knew p. 130. l. 9. kind Whole p. 145. l. 18 19. blot out of the Text Dr. Stilling fleet 's and put in the margin Dr. Stilling fleet 's Irenic p. 179. l. 17. either is actually p. 187. l. ult change the Parenthesis into a Comma p. 199. l. 9. believe it p. 201. l. 6. strangness p. 202. l. 16.
16. What I mean when I make the decretory power of Government proper to the Supreme and the executive onely to be communicated to inferiour Governours § 17. The decretory power of Government does not necessarily include personal or particular Exploration § 18 19. His seventh answer considered Good men need Government as well as others Their mistakes more dangerous to Government than the mistakes of others § 20. Mr. Baxter's Objection in favour of me His first answer refuted § 21. His second answer refuted Declaration is no act of power § 22. The unbecomingness of Doctrines so disparaging to Ecclesiastical Authority to Mr. Baxter as a Curer of Church-divisions § 23. The first Reformers at length sensible of the necessity of Church Authority to Peace and Discipline § 24. Mr. Baxter's uncandid character of a Prelatick Christian § 25. The use of external coercion in Religion is not to make men onely dissemblers § 26 27 28. No Discipline to be expected without a coercive power somewhere § 29. The liberty desired by Mr. Baxter inconsistent with the principles of the Ignatian Episcopacy so much recommended by himself on other occasions § 30. Inconsistent with the Discipline of the Church described by Tertullian and Firmilian § 31. Inconsistent with that of S. Cyprian No reason why Mr. Baxter should desire to disown them from being parts of his Cure who do not observe Rules of Discipline § 32. My second Argument for the Possibility of Diocesan Discipline from the actual experience of former times § 33. The notion of a Church for no more than are capable of the personal inspection of a single Presbyter not proved to be of Divine Institution from Acts 14. 23. § 34 35. His second and third answer refuted The distribution of particular Cures to particular Presbyters from whence it comes to pass that one Diocese includes many such Societies as are fitted for personal Communion is more convenient than their governing the same multitudes in common Very probably as ancient as they had settled places of Meeting How ancient in the Churches of Rome and Alexandria § 36. How vigorous notwithstanding Discipline was at that very time at Alexandria § 37. His fourth answer refuted § 38. His fifth answer refuted § 39. His sixth answer refuted § 40. His seventh answer refuted The ancient Cities of the Roman Empire that had single Bishops were generally as great and populous as now § 41 42. The Ecclesiastical Government of those Cities proportioned to the Civil § 43. Whether our Diocesans Office be a driving men to sin § 44 45 46. His eighth answer refuted Great Cities then had great numbers of Christians Instanced in the Churches of Hierusalem Samaria Antioch Antiochia Pisidiae Thessalonica Beroea Ephesus § 47. These were Churches in all likelyhood designed by the Apostles themselves as precedents for others The multitudes of Christians every where in the Roman Empire in the time of Tertullian § 48. Instances of other Churches very numerous besides Rome and Alexandria Neocaesarea Carthage The passage of S. Cyprian concerning his Contribution explained § 49 50. The ancient numerousness of Christians proved from Pliny § 51. The possibility of their meeting in the same Assemblies § 52. Several ways how greater numbers might communicate from the same Altar than could ordinarily meet in the same Assemblies § 53. S. Patrick's Dioceses not equivalent to our modern Parishes § 54. My Argument from the numerousness of the Church of Rome in the time of Cornelius His answers refuted § 55. His endeavours to give an account how the Clergie then might have been numerous though their people had been few § 56. His first five answered § 57. His sixth § 58. His seventh § 59. His eighth § 60. His ninth § 61. His tenth § 62. No Instance of Mr. Baxter's notion of a Church of a Society under the Cure of one single Priest but onely in those two Churches of Rome and Alexandria so much disowned in this very matter by himself § 63. Ulphilas Bishop of the whole Nation of the Goths Whether an Arrian § 64. Frumentius Bishop of the Indians and Moses of the Arabians The Christians of both more numerous than our single Parishes § 65. His first answer refuted § 56. His second answer refuted § 67. A Conclusory Exhortation § 68. Reverend Sir § I AS I have before expressed my sorrow for dealing in such a Controversie that divides Communion with a person of your piety and candour and from whom I am so unwilling to differ upon any tolerable terms so I am withall glad that we can still maintain an unpassionate way of debating it which for my part I conceive not onely most Christian but most useful and succesful It is onely with this design that I am willing to continue it wherein I hope you will not be displeased at me for venturing on that Liberty your self are pleased to take and which I hope through Gods gracious assistance I shall never abuse For my meaning is as much as is possible to abstain from all things personal and to insist onely on the way proposed by S. Augustine to Maximinus Ut res cum re causa cum causa ratio cum ratione decertet And here it selfe I shall endeavour to avoid the multitude of unnecessary controversâ—es that we may be more accurate in the discussion of such as shall remain § II THE principal controversie of your Letter is concerning the possibility of reviving Ecclesiastical Discipline under a Diocesan Episcopacy Where I am glad to find that the Dispute seems rather derived from your forgetfulness of your own Concessions and mine than any real difference of our Opinions when clearly and candidly explained For I can perceive onely two things questioned betwixt us through your Letter 1. Whether the Bishop be obliged in his own person to a particular care of all the Souls contained within his Jurisdiction or whether he may not assume Assistents and Coadjutors dependent on himself over whom he is to exercise the Office of a Bishop that is an Overseer not to take the whole burden on himself but to oblige them to the performance of their duty and to punish their Delinquencies 2. Whether supposing this Delegation lawful Lay-Chancellors be fit to be entrusted with it The former you seem to have yielded when you say If this had been all our Dispute whether a Patriarch or Archbishop can rule 1000 Churches by 1000 inferiour Bishops or Church-rulers I had said something Which is indeed the onely thing asserted by me in my Proofs and the very Case in practice no Bishop undertaking the particular Cure of a whole Diocese without the assistance of his particular respective Parochians When therefore you ask Whether it follows that our Church-Monarch can oversee all himself without any Suboverseers or rule them by Gods Word on the conscience without any Subrulers Sure you cannot mean that this is the Practice of our Diocesans And if your design be to assert that every
this Bishop was come he has an Episcopal Seâ— provided for him so Bede most expresly Veniente igitur ad se EPISCOPO Rex lâ—cum Sedis EPISCOPALIS in Insula Lindisfarnensi ubi ipse petebat tribuit Again Monachus ipse EPISCOPUS Aidanus He elsewhere tells us the very time when he was made Bishop accepto gradu EPISCOPATUS quo tempore eidem Monasterio Segenius Abbas Presbyter praefecit Where the Saxon also gives him the Title of Bishop though it omits the particularizing of the time when he received it He therefore also gives an account of the reason why his Monastery pitch'd on him particularly as a person fit for that Imployment He tells us that thereupon they judged him dignum Episcopatu that accordingly illum Ordinantes ad praedicandum miserunt Again he is called Reverendissimus Antistes Biscop in the Saxon and praefatus Episcopus The same Title is very frequently given him cap. 14 15 16 17. l. 4. 23 27. l. 5. 23. so frequently as that I do not know whether it be worth while to transcribe each particular Instance and the Time of his Bishoprick distinctly noted So also in his Epitome at the Year DCLI Aidanus Episcopus defunctus est So extremely little occasion he had of even mistaking in this matter from Bede himself Nor could he have much greater from those others to whom he refers us who must have taken what they had from Bede if they had any Authority The Saxon Chronicon transcribes the very words of Bede's Epitome and at the same Year The like Agreement there is in those who took from him at a greater distance Turgotus Simeon Dunelmensis Malmesburiensis Huntington c. if any be yet further curious Nor is Bede and his Transcribers less clear in the case of Finan Bede is most express Immediately after the death of Aidan he subjoyns Successit verò ei in Episcopatum Finan ipse illo ab Hii Scotorum insulâ ac Monasterio destinatus ac tempore non pauco in EPISCOPATU permansit Concerning the Baptism of Peada Son of Pendan King of the Middle Angles and the Mercians Baptizatus est ergo à Finano Episcopo Duma also mentioned by Mr. Baxter was sent as Bishop of that new Colony of Christians ordinatus à Finano EPISCOPO Sigbercht King of the East Saxons was baptized by the same Finan Baptizatus est à Finano EPISCOPO And when Cedd a holy person was invited by Sigbercht for the Conversion of his People he took occasion to make a visit at Lindisfarn the Seat of the Northumbrian Bishops propter colloquium Finani EPISCOPI where he was made Bishop by Finan vocatis ad se in Ministerium Ordinationis aliis duobus EPISCOPIS Qui accepto gradu Episcopatûs rediit ad provinciam majore autoritate coeptum opus explens fecit per loca Ecclesias Presbyteros Diaconos ordinavit c. We see here how punctual Observers of the Canons these Scotish Bishops were notwithstanding our Adversaries would fain persuade us that themselves were ordained by Presbyters because the Monks of the Isle of Hii though Bishops were subject to their Abbot though onely a Presbyter as to the Rules of their Monastick Discipline for the sake of their first Founder Columba who never exceeded the Order of Presbyter But Mr. Baxter would do well to let us know what use they could have had of Bishops at all if it were not to perform some office for which no Superiority of their Presbyter Abbot in the Monastery could qualifie them without Bishops And what either then or ever was taken for so unseparable a Right of Episcopacy as Ordination If therefore they were willing their Presbyter Abbot should for the sake of Columba have all the Honour of which a Presbyter was capable and yet thought it necessary to have Bishops also for their Ordinations is not this a plain Conviction that they thought this Office of Ordination not performable by single Presbyters And how had it been an unusual Order as Bede expresly says it was that Presbyters if such onely had been meant by the name of Bishops should have been subject to the Abbot who was also a Presbyter But to fancy that the Offices of Bishops and Presbyters were confounded in those later Ages of which we are discoursing whatever they were in the Apostles is indeed a fancy so extravagant as Mr. Baxter could hardly have been guilty of if he had been either so ingenuous or skilful in Church History as he would fain persuade us But so far were those ancient Scots from invading this Right of Episcopacy that as to Ordination they strictly observed even our present Canons Three Bishops were at the Consecration of a Bishop who when he was thus consecrated and not before had that greater Authority of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons which it hence appears was not allowed to any under Bishops But to return from whence I have digressed Finan and Aidan are both of them expresly said again to have been Bishops and not onely so but the Cathedral Church of Finan is mentioned again by Bede Interim Aidano EPISCOPO de hac vita sublato Finan pro illo gradum EPISCOPATUS à Scotis ordinatus ac missus acceperat qui in insula Landisfarnensi fecit Ecclesiam EPISCOPALI Sedi congruam Again concerning the Dispute between Wilfred and Coleman Facta est autem haec quaestio Anno Dominicae Incarnationis DCLXIV qui fuit annus Oswi Regis XII EPISCOPATUS autem Scotorum quem gesserunt in provincia Anglorum annus XXX siquidem Aidanus XVII annis Finan X Coleman III EPISCOPATUM tenuere Yet after all it is very well known that our English Succession even in the Kingdom of Northumberland was not derived down to us from Coleman the last of those Scotish Bishops but from Wilfrede a Saxon who succeeded him I wish he would not write such things of such consequence and so often with such confidence without once consulting his Authors As for his other Authors he would oblige us to tell us who they are that could know any thing concerning those times but what they must have from Bede as well as we § XI The other particular is that which does indeed look most like reasoning and principles of any thing that is said by him in his whole Book And I shall endeavour to shew him all the fair dealing I can in representing what he says to the best advantage The Summ therefore of what he says seems most conveniently reducible to these Propositions 1. That the power of the Ministry is grounded on the gifts and qualifications of the person immediately so that whoever has those gifts and qualifications has thereby an essential right to the power and he that bestows those gifts does thereby bestow the power and they who cannot bestow them cannot consequently dispose of the power 2. That God alone has the disposal of these
I believe you cannot produce a precedent of that age where the word is taken for the other Clergie so that there are onely two other Senses that I can think of reducible to this purpose either for the Laity and that your self I believe will not think intelligible here that the power of remitting sins by Baptism or otherwise does agree to them or for the complex of both the Laity and the Body of the Clergie in contradistinction to the Bishop And to this his proof of the power of remitting sins given to the Apostles being also given to the Church in this contradistinct sense must have been impertinently urged from its being given to the Apostles seeing that the Church in the Apostles time must have been as contradistinct from the Apostles as the later Churches from their respective Bishops By the word Churches therefore are onely meant Orthodox Societies including Bishops as well as other members whence it will follow that the Church is onely therefore said to have this power because the Bishops have it and therefore that no Ecclesiastical Member can have it independently on them 3. Therefore that by the word Bishops to whom this power of remitting sins is given to which all other Ecclesiastical Power is consequent Presbyters are not included will appear probable if you consider 1. That though the word Presbyter and Sacerdos be attributed to Bishops properly so called yet at least in that age I believe you will hardly find that a simple Presbyter is called Episcopus Blondell himself I think will not furnish you with an Instance And 2. That these Bishops are such as are called Successors of the Apostles And that by these Successors of the Apostles single persons are understood in the language of that age appears in that when they prove Succession from the Apostles they do it by catalogues of single persons as those in Irenaeus Tertullian c. and that Bishops in the confined sense are so frequently said to be Successors of the Apostles which is not said of simple Presbyters See S. Cyprian ep 42 65 69. and the Author de Aleatoribus with many others usually produced in the Disputes concerning Episcopacy AND then for the sense of S. Cyprian he was as resolute in vindicating his own right as condescending in his practice He it is that asserts the unaccountableness of the Episcopal Office to any under God that makes the Church in the Bishop as well as the Bishop in the Church that charges the contempt of the Bishop as the original of all Schism and Heresie and parallels it with the Sin of Corah Dathan and Abiram that spares not even Presbyters themselves when presuming to act without his order but puts them in mind of his being their Superiour and charges them with rebellion when they took that liberty you desire of acting arbitrarily and independently Instances of all these kinds might have been produced if I were not afraid of being too tedeous These things may at present suffice to shew that the liberty you desire of admitting or rejecting whom you please from your own flock is not more unreasonable than dissonant from the practice of those Ages for which you profess a reverence Nor do I understand your design in the use of that liberty you desire If it be that you would have those whom you think unworthy of your flock excluded from your cure that is as improper as if a Physician should desire to be excused from visiting those who are most dangerously though not desperately sick Certainly the contrary would rather follow that as they need most so they should have most of your care It is our Saviours own saying that the whole need not a physician but the sick that is at least not comparatively and generally his greatest pains and favours were extended to those who had least deserved them Nor is their unwillingness to deal with you in affairs of this nature a sufficient reason to exempt them from your Cure for this unwillingness it self is a most considerable ingredient in their distemper and that which makes them most truly pitiable and it would be as great a piece of inhumanity for the spiritual as the corporal Physician to desert them on that pretence I am sure very different from the behaviour of Christ and his Apostles who found the World generally as much prejudiced against and unwilling to hear them concerning affairs of that nature as you can with any probability presume concerning a Christian Auditory If your meaning be not to be excused from the use of all other good means for their recovery but onely from admitting them to the blessed Sacrament which ought to be the privilege of such as are already deserving I pray consider 1. Whether though you deny them to be Christians yet their very Baptism and exterior profession of Christianity be not at least sufficient to entitle them to exterior privileges if on their own peril they will venture on them and that Sacramental privileges are but exteriour They are invited to the marriage feast and none may exclude them if they come though it is at their own hazard if they presume to do so without the marriage garment And 2. That this does at least hold till they be convicted and censured by their due Superiour and you know it is questioned whether you as a private Presbyter ought to have that power But 3. That you have a power of suspending refractory persons till you acquaint the Bishop and with him you have that power of convincing and persuading which seems as much as your self desire so that even upon this account you have no reason to complain MY second Argument was from experience even in Ecclesiasticals to which you answer that It 's hard then to know any thing and that you dispute all this while as if the question were Whether men in England speak English that therefore if you herein erre you profess your self incurable and allow me to despair of you If I had disputed from present experience in England I should have confessed your Answer proper that I had endeavour'd to conquer your sense and experience as you elsewhere express it But I wonder how you could understand me so considering that our present want of discipline was the reason of my desire of its revival whence you took the occasion of these Disputes My meaning was that in the primitive times when Bishops were indeed laborious and conscientious and were willing and desirous to do what they could do experience shewed that discipline was actually maintained under such a Diocesan Government and therefore I concluded that the multitude of persons governed was not the reason of our present neglects And what is it that is scrupled in this Discourse or need put you to those unequal resolutions of being uncurable Is it whether the number of Christians in Dioceses were equal then with what we have now This was proved in my former Letter Or that the
prove that it was an Injunction of an immutable and eternally-obliging nature as it is clear that some that of abstaining from bloud Acts 15. was not For if they be not you ought not to urge them to the prejudice of superinduced Constitutions But lastly all that you can hence pretend for your purpose is onely that the having onely one Bishop in the appropriated sense in a Diocese was not conformable to the sense of the Apostles But it does not thence follow that discipline is not maintainable under such a Government which was the onely thing for whose proof I produced it You answer 2. That a particular Church was a Society of neighbour Christians convened in personal communion for Gods worship I confess personal communion was generally practised with the Bishop but I have proved it to be of whole Cities and such great Assemblies as could not be served by a single person without the assistance of a Presbytery which the Bishop had for his help and therefore could not be Parochial in the sense of the word now commonly used If you thinke otherwise when you prove it I may then and not till then be concerned to think of a further Answer YOU answer 3. That for 250 years you think I cannot prove that any one Bishop in the world save at Alexandria and Rome had more such congregations and altars than one nor there for a long time after the Apostles nor in many Churches for some hundred years longer The is the same mistake as before to think them answerable to our Parishes who did then all communicate at one altar whereas indeed the fame circuit and number of Inhabitants who had first been governed by the Bishop and his Presbytery in common no particular Presbyter having nay proper portion assigned him but by the provisional commands of the Bishop was afterwards distributed into parts proportionable to the number of the Presbytery that so every one might know his own work And I pray what essential difference is there betwixt the same Presbyteries as acting in common as they did at first with the Bishop and distributed into several divisions as they are now unless it be that this later is more convenient And if the Bishop was major universis when they acted in conjunction with him why must he be minor singulis or at least aequalis when dispersed to their several distinct Imployments If all of them when united might not attempt any thing without his consent and privity why must each of them be allowed that liberty when deprived of their united forces And if discipline was maintainable by them when by acting in common they were more remote from particular exploration why should it not be much more so when none is invited to be negligent by trusting to another as men are apt to do in cases of common concernment and when each of them has a task proportionable to his own abilities But 2. Suppose that this subdivision of the Diocese into Parishes which is all that you can pretend to have been attempted at Rome and Alexandria for by this means it fell out by accident that there were several altars under the Jurisdiction of the same Bishop had not answered the primitive example nay had been a culpable not a lawful prudential Innovation yet will you say that discipline was not maintained when it was actually however upon other accounts culpably introduced If you grant it was that is sufficient for my purpose to shew that the experience of those times has evinced the possibility of discipline under a Diocesan Government and therefore that it is practicable even now if men would but endeavour it If you say it was not you must then charge the most celebrated Churches in the purest earliest Ages with want of discipline For in Rome the first division into Titles answerable to our Parishes is attributed to Pope Euaristus who came into his See Anno Dom. 112. by the Author de Vit. Pontif. commonly ascribed to Damasus For afterwards in the two Epistles of Pius which are of better repute with Blondell than the others that bear his Name to Justus Viennens we find mention of two Titles then newly established by Euprepia and the Pastor so that I think this division there if we may trust these Authors for it and if we may not you will have no ground of charging the Romans of those Ages with plurality of Altars more than in other places will appear to have been as soon as they had any settled places to meet in For before that their meetings seem to have been ambulatory and uncertain sometimes in the Temple sometimes in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes in secret places particularly in the Coemeteria for of some of these may the passages of 1 Cor. 11. and the ancient Author of Philopatris in Trajan's time who bears the name of Lucian be understood and then it was not so convenient to subdivide into Parishes when there were not any settled places peculiarly designed and convenient for Parochial Assemblies Upon which account there will be no reason that the necessitous examples of the former Age should prejudge against the prudence and conveniences of this But the Titles mentioned by Pius as left by Legacy seem to have been perpetually alienated to the use of the Church and therefore fitter for this purpose Which if it be supposed then the antiquity of divers Altars in the same Diocese will be equal with Churches and Parishes which you do not condemn and as ancient as they could be with any tolerable convenience and you cannot blame them for being no sooner And sure you will not deny that even then and a long while after discipline was maintained among the Romanists themselves If you do you must contradict all the histories of that Age which mention the Martyrdoms of their Bishops of those Ages together with very many of their other Clergy and Laity for several Successions and the great Elogies of Tertullian and S. Cyprian and the confident Appeals to the Roman Church as well as others for the Assertion on of Apostolical Tradition used frequently by the Fathers against the Hereticks whereas a sensible decay in discipline would have weakened their credit even in Doctrinals And for the other Instance of Alexandria the first mention that we find of a subdivision there is in the time of Arius who is said to have been Presbyter of a Church called Baucalis upon which occasion Epiphanius tells us That the Churches of the Catholick Communion in Alexandria under the Jurisdiction of the same Archbishop had their particular Presbyters assigned them for the Ecclesiastical necessities of the Inhabitants which divisions were by the Alexandrians according to the custom of their Country called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is not mentioned as an Innovation in or near his time and therefore is in all probability to be presumed much more ancient And if the custom of the eldest
mean it as I doubt you do that they are Servants coequal among themselves that is clearly against the whole current of Ignatius his Epistles and against the supposition of their being distinct Orders and I believe against your own opinion concerning Priests and Deacons whom I think you will not say to be thus coequal But for what you add further as if you had it out of the same Ignatius though indeed you have not scored it as you did the former part That in this one Church the Bishop must enquire all by name even Servant Men and Maids and see that they absented not themselves from the Church whence you ask Why is not Ignatius confuted if he erred and refer me to Mr. Mede on the point I am confident that you will find no such thing in Ignatius or Mr. Mede that will need confuting For this inquiry by name need not have been performed by personal visitation of them but by Schedules delivered to him by his subordinate Clergie which if any of our Bishops would do I should be so far from offering to confute as that I should highly honour and reverence him for it BUT you say 5. That Alexandria and Rome by not multiplying Bishops as Churches or Converts needed it began the great sin and calamity which hath undone us and therefore are not to be our patern If you mean by Bishops your Parish Ministers as you seem to do who must have no greater charge than one particular person unassisted with a Presbytery may give a particular account of then sure you cannot but know that as they are by you thought singular in introducing this distinction of Altars in the same City so they must have been so in multiplying such a kind of Bishops that might attend them at least in more accurately proportioning them to the multitudes of Churches and Converts But if you mean a multitude of Parish Priests whom you would fain call Bishops independent on a principal President then it would concern you to prove 1. That Alexandria and Rome were herein singular which you will find impossible to be done And 2. That their guilt herein was not onely an occasion for occasions of evil cannot be proved evil and so unfit for being paterns but natural causes of that grand sin and calamity you so lament YOU answer or rather argue 6. That were Bishops necessarily to be distributed by Cities the Empires that have few or no Cities must have few or no Bishops and an Emperour might aliud agendo depose all the Bishops by disfranchising the Cities This does not shew the impossibility of a Bishops maintaining discipline in a City that is great and populous which is indeed our question but onely the inconvenience of scrupulously multiplying Bishops according to the multitude of Cities And that as it is not to our purpose so I know no Adversary you have in it For there are no humane Establishments whatsoever that can fit all circumstances yet are not such possible inconvenient cases thought sufficient to abrogate them though known and foreseen And therefore it were not in prudence a sufficient reason for the Church to alter her general rule of multiplying Bishops by Cities because the cases mentioned by you are but rare and improbable which kind are not taken notice of by humane Legislators They are rare for where will you find that Empire that hath few or no Cities at least in those civilized parts of the world they were then acquainted with They are improbable for the administration of justice among Subjects and the encouragement of traffick which are the Governours Interests do require such Privileges to be given to places not too distant from each other But if the inconveniences were greater than indeed they are and sufficient to persuade a deviation from such a general rule in such cases Yet 1. The Church never acknowledged any unalterable divine obligation to observe it but has always reserved a power to her self of deviating in such cases of which she might be satisfied that they were sufficiently momentous And 2. She has in such cases actually taken the liberty of exerting her own power as in those Nations which had but one Bishop though many Cities of which instances were already given and in those places where Cities too numerous and too little frequented against which she has made those express Canons that Bishops should not be placed over them nè vilesceret nomen Episcopi which those of your Persuasion do so often take notice of with offence BUT 7. You say Every Corporation Oppidum like our Market Towns was then truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if we will procure every such City with us to have a Bishop and the office of such Bishops to be to drive men from sin and not to it and to silence Blasphemers not faithful Preachers of the Gospel all our Controversies of Prelacy are then at an end But I fear though you had your desire that in analogy to Cities Bishops should be multiplied according to the number of Cities which Rule you lately seemed to dislike and that every Market Town should be accounted a City as you conceive it to have been practised among the Ancients and that Bishops discharged their duty as you have described it yet you would hardly suffer our Controversies to end so especially if you acted consequently to your own Principles For you know by the same rule that small Cities as you have described them must have distinct Bishops the greatest that are London it self for example must have but one together with the Villages about it and I doubt that would be found to be a charge as disproportionable to the abilities of a single man as some of our Country Dioceses especially here in Ireland Nay by Captain Grants Calculation London bears a greater proportion to all England than any single Diocese which is onely the 25th part Now according to your Principles our Communion quâ Diocesan that is if I understand you as exceeding the abilities of a single man is not to be embraced Therefore even in this case you must refuse to communicate with the Church of London And considering that in communicating with a particular you do communicate with all with whom that particular Church holds Communion for Communion with a particular Church is no where understood as a profession of union with her alone but also with all such whom she accounts orthodox members of the Catholick Church you must by the same sequel conceive your self obliged to decline the Communion of all particular Churches communicating with London Unless therefore you suppose a Schism of all other Churches from her you must make one from them and so be in the same condition wherein you are at present I confess you do not act consequently to this later Principle whilest you refuse not our Parish Communion which communicates with our Diocesan quà Diocesan and so I had much rather decline
casually taken up in the Church of Rome but upon some such designed account may very probably be conjectured because we find it observed in S. Laurence his time who being Archdeacon of Rome is called Primus è septem viris qui stant ad aram proximi c. by Prudentius And you will accordingly find constantly in the Author of the Pontifical the number of Deacons ordained by every Bishop of Rome to be less than of Presbyters and this comparative paucity of Deacons in respect of Presbyters was accounted by S. Hierom an occasion of the Deacons presumption in his Epist 85. ad Euagr. And if the form of Christs appearing in the Revelations be taken from the Bishops sitting in the Church as if I be not mistaken the most learned and judicious Mr. Thorndike thinks it is then as the 24 Elders may allude to the Christian Presbyteries derived from the lesser Sanhedrims of the Jews consisting of 24 so the seven ministring Spirits may in conformity to the septenary number of Angels so famous among the Jews as Mr. Mede proves professedly which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Apostle Heb. 1. allude to the septenary number of Deacons which were always attending on the Bishop in a readiness to execute his commands as the Angels are supposed by the Jews to do on God himself Nor need you wonder that so small a number of Deacons might be conceived sufficient to answer so great a proportion of Presbyters considering that their special Office was to distribute the Alms of the Church to such as were maintained on publick charity and to attend more immediately on the Bishops person as ordinary Executioners of his commands For I believe you will never find that they performed any service to Presbyters acting separately from their Bishop And certainly for distribution of Alms and personal attendance on the Bishop as small a number as seven might be sufficient in a great City 6. You say That many then were Presbyters that used not to preach but for privater oversight and as the Bishops Assessors This though for my part I conceive it very true seems strange to me to proceed from a person of your principles who usually teach publick preaching in Ecclesiastical Assemblies to be the indispensible duty of every particular Gospel Minister by which name they include if they do not onely mean Priests But supposing it true as I believe it was that there were several Priests who did not preach yet will not this diminish the multitude of Parishes as you seem to conceive For I believe you cannot prove that publick preaching was then accounted an ordinary parochial imployment And though it were not yet there were others equivalent sufficient to take up the time and pains bestowed on it now with equal edification such were visiting communicating exhorting persuading resolving cases of conscience and satisfying themselves concerning the lives of penitents for discerning who were fit or unfit for their communion all those Offices which were performed out of their publick Synaxes and all that were performed in them besides preaching that is their ordinary prayers their hymni antelucani their reading of the Scriptures their catechizings their general Exhortations pro re nata not designed and solemn their collections and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that though there had not been so many Preachers in our modern notion of the word yet there might have been as many Parochial Priests as Titles or Parishes 7. YOU say That the poorer sort most commonly received the Gospel If your meaning herein be to conclude that the 1500 poor were the most considerable part of Believers that you might conclude the whole number of Converts to have been small you should have remembered what poor they were such as were maintained on the publick charity that is such as were not onely poor but impotent unable to get their livings otherwise And sure you cannot but think that the multitude of other Believers upon whose charity they were maintained especially if poor themselves though able to earn a livelyhood as you seem to suppose must have been great especially considering the other expenses of their charity on the Clergie on the Martyrs and Confessors on their hospitality to strangers c. all which may be sufficient presumptions that these 1500 poor did not in any probability bear any considerable proportion to the multitudes of the Roman Church by whom they were maintained And I believe in few Cities in our Kings Dominions if any will be found so great a number of poor who by reason of impotency are thought by the Magistrates fit objects of the publick charity even in these our Ages wherein all are supposed Professors of Christianity 8. You say That none of these but the 46 Presbyters had any power in the discipline If you mean a decretory power in the sense I have explained it then I think I have proved that the 45 Presbyters themselves had it not but the Bishop alone But you can thence no more conclude the paucity of Believers in one of the Dioceses of those times than in any one of ours now when it is plain that the Bishop himself has monopolized it as your self complain But if you mean an executive or even a consultory power of giving consent or advice in affairs of discipline to be decreed by the Bishop that was so far from being confined to the Presbyters as that it was communicated to the Deacons nay to the common people themselves This might easily have been cleared from Cornelius his Contemporary S. Cyprian from whom we have the clearest account of the discipline of that Age if I had not been unwilling to be more tedeous than needs I must and because upon reflection I believe your self will acknowledge it and because it is usually undertaken by Presbyterian but especially Independent Authors Indeed there were some privileges of the Presbyters that they onely sate in the Bishops presence as S. Hierom tells us besides other distinctions in Synaxes But it is sufficient for my purpose that the execution of discipline which is the main thing which necessarily requires plurality was managed by all and that for counsel here was a number exceeding the Councils of several Princes of Dominions larger than any Dioceses But 9. You say That by all this reckoning the whole Church maintained not besides the Officers near 1000 poor we may probably conjecture that the whole Church of that Bish was not bigger than some one London Parish Stepney S. Giles Cripplegate where are about 50000 Souls But 1. You are mistaken in your account For 1. The number of the poor besides the Officers were not near 1000 onely but 1500 for the Officers are not included in that number as you suppose 2. That number of poor maintained on the publick charity does imply a greater number than you suppose For consider 1. That no poor were reckoned in that number but such as
Bishop then challenged the same power over the Presbytery as now This I have but lately proved Or that discipline was then maintained This I do not find that you deny Nay certainly your self thought discipline maintainable under it when you professed your self ready to yield to such an Episcopacy Or that what was then performed by the same Government is still performable if men would be the same The admission of this would not oblige you to question your self or experience Nor indeed is any thing of this kind concerning antiquity as notorious to you as what men do at present in England FOR proving the great multitudes then subject to Diocesan Discipline I said That the greatness of no City was thought sufficient to multiply Bishops To this you answer 1. That Gods Institution was that every Church have a Bishop for which you quote Acts 14. 23. c. But 1. The place you refer me to has no mention of a Divine Institution for Apostolical practice is not a sufficient proof of that and this is all which is so much as intimated in this place 2. It does not as much as mention the word Bishop but that of Presbyter And though the words were granted to have been then confounded yet you know they were so afterwards when the things were certainly distinct And therefore you cannot conclude from the word Presbyter that a Bishop was meant especially in the sense wherein it was afterwards appropriated Nor 3. Is it evident that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant a single Presbyter in every particular Church as in a Parish but it may as well be meant of Presbyteries as Presbyters And when afterwards the Presidency of a single Monarch was introduced no Churches and Presbyteries but such as had Bishops and were Diocesan in the sense we now understand the word And if they were Presbyteries you cannot hence disprove the presidency of one over the rest as we find it soon after practised Nor 4. Is it evident that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs be meant a Parish as it concerns you to believe For the word Church is as applicable to great as small Societies and the great ones may as well be called one in their kind though they be capable of a further subdivision into many Churches of smaller denomination Thus the Catholick Church is called one in the Constantinopolitan Creed though consisting of many national and the Church of England but one national Church though consisting of two Provincial and the Province of Canterbury but one Provincial Church though consisting of several Diocesan and every Diocese but one Diocesan Church though consisting of several Parishes And even in the Scripture there are several notions of the word of different proportions There are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there are the two or three gathered in the name of Christ which from the coherence and the Jewish notions of Assemblies seem to make up a Church and accordingly Tertullian calls an Assembly of two or three a Church though consisting onely of Laicks And yet these Churches are so little serviceable to your purpose as that I believe you would not be for confining a private Presbyter to so small a cure I am sure they are much beneath those populous Parishes which you do not seem to disapprove Supposing therefore I should grant you that every distinct Church should have a distinct Bishop yet how will you prove with the least plausibility that this Church must be understood of a Parochial one that the multitude of Bishops may answer that of Parishes Especially considering that the notion of the word for a Parochial Church will not be so easily deduced from Scripture as that for a Diocese For thus much the Independents I think do prove sufficiently that a whole Church in those times did generally meet in one place but they fail in proving distinction of Churches in Cities though never so great and populous which two put together do plainly amount to our notion not of a Parochial but Diocesan Church there appearing no footsteps in those times of any Subdivisions allotted to particular Presbyters Besides if we may believe the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here parallel with those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. l. 5. as in all likelyhood they are then a Church will be that which will extend to the Liberties of a whole City And because you find no mention of distinct Presbyters for Villages recommended to Titus's care it seems very probable that they were sufficiently provided for by those of the City and therefore that they had some dependence on them That the name of Churches was attributed first to Cities see proved by the Excellent Dr. Stilling fleet Iren. p. 2. c. 7. § 2 4. FOR that the Apostles did take care even for Villages we have the express Testimony of S. Clemens Romanus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if these words be understood as commonly they are But I confess it does not seem to me so clear that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is understood those Country Villages which are obnoxious to the Jurisdiction of the City but rather Regiones as it is translated not as Rome and Constantinople were divided into their Regiones answerable to our Wards but as it may in a larger sense signifie whole Provinces under which many Cities might be comprehended my Reasons I would give if I were not unwilling to digress much less am I satisfied with Blondell's Conjecture who conceives it to relate to the Chorepiscopi and thence concludes that they were not originally subject to the City Bishop For though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were indeed taken in the sense he is concerned it should be yet there is no necessity that it should be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if distinct Bishops had been imposed over them from those of the Cities to which they were related but may conveniently enough be joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie their preaching in the Villages as well as Cities and their election of fit persons from both for Bishops and Deacons to be disposed of where they thought convenient However it were it seems very probable that the Apostles as they planted Christianity first in Cities so they seemed to have settled the Government there first and as they generally left the Villages to be converted by excursions from the Cities so it seems most credible that the influences of the Government must have followed that of the propagation of their Doctrine Certainly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by Ignatius in his Inscription of his Epistle to the Romans over which the Church of Rome is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot in the narrowest exposition choose but include a Precinct as large as our ordinary Dioceses But 5. Supposing all had been as you would have them that it had been enjoyned by the Apostles that every Parochial Church should have a distinct Bishop yet how can you
of God grew and prevailed ver 20. And it must argue a very great number considering that books were a commodity which is not to have been presumed a considerable part of the riches of each much less of that particular subject however the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be celebrated among the Ancients and the total number of the persons concerned must needs be greater by how much the particular proportions to be distributed among them are likely to have been less to the particulars and it is accordingly observable that no particular is noted to have been considerably impoverished by so great a loss THESE are the most remarkable Cities mentioned in the Acts which we have reason to believe to have abounded with numbers of Christians too great for the Cure of a single person And it is to be considered that as in their preaching you find little mention of their preaching in villages but in Cities so it is most credible that they left them to the care of the Government established in the Cities Whence it will follow that the Ecclesiastical as well as the Secular Government of Villages depended on the Cities and that therefore they were Dioceses in the modern extent and that the Government established in Cities seems to have been most agreeable to the design of the Apostles And of all Cities those are to be supposed most accurately provided for by the Apostles which were converted by their personal preaching and which in their times had numbers sufficient for Government and therefore if other places had deviated from the examples of these as those in Africa and Ireland which you cannot prove to have been converted by the Apostles you ought rather to have corrected those by these than as you preposterously do to confine the Dioceses converted and established by the Apostles to the dimensions of them which were not But besides these Scripture Arguments evincing the great number of Christians even in the times of the Apostles themselves another may be drawn from the multitudes of Heresies which must have needs drawn great numbers from the Church not onely that swarm which rose immediately after the decease of the Apostles as the Basilidians Valentinians c. but also those who were contemporary with the Apostles themselves as the Simonians Nicolaitans Ebionites Corinthians c. For though some few of these did even in the Apostles times themselves separate as is clear from 1 John 11. 19. and several other places of the Epistles where they are blamed and confuted and the multitudes of them that perished in Jerusalem in the Captivity yet most of them did then act more covertly and were followed by smaller parties in regard of what was done after the decease of the Apostles which is the reason why Hegesippus in Eusebius calls the Church a pure Virgin till the time of Trajan in whose time S. John the last of them died not long after his return from Patmos Now if the Christians were so numerous as it appears they were even after these deductions of their own members by relapse and the hinderance of the conversion of others whom we find to have been alienated at a greater distance by this scandal of the multitude of their Sects for about that time we find it objected by Celsus who wrote his Book against the Christians under Hadrian the immediate Successor of Trajan if we may believe Origen we cannot think their number so small as you conceive in the times of the Apostles when they did not labour under these disadvantages But when they had overcome these difficulties and were exercised with new persecutions it is strange how exceedingly they encreased In Severus his time about the Year of our Lord 201 according to Baronius Tertullian wrote his Apologie which was above 100 years before Constantine yet even then there were such multitudes of Christians as that he prefers them before the Moors and Marcomans and Parthians as being spread over all the Roman world His words though they be so known that I wonder that you forgot them yet are withall so very pertinent and full to my purpose as that I think it necessary to transcribe them thus therefore he is in Cap. 37. Apolog. Plures nimirum Mauri Marcomanni ipsique Parthi vel quantaecunque unius tamen loci suorum finium gentes quà m totius orbis Externi sumus vestra omnia implevimus urbes insulas castella mancipia conciliabula castra ipsa tribus decurias palatium senatum forum Sola vobis relinquimus templa Here you see Cities and throughout the whole world that is according to the language of those times the Roman Empire full of them What can be more contrary to your Assertion Yet fulness may be understood with a latitude for a great though not the greatest number But that he understood the greatest will easily appear from what he afterwards adds Potuimus inermes nec rebelles sed tantummodo discordes solius divortii invidiâ adversus vos dimicâsse Si enim tanta vis hominum in aliquem orbis remoti sinum abrupissemus à vobis suffudisset utique dominationem vestram tot qualiumcunque amissio civtum imò ipsâ destitutione punisset Proculdubio expavissetis ad sobitudinem vestram ad silentium rerum stuporem quendam quasi mortuae urbis quaesissetis quibus ves vobis remansissent nunc enim pauciores hostes habet is prae multitudine Christianorum pene omnium civium pene omnes cives Christianos habendo And again Suffecisset hoc solùm nostrae ultioni quòd vacuae exinde possessio immundis spiritibus pateret Certainly they whose very secession would leave nothing but solitude and silence and amazement and empty possessions for unclean spirits behind them they who had left their City as it were dead almost destitute of Citizens to be governed and their Enemies more numerous than their Subjects must needs have been much the greater number But when he says expresly that almost all their Citizens were Christians what can be clearer than that notwithstanding what allowances may be made for the confidence of the man and the humour of the opressed parties to advance their numbers Christians were so far from being few in comparison of the Heathens as that the contrary seems most probable that the Heathens in the Roman Empire were considerably outnumbered by them AND that in other Cities besides Rome and Alexandria which though Apostolical Sees you will not admit as 〈…〉 numbers were under the Government of Ecclesiastical Monarchs with their Presbyteries than had been governable by any single however able Presbyter Instances may be given besides the general proofs already intimated out of the good Records of those times as imperfect as we have them extant at present One is of Neocaesarea a metropolis of the Province of Pontus Polemoniacus which I take notice of that you may understand how great a City it was Here though the persons are expresly said to have
quoting the place and upon consulting the place find my self to have been mistaken in two things 1. That I thought the word Clergie to have been used by Cornelius 2. That I thought that all the several sorts there mentioned Presbyters Deacons c. to have been comprized in the number 1500 whereas I now find that the later sort of the poor maintained on the charges of the Church were onely therein included Omitting therefore these mistakes which now I know I will not undertake to justifie the thing I insist on is that here are 46 Presbyters mentioned and that there were in Rome quadraginta quod excurrit Basilicae as we learn from Optatus when Victor Garbiensis was sent from Africa to be made the Schismatical Bishop of Rome which was about the persecution of Dioclesian when the Schism of the Donatists commenced Which numberof Basilicae or Parish Churches for you have already seemed to grant that Rome was then divided into Parishes may very well agree with the number of Presbyters mentioned by Cornelius There being therefore even then so many Christians in Rome as were able to make up 46 Parishes besides those of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Region adjacent subject according to the practice of those times to the Jurisdiction of the City Bishop it is plain that the Diocese was even then of a larger extent than Parochial as your self had already granted though here you endeavour to answer the arguments that are designed to prove no more than what you had granted and therefore 46 times exceeding the ability of a single person Yet I believe you will not deny but that all this number was then sufficiently governed by one Bishop without any visible decay of discipline observable in those times I know indeed that Mr. Potter in order to his own design does endeavour to prove the number of Presbyters and Titles originally derived from Cletus Euaristus Dionysius and Marcellus to have been 25. Nor shall I now digress to shew the ground of his mistake All that I shall desire you to observe at present is that his Authors are either evidently late or suspicious if pretendedly ancient not comparable in credibility to Cornelius and Optatus produced by me But if I should admit all that he pretends yet 25 Parishes themselves are too large an extent for such Dioceses as you desire that might not exceed the personal abilities of one BUT you endeavour to give some account how their Clergie might be numerous though their people were few from the conceived extraordinary exigencies of those times But neither does it appear that the exigencies were indeed so extraordinary there appearing no ground to believe any Innovation accommodated to present exigencies but rather that that had been the ordinary Government if it had were it to your purpose For the same extraordinary exigencies which then required the united helps of a multitude of Clergie made the burthen too great for one and therefore if a Bishop cannot as by your Principles he cannot undertake the government of a number too great for his personal care without prejudice of discipline it will follow that he could not do it then But it appearing clearly otherwise namely that discipline was severely maintained under a Government properly Diocesan that is including a multitude of subordinate cures it is plain that what neglects are now in that kind are not to be imputed to the Government but the Governours BUT I shall consider the disparities themselves 1. The Christians meetings were then obscure and small in houses as the tolerated Churches in London But I have already shewn you how the multitudes of Christians were according to the practises of those Ages suppliable without any unnecessary multiplication of Altars or Priests or Churches and that this multitude of Priests was not accommodated to their extraordinary meetings in houses occasionally but their solemn appointed places for Parochial Assemblies for such were the Tituli or Basilicae You consider 2. That these meetings were in so vast a City in so many distinct places But the Christians of those times were not so sparing of their pains as to scruple the distances of places in the greatest Cities for the comfort of their Synaxes for in S. Justin Martyr's time they came out of the Country to the City-meetings much more from the most distant places of the same City And therefore it is not probable that the distance of place but the multitude of the persons occasioned the multiplication of the Clergie And by the multitude of their poor 1500 not onely 1050 as you mistake you may guess at their multitudes For it was too great a proportion for the multitudes of one Parish especially where S. Paul's Rule was severely observed that none should be maintained on the Churches account but such as were poor indeed and where none should eat who did not labour if he were able Besides the treasures of that Church were thought worthy the design of the Secular Magistracy and great multitudes of poor are said to have been maintained on the Church account in the time of Pope Sixtus and S. Laurence You consider 3. The Suburbicarian Assemblies I suppose you mean the Assemblies in the Suburbs of Rome not those of the Regiones Suburbicariae which I believe you will not doubt but that they contained a number too great for a single Parish and then the former Answer will suffice that they who ordinarily came out of the Country to the City Assemblies were not likely to scruple coming to them from the Suburbs if their numbers might be entertained in one place with convenience 4. You say many Presbyters used still to be with the Bishop in the same Assembly If you mean it on solemn occasions of great concernment for the Government of the Church I confess it but you cannot thence infer that they being deducted few would remain for Parochial Cures being those being but rare they might all be spared from their Parochial Affairs But if you think that in all ordinary Synaxes such a number of them were obliged to a personal attendance on him as must distract them from their other Imployments I believe you have no ground to think so In the Form of their Offices by S. Justin Martyr you find no mention but of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sign that there was no part of the Office obliging Presbyters to be present 5. You observe that here were in all but seven Deacons But this is no argument to conclude the paucity of Believers for it was an Opinion taken up in that Age from that unsecure principle of making Apostolical Practice even in Ecclesiasticals obligatory that no Church how great soever must have any more than seven because there were no more in the Church of Jerusalem at their first Institution The words of the Neocaesarean Canon are plain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that this number was not
Presbyters succeeding in order to the Episcopacy was in Alexandria where it seems observed as a special custom practised from the Apostles time to Heraclas who was Scholar to Origen as S. Hierom and Eutychius say it was and there ceased at S. Hierom seems to intimate then it would be very probable that this subdivision into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was introduced at least before that time of Heraclas because some reliques of that practice remained even in Arius his time whose place as Presbyter of Baucalis is made next to the Bishop So Gelasius Cyricenus speaking concerning Alexander 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence also the relation in Nicephorus Calistus of the quarrel of Arius with one Baucalus being the first and second Presbyters of that Church of Alexandria which is given as an occasion of his Heresie a story very probably raised by occasion of his mistaking Baucalis the name of his Parish for the name of a Man who is made second because Arius was known to be the first For this Precedeny of Arius is no way probable to have been because of his longer standing in his office of Presbytery seeing Alexander is said expresly to have given him it who was the first that made him Presbyter for he was onely made Deacon by Achillas the Predecessor of Alexander Now Alexander himself is by Baronius thought to have succeeded Achillas in the Year 311 and if he be mistaken seems rather to erre in placing him too soon after Peter and the difference betwixt him and Arius arose about the Year 315 not above four years after too small a time to make him in course the senior Presbyter This Precedency therefore seems to be upon account of his Parish which at the first distribution had in all probability been allotted to that Presbyter who had been senior in due course of standing which therefore seems to have been introduced whilest that seniority was observed that is at least before the time of Heraclas AND how long before Heraclas his time this distinction might have been introduced you cannot tell yet I believe you will hardly say I am sure much more hardly prove that discipline failed there in the time of Heraclas or for a long time after After Heraclas how much the Church of Alexandria and himself particularly suffered for Christianity you have fully related by his Successor Dionysius in Eusebius in the time of Decius and Valerian and how severe they were in their Fasts appears from the Canonical Epistle of that same Dionysius to Basilides besides his other penitential Treatise now lost What the Alexandrians also suffered in the most bloudy Persecution of Dioclesian you may find in the same Eusebius and particularly in Thebais which by the Nicene Canon establishing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we find to have been influenced by the Alexandrian Discipline the number of Martyrs was so great as to denominate a famous Epocha which those Countries observe to this day called the Annus Martyrum or Dioclesiani Which severity is by so much the more remarkable because it followed an intervall of rest which usually corrupts that discipline which is onely voluntary and unseconded by good Laws I need not mention the Martyrdom of their Bishop S. Peter in this Persecution his very severe Canonical Epistle is sufficient to shew how rigorous discipline was then practised when in the heigth of persecution such severe Penances against lapsed persons were not judged unseasonable to be exercised on such persons over whom they had no coercive power but the obligation of the Penitents conscience I might have proceeded to have shewn the same severity still maintained in that City which you so particularly reflect on as unworthy to be made a precedent during the Prelacy of Alexander and the great Athanasius from the great Elogies given to those excellent Prelates by the Fathers and the courage shewn by them in ejecting and keeping out Arius and the very slight Exceptions urged by the Arians their Enemies against them especially in the several Synods convened in the cause of Athanasius But for evincing the general severity of the Lives of Christians that memorable Example of their great diligence in providing for those who had been formerly their severest Persecutors in the great Plague and Famine which immediately followed the Persecution of Dioclesian and venturing many of their own lives in the service when they had been deserted by their nearest Friends may be an illustrious evidence Besides the Controversie betwixt S. Pet. of Alexandria and Meletius the occasion of the Meletian Schism shews how generally the Alexandrians were affected to discipline For when S. Pet. though severe enough against lapsed persons as appears by his forementioned Epistle yet thought it a necessary Indulgence to admit Penitents to Communion during the Persecution even Priests as well as others that they might be the better animated to new occasions of sufferings Meletius opposed it and was followed by much the greater part of the Clergie Nor ought you to conclude that the like subdivision was not introduced into other Churches because we have no Records attesting it to have been so seeing there is so little extant of the Histories of those earlier Centuries much less any thing so minute and particular in describing the Customs of particular Churches as that it would be safe to argue negatively from their omission of a custom to conclude that there was none For my design it is sufficient that the ancient Dioceses had as many Presbyters besides other Clergie requisite to rule them in conjunction with the Bishop as are now thought sufficient since their distribution into particular Parishes besides the Chorepiscopi and the Clergie under them all subject to the Government of the City Bishop Which is enough to shew that the charge of a Diocese was as great then as now and much beyond what you would have it the abilities of a particular person without Parochial Subrulers 4. YOU say At Antioch the third Patriarchate Ignatius professeth that every Church had one Altar and one Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons Fellow-servants If you mean every Church at Antioch as if that or any other City in that time had more than one Bishop presiding over a Presbytery that is more than you will find in Ignatius or any Authentick Writer of that time But if you mean at Antioch as a Patriarchate that is within that circuit which was afterwards subject to the Bishop of Antioch as a Patriarch including the whole Oriental Diocese there were many Cities that had in them but one Altar with one Bishop and his Clergie that I have already granted probable but have withall shewn how little it will advantage your Cause or prejudice mine and I am not desirous to trouble you with Repetition The name of Fellow-servants I doubt you misunderstand it is indeed true if related to God that persons of all Orders in the Church are his Fellow-servants but if you