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
made with men What is there in this I do not say dishonourable but unusual where ever such covenants have been made Having done so how can it be thought dishonourable that they should be obliged by their own act of deputation to ratifie what is by him acted in their name when they have impowered him to do so Nay would it not rather be dishonourable to the Divine Persons to think them not faithful to those obligations which they have been pleased to impose upon themselves Why may they not impower men for all future ages as well as that of the Apostles seeing there are new persons and new explicit covenants to be made with each of them for their own persons in all succeeding ages Why may not they be as firmly obliged by the act of a wicked man as a good if he come lawfully by his power of deputation by a regular succession from those who first received it Nay who is there of themselves that does the least question this in other cases where their Interest does not make them justly suspicious of partiality Does the Law ever make the least inquiry into the Lives of Proxies where it is satisfied of their Authority Who ever thinks that a Bond signed by a Proxy who is a good man does more oblige the person for whom he is concerned than a like Obligation signed by another who were vitious supposing them equally authorized Do any of themselves think what Judas acted as an Apostle to have been less obliging to his Master or less valid in the effect than what was acted by any of the other Apostles Thus I have shewn that those gifts to which Ecclesiastical Power is really consequent are not given by God immediately and antecedently to humane interposition and that those gifts that are indeed given antecedently to Ordination are not nor were such as did entitle them who were acknowledged to have them to any Ecclesiastical Office or Authority SO also on the contrary neither does the want of such extraordinary gifts as men are capable of having antecedently to Ordination irritate the whole act of the Ordainers and make it null in regard of the incapacity of the maker supposing they should be mistaken in judging them to have them who have them not as Mr. Baxter does frequently intimate This he urges sometimes so far as to make Inmoralities of Life sufficient to deprive them of their power and to excuse a Separation from their Ministry from the guilt of SCHISM Should I tell him that this very Doctrine of his was condemned as SCHISMATICAL in the Donatists by the Ancients I easily foresee how little the Authority of those Ancients is like to signifie with him who scruples no occasion of aspersing their Sacred Memory with opprobrious and reproachful Epithetes I have already shewn from the nature of the things how little the validity of their Ministry is concerned in the holiness or unholiness of their Lives The same is easie to be proved concerning those other qualifications if he had considered them in relation to my principles He should first have remembred that there are two sorts of Uncapacities of such a person to be ordained such as make him utterly uncapable of the Office it self and such as onely make him uncapable of administring it wisely and advantageously Now though these later Uncapacities ought to be considered by Ordainers whilest the person as yet stands onely Candidate for Ordination and even afterwards may reflect on the fidelity or prudence of his Ordainers yet they are onely the former sort of Incapacities that can irritate their act when past and irrevocable He should further have considered that no Incapacity can irritate the whole gift of an office but that which makes a man uncapable of the essential work of an office not that which onely incapacitates him for such works as are not essential but onely ornamental Now the essential work of the Ministry according to my principles which he ought to have confuted more particularly in this matter if he was unwilling to stand by their consequences is to transact between God-and Men to seal Covenants on behalf of God and to accept of those which are made by men and to oblige them to perform their part of the covenant by otherwise authoritatively excluding them from Gods part Hence results the whole power of Ecclesiastical Government And for this no great gifts and abilities are essential All the skill that is requisite essentially is onely in general to know the benefits to be performed on Gods part and the duties to be promised on Mans and the nature and obligation of covenants in general and the particular Solemnities of Ecclesiastical Covenants And of this how can any be uncapable who is but capable of understanding the common dealings of the world And how can Governours be supposed so grosly mistaken as that when they design peculiar and excellent qualifications they should fall short of such mean ones as these THE gifts so much insisted on by Mr. Baxter and his Brethren are such as accomplish an excellent and useful Preacher which Office of Preaching they have been used on all occasions to magnifie as if it were the onely or at least the principal imployment of the Ministry But how can they prove that suppose their office were to preach it is essential to every particular Officer that he be eminently gifted for and skilful in it How can they prove that Preaching is at all any essential part of the office How can they prove that in the primitive Apostolical times every particular Presbyter did either practice it or did think himself obliged to do so If they cannot how will it follow that he who is lawfully impowered must therefore be no Minister on account of incapacity if he could not preach at all And they are his Brethren who upon other occasions do suggest the most likely Arguments to prove that Preaching was no essential part of the imployment of an ordinary Presbyter They are the persons who tell us that in the primitive times Preaching was looked on as the peculiar office of the Bishop If so how could it be any essential part of the duty of ordinary Presbyters They tell us I do not say Mr. Baxter is one of them of the distinction between ruling Presbyters and those who laboured in word and doctrine They can never prove that any of those Presbyters were Laicks but however the distinction seems plainly to imply that some of those Clerical Presbyters did onely rule and did not concern themselves in word and doctrine Nor was this unagreeable to the aproved advice of the Apostle who would have every man lay out himself according to his different gifts not that every one should endeavour all as the Custom is now So he that had the gift of Prophecy was to give himself to Prophecy he who had the gift of Preaching called elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reverence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hence it appears that Presbyters as well as others are concerned in this his Exhortation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so much disputed of the youthfulness of their Bishops person not the novelty of the Institution of his Order for it was that youthfulness which they were likely to take advantage of which is the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see here that even Presbyters are not to take advantage even of a youthful Bishop either for presuming on too much familiarity with him or denying him the reverence due to his Order though in a youthful person That they are to yield to him or rather to Jesus Christ whose person is represented by him and sure you would not think much to be imposed on by Jesus Christ That this duty is to be paid without all hypocrisie to the Bishop for Gods sake whom it is impossible to deceive That hearkning to him for that is the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Hellenistick style then in use is the same with obedience is part of that And that the disrespect to him in any of these duties redounds to the dishonour of God for whose sake he is to be honoured And now I pray consider how you can reconcile herewith your desired liberty of excommunicating without his privity or consent Immediately after he blames them who give their Bishop the honour of an empty name and yet do all things without his privity and expresly censures them as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of no good consciences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where besides the coherence formerly noted it is plain that even Presbyters also are included because he speaks of Assemblies which could not be celebrated without some act of priestly power And if such Assemblies be not according to the command nor the rules of good conscience how your proceedings without the consent or privity of your Bishop can be excusable I do not understand In the Epistle ad Trallian after having enjoyned respect to all the three Orders he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence you may easily conclude his thoughts concerning such Assemblies which are maintained without one of them that is of Episcopacy as they must needs be who take upon them to act independently on their Bishop So in the Epistle to the Philadelphians he says expresly that as many as are on Gods part and Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which you may see what he would have thought of those who should have joyned with any Presbyter exercising an Authority different from and independent on that of the Bishop Nay he confidently charges them not as from his own private sense but inspiration and those extraordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had not as yet failed in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and after teaches that God gives remission of sin to them that are penitent onely on that condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which if it be so how can the Absolutions of Presbyters attempted without the consent of their Bishop be valid But what can be more clear against your Independency of Parish Ministers in the exercise of discipline than that excellent passage in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see how expresly all persons Presbyters themselves not excepted are forbidden to meddle in Ecclesiasticals without order from the Bishop You see what Ecclesiasticals he means by his enumeration of the particulars not onely Baptism and the Feasts of Love but the very Eucharist You see how clearly he disowns the validity of that Eucharist which is not received either from the Bishop himself or some person authorized by him Which both may serve to let you see that even Presbyters themselves are included seeing your self do not allow the power of admitting to communion Laicks or Deacons though authorized and that the power you seem to challenge of communicating whom you please without the Bishops Licence is again censured as invalid as a dishonour of God nay as a service of the Devil which would have been thought harsh and passionate expressions if the Age he lived in before the starting of our modern Controversies had not put him beyond any just or probable suspicions of partiality I HAVE the rather insisted on the Testimony of this blessed Martyr because you seem to seem to have been willing to have condescended to the Ignation Episcopacy and were therefore concerned because in my Catalogue of the ancient Writers I said Ignatius was decretory against the Presbyterians I might have descended lower because you said you would have yield to the Episcopacy practised in S. Cyprians time to shew that this liberty you desire of admitting to or excluding from your flock whom you please was not even in those Ages allowed to bare Presbyters At present I shall onely note a passage or two because I am desirous of hastening Baptism therefore which has always been thought to require less power than the Lords Supper was not in Tertullians time permitted to Deacons nor Priests themselves without the Authority of their Bishop These are his words Dandi quidem viz. Baptismi habet jus summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus Dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter Ecclesiae honorem Quo salvo salva pax est c. Exactly herein agreeing with Ignatius And the same seems to have been the sense and practice of the Asiatick Churches in the time of Firmilian who though indeed he mention the majores natu praesides under which word according to the use of that Age I confess Presbyters may be included as having the power of Baptizing Imposition of hands in reconciling penitents especially and of Ordination which we do not deny them yet he seems to intimate their dependence on the Bishop in the administration of that power which properly belonged to them which is all that we desire For thus he afterwards expresly asserts the power of remission of sins either in Baptism or Absolution of Penitents as appears from the occasion of the Dispute concerning the validity of both among the Hereticks to have been given to the Apostles Ecclesiis quas illi à Christo missi constituerunt EPISCOPIS qui eis dinatione vicariâ successerunt Where it is to be observed 1. That no exclusive particle be expressed yet it must necessarily be understood from the whole design of his Discourse which is to exclude the Baptism of Hereticks from being remissive of sins because the power of remitting sins is not granted to them which would not follow unless all which had that power conferred on them had been adequatly enumerated by him And 2. That by the Churches here mentioned cannot be understood a Society contradistinct from the Bishops For
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
in private and occasional Assemblies Presbyters were permitted to do it by leave of the Bishop without any prejudice to the Unity of the Church which was signified by the Unity of their Altar I will not mention the instances hereof in the Acts of the Martyrs which are not so secure to be trusted Ignatius and Tertullian are very clear to this purpose in the places already produced Now this account being given how notwithstanding the multitude of Communicants and though the Sacrament were the greatest obligation to meet in publick Assemblies yet much greater numbers than our Parishes might have been supplied conveniently enough from one President and one Altar it will be easie to give an account of other things For as for preaching which is now more insisted on as a reason of Church Assemblies than the Sacraments though certainly very differently from the sense of those Ages First you cannot prove that to have been so appropriated to the Bishop as that ordinary Presbyters were excluded from it All that can be pretended to this purpose is that the Exhortation with the Communion Office was then generally in the presence of the Bishop and that in his presence it was not usual for Presbyters to preach for this is the onely thing that was thought so strange in preaching of Origen before Theophilus and S. Augustine before Valerius that it was done in the presence of their Bishops and that the power of Ecclesiastical Assemblies upon what pretence soever preaching as well as other Offices was appropriated to the Bishops But 1. All private visitations and conferences which were much better suited to the exigencies of those times might undoubtedly be performed by single Presbyters and these being performed with that diligence as they were then would in a great measure supersede the necessity of publick Sermons And 2. Even for those publick preachings which had no relation to the Communion Office where that one Altar was concerned might have been ordinarily permitted them by the Bishop And 3. Even those which were connected with that Office might yet by the Bishops leave have been permitted in places distinct from the one Altar as well as the Communion it self YOUR instance of St. Patrick founding 365 Churches for I onely take notice of the more probable number and ordaining in them 365 Bishops and under them 3000 Presbyters does not methinks seem any thing to your purpose You say Here is no more Bishops than Churches I believe you meant the contrary that there were no more Churches than Bishops for this is onely to your design of having as many Bishops as Churches that is in your notion of the word as Parishes And you know though we pretend many Parish Churches may be subject to one Bishop Yet we are far from saying that there ought to be many Bishops in one Parish But admitting there were in S. Patrick's time no more Churches than Bishops yet how can it follow thence that there were no more Parishes or that the word Church in those Ages used without any restrictive Particle must signifie that onely which were equivalent to our present Parishes For you know that we do not pretend that there ought to be any more liberty for a Bishop to hold plurality of Dioceses than for a Minister to have plurality of Parishes though I will not defend all practices in both particulars so that if the word Church imply that which is Diocesan as most probably it did according to the sense of those times then we do not think there ought to be more Churches than Bishops Indeed I confess the Dioceses of those times must have been for scope of Land as much less as the number 365 is greater than 21 or thereabouts which is our number now But it is withall most clear 1. That as small as they were they were yet greater than Parishes there being about nine Presbyters to a Bishop as your self observe For your own notion of a Parish containing no more than are capable of being governed by a single person where nine persons were thought necessary there must be supposed nine times that proportion that is nine Parishes And then if you think your self obliged to abstain from that Communion where Discipline is impossible and think it impossible where the Bishop undertakes the government of any more than he is able to give an account of by his own personal care you must have conceived your self obliged as much to separate from Diocesan Communion quà Diocesan then as now and therefore should not plead those Dioceses as precedents But 2. Your own principles will warrant the enlargment of your Dioceses now for if Bishops might in the primitive times take the charge of whole Cities not because the Cities were small or the Inhabitants few but because they who owned Episcopal Authority that is Christians were so then I may say our present Dioceses may be very much inlarged since the divisions of Christians For whereas then they were all unanimous the case is otherwise how when Papists and Scots and other Non-conformists being deduced of all Sects and Opinions those onely are accounted that own our present Episcopal Authority would be so few comparatively so that you see that by Separation upon account of the too great extent of our Dioceses the inconvenience is not remedied but confirmed in consequence of your own Principles But 3. What inconvenience soever may indeed be in things of this nature is to be judged as well as reformed by the Governours whose proper care it is not to be remedied by worse such as are the undutifulness and separations of private persons from their Superiours on that account I CONFIRMED this by Argument from experience from an instance of Rome which though so great in Cornelius his time as to need the Services of above 1000 Clergie was yet at the same time under the Government of one onely Bishop To this you answer 1. That this was above 250 years after Christs Birth But this is not the question how soon it was but whether it was not when discipline was severely enough observed For from hence it follows that experience has then shewn that discipline was sufficiently reconcilable with a Diocesan Government and therefore may be so now if Governours would be equally industrious And that discipline was then observed I believe you will not deny You answer 2. That you never took all the impotent persons poor and widows in the Church to be Clergie-men and Clergie-women I shall not dispute the propriety of my expression not but that I know that the word has indeed been used in a very large sense so as to comprehend most persons relating to the Church and possibly all there enumerated both because I do not conceive the thing material to my present purpose which is onely to shew the numerousness of the Church from the multitude of Presbyters whom you will not deny to be properly Clergie-men and because I confess I too much trusted my memory in
my Preface if he had thought himself obliged to speak to Answers in his Confutations But does he not know that this very same Objection was made use of by the Heathens against Christianity and by the Romanists against the Reformation that if either Christianity or Protestancy were the onely true way to Salvation exclusively to others then much the greater number of Mankind or Christians must have been out of the true way of Salvation And can he deny that the matter of fact was true that there was indeed a time when Heathens were more numerous than Christians and Romanists than Protestants Will he therefore grant that Christianity and Protestancy were not the onely ordinary true means of Salvation I know he will be far from saying so But yet he is not sensible how much himself is more concerned in the Consequence of this Discourse than I am He that in his Diocesan Ordination must have promised Canonical Obedience to his Ordinary cannot renounce our Diocesan Communion as Diocesan without some charge of sin greater than the sin of breaking his Promise of Canonical Obedience And if this sin agree to Diocesan Communion as Diocesan then certainly it must be not onely a single act of sin but a state of sin and such a state of sin as all will acknowledge destructive of Salvation so agreeing to Diocesan Communion as Diocesan it must agree to all Diocesan Communion whatsoever And if all Diocesan Communion as Diocesan be destructive of Salvation how much more uncharitable will he prove than I if to maintain principles from whence consequences will follow which will prove hurtful to faulty persons must be thought uncharitable How few are those Protestants that want Episcopal Ordination who can alone seem chargeable with the consequences of my Discourse in comparison of the whole Greek and Latin Churches and those other Forein Protestants also as well as those of our own Dominions which will be concerned in the consequences of his I might here declame as tragically as he does and retort a great part of his own Discourse upon himself if I were desirous to take advantage of this Topick against him not so much to prove his Doctrine false as to expose it as odious If he will say that he has notwithstanding charitable thoughts concerning the persons of many who differ from him in principles of their own nature destructive of Salvation Abate his affection to his party which makes him as his matter requires speak inconsistently and I think I shall allow as much candour and charity to the persons of Dissenters as he can rationally and with any consistency with any even his own principles § IX IF therefore it be granted that these consequences are no just argument to prove the principles false from which they follow it will then follow further that in order to the confutation of my principles he ought not to content himself with deducing these consequences without more distinct application to the principles themselves it will follow that even the odium of such consequences is irrational and sinful and therefore not at all regardable in conscience whatever it may in prudence No truly conscientious persons can be offended at just consequences from principles whose truth is not proved questionable especially where positive reasons have been produced for them And therefore whoever are so must for that very reason at least in this particular be presumed not to act conscienciously or consequently to be regardable on account of conscience It will follow that till he do answer more distinctly to my principles the very unkindness of the application will be rather his than mine For till he weaken the proof of my principles I shall have reason in all equity to presume them true And if he draw Inferences unfavourable to them from unconvicted principles it will be he not I that must be responsible at least for the application If therefore he will not make them less concerned than it is their Interest to be in case of real danger let him first secure them from the danger by a conviction of my principles which when he does he will have me as well as them indebted to him for the Obligation Till he do so certainly plain dealing and a fair warning is the most real office of Friendship that can be shewn in case of danger I wish I may by this intimation prevail with whosoever shall hereafter trouble themselves to answer me not to satisfie themselves with invidious clamours and evasions of a direct Answer to my principles A direct Answer would better become them as Lovers and Enquirers of truth rather than Votaries to a Party would more tend to the satisfaction of conscientious Dissenters would afford a better subject for useful information § X As for particulars there are onely two that I can know of in which indifferent Friends do think me concerned One is that he says and says it more than once that the Generality of our Saxon Bishops derive their Succession from Aidan and Finan who says he were no Bishops as Bede and others fully testifie So that he says The denying the validity of the Ordination by Presbyters shaketh the Succession of the Episcopal Church of England and proveth it on that supposition interrupted I know not how it becomes him who himself pretends Episcopal Ordination to discover his Forefathers nakedness if it had been true that is here suggested But not to expostulate with him concerning the unkindness herein shewed to his Ordainers what benefit can he do his own cause by this Objection Would it follow that his Brethren have Succession because we had fail'd of it Would it follow that Succession is not necessary because none could justifie their Claims by it Would it follow that the Right of Ordination must in course be escheated to the Presbyteries or the People or the Magistracy in case no Right could now be made out by Derivation from the Apostles If Succession be still necessary for the validity of Orders as it may be notwithstanding this Argument till he answer the Arguments produced to prove it necessary all that he can expect by using such Arguments as these will be not to satisfie us but to prove us as faulty as themselves not to quiet the consciences of those who should be afraid of Sacrilegious Ordinances but onely to make them despair of ever being quieted And therefore this is an Answer if at all fit to be insisted on yet not till he had attempted a more particular Answer But God be praised we have no need to be concerned for this Objection Bede is so far from denying Aidan and Finan to have been Bishops as that he expresly affirms the contrary Oswald King of Northumberland sent to the Elders of the Scots for a Bishop Antistes is the word in Bede's Latine and Biscop in the Saxon of Alfred Accordingly he receives Pontificem Aidanum as the Latine or Biscop as it is again in the Saxon. When
Assemblies of men their prophecying as it should seem like the Sibyls with their hair dishevel'd and without their veils unbecoming the modesty of their Sex How does the Apostle provide to remedy these Inconveniences but by obliging all to a strict dependence on their Superiours by obliging the Prophets not to speak but in order not to use their gifts but for edification not to use them indecorously to submit to the Judges of their Prophecies by restraining the women universally from all publick exercise of their gifts a plain sign that the Spirit who gave those gifts did not thereby exempt any who had them from their due Subordinations much less did thereby give them the governing power of their Ecclesiastical Assemblies as our Brethren would fain persuade us This also was the great occasion of that Schism which was the subject of S. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians and that not many years after this former had been written to them by S. Paul The gifted Brethren did then also assume and raised a Sedition against the ordinary Presbyters of that Church and are again taught their duty of Obedience Humility and Subjection through the whole current of that Epistle How could that be if their very gifts had made them Presbyters when acknowledged as they are not here denied This very pretence therefore was particularly and expresly disowned by those very Precedents to which our Brethren do so eagerly appeal ACCORDINGLY they never find any of those Officers to whom Succession is at present pretended made immediately by God but by the intervention of men notwithstanding that there were then Gifts of the Spirit requisite to qualifie men for those offices There were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reckon'd among the gifts of the Spirit which fitted men for the offices of Bishops and Presbyters There was also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with other gifts fitting men for the offices of Deacons Yet who sees not this express difference between these and those extraordinary Officers that these never so much as pretended to be immediately from God without the mediation of Men What great Argument had it been for S. Paul to prove his Apostleship by that he was not of Men or by Men if this were the ordinary case in the ordinary Governours and Officers of the Church if all that men did was onely a recognition of their gifts and a solemn reception of their Authority which was as requisite for Apostles as ordinary Bishops and Deacons Where do we find any of these ordinary Officers made but there is express mention of Men who laid on their hands and performed the Ceremony and that by a distinct Imposition of Hands from that whereby they then usually received the Holy Ghost immediately after their Baptism And the words used concerning it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same by which the giving of Authority even in Secular Offices where Authority is confessedly given is usually expressed according to the custom of that Age. S. Timothy is said to have his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of S. Paul is said to have it given him among other things by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What can be more clear than these words if they be understood of Ordination And who are more forward to understand them so than our Brethren when they are concerned to produce Precedents of Ordinations by Presbyters But I confess I am not my self very confident of that Exposition The thing is clear enough from this new Imposition of hands which was used on this occasion of ordaining the ordinary Officers of the Church but not of the extraordinary When S. Matthias was chosen Apostle into the place of Judas no more was done than onely to know God's pleasure concerning it according to that ordinary way of Divination usual in such cases by Lots When that was known there was no further act of Men no Imposition of hands onely he was added to complete the number of the Twelve Apostles That more was observed in ordinary Ordinations why was it but to shew that the Influence of humane acts was greater in them BESIDES the very Ceremony of Imposition of hands was generally designed to communicate some of those supernatural gifts wherewith they were themselves endued So it was in their casting out of Devils and their curing the sick and particularly so it was in their giving the Holy Ghost And indeed what other gift is imaginable that was ordinarily necessary for ordained persons Themselves cannot think it could be dispossessing or healing c. What could it therefore be but the Holy Ghost himself And what gifts could be then thought necessary for making ordinary Officers but such as are ordinary and perpetual as the Offices themselves If therefore the Holy Ghost was given this was according to the Jews an investing them with power where he was given particularly with such a design So it was in the case of Saul and David and of the Apostles themselves And what other design is conceivable in giving the Holy Ghost to them who were supposed already to have received him before in their Baptism and that Imposition of hands which then usually accompanied their Baptism And if the Holy Ghost were given in Ordination then plainly they had not all their gifts antecedently to their Ordination as our Brethren conceive particularly not those which immediately intituled them to Ecclesiastical Power If these Gifts of the Holy Ghost which immediately intituled them to Power were given them by the ministry of Men then certainly the Power it self was not given them immediately by God but by humane ministry And therefore their antecedent gifts which they judged of by the gift of discerning of Spirits did not immediately give them the power THE great Prejudice that possesses our Brethren against this power being thus given by the ministry of men is that conceiving it to result from the gift of the Holy Ghost they think it dishonourable to the Holy Ghost to say that he is given by men But how can they deny those plain Evidences of Scripture wherein he was so frequently given by the Apostles Will not their Conjectures reach them as well as our Ecclesiastical Officers now Were not they men of the like frail sinful nature as ours are now But if they would indeed consider how he does it what is there more dishonourable in this than in the whole management of the Incarnation Why may not God the Father and Son whose Gift undoubtedly he is give him by covenant as well as otherwise Why may not himself do so too Supposing them willing to take this way of disposing of him what can hinder them from deputing men to represent them in the solemnities of such a covenant to be
For the reason produced by you seems to proceed from the nature of Government in general and therefore must proceed with the same force in Seculars as Ecclesiasticals there being no ingredient peculiarly relating to Religion much less to Christianity which might alter the case or argue a disparity For certainly Princes as well as Bishops are responsible for the miscarriage of their particular Subjects as far as they may be prevented by their moral diligence and yet you will not thence conclude that every particular must come under his immediate personal care and cognizance nor is it proved that the Bishop is otherwise obliged to such a care upon peculiar respects Besides that it is plainly against experience even in Ecclesiasticals for as it hath fallen out in some places where there were many Cities that the Bishops were proportionably multiplied as in Africa and Ireland so that it was not upon account of the impossibility of the managing the charge of much greater multitudes than the Inhabitants of those small Cities appears in that even in the very same places the greatness of no City was thought sufficient for multiplying the Bishops though it was for the inferiour Clergie I need not tell you how great Rome was in Decius his time under Cornelius and how full of Christians which required the united endeavours of 1000 Clergie as appears from the said Cornelius his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch in Eusebius yet was one Bishop thought sufficient for all nay the erecting another Altar in the same Church was thought to be formal Schism as appears from the Controversies betwixt Cornelius and Novatian and S. Cyprian and Felicissimus The same also might have been shewn in several other Cities exceeding numerous and abounding with Christians as Antioch Alexandria and Carthage c. which even in those earlier Ages when Discipline was at the greatest rigour were yet governed by single Bishops Nay whole Nations were sometimes governed by one onely as the Goths by Ulphilas and the Indians by Aedesius and the Arabians by Moses which is an Argument insisted on by some Presbyterians for shewing the probability of Ordinations by mere Presbyters Yet are there no Complaints of dissolution of Discipline in such places upon account of the greatness of their charge Which to me seem sufficient Convictions that the multitude of persons governed is not the reason of our present Neglects in that particular § IV WHEN I said that Ignatius his Epistles were question'd by the Presbyterians I never said nor intended it concerning all for I know of Vedelius his Apology for them much less did I lay it particularly to your charge so that if you had here forborn assuming to your self what was spoken of others many of whose Opinions I am confident you will not undertake to justifie there had been no occasion of this Exception That other Presbyterians and those by far the greatest number have denied them cannot be questioned § V AS for the Reasons of Nonconformity alleaged by you and your Brethren of the Savoy Conference in 1660 if I might without offence presume to interpose my own thoughts they are as followeth For the approving not onely submitting to such things as you disliked and that by an oath I am sure there are many Conformists themselves that understand no more to have been intended by the Church but an exterior submission not an internal approbation of the particulars And particularly I have been informed by a Letter from a very worthy credible person who pretends to have had it from the Bishop himself that Bishop Sanderson who was a Member of your Conference interposed those words in the Act of Parliament where it is required that Ministers declare their unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the Book of Common Prayer c. designedly that this Objection might be prevented The new Article of Faith inserted in our Rubrick I do not know nor can I now get the Book that past betwixt you at the Conference to know what you mean That Lay-chancellors were disused and that the Bishops did more consult their Presbyteries I could for my own part heartily wish But I cannot think these abuses momentous enough to warrant Schism and I know your self are for bearing with some things things that are not so well rather than the Church of God should be divided for them In brief I do not understand any of the six Particulars mentioned as the reasons that keep you off though you do indeed disapprove them both because you do not undertake to determine what they might be to others but onely what they are to persons of your mind though I confess this might be understood as a modest declining to judge of others and because you conceive piety the most likely means to unite us which could not be if we imposed any thing on you against your Consciences So that the onely one that may be presumed to have been thought sufficient by you to this purpose seems to have been another which because you intimate somewhat obscurely I do not know whether you would be willing that it should be taken notice of But however I suppose that it self does onely deprive us of your Clerical not your Laical Communion God give us all to discern the things that belong unto peace As for other Questions we may easily a wait our Lords pleasure who when he comes shall tell us all things and in the mean time preserve charity and be wise unto sobriety I hope Sir you will excuse my freedom and let me know whether I may in any thing be serviceable to you and above all things reserve a portion in your Prayers for Trin. Col. near Dublin Your unfeigned Wellwisher HENRY DODWELL LETTER II. The Contents 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 assistance 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 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
Clâ—rgyman is bound to a particular personal care of all within his Limits and therefore ought not to undertake a Cure too great for his personal cognizance and which he cannot manage without Assistants this should have been more directly proved than your Letter attempts So also for the second Whether supposing this Assistance lawful it were fit to be entrusted to Lay-chancellors I expresly declined that question if you had remembred it as also Whether it were expedient that the Bishops Government were so Monarchical as to exclude the counsel of Presbyters But though we be thus agreed in the main if not the whole difficulty if rightly explained yet your Arguments and Answers if allowed do so consequently overthrow your concessions themselves as that it is easie to observe how heat of Discourse does transport you beyond the equity of your more composed thoughts § III IF I may therefore securely take it for granted that a Bishop with many Subrulers and such are the particular Parish Ministers may govern a Diocese of as large extent at least as ours are as your words seem to grant I can then imagine no possible difficulty concerning the possibility of reviving Discipline under a Diocesan Government For by Discipline I suppose we mean nothing but good Laws punctually executed both of which are necessarily implied in the nature of good Government Either therefore you must deny that such good Laws and such punctual Execution may be had under such a Diocesan Government and then you will destroy the possibility of such Government contrary to your own concession or you must say that such Government may be maintained without good Laws or punctual Execution which is alike absurd to affirm concerning a good Government concerning which alone we are at present disputing But because I find by some of your other Works that you do indeed deny a possibility of Discipline under a Diocesan Government nay sometimes deny the lawfulness of communicating with a Diocesan Church as Diocesan perhaps this Confession may have slipped from you unawares so that it may not be safe to take you at your word If this later be your case as methinks it must if there be any real controversie betwixt us all that at present I am willing to undertake that I may not enlarge beyond necessity is the Examination of your Answers to the Reasons produced in my former Letter My first Reason is therefore for proving the possibility of Discipline under a Monarchical Diocesan in the sense there and here already explain'd which I could gladly wish you would keep in mind for preventing misunderstandings on your part and unnecessary repetitions on mine was that your Reasons being not drawn from testimony or any positive and peculiar prescriptions which might make the case singular but from reason and that not particularly drawn from the nature of Government as Ecclesiastical but general from the principles of Government as such will proceed as strongly against the possibility of Secular Discipline under a Secular as Ecclesiastical under an Ecclesiastical Monarch Seeing therefore that in a Secular Monarchy as absolute as the Ecclesiastical we speak of and as remote from a possibility of a cognizance of all particulars and of a much larger extent than any Diocese Secular Discipline may notwithstanding be preserved it must needs follow that no Reasons of this kind can prove it impossible under such an Ecclesiastical Monarchy as is the subject of our present Discourse Nay as it hence appears possible not onely upon particular accounts but simply as having been actually performed under Secular Monarchies So it must upon these principles be presumed actually performable in Ecclesiasticals which will not onely evince the falshood of your Reasons but also the truth of the contrary assertion In this Argument you seem to grant what is also proved in my Letter from the Instance of Davids Kingdom of Israel and good Government of it which I thought least liable to exception that Secular Discipline is preservable under Secular Monarchy That also what agrees to Ecclesiastical Government not by virtue of any peculiar Ingredients as Ecclesiastical but by virtue of the common principles of Government in general must agree to all other Governments as also on the contrary that what agrees to other Forms of Government upon the like general accounts must likewise agree to that which is Ecclesiastical are so clear that as I do not perceive that what you say tends to the denyal of it so I do not think it worth my time to prove it The only thing therefore remaining which you seem to question in your Answer is that the Reasons produced by you proceed on Principles peculiar to Ecclesiastical Government as such For your principal endeavour is to shew a disparity why though Secular Discipline be indeed maintainable under a Secular Monarchy yet Ecclesiastical must not be presumed to be so under an Ecclesiastical For which you refer me to my Lord Bacon and your own Letter to Ludovicus Molinaeus besides what you add to that purpose in your present Letter For the very supposal of a Disparity does necessarily proceed on peculiar Considerations and is directly repugnant to the notion of general and common Principles Now to let you understand that your Reasons do indeed proceed on principles common to all Government of the same number of persons and extent of place as that of the largest of our Dioceses Secular as well as Sacred I need onely to invert those Topicks of duty which because you think impossible that they should be discharged you thence infer an impossibility of Ecclesiastical Discipline that you may see that none of those same Instances of duty are to be exempted from the Cure of the Secular Magistrate § IV I BELIEVE you will not question but that every Secular Magistrate is as responsible for his Cure as the Ecclesiastical and that this Cure is not so general but that all particular Misdemeanours of particular persons that are capable of an exteriour cognizance both as to their prevention and punishment are comprehended under it If so then certainly 1. As many persons will belong to the Care of the Civil as the Ecclesiastical Government nay generally more seeing that in the same precincts it is true what Optatus Milevitanus tells us that the Church is contained in the Commonwealth not the Commonwealth in the Church there being no Members of the Church not liable to the Civil Government but many in the Commonwealth not being subject to the Church as Pagans Jews Mahumetans and other Infidels And 2. At least as many crimes will come under Secular as Ecclesiastical cognizance nay generally more both as to the individuals and kinds of Crimes As to the individuals because those who are not obnoxious to the power of the Church as Infidels are to be presumed generally more careless of themselves and less capable of good impressions as wanting those most powerful Motives for reclaiming men from a vicious course of life
still remaining Subjects not Princes notwithstanding whatsoever Deputation that does not make them absolute and unaccountable and unobnoxious to the care and cognizance of the Supreme The Application to our present case is easily made For when I mentioned the Delegation of the Bishops power to particular Parochians I onely meant such a subordinate power for governing their respective Parishes as Viceroys and Lieutenants have under Secular Monarchs for the Government of particular Provinces but this subordinate power is so far from being the proper work of a Bishop as such as that it would make him no Bishop to suppose it in him at all That therefore which is proper to a Bishop as such that is the power of compelling the Parochians to the performance of their duties is not communicated to any Parochian and when it has been communicated to any simple Presbyters it has been counted as great an effeminacy and betraying of their power as the like case in Seculars was reputed in the Secular Princes now mentioned For this was the occasion of the Abolition of the Co-episcopi about the ninth Century that the Bishops made use of them as pretences for their own sloth in the performance of their own duties If therefore any thing of this kind have crept in in the later ages I will not defend it but onely shall desire you to remember that it is not pertinent to your design of making all Presbyters as such without any such particular deputation equal with them and that your Arguments if they proved any thing are more directly levelled against Diocesan Episcopacy as such without any such abusive deputation § XV BUT this at present may suffice to shew that that power which is by the Bishops permitted to Parish Ministers does not make them Bishops nor make them who are so properly unnecessary which methinks your self might easily have understood if you had but reflected on what your self know concerning its practice among us without such dilemmatical uncertainties which would make one think you a stranger to it The other member of your dilemma you do not prosecute whether because you forgot it or that you thought it of it self sufficiently evident I know not I suppose your Argument would have been that if the power delegated by the Bishop to the inferiour Clergy were none of his own then he could not delegate it seeing that none can justly dispose of that which is not his own To this the Answer is easie from the parallel power of Princes already insisted on that this power is the Bishops the same way as that of inferiour Magistrates is the supreme Prince's not to be executed by his own person but by others obnoxious to his election and censures which is sufficient to shew that the disposal of it is his though not the Execution § XVI YOUR sixth Answer which you call your chief one is that which I before observed to be a Concession of all that I pretended to prove that a Bishop with inferiour Church-rulers can govern a scope as large as a Diocese But when in application of it to our purpose you ask Whether it follows that our Church-Monarch can oversee them all himself without any Suboverseers or rule them by Gods Word on the Conscience without any Subrulers I wonder that you should seem so to forget the practice of our Ministers of ruling our Parishes as Subrulers under the Bishop It may be your meaning is that our Parish Ministers were not allowed a part in the Supreme Government of their Churches as if that were sufficient to deny the name of proper Church-rulers But you might have remembred 1. That my desire was that the Bishops as in S. Cyprians time so now would more communicate their affairs of any considerable importance with their Presbytery And 2. That even according to the Rubricks of our Church the Parish Minister or Curate is allowed the power not onely of dissuading which yet is all that is allowed the Church by several of our Nonconforming Brethren but also of hindering notorious ill livers and uncharitable persons from the Communion onely with a provision that they signifie such their proceedings to the Ordinary within fourteen days at the furthest which was no more than necessary for keeping them to the notion of Sub not principal Rulers This quick and easie dispatch in case of the Ministers concurrence would make one wonder at your complaints concerning the dilatory proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Courts in this affair if the Clergy could be persuaded to be unanimous and vigorous in the performance of their duty And 3. As it is plain that there are many Subrulers under Princes who are not of their Privy Council so you cannot therefore conclude the Parish Ministers not to be Subrulers under the Bishop even now because all great affairs are not originally transacted by their Council Nay 4. Your self confess Legislation it self to be communicated to the inferiour Clergy in the Lower House in Convocations when they make Canons which are Church-Laws And this which is one of the highest acts of Government being communicated to them can you yet complain of their exclusion from Government WHEN I described the Ecclesiastical Monarchy I spoke of to be such as does appropriate the decretory power of Government to it communicating onely the executive to others you bid me hold to that What your meaning is thereby I do not know for neither do you seem to persuade me to hold to it as truth seeing you afterwards seem to dislike it Nor can I think that you would have me to hold to an error that you might have advantage of disputing against me What you except against a mere Executioner's being no Governour might easily have been prevented if you had considered that the word mere was none of mine and that the executive power was by me opposed to that which is decretory that is which is absolute and unaccountable to any Superiour on earth at least within such limits Which as it may include much more power than that which your self call more than executive that of reproving exhorting convincing c. So that decretory in this sense can agree to a subject I believe your selfe will hardly affirm And indeed if you had been pleased to follow the analogy in the civil power where I do not find you so scrupulous in Ecclesiastical you would more clearly have understood my meaning and its unconcernedness in your Exceptions For in civils at least the decretory power from whence all Laws and Rules of proceeding are originally borrowed and to which all appeals in case of difficulty in their sense or partiality of inferiour Judges are finally resolved will I believe be owned by your self as proper to the supreme Magistrate And how will you call that power of the Subject as such that is as depending hereon by a more proper name than that of executive though it may withall include something decretory in affairs of inferiour concernment which though decretory
And 5. These publick indications such as may satisfie even strangers who have been scandalized with his crimes though unacquainted with his person Now why a Bishop may not in this publick juridical way of proceeding explore the penitence even of particular criminals without personal acquaintance as well as the scandalized multitude and as well as secular Judges as you have produced none so for my part I see no cogent Argument And yet further 6. Considering that it is not the personal sin but the publick scandal of it which brings it to a publick cognizance though these signs should fail of signifying his real personal penitence yet if they satisfie the multitude though erroneously they take off the scandal and therefore give a just reason of revoking such publick censares For every cause that may be sufficient to dissuade a person upon an account of his own interests to abstain from communion will not be so for depriving him of it authoritatively For they are not all sorts of crimes that put us out of the state of grace as they ought to be that deprive us of our right to communion not all that can deprive us of that right that have not Evidence enough to warrant a coercive involuntary punishment nor all that have that Evidence that are fit to be punished publickly and I believe you will not question but that Excommunication is a publick punishment And thus I believe by this time you may understand how that though the Bishop sentence upon other mens words which your self confess may perhaps sometimes be done yet there are as good prudential preservatives against that inconvenience which you thence infer That he must excommunicate all that some body else says he must excommunicate as there are against the like in Secular Tribunals which do confessedly sentence on other mens words and yet do not therefore condemn all that some body saith they must condemn YOUR seventh Disparity is That in the Kingdom there is not one Subject of an hundred or many hundred who hath Law-suits with others once in a year or seven years or his life not one of some hundreds where you have lived that findeth the Magistrate work as a criminal c. But we are all of a sinning corrupt disposition and that the Pastor hath few of his flock that need not some personal Applications in one degree or other And even as to gross sins lived in and ignorance or heresie against the very essence of Christianity it is a good Parish where a considerable part of it are not guilty To this it is easie to reply That though the case were as you have represented it that men were not onely where you have lived but generally more guilty of crimes obnoxious to Ecclesiastical than Secular cognizance yet it would not follow that more were governable by a Secular than by an Ecclesiastical Magistrate 1. Because I have already shewn That there are even in the same precincts very many more persons if not crimes subject to the Magistrate than the Church as Infidels Excommunicated persons and such as are incorrigible by Ecclesiastical censures c. Besides those who are religious who are not the less subject to the Magistrate for their being Members of the Church And 2. There are many other ends of government besides the punishment of criminals such as are the prevention of the crimes the promotion of unanimity and industry and publick generous designs and the determination of disputable controversies wherein good and well-meaning men may bonâfide differ from each other and the like They must as well build as take away the rubbish And therefore there is a government where there are no crimes over the Angels and beatified Spirits But especially among men where crimes are at least acknowledged possible the prevention of crimes may be a work of no less diligence than their reformation And 3. The freedom of good men from these more ordinary scandalous crimes which I perceive you to instance in though it may less frequently exercise the secular power yet where it does it will most dangerously For 1. Virtue raises the spirits of men and makes them active and industrious that they may satisfie themselves of their usefulness in their generations Whereas on the contrary Vice does emasculate mens spirits and make them slothful and sluggish and lovers of their own ease and more unfit for commotions And 2. Virtue makes men publick spirited whereas Vice does debase them to private and little Interests So that the Adversaries of these are onely such ordinarily as may oppose them in their limited and particular designs and therefore onely private persons but these having the same object with the publick Magistrate that is the publick concernment must more directly clash with him in case of different persuasion And 3. The very authority of Virtue with the multitude who cannot but reverence it in others how little soever they practise it themselves cannot chuse but very much advantage virtuous persons for the forming of a party more than such as are vicious who though they may be flattered and loved by such as are gainers by their vices yet cannot in prudence be thought so fit for management of their publick concernments even by vicious persons themselves who act upon principles of worldly prudence as they who are more honoured and publick-spirited and honest and sincere and so every way as well more fit as more able for the discharge of a publick trust And 4. The onely curbs of the Supreme Powers whether of rewards or punishments are less regarded by virtuous than vicious persons and therefore must needs be less able to restrain them For how can he who undervalues Death and Fear and all deprivation of exteriors be governed by any humane power Besides 5. The great courage and that not precipitant but rational which animates good men to the susception of great Attempts from the satisfaction of their own consciences and their strong confidence of the present assistance or future rewards of God of which wicked men are wholly destitute These considerations I say and many others may suffice to shew that the mistakes of good men are of more mischievous influence on the Commonwealth than the crimes of debauched persons and therefore far from diminishing the care of the supreme Magistrate And accordingly you may find the most virtuous ages of the Romans more troublesom for popular Broils and Seditions than those later ones of wickedness Witness the almost perpetual clashings betwixt the Senate and the People the popular envies against their Hero's Coriolanus Camillus Scipio Africanus c. But 4. Though the generality of people were actually every where as little troublesom to the Magistrate as where you have known them which I doubt you can hardly undertake for yet you must not thence estimate the qualifications and duty of a Magistrate For as none would think it prudent for a person putting to Sea in a calm to choose a Pilot sufficient onely
be severe for the good of the Commonwealth than it is for a Chirurgeon to cut off a gangreened member for the preservation of its owners life And such is the design of the Church who is not for using even her spiritual coercions which onely belong to her but onely on such persons on whom her rational inducements have proved desperate and succesless BUT notwithstanding your former contrary intimations you say You desire no force nor Church power but not to take these 1. for Christians 2. for your special Christian flock 1. who are no Christians 2. who themselves refuse it But this power you desire here is more than that which alone was allowed by you to Bishops of reproving exhorting instructing and declaring persons fitness or unfitness for communion by their penitence or impenitence For what if your people believe those penitent whom you think impenitent or on the contrary What if they be not satisfied with your Declarations or resolved not to observe them What if at least the greater part which is always predominant in popular Governments be not of your opinion Would you think your self obliged in such a case to make your peoples opinion or your own the rule of your practice in receiving or rejecting persons from your communion If you follow your people then you are as capable of being imposed on against your will for receiving such persons for Christians and for part of your Christian flock who are no Christians and who themselves refuse it by them as you are now by the Bishop And it does not appear that the greater part of your flock especially if such as you describe whereof whole Parishes have been presented by the Churchwardens are likely to stand with you in opposition to your Bishop And if they stand for him against you you can have no reason to obtrude your own judgment and complain according to this principle But if notwithstanding their dissent from you you yet resolve to follow your own judgment in receiving or rejecting according to your own thoughts of the penitence or impenitence of the person obnoxious to your Discipline then you will indeed be so far from desiring no Church power as that you would desire more than you seem willing to grant the Bishops which is onely declarative And then if you may as a Governour impose on the people why may not the Bishop as your Governour impose on you Indeed there can be no such thing as Government without such an Imposition as you speak of For the reason of all Government is the inequality of mens Judgment in their own causes and the inconvenience of deciding their differences by force which is many times the greatest on the unjust side The design therefore of all Government is to entrust a third person or society supposed impartial to the litigant parties with a power sufficient to compel either of them to submit to her decision For seeing it is not ordinarily to be expected that differences should be decided by a persuasion of both parties of the equity of decisions but that both parties will frequently prove tenacious of their own Opinions therefore it is necessary that the guilty whatever he be who will seldom believe his own condemnation just be imposed on and such an Imposition being thus thought necessary common prudence will suggest that it is much more equal and secure for the party imposed on that he be imposed on by the common arbitrator of their differences than by his partially affected adversary And accordingly where there is no need of imposition there is none of government and the seat of government is finally resolved on them who have this power of imposing their own sentiments on others so that to deny Ministers this power over the people or the Bishops over the Ministers is to make neither the one nor the other properly Governours Besides the power of Excommunication and Absolution which you seem to mean in this your complaint that the independent use of them is not communicated to the Ministers are so incommunicably proper to the supreme governour who as having the power of a Society must also have that of admitting to and rejecting members from it as that it were impossible for him to give an account of his charge if others may admit and reject at pleasure without dependence on him So that to complain of being imposed on in this kind is indeed in effect to complain of the Bishops superiority over you And if this reason were of any force it would proceed as much against the Presbyterian government as the Episcopal for even among them the Minister may as well be over-voted and consequently overruled by the Classes as with us by the Bishops So inseparable this power of imposing on Parish Ministers is found from Government as that is indeed admitted by all them who own a Government superiour to single Parishes BUT I pray quo jure do you challenge this Parochial power of Excommunication and Absolution independent on your Ordinaries I shall at present give you leave to say not because that I think you can prove it but because I am unwilling at present to dispute it that Presbyters were not onely counsellors but coordinate governours with the Bishop But how can you shew the least likelyhood that the Bishop had not at least a negative vote among them That as he could not do any thing without their suffrages so they were able to conclude any thing without his Much less are you able to prove that every particular Presbyter singly taken ever had within his own Jurisdiction the power of determining so momentous a thing as Ecclesiastical censures Whereever you find any Presidents over Presbyteries in the Scriptures whether Apostles or Evangelists or Angels you cannot find any Precedent of any thing carried by the major vote against the consent of the President as at least one of the prevailing number And for the Ignatian Episcopacy and so downwards to S. Cyprian which you seem to approve it is very plain that all the power of Presbyters was dependent on the Bishop Thus Ignatius in his genuine uninterpolated Epistle to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Communion of the Bishop appears from the sequel whence he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence you may easily guess what he would have thought of Presbyters communicating in opposition to the Bishop that even such Communions being without the altar must needs have been destitute of the bread of God To the same purpose also the same blessed Martyr advises even Presbyters not to despise the youth of Damas the Bishop of the Magnesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated appositely to the sense of this place familiariter uti seems to argue a greater distance than you would I believe think consistent with the parity you are so desirous of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observe I pray again
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
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
by practical but dogmatical prejudices against the wisest and most rational exhortations as proceeding from the mouth of a Christian of whom they had conceived so unworthy an opinion by reason of the slanders raised against them then so commonly believed BUT when all is done you say two Cities under the power of great temptations are not to be our rule against Gods word and the state of all other Churches in the world and undeniable experience So that it seems you are at last diffident of your Exceptions against those two instances and yet unwilling to yield though you should be convinced of their weakness Indeed if what you pretend were true that they were against Gods word c. I should confess so great evidence sufficient to reject them But it is certainly otherwise and I believe you cannot give an instance of a Parochial Church in the sense we now understand it for such a multitude of Believers as were governable by a single Presbyter alone either in the Scriptures or in any other Church in the world excepting those two so much decried by you for the first three Centuries so far you are from proving what you seem to design that Bishops ought to be multiplied in proportion to them Your volume of proof from Antiquity of one Altar and one Bishop in one Church will not do it for I have already shewn that Church to be the Church of a whole City how great soever and therefore to have been Diocesan not Parochial And for the Argument from Experience though it will hold well enough as I have managed it that discipline has once been preserved under a Diocesan Government therefore it may be so again yet not vice versâ as you do discipline is not observed for this is all the undeniable experience you so much insist on therefore it cannot MY instance of Ulphilas Bishop of the whole Nation of the Goths which sure were greater than one Parish you seem to deny when you say he was Bishop onely of a few Goths who were presently presecuted to the death by Athanarichus ut Socrat. l. 4. c. 32. which few you say I may call a Kingdom if I please But the number were not so small as you suppose for they were converted long before they were persuaded to the Arrian Communion which was no sooner than the time of Valens when Eudoxius prevailed with Ulphilas to bring them to it For they were vanquished by Constantine and by admiration of his success against themselves were drawn to embrace his Religion to which they imputed his victories so strange beyond their expectation and accordingly had a former Bishop in their Nation one Theophilus before Ulphilas so that though even at the first the Nation that is at least the generality of them were converted to Christianity yet before the time you speak of they had a considerable time to allow for further propagation And accordingly when Vlphilas was brought over to the Arrians he is said to have separated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an expression certainly as comprehensive as that I used of a Kingdom from the Communion of the Catholick Church For his Authority is described to have been so great with the Goths as that they took his words for irrefragable Laws and yet certainly was not so great with any but converted Christians But you say They were presently persecuted to the death by Athanaricus If you mean this as an Argument that they were few because they were presently extirpated by persecution you are certainly mistaken For Athanaricus his storm lasted not long but upon Phritigernes his return who by the assistance of the Romans prevailed against them the Christian Religion again returned and was countenanced and so far advanced as that in their Invasions of the Roman Empire afterwards in Honorius his time ther Army was generally Christian which could not have probably been if they had been extirpated by Athanaricus But you say That Ulphilas was an Arian But 1. If he had been so yet that cannot weaken his Authority in our present case both because this practice of a Nations having but one Bishop is never reckoned by the Haeresiographers as a point of Arianism no nor as a singularity of the Arians themselves upon personal accounts Nay my other instances of Tiramentus and Moses were both Catholicks nay the Goths themselves whilest Catholicks had the same form of Government that is till Ulphilas was wrought on by Eudoxius Till that time not onely his Predecessor Theophilus but himself maintained the Nicene Faith in opposition to the Arian Communion and yet in all likelyhood they were not much less numerous when Catholicks than when Arians for the whole Nation which is said by him to have been reconciled to the Arian Communion were in all likelyhood none but Christians and therefore Catholicks seeing they seem at that time to have been unanimous But 2. It does not appear that he was a real Arian I confess he did communicate with the Arians and that not onely with the more moderate Homousians but also with those who owned Christ to be a creature and by degrees from communicating with the Arians the Goths afterwards used the Arian Forms of speaking and from them proceeded to embrace much of their Opinion and so at length alienated themselves from the Catholick Communion as appears in their later persecutions of the Catholicks in Italy and Africa But at first the very reason that prevailed with Ulphilas was that Eudoxius pretended the difference betwixt themselves and the Catholicks to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theodoret shews and Sozomen censures his proceeding herein as done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as inconsiderate rather than out of any ill design And there were other deceits as disingenuous as this used by the Arians to draw such to their Communion who were known really to retain the Nicene Faith You know how the greatest part of the Latine Fathers were imposed on in the Council of Ariminum by Valens and Ursacius who read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nicene Creed and how a Confession of their Faith was drawn up by them at Nice in Thrace and imposed on the Catholicks under the name of the famous Nicene Creed of Bithynia So that there were two reasons that in those Ages prevailed with some Catholicks to communicate with the Arians one that the first quarrel betwixt Alexander and Arius was thought onely personal not on account of any real difference at least that that betwixt the later Arians and the Catholicks was so another was that if there was any real difference yet it was rather in expressions mutually misunderstood than in things or at least in things not conceived sufficiently momentous to divide Communion As therefore you woud not I believe in your own practice have it concluded that you are an Independent or Prelatist because you are for communicating with such as are